Robert Grosseteste's Scientific Works

Author(s): Richard C. Dales

Source: Isis, Vol. 52, No. 3 (Sep., 1961), pp. 381-402
Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of The History of Science Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/228079 .
Accessed: 09/05/2014 10:18
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The University of Chicago Press and The History of Science Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Isis.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.69 on Fri, 9 May 2014 10:18:41 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Robert

Grosseteste's

Scientific

Works

By Richard C. Dales*

great deal of attention and interest has recently been directed at Robert
Grosseteste, particularly because of his scientific methodology. The most
recent and perhaps the most brilliant work dealing with this aspect of Grosseteste's many-sided activity is A. C. Crombie's Robert Grosseteste and the
Origins of Experimental Science.' In this book Dr. Crombie is primarily interested in Grosseteste's methodology, and in his scientific works only as they
illustrate the methodology. He proposes and argues well that Grosseteste first
worked out a theory of scientific method, notably in his commentary on the
Posterior Analytics, and then applied the method in his own scientific investigations. In developing his thesis, Crombie usually begins his discussion of
each part of Grosseteste's method with an appropriate quotation from the
commentary on the Posterior Analytics and then, where possible, cites sections of the scientific works to illustrate how the idea was put into practice;
or he cites methodological remarks made in the scientific works to illustrate
methodological principles presumably already arrived at before the work had
been undertaken.
This procedure has several difficulties. In the first place, it assumes that
the commentary on the Posterior Analytics precedes all the scientific works,
an assumption which, it will be shown below, there is some reason to question.
And in the second place, it does not pay adequate attention to the chronological relationship between Grosseteste's scientific works and the development of his ideas in them.
I have selected for treatment in this article several of Grosseteste's tractates which may be classified as natural science.2 It shall be my purpose
primarily to present an exposition of the contents of these works, secondarily
to call attention to Grosseteste's methodology in the course of the exposition,
and finally to attempt where possible to establish their chronological order.
* Lewis and Clark College. A preliminary
version of this paper was read at the 1958
meeting of the Pacific Coast Branch of the
American Historical Association. Further research was aided by a grant from the Danforth
Foundation.
1A. C. Crombie, Robert Grosseteste and
the Origins of Experimental Science, 11001700 (Oxford, 1953).
2 I have excluded De sphera and the other
astronomical works because their great im-

portance and their difficulty demand that they

be given special treatment; I have excluded
De operacionibussolis because it adds nothing
significant to the other scientific works and
because it is not an investigation or even an
argument, but a number of assertions in the
form of a commentary on Ecclesiasticus
XLIII, 1-5. Cf. S. H. Thomson, "Grosseteste's Questio de Calore, De Cometis, and De
OperacionibusSolis," Medievalia et Humanistica, 1957, 11: 43.

381

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.69 on Fri, 9 May 2014 10:18:41 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

382

RICHARD C. DALES

With regard to my primary purpose, it has in most cases seemed advisable

to give quite a full account of each work and to use much of Grosseteste's
language. I have tried to omit nothing essential. I have, however, occasionally re-arrangedsentences in the interest of clarity and order.
Regarding my secondary purpose, I have found the role of experiment in
Grosseteste's scientific works to be somewhat more extensive than was described by Dr. Crombie,3who says that after the resolutio, or analysis of a
complex phenomenon into its principles, and compositio, or deduction of the
observed events from the discovered principles, Grosseteste then deduces consequences of the hypotheses introduced in the compositio and verifies or
falsifies them by experience or experiment. In addition to this, as will be seen,
Grosseteste uses experiment to aid in the resolutio and for suggestions in
framing the hypotheses of the compositio.
The last part of my purpose is by far the most complex and its results the
least conclusive. We may, however, adopt certain principles which enable us
in some cases to establish chronological relationships. Grosseteste had several
favorite notions which appear in various forms in his scientific works, and he
had some pet experiments which he sometimes used for quite different purposes. It may be assumed that when a notion appears in a rough, general
form in one work, and in a clear, fully-developed and often modified form in
another, the former work is of earlier composition. Also, when new concepts
are employed, such as the subordination of sciences, or the incorporation of
rays in the elements, which should have been used in another work but were
not, we may assume that this work was written prior to the one which employs the new concepts. The use of these principles is somewhat complicated
by Grosseteste's habit of rapidly summarizing the results of a previously detailed investigation when it serves his purpose in a new context. One must
consequently be careful to distinguish between a crude statement on the one
hand and a brief summary of a carefully worked out theory on the other.
Grosseteste's career as a scientist may be considered to have extended from
about 1220 to 1235 when he became Bishop of Lincoln. Fortunately, many
great scholars, notably Ludwig Baur, A. C. Crombie, D. A. Callus, Ezio Franceschini, J. C. Russell, and S. HarrisonThomson, have done a great deal toward
establishing the probable composition dates of many of Grosseteste's works.
Of the works we will be considering, those about which there is relative certainty are De generacione stellarum (about 1220),4 De lineis, angulis et figuris
and De natura locorum (about 1230-31).5 By relating the other works to
these, we may gain an approximate knowledge of their composition dates and
of the development of Grosseteste's knowledge of the natural world.
3 A. C. Crombie, op. cit. and "Grosseteste's
Position in the History of Science," in D. A.
Callus, ed., Robert Grosseteste: Scholar and
Bishop (Oxford, 1955).
4 A. C. Crombie, Robert Grosseteste and
the Origins of Experimental Science, p. 48:
"A reference... to 'Aristoteles in XVIII de
animalibus' would place his work after 1217-

20...." The crudity of the method and concepts employed in the work would indicate
that it is not much later than 1220.
5 De lineis contains two almost certain references to Averroes (cf. Crombie, op. cit.,
49-50); De natura locorum presupposes De
lineis and uses Michael Scot's translation of
Avicenna's Abbreviatio de animalibus.

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.69 on Fri, 9 May 2014 10:18:41 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ROBERT GROSSETESTE'S SCIENTIFIC WORKS

383

II
A. Early Works
I. De generatione stellarum6
De generatione stellarum is not a particularly noteworthy essay. Methodologically it has little to recommendit. Grosseteste proves of stars that they
are not of the same nature as their spheres; that they are not simple bodies
but are composed of the four elements; that they are not perfectly transparent, but vary in their transparency; that they are not parts of their own
spheres, since the sphere and the star are both circular and do not have the
same center; a star and its sphere are not uniform, but differ essentially in
their light, and so are of a diverse creation. The treatise closes with a criticism of the chemists for supposing that the fifth essence is present through
humiliation in mixed bodies. The essay is as loose in structure and as indefinite in purpose as this summary makes it appear. It proceeds by stating a
syllogism, then proving the minor premise by other syllogisms, then the major,
citing in the process any authorities which seem pertinent. Then follows another syllogism not necessarily related to the preceding and the process is
repeated.
Two aspects of this work should be especially noted for comparison with
Grosseteste's later works: the crudity of its discussion of color, completely
dependent on Aristotle,7 and the belaboring of the assertion, derived from
Aristotle, that there are degrees of transparency.8 This second point Grosseteste takes for granted in his later works and he even makes it an essential
part of his theories of color (cf. De colore and De iride) and heat (cf. De
calore solis).
2. De generacione sonorum9

A more interesting, but still probably a quite early work, is De generacione

sonorum. The first part of this tractate is remarkably similar, in some cases
6 Ludwig Baur, ed., Die Philosophischen
Werke des Robert Grosseteste, Bischofs von
Lincoln (Miinster, 1912), (Bd. IX of Beitrdge
zur Geschichte der Philosophie des Mittelalters), pp. 32-36. For bibliographical information, cf. S. H. Thomson, The Writings of
Robert Grosseteste, Bishop of Lincoln 12351253 (Cambridge,1940), p. 100. In this work,
Grosseteste cites Albumazar and Aristotle
(De generatione et corruptione, ii; De animalibus; De anima, ii; De caelo et mundo, i
and iii; and Predicamenta).
7 "Omne coloratum est mixtum. Stellae
sunt corpora colorata. Ergo stellae sunt corpora mixta. -Prima patet duplici ratione,
quarum prima haec est: Colores sunt qualitates secundae ex primis generatae, ut dicitur
in Praedicamentis. Dicuntur enim passibiles
qualitates, non quia generent passionem, sed
quia ex passionibus generantur. Ergo erit
coloratum elementum ex necessitate.
"Item alia ratione sic: 'Color est lux in

extremitate perspicui in corpore terminato.'

Sed corpus terminatum est corpus mixtum, et
corpus coloratum est corpus terminatum.Ergo
corpus coloratum est corpus mixtum. -Quod
maior huius syllogismi sit vera, patet. Si enim
diceret aliquis, quod corpus diaphanum esset
terminatum, ut quinta essentia et ignis, aer
autem et aqua non sunt terminata, quia fluxibilia sunt, tunc esset coloratum caelum, quia
esset ibi lux in extremitate perspicui in corpore terminato. Et etiam dicit Aristoteles,
quod cum lux non sit, nisi in corpore terminato, non est in corpore simplici. Ergo corpus
terminatum non est simplex, sed mixtum ex
simplicibus. -Minor autem huius syllogismi
patet per illud, quod dicit Aristoteles, quod
'proprium sensibile visus est color.' Ergo
stellae non sunt visibiles nisi per colorem. Sunt
igitur coloratae" (Baur, op. cit., pp. 33-34).
8 Ibid., pp. 34-35.

9 Ibid., pp. 7-10; cf. Thomson, op. cit., p. 99;

cites Priscian and Isidore of Seville.

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.69 on Fri, 9 May 2014 10:18:41 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

384

RICHARD C. DALES

word for word, to parts of Grosseteste's treatise on the Liberal Arts and his
commentary on Aristotle's Posterior Analytics. Dr. Baur has printed the appropriate sections of these three works in parallel columns in order to facilitate comparison.?1In none of these works is the investigation of the generation
of sound the main object. De generacione sonorum is closely connected in
spirit with De artibus liberalibus; its primary interest is in phonetics, the relation of sounds to the shapes of letters, etc., and the discussion of sound in
general is simply an introduction to the main part of the essay.
A comparison of the three discussions of sound reveals that they are of
almost the same length, although De generacione sonorum is longest by a few
lines. It is extremely difficult to decide on the basis of the texts which is the
earliest. Baur has suggested1 that De generacione sonorum is the first draft
of the section on sound in the commentary on the Posterior Analytics. Although it was probably written before the commentary, it cannot for this
reason be considered a "rough draft." The treatment of sound in De generacione sonorum is the most comprehensive of the three and excels the other
two in five respects. First, the presentation is systematic and tight rather than
discursive; second, appeal to experience, limited though it is, is an integral
part of the method of investigation, as it is not in the other two; third, the
treatment of the transmission of the pulses of the vibrating body is much
expanded; fourth, the reception of these pulses by the ear is mentioned only
in De generacione sonorum; and, fifth, the important distinction between a
sensation and a perception is made only in this work.
De generacione sonorum omits the resolutio-whether because Grosseteste
felt it unnecessary in view of his purpose or because of the early composition
date of the work is not clear-and presents the reader at once with a hypothesis: When an object capable of making a sound is struck, parts of the object
go forth from their natural place. The nature of the object then exerts a force
reinclining these parts to their natural place; but in their return the parts
overshoot the mark and the process is repeated in the opposite direction. This
creates a subtle vibration in the outer parts of the sounding object, which is
evident both to sight and touch. When these parts go forth from their natural
place, there result an extension of the parts along the longitudinal diameter
and a constriction along the transverse diameter; and the opposite occurs when
they return. When these parts vibrate, they move the air contiguous to them
in a manner similar to their own motion, and the air thus moved reaches the
ears.12This creates a sensation of the body which the soul then takes notice
of, and there arises a heard sense.
The remainder of the essay concerns phonetics and related topics and lies
outside the scope of this investigation. It will be noted that the use of experience is limited to verification of the vibration of a sounding object by sight
and touch, and that the introduction of geometrical considerations concerning
the extension and constriction of the longitudinal and transverse diameters is
really superfluous, since no deduction follows from it.
10Baur, op. cit., pp. 58*-59*.
"Ibid., p. 59*.
2Cf. Boethii, De musica, lib. I, cap. 3:

"Idcirco difinitur sonus: Aeris percussio indissoluta usque ad auditum" (Migne, Pat. Lat.,
LXIII, col. 1173).

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.69 on Fri, 9 May 2014 10:18:41 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ROBERT GROSSETESTE'S SCIENTIFIC WORKS

385

B. The Middle Period

After these two early works, dating probably from the first years of the
1220's, there follow three works which we may assign to the "middle period"
of Grosseteste's scientific career, extending from about 1223 or 1224 to about
1230. These works show Grosseteste's increasing methodologicalprecision and
an ever-growingrange of reading on scientific subjects. In all three works, he
assumes that heavenly bodies cause change on Earth by their light. In the
earliest of these three works, De impressionibus elementorum,there is as yet
no notion of the incorporationof these rays by the elements. Rather, change
is caused by heat or visible light resulting from the reflection and condensation of the rays themselves. (Grosseteste's first mention of the incorporation
of the rays in a dense medium and the production of heat by scattering is in
De accessione et recessione maris and is used by him regularly thereafter.)
Elements are transmuted through sublimation and assimilation. There is as
yet apparently no knowledge of refraction in any of these three works (except
possibly in the last of them, De cometis), no use of the principle of subordination of sciences; and although mathematics is employed, especially concerning the power of incident and reflected rays, the precision of De lineis
and De natura locorum is not yet reached. During the middle period, Grosseteste's physical thought was essentially qualitative in nature.
1. De impressionibus elementorum13
In De impressionibuselementorum,the method of resolutio and compositio
together with the use of experimental verification and falsification is fully
developed, although only slight use is made of mathematics. In the resolutio,
five principles are put forth from which the production of the elements, i.e.,
dew, rain, snow, and hail, may be deduced. First, it is asserted (assuming
the "light metaphysics" of De luce) that the rays of celestial bodies descending upon corporal things are the foremost cause of change. Second, it is the
reflected and condensed rays, not the hot body, of the sun, which cause heat
among us. This is established by an appeal to experience: There is greater
heat in valleys than on mountains, as is evident from the fact that snow remains longer on mountain tops than in valleys and that birds of prey fly high
in the summertime to cool themselves; if the sun heated us as a hot body
does, mountain tops, being closer to it, would be hotter than valleys; but the
opposite of this has just been shown. Third, rays descend into the depths of
water, since water is a transparent body, and in the depths of water there is
a reflection. Therefore there is greater heat in the depth than on the surface.
This may be verified experimentally by noting that fish in winter are in the
depth of the water, but in summer are on the surface and that water is congealed on the surface but not in the depth. Fourth, water, in addition to being
cold and humid, is by nature congealed rather than fluid. Its fluidity results
from enclosed heat. And fifth, rays reflected from a concave mirror generate
fire, and flax placed opposite the mirror is ignited.
1s

Baur, op. cit., pp. 87-89; cf. Thomson, op. cit., p. 104; cites Aristotle (Philosophus).

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.69 on Fri, 9 May 2014 10:18:41 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

386

RICHARD C. DALES

From these five principles, Grosseteste, in the compositio, deduces the observed phenomena of dew, rain, snow and hail. When rays are condensed in
the depth of the water, he says, the water will become hot. But insofar as it
becomes hot it does not remain under the nature of water, but passes over to
the nature of air. Then, since it is not the nature of air to be under water, it
rises in a bubble above the water. If anyone wishes to see this, let him put
clear water in a clear vessel and place it over a flame; he will see the bubbles
generated and ascending because of the heat of the fire.
When many bubbles rise above the water at the same time, they maintain
themselves because of their humid nature, and from these comes vapor or
steam from which clouds arise. But the qualities and properties of the bubbles
vary according to the proportion of each of the four elements in them, for
there are all four elements in such a bubble: earth, because of the place of
generation; water, for obvious reasons; fire, in the generation of heat; and
the generated air, resulting from the heat. When water predominates in the
generated bubbles, they are called "humid vapor"; when earth predominates
they are called "dry smoke"; and when air is abundant, they will be a dense
vapor. Therefore, the bubbles are more subtle or more gross according to the
subtlety or grossness of the generating heat.
In the morning and evening, when the heat is weak, subtle bubbles flutter
upwards from the surface of the water. And when these little bubbles are
destroyed by the heat they fall to the surface of the earth and become dew.
But if the heat is greater, it makes the bubbles-or cloud-rise to the first
(of the three) interstices of the air. When heat destroys the bubbles here,
drops of rain fall.
But when a cloud ascends to the second interstice, there is made a greater
abstraction of heat and the bubbles are destroyed there by the heat successively only, not suddenly, wherefore that which is soft is relinquished, just
like wool, and becomes snow.
If, however, a cloud be suddenly driven upwards to the second interstice,
it is suddenly destroyed by the heat, and each round bubble becomes a round
stone, or hail. This occurs especially when the heat is great.
This essay is to be compared to four other works, De calore solis (which
it anticipates in several respects), De accessione et recessione maris, De lineis,
angulis et figuris, and De natura locorum. One is struck by Grosseteste's remarks on the reflection of rays in the depths of water in De impressionibus
elementorum. It is obvious from this that this work preceded De lineis (in
which the laws of reflection and refraction are carefully studied), De iride,
and De calore solis, since in it Grosseteste is apparently unaware that rays
would be reflected from the surface of the water and would be refracted at
the surface. And since he does not use the concepts of "incorporation"and
"scattering," but attributes change simply to the heating of water by condensed rays, it would also be earlier than De cometis, De accessione et recessione maris, and De colore. Another point on which this essay is to be
compared to De calore solis and De natura locorum is the discussion of the
way in which the sun heats. That the sun does not generate heat as a hot
body is a point which is incorporated in De calore solis. In the latter work,

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.69 on Fri, 9 May 2014 10:18:41 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ROBERT GROSSETESTE'S SCIENTIFIC WORKS

387

however, the proof of this assertion is more elaborate, involving the immutability of the fifth essence and the non-intersectionof rays on high and is much
more mathematical than in De impressionibuselementorum,where the proposition that the sun generates heat as a hot body is falsified experimentally.
One part of the falsification of this point creates a problem in determining
the relationship of De calore solis to De natura locorum and De accessione et
recessione maris. In De impressionibus elementorum, Grosseteste mentions
that there is greater heat in valleys than on mountain tops. This same observation is used for slightly differentreasons in De accessione et recessione maris
and De calore solis. In De natura locorum, however, where Grosseteste is concerned to prove the rules that the shorter and straighterthe line and the shorter
the pyramids the paths of rays take, the stronger is their action, he says that
essentialiter mountains are hotter than valleys, but accidentaliter coldness
sometimes dominates mountain tops because of the higher-blowing winds or
because some mountains reach up into the middle interstice of the air, which
is very cold. By every other test, De calore solis seems to be later than De
natura locorum, while De impressionibus elementorum and De accessione et
recessione maris are certainly earlier than either. Why then did Grosseteste
first alter an opinion for geometric reasons, and then return to his original
position without explaining away what he had said in De natura locorum?
2. De accessione et recessione maris14
In his study of the tides, entitled De accessione et recessione maris, or De
fluxu et refluxu maris, Grosseteste does not use the structural scheme of resolutio and compositio. He begins by showing the causa materialis communis
and the causa materialis propria of motion among us. First communis: The
spheres of the four elements are so arranged that earth is in the center and
is not further condensible; fire is on the outside and is not further capable of
rarefaction; but water and air, between these two, are particularly suited to
be moved because they can be condensed and rarefied. Then propria: In air
and water, since they themselves are moved greatly by condensation and rarefaction, is every generable and corruptible motion.
He then states that he will omit speaking of the motion of air and speak
rather of the motion of water. This discussion is divided into three major
14MSS. Assisi, Comun. 138, fols. 261D262B; Florence, Marucell. c. 163, fols. 18A-19C;
Prague, Nat. Mus. XII E 5, fols. 410-42A;
Vatican, Barb. lat. 165, fols. 402D-403B; cf.
Thomson, op. cit., p. 89; and F. Pelster, "Zwei
unbekanntephilosophischeTractate des Robert
Grosseteste," Scholastik, 1926, 1: 572-573;
cites Alpetragius. This work has been edited
by Ezio Franceschini-"Un inedito di Roberto
Grossatesta: la 'Quaestio de accessu et recessu
maris,' Rivista di Filosofia Neo-Scholastica,
1952, 44: 11-21-but Prof. Franceschini was
not able to use the excellent Prague MS. My
text differs slightly from his, but not enough
to make any significant difference in the following summary. Grosseteste'sauthorshiphas
been denied by F. M. Henquinet, Archivum
Franciscanum Historicum, 1932, 25: 553 and

D. A. Callus, ed., Robert Grosseteste: Scholar

and Bishop, p. 22, because of the ascription in
the Assisi MS to "magistroA. Oxon. in scolis
suis determinata"(corrected from Pelster's original reading (art. cit.) "magistro R. Exon
."):

they attribute the work to Adam

Marsh. However, the great similarity of this

work to Grosseteste'sother works (the "Light
Metaphysics,"the observation that it is colder
on mountaintopsthan in valleys, the assertion
that heat is produced by scattering [disgregacio] and that light rays are incorporatedin
a dense medium, and the uncertainty about
how the moon could act on the sea when it
was on the other side of the earth) makes it
almost certain that this is indeed Grosseteste's
work. The Florence and Prague MSS both
ascribe the work to "Lynconiensis."

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.69 on Fri, 9 May 2014 10:18:41 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

388

RICHARD C. DALES

parts: (1) the material and efficient causes of the motion of the sea; (2) the
causes of the increase and decrease of the rise of the sea; (3) bodies of fresh
water which do not have tides, which do have tides but do not seem to, and
which have tides and seem to.
In section (1) he begins by discussing the efficient cause. It is, he says, a
power of the sky or a power of a star in the sky, since an element is not moved
by itself or by another element, but rather by a material form. He then cites
Alpetragius' explanation of the tides:15 By a power of the furthermost sky,
which is above the sphere of the fixed stars, all lower spheres are moved from
east to west as far as the sphere of water. But each sphere receives as much
less of the ultimate power as it is lower, since this power is the power of a
body, and undergoes diminution at a distance. The earth, however, because
of its maximum distance from the farthest sphere, remains completely immobile. Therefore the water of the sea is moved by a power of the furthest
sky from east to west, and from this he says a crushing together of the waters
occurs, and a rise. But it approaches its former place because of its heaviness and when the reversion is completed it again begins to be moved and to
rise as far as its heaviness allows. And then consequently it reflows. And these
two rises and falls take a time more than one day and its night.
Grosseteste refutes this explanation by showing that the observed times of
the tides would not result from it nor would the sea behave as it does.
In addition to this refutation, however, some positive assertions result from
the criticism of Alpetragius. In the first place, says Grosseteste, we perceive
by experience that the rise and fall of the sea is from a certain rarefaction and
condensation of it. This is evident from the fact that ships in the sea are more
elevated in the time of rise than of fall,16 since the fall comes about because
of a subtlety of the parts and the rise because of condensation. In the second
place, experience also tells us that in the time of rise, the water is found to be
hotter than in the time of fall, again because of the lesser subtlety of the parts.
And in the third place, no planet or fixed star could cause the tides, because
the motion of the sea follows the motion of no heavenly body more than that
of the moon, as will be proved below.
The rules of the astronomers, he continues, lead to the same conclusion:
there are two great luminaries,the sun and the moon, which are the first principles of all generation and corruption. The sun principally affects changes in
the air, but the moon, being wet and cold, principally affects the water. It is
thus sufficiently evident, he says, that the moon is the efficient cause of the
tides. We must now investigate in what manner it is the cause.
When the moon rises on the horizon of any sea, it first sends forth its luminous rays into the midst of the sea and, strongly impressingits power, it moves
this sea and increases it. This motion is increased until the moon arrives at
the meridionalcircle. However, when it crosses over the meridional circle, the
15Kitab al-hai'a, translated into Latin by
Michael Scot in 1217; cf. G. Sarton, Introduction to the History of Science (Baltimore,
1931) II, pt. i, pp. 400-401and F. J. Carmody,
Arabic Astronomical and Astrological Science
in Latin Translation (Berkeley and Los An-

geles, 1956), pp. 165-166.

16 If this means what it seems to-that ships
draw less water at high tide than at low tide
-it (and the following assertion that water is
hotter at high tide) is an example of flagrantly
inaccurate observation.

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.69 on Fri, 9 May 2014 10:18:41 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ROBERT GROSSETESTE'S SCIENTIFIC WORKS

389

effective power is lessened and the sea recedes to its former place until the
moon arrives at the east. When again it passes over from the east to the middle
of the sky under the earth, the sea is increased; and when it passes from the
middle of the sky under the earth the sea diminishes until the moon again
arrives at its rise. And thus in one revolution of the moon from rise to rise
there are accomplished two rises of the sea in the same place above whose
horizon is the rise of the moon; wherefore the rises and falls are thus divided
into four quarters.
At this point, Grosseteste is somewhat dissatisfied with his own explanation.
It is clear enough, he says, how the moon acts on the sea while it is in the sky
above the earth, for while it is rising it impresses its power more strongly than
when it is setting. But when the moon exists in the two quarters which are
under the horizon of the sea, it is not present nor is it illuminating that sea.
And since celestial bodies do not act on lower bodies except by their light, it is
doubtful how the moon can be the principle of the motion of the sea. To this,
he notes, the astronomersanswer that opposite quarters in the sky have similar
effects. But one must ask whether this holds true, and the matter is in need
of further speculation.
Despite his mild dissatisfaction with his scheme, Grosseteste proceeds to
correlate the observed times of the tides with the position of the moon and its
relation to the sun with the results that should follow from his explanation.
Just as the time of the revolution of the moon from rise to rise exceeds the
time of a day and night, he says, so the time of two diverse and complete rises
and falls of the sea exceeds the time of a day and night. "I seek to know,
therefore," Grosseteste says, "by how many hours the rising of the moon precedes the rising of the sun." It is known by how many hours the rising of the
sea follows or precedes the beginning of the day, and that one lunation contains
twenty-nine days and some few minutes. Therefore, in seven and one-quarter
days and a few minutes, the moon will be a quarter of the circle toward the
horizon away from the sun; whence in a third of this time, when the sun is in
ortu, the moon will be in the middle of the sky under the earth, and than will be
the beginning of a revolution, since in the beginning of this time will have been
the start of the sea's rise.
He then deduces the consequences of other relative positions of the sun and
moon, finds that they are verified by "what sailors say," and closes his discussion of the efficient cause of the sea's motion.
And so, the consequencesof this explanationhaving been drawn and verified
by observation, it now remains to discuss in detail the causa materialis propria.
It is the property of waters to be congregated in a deep and broad place; in
such waters is much matter of vapors and winds. Whence the moon, rising
and impressing her power, generates in these waters many vapors and stirs up
the winds. But that water, being incapable of division or expurgation because
of the grossness and viscosity of its parts, passes through itself and excites
itself because of the enclosed vapors.
In order to make clear his meaning here, Grosseteste discusses how this
contrasts with the behavior of sweet water. Sweet water, he says, being subtle
and penetrable, allows the winds and vapors to be withdrawn and so does not

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.69 on Fri, 9 May 2014 10:18:41 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

390

RICHARD C. DALES

undergo an augmentation. He goes on to assert that a celestial body acts on

lower bodies only through its luminous rays, and that these luminous rays are
incorporated in some way with the elements and by reflecting they intersect
themselves at one point and thus by scattering the parts of matter they generate heat. The more subtle the matter, the less heat will be generated. This
is apparently the first time in his scientific works that Grosseteste has used the
notions of incorporation and scattering and the variation of heat with the
density of matter. This same explanation, refined by the use of the mathematical principles developed in De lineis and De natura locorum, is incorporated into De calore solis. To verify his assertion that the more subtle the
matter the less the heat, Grosseteste again mentions that it is colder on mountain tops than in valleys because of the greater subtlety of the air on mountain
tops.
With this, he concludes his discussion of the material cause of the tides and
turns his attention to the second major division of his treatise, namely why at
some times the rise of the sea is increased and becomes stronger, and at other
times is diminished and becomes weak. This section consists simply of a list
of eight reasons. It is much inferior to the first part both in method and in
sharpness of thought. A rather brief summary of its contents will suffice.
One, in the conjunction of the moon with the sun the power of the moon is
increased because of the increased light in it, and the rise of the sea becomes
great; and in the recession of the moon from the sun its power is lessened.
Two concerns diverse comparisons between diverse motions of the moon and
the mean motion of the moon. Three, the rise of the moon toward a longitude
farther from earth lessens its power on account of the increased distance; its
approach to a longitude nearer the earth has the opposite effect. Four and
five also have to do with the moon's position. Six is a very vague and confused
reference to "days which by the ancients were called 'Egyptian'."'7 Seven
again involves the help of the sun: from the spring equinox to the summer
solstice it increases the rise; from then until the autumnal equinox it is diminishing; and from then to the winter solstice it is increasing again; and from
then to the spring equinox it is diminishing. The eighth and final reason is that
the wind, when it is blowing in the direction of the rise, increases it, but when
blowing in the other direction lessens it.
The third section may similarly be disposed of briefly. Certain rivers and
springs undergo a rise and fall not because of their own nature, but because
they are continuous with marine water either on the surface of the earth or by
subterranean channels. There are three kinds of these: those which do not
have tides; those which have tides but do not seem to; and those which have
tides and seem to. The first kind is accounted for by a defect of the material
or efficientcauses discussed above; the second by the extenuatingcircumstances
of the great distance from the motion of the moon or the great subtlety of the
water; and the third by the expulsion of vapors from underground caverns,
into which flow the waters made subtle by the moon.
17 "Sexta causa sunt dies qui ab
antiquis
vocantur Egyptii quare et ipsi primo invenirent
eos, quam causam obmittamus ad presens eo
quod multum latent effectus in eis." MSS.

Assisi, Comun. 138, fol. 262A; Florence, Marucel. c. 163, fol. 19A; Prague, Nat. Mus. XII,
E 5, fol. 42A.

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.69 on Fri, 9 May 2014 10:18:41 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ROBERT GROSSETESTE'S SCIENTIFIC WORKS

391

This work should apparently be dated'8 after De impressionibus elementorum because in it, for the first time, Grosseteste uses the concepts of incorporation of rays in matter and the scattering of parts of matter producing
heat when rays intersect in a point. But that it is definitely earlier than De
natura locorum (1230-31) is evident in two places.
First, in De fluxu et refluxu maris Grosseteste assumes that the moon's rays
increase in strength as the moon is rising and decrease as it is declining, but
he sees no reason to explain why this is so. In De natura locorum, however,
he presents a more detailed presentation of this part of his explanation of the
tides, giving mathematical reasons for the phenomenon:
Because the lunar rays rising above the sea of any region have longer lines
and pyramids and are less straight and fall less at equal angles and are less
reflected on themselves and are more broken, therefore they are weaker than
when the moon rises toward the center of the sky. For then all the rays have
shorter lines and straighter pyramids and fall more at equal angles and are
more perpendicular and more returning on themselves and less broken... and
therefore they are of stronger operation. Therefore when the moon rises, its
rays because of their weakness are only able to loosen the vapors from the
depth of the sea and they are not able to consume them or to draw them out
completely to the air.... But when the moon rises to the middle of the sky, on
account of the power of the rays it is able both to consume these resolute
vapors and elevate them to the air. And when it arrives at the meridian, then
it completely consumes and extracts them, and because when the cause ceases
the effect also ceases, therefore the waters of the sea then naturally run again
into their own place lest a vacuum be made.19
A similar explanation is utilized concerning the sun's rays in De calore solis.
Second, Grosseteste's puzzlement in De fluxu et refluxu maris as to why
opposite quarters of the world should have similar effects is solved by him in
De natura locorum:
And therefore the reflection of rays solves this, since the lunar rays are multiplied toward the sky of the stars, which is a dense body. And therefore,
through its medium we are not able to see the heaven, which is scarcely
luminous, just as Alpetragius and Messalahe say. And other reflected rays
fall on the opposite quarter at equal angles.20
3. De cometis et causis ipsarum21
Grosseteste's work on comets was probably written after De fluxu maris
because of its use of the concept of the incorporation of rays in a dense medium
and the more extensive knowledge of optics shown in the beginning of the
18 There is other evidence for the date of

19 Baur, op. cit., pp. 69-70.

this work. The earliest MS is dated by Thomson ca. 1225 (Assisi, Comun. 138). But we
must allow at least ten years leeway in dating
on paleographicalgrounds along. The ascrip-

20Ibid., p. 70.
S. H. Thomson, "The Text of Grosseteste's De Cometis,"Isis, 1933, 19: 19-25; addenda S. H. Thomson, "Grosseteste's Questio

tion "De fluxu et refluxu maris a magistro A.

de Calore, De Cometis and De Operacionibus

(?) Oxon. in scolis suis determinata,"if it is

intended to refer to Grosseteste, would establish its date as before 1229; cf. also Pelster,
art. crit., p. 573 and Franceschini, art. cit.,
p. 12.

21

Solis," Medievalia et Humanistica, 1957, 11:

36-37; cf. Thomson, Writings of Robert Grosseteste, p. 110; English paraphrasein Crombie,
op. cit., pp. 88-90; cites no author or work by
name.

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.69 on Fri, 9 May 2014 10:18:41 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

392

RICHARD C. DALES

work. But, on the other hand, the strongly qualitative nature of Grosseteste's
study and its extensive use of the principle of sublimation would seem to place
it in the middle period, before his predilection for mathematics transformed
the nature of his scientific works (as in De colore, De calore solis and De
iride). We may therefore date De cometis with some confidence between 1228
and 1230. It is consequently the last work of the middle period.
De cometis begins with a refutation of four current theories about the nature
of comets and provides us with an excellent example of Grosseteste's method
of falsification. He feels that these false theories result from loose analogies
with things known and from haphazard experiments not systematically employed, made by people who do not adequately consider the laws of the special
sciences.
The first theory which he tests is that the tail which a comet draws behind it
is a radiosity of the sun reflected by a star. This is a conclusion jumped to by
people who have noted that the visible rays of the sun are reflected by a mirror
with visible radiation and that the stars are mirrors reflecting rays which fall
upon themselves; but it can be refuted in two ways. In the first place, a
radiosity is not reflected visibly except when the reflected rays are mixed with
a transparent medium having a terrestrial rather than a celestial nature. And
secondly, the tail of a comet is not always extended opposite the Sun as it
should be, since all reflected rays go in opposite directions at equal angles.
A second theory is held by certain people who, knowing that from a concurrence of rays an inflammableobject is ignited, think that many rays come
together in the highest air by which combustible fumes are elevated, and there
by means of a concurrence of rays the fumes are set on fire; and this very
inflammationappears to be the tailed star. This theory is also refuted in two
ways. First, if there were a concourse of rays descending straight from the
planets, it could not burn for very long since the planets change their positions
swiftly; but comets are seen to have lasted for six months. (On the other
hand, if the concourse of rays descended straight from the stars it would be
stable and permanent.) Second, if this were a concourse of ascending reflected
rays such as from a concave mirroror a congregationof rays such as would be
brought about by their passing through a transparent sphere, then the occurrence here of a concourse of rays would be a natural sublunary body the
duration of which could not be long, nor would its motion necessarily follow
the motion of the heavens. But, as mentioned above, the duration of comets
is sometimes very long, and their motion does follow the daily motion of the
heavens.
There is a third theory held by those who, knowing that many things close
to each other appear from a distance to be continuous, and knowing that a
galaxy is a congregationof nearby stars "run together" in the judgment of the
sight, think that a comet is an aggregation of nearby stars and that a comet
appears when a numberof erratic stars run together. This can easily be refuted
by noting that comets do not always appear in the paths of erratic stars, but
more often outside them.
The fourth and final theory to be refuted here is that held by certain people
who, knowing that it is possible that one thing might appear to be of some

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.69 on Fri, 9 May 2014 10:18:41 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ROBERT GROSSETESTE'S SCIENTIFIC WORKS

393

other sort of figure because of the characteristics of a transparent object

placed between the observer and the thing seen, think that a comet is an
apparent star. This can not be true because the figure of the comet which is
seen and the figure of the object which would appear because of the interposed
vapor are not proportionately large. This theory would also run counter to
what has already been said, namely that the elevated vapor does not retain
one shape for a very long time, nor does it necessarily follow the motion of
the heavens.
After disposing of these theories, Grosseteste undertakes the resolutio of
the phenomenon into its principles. Since in the superlunary region nothing
is renewed except position and those things which result from a change of
position - such as eclipses and visible projections of rays and the waxing and
waning of the moon - it is evident that a comet is not a new star; therefore
a comet is sublunary. Because of the light and gleaming of the comet and its
tail, it is clear that a comet is nothing other than fire; because under the moon
and above us, nothing gives off light and glistens except fire. But fire is of two
kinds: that which is lasting and does not cease as soon as it is generated (for
example, the element fire in its own sphere); and an ebullition of ignited
fumes ceasing at the same time it is generated (for example, flame originating
among us). The matter of a comet can not possibly be the second kind: first
because it would not have matter continually helping it in its long duration;
and second because matter does not follow the motion of the heaven for a
long time, since its nature is of the earth, not completely sublimated. For we
do not see any fire at all of terrestrial matter generated in the air to be of a
very long duration nor following the motion of the heaven. However, it is not
possible for the sphere of the element fire to descend into the region of the air,
but only its power will descend with the rays of the stars in the sphere of its
burning, nor will the sphere be touched by fire generated from matter coming
downward, but from matter coming upward, because it is not possible that
there be generated fire having a permanent duration except when it were sublimated matter separated from terrestrial matter and assimilated to the nature
of heavenly matter. This concludes the resolutio. Grosseteste then presents
his explanation of comets.
Therefore, it is clear, he says, that a comet is sublimated fire separated from
terrestrial nature and assimilated to celestial nature. Since the agent and
patient are assimilated by a completed action when before they were dissimilar,
the natural cause of a comet is necessarily a power of the sky, sc. a fixed or
erratic star. Similarly, for each and every comet there is an effective cause, a
special star from whose direction it appears to the senses to be moved. However, since comets are moved by the daily motion of the heavens, it is evident
that the power of the first heaven is in itself the moving cause.
The only reason the location of a comet is from the direction of one star
more than from another is because of the greater assimilation of that star from
whose direction it is located, when on account of the similitude it has with
that star whose power has sublimated it, it is drawn by that star just as iron
is by a magnet.
In every thing connected with earth, there are spiritual bodily things as-

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.69 on Fri, 9 May 2014 10:18:41 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

394

RICHARD C. DALES

similated to celestial natures, incorporatedby the connected things themselves;

these spiritual things are separable from things connected through the action
of celestial bodies. When this separation occurs, the connected thing is released by the celestial nature and is weakened or corrupted; and the sensible
parts of this world are easier and swifter of resolution than would be the parts
of connected things.
"Therefore from these things," he concludes, "it appears that a comet,
which is fire sublimated by a part of the sensible world, is a sign of a preceding
sublimation of a separation of an uncorrupted spiritual nature by things connected and assimilated to earth in a spiritual nature; thus it is a sign of
weakness or corruption of connected things which dominate the planet to
whose nature the seen comet is assimilated."
Grosseteste then illustrates this difficult sentence by an example: "If there
were a star drawinga comet of the nature of the sun, and the power of this star
sublimated the comet and separated it from its terrestrial nature, it would
separate the spirits which are in complex bodies from the assimilated nature
of the sun, and there will be an infirmity or corruption in men, animals and
plants over which the sun principally rules."
The remainderof the work concerns the way in which planets affect men and
earthly things and permit some men to "sense complete what is yet inchoate."
C. The Late Period
It is apparent from what has already been said that Robert Grosseteste had
long been interested in mathematicsand optics. Probably about the year 1231,
however, he completed a very important work on these two subjects and from
this year on, he displays in his physical works a strong mathematicalemphasis
along with a greater knowledge and more careful use of mathematics and
optics in the investigation of natural phenomena. Many points established in
his earlier works are incorporatedin more detailed and comprehensivestudies;
some notions he had employed before are slightly modified and sharpened; and
others he discards without comment as evidently mistaken. In this period he
perfects his use of the method of resolutio and compositio and for the first
time employs the principle of the subordination of sciences. The works from
this period give evidence of their author's mastery of his techniques and confident (if sometimes mistaken) use of his basic concepts and factual data.
They are therefore more difficult to date in relation to each other than the
earlier works, where a progression was observable, but that they all belong
to the period 1231-1235 seems certain.
De lineis, angulis et figuris22stresses the importance of mathematics in
understandingthe world of nature and establishes certain rules which may be
employed in physical inquiries: the shorter and straighter the line, the greater
the power; when lines fall on curved or straight surfaces, the smaller the incident angle, the greater the power; there is greater action from a concave
surface than from a plane or convex surface; every agent multiplies its power
spherically; and it discusses the laws of reflection and refraction by bodies of
22 Pub. Baur, op. cit., pp. 59-65.

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.69 on Fri, 9 May 2014 10:18:41 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ROBERT GROSSETESTE'S SCIENTIFIC WORKS

395

different densities and the properties of the pyramid and cone. De natura

locorum,28 evidently a continuation of De lineis, in addition to expanding the

optical discussions of De lineis, applies some of these to the natural world in

order to illustrate points and to illustrate the limitations of a purely mathematical approach to nature. Thus Grosseteste mentions that according to the
rules about short straight lines and short pyramids, mountains should be hotter
than valleys, and indeed they are, essencialiter; but because of high-blowing
winds or the coldness of the second interstice of the air they are accidentaliter
colder. Then, after explaining why the region of the equator is perfectly
temperate rather than burning, as the mathematical rules would indicate, he
develops an explanation of the sun's heat which he later incorporates in De
calore solis.
.. It is impossiblethat upon the regions of the world outside the tropics a
ray of the sun (or of any other planet) should fall directly,neitherat equal
angles, nor perpendicularly,nor reflectedback on itself, nor not broken; but
upon the regionsbetweenthe tropics,the rays of the planetsfall directlyand
at equalangles and perpendicularlyand they are reflectedon themselvesand
they fall not broken,since bodies of the world are sphericaland concentric.
Whereforeonly those rays which fall betweenthe centerof the world and the
center of that body, if they were concentric, would be direct and at equal

angles and perpendicularlyreturningon themselvesand not broken. But no

ray coming outside the tropics falls on the center of the world, but more

toward the circumferencesof mundanebodies. Nevertheless, between the

tropicsthey are well able to fall on the centerof the world.24
Then follows the explanation of how the moon acts on the sea, which has
already been quoted in connection with De fluxu et refluxu marns.
This is perhaps the place to make some observations on the date of Grosseteste's commentaryon the Posterior Analytics. As Dr. Crombiehas said, "The
problem of the date of the commentary will be solved only when a thorough
examination has been made of all the manuscriptevidence."25 Since this commentary is among the most important of Grosseteste's works, and since much
of it is so intimately bound up with his scientific work, determination of its
composition date is of paramount importance. If the commentary was indeed
written in 1220, as Dr. Crombiehas tentatively proposed, then the assumptions
underlying this article are false, since Grosseteste shows in his commentary
much knowledge, especially of optics, which I have assumed he only acquired
during the second half of the 1220's. Without pretending to solve the problem
here, I should like to put forth several reasons for moving the commentary's
probable date of composition from 1220 to ca. 1228.
make the date of the commentary itself after
1217-20; a supposed reference to the Comm.
25Crombie,op. cit., p. 47, n. 1. Dr. Crombie Post. Anal. in the commentaryon the Physics
bases his dating (pp. 4647) on: 1. Nicolas (undoubtedlya gloss); and the frequent citaTrivet's statement that Grosseteste "wrote tions of Euclid and absence of references to
compendiously"on the Post. Anal. while he Averroes. This definitely places the work bewas still a Master of Arts, i.e. before 1209 tween 1217-1231, but I do not see that Dr.
(cf. D. A. Callus, "The Oxford Career of Crombiehas presented any compelling reasons
Robert Grosseteste," Oxoniensia, 1945, 10: for preferring the beginning of this period to
45); 2. the use of Michael Scots translation the end.
of Aristotle's De animalibus, which would
28 Pub. ibid., pp. 65
24 Ibid., p. 67.

if.

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.69 on Fri, 9 May 2014 10:18:41 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

396

RICHARD C. DALES

In commenting on the text: Horum autem quodam genere sunt eadem

quecunque habent differeintias ex quibus aliorum aut aliter sunt, ut propter
quod eccho, aut propter quod apparet, et propter quod iris. Omnia enim hec
idem propositum sunt genere. Omnia enim repercussio sunt, sed specie altera,
Grosseteste attempts to illustrate how these are all forms of repercussion.
(Note that it is Aristotle, not Grosseteste, who makes this suggestion.) He
had already written a work on sound (ca. 1221-1222), so he incorporated this
almost verbatim into his commentary. His knowledge of the rainbow was not
nearly so precise, so he simply says that a rainbow is a "repercussio vel fractio
radiorum solis in nube concava aquosa."26 An image in a mirror "is a repercussion of the visual ray from the surface of a mirror." But in amplifying this
last remark, Grosseteste shows that he is already aware of refraction: "Si
obstaculum sit corpus perspicuum, [radius] generat se revertendo, et etiam
non directe, sed angulariter perspicuum penetrando; sicut radius solis cadens
super aquam perspicuam revertitur a superficie aque sicut a speculo et penetrat
aquam faciendo angulum in ipsa superficie aque, et hoc proprie vocatur fractio
radii."27 It is inconceivable that this was written before De impressionibus
elementorum, which shows no knowledge of refraction although such knowledge would have been very useful in the inquiry.
Immediately below, commenting on "... ut propter quod nilus finiente mense
magis fluit...", he gives an account of the monthly rising of the Nile28 completely consistent with the final section of De fluxu et refluxu maris. Crombie
has rightly pointed out29 that this is a more primitive theory than that put
forth in De natura locorum, but so indeed is all of De fluxu et refluxu maris.
There is still another troublesome question. If Grosseteste had fully elucidated his principle of subordination of sciences in 1220, why did he neither
use it nor mention it again until nearly a decade later (in Book II of his com-

mentary on the Physics, ca. 1229; in De lineis, angulis et figuris, ca. 1230;

and De iride, between 1232 and 1235)?

We may approximate the date of this commentary by noting that it was
probably done after De generacione sonorum and De impressionibus elementorum, certainly before De natura locorum, and about the same time as or
shortly after De fluxu et refluxu maris. But much basic work on the manuscripts remains to be done.
1. De colore80
There is considerable disagreement and confusion concerning the date of
De colore. S. H. Thomson has noted that this work was used by Bartholomeus
Anglicus in his De proprietatibus rerum (Bk. XIX, ch. 7), begun in Paris
after 1230. Then he says that "this work of Grosseteste falls in the group on
which his early fame was founded. A date shortly before 1220 seems likely."32
A. C. Crombie, however, feels that it is the last in a series of optical works and
26Roberti Lincolniensis Commentaria in
Libros Posteriorfum Aristotelis, cum textt
seriatim inserto (Venetiis, 1494), f. 29D.
27 Loc. cit.
28

Ibid., ff. 29D-30A.

29 Crombie, op. cit., p. 112, n. 6.

30Pub. Baur, op. cit., pp. 78-79; cf. S. H.

Thomson, Writings, pp. 93-94; cites Aristotle
and possibly Averroes.
31

Thomson, op. cit., p. 93.

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.69 on Fri, 9 May 2014 10:18:41 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ROBERT GROSSETESTE'S SCIENTIFIC WORKS

397

assigns it to "the last period of Grosseteste's scholastic career at Oxford."

His reasons are: that it contains a reference to Averroes and so must be after
1230; and that "it resumes a discussion of the nature of colors which forms
the last part of De iride ... [and] may have been a continuation of this
work."32Although Dr. Crombie is apparently correct in putting this work at
the end of Grosseteste's scholastic career at Oxford, his reasons for so doing
and his assertion that De colore is a continuationof De iride must be questioned.
First, it is not even certain from the manuscripts that Grosseteste did cite
Averroes. In Baur's printed edition, the reading "sermo Aristotelis et Averrois, qui ponunt" is accepted in the text.33 Of the nine manuscripts of De
colore listed by Thomson,34Baur used six in preparing his edition. Among
these six, V reads "auctor et Aristotelis qui ponunt;" Q, which was written in
the mid-thirteenth century, has Aveur where Baur reads Averrois, as has another thirteenth century manuscript,Madrid, B. N., 3314, fol. 91A,which Baur
did not use. The other two, manuscripts which Baur did not use, Florence,
Marucelliana,C. 163, fols. 5D-6A and Prague, Nat. Mus., XII E 5, ff. 42B-, both
read "Augustinus et Aristoteles." So although "Averroes"may be a possible,
or even probable, reading, it is by no means certain. In any case, the sentence
containing what may be the citation of Averroes has the appearanceof a gloss.
It has nothing to do with the development of the essay and is really an extraneous comment (see below in summary of De colore, n. 35). In this case, the
reading of manuscript V, "auctor et Aristoteles" would be acceptable.
It remains then to investigate whether De colore "resumes" the last paragraph of De iride, as Crombie says on page 51, or whether it is presupposed
by De iride, as he seems to imply on page 126 ("The colors of the rainbow
[in De iride] Grosseteste tried to explain by his general theory of color.").
This problem does not admit of definite solution, but it seems quite clear that
Grosseteste had already worked out his theory of color very carefully before
writing the concluding paragraph of De iride and that he assumes the conclusions of De colore in his attempt to account for the colors of the rainbow.
We have noted before how general notions entertained by Grosseteste underwent a clarification and amplification in the course of his scientific works.
However, the theory of color used in De iride is as precise as that in De colore.
In a beautifully concise resolutio, Grosseteste isolates the principles of the
complex phenomenon, color. Color, he says, is light incorporated by a transparent medium. Transparent media are either pure or impure. Light can be
bright, dim, much or little.
Then by combining the elements discovered through this analysis, he asserts
that white is much, bright light in a pure medium; and black is little, dim
light in an impure medium.35There are seven colors descending from white.
For since three things constitute the essence of white, sc. a multitude of light,
the brightness of the same, and the purity of the transparent medium, a remission of any one of these three can be made by the other two, and there
32 Crombie, op. cit., p. 51.

33 Baur, op. cit., p. 78.

34 Writings, pp. 93-94.
35

It is at this point that the possible cita-

explanatus est sermo Aristotelis et Averroes,

qui ponunt nigredinem privationem et albedinem habitum sive formam." Baur, op. cit.,

p. 78.

tion of Averroes occurs: "Et in hoc sermone

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.69 on Fri, 9 May 2014 10:18:41 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

398

RICHARD C. DALES

will be in this manner a generation of three colors; or by the remaining one

of the three there will be a remission of the two which were relinquished, and
thus a triple generation will be made of other colors by the three prior ones;
or there will be a remission of all three at once; and thus there will be an
immediate progression of seven colors from white. Similarly, there are seven
colors ascending from black. These two series meet in the middle. So there
are in all sixteen colors: Black, the seven colors ascending from it, white, and
the seven colors descending from it. However, the degrees of extension and
remission possible in the middle colors (all but black and white) will be infinite. "That the essence of color and a multitude of the same behaves in the
aforesaid manner," he concludes, "is manifest not only by reason but also by
experiment, to those who know the principles of optics deeply and surely....
They can produce all the modes of colors which they wish visibly, by art."
2. De calore solis36
De calore solis is one of the most beautifully executed of Grosseteste's scientific works. That it belongs to the late period is sufficiently evident from
its advances over De impressionibus elementorum,De fluxu et refiuxu maris,
and De cometis, and the influence of De lineis and De natura locorum; but
just where in this period it should be placed is difficult to say.
The question being investigated is "In what way does the sun generate
heat?" The resolutio begins by asserting that there are three principles of the
generation of heat, a hot body, motion, and a collection of rays. In all of
these, the proximate cause of heat is "scattering." How a hot body produces
heat by scattering is evident, but how local motion and a collection of rays
do so is difficult to see. In local motion, violent motion by conflicting with
natural motion produces a scattering of parts and thus heat. And even in
natural motion some heat is generated because there is a degree of violent
motion in every part of a naturally moving object except those parts whose
motion is along a line with the center of the earth. Scattering takes place
through a concentration of rays because these rays are incorporated in a
transparent medium; in a dense medium the incorporation is greater and in
a subtle medium it is less. Hence the rays draw with them parts of the air
in which they are incorporated and when they are collected in one point a
great scattering and consequently great heat result.
So if the sun generates heat, it will do so as a hot body, as local motion, or
as a collection of rays. It does not generate heat as a hot body does, for it is
not in immediate contact with the heated thing. Neither does it generate heat
by its motion, because its motion is circular and circular motion does not produce heat. Therefore, the sun must generate heat by a concentration of rays.
The problem has now been reduced to a matter which can be investigated
both mathematically and experimentally, and Grosseteste proceeds with the
compositio.
The sun's rays, he says, are to some extent incorporated in the transparent
36 Ibid., pp. 79-84; Eng. translationby A. C.
Crombie in Callus, op. cit., pp. 116-120, after
Baur's text; cf. Thomson, op. cit., p. 93; cites

Aristotle (Physica, vii and De caelo et mundo,

ii) and Euclid (Catoptrica).

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.69 on Fri, 9 May 2014 10:18:41 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ROBERT GROSSETESTE'S SCIENTIFIC WORKS

399

medium of the air, a dense body. When these rays fall on the earth's surface,
they are reflected at equal angles; so if they fall perpendicularly (as they will
between the tropics of Cancer and Capricorn when the sun is at the zenith),
the incident and reflected rays go along the same line in opposite directions,
and there is a maximum of scattering and thus of heat. A similarly violent
scattering and great heat can be produced by the concentration of rays refracted through a spherical body or reflected from a concave mirror.
North and south of the tropics, however, the sun's rays must always fall at
less than right angles, so the paths of incidence and reflection will not be the
same. It follows from this hypothesis that the farther a place is from the
equator, the more obtuse will be the angle at which the sun's rays fall and
are reflected, and so the scattering and heat will be proportionately less. This
accords with observation.
There are, however, variations in temperature which cannot be accounted
for solely by the hypothesis suggested and verified above. Consequently,
Grosseteste turns his attention from the rays themselves to the medium in
which they are partially incorporated,i.e., the air. He proposes that the density of the transparentmedium and the correspondingdegree of incorporation
of the sun's rays are also directly proportional to the amount of heat generated. Then once again he deduces the consequences of his hypothesis and tests
them either by reason or by experience.
In the fifth element, he says, even if the sun's rays did intersect (and they
do not), no heat would be generated because there is no dense nature; hence
there is no incorporationand no scattering is possible. In the upper layer of
air-on mountain tops, for instance-where the air is thinnest and the degree
of incorporation slight, the least amount of heat is generated, as observation
shows. But in a valley, where the air is more dense, there is a greater incorporation of rays and therefore more scattering and more heat.
3. De iride37
Perhaps the last of Grosseteste's scientific works is De iride. It alone among
his physical investigations explicitly asserts and clearly employs the principle
of the subordination of sciences. It also assumes and uses the laws of compound refraction developed in De lineis.
In the lengthy and carefully-reasoned resolutio, which occupies over half
of the entire work, he introduces his principle of subordinationby noting that
speculation concerning the rainbow is the province of both optics and physics;
the physicist is concerned with quid, the experienced fact, and the student of
optics with propter quid, or the reason for the fact.
The science of optics may be divided into three parts, according to the
method of transition of the visual ray to the seen thing. In the first part,
called de visu, the transit of the visual ray is straight, through the medium of
37 Baur, op. cit., pp. 72-78; partial transla-

and De generatione aninmalium) and Euclid

Grosseteste and the Origins of Experimental

and Averroes' commentary on the Meteoro-

tion and paraphrasein A. C. Crombie,Robert

Science, pp. 110-112; 117-119; cf. Thomson,

(Catoptrica); may have used Ptolemy's Optica

logica (cf. Crombie, op. cit., pp. 116-117).

op. cit., p. 105; cites Aristotle (Meteorologica

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.69 on Fri, 9 May 2014 10:18:41 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

400

RICHARD C. DALES

a transparent body placed between the viewer and the seen thing. In the second, called de speculis, its transit is along a line straight toward a body which
acts as a mirror and reflects the ray toward the seen thing. In the third part,
"which," he remarks, "has remained unknown and untouched among us to the
present time," the transit of the ray is through many transparent bodies of
diverse kinds in which the visual ray is bent at their points of contact and
makes an angle. This is clear from the following experiment described in de
speculis:38 if something is placed in a vessel, and one then steps back to a point
from which the thing can not be seen, and then water is poured in, the thing
which was put into the vessel will be seen. This third part, perfectly known,
shows us how to make distant things appear near, large things appear small,
etc. "It is perfectly evident in geometrical demonstrations how by means of
a transparent medium of known size and shape placed at a known distance
from the eye, a thing of known distance and size will appear according to
place, size, and position."
It must now be decided to which of these three parts of optics the science
of the rainbow belongs. A rainbow could not be made by solar rays by a
direct approach from the sun falling on a concave cloud, for they would not
form a bow. Nor is it possible that a rainbow be made by the reflection of
the sun's rays upon the convexity of the mist descending from the cloud as
upon a convex mirror in such a way that the concavity of the cloud should
receive the reflected rays and thus a rainbow appear. If this were so, the rainbow would not always be in the shape of a bow, and when the sun were high
the rainbow would appear high and large and when the sun were low the bow
would be less. Just the contrary of this is evident to the senses.
Therefore it is to the third part of optics that the science of the rainbow
belongs, and the task now remaining is to deduce a rainbow from the principles established above. Having proved that a rainbow could not arise from
the sun's rays falling directly on a concave cloud or by the simple reflection
of these rays, Grosseteste sees as the only remaining possibility that the rainbow must be made by the compound refraction of the sun's rays in the mist
of a convex cloud.
The exterior of a cloud, he says, is convex, its interior concave, and that
part of a cloud which we can see must be less than a hemisphere. When moisture descends from the concavity of a cloud, the moisture must be pyramidally convex at the top, descending to the ground, and therefore more condensed
near the earth than in the upper part. There are consequently four different
transparent media through which the rays of the sun penetrate: the pure air
containing the cloud; the cloud itself: the higher and rarer part of the moisture descending from the cloud; and finally the lower and denser part of this
moisture.
From this hypothetical figure, Grosseteste attempts to deduce geometrically
the phenomenon of the rainbow. The rays of the sun are refracted at the
point of contact of air and cloud, then of cloud and moisture. Because of
these refractions the rays run together in the density of the moisture and are
refracted there again and spread out into a figure like the curved surface of
38Euclid, Catoptrica, Post. 7.

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.69 on Fri, 9 May 2014 10:18:41 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ROBERT GROSSETESTE'S SCIENTIFIC WORKS

401

a cone expanded in the direction opposite the sun. Therefore its shape is an
arc and no39rainbow is seen in the south. So far, deduction (although faulty)
matches observation.
Because the apex of the above-mentioned figure is near the earth and its
expansion opposite the sun, half or more of the figure must fall on the earth,
the remainder on a cloud opposite the sun. Therefore, when the sun is near
rising or setting the rainbow appears semicircular and is greater, and otherwise varies inversely with the elevation of the sun. Deduction and observation again match.
Grosseteste then introduces his theory of light and color developed in De
colore40 to account for the variety of color in different parts of the same rainbow and from one rainbow to another, and closes his inquiry.
III
From these investigations of Grosseteste's scientific works, several conclusions may be drawn. In the first place, he was evidently not a great observer
or experimenter. Most of the experiments to which he refers in his works are
those he had read about, and if he performed them at all it was only to satisfy
his curiosity about them. Others are simply appeals to every-day experience,
and some of these are questionable, especially in De fluxu et refluxu maris
where he says that at high tide the water is found to be hotter and ships draw
less water than at low tide. There are also several instances where it seems
that a simple experiment could have definitely established a hypothesis which
Grosseteste accepts for inadequate reasons (for example, that the air is the
medium through which sound waves are carried to the ears, in De generacione
sonorum), or could have prevented his making faulty assumptions in constructing his hypotheses (as in De iride, where he assumes there will be two
refractions in a mist of varying density). In no case does he contrive an experiment for the explicit purpose of testing a hypothesis.
In the second place, it seems doubtful that Grosseteste first worked out his
method in his theoretical works and then applied it in special investigations.
Rather we have seen a progressive refinementof method from the rather crude
De generacione stellarum to the intricate, complex, and beautifully conceived
De calore solis and De iride. Indeed, his theoretical works may well have been
done concurrently with his scientific investigations. It is fairly certain that
his commentary on Aristotle's Physics, in which he states the principles of
subordination of sciences and of resolutio and compositio, was done between
1228 and 1232.41 De lineis, angulis et figuris and De natura locorum, which
powerfully influenced his later works, were written about 1230-1231. This
leaves in doubt only the date of the very important commentary on Aristotle's
Posterior Analytics. All in all, there seem to be more serious difficulties involved in insisting on a date of around 1220 than in admitting a date of 1228
39 Following Crombie'semendation,op. cit.,
p. 126.
40 This, of course, is problematical. For

the entire section cf. Baur. op. cit., p. 79.

41 R. C. Dales, "Robert Grosseteste's Commentarius in Octo Libros Physicorum Aristotelis," Medievalia et Humanistica, 1957, 11:

12-13.

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.69 on Fri, 9 May 2014 10:18:41 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

402

RICHARD C. DALES

or 1229. A modern edition of this work would be a great boon to students of

Grosseteste.
Finally, it will not be denied that Robert Grosseteste investigated with great
thoroughness various phenomena of the natural world. He employed the
double method of resolutio and compositio with considerable skill (although
this method was not original with him42). He fruitfully introduced mathematical demonstrations into his researches whenever he saw an opportunity.
He constructed imaginative hypotheses to try to account for phenomena. And
his use of experiment and experience in analysing a problem into its constituent parts, in finding suggestions for explanatory hypotheses, and in verifying
or falsifying these hypotheses, although far from perfect from a modern point
of view, nevertheless represents a significant step in the establishment of
"modern" scientific method. It is not necessary to exaggerate his achievement or his anticipation of modern developments to secure for Robert Grosseteste a place of eminence among the shapers of our intellectual tradition.
Chronological Chart of Grosseteste's Scientific Works
Dated Landmarks
1217-20-Michael
Scot's translation
of Aristotle's Historia Animalilu
(cf. Sarton, Introduction to the History of Science, II, pt. 2, p. 579).

1230-Introduction of Averroes to
Latin Europe (cf. R. de Vaux, "La
premiere entree d'Averroes chez les
Latins," Revue des Sciences Philosophique et Theologique, 1933, 22:
193-245).
1235-Grosseteste becomes Bishop of
Lincoln.

Suggested Dates for Grosseteste's Works

ca. 1220-De generacione stellarum*
1221-22-De generacione sonorum
1224 -De impressionibus elementorum
1226-28-De accessu et recessu maris
1227-29-Commentarius in libros Analyticorum Posteriorum
Aristotelis
1228-32--(never completed)
Commentarius in VIII libros
Physicorum Aristotelis*
1231 -De lineis, angulis et figuris*
De natura locorum*
1232-35-De colore
De calore solis
De iride

* Indicates dates are fairly certain; for the rest, the order is probably correct, but the dates
are simply approximations.
42

Cf. A. C. Crombie,op. cit., pp. 52 ff; 78 ff.

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.69 on Fri, 9 May 2014 10:18:41 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions