The unreasonable effectiveness of the cathetus rule in ancient and modern optics

Abstract

The "cathetus rule" in optics alleges that the image of an object-point, formed by reflection or refraction at a surface, lies on the perpendicular ("cathetus") from the object-point to or through the surface. The first known statement of the rule, attributed to Euclid, was for a plane or spherical mirror. The rule was extended to refraction by Ptolemy.... Kepler was universally credited with the first disproof-and-salvage of the cathetus rule until 2018, when Benedetti's priority was exposed by Goulding. Kepler notwithstanding, the rule was reaffirmed by Tacquet for plane and spherical mirrors, except for the case in which the rays converge toward a point behind the eye; this became known as the "Barrovian case" because it troubled Barrow, in spite of his modern concept of an image. Barrow demolished the cathetus rule for the tangential image except in the paraxial limit, and Newton salvaged it for the sagittal image. The rule then seems to fade from history. But the rule is equivalent to the assumption that the image is stigmatic and the cathetus well defined. This narrow assumption is approximately true in the first-order (paraxial, "Gaussian") analysis of lenses and mirrors; and unacknowledged applications of the ancient rule can indeed be discerned in modern expositions of that subject. Moreover, the validity of the rule for the sagittal image fills a critical gap in meridional ray-tracing through spherical surfaces: by tracing the chief ray from an off-axis object-point, then applying the cathetus rule to the successive surfaces, one can locate successive sagittal image-points on the chief ray (produced rectilinearly through surfaces as necessary), and hence assess astigmatism to leading order, without tracing any rays outside the meridional plane.