Galilei, Galileo
,
The systems of the world
,
1661
Text
Text Image
Image
XML
Thumbnail overview
Document information
None
Concordance
Figures
Thumbnails
Page concordance
<
1 - 30
31 - 60
61 - 90
91 - 120
121 - 150
151 - 180
181 - 210
211 - 240
241 - 270
271 - 300
301 - 330
331 - 360
361 - 390
391 - 420
421 - 450
451 - 480
481 - 510
511 - 540
541 - 570
571 - 600
601 - 630
631 - 660
661 - 690
691 - 720
721 - 750
751 - 780
781 - 810
811 - 840
841 - 870
871 - 900
901 - 930
931 - 948
>
Scan
Original
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
<
1 - 30
31 - 60
61 - 90
91 - 120
121 - 150
151 - 180
181 - 210
211 - 240
241 - 270
271 - 300
301 - 330
331 - 360
361 - 390
391 - 420
421 - 450
451 - 480
481 - 510
511 - 540
541 - 570
571 - 600
601 - 630
631 - 660
661 - 690
691 - 720
721 - 750
751 - 780
781 - 810
811 - 840
841 - 870
871 - 900
901 - 930
931 - 948
>
page
|<
<
of 948
>
>|
<
archimedes
>
<
text
>
<
body
>
<
chap
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>
<
pb
xlink:href
="
065/01/009.jpg
"
pagenum
="
3
"/>
Moreover in the fourth Text; doth he not after ſome other
<
lb
/>
ctrines, prove it by another demonſtration?
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
Scilicet,
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
That no
<
lb
/>
ſition is made but according to ſome defect (and ſo there is a
<
lb
/>
ſition or paſſing from the line to the ſuperficies, becauſe the line is
<
lb
/>
defective in breadth) and that it is impoſſible for the perfect to
<
lb
/>
want any thing, it being every way ſo; therefore there is no
<
lb
/>
ſition from the Solid or Body to any other magnitude. </
s
>
<
s
>Now
<
lb
/>
think you not that by all theſe places he hath ſufficiently proved,
<
lb
/>
how that there's no going beyond the three dimenſions, Length,
<
lb
/>
Breadth, and Thickneſs, and that therefore the body or ſolid,
<
lb
/>
which hath them all, is perfect?</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
margin
">
<
s
>
<
margin.target
id
="
marg6
"/>
Ariſtotles
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
<
lb
/>
ſtrations to prove
<
lb
/>
the dimenſions to be
<
lb
/>
three and no more.
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
margin
">
<
s
>
<
margin.target
id
="
marg7
"/>
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
The number three
<
lb
/>
celebrated among ſt
<
lb
/>
the
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
Pythagorians</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
margin
">
<
s
>
<
margin.target
id
="
marg8
"/>
Omne, Totum &
<
lb
/>
Perfectum.</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
margin
">
<
s
>
<
margin.target
id
="
marg9
"/>
Or Solid.</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>SALV. </
s
>
<
s
>To tell you true, I think not my ſelf bound by all theſe
<
lb
/>
reaſons to grant any more but onely this, That that which hath
<
lb
/>
beginning, middle, and end, may, and ought to be called perfect: But
<
lb
/>
that then, becauſe beginning, middle, and end, are Three, the
<
lb
/>
ber Three is a perfect number, and hath a faculty of conferring
<
lb
/>
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
Perfection
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
on thoſe things that have the ſame, I find no inducement
<
lb
/>
to grant; neither do I underſtand, nor believe that, for example,
<
lb
/>
of feet, the number three is more perfect then four or two, nor do
<
lb
/>
I conceive the number four to be any imperfection to the
<
lb
/>
ments: and that they would be more perfect if they were three.
<
lb
/>
</
s
>
<
s
>Better therefore it had been to have left theſe ſubtleties to the
<
lb
/>
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
Rhetoricians,
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
and to have proved his intent, by neceſſary
<
lb
/>
tion; for ſo it behoves to do in demonſtrative ſciences.</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>SIMPL. </
s
>
<
s
>You ſeem to ſcorn theſe reaſons, and yet it is all the
<
lb
/>
Doctrine of the
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
Pythagorians,
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
who attribute ſo much to numbers;
<
lb
/>
and you that be a
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
Mathematician,
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
and believe many opinions in
<
lb
/>
the
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
Pythagorick
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
Philoſophy, ſeem now to contemn their
<
lb
/>
ſteries.</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>SALV. </
s
>
<
s
>That the
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
Pythagorians
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
had the ſcience of numbers in
<
lb
/>
high eſteem, and that
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
Plato
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
himſelf admired humane
<
lb
/>
ing, and thought that it pertook of Divinity, for that it
<
lb
/>
<
arrow.to.target
n
="
marg10
"/>
<
lb
/>
ſtood the nature of numbers, I know very well, nor ſhould I be
<
lb
/>
far from being of the ſame opinion: But that the Myſteries for
<
lb
/>
which
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
Pythagoras
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
and his ſect, had the Science of numbers in ſuch
<
lb
/>
veneration, are the follies that abound in the mouths and writings
<
lb
/>
<
arrow.to.target
n
="
marg11
"/>
<
lb
/>
of the vulgar, I no waies credit: but rather becauſe I know that they,
<
lb
/>
to the end admirable things might not be expoſed to the
<
lb
/>
tempt, and ſcorne of the vulgar, cenſured as ſacrilegious, the
<
lb
/>
<
arrow.to.target
n
="
marg12
"/>
<
lb
/>
liſhing of the abſtruce properties of Numbers, and
<
lb
/>
ſurable and irrational quantities, by them inveſtigated; and
<
lb
/>
vulged, that he who diſcovered them, was tormented in the other
<
lb
/>
World: I believe that ſome one of them to deter the common
<
lb
/>
ſort, and free himſelf from their inquiſitiveneſs, told them that the
<
lb
/>
myſteries of numbers were thoſe trifles, which afterwards did ſo </
s
>
</
p
>
</
chap
>
</
body
>
</
text
>
</
archimedes
>