Galilei, Galileo
,
The systems of the world
,
1661
Text
Text Image
Image
XML
Thumbnail overview
Document information
None
Concordance
Figures
Thumbnails
page
|<
<
of 948
>
>|
<
archimedes
>
<
text
>
<
body
>
<
chap
>
<
pb
xlink:href
="
065/01/012.jpg
"
pagenum
="
6
"/>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>SIMPL. </
s
>
<
s
>And who ſaith that I cannot draw other lines? </
s
>
<
s
>why
<
lb
/>
may not I protract another line underneath, unto the point A,
<
lb
/>
that may be perpendicular to the reſt?</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>SALV. </
s
>
<
s
>You can doubtleſs, at one and the ſame point, make no
<
lb
/>
more than three right lines concurre, that conſtitute right angles
<
lb
/>
between themſelves.</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>SAGR. </
s
>
<
s
>I ſee what
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
Simplicius
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
means, namely, that ſhould the
<
lb
/>
ſaid D A be prolonged downward, then by that means there might
<
lb
/>
be drawn two others, but they would be the ſame with the firſt
<
lb
/>
three, differing onely in this, that whereas now they onely touch,
<
lb
/>
then they would interſect, but not produce new
<
lb
/>
<
arrow.to.target
n
="
marg14
"/>
</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
margin
">
<
s
>
<
margin.target
id
="
marg14
"/>
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
In phyfical proofs
<
lb
/>
geometrical
<
lb
/>
neſs is not
<
lb
/>
ry.
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>SIMPL. </
s
>
<
s
>I will not ſay that this your argument may not be
<
lb
/>
cludent; but yet this I ſay with
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
Ariſtotle,
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
that in things natural
<
lb
/>
it is not alwaies neceſſary, to bring
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
Mathematical
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
demonſtrations.</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>SAGR. </
s
>
<
s
>Grant that it were ſo where ſuch proofs cannot be had,
<
lb
/>
yet if this caſe admit of them, why do not you uſe them? </
s
>
<
s
>But it
<
lb
/>
would be good we ſpent no more words on this particular, for I
<
lb
/>
think that
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
Salviatus
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
will yield, both to
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
Ariſtotle,
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
and you,
<
lb
/>
out farther demonſtration, that the World is a body, and perfect,
<
lb
/>
yea moſt perfect, as being the greateſt work of God.</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>SALV. </
s
>
<
s
>So really it is, therefore leaving the general contempla</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>
<
arrow.to.target
n
="
marg15
"/>
<
lb
/>
tion of the whole, let us deſcend to the conſideration of its parts,
<
lb
/>
which
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
Ariſtotle,
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
in his firſt diviſion, makes two, and they very
<
lb
/>
rent and almoſt contrary to one another; namely the Cœleſtial,
<
lb
/>
and Elementary: that ingenerable, incorruptible, unalterable,
<
lb
/>
paſſible, &c. </
s
>
<
s
>and this expoſed to a continual alteration,
<
lb
/>
on, &c. </
s
>
<
s
>Which difference, as from its original principle, he
<
lb
/>
rives from the diverſity of local motions, and in this method he
<
lb
/>
proceeds.</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
margin
">
<
s
>
<
margin.target
id
="
marg15
"/>
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
Parts of the world
<
lb
/>
are two, according
<
lb
/>
to
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
Ariſtotle,
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
<
lb
/>
ſtial and
<
lb
/>
tary contrary to
<
lb
/>
one another.
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>Leaving the ſenſible, if I may ſo ſpeak, and retiring into the
<
lb
/>
Ideal world, he begins Architectonically to conſider that nature
<
lb
/>
being the principle of motion, it followeth that natural bodies be
<
lb
/>
<
arrow.to.target
n
="
marg16
"/>
<
lb
/>
indued with local motion. </
s
>
<
s
>Next he declares local motion to be
<
lb
/>
of three kinds, namely, circular, right, and mixt of right and
<
lb
/>
cular: and the two firſt he calleth ſimple, for that of all lines the
<
lb
/>
<
arrow.to.target
n
="
marg17
"/>
<
lb
/>
circular, and right are onely ſimple; and here ſomewhat
<
lb
/>
ſtraining himſelf, he defineth anew, of ſimple motions, one to be
<
lb
/>
circular, namely that which is made about the
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
medium,
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
and the
<
lb
/>
other namely the right, upwards, and downwards; upwards, that
<
lb
/>
which moveth from the
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
medium
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
; downwards, that which goeth
<
lb
/>
wards the
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
medium.
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
And from hence he infers, as he may by and
<
lb
/>
<
arrow.to.target
n
="
marg18
"/>
<
lb
/>
ceſſary conſequence, that all ſimple motions are confined to theſe
<
lb
/>
three kinds, namely, to the
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
medium,
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
from the
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
medium,
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
and about
<
lb
/>
the
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
medium
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
; the which correſponds ſaith he, with what hath been
<
lb
/>
ſaid before of a body, that it alſo is perfected by three things, and ſo </
s
>
</
p
>
</
chap
>
</
body
>
</
text
>
</
archimedes
>