Theodosius <Bithynius>; Clavius, Christoph, Theodosii Tripolitae Sphaericorum libri tres

Table of handwritten notes

< >
< >
page |< < (350) of 532 > >|
    <echo version="1.0RC">
      <text xml:lang="la" type="free">
        <div xml:id="echoid-div907" type="section" level="1" n="476">
          <p>
            <s xml:id="echoid-s11568" xml:space="preserve">
              <pb o="350" file="362" n="362" rhead=""/>
            petere deſinat, virum oſtendam, qui cum, ſi velit, certare cum laude poſ-
              <lb/>
            ſit. </s>
            <s xml:id="echoid-s11569" xml:space="preserve">Ego vt oſtenderem, angulum contactus, ex Euclidis ſententia, verè eſ-
              <lb/>
            ſe angulum, & </s>
            <s xml:id="echoid-s11570" xml:space="preserve">angulum ſemicirculi angulo recto rectilineo minorem, ita
              <lb/>
            ſum argumentatus. </s>
            <s xml:id="echoid-s11571" xml:space="preserve">Si Euclides ſenſiſſet, angulum contactus nihil prorſus
              <lb/>
            eſſe, (hoc eſt, vt Peletarius intelligit, non eſſe angulum, vel non eſſe quan-
              <lb/>
            titatem) & </s>
            <s xml:id="echoid-s11572" xml:space="preserve">angulum ſemicirculi æqualem recto rectilineo; </s>
            <s xml:id="echoid-s11573" xml:space="preserve">quid, obſecro,
              <lb/>
            tantopere deſudaſſet, vt demonſtraret, angulum contactus eſſe minorem
              <lb/>
            omni acuto rectilineo, angulum vero ſemicirculi maiorem? </s>
            <s xml:id="echoid-s11574" xml:space="preserve">Quid enim cla
              <lb/>
            rius, quàm nihil, cuiuſmodi eſt angulus contactus, ex Peletarij ſententia,
              <lb/>
            hoc eſt, quàm id, quod quantitas non eſt, minus eſſe quocunque angulo?
              <lb/>
            </s>
            <s xml:id="echoid-s11575" xml:space="preserve">Quid rurſus magis perſpicuum, quàm angulum rectum, qualem ponit Pe-
              <lb/>
            letarius angulum ſemicirculi, maiorem eſſe quolibet acuto? </s>
            <s xml:id="echoid-s11576" xml:space="preserve">Agnoſcat
              <lb/>
            itaque Peletarius, Nihil illud ſuum male à nobis acceptum, idque ita
              <lb/>
            vlciſcatur, vt meum hoc argumentum refellat: </s>
            <s xml:id="echoid-s11577" xml:space="preserve">in quo ego ſi angulum
              <lb/>
            contactus dixi eſſe nihil, & </s>
            <s xml:id="echoid-s11578" xml:space="preserve">non potius eum nihil eſſe aſſerui ex ſenten-
              <lb/>
            tia Peletarij, libenter manus dabo. </s>
            <s xml:id="echoid-s11579" xml:space="preserve">Videtur Peletarius aut non intelle-
              <lb/>
            xiſſe meum argumentum, aut intelligere noluiſſe: </s>
            <s xml:id="echoid-s11580" xml:space="preserve">niſi eum quis dicat, de-
              <lb/>
            dita opera verba mea voluiſſe cauillari; </s>
            <s xml:id="echoid-s11581" xml:space="preserve">quod & </s>
            <s xml:id="echoid-s11582" xml:space="preserve">plerisque alijs in locis
              <lb/>
            facere videtur. </s>
            <s xml:id="echoid-s11583" xml:space="preserve">Nunquam enim dixi, angulum contactus minorem eſſe, aut
              <lb/>
            maiorem nihilo: </s>
            <s xml:id="echoid-s11584" xml:space="preserve">Solum affirmaui, angulum contactus quemcunque mino-
              <lb/>
            rem eſſe, aut maiorem aliquo alio angulo contactus, quem non ego dixi
              <lb/>
            nihil eſſe, ſed Peletarius, eundemque Euclides minorem quolibet acuto
              <lb/>
            rectilineo recte demonſtrauit. </s>
            <s xml:id="echoid-s11585" xml:space="preserve">Vt autem intelligat Peletarius, me, quod
              <lb/>
            ipſe negat, didiciſſe Dialecticam, illum ipſum tam lepidum, atque acu-
              <lb/>
            tum ſyllogiſmum, quo Nihil illud ab ſe cõfictum mira venuſtate confixit,
              <lb/>
            pauliſper conſiderabimus; </s>
            <s xml:id="echoid-s11586" xml:space="preserve">vt quàm ſuo iure Dialecticæ ignaros alios vo-
              <lb/>
            cet, appareat. </s>
            <s xml:id="echoid-s11587" xml:space="preserve">Nam mihi quidem male tornatus ille ipſe ſyllogiſmus vide-
              <lb/>
              <note position="left" xlink:label="note-362-01" xlink:href="note-362-01a" xml:space="preserve">Paralogif-
                <lb/>
              mus Pele-
                <lb/>
              tarij inſi-
                <lb/>
              gnis.</note>
            tur, incudique reddendus. </s>
            <s xml:id="echoid-s11588" xml:space="preserve">Etenim cum verſetur in tertia figura, in eo ma-
              <lb/>
            ior extremitas, (vt Dialectici loquuntur) quæ eſt, Nihil, de minori, quę eſt,
              <lb/>
            angulo contactus maior, in recto prædicari deberet, hoc pacto. </s>
            <s xml:id="echoid-s11589" xml:space="preserve">Angulus
              <lb/>
            contactus nihil eſt: </s>
            <s xml:id="echoid-s11590" xml:space="preserve">Angulus contactus angulo contactus maior eſt. </s>
            <s xml:id="echoid-s11591" xml:space="preserve">Igitur
              <lb/>
            aliquid, quod angulo contactus maius eſt, nihil eſt. </s>
            <s xml:id="echoid-s11592" xml:space="preserve">Quæ quidem con-
              <lb/>
            cluſio recte ſequitur ex præmiſsis, quarum prior Peletarij eſt, non mea,
              <lb/>
            poſterior autem mea, & </s>
            <s xml:id="echoid-s11593" xml:space="preserve">Procli, immo & </s>
            <s xml:id="echoid-s11594" xml:space="preserve">Euclidis. </s>
            <s xml:id="echoid-s11595" xml:space="preserve">Concluſio autem illa
              <lb/>
            Peletarij, Angulus igitur maior nihilo eſt, nulla ratione ex præmiſsis in-
              <lb/>
            ferri poteſt. </s>
            <s xml:id="echoid-s11596" xml:space="preserve">Nam ſi, angulum cum dicit, intelligit Peletarius angulum con
              <lb/>
            tactus, aſſumitur medius terminus, qui in vtraq; </s>
            <s xml:id="echoid-s11597" xml:space="preserve">præmiſſa ſubijcitur: </s>
            <s xml:id="echoid-s11598" xml:space="preserve">quod
              <lb/>
            nefas eſſe, Ariſtoteles in prioribus Anal. </s>
            <s xml:id="echoid-s11599" xml:space="preserve">& </s>
            <s xml:id="echoid-s11600" xml:space="preserve">Dialectici omnes clamant. </s>
            <s xml:id="echoid-s11601" xml:space="preserve">Si
              <lb/>
            autem alium angulum intelligit, aſſumitur in concluſione terminus, cuius
              <lb/>
            nulla facta eſt mentio in præmiſsis: </s>
            <s xml:id="echoid-s11602" xml:space="preserve">quod nihilo magis licere, nemo eſt tam
              <lb/>
            plumbeus in Dialecticis, qui neſciat. </s>
            <s xml:id="echoid-s11603" xml:space="preserve">Neque contendat Peletarius, men-
              <lb/>
            tionem factam eſſe anguli in minore extremitate, vbi dictum eſt, angulum
              <lb/>
            contactus angulo contactus maiorem eſſe. </s>
            <s xml:id="echoid-s11604" xml:space="preserve">Nam angulus in minore extre-
              <lb/>
            mitate poſitus eſt in obliquo, qui in concluſione ſubijcitur in recto: </s>
            <s xml:id="echoid-s11605" xml:space="preserve"/>
          </p>
        </div>
      </text>
    </echo>
Impressum