Salusbury, Thomas
,
Mathematical collections and translations (Tome I)
,
1667
Text
Text Image
Image
XML
Thumbnail overview
Document information
None
Concordance
Figures
Thumbnails
List of thumbnails
<
1 - 10
11 - 20
21 - 30
31 - 40
41 - 50
51 - 60
61 - 70
71 - 80
81 - 90
91 - 100
101 - 110
111 - 120
121 - 130
131 - 140
141 - 150
151 - 160
161 - 170
171 - 180
181 - 190
191 - 200
201 - 210
211 - 220
221 - 230
231 - 240
241 - 250
251 - 260
261 - 270
271 - 280
281 - 290
291 - 300
301 - 310
311 - 320
321 - 330
331 - 340
341 - 350
351 - 360
361 - 370
371 - 380
381 - 390
391 - 400
401 - 410
411 - 420
421 - 430
431 - 440
441 - 450
451 - 460
461 - 470
471 - 480
481 - 490
491 - 500
501 - 510
511 - 520
521 - 530
531 - 540
541 - 550
551 - 560
561 - 570
571 - 580
581 - 590
591 - 600
601 - 610
611 - 620
621 - 630
631 - 640
641 - 650
651 - 660
661 - 670
671 - 680
681 - 690
691 - 700
701 - 701
>
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
<
1 - 10
11 - 20
21 - 30
31 - 40
41 - 50
51 - 60
61 - 70
71 - 80
81 - 90
91 - 100
101 - 110
111 - 120
121 - 130
131 - 140
141 - 150
151 - 160
161 - 170
171 - 180
181 - 190
191 - 200
201 - 210
211 - 220
221 - 230
231 - 240
241 - 250
251 - 260
261 - 270
271 - 280
281 - 290
291 - 300
301 - 310
311 - 320
321 - 330
331 - 340
341 - 350
351 - 360
361 - 370
371 - 380
381 - 390
391 - 400
401 - 410
411 - 420
421 - 430
431 - 440
441 - 450
451 - 460
461 - 470
471 - 480
481 - 490
491 - 500
501 - 510
511 - 520
521 - 530
531 - 540
541 - 550
551 - 560
561 - 570
571 - 580
581 - 590
591 - 600
601 - 610
611 - 620
621 - 630
631 - 640
641 - 650
651 - 660
661 - 670
671 - 680
681 - 690
691 - 700
701 - 701
>
page
|<
<
of 701
>
>|
<
archimedes
>
<
text
>
<
body
>
<
chap
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>
<
pb
xlink:href
="
040/01/381.jpg
"
pagenum
="
361
"/>
which to the ſtability of the Earth it is neceſſary (forſaking that
<
lb
/>
Symetry which is obſerved to be between the velocities and
<
lb
/>
nitudes of moveables) to aſcribe to a Sphere, vaſt above all
<
lb
/>
others, an unconceiveable celerity, whilſt the other leſſer
<
lb
/>
Spheres move extream ſlowly; and which is more, to make that
<
lb
/>
motion contrary to all their motions; and, yet again to adde to
<
lb
/>
the improbability, to make that ſuperiour Sphere forcibly to
<
lb
/>
tranſport all the inferionr ones along with it contrary to their
<
lb
/>
proper inclination. </
s
>
<
s
>And here I refer it to your judgment to
<
lb
/>
termine which of the two is the moſt probable.</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
margin
">
<
s
>
<
margin.target
id
="
marg681
"/>
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
The Suns
<
lb
/>
nual motion, how
<
lb
/>
it comes to paſſe,
<
lb
/>
according to
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
<
lb
/>
pernicus.</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
margin
">
<
s
>
<
margin.target
id
="
marg682
"/>
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
An admirable
<
lb
/>
accident depending
<
lb
/>
on the not inclining
<
lb
/>
of the Earths axis
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>SAGR. </
s
>
<
s
>To me, as far as concerneth ſenſe, there appeareth
<
lb
/>
no ſmall difference betwixt the ſimplicity and facility of
<
lb
/>
ting effects by the means aſſigned in this new conſtitution, and
<
lb
/>
the multiplicity, conſufion, and difficulty, that is found in the
<
lb
/>
ancient and commonly received Hypotheſis. </
s
>
<
s
>For if the Univerſe
<
lb
/>
were diſpoſed according to this multiplicity, it would be
<
lb
/>
ceſſary to renounce many Maximes in Philoſophy commonly
<
lb
/>
<
arrow.to.target
n
="
marg683
"/>
<
lb
/>
ceived by Philoſophers, as for inſtance, That Nature doth
<
lb
/>
not multiply things without neceſſity; and, That She makes uſe
<
lb
/>
of the moſt facile and ſimple means in producing her effects;
<
lb
/>
and, That She doth nothing in vain, and the like. </
s
>
<
s
>I do confeſſe
<
lb
/>
that I never heard any thing more admirable than this, nor can I
<
lb
/>
believe that Humane Underſtanding ever penetrated a more
<
lb
/>
ſublime ſpeculation. </
s
>
<
s
>I know not what
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
Simplicius
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
may think
<
lb
/>
of it.</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
margin
">
<
s
>
<
margin.target
id
="
marg683
"/>
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
Axiomes
<
lb
/>
monly admitted by
<
lb
/>
all Philoſophers.
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>SIMP. </
s
>
<
s
>Theſe (if I may ſpeak my judgment freely) do ſeem
<
lb
/>
<
arrow.to.target
n
="
marg684
"/>
<
lb
/>
to me ſome of thoſe Geometrical ſubtilties which
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
Ariſtotle
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
finds
<
lb
/>
fault with in
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
Plato,
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
when he accuſeth him that by his too
<
lb
/>
much ſtudying of Geometry he forſook ſolid Philoſophy; and I
<
lb
/>
have known and heard very great
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
Peripatetick
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
Philoſophers to
<
lb
/>
diſſwade their Scholars from the Study of the Mathematicks, as
<
lb
/>
thoſe that render the wit cavilous, and unable to philoſophate
<
lb
/>
well; an Inſtitute diametrically contrary to that of
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
Plato,
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
who
<
lb
/>
admitted uone to Philoſophy, unleſſe he was firſt well entered in
<
lb
/>
Geometry.</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
margin
">
<
s
>
<
margin.target
id
="
marg684
"/>
Ariſtotle
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
<
lb
/>
eth
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
Plato
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
for being
<
lb
/>
too ſtudious of
<
lb
/>
ometry.
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>SALV. </
s
>
<
s
>I commend the policy of theſe your
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
Peripateticks,
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
in
<
lb
/>
<
arrow.to.target
n
="
marg685
"/>
<
lb
/>
dehorting their Diſciples from the Study of Geometry, for that
<
lb
/>
there is no art more commodious for detecting their fallacies; but
<
lb
/>
ſee how they differ from the Mathematical Philoſophers, who
<
lb
/>
much more willingly converſe with thoſe that are well verſt in
<
lb
/>
the commune Peripatetick Philoſophy, than with thoſe that are
<
lb
/>
deſtitute of that knowledg, who for want thereof cannot
<
lb
/>
ſtinguiſh between doctrine and doctrine. </
s
>
<
s
>But paſſing by this, tell
<
lb
/>
me I beſeech you, what are thoſe extravagancies and thoſe too
<
lb
/>
affected ſubtilties that make you think this
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
Copernican
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
Syſteme
<
lb
/>
the leſſe plauſible?</
s
>
</
p
>
</
chap
>
</
body
>
</
text
>
</
archimedes
>