Salusbury, Thomas
,
Mathematical collections and translations (Tome I)
,
1667
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 - 701
>
Scan
Original
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
<
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 - 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
>