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
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
<
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
="
040/01/045.jpg
"
pagenum
="
29
"/>
ruptible, aſwell as the Elementary, what will you ſay then?</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>SIMPL. </
s
>
<
s
>I will ſay you have done that which is impoſſible to
<
lb
/>
be done.</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>SAGR. </
s
>
<
s
>Go to; tell me,
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
Simplicius,
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
are not theſe affections
<
lb
/>
contrary to one another?</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>SIMPL. Which?</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>SAGR. </
s
>
<
s
>Why theſe; Alterable, unalterable; paſſible, ^{*}
<
lb
/>
<
arrow.to.target
n
="
marg84
"/>
<
lb
/>
ſible; generable, ingenerable; corruptible, incorruptible?</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
margin
">
<
s
>
<
margin.target
id
="
marg84
"/>
*
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
Or,
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
Impatible.</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>SIMPL. </
s
>
<
s
>They are moſt contrary.</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>SAGR. </
s
>
<
s
>Well then, if this be true, and it be alſo granted,
<
lb
/>
that Cœleſtial Bodies are ingenerable and incorruptible; I prove
<
lb
/>
that of neceſſity Cœleſtial Bodies muſt be generable and
<
lb
/>
ptible.</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>SIMPL. </
s
>
<
s
>This muſt needs be a
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
Sophiſm.
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>SAGR. </
s
>
<
s
>Hear my Argument, and then cenſure and reſolve it.
<
lb
/>
<
arrow.to.target
n
="
marg85
"/>
<
lb
/>
Cœleſtial Bodies, for that they are ingenerable and incorruptible,
<
lb
/>
have in Nature their contraries, which are thoſe Bodies that be
<
lb
/>
generable and corruptible; but where there is contrariety, there
<
lb
/>
is alſo generation and corruption; therefore Cœleſtial Bodies are
<
lb
/>
generable and corruptible.</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
margin
">
<
s
>
<
margin.target
id
="
marg85
"/>
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
Cœlestial Bodies
<
lb
/>
are generable and
<
lb
/>
corruptible,
<
lb
/>
cauſe they are
<
lb
/>
generable and
<
lb
/>
corruptible.
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>SIMPL. </
s
>
<
s
>Did I not ſay it could be no other than a
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
Sophiſm
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
?
<
lb
/>
</
s
>
<
s
>This is one of thoſe forked Arguments called
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
Soritæ
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
: like that
<
lb
/>
<
arrow.to.target
n
="
marg86
"/>
<
lb
/>
of the
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
Cretan,
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
who ſaid that all
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
Cretans
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
were lyars; but he as
<
lb
/>
being a
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
Cretan,
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
had told a lye, in ſaying that the
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
Cretans
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
were
<
lb
/>
ars; it followed therefore, that the
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
Cretans
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
were no lyars, and
<
lb
/>
conſequently that he, as being a
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
Cretan,
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
had ſpoke truth: And
<
lb
/>
yet in ſaying the
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
Cretans
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
were lyars, he had ſaid true, and
<
lb
/>
prehending himſelf as a
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
Cretan,
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
he muſt conſequently be a lyar.
<
lb
/>
</
s
>
<
s
>And thus in theſe kinds of
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
Sophiſms
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
a man may dwell to eternity,
<
lb
/>
and never come to any concluſion.</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
margin
">
<
s
>
<
margin.target
id
="
marg86
"/>
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
The forked
<
lb
/>
giſm cal'd
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
<
foreign
lang
="
grc
">Ξωρίτης.</
foreign
>
</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>SAGR. </
s
>
<
s
>You have hitherto cenſured it, it remaineth now that
<
lb
/>
you anſwer it, ſhewing the fallacie.</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>SIMPL. </
s
>
<
s
>As to the reſolving of it, and finding out its fallacie,
<
lb
/>
do you not in the firſt place ſee a manifeſt contradiction in it?
<
lb
/>
</
s
>
<
s
>Cœleſtial Bodies are ingenerable and incorruptible;
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
Ergo,
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
<
lb
/>
ſtial Bodies are generable and corruptible. </
s
>
<
s
>And again, the
<
lb
/>
<
arrow.to.target
n
="
marg87
"/>
<
lb
/>
trariety is not betwixt the Cœleſtial Bodies, but betwixt the
<
lb
/>
lements, which have the contrariety of the Motions,
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
ſurſùm
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
and
<
lb
/>
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
deorſùm,
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
and of levity and gravity; But the Heavens which move
<
lb
/>
circularly, to which motion no other motion is contrary, want
<
lb
/>
contrariety, and therefore they are incorruptible.</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
margin
">
<
s
>
<
margin.target
id
="
marg87
"/>
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
Amongſt Cœleſtial
<
lb
/>
Bodies there is no
<
lb
/>
contrariety.
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>SAGR. </
s
>
<
s
>Fair and ſoftly,
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
Simplicius
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
; this contrariety whereby
<
lb
/>
you ſay ſome ſimple Bodies become corruptible, reſides it in the
<
lb
/>
ſame Body which is corrupted, or elſe hath it relation to ſome
<
lb
/>
other? </
s
>
<
s
>I ſay, for example, the humidity by which a piece of Earth </
s
>
</
p
>
</
chap
>
</
body
>
</
text
>
</
archimedes
>