Cardano, Girolamo, De subtilitate, 1663

Page concordance

< >
Scan Original
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
< >
page |< < of 403 > >|
    <archimedes>
      <text>
        <body>
          <chap>
            <p type="main">
              <s id="s.003054">
                <pb pagenum="424" xlink:href="016/01/073.jpg"/>
              crocea omnia videntur: multis etiam dolor
                <lb/>
              non leuis capitis contingit. </s>
              <s id="s.003055">Cauſa eſt, quod
                <lb/>
              lumen paucum eſt, & ob id croceum. </s>
              <s id="s.003056">Indi­
                <lb/>
              cat hoc aurora, quæ & ipſa crocea eſt, vnde
                <lb/>
              illud Virgilij:
                <lb/>
                <emph type="quote"/>
                <emph type="italics"/>
              Tithoni croceum linquens Aurora cubile.
                <emph.end type="italics"/>
                <emph.end type="quote"/>
              </s>
            </p>
            <p type="main">
              <s id="s.003057">Antiqui enim, Seruio teſte, ex Varronis
                <lb/>
              authoritate, diem à prima luce inchoabant:
                <lb/>
              quem & in quatuor partes diuidebant. </s>
              <s id="s.003058">Ha­
                <lb/>
              rum prima erat manè, quæ & aurora, à
                <lb/>
              Manum, quod eſt bonum: ſic enim ſalutare
                <lb/>
              ſe antiqui ſolebant, tempeſtiuè ſurgentes:
                <lb/>
              inde ortum ab ortu. </s>
              <s id="s.003059">Solis ad quartam horam
                <lb/>
              vſque: quòd Sol perpetuò aſcendere vide­
                <lb/>
              retur, appellabat: à quarta ad octauam vſ­
                <lb/>
              que meridiem, quaſi Sol meridiaret: & vſ­
                <lb/>
              que ad 22. occaſum, quòd deſcenderet, ac
                <lb/>
              tandem occultaretur. </s>
              <s id="s.003060">Vnde horæ hæ æqua­
                <lb/>
              les erant, ſcilicet 12. pars diei à Solis ortu
                <lb/>
              ad occaſum. </s>
              <s id="s.003061">Nox verò in quinque, veſpe­
                <lb/>
              ra, quæ & crepuſculum nocturnum, ſeu lux
                <lb/>
              dubia: conticinium cum obtenebraretur
                <lb/>
              aër: hoc ſe quieti tradebant: intempeſta,
                <lb/>
              quæ metas vigilantium excederet, & neque
                <lb/>
              ſurgentibus eſſet accommodata: erátque
                <lb/>
              tempus à 4. ad 8. horam inde gallicinium
                <lb/>
              ad 10. fermè, à qua ad auroram lucifer. </s>
              <s id="s.003062">Sed
                <lb/>
              vt ad propoſitum redeam, eadem ratione
                <lb/>
              in aëre fieri permutationem neceſſe eſt ma­
                <lb/>
              gnam, ob quam quibus caput eſt imbecil­
                <lb/>
              le, dolet. </s>
              <s id="s.003063">Verùm dices, nonne dum Sol ori­
                <lb/>
              tur, parum etiam luminis ad nos peruenit
                <lb/>
              & dum occidit, & tamen illud candidum
                <lb/>
              eſt, ſicut & quod paruo foramine per fe­
                <lb/>
              neſtram in obſcurum cubiculum ingreditur?
                <lb/>
              </s>
              <s id="s.003064">Sed cauſa huius eſt, quòd dum Sol oritur
                <arrow.to.target n="marg357"/>
                <lb/>
              aut occidit, parum temporis abſumit, ma­
                <lb/>
              net autem diu in deliquio: quòd ſi quis
                <lb/>
              primos radios orientis aut vltimos occiden­
                <lb/>
              tis Solis, qui non ex centro veniunt, tum
                <lb/>
              maximè procul inſpiciat, croceos abſque
                <lb/>
              dubio illos eſſe videbit. </s>
              <s id="s.003065">Ex his igitur duo
                <lb/>
              perſpicua ſunt: Solem vndequaque non ex
                <lb/>
              ſolo centro radios emittere: & tamen ra­
                <lb/>
              dios, qui ex centro emittuntur, eſſe vali­
                <lb/>
              diores: quod etſi non fatearis, modò pri­
                <lb/>
              mum concedas, nihil ad res demonſtrandas
                <lb/>
              detrimenti afferet. </s>
              <s id="s.003066">Verùm (vt dixi ) ex toto
                <lb/>
              Sole tanquam ex igne vndequaque radios
                <lb/>
              prodire claret, quoniam deliquij tempore
                <lb/>
              pars, quæ centro oppoſita eſt occupatur à
                <lb/>
              Luna, & tamen aër, & parietes illumi­
                <lb/>
              nantur. </s>
            </p>
            <p type="margin">
              <s id="s.003067">
                <margin.target id="marg357"/>
              Solem totum
                <lb/>
              & vnde­
                <lb/>
              quaque ra­
                <lb/>
              dios emitte­
                <lb/>
              re.</s>
            </p>
            <figure id="id.016.01.073.1.jpg" xlink:href="016/01/073/1.jpg" number="46"/>
            <p type="caption">
              <s id="s.003068">
                <emph type="italics"/>
              Speculum.
                <emph.end type="italics"/>
                <lb/>
                <arrow.to.target n="marg358"/>
              </s>
            </p>
            <p type="margin">
              <s id="s.003069">
                <margin.target id="marg358"/>
              Quomodo
                <lb/>
              ſpeculum
                <lb/>
              concauum
                <lb/>
              omnes radios
                <lb/>
              in vnum
                <lb/>
              colligat.</s>
            </p>
            <p type="main">
              <s id="s.003070">Eſt etiàm ratio ſpeculi concaui hoc
                <lb/>
              oſtendens, quoniam non aliter in vnum
                <lb/>
              punctum coire poſſent omnes radij, niſi à
                <lb/>
              toto Sole procederent. </s>
              <s id="s.003071">Finge tu ex centro
                <lb/>
              Solis ſolum illuſtrari ſpeculum, profectò
                <lb/>
              ſolus radius vnus in ſpeculi centrum reddi­
                <lb/>
              bit. </s>
              <s id="s.003072">Vnde ergo fit, vt in centro ſpeculi con­
                <lb/>
              caui ignis ſemper accendatur, & omnes ex
                <lb/>
              Sole radij coëant: hoc enim Euclides rectè
                <lb/>
              demonſtrauit in ſuis ſpecularibus. </s>
              <s id="s.003073">Nam ex
                <lb/>
              ABCDE in F centrum omnes radij inter K
                <lb/>
              & L reflectuntur, non ex vno tantùm cir­
                <lb/>
              culo, vnde in F ignis accenditur. </s>
            </p>
            <p type="main">
              <s id="s.003074">Sed meritò dubitabis: primò, cur radij, qui
                <arrow.to.target n="marg359"/>
                <lb/>
              in ſeipſos reflectuntur, hi autem ſoli ſunt
                <lb/>
              perpendiculares, validi ſint? </s>
              <s id="s.003075">Cauſa eſt mani­
                <lb/>
              feſta: qui enim reflectitur à perpendiculo, in
                <lb/>
              ſeipſum redit, vt ex E in F, ex K, quare con­
                <lb/>
              duplicatur radius ſecundum longitudinem
                <lb/>
              totus: qui autem ex alio puncto in EK re­
                <lb/>
              flectitur, illum ſecat, & abit: at qui ſecat, in
                <lb/>
              puncto ſecat, igitur nullum præbet vim.
                <lb/>
              </s>
              <s id="s.003076">Nam punctus cum careat quantitate, caret
                <lb/>
              & viribus: igitur etſi infiniti radij per eun­
                <lb/>
              dem punctum reflectantur, nihilo ſunt ro­
                <lb/>
              buſtiores. </s>
              <s id="s.003077">Nam quod eſt nihilum, quantum­
                <lb/>
              uis ingemines, nihil producit: igitur radiis,
                <lb/>
              qui non reflectuntur à perpendiculo, nulla
                <lb/>
              prorſus eſt vis, vt ſecent. </s>
              <s id="s.003078">Proximis tamen
                <lb/>
              ac proximioribus eò maior eſt vis, quoniam
                <lb/>
              radius radio proximus eſt, non quia ſecet in
                <lb/>
              puncto: nam ſectio nihil refert, cùm (vt di­
                <lb/>
              xi) in indiuiſibili fiat, ſed propinquitas: nam
                <lb/>
              iuxta longitudinem, diu & magno ſpacio,
                <lb/>
              ſi radius radio hæret, vtriuſque vis in vnum
                <lb/>
              coit, ac quaſi ingeminatur. </s>
              <s id="s.003079">Quaſi dixi,
                <lb/>
              quoniam ſolus a perpendiculo cùm in ſe re­
                <lb/>
              deat, etiam ſolus vim ſuam exquiſitè du­
                <lb/>
              plicat. </s>
            </p>
            <p type="margin">
              <s id="s.003080">
                <margin.target id="marg359"/>
              Propoſitio
                <lb/>
              vltima, cur
                <lb/>
              radij perpen­
                <lb/>
              diculares
                <lb/>
              ſoli ſint va­
                <lb/>
              lidi.</s>
            </p>
            <p type="main">
              <s id="s.003081">Altera dubitatio erat, ſi ſpeculum ſit ma­
                <lb/>
                <arrow.to.target n="marg360"/>
                <lb/>
              gnum ex parte KG, reflexi radij cur non il­
                <lb/>
              luminant circumſtantes partes circa F, vt
                <lb/>
              ſaltem claritas reddatur, verùm omnes hi
                <lb/>
              radij infra F reflectuntur? </s>
              <s id="s.003082">Nam ſi ducatur
                <lb/>
              radius ex E in G, angulus F G K maior eſt
                <lb/>
              recto in angulo F G E, igitur reflectetur
                <lb/>
              infra FG per angulum FGE: quare quantò
                <lb/>
              maius eſt ſpeculum, & maior etiam ſuæ
                <lb/>
              ſphæræ portio, eò magis atque celeriùs ac­
                <lb/>
              cendit. </s>
              <s id="s.003083">Huius tamen generis ſpeculum non
                <lb/>
              procul ignem accendere poteſt, cum ſemper
                <lb/>
              in centro radij cogantur. </s>
            </p>
            <p type="margin">
              <s id="s.003084">
                <margin.target id="marg360"/>
              Speculum
                <lb/>
              concauum
                <lb/>
              quò maius,
                <lb/>
              eò faciliùs
                <lb/>
              accendit.</s>
            </p>
            <p type="main">
              <s id="s.003085">Supereſt tertia dubitatio non leuis. </s>
              <s id="s.003086">Quo­
                <lb/>
                <arrow.to.target n="marg361"/>
                <lb/>
              niam radij, qui ex parte E C à puncto
                <lb/>
              K reflectuntur, vt ex K procedens à
                <lb/>
              puncto D verſus H reflectetur, & ſaltem
                <lb/>
              illuminabit partes iuxta F, contra experi­
                <lb/>
              mentum. </s>
              <s id="s.003087">Euidens eſt hoc magis in radiis
                <lb/>
              ex B & C in K deductis. </s>
              <s id="s.003088">Cauſa huius eſt,
                <lb/>
              quod ſparguntur, nullúſque eſt perpendicu­
                <lb/>
              laris radius, luménque in F ingens obſuſcat
                <lb/>
              proximas partes: debilior enim eſt radius
                <lb/>
              ex concauo ſpeculo reflexus, quàm ex
                <lb/>
              plano, qui labitur, ſi non ſit perpendicu­
                <lb/>
              laris. </s>
              <s id="s.003089">Cauſæ igitur roboris radiorum ſunt,
                <lb/>
              per ſe coitio à perpendiculari, vt in ca­
                <lb/>
              uis ſpeculis. </s>
              <s id="s.003090">Proxima huic eſt reflexio à
                <lb/>
              perpendiculari abſque coitione, vt in pla­
                <lb/>
              nis ſpeculis directè Soli expoſitis. </s>
              <s id="s.003091">Tertia ſuc­
                <lb/>
              cedit, reflexio non à perpendiculari, ſed </s>
            </p>
          </chap>
        </body>
      </text>
    </archimedes>
Impressum