Salusbury, Thomas, Mathematical collections and translations (Tome I), 1667

#### Page concordance

< >
< >
page |< < of 701 > >|
1nothing againſt one that ſhould affirm, that the principle of the
cular motions of grave and light bodies is an intern accident: I
know not how he may prove, that it cannot be a ſubſtance.
SIMP. He brings many Arguments againſt this. The firſt of
which is in theſe words: Si ſecundum (nempè, ſi dieas tale
pium eſſe ſubſtantiam) illud eſt aut materia, aut forma, aut
ſitum.
Sed repugnant iterum tot diverſæ rerum naturæ, quales
ſunt aves, limaces, ſaxa, ſagittæ, nives, fumi, grandines, piſces,
&c.
quæ tamen omnia ſpecie & genere differentia, moverentur à
naturâ ſuâ circulariter, ipſa naturis diverſiſſima, &c. [In Engliſh
thus] If the ſecond, (that is, if you ſhall ſay that this principle is
a ſubſtance) it is either matter, or form, or a compound of both.
But ſuch diverſe natures of things are again repugnant, ſuch as are
birds, ſnails, ſtones, darts, ſnows, ſmoaks, hails, fiſhes, &c.
all
which notwithſtanding their differences in ſpecies and kind, are
moved of their own nature circularly, they being of their natures
moſt different, &c.
SALV. If theſe things before named are of diverſe natures, and
things of diverſe natures cannot have a motion in common, it muſt
follow, if you would give ſatisfaction to all, that you are to think
of, more than two motions onely of upwards and downwards: and
if there muſt be one for the arrows, another for the ſnails, another
for the ſtones, and another for fiſhes; then are you to bethink your
ſelf of worms, topazes and muſhrums, which are not leſs different
in nature from one another, than ſnow and hail.
SIMP. It ſeems that you make a jeſt of theſe Arguments.
SALV. No indeed, Simplicius, but it hath been already
ſwered above, to wit, that if one motion, whether downwards or
upwards, can agree with all thoſe things afore named, a circular
motion may no leſs agree with them: and as you are a
tick, do not you put a greater difference between an elementary
comet and a celeftial ſtar, than between a fiſh and a bird?
and
yet both thoſe move circularly.
Now propoſe your ſecond
gument.
SIMP. Si terra ſtaret per voluntatem Dei, rotaréntne cætera, an
non?
ſi hoc, falſum eſt à naturâ gyrare; ſi illud, redeunt priores
quæſtiones.
Et ſanè mirum eſſet, quòd Gavia piſciculo, Alauda
nidulo ſuo, & corvus limaci, petraque, etiam volans, imminere
non poſſet. [Which I thus render:] If the Earth be ſuppoſed to
ſtand ſtill by the will of God, ſhould the reſt of bodies turn round
or no?
If not, then it's falſe that they are revolved by nature; if
the other, the former queſtions will return upon us.
And
truly it would be ſtrange that the Sea-pie ſhould not be able to
hover over the ſmall fiſh, the Lark over her neſt, and the Crow
ver the ſnail and rock, though flying.