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

Page concordance

< >
Scan Original
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
< >
page |< < of 701 > >|
    <archimedes>
      <text>
        <body>
          <chap>
            <p type="main">
              <s>
                <pb xlink:href="040/01/233.jpg" pagenum="215"/>
              nothing againſt one that ſhould affirm, that the principle of the
                <lb/>
              cular motions of grave and light bodies is an intern accident: I
                <lb/>
              know not how he may prove, that it cannot be a ſubſtance.</s>
            </p>
            <p type="main">
              <s>SIMP. </s>
              <s>He brings many Arguments againſt this. </s>
              <s>The firſt of
                <lb/>
              which is in theſe words:
                <emph type="italics"/>
              Si ſecundum (nempè, ſi dieas tale
                <lb/>
              pium eſſe ſubſtantiam) illud eſt aut materia, aut forma, aut
                <lb/>
              ſitum. </s>
              <s>Sed repugnant iterum tot diverſæ rerum naturæ, quales
                <lb/>
              ſunt aves, limaces, ſaxa, ſagittæ, nives, fumi, grandines, piſces,
                <lb/>
              &c. </s>
              <s>quæ tamen omnia ſpecie & genere differentia, moverentur à
                <lb/>
              naturâ ſuâ circulariter, ipſa naturis diverſiſſima, &c. [In Engliſh
                <lb/>
              thus]
                <emph.end type="italics"/>
              If the ſecond, (that is, if you ſhall ſay that this principle is
                <lb/>
              a ſubſtance) it is either matter, or form, or a compound of both.
                <lb/>
              </s>
              <s>But ſuch diverſe natures of things are again repugnant, ſuch as are
                <lb/>
              birds, ſnails, ſtones, darts, ſnows, ſmoaks, hails, fiſhes, &c. </s>
              <s>all
                <lb/>
              which notwithſtanding their differences in ſpecies and kind, are
                <lb/>
              moved of their own nature circularly, they being of their natures
                <lb/>
              moſt different, &c.</s>
            </p>
            <p type="main">
              <s>SALV. </s>
              <s>If theſe things before named are of diverſe natures, and
                <lb/>
              things of diverſe natures cannot have a motion in common, it muſt
                <lb/>
              follow, if you would give ſatisfaction to all, that you are to think
                <lb/>
              of, more than two motions onely of upwards and downwards: and
                <lb/>
              if there muſt be one for the arrows, another for the ſnails, another
                <lb/>
              for the ſtones, and another for fiſhes; then are you to bethink your
                <lb/>
              ſelf of worms, topazes and muſhrums, which are not leſs different
                <lb/>
              in nature from one another, than ſnow and hail.</s>
            </p>
            <p type="main">
              <s>SIMP. </s>
              <s>It ſeems that you make a jeſt of theſe Arguments.</s>
            </p>
            <p type="main">
              <s>SALV. </s>
              <s>No indeed,
                <emph type="italics"/>
              Simplicius,
                <emph.end type="italics"/>
              but it hath been already
                <lb/>
              ſwered above, to wit, that if one motion, whether downwards or
                <lb/>
              upwards, can agree with all thoſe things afore named, a circular
                <lb/>
              motion may no leſs agree with them: and as you are a
                <emph type="italics"/>
                <lb/>
              tick,
                <emph.end type="italics"/>
              do not you put a greater difference between an elementary
                <lb/>
              comet and a celeftial ſtar, than between a fiſh and a bird? </s>
              <s>and
                <lb/>
              yet both thoſe move circularly. </s>
              <s>Now propoſe your ſecond
                <lb/>
              gument.</s>
            </p>
            <p type="main">
              <s>SIMP.
                <emph type="italics"/>
              Si terra ſtaret per voluntatem Dei, rotaréntne cætera, an
                <lb/>
              non? </s>
              <s>ſi hoc, falſum eſt à naturâ gyrare; ſi illud, redeunt priores
                <lb/>
              quæſtiones. </s>
              <s>Et ſanè mirum eſſet, quòd Gavia piſciculo, Alauda
                <lb/>
              nidulo ſuo, & corvus limaci, petraque, etiam volans, imminere
                <lb/>
              non poſſet. [Which I thus render
                <emph.end type="italics"/>
              :] If the Earth be ſuppoſed to
                <lb/>
              ſtand ſtill by the will of God, ſhould the reſt of bodies turn round
                <lb/>
              or no? </s>
              <s>If not, then it's falſe that they are revolved by nature; if
                <lb/>
              the other, the former queſtions will return upon us. </s>
              <s>And
                <lb/>
              truly it would be ſtrange that the Sea-pie ſhould not be able to
                <lb/>
              hover over the ſmall fiſh, the Lark over her neſt, and the Crow
                <lb/>
              ver the ſnail and rock, though flying.</s>
            </p>
          </chap>
        </body>
      </text>
    </archimedes>
Impressum