Galilei, Galileo
,
The systems of the world
,
1661
Text
Text Image
Image
XML
Thumbnail overview
Document information
None
Concordance
Figures
Thumbnails
page
|<
<
of 948
>
>|
<
archimedes
>
<
text
>
<
body
>
<
chap
>
<
pb
xlink:href
="
065/01/050.jpg
"
pagenum
="
44
"/>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>SALV. </
s
>
<
s
>Now I remember the reſt, and to proceed, Methinks
<
lb
/>
there are ſome things in the anſwer of
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
Anti-Tycho,
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
worthy of
<
lb
/>
reprehenſion. </
s
>
<
s
>And firſt, if the two New Stars, which he can do
<
lb
/>
no leſs than place in the uppermoſt parts of the Heavens, and
<
lb
/>
which were of a long duration, but finally vaniſhed, give him no
<
lb
/>
obſtruction in maintaining the inalterability of Heaven, in that
<
lb
/>
they were not certain parts thereof, nor mutations made in the
<
lb
/>
antient Stars, why doth he ſet himſelf ſo vigorouſly and earneſtly
<
lb
/>
againſt the Comets, to baniſh them by all ways from the
<
lb
/>
ſtial Regions? </
s
>
<
s
>Was it not enough that he could ſay of them
<
lb
/>
the ſame which he ſpoke of the New ſtars? </
s
>
<
s
>to wit, that in
<
lb
/>
gard they were no certain parts of Heaven, nor mutations made
<
lb
/>
in any of the Stars, they could no wiſe prejudice either Heaven,
<
lb
/>
or the Doctrine of
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
Ariſtotle
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
? </
s
>
<
s
>Secondly, I am not very well
<
lb
/>
fied of his meaning; when he ſaith that the alterations that ſhould
<
lb
/>
be granted to be made in the Stars, would be deſtructive to the
<
lb
/>
prerogative of Heaven; namely, its incorruptibility,
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
&c.
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
and
<
lb
/>
this, becauſe the Stars are Cœleſtial ſubſtances, as is manifeſt
<
lb
/>
by the conſent of every one; and yet is nothing troubled that
<
lb
/>
<
arrow.to.target
n
="
marg127
"/>
<
lb
/>
the ſame alterations ſhould be made ^{*} without the Stars in the reſt
<
lb
/>
of the Cœleſtial expanſion. </
s
>
<
s
>Doth he think that Heaven is no
<
lb
/>
Cœleſtial ſubſtance? </
s
>
<
s
>I, for my part, did believe that the Stars
<
lb
/>
were called Cœleſtial bodies, by reaſon that they were in
<
lb
/>
ven, or for that they were made of the ſubſtance of Heaven;
<
lb
/>
and yet I thought that Heaven was more Cœleſtial than they; in
<
lb
/>
like ſort, as nothing can be ſaid to be more Terreſtrial, or more
<
lb
/>
fiery than the Earth or Fire themſelves. </
s
>
<
s
>And again, in that he
<
lb
/>
ver made any mention of the Solar ſpots, which have been
<
lb
/>
dently demonſtrated to be produced, and diſſolved, and to be
<
lb
/>
neer the Sun, and to turn either with, or about the ſame, I have
<
lb
/>
reaſon to think that this Author probably did write more for others
<
lb
/>
pleaſure, than for his own ſatisfaction; and this I affirm,
<
lb
/>
much as he having ſhewn himſelf to be skilful in the
<
lb
/>
ticks, it is impoſſible but that he ſhould have been convinced by
<
lb
/>
Demonſtrations, that thoſe ſubſtances are of neceſſity
<
lb
/>
ous with the body of the Sun, and are ſo great generations and
<
lb
/>
corruptions, that none comparable to them, ever happen in the
<
lb
/>
Earth: And if ſuch, ſo many, and ſo frequent be made in the
<
lb
/>
very Globe of the Sun, which may with reaſon be held one of the
<
lb
/>
nobleſt parts of Heaven, what ſhould make us think that others
<
lb
/>
may not happen in the other
<
lb
/>
<
arrow.to.target
n
="
marg128
"/>
</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
margin
">
<
s
>
<
margin.target
id
="
marg127
"/>
* Ex tra Stellas.</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
margin
">
<
s
>
<
margin.target
id
="
marg128
"/>
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
Generability and
<
lb
/>
alteration is a
<
lb
/>
greater perfection
<
lb
/>
in the Worlds
<
lb
/>
dies than the
<
lb
/>
trary qualities.
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>SAGR. </
s
>
<
s
>I cannot without great admiration, nay more,
<
lb
/>
al of my underſtanding, hear it to be attributed to natural bodies,
<
lb
/>
for a great honour and perfection that they are ^{*} impaſſible,
<
lb
/>
mutable, inalterable,
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
&c.
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
And on the contrary, to hear it to </
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>
<
arrow.to.target
n
="
marg129
"/>
</
s
>
</
p
>
</
chap
>
</
body
>
</
text
>
</
archimedes
>