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

List of thumbnails

< >
231
231 		232
232
233
233 		234
234
235
235 		236
236
237
237 		238
238
239
239 		240
240
< >
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