ClagettArchimedesIIIPart3 PDF

ARCHIMEDES
in the Middle Ages

VOLUME THREE
THE FATE OF THE MEDIEVAL ARCHIMEDES
1300 to 1565
PART Ill: The Medieval Archimedes in
the Renaissance, 1450-1565
MARSHALL CLAGETT
THE AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY
Independence Square
Philadelphia
1978
i
I
t
I l'
i
I
1"
PART III
The Medieval Archimedes in the
Renaissance, 1450-1565
CHAPTER 1
The Medieval Archimedes Toward
the Middle of the Fifteenth Century
I. Nicholas of Cusa
It is not my intention in this volume to chart the full spread and influence
of Archimedes in the Renaissance, although this is a most important sub-
ject and ought to receive more precise consideration than it has in the past.
Rather, I should like to complete my study of the role played by the
Moerbeke translations and other versions of Archimedes in the Middle
Ages by showing their continuing life in the Renaissance, trying to deter-
mine how much of the new Archimedes was still dependent on the old.
This continuing influence is not merely a fancy, for it will become evident
from our study that a good many Renaissance authors still drew some of
their Archimedean knowledge from the medieval traditions and that in
fact the first published complete Archimedean texts were those of the
Moerbeke translation.
I have already discussed such authors as Leonardo de Antoniis of
Cremona and Giovanni Fontana who belong to the first half of the
fifteenth century exclusively and who seem to belong wholly to the
medieval traditions. It is now my intention to investigate authors writing
toward the middle of the century. The first of these is the celebrated
Nicholas of Cusa. Cusa's treatment of Archimedes, never extensive,
can be divided into two chronological periods. The first lies before 1453
and includes those works which show some knowledge of the medieval
Archimedes but no precise knowledge of the actual Archimedean
texts. The second-following 1453-reveals some knowledge of the
actual texts. We know that just before the composition of his De mathe-
maticis complementis (Book I completed in 1453 and Book II in 1454)
Nicholas of Cusa received from Pope Nicholas V the text of the newly
translated corpus of Archimedean works, for Cusa dedicates his work to
the Pope and, among other things, tells us:
1
I Nicholaus Cusanus, Opera, Vo!. 2 (Paris, 1514), 59r (cf. the edition of P. WiJpert
drawn from the edition of Strasbourg of 1477, Nikolaus von Kues, Werke, Vo!. II [Berlin,
1967], p. 388): 'Tradidisti enim mihi proximis diebus magni Archimedis geometrica,
297
f--
298 ARCHIMEDES IN THE MIDDLE AGES
For you have in recent days transmitted to me the geometrical works of the great
Archimedes, presented to you in Greek and converted into Latin by your
endeavor. They appeared to me so remarkable that I was able to become versed
in their subject only with great diligence; and the result of this was that I was able
by my endeavor and labor to add something to them and I decided to offer it to
Your Holiness.
This translation was, without doubt, the translation ordered by Nicholas
V and executed by Jacobus Cremonensis (see below, Chapter 2, Section
I). We see a number of traces of the influence of this translation on
Nicholas of Cusa in the preparation of the De mathematicis complementis.
For example, in one place
2
we are told that Archimedes has proved that
the surface of a sphere is equal to four of its great circles, which Nicholas
had presumably read in Archimedes' On the Sphere and the Cylinder,
Book I, Proposition 33 (Prop. 31 in the Cremonensis translation). Nicholas
also tells us later in the same work
3
that' 'from Archimedes you have the
art of reducing every segment of a sphere to a plane circle," an obvious
reference to Book I, Propositions 42-43 (Props. 40-41 in the Cremonensis
translations) of the same work. Further, we are told a few lines later,
". . . Archimedes in the Quadrature of the Parabola has already made
clear how that surface can be reduced to a square, showing that the surface
bounded by a straight line and the section of a right-angle cone is four-thirds
the triangle having as its base the straight line of the parabola and as its
altitude [that] of the parabola. "4 Needless to say, the source of this state-
ment was Proposition 17 of On the Quadrature of the Parabola, no doubt
as rendered in the new translation rather than in that of Moerbeke.
Nicholas also speaks in the same work of the use of a spiral line for the
rectification of a curved line:
5
graece tibi praesentata et tuo studio in 1atinum conversa, quae mihi tam admiranda visa
sunt: ut cura (! circa) ipsa non nisi magna cum diligentia versari potuerim; ex quo id effectumest:
ut meo studio et labore complementum aliquod illis addiderim, quod tuae sanctitati offerre
decrevi." (Punctuation in this and succeeding passages from Cusa's works has been slightly
altered.) Cf. also Schriften des Nikolaus von Cues im Au!trage der Heidelberger Akademie
der Wissenscha!ten in deutscher Ubersetzung, ed. of E. Hoffmann, Vol. 11: Die mathe-
matischen Schriften, tr. of Josepha Hofmann with introduction and notes by J. E.
Hofmann (Hamburg, 1952), pp. 68-69. I have followed this volume for the dates of the
various mathematical writings of Nicholas of Cusa. Note that all of my page references
to Volume 2 of the 1514 edition of Cusanus' works are to the second set of page numbers
in that volume.
2 Opera, Vol. 2, 72r: ". . . et ab maximus circulus, cuius quatuor superficies aequantur
superficiei spherae, ut probat Archimedes."
3 Ibid., 77v: "Et quoniam ex Archimede artem habes, omnem portionem superficiei
spherae in circularem planam reducendi. . . ."
4 Ibid., "Ex quo iam patefecit Archimedes in quadratura parabolae: quomodo super-
ficies ilia potest in quadratam reduci, ostendens superficiem illam ex recta et sectione
coni rectanguli esse sesquitertiam ad triangulum habentem basim ipsam rectam parabolae
et altitudinem ipsius parabolae." (Note: I have capitalized Archimedes in the first line.)
5 Ibid., 59r: "Testimonio omnium qui se ad geometrica contulerunt: nemo propinquius
Archimede ad circuli pervenit quadraturam, qui videns illam attingi non posse nisi curva
NICHOLAS OF CUSA AND ARCHIMEDES 299
On the testimony of all who have concerned themselves with geometry no one
has come closer to the quadrature of the circle than Archimedes, who, seeing that
it could only be done if a curved circular line were converted into a straight line,
attempted to demonstrate this procedure by means of a spiral. But because the
ratio of the motion of a point from the center through the radius to the motion
in which another point is moved in the same time through the circumference
(without which the spiral cannot be described) is the same as the ratio of the
radius to the circumference, which is not known but which is sought, hence it
seems that he has failed [in his objective]. For it will be easier to square the
circle than to describe a spiral and to apply a tangent to it at the end of its revolu-
tion. Therefore, this art [of rectification], on the basis of what Archimedes has left
[to us], remains up to now completely obscure.
It might be thought at first glance that Nicholas composed this critique
after consulting On Spiral Lines in the translation given to him by
Nicholas V. However, as we shall indicate below, this same criticism of
the Archimedean procedure was already given by Nicholas in his
Quadratura circuli, composed in 1450 and thus was probably written
before he had examined the new translation. Hence, it appears that we
should look elsewhere for his knowledge of On Spiral Lines as represented
by the criticism presented in the De mathematicis complementis.
The first evidence of Archimedean knowledge on the part of Nicholas
of Cusa appears in the De geometricis transmutationibus of 1445, although
it is worth noting that Archimedes is not mentioned by name in that tract.
The initial passage of interest is that in which the so-called Platonic
solution of the problem of finding two proportional means between two
given lines is presented:
6
circularis linea in rectam resolvatur, nisus est hanc artem mediante helica ostendere. Sed
quia proportio motus signi a centro per semidiametrum ad motum in quo in eodem tempore
aliud signum per circunferentiam movetur, sine qua helica describi nequit, se habet ut semi-
diameter ad circunferentiam quae non est scita sed quaeritur, hinc videtur ipsum defecisse.
Facilius enim erit circulum quadrare quam helicam describere et contingentem eidem in fine
circulationis applicare. Remanet igitur es iis quae Archimedes reliquit haec ars adhuc
penitus abscondita." (Note: I have capitalized Remanet.) (Cf. Wilpert edition cited in note
1, pp. 388-89.)
6 [bid., 42v: "Tertium praemissum. Tertium quod ante mittendum asservi est: quomodo
inter duas lineas rectas duae mediae continue proportionales statuantur. Iamdudum notis-
simum fuit, si datae duae lineae simul iunctae diametri circuli fiant et eas chorda ortho-
gonaliter separavit, quod semichorda est medio loco inter ipsas proportionalis, quoniam
semichorda inter sagittamet residuum diametri mediare necessarium est. Si igitur duae lineae
indefinitae longitudinis, ut ab et cd, se orthogonaliter secuerint in e puncto, et de e versus
d minorem lineam signavero quaesit ef, et de e versus a maiorem quae sit eg, descrip-
seroque duos semicirculos: unum super centro in linea ec puta k, alium super centro in
linea ea puta h existente, hac quadam advertentia quod arcus semicirculi cuius centrum
reperitur in ea linea concurrat cum arcu alterius semicirculi in linea eb et linea ec puta
punctis i et l, nemo haesitare potest ei et el mediare, ex praemissa notissima regula unici
medii proportionalis, inter ef et eg. Unde ut in praxi haec media facile attingas, habeto
gnomonem atque lineam unam quae ad latus gnomonis applicata rectum angulum efficiat.
Et iuxta praemissa duas indefinitae quantitatis lineas fac invicem orthogonaliter secare.
Ponas deinde rectum angulum gnomonis super lineam eb et latus unum super f punctum,
300' ARCHIMEDES IN THE MIDDLE AGES
The Third Premise. A third thing which I have previously asserted as necessary
to premise is this: How to insert between two straight lines two continually pro-
portional means. It was already well known that, if two given lines which are
joined together become the diameter of a circle, and a chord orthogonally drawn
divides them, then the semichord is the mean proportional between them since
the semichord necessarily is a mean between the versine and the rest of the
diameter. Therefore, if two lines of indefinite length, such as ab and cd [see Fig.
IlL1. 1], intersect orthogonally in point e, and from e in the direction of d I mark
off a shorter line eJ, and from e in the direction of a [I mark off] a greater line eg,
and I describe two semicircles: one on center k in line ec and the other on center h
in line ea, with this warning that the arc of the semicircle which is found on line ea
intersects the arc of the other semicircle in points 1 and i, respectively, of lines
eb and ec, no one can hesitate [to say] that ei and el are the means between eJ and
eg, following the well-known premised rule of one mean proportional. Hence,
in order to find these means easily in a practical way, take a gnomon [i.e.,
carpenter's square] and a straight line which when applied to the side of the
gnomon produces a right angle. And, according to the things premised, cause
two lines of indefinite length to intersect orthogonally. Then you place the right
angle of the gnomon on line eb and one side on pointJ and note where the other
side cuts line el. Apply the rule [i.e., the line] of which I spoke to the side at
that point so that it produces a right angle. If this rule passes through point g
you have what is sought. If not, move the gnomon up or down on line eb until
the rule does [pass through point g], and you have the two means which you seek.
Several other methods can be easily found by one who wishes to exert effort. But
this method, since it is clear, may suffice for the present.
It is immediately evident that the ultimate source of this passage is
Eutocius' Commentary on the Sphere and Cylinder ofArchimedes, Book
n, Proposition 1. This could have been read by Nicholas directly in the
Vatican manuscript of the Moerbeke translations, or, which is more likely,
in Johannes de Muris' De arte mensurandi (see above, Part I, Chapter 3).
Another possible source is the treatment of the Platonic solution in the
Verba filiorum , Proposition XVII, of the BanG Ml1sa (Vol. 1, p. 340). But
since the use of the gnomon is not so apparent in the treatment of the
Banl1 Ml1sa as it is in 'the Moerbeke translation or its adaptation in the
De arte mensurandi, we can probably rule out the Verba filiorum as the
source of Nicholas' discussion. The final reference by Nicholas to "several
other methods" seems to confirm the conclusion that the Verba filiorum
alone was not the source of Nicholas' description of the Platonic solution
of the problem since only one other solution is given there, while two other
methods are mentioned in the De arte mensurandi and eleven others are
et nota ubi reliquum latus secuerit lineam ec. Applica ibi regulam ad latus de quo dixi, ut
rectum angulum efficiat. Si haec regula per g transierit, habes quaesitum. Si non, gnomonem
in eh attrahe, vel elonga, quousque ita evenerit, et habes ilia duo media quae inquiris.
Possunt quidem et alii plerique modi de facili inveniri per eum qui studium adhibere voluerit.
Sed hie modus, cum clams sit, ad praesens sufficiat." (In addition to altering the punc-
tuation and occasionally capitalizing a word, I have also italicized the letters marking the
lines.)
given in Eutocius' Commentary. It is of course possible that Nicholas
knew both the Verba./iliorum and the De arte mensurandi, which together
would justify his statement that several methods can be found. As between
the De arte mensurandi and the direct Moerbeke translation, I prefer the
De arte mensurandi as Nicholas' source for two reasons. In the first
place, the De arte mensurandi (or at least the hybrid quadrature tract
included in the eighth chapter of the De arte mensurandi) was in all
probability the source of Nicholas' rather inadequate knowledge of the
use of a spiral line in the rectification of a curved line, as I shall argue below,
and hence the work seems to have been known to Nicholas (and, of
course, the existence of several Italian manuscripts of the De arte
mensurandi is an indication that it was known in Italy). In the second
place, Nicholas reveals, at this time, almost no knowledge of the other
Archimedean tracts included in the Moerbeke corpus.
7
Of course, even if
Nicholas did draw his knowledge of the proportional means problem
from the De arte mensurandi, it could have been from a fragmentary
version of the pertinent proposition like that of MS Bern, Stadtbibl. A.50,
176v-77r (see above, Introduction to Part I, Chapter 3, note 7).
A further passage from the De geometricis transmutationibus gives the
basic conclusion of Proposition 1 of the De mensura circuli of Archi-
medes but without reference to Archimedes:
8
7 One could put forth the argument that Nicholas saw the Moerbeke codex when it was
in the hands of his friend Paolo Toscanelli. But then one must first establish that Toscanelli
did possess the Vatican manuscript of Moerbeke's translations. Heiberg has argued this
in the affirmative on the basis of a remark concerning the end of Book I of On the Equi-
librium of Planes added by Regiomontanus to his copy of Jacobus Cremonensis' transla-
tion: "male stat. vide exemplar utrumque Domini Niceni grecum et latinum. vide etiam
exemplar vetus apud magistruin Paulum." (MS Nuremberg, Stadtbibl. Cent. V.15, p. 139;
cf. Heiberg, Archimedis opera, Vol. 3, p. LXXI.) Heiberg reasoned (correctly, I believe)
that the expression "exemplar vetus" could only refer either to Greek codex A or to
the Vatican manuscript of the Moerbeke translations. But Heiberg's further argument is
weaker, when he argues against the first possibility solely on the basis of the probability
that Cosimo di Medici, who knew Toscanelli well, would have taken possession of such
a valuable old codex if it was a Greek manuscript, but there is no evidence that Cosimo' s
library ever contained an old codex of Archimedes. Hence, according to Heiberg, it was
the Moerbeke codex that Paolo possessed. But even if one accepts this doubtful reasoning
and concludes that Toscanelli did have the Moerbeke manuscript in his possession (and
I shall give further arguments below for this possibility) it seems unlikely that Cusanus had
examined it as early as 1445, for, in the passage quoted above from the De mathematicis
complementis, composed in 1453, he expresses his wonder and admiration for the geometrical
tracts of Archimedes in the new translation sent to him recently by Pope Nicholas V.
If he had already examined the Moerbeke codex closely enough to make extracts from
Eutocius' Commentary on the Sphere and the Cylinder and from Archimedes' On Spiral
Lines, he could hardly have reacted in this fashion, for the Moerbeke codex contained
almost as many works as did the new translation. Some would perhaps say that, by the
time he wrote his Idiota de staticis experimentis (1450) he had seen the Moerbeke codex,
for in the De staticis he was clearly cognizant of the Principle of Archimedes. But I have
argued against this opinion below.
8 Ibid., 45r: "Superficiem circularem si in rectilinealem transmutare proponis, primo eius
peripheriam curvam in rectam resolvito. Deinde semidiametrum peripheriae ad rectum
(," b
~ I
If you propose to transform a circular surface into a rectilinear one, first you
transform the curved perimeter into a straight line. Then join the radius to the
circumference at a right angle. By completing the triangle the circular surface
is turned into a triangular one. If [you wish to transform it] into a quadrangle
or a square, it is easy to transform the triangle. For a circle is squared if you
construct a mean proportional between the radius and the semicircurrlference and
then make a square out of that. Now it has been demonstrated by those who
are more subtle that from the product of the radius and the semicircumference
arises a rectangle which is neither greater nor less than the area of the circle.
For the product of the radius of a circle inscribed in a polygon by the semiperimeter
of the circumscribed polygon is equal to the area of the circumscribed polygon
and it is greater than the area of the inscribed circle. And the product of the radius
of a circumscribed circle and the semiperimeter of the inscribed polygon is
greater than the area of the inscribed polygon and it is less than the area of the
circumscribed [circle]. Therefore, the product of the radius and the semicircum-
ference of the circle can be neither more nor less than the area of the circle.
But if you seek to transform the area of a rectilinear surface into a circular one,
first transform the circular surface into a polygon (for example, a square) by
means of what has already been stated and make the radius of the circle one line
and the side of the square another line. Then square the given rectilinear surface
and make its side a third line. And you will find the fourth line by the fourth
premise [re the finding of a fourth proportional] and it will be the radius of the
circle which you seek.... Now if you wish (to find] the area of a sector of a
circle, whether it is relatable by a [rational] ratio to the whole surface or not,
you have the procedure when you multiply one-half of the sector's arc (which
has been converted into a straight line) by the radius.
Although it is evident, as I have said, that Nicholas demonstrates in this
passage a knowledge of the first proposition of the De mensura circuli,
the actual Archimedean proof is missing. It might be thought at first glance
that Nicholas transformed the proof attributed by Alexander of Aphro-
disias and Themistius to Bryson, for this proof was available in the
angulum iungito, trigonum claudendo et versa est circularis superficies in trigonam. Si
in tetragonam et quadratam, hoc ex trigono facile est. Circulus enim quadratur si inter
semidiametrum et medium peripheriae lineam medio loco proportionalem costam feceris et
quadraveris. Ostensum enim est a subtilioribus per multiplicationem semidiametri in medi-
etatem peripheriae aream quadrangulam exurgere quae nec maior nec minor erit area circuli.
MUltiplicatio enim semidiametri circuli inscripti polygoniae in medietatem peripheriae poly-
goniae circunscriptae areae polygoniae circunscriptae aequatur et maior est area circuli
inscriptio Et multiplicatio semidiametri circuli circunscripti in medietate[m] peripheriae poly-
goniae inscriptae maior est area polygoniae inscriptae et minor area circunscriptae. Quare
mUltiplicatio semidiametri in medietatem peripheriae circuli nec maior nec minor esse poterit
area circuli. (45v) Si vero quaeris aream superficiei rectilinealis in circularem transmutare,
primo circularem resolvito per iamdicta in polygoniam, puta in quadratam, et semidiametrum
circuli facito lineam unam, costam quadrati aliam. Deinde superficiem rectilinealem datam
quadra et costam eius facito lineam tertiam. Et secundum quartum praemissum quartam
lineam reperies, quae erit semidiameter circuli quaesiti.... Si vero quaeris quam-
cunque proportionem superficiei circularis inter sectores cadentem, sive ilIa propor-
tionalis sit ad superficiem totam sive non, artem habes, arcum inter sectores interceptum
resolvendo in rectam et semidiametrum in medietatem eius multiplicando.
medieval Latin translation of Themistius' Paraphrasis of the Posterior
Analytics of Aristotle (see Vo!. 1, pp. 427-48). In Themistius' account,
Bryson's proof emerges as an existence proof which held (1) that the circle
is greater than all inscribed rectilinear figures and less than all circum-
scribed rectilinear figures, (2) that there exists a rectilinear figure inter-
mediate between all the inscribed and circumscribed figures, (3) and that
since both the intermediate rectilinear figure and the circle are greater than
all the inscribed figures and less than all the circumscribed figures, there-
fore (4) the intermediate rectilinear figure is equal to the circle. But I am
more inclined to think that Nicholas thought that he was getting at the
essence of the Archimedean proof by his attention to the product of radius
and semiperimeter in the inscribed and circumscribed figures. And
indeed when he says that it has been demonstrated' 'by those who are more
subtle that from the product of the radius and the semicircumference
arises a rectangle which is neither greater nor less than the area of the
circle" this resembles the basic point of departure of Archimedes'
indirect proof. It is only Nicholas' inept and fuzzy support of the indirect
argument that is difficult to understand in any account presumably based
on Archimedes. It is true that the product of the radius and the semi-
perimeter of a circumscribed polygon does play a role in the second
half of Archimedes' proof as does the fact that such a polygon, since it
includes the circle, is greater than it, and both of these considerations are
mentioned in Nicholas' support of the first half of the indirect proof,
namely, ! er ::t> Area of Circle. But this is all that Nicholas gives. Com-
pletely missing is the crucial part of Archimedes' proof to the effect that a
circumscribed polygon can be constructed such that the difference
between it and the circle is less than any assigned surplus of l er over the
area of the circle. The similar crucial part of the Archimedean proof is
also missing in Nicholas' support of the second half of the indirect proof:
1;2 er <t:: Area of Circle. Hence, we must conclude that if Nicholas had
read Archimedes' proof he certainly gave a hasty and inaccurate account
of it. In fact the mention of both inscribed and circumscribed circles
seems out of place in the Archimedean argument and is reflective of
Nicholas ofCusa's highly original determination of an isoperimetric circle,
which we shall briefly note below.
But if Nicholas' summary, however badly presented, was taken from
Archimedes, we are hard put to decide which of the many versions of the
De mensura circuli Nicholas read. It may be that he simply knew of the
brief treatment of the problem in Bradwardine' s Geometry (see Vo!. 1,
pp. 33-35). Or perhaps he knew of the Questio de quadratura circuli of
Albert of Saxony where the Archimedean procedure appears but is joined
also to a free interpretation of Bryson's reasoning (ibid., p. 407). Need-
less to say, Nicholas' instruction for the conversion of the triangle to the
square by means of the mean proportional between the radius and the
semicircumference is a commonplace in the context of the quadrature
problem, existing as it did in Bradwardine' s Geometry and in many of the
versions oftheDe mensura circuli (ibid., pp. 35,62). It is offurther interest
that Nicholas in this passage also gives the corollary on the area of a sector
on a circle that first appears as Corollary 11 to Proposition I of the
De mensura circuli in the Gerard of Cremona translation (ibid., p. 46).
Finally, we should note that the reverse problem of converting a square
to a circle mentioned by Nicholas was suggested in Proposition 15 of the
hybrid quadrature tract inserted in Chapter 8 of the De arte mensurandi,9
although admittedly the procedure was somewhat differently presented
by Nicholas.
Before leaving theDe geometricis transmutationibus we should examine
some propositions that bear on our consideration of Nicholas' early
Archimedean knowledge:
lO
1. For a quadrangular column is reduced to a cube as follows. If its base is
not a square, let it be squared by the proportional mean between its unequal
sides, so that, following the third premise, two continually proportional lines
are inserted between the side of the base square and the altitude of the body.
And if the altitude is greater than the side of the square, the lesser mean is the
side of the base of the cube which we seek. But if the side of the square
is greater than the altitude, the larger mean is the side of the cube which we
9 MS Paris, BN lat. 7380, 64y: "15
a
. Dato quadrato equum circulum figurare. Hec est
conyersa precedentis. Sit quadratum datum BD, cui circumscribatur circulus AC per 9 4
i
.
Sitque circulus AC equalis quadrato K per precedentem. Et fiat sicut circulus AC ad quad-
ratum K ita aliquis circulus qui P ad quadratum BD. Igitur conyersim sicut quadratum
K ad circulum AC ita quadratum BD ad circulum P. Nunc autem quadratum K equale
est circulo AC per ypothesim; ergo et quadratum BD circulo P. Que est igitur proportio
quadrati K ad circulum A C, ea est quadrati BD ad circulum P. Ergo permutatim que est
quadrati K ad quadratum BD, ea est circuli AC ad circulum P. Sed proportio quadrati
K ad quadratumBD nota est ex I8
a
6
1
Igitur et circuli AC ad eum qui P. Si igitur quadrati
ad quadratum dupla fuerit et circuli ad circulum. Igitur est propositum. Explicit quadrati
circulatura." As in my earlier texts of the De arte mensurandi, I have capitalized
the letters designating geometrical magnitudes although they are small letters in the manu-
script. Note that this proposition was added later to the basic hybrid quadrature tract,
as I have pointed out in Part I, Chapter 5.
10 Chapter Ill, in Opera, Vo!. 2, 47y: "Nam columna quadrangula in cubum sic reducitur.
Basis eius si quadrata non fuerit, quadretur per medium proportionale inter duo dissimilia
eius latera, ut inter latus basis quadratae et longitudinem corporis constituantur duae (48r)
continue proportionales lineae secundum tertium praemissum. Et si longitudo maior fuerit
latere quadrati, minus medium est latus basis cubi quaesiti. Sed si latus quadrati fuerit
maius longitudine, maius medium erit latus basis cubi quaesiti. Si aequale, iam cubus
habetur. 2. Si columna rotunda fuerit, quadretur basis et procedatur ut iam dictum est.
3. Si cubum in spheram transmutare velis, reduc superficiem quadratam cubi in circulum
et ilium facito maiorem circulum spherae.... (48v) 8. Si autem spheram in pyramidem
transmutare quaeris, fac quod basis pyramidis aequetur curvae superficiei spherae et eius
altitudo semidiametro spherae. 9. Si quis dixerit, sunt spherae duae quarum maior est
dupla ad minorem, transfer ilIas in rotundam columnam, fac quod columnae altitudo sit
ut diameter spherae maioris et basis ut maior circulus ipsius spherae. IlIa etenim columna
ambabus aequabitur spheris. Nam columna cuius altitudo diametro spherae et basis maximo
circulo eiusdem spherae aequatur sesqu(i>altera est ad spheram."
seek. If equal, the cube is already had. 2. If the column is round [i .e., is a
cylinder], let the base be squared and proceed as has already been described
[in Proposition 1]. 3. If you wish to transform a cube into a sphere, reduce the
squared surface ofthe cube into a circle and make it a great circle of the sphere....
8. If you wish to transform a sphere into a pyramid, make the base of the pyramid
equal to the curved surface of the sphere and its altitude the radius of the sphere.
9. If anyone says: "there are two spheres of which the greater is double the
lesser; convert them into a cylinder," [proceed as follows]. Make the altitude of
the cylinder be as the diameter of the larger sphere and the base [of the cylinder]
be as a great circle of the sphere. Now that cylinder will be equal to both spheres,
for a cylinder whose altitude is equal to the diameter of a sphere and whose
base is equal to the greatest circle of the sphere is three-halves the sphere.
Again one sees no mention of the name of Archimedes. The first proposi-
tion starts off with a procedure based on the conversion of a rectangle
(proved to be equal to a circle inDe mensura circuli, Proposition I, which
Nicholas does not specifically mention) into a square by finding a single
proportional mean between the sides of the rectangle. Then Nicholas con-
verts the rectangular parallelepiped whose base is square into a cube by
means of his third premise that assured the insertion of two mean
proportionals between two lines, in this case the lines being the side of
the square base and the altitude of the body. In the second proposition
Nicholas merely converts the cylinder into a "quadrangular column" by
squaring the base circle and then refers to the procedure of Proposition
1 for the conversion of the "quadrangular column" into a cube. The pro-
cedure of converting a "quadrangular column" into a cube by the use of
proportional means had already been outlined in Chapter 7 of the De arte
mensurandi.
ll
All of this is preliminary, on Nicholas' part, to the curious
third proposition concerning the conversion of a cube into a sphere. In
the first place, it is not clear what Nicholas means by the expression
"the squared surface of the cube." 12 I cannot find any way to interpret
it to reveal a correct understanding by Nicholas of the Archimedean
formulation for the volume of a sphere. This is particularly strange since
it is evident that Propositions 7 and 8 (here quoted) show a knowledge
of the correct formulation. For the eighth proposition assumes that a sphere
is equal to a pyramid whose base is the area of the sphere and whose
altitude is its radius. This demonstrates that Nicholas knew that the volume
of a sphere is equivalent to 47Tr
3
/3 (if I may represent the Archimedean
formulation in modern symbolic form). Nicholas may have framed his
11 MS Paris, BN lat. 7380, 54v: "22. Datum solidum rectangulum cubicare.... sicut
una columna quadrilatera cuius utraque basis est quadrata. Haque due dimensiones, scilicet
longitudo et latitudo, sunt equales [et utraque esta]. Tertia autem longior hiis [et estg] . ...
Inter lineas a et g duas medias proportionales per 16 huius collocare labora, quarum minor
sit d. Dico quod sub d cubice continetur cubus est equalis solido. . . ."
12 For J. E. Hofmann's interpretation of this expression as the area of a single face of
the cube, see Nikolaus von Cues, Die mathematischen Schriften, pp. 196-97, n. 46. One
then ends up with a
3
= Y:;'7Tr
3
rather than 47Tr
3
/3.
proposition by drawing on one of the practical manuals described above
in Part Il, Chapter 2, Sections II and Ill, or on Proposition XV of the
Banii Miisa's Verba filiorum (Vo!. 1, p. 332) or on Savasorda, Liber
embadorum (Appendix I, Sect. 3, A[5]), or on Leonardo Fibonacci,
Practica geometrie (ibid., B[8]), or on Proposition IX of the De curvis
superficiebus (Vo!. 1, p. 502) or on Propositions 10 and 15 of Chapter 10
of the De arte mensurandi (see above, Part I, Chapter 6). Proposition 8
in this passage of Nicholas is equally revealing of the correct formula-
tion, for it directly states the Archimedean proposition (On the Sphere and
the Cylinder, Proposition 1.34 [Prop. 1.32 in the Cremonensis translation])
that the cylinder having as its base a great circle of the sphere and as its
altitude a diameter of the sphere is equal to three-halves the sphere.
This proposition he could have drawn from a number of medieval sources:
(1) the fragment from the introduction to On the Sphere and the Cylinder,
probably translated by Gerard of Cremona (Vo!. 1, p. 436); (2) the Practica
geometrie of Leonardo Fibonacci (Appendix I, Sect. 3, B[lO]); (3) the
De curvis superficiebus Archimenidis of Johannes de Tinemue (Vo!. 1,
p. 496); and (4) the De arte mensurandi, Chapter 10: Proemium and
Proposition 10 (see above, Part I, Chapter 6, Proemium, 1.33 [=Gr. 1.34]
and Proposition 10). Or it could have been deduced from the propositions
in one or another of the geometrical manuals. It will be noticed from my
discussion of these propositions of Nicholas that had he read the De arte
mensurandi he would have been in the position to develop all of these
propositions except the erroneous Proposition 3.
It is with the next mathematical work of Nicholas of Cusa, the De
arithmeticis complementis, written in the winter of 1445, that we find the
name of Archimedes specifically mentioned for the first time: 13
There were very zealous men-and Archimedes seems to be the leading one-
who demonstrated that the ratio of the circumference of a circle to the diameter
is more than 3
1
/71 and less than 3
1
170 and they have demonstrated that a con-
tinually more precise approximation could be made.
This is, of course, Proposition III oftheDe mensura circuli of Archimedes.
Once more, we have a wide range of possible sources for Nicholas' knowl-
edge of this proposition: (1) the translation of the De mensura circuli,
probably by Plato of Tivoli (Vo!. 1, p. 24); (2) the translation of the same
work by Gerard of Cremona (ibid., p. 48); (3) the Florence version of
the De mensura circuli (ibid., p. 112); (4) other scattered versions of
Proposition III of the De mensura circuli (ibid., p. 96, n. 6); (5) the sixth
proposition of the Verba filiorum (ibid., p. 276); and (6) the De arte
13 Opera, Vol. 2, 54r: "Fuerunt viri diligentissimi, quorum princeps videtur Archimedes.
qui ostenderunt circunferentiam circuli triplam in habitudine ad diametrum additis plus
decem septuagesimis primis ipsius diametri et minus decem septuagesimis. et hanc pro-
pinquitatem praecisiorem continue fieri posse ostenderunt." Cf. Nicholas' De caesarea
circuli quadratura, translated into German from the manuscripts in Nikolaus van Cues.
Die mathematischen Schriften, p. 158.
mensurandi, Chapter 8 (see above, Part I, Chapter 4). One might think
at first that it could not have been only the last of these sources that
Nicholas knew since there is no specific mention in Chapter 8 of the
De arte mensurandi of the name of Archimedes in connection with the
determination of the problem. However, one might well infer that the
determination was done by Archimedes from the previous statements in
Chapter 6 of the De arte mensurandi (see Part I, Chapter 4, note 1).
It could well be that Nicholas' reference to an increasingly precise approxi-
mation was drawn from the Verbafiliorum, which tells us that Archimedes'
method yields a ratio "which is an approximation to any limit the in-
vestigator of this subject desires" (Vol. 1, p. 265). Or the inference of
further more precise approximations might have had its source in the state-
ment at the end of the text determining 'TT in Chapter 8 of the De arte
mensurandi (lines 139-41).
The next of Nicholas' mathematical works, and probably the last before
he sawthe new translation given to him by Nicholas V, was the Quadratura
circuli, dated December, 1450. After a brief opening statement, we are
told:
14
We have not read of anybody who has come closer to a knowledge of this [i.e.,
the quadrature of the circle] than Archimedes, who first demonstrated that the
rectangle in which the radius of a circle is multiplied by the semicircumference
is equal to the circle. This necessarily follows so long as that quantity which is
neither greater nor less is judged to be equal. For in the case of all regular iso-
perimetric polygons-and we speak only of these in this book-if the radius of
the inscribed circle is multiplied by the semiperimeter an equal rectangle is pro-
duced. But Euclid has demonstrated that a proportional mean between the radius
and the semi perimeter can easily be constructed. Hence since such a mean is the
side of an equivalent area and we know which straight line is equal to the
circumference of the circle, the quadrature of the circle is also known; and this
is a quite certain demonstration. But when Archimedes believed that he had found
by means of a spiral line the last part [of the protasis, namely, the rectification
of the circumference], in truth he failed. For a spiral cannot be described except
14 See Quadratura circuli published with Johannes de Regio Monte, De triangulis erc.
(Nuremberg, 1533), p. 5 (separate pagination): "'Non legimus quenquam propinquius
accessisse ad huius noticiam quam Archimedem, qui primo quadrangulum circulo aequari
ostendit: in quo semidiameter circuli ducta est in mediam periferiam. Hoc quidem sic esse
necesse est, si hoc censendum est esse aequale, quod nec maius nec minus esse convincitur.
In omnibus enim poligoniis, issopleuris et issoperimetris, de quibus solum in hoc scripto
loquimur, semidiameter circuli inscripti si ducitur in medietatem periferiae, oritur quad-
rangulum aequale. Posse autem inter semidiametrum et medietatem periferiae medium pro-
portionale facile constitui, Euclides ostendit. Quare tale cum sit latus quadrati aequiva-
lentis, conscito quae linea recta aequetur periferiae circuli, scitur et eius quadratura, et
haec est certior ostensio. Sed dum per elicam hanc ultimam partem se reperisse crederet
Archimedes, a vero defecit. Elica enim describi nequit, nisi signum a centro per semi-
diametrum in tanto tempore moveatur, in quanto semidiameter pro circuli descriptione cir-
cumvolvitur. Descriptio igitur elicae hos motus supponit, quorum habitudo est ut semi-
diametri ad circumferentiam. Praesupponit igitur, id quod quaerit. Citius enim recta dari
potest circulari lineae equalis, quam elica vera figurari."
by a point which is moved from the center through the radius in the same
time that the radius describes a circle in revolution. Therefore, the description
of the spiral supposes two motions related to each other as the radius to the
circumference. Therefore, he assumes that which he seeks. For a straight line
can be given as equal to a circular line more easily than a true spiral can be
drawn.
Thus he singles out the basic conclusion of Archimedes regarding the
equality of the circle to the product of the semicircumference and the
radius in a loose manner but one similar to his exposition in the
De geometricis transmutationibus . He justifies this on the basis that, in the
case of isoperimetric regular polygons, the area is equal to the product
of the radius of an inscribed circle and the semiperimeter of the polygon.
Further, we know from his manifold interest in isoperimetric figures that
he considered the circle as the maximum of such isoperimetric polygons.
Hence, if we have a regular polygon of n sides and n goes to infinity,
the result is a circle whose area is equal to the product of the radius
and the semicircumference. The concept of the isoperimetric circle played
a large part in his individual treatment of quadrature.
15
It is after this
brief reference to Archimedes' demonstration of the equality of the circle
and rectangle that Nicholas gives his criticism of what he supposed to be
Archimedes' procedure for the rectification of a circular line. This criticism
of Archimedes' procedure of rectification by means of a spiral as apetitio
principii is here presented by him for the first time.
16
As we have seen,
15 For a good exposition of Cusanus' use of isoperimetric figures and the relation of his
quite individualistic treatment of quadrature and the rectification of curved lines to his
philosophy, see J. E. Hofmann's introduction to Nikolaus von Cues, Die mathematischen
Schriften, pp. XV-XXIV. Hofmann suggests that Cusa learned of the doctrine of isoperim-
eters from Bradwardine's Geometria. However, he could have easily learned of it from the
quite popular De ysoperimetris, translated from the Greek (see Vol. 1, pp. 630-32). As
I have said earlier, reference to isoperimetric figures in a treatment that purports to repre-
sent the Archimedean proof seems superfluous. This was the opinion of Jean Borrel (Buteo)
who criticizes this whole passage in his De quadratura circuli libri duo, ubi multorum con-
futantur, et ab omnium impugnatione defenditur Archimedes (Lyons, 1559) p. 120: "Totum
propositum huiusmodi, quam ostensionem vocat, ita corrumpitur per ilIa verba 'isopleuris
et isoperimetris', ut nihil ad rem pertinent. Constat enim ex dimensionis [Archimedis]
theoremate primo, omne polygonon descriptum circa circulum esse aequale triangulo
orthogonio, in quo quae quidem ex centra linea aequalis est uni earum quae circa rectum
angulum, basis autem perimetro polygoni. Sed non intelligens Cusanus hoc esse verum
universe in omne polygono descripto circa circulum, dixit se tantum loqui 'in polygonis
isopleuris et isoperimetris,' propter hoc igitur, et etiam quia non adiecit, 'circa circulum
descriptis,' nee cui sit aequale rectangulum, et propositio nulla atque ridicula. Nam aequi-
angula polygona si isopleura simul et isoperimetra fuerint, ipsa sunt invicem aequalia, et
perinde est acsi dixisset: 'Aequalia inter se polygonia eidem rectangulo sunt aequalia.' "
(I have changed the punctuation slightly.)
16 While Nicholas' estimate that the Archimedean procedure is apetitio principii is unjust,
his statement later in the De mathematicis complementis (see above, note 5) indicating
the difficulty of actually applying a tangent to the end of the spiral has merit for
a geometer of his period. Needless to say, Archimedes did not present Proposition 18
of On Spiral Lines as a construction problem. Cf. the defense of Archimedes in Borrel,
it also appeared three years later in the De mathematicis complementis
(and in fact he repeats the criticism once more in the De mathematica
perjectione)Y The fact that in 1453 Nicholas stated that he had received
the new Archimedean translation in recent days (proximis diebus) seems
to me to rule out the possibility that he had already seen that translation
in 1450 before composing his Quadratura circuli. If this is correct, then
Nicholas will have had his knowledge of On Spiral Lines from a source
other than the translation of Jacobus Cremonensis. There are, I believe,
two possible sources: the full Moerbeke translation or the abbreviated
version found in the hybrid quadrature tract appearing in Chapter 8 of the
De arte mensurandi. I have already suggested that it does not seem likely
that Nicholas had access to the complete Moerbeke corpus, since there
is no evidence of any knowledge of the many other works included in
the Moerbeke corpus. Still it is possible that he read On Spiral Lines in
a manuscript like Vat. Reg. lat. 1253, which includes the Moerbeke transla-
tion of On Spiral Lines without any of the other works of Archimedes
(see Volume Two, page 68). But I think it more probable that Nicholas
took his knowledge from the hybrid quadrature tract in the De arte
mensurandi. For in his criticism he seems to suggest that rectification
of the circular line is the object of Archimedes' propositions in the On
De quadratura circuli, p. 121: "His igitur omissis ad ea quae dicuntur in Archimedem
veniamus.... Nisi cui sit alioquin nota materies, non constabit ex verbis istis sensus
authoris, qui talis est. Archimedes defecit a vero, dum credit se per helicen invenisse
lineam rectam aequalem peripheriae circuli. Huius reprehensionis occasio non aliunde venit,
quam quod ignoravit Cusanus id quod non est apud Geometras impossibile, scilicet aliquid
posse demonstrare, quanuis non detur ad ipsum. Exempli gratia. Discretam quantitatem
aliquam esse, ex cuius in seipsam multiplicatione proveniat decem, non esset operosum
demonstrare, hanc tamen dare unquam possit. Quoniam non est in verum natura. Et Archi-
medes in dimensione circuli demonstravit, qUali nam trigono sit aequalis circulus, sed huius
circuli (! trigoni?) non dedit. Idem etiam in Helicis semel atque iterum id de quo nunc
agitur ostendit, quae nam scilicet linea recta sit aequalis peripheriae circuli, ne (122) que
tamen tradit modum, quo talis linea detur. Hoc igitur non inteIligens Cusanus Archi-
medem a vero deficisse pronunciat, neque demonstrationem ipsius refellens, neque con-
trarium ipse demonstrans, quod plane temerarius est, ne dicam etiam stultum. Huius
tamen sententiae rationem quandam affere conatur, quae talis est. Lineam rectam aequalem
peripheriae circuli per helicen inveniri non posse, quoniam helicis descriptio propter quosdam
suppositos motus est difficilis, ut magis possit talis recta linea dari, quam helix vere figurari.
Fateor equidem non esse tarn expeditum helicen describere quam circulum, si quis tamen
helicis definitionem, et accidentia, prout ab Archimede traduntur, intelligat, parum hic
difficultatis inveniet, perspicietque Cusanum ita loqui de motibus helicis, ut non intelligat
quid sit helix. Et manifestum esse calumniam id quod in Archimedem concludit, inquiens
'Praesupponit igitur id quod quaerit.' Unde autem hoc absurdum colligat in Archimedem
Cusanus ipse viderit. Egocerte video, multique mecum(ut spero) videbunt Cusanum carpere,
quod non intelligit. Et haec sint in defensionem Archimedis praemissa."
17 Opera, Vol. 2, I02v: "Archimedes etenim qui perhelicam voluit rectam circumferentiae
circuli commensurare: nihil de arte tetigit; nec id invenit in dicto particulari quod quaesivit,
peccavit enim, praesupponens quod quaesivit. Elica enim sive spiralis linea sine motu
duorum punctorum quorum motuum habitudo est ut semidiameter ad circunferentiam
circuli describi nequit. Id igitur supposuit dum de helica loqueretur, quod quaesivit."
Spiral Lines. Such is not true of the whole On Spiral Lines, but is true
for its adaptation found in the hybrid quadrature tract (see above, Part I,
Chapter 5) which joins thirteen of the first eighteen propositions of On
Spiral Lines to the first proposition of On the Measurement of the Circle.
Hence, we ought to say, I believe, that in the instance of his discussion
of the spiral, his road to Archimedes was through the Moerbeke transla-
tion as modified and rearranged in the Circuli quadratura of 1340.
We should note finally in connection with this last passage on the spiral
that Nicholas has here given us the Archimedean definition of the spiral
when he declared that it is produced by the motion of a point on the
radius simultaneous with the complete revolution of the radius. However,
in this definition he left out the Archimedean specification that the recti-
linear and angular movements are uniform. In his two later repetitions of
his critique of the Archimedean procedure in the De mathematicis com-
plementis and the De mathematica perfectione (see notes 5 and 17) he
not only left out the Archimedean specification of uniform motions but
he altered the definition of the spiral to a line produced by the simul-
taneous motion of two points, one on the radius and one on the circum-
ference (and indeed this is also implied in the sentence following his
definition of the spiral in the first critique). He makes this change to high-
light the petitio principii he purports to find in Archimedes' procedure,
namely that the motions producing the spiral bear to each other the ratio
of the radius to the circumference.
So much then for the geometrical knowledge that Nicholas of Cusa
drew from the medieval Archimedes. Our investigation will hardly benefit
from a discussion of his manifold efforts to solve the quadrature of the
circle by other than Archimedean procedures, although they are of con-
siderable interest and stand at the beginning of a long line of efforts to
use methods other than Archimedes' to calculate 7T. 18 But we should not
18 Once more I must call attention to the penetrating account given by J. E. Hofmann
in the introduction and notes to Nikolaus von Cues, Die mathematischen Schnften, of
Nicholas' views on quadrature and his numerical approximations of the ratios of curved
lines to straight lines. On the whole, Hofmann defends Cusanus against his critics beginning
with Regiomontanus. The problem of quadrature and that of rounding off isoperimetric
figures to produce the so-called isoperimetric circle played a crucial role in Cusa's mathe-
matics, as Hofmann has so well shown. Hofmann computes the value of 'TT involved in
the various methods of rectification given by Cusa: p. 191, 'TT = = 3.1423 (the Archi-
5v'2T
medean bounds expressed in the decimal system are 3117 = 3.1429 and 3
10
171 = 3.1409); p. 207,
-.!.- = H60 + 5f60
2
+ 38(60
3
+ . . . (the Archimedean bounds for -.!.- ,expressed in the sexagesimal
11' 11'
system, are 7/22 = 19/60 + 5160
2
+ 27/603 + .... and 71/223 = 1%0 + 6160
2
+ IV60
3
+. . .. ); p.
243, 11' = 18 = 3.1402. Cf. also pp. 216, 232. I have given below (Chapter 2, Section
4+V3 .
11) Regiomontanus' recasting of one of Cusa's methods of quadrature. J. E. Montucla,
Histoire des mathematiques, Vol. 1 (Nouv. ed., Paris, 1799), p. 538, considers Nicholas
of Cusa as a poor geometer and refuses to discuss his works. But later (Vo!. 4, pp. 621-22)
terminate our consideration of possible Archimedean influences on the
works of Cusanus without examining his De staticis experimentis, com-
pleted at Fabriano on September 13, 1450.
19
For this work, by revealing
an understanding of the Principle of Archimedes, might seem to have been
influenced by Nicholas of Cusa' s reading of Archimedes' On Floating
Bodies. If such were true, it would be an indication that the Cardinal had
consulted Moerbeke's holograph (or some copy of it), since Moerbeke's
translation of the work was the only form of it available in the Renaissance.
As a prelude to evaluating its possible Archimedean influences, I should
like to give some of the crucial passages which exhibit Nicholas of Cusa' s
hydrostatic understanding (the numbers in brackets I have added for the
purpose of discussion):20
he wrongly assigns to Nicholas a rolling technique for rectification which he calls "un
moyen ingeniux." He describes it as follows: "it faisoit rouler un cercle sur un plan ou
une ligne, et supposant que sa circonference s'y appliquoit continuellementjusqu'a ce que le
point qui l'avoit d'abord touchee la touchat de nouveau; il en concluoit avec raison que
cette ligne seroit egale a la circonference." However, Montucla is in error, for Nicholas
did not use the rolling technique (see below, Chap. 6, Sect. IV, n. 9).
19 Nicolaus de Cusa, Idiota de staticis experimentis, ed. of L. Baur in Opera omnia
iussu et auctoritate Academiae Litterarum Heidelbergensis ad codicum edita (Leipzig,
1937), p. VI: "Tractatus 'De staticis experimentis' completus est Fabriani die 13. Septembris
1450, notant codices Sa T E 0 et a p b."
20 Ibid., pp. 120,123-25: "IDIOTA. Si igitur mensura aquae unius fontis non est eiusdem
ponderis, cuius est similis mensura alterius, iudicium diversitatis naturae unius et alterius
melius statera quam alio attingitur instrumento.... ORATOR. Arbitraris sic in omnibus
esse, uti dixisti in aqua? IDIOTA. Arbitror certe. Nam nequaquam est eiusdem ponderis
identitas magnitudinis quorumcumque diversorum.... (p. 123) ORATOR. ... Sed
quaeso, si totius hominis pondus in comparatione ad aliud aliquod animal quaereres,
quomodo procederes? IDIOTA. Hominem in libra ponerem, cui simile pondus appenderem
in alia parte. Deinde hominem in aquam mitterem, et iterum extra aquam ab alia parte
aequale appenderem, et diversitatem ponderum annotarem, faceremque itidem cum animali
dato, et ex varia diversitate ponderum quaesitum annotarem. Post hoc attenderem ad
ponderum hominis et animalis diversitatem extra aquam; et secundum hoc moderarem in-
ventum et conscriberem. ORATOR. Hanc moderationem non capio. IDIOTA. Ostendam
tibi, inquit. Et accepto ligno levi, cuius pondus ut tria, et aquae eiusdem magnitudinis ut
quinque, ipsum in duas divisit inaequales partes, quarum una habuit duplam magnitudinem,
alia simplam; ambas in cuppam altam posuit et cum fuste tenuit ac aquam superfudit; et
fuste retracta ascenderunt ligna ad aquae superficiem, et maius lignum citius quam minus.
Ecce, aiebat, tu vides diversitatem motus in identitate proportionis ex eo cvenire, quia
in levibus lignis in maiori est plus levitatis. ORATOR. Video et placet multum. IDIOTA.
Sic dico moderationem fieri debere. Si enim homo ob magnitudinem super animal plus
gravitatis haberet, chius in aqua quam animal eiusdem proportionis descenderet. Quare tunc
oporteret moderationem repertae differentiae diminuendo proportionaliter fieri secundum
excessum. ORATOR. Intelligo nunc. Sed dicito: quomodo resistit aqua, ne descendat
lignum? (p. 124) IDIOTA. Ut maior gravedo minori. Quare, si lignum rotundum in ceram
presseris et extraxeris locum aqua implendo, et huius aquae pondus similiter et ligni
notaveris, comperies, si pondus ligni excedit pondus aquae, lignum descendere, si non,
natare et super aquam partem proportionalem ligni manere secundum excessum ponderis
aquae super pondus ligni. . . . ORATOR. Subtiliter multum audivi, inquit orator, aliquando
hoc ingenio metallorum differentiam repertarn, atque nonnullos annotasse, quantum fusio
unciae cerae colligit auri, argenti, cupri et ita de omnibus metallis. IDIOTA. Laudandus
[1] Idiot. If, therefore, a measure of the water of one fountain is not of the
same weight as a like measure [of the water] of another [fountain], the judgment
of the diversity of their natures is better attained by a balance than by any other
instrument. . . . Orator. Do you think it is the same with all things as you have
described it in the case of water?
Idiot. I certainly think so. For identical quantities of any different things have
different weights....
[2] Orator. . . . But I should like to know how you would proceed if you were
seeking the weight of a whole man in comparison with [that of] any other animal.
Idiot. I would put the man on [one side of] a balance and hang an equal weight
on the other side. Then I would put the man into water and then again I would
hang an equal weight on the side [of the balance which would be] outside of the
water, and I would note the diversity of weights [of the man in and out of the
water]. I would do the same with the given animal and from the diversity of
weight I would note what was sought. Mter this I would note the diversity of the
weights of the man and animal outside of the water. Accordingly, I would adjust
what I found and write it down.
[3] Orator. I do not understand this adjustment. Idiot. I shall show you, he says.
And having taken a light piece of wood, whose weight was as three, and water
ofthe same volume, [whose weight was] as five, he divided the former into unequal
parts, one being double the size of the other. He placed both [parts] into a tall
bowl, and holding them down with a stick, he poured water over them. Then
when the stick was withdrawn, the two pieces of wood ascended to the surface
of the water, and the larger piece more quickly than the smaller. Then he said:
Behold you see a diversity of motion arising, in the identity of the ratio, from the
fact that in larger light pieces of wood there is more lightness. Orator. I see it
and it pleases me greatly. Idiot . I say that adjustment ought to be so accomplished.
For if a man by means of his [greater] size over an animal would have more
gravity, he would descend more quickly in the water than an animal of the same
ratio [of his weight with respect to the water]. Hence it would be necessary
that an adjustment of the known difference [in the size] be accomplished by
diminishing the excess proportionally.
[4] Orator. I understand now. But tell me how the water resists the descent of
the wood. Idiot . As the greater heaviness [resists] the lesser. Hence, if you press
a round piece of wood into wax and then remove, filling the [impressed] place
with water; and if you note the weight of the water and also that of the wood,
you will find that if the weight of the wood exceeds the weight of the water, the
wood descends. If not, it floats and a part of the wood remains above the
water in proportion to the excess of the weight of the water over the weight of
the wood....
[5] Orator. I have heard a very subtle thing, says the Orator: [that] sometimes
est ille, qui per fusionem magnitudinem intelligit. Vidit enim, si aurum tantum loci occuparet,
quantum uncia cerae, quod tunc eius pondus tale foret. Ita de aliis metallis. Nam cer-
tissimum est aliud esse pondus auri, aliud argenti et ceterorum in aequalitate magnitudinis;
et aliud cuiuslibet pondus in aere, aliud in aqua, aliud in oleo aut alio liquore. Unde, si
quis pondera ilia omnia (p. 125) signata teneret, ille profecto sciret, quantum unum metallum
est gravius alteri in aere et quantum in aqua. Hine, data quaeumque massa, per ponderum
eius diversitatem in aere et aqua scire posset, cuius metalli massa foret et cuius mixturae.
Et sicut dictum est de aere et aqua, ita etiam de oleo dici posset aut alio quocumque
humore, in quo experientia facta fuisset. "
by this device the difference [in specific weights] of metals is found, and that
some people have noted how much the melting of an ounce of wax collects of
gold, silver, copper-and so of all metals. Idiot. He is to be praised who under-
stands the magnitude [of metals] by the melting [of wax]. For he sees that, if the
gold occupies as much space as an ounce of wax, then its weight would be such
and such. Similarly for other metals. For it is very certain that for an equal
volume gold has one weight, silver and other [metals have still other] weights.
And anything has one weight in air and another in water, and [still] another
[weight] in oil or another liquid. Hence, if anyone would have all of these weights
designated, he would know in advance how much one weight is heavier than
another in air and how much in water. Hence, whatever mass were given, by
means of the differences in its weights in air and water, he could know of what
metal and of what mixture the mass is. And in the same way that we have
spoken of air and water, so also [we can speak] of oil or any other fluid in
which the experiment has been made.
It is immediately apparent as we examine these paragraphs that Nicholas
of Cusa never cites Archimedes nor uses the strictly geometrical approach
of the genuine On Floating Bodies. Furthermore, the substance of all
of these statements, except perhaps his doctrine of' 'adjustment," is con-
tained in the medieval sources of hydrostatics which we have detailed
above in Part I, Chapter 7. We saw there ample sources for the general
knowledge of specific weight exhibited particularly in Nicholas' Paragraph
[1] and generally throughout these paragraphs. He did not use the expres-
sion "specific weight." Rather in Paragraph [1] he related what is clearly
specific weight to variation in the nature of bodies, as the medieval Liber
de ponderoso related it to the different "kinds" of bodies.
The example given in Paragraph [2] of comparing the specific weight
of a man and an animal was an original one with Nicholas of Cusa but
the instruction to use the procedures of the hydrostatic balance had mul-
tiple medieval antecedents from the time of the Carmen de ponderibus
onward.
21
Paragraph [3], which purports to clarify Cusanus' theory of
"adjustment" is a curious one. He was clearly worried about the fact
that the sizes of his comparable bodies were not the same, as they were in
all of the medieval texts which he could have read. It is as if he were
rejecting the implied conclusion (never explicitly stated by the medieval
texts) that bodies of the same specific weight but unequal volumes and
hence of unequal gross weights ought to ascend or descend with the same
velocity in water. Hence, I believe that Nicholas was attempting to extend
and perhaps correct a possible implication in the various medieval treat-
ments that connect hydrostatics and the velocity of bodies in a fluid.
His specific recommendation is that we have to adjust the equality of ratios
of the specific weights of the bodies to the fluid by attention to variation
in gross weight due to variation in size or volume. His explanation for
the necessity of this adjustment is that there is more lightness in a larger
21 Clagett, The Science of Mechanics. p. 90.
piece of wood than in a smaller one. The same adjustment is necessary
for heavy bodies in their variable descents in water. His "experiment"
of holding the two pieces of wood at the bottom by means of a
stick is like that given by Blasius of Parma in Part 111 of his Tractatus
de ponderibus. 22
With respect to Nicholas of Cusa's mention of wax in determining
specific gravities in the first part of Paragraph [4] and the first part of
Paragraph [5], we should note the references to the use of wax in the
Carmen de ponderibus and also in the section of MS Paris, BN lat. 12292
that gives figures for the comparison of the weights of wax and severai
metals replacing it in fusion.
23
Also in Paragraph [4], Cusanus remarks
that the portion of a floating body that remains above the water is pro-
portional to the excess of [specific] weight of the water over the wood,
a statement which reflects ultimately the genuine On Floating Bodies
but which also appeared in several medieval treatises: (1) the Paris manu-
script of De ponderibus Archimenidis, (2) Johannes de Muris' Quadri-
partitum numerorum, (3) Oresme's Questiones super de celo, (4) Albert of
Saxony's Questiones super de celo, and (5) Blasius of Parma's Tractatus
de ponderibus. 24 It no doubt is also found in other commentaries on
Aristotle's De celo written in the fourteenth century. In short, it was a
medieval commonplace. Finally, Cusanus' Paragraph [5] reflects in a
rather imprecise way the medieval concern with the determination of the
contents of mixtures and alloys by the consideration of specific gravities.
This concern was particularly reflected in theDe ponderibus Archimenidis
and Johannes de Muris' Quadripartitum numerorum.
25
All of these simi-
larities between Cusanus and his predecessors lead us to the conclusion
that Nicholas of Cusa's hydrostatic knowledge derived from medieval
sources other than Moerbeke' s translation of On Floating Bodies.
One final passage in Nicholas of Cusa's Idiota de staticis experimentis
is relevant to our treatment of his knowledge of Archimedes. This con-
cerns his recommendations for the use of the balance in the determination
of the areas and volumes of geometrical figures. The Orator asks' 'What
do you think of geometry?" and the Idiot replies:
26
22 See above, Part t, Chap. 7, n. 19.
23 Clagett, The Science of Mechanics, p. 90. For the Latin text of this collection of metal
equivalents of one ounce and one pound of wax, see M. Curtze, "Die Handschrift No.
14836 der K6nig!. Hof- und Staatsbibliothek zu Munchen," Abhandlungen zur Geschichte
der Mathematik. 7. Heft (1895), p. 139 and W. Theobald, ed. and tr., Technik des Kunst-
handwerks im zehnten lahrhundert des Theophilus Presbyter Diversarum artium schedula
(Berlin. 1933). pp. 303-04. This has been reduced to tabular form with modem computa-
tions by C. S. Smith and J. G. Hawthome, Mappae clavicula: A Little Key to the World
of Medieval Techniques in Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, Vo!. 64
(1974), Chap. 194-A. pp. 56-57.
24 See above, Part 1, Chap. 7, notes 11-12, 14-15, 18-19.
25 See below. Part Ill, Chap. 6, Sect II and Appendix t, Sect. 4.
26 De staticis experimentis, ed. cit., p. 138: "ORATOR. Quid censes de geometria?
IDIOTA. Arbitror proportiones propinquas circuli et quadrati et alia omnia, quae ad differ-
entiam capacitatis figurarum spectant, aptius per pondera quam aliter experiri posse.
Nam si feceris vas columnare notae diametri et altitudinis et aliud cubicum eiusdem diametri
I think that the approximate ratios of the circle and the square and all other
things relating to the difference in capacity of figures can more fittingly be found
by means of weights than by any other way. For if you make a columnar vase
of known diameter and altitude and a cube of the same diameter and you fill
both of them with water, and then weigh them, you will know by means of
the diversity of the weights the ratio of the square to the circle in which it is in-
scribed, and [hence] by this [procedure you can give] an approximate guess at the
quadrature of the circle, and whatever else about this you wish to know. Simi-
larly, if you take two completely equal sheets and bend one of them around
into a circle (thus producing a columnar vase) and the other into a square (thus
fabricating a cubical vase), and you fill these vases with water, you will know
by the difference in weights the differing capacity of a circle and a square of the
same perimeter. Similarly, if you have several such sheets, you will be able to
investigate the differing capacities of a triangle, a pentagon, a hexagon and so on.
This passage reminds us of other rather different efforts in approximating
quadrature by physical means suggested by the author of the Corpus
Christi version of the De mensura circuli, by Albert of Saxony in his
Questio de quadratura and by Nicole Oresme in his Questiones super de
spera.
27
The passage should also be compared with the "pouring tech-
nique" recommended later by Francesco Maurolico.
28
I should only
remark here that the solution of two different types of problems is involved
in Cusa's statement. The first solution, this one of quadrature, is to fashion
a cylinder (which we can designate as A .h, with A being the area of
the base circle and h the altitude of the cylinder) and similarly a cube
(which we can represent by h 'd
2
/2, where d is the diameter of the base
circle of the cylinder and also the diagonal of one face of the cube), and
we fill them with water, weigh the contents of each and find some given
ratio of weights k; thenA = kd
2
/2 and so we have an approximate quad-
rature of the base circle of the cylinder. The second problem is the old
Greek and medieval problem of the capacity of isoperimetric figures,
which so intrigued Cusanus.29 If we take equal sheets and bend them
around into various figures, then the equal width becomes successively
the perimeters of the various isoperimetric figures whose ratios of capaci-
ties we seek. If we place bottoms on the bent sheets and fill them with
water, the ratios of the weights of water will be as the ratios of the
areas of the bases, since the height of each sheet is the same. Thus we
have an approximation for the ratios of the isoperimetric figures.
et altitudinis et utrumque aqua impleveris et ponderaveris, nota tibi erit ex diversitate
ponderum inscripti quadrati ad circulum, cui inscribitur proportio, et per hoc propinqua
coniectura circuli quadratura, et quidquid circa hoc scire cupis. Sic si duas receperis laminas
penitus aequales, et unam in orbem flexeris vas columnare efficiendo, et aliam in quadratum
vas cubicum constituendo, et aqua vasa ipsa impleveris: scies ex differentia ponderum
differentiam capacitatis circuli et quadrati aequalis peripheriae. Ita si plures tales laminas
habueris, poteris in trigono, pentagono, hexagono et ita deinceps capacitatis differentias
investigare. "
27 See above, Part I, Chap. 7, notes 28-29. For the Corpus Christi and Albert of Saxony
Versions, see Volume 1, pp. 166,399,562.
28 See below, Chap. 5, Text B, Modus alius quadrandi.
29 See above, notes 15 and 18.
II. Leon Battista Alberti
Like Nicholas of Cusa, the famous quattrocento figure Leon Battista
Alberti was a friend of Pope Nicholas V. He was also a friend and con-
fident of the mathematician Luca Pacioli whose knowledge of Archimedes
we shall discuss in the next chapter. There is little in the printed works of
Alberti to connect him with the medieval Archimedes. Such interest as
Alberti had in geometry was apparently in the applied geometry of the
practical handbooks. Such applied geometry appears in his De' Ludi
matematici, dedicated to Meliaduso d'Este between 1450 and 1452.
1
The one firm link to Archimedes is provided by the last chapter of the
Ludi which treats of the famous crown problem described by Vitruvius.
It is evident, however, that Alberti is more than repeating Vitruvius'
account since he gives the substance of Book I, Propositions 5-7, and
perhaps Proposition 1 of Book II of the genuine On Floating Bodies
without naming that work. He could have read Moerbeke's translation
of that work (which, we shall see in the next chapter, was probably
in Rome about the time of the dedication of the Ludi). But it is much
more likely that he gleaned the essence of these propositons from their
other medieval tradition described in some detail above in Part I,
Chapter 7. At any rate, Alberti's concern with the specific gravities of
metals he certainly drew from the medieval tradition described there.
Here are Alberti' s remarks:
2
1 C. Grayson and C. G. Argan, "Alberti, Leon Battista," Dizionario biografico degli
italiani, Vol. 1 (Rome, 1960), pp. 702-13, at p. 706. P. H. Michel, Un Ideal humaine
au XV" siecle. Le Pensee de L. B. Alberti (1404-1472) (Paris, 1930), p. 32, says that
this dedication was made in 1450.
2 L. B. Alberti, De' Ludi matematici, inOpere volgari, Vol. 4, ed. of A. Bonucci (Florence,
1847), Chap. XX, pp. 438-39: "Esposizione del famoso problema della Corona. Ancora
piglierete piacere di questo cbe gli antichi scrissero, come !erone principe di Siracusa fece
certa opera d'oro di molto peso e di gran magistero, qual fatta rispondea nella bilancia
al peso dell' oro quale egli aveva dato a' maestri, ma intese ch'e'maestri artefici dell'
opera l'avevano ingannato e non era tutto illavoro di oro ma era misto d'argento. Irato
!erone non voleva peril guastare il lavoro ma voleva certificarsi; commise ad Archimede
Matematico questa causa. Arcbimede uomo sottilissimo senza muovere 0 guastare nulla
tutto vide manifesto, et ecco it modo. Fece due masse d'uno medesimo peso quanto fu
1'0pera fatta da' maestri, e di queste due masse l'una fu puro oro, l'altra puro argento:
posele nell' acqua in vasi a una grandezza e natura simili e pieni a un modo, e vide
che differenzia restava di quest' acqua nel vaso quando ponendovi questa massa l'acqua
traboccava fuori e si versava, e cosi posevi poi l' opera; e proporzionando i pesi loro
insieme trovo certo il vero in tutto illavoro e fu ingegno molto acuto.
"Quanto pesi I'acqua a proporzione dell'oro non scrissono gli Antichi, peroccbe l'acque
sono varie, ma trovo bene scritto quanto a proporzione della cera pura pesino tutti i metalli,
e dicono che un dado 0 palla 0 qual forma si sia di certa grandezza di cera se pesi un'oncia,
questa medesima sendo di rame puro ciprino pesera oncie (!) 8 e denari 1. E se sara stagno,
pesera once 12, se sara piombo pesera once 18 e denari 6, se sara ora pesera libb. 1 e
once 7 e denari 9: di qui si puo facile cognoscere quanto pesi piu 1'0ro nell'acqua
che l'argento, e la ragione e evidente, siccbe qualunque corpo essendo pari a misura con
l' acqua e in se pesi meno, questo bisogna stia tanto sollevato e a galla quanto il suo peso
sara minore; e stara pari immerso nell'acqua, quanto pari tanta quantita d'acqua sara di
peso pari a lui. E quelli corpi che in se pesano piu cbe I'acqua staranno sotto; e quanto
316
LEON BATTISTA ALBERTI AND ARCHIMEDES 317
An exposition of the famous problem of the crown. Take further pleasure in
this, that the Ancients have written how Hieron, Prince of Syracuse, had [ordered]
made a certain gold work of much weight and great art. When completed, it corre-
sponded [on weighing] in a balance to the weight of gold which he had given
to the masters, but he understood that the master artificers of the work had
defrauded him and that the work was not completely gold but was mixed with
silver. Hieron was irate. Still he did not wish to impair the work [by
separating out the gold]. However, he did want to have it authenticated. So
he commissioned the mathematician Archimedes for this task. Archimedes, a
very subtle man, saw clearly [how to do this] without impairing or altering it
in any way. And this was his method. He prepared two masses of the same
weight as the work made by the masters-one of the masses being pure gold
and the other pure silver. He placed them in water, in vases of the same volume
and similar in nature, and he saw that a different amount of water remained in
the vase when, having placed [each] mass [in a vase], the water overflowed
and spilled out. He then placed the work [in a similar vase full of water]
in the same way. And comparing their weights together he found the true and
certain contents of the work; and this was a most clever device. How much the
water weighed in relation to the gold the ancient writers had not stated, since
waters vary [in specific gravity]. But I have found it well described how much
all the metals weigh in relation to pure wax. And they say that, if a cube of
wax or a ball, or whatever form, so long as it is of a certain quantity weighs
one ounce, the same volume of pure Cyprian copper will weigh 8 ounces plus
1 denarius. And if it is tin, it will weigh 12 ounces; if it is lead it will weigh
18 ounces plus 6 denarii; if it is gold it will weigh 1 pound, 7 ounces and 9
denarii. From this it can be easily recognized how much more the gold weighs
in water than the silver, and the reason is evident. So that, if any body equal
in volume with water weighs less than it, it will be lifted up and float [above
the water] by the amount its weight will be less. It will be just immersed in the
water [i.e. submerged to its top surface] if the [same] quantity of water is equal
to it in weight. And those bodies which weigh more than the water will sink.
And by the amount that they weigh more by so much more swiftly will they
descend and occupy less of the water, assuming they are of the same figure and
form.
In discussing Nicholas of Cusa's De staticis experimentis I have already
commented on the role played by .wax in medieval determinations of
specific gravities -of metals and have pointed to a work that included a
list of such specific gravities so determined. It is obvious that Alberti is
referring to such a list. It is also apparent that Alberti followed the medi-
_eval tradition developed by the De ponderibus Archimenidis, Johannes
de Muris, Nicole Oresme, Albert of Saxony, and Blasius of Parma in
linking together hydrostatics and the velocity of fall through a fluid.
Alberti's statement of that link is clear and unequivocal and resembles the
piu peseranno tanto piu veloci descenderanno e meno occuperanno dell' acqua sendo tutti
d'una figura e forma." See the new edition by C. Grayson (not published when I wrote
this section): Opere vo/gari, VoI. 3 (Bari, 1973), pp. 171-72. It includes the weight equiva-
lent of pure copper (as well as pure Cyprian copper), which was missing in the earlier text:
8 ounces, 16 denarii. For lead it has 1 pound, 6 denarii instead of 18 ounces, 6 denarii. The
title "Esposizione etc." is not in the Grayson edition and there are many small spelling
differences.
similar statement later made by Tartaglia in his Italian version of Book I
of On Floating Bodies (see Chapter 4, Section II below). Alberti's cau-
tion that the bodies compared must be of the same figure and form reminds
us of the similar statement of Blasius of Parma, which I gave above in
Part I, Chapter 7.
Before leaving our consideration of Alberti, we should note that he
may have been the author of the paraphrased version of the Hippocratic
quadrature of lunes that appears in a single manuscript of the De' Ludi
matematici (see Text C in Appendix II below). If indeed it was written
by Alberti, then it constitutes the only example of theoretical geometry
preserved in Alberti's writing.
3
Of the other mathematicians writing about 1450 and earlier, certainly
the one with the greatest reputation was Paolo Toscanelli, whose possession
of an exemplar vetus of Archimedes we have already mentioned in note
7 of Section I. This exemplar was either Moerbeke's holograph or Greek
manuscript A. Unfortunately, Toscanelli's geometrical knowledge is
largely a closed book, since, except for a short tract directed to Nicholas
of Cusa, no geometrical work has survived.
4
We are told that Paolo was
already an expert in mathematics when he returned to Florence in 1424
and Vasari has Toscanelli as the master of Brunelleschi in mathematics.
5
But the latter has no place in our study. Nicholas of Cusa, who also
studied mathematics with Toscanelli, dedicated both his De geometricis
transmutationibus (25 Sept., 1445) and his De arithmeticis complementis
(autumn, 1445) to him. Toscanelli was presented as one of the interlocutors
in Cusanus' Dialogus de circuli quadratura (1457) and Nicholas of Cusa
has him state that he (Toscanelli) has learned from Archimedes that "if
the semidiameter is multiplied by the semicircumference a rectangle equal
to the circle arises."6 Furthermore, Regiomontanus was later to praise
3 Michel, op. cit. in note 1, pp. 162-64.
4 This treatise, later entitled Magister Paulus ad Nicolaum Cusanum Cardinalem, was
included without title in the supplementary works on quadrature published with Regio-
montanus' De triangulis omnimodis (Nuremberg, 1533), pp. 13-14. It was composed in
the winter of 1453-54, and at the end has: "Detur venerabili nostro fideli dilecto
Magistro Georgio Peurbachio Astronomo." Incidentally, I failed to notice in my Nicole
Oresme and the Medieval Geometry of Qualities and Motions (Madison, Wise., 1968) that
Paul east doubt upon the representation of intensions and remissions of forms by straight
lines (p. 14): "Multa habeo, quae me movent, quod istae eoincidentiae sive intensiones
et remissiones formarum non per lineas rectas signari debeant, ut modemi ponunt, sed in
aliud tempus reservo." For a later discussion of the use of geometrical figures for the
representation ofcoincidentiae oppositorum, see theArs oppositorum of Charles de Bouelles,
Chap. XVII (Que hoc volumine continentur: Liber de intellectu. Liber de sensu. Liber
de nichilo. Ars oppositorum. etc. [Paris, 1510], 93v-95r).
E. Garin, "Brunelleschi, Filippo," Enciclopedia universale dell'arte, Vot. 2 (1958), c.
824. No Archimedean passages in Brunelleschi's works are noted by P. Sanpaolesi in his
comprehensive article, "Ipotesi sulle conoscenze matematiche, statiche e meccaniche del
Brunelleschi," Belle arti, Vot. 2 (1951), pp. 25-54.
6 In the supplementary section of Regiomontanus, De triangulis omnimodis, p. 10:
"Paulus. Ita est, nam mihi ex Archimede notum est, si semidiametrum circuli duxero in
lineam aequalem semicircumferentiae, oriri quadrangulum circulo aequalem."
LEON BATTISTA ALBERTI AND ARCHIMEDES 319
Toscanelli highly and to dedicate his own De quadratura circuli to him.
7
And we can infer from a marginal statement in Regiomontanus' own copy
of the Cremonensis translation of Archimedes (see Sect. I, note 7 above)
that he examined Paolo' s codex of Archimedes.
It is also unfortunate that we have nothing of a geometrical nature
from Mariano di Jacopo, il Taccola, of Siena (born 1381 and died between
1453 and 1458),8 for he, himself, mentions his alternate cognomen of
"Archimedes."9 From an examination of some of the manuscripts of his
notebooks, including manuscripts which assign to him a so-called De
machinis libri decem,10 I should judge that his cognomen derived from
his drawings and descriptions of machines rather than from any special
geometrical talent. This would be reflective of the general tendency, with
the increasing spread of Vitruvius' De architectura and Plutarch' s Lives,
to represent Archimedes as a great inventor.
7 The formal tract dedicated to Toscanelli by Regiomontanus was written before 6 June,
1464, and is included in the supplementary section of Regiomontanus, De triangulis omni
modis, pp. 29-38. In another tract in the same collection (p. 56), Regiomontanus praises
Toscanelli in the following terms: "Si quisquam est, quem studium philosophiae celebrem
reddere, aut mathematicarum decus aeternitati consecrare debuit, praesertim hac nostra
tempestate, unicus es inter Halos Paule Florentine tanto dignus munere: quippe qui dis-
ciplinas omnes adeo egregie tenes, ut cum Archimede, victoriam propemodum habiturus,
certare videaris." The date of this tract is 9 July, 1464. For varying views of Toscanelli,
see G. Uzielli, La Vita e i tempi di Paolo dal Pozzo Toscanelli con un capitulo (vi) sui
lavori astronomici del Toscanelli di G. Celoria (Rome, 1894); E. Garin, La Culturafilosofica
del rinascimento italiano (Florence, 1961), pp. 313-34; and G. de Santillana, "Paolo
Toscanelli and his Friends," The Renaissance Image of Man and the World, ed. B. O'Kelly
(Columbus, Ohio, 1966), pp. 105-27.
8 The best biographical summaries of Taccola's activity are those of J. H. Beck, "The
Historical 'Taccola' and Emperor Sigismund in Siena," The Art Bulletin, Vol. 50 (1968),
pp. 309-19, and F. D. Prager and G. Scaglia, Mariano Taccola and his Book De ingeneis
(Cambridge, Mass., and London, 1972). Cf. Beck's introduction to his recent facsimile
edition of Mariano di Jacopo detto 11 Taccola, Liber tertius de ingeneis ac edijitiis non
usitatis (Milan, 1969). For a description of the various manuscripts see P. L. Rose, "The
Taccola Manuscripts," Physis, Anno 10 (1968), pp. 337-46, Prager and Scaglia, Mariano
Taccola, pp. 25-33, and Mariano Taccola, De machinis, ed. of G. Scaglia (Wiesbaden,
1971).
9 Rose, "The Manuscripts of Taccola," p. 341, quotes from the preface of MS New York
Public Library, Spencer Collection 136, IT: "Ego autem Sr Marianus taccole alias archi-
medes vochatus...." See Prager and Scaglia, Mariano Taccola, p. 32, n. 33. Cf. also
the next footnote.
10 On the fly leaf of Venice, Bib!. Naz. Marc. VIII. 40, we find this work mentioned
as follows: "Mariani Iacobi cognomento Taccolae necnon et cognomento Archimedis,
Senensis, De machinis libri decem, quos scripsit anno 1449...." Much the best descrip-
tion of this manuscript is given by Rose, "The Taccola Manuscripts," pp. 343-45. As
Rose notes, p. 343, "it is difficult to regard BMV [i.e., this manuscript] as a copy of
the De machinis. . . ." The date of 1449 is also given in the manuscript of the New York
Public Library mentioned in note 9 (see Prager and Scaglia, Mariano Taccola, p. 32, n. 33).
The character of Taccola's works is well illustrated in the editions of the De ingeneis of
Prager and Scaglia and Beck, and of the De machinis of Scaglia (see above, note 8).
CHAPTER 2
The Medieval Archimedes in the
Second Half of the Fifteenth Century
I. Jacobus Cremonensis
In the preceding discussion of Nicholas of Cusa's knowledge of Archi-
medes I had the occasion to mention the fact that Pope Nicholas V gave
to the German cardinal a copy of a new translation of Archimedes some
time before or by 1453, a translation which Cusa indicated had been exe-
cuted as the result of the Pope's effort.
1
The author of this translation
was certainly Jacobus de Sancto Cassiano Cremonensis, canon regular
and long-time student and associate of Vittorino da Feltre in Mantua, and
successor to the latter in 1446 as tutor of the children of Ludovico In
Gonzaga, Duke of Mantua.
2
Although none of the manuscripts of this
new translation bears Jacobus' name as translator, and indeed one manu-
script attributes the translation to Franciscus Cereus de Burgo Sancti
Sepulchri,3 there is abundant evidence linking the name of Jacobus with
the translation. And, as we shall see, the incorrect attribution to Franciscus
Cereus is easily explained. Earliest of the evidence supporting its attribu-
tion to Jacobus occurs in the biographical notice of Jacobus appearing
in the De viris illustribus liber of Bartolomeo Facio, a work composed
in 1456, only a few years after the translation was completed. As Kristeller
has pointed out, Facio's work was "often based on first-hand informa-
tion for many of its data."4 Furthermore, Facio knew some of the trans-
1 See Part Ill, Chapter 1, Sect. I, n. 1. I repeat here the crucial statement about the
new translation: "Tradidisti enim mihi proximis diebus magni Archimedis geometrica,
graece tibi praesentata et tuo studio in latinum conversa. . . ."
2 For a bio-bibliographical summary of Cremonensis, see M. E. Cosenza, Biographical
and Bibliographical Dictionary ofItalian Humanists and of the World of Classical Scholar-
ship in Italy, 1300-1800, Vol. 2 (Boston, 1962), pp. 1801-02. The fullest account of
Cremonensis is given by C. Rosmini, Idea dell' ottimo precettore nella vita e disciplina di
Vittorino da Feltre (Bassano, 1801), pp. 380-89.
3 I shall discuss this manuscript below.
4 P. O. KristeIler, "The Humanist Bartolomeo Facio and his Unknown Correspondence,"
From the Renaissance to the Counter-Reformation: Essays in Honor of Garrett Mattingly,
ed. C. H. Carter (New York, 1965), p. 66, whole article, pp. 56-74. One of the mutual
321
1
lators personally and corresponded, for example, with Poggio Bracciolini
who was present in the circle of translators in Nicholas' court at the
same time as Jacobus and even was engaged in translating a part of
Diodorus Siculus' Historia while Jacobus was translating another part of
it. Though Facio's sketch ofJacobus' career is brief, it categorically asserts
that he translated "some works of Archimedes from Greek into Latin."5
Of even greater importance was the assignment of this translation to
Jacobus by Regiomontanus who, as an intimate of Cardinal Bessarion and
Theodore Gaza, knew the translators of Greek scientific works. What
is more significant is the fact that Regiomontanus made a copy of the
new translation in about 1462.
6
It was this copy, with Regiomontanus'
corrections, that was later published by Thomas Gechauff (Venatorius)
with the first Greek edition of Archimedes in 1544.
7
Not long after copying
the new translation Regiomontanus specifically attributed it to Jacobus
Cremonensis in the list of works to be published at Nuremberg:
8
acquaintances of Facio and Cremonensis was Johannes Aurispa to whom Cremonensis
addressed a letter in 1452 (see R. Sabbadini, ed., Carteggio di Giovanni Aurispa [Rome,
1931], Lett. CVIII, pp. 128-29):
"Iacobus Cassianius c. v. loanni Aurispae s. Binas abs te accepi parvo intervallo tem-
poris, quarum primae iamest satis responsum; iam secundae respondetur: nos sane adventus
tui desyderio non mediocriter affectos, veluti patris cari et admodum rebus nostris neces-
sarii; minime tamen admirari moram tuam propter pervicacem coeli intemperiem, quae
non solum aetati tuae, verum etiam robustissimis quibusque qui se certissimis periculis
offerre non curant, imbrium inundancia fere dierum sexaginta, vias occlusit. sine, obsecro,
hanc contumaciam coelum deponat et mitigetur teque non incolumem, verum etiam sine
periculi suspitione ad nos reducas. Ad magistratum Georgium de perspectiva iam binas
scripsi; utras in manibus habes, lege utrasque et quae tibi potior pro recuperando Iibro
videatur, earn obsignato et ei non per te, sed aliunde, sibi earn reddi fadto; vel ut tu
consulueris curato, modo Iibrum vel extorqueas. Nos omnes bene valemus. dominus noster
iam diebus multis podagra laboravit. vale, pater, et me ama et iIlustrissimo d. marchioni
me plurimum commendatum reddas obsecro. vale. Romae, tertio idus ianuarias 1452." I
have omitted Sabbadini's notes. The book that they are trying to get from the magistrate
George is probably the Pespectiva communis of John of Pecham. The reference at the
end is to Pope Nicholas V's gout from which he suffered in his last years. Heiberg claims
further that Francesco Filelfo also knew Cremonensis personally (Archimedis opera omnia,
Vo!. 3, p. LXXIX, n. I).
5 Bartholomaeus Facius, De viris illustribus /iber, ed. L. Mehus (Florence, 1745), p. 27:
"Jacobus Cremonensis nobis in hoc numero reponendus est, qui et ipse latinae, graecaeque
linguae eruditus eloquentia valuit. Philosophiae quoque, et Mathematicarum artium haud
inscius Archimedis nonnulla opera ex graeco in latinum vertit. Ex Diodori Siculi, quem
supra nominavimus, historiis libros octo latinos fecit. Quum alia ex eo expectarentur, ex
hac vita ereptus est."
6 E. Zinner, Leben und Wirken des Joh. Muller von Konigsberg genannt Regio-
montanus. 2nd. ed. (Osnabriick, 1968). p. 91.
7 This is Nuremberg, Stadtbib!. Cent. V.15 described in the list of manuscripts below.
See note 9 below, for Venatorius' remarks.
8 This list of books to be published was prepared in about 1473-74 and printed (in 1474,
says Zinner, Leben und Wirken, p. 351) as a single sheet in Regiomontanus' press at Nurem-
berg without date. A photographic reproduction of the list is given by Zinner, Leben und
Wirken, Tafel 26. The description of the works of Archimedes occurs in the first column.
iii
p
by the same scribe in 1458, that Franciscus de Burgo Sancti Sepulchri
was an Apostolic scriptor at that time, 10 presumably ordering copies made
of various works.
I have indicated above that the new translation was completed before
or by 1453 since Nicholas ofCusa mentioned it in a work of 1453 as having
been transmitted to him "in recent days" (proximis diebus). It seems
evident further that the translation was not undertaken by Cremonensis
until after he came to the Roman Curia in 1449 to join Nicholas' notable
group of translators (Jacobus' patron Ludovico Gonzaga wrote a letter
to the Pope, dated June 7, 1449, in which he commended Jacobus to
him).l1 It is also known that Nicholas submitted to Jacobus the transla-
tion of the Almagest of Ptolemy done by George of Trebizond in 1451,
a translation which Jacobus severely criticized.
12
We know further that
10 Heiberg, Archimedis opera omnia, Vo!. 3, p. LXXIII, reports the colophons, from
Vat. Urb. lat. 1329, of several mathematical works copied by Michael Foresii Odycii
for Franciscus de Burgo S. Sepulchri. The most interesting statement is at the end of the
codex (63 r): "Ego Michel Foresii Odycii hunc librum scripsi pro domino Francisco apostolico
scriptore de Burgo S. Sepulchri nuncupato in Roma urbe die XXIIII octobris anno
MCCCCLVIII fe/idter. " For other notices of Franciseus de Burgo S. Sepulchri, see G.
Maneini, "L'opera 'De corporibus regularibus,' " pp. 486-87.
11 C. Rosmini,Idea dell' ottimoprecettore, p. 382: "S. D. N. PapaeNicolao V. Sanctissime
Pater ... Venerabilis Canonicus Regularis, et doctissimus artium Doctor Jacobus de
Sancto Cassiano praesentium lator, apud me sub clarissimi Viri Victorini Feltrensis prae-
ceptoris olim mei, et filiorum meorum de licentia Praelati sui, et sedis Apostolicae dis-
ciplina et doctrina quatuordecim annos fuit, qui eo tempore eis moribus, ea vitae honestate
et eruditione litterarum est habitus, ut Victorino Praeceptore primo decedente eum iIlius
loco ad Natos meos instituendos eligerem, quod munus mihi jam tres annos praestitit accu-
rate adeo ac liberaliter, ut sicuti eum prius sua virtute non mediocriter amabam, nunc
etiam suis erga me meritis summe, carum habeam. Verum cum ipse existimasset sibi propter
religionem magis convenire inter Clericos quam inter laicos versari, quamquam id Natorum
meorum institutioni commodissimum non esset, suae tamen honestissimae opinioni potius
quam commodis meis consulens, eum a praefato instituendi munere liberavi. Cumque ad
pedes Sanctitatis Vestrae propter ejus causam accedere instituisset, dignum duxi cum
hoc me de integritate, et eruditione sua testimonio nuntium dimittere; praetera etiam
iam magnopere oro Sanctitatem Vestram uti cum sua virtute, tamen mea gratia eum in
sua causa commendatissimum habere dignetur; ipsius Vestrae Sanctitati pedibus me iterum
atque iterum recomittens. Mantuae 7. Junii 1449."
12 Ibid., p. 386, with the following text of Trebizond's irate letter to the Pope responding
to Cremonensis' criticism: "Memini, Sanctissime Pater, quando Sanctitati tuae obtuli libros
Ptolomei nuper a me traductos, et commentarios mea supplicasse, ut etsi libri non essent
adhuc limati, essentque nondum premendi in annum; tamen alicui doeto proboque viro eos,
antequam ederentur, Sanctitas tua digneretur attendere; addidique sperare me omnes qui
aliquid de materia ilia intelligant, nisi invidi sint, eommentarios apprime laudaturos. Re-
spondit mihi tunc Sanetitas tua humanissime quod tibi nuntiatum est Cremonensem quendam
hie esse, virum et probum et mathematicarum doctrinarum studiis ardentem; quocum si de
istis communicabis, plurimum delectaberis.... Nunc, Beatissime Pater, reportati mihi
libri sunt pleni schedulis appositis, quibus auctor ego ut ignorans ineptusque vituperor.
Dolui, doleoque, Beatissime Pater, quia video per invidiam et ignorantiam ejus qui hoc
fecit me opprimi. Nam Deum testor et conscientiam meam. Nec dieo hoc quia lacessitus,
sed quia scio me vere scripsisse, et ipsum, ut hae schedulae ostendunt, ignorantem penitus
etiam ipsorum terminorum esse; ad hoc stultum, quod ausus sit reprehendere quae nesciat.
THE TRANSLATIONS OF JACOBUS CREMONENSIS 325
Jacobus completed his part of the translation of the Histaria of Diodorus
Siculus (Le. Books XI-XIII) in 1453.
13
Jacobus seems to have died shortly
after this time.
14
The conclusion from this various evidence is that we can
definitely place the translation of Archimedes between 1449 and 1453,
and that it was probably completed in preliminary form somewhat earlier
than the latter date when the Diodorus Siculus was completed and the
Archimedes was sent to Cusa. It is also possible that Nicholas V not only
transmitted a copy of Jacobus' translation to Nicholas of Cusa but, as
Beiberg reasons, also loaned the original unbound sheets or quires of
Jacobus' translation to Cardinal Bessarion.
15
If Heiberg is correct in this
Quare humiliter supplico Sanctitati tuae, ut detur mihi locus, ubi in praesentia doctorum
Yirorom et hujus ignorantis ostendam utrum ego ignorans sim, nihilque intelligens, an ipse,
filii nunquam a me lacessitus haec de me falso scripsit ec." Notice that Trebizond claims
IIIat it is Cremonensis who is ignorant and he begs for a public hearing before learned
-.en and Cremonensis in order to vindicate himself. So far as I know, no such public hearing
was granted. For a detailed, recent study of George of Trebizond, see J. Monfasani,
of Trebizond: A Biography and a Study of his Rhetoric and Logic (Leiden, 1976).
Sce particularly pp. 104-109.
13 MS London, BM Harl. 4196, 2v: "Historia incipit conversa in latinum iubente Nicolao
Quinto Pont. Max. anno MCCCCLIII." 3r: "Jacobi de Sancto Cassiano Cremonensis
Canonici Regularis ordinis Sancti Augustini Victoriniani ad Nicolaum Quintum Pont. Max.
Diodori Siculi Historiarum Liber XImus foelieiter incipit de greeo in latinum translatus."
lIDs copy was made in 1469. I must thank Professor P. O. Kristeller for alerting me to
Ibis manuscript.
14 In Facio's notice (see note 5 above) Cremonensis' death is mentioned and Facio was
writing in 1456. Similarly, in a letter of 1 January, 1459, George of Trebizond writes with
some pleasure that he has outlived a number of his detractors, among whom he mentions
Iobannes (I) Cremonensis (R. Cessi, Saggi Romani [Rome, 1956], p. 181): "At Iohannem
Cremonensem, qui iunior erat, quique mihi plurimum detraxit, et commentarios in Ptolo- .
IDCUm meos attribuere sibi, quatuor mensibus mentecaptum ferri, et tandem diem obiisse
mum multi sciunt, cum ego senex et egrotus adhuc vivam." Thus according to a hardly
unprejudiced source Cremonensis became half-witted before finally dying. Also of interest
is Trebizond's remark that Cremonensis attributed Trebizond's commentaries on Ptolemy
to himself. Heiberg suggests that Cremonensis was prevented by death from polishing the
translation of Archimedes (Archimedis opera omina, VoI. 3, p. LXXVI): "hine concluden-
dum, Iacobo non contigisse, ut opus suum expoliret, sine dubio propter mortem
prnematuram. ,.
15 Ibid., p. LXXIX. I have noted one intriguing bit of evidence that may bear on the
circumstances surrounding the original borrowing of Cremonensis' translation by Bessarion.
This oceurs in a letter written by the humanist-grammarian Niccolo Perotti, who lived
with Bessarion for many years, including the period in which the latter was the papal legate
in Bologna from 1450 to 1455; this letter was dated 7 Jan., 1454, and addressed from
Bologna to Nicholas V's librarian Giovanni Tortelli (R. Cessi, "Notizie umanistiche: Ill.
Tra Niccolo Perotto e Poggio Bracciolini," Giornale storico della letteratura italiana, VoI.
60 [1912], p. 84, whole article pp. 73-111): "Serenissimus (! Sanetissimus) dominus noster
debit mihi Arrianum traducendum, quod opus' sumtiia.' cum diligentia prosequor. Erit, ut
spero, res grata Sanctitati Sue ultra omnes alias traductiones dumtaxat historicas. Legant
aliquando nostri homines Quintum Curtium perfectum atque integrum; verum quia liber,
quem mihi Sanctitas Sua dedit, est in multis locis corruptus et deficiunt interim multa,
esset mihi gratum ut dominus vester (I dominatio vestra) mitteret ad me traductionem
iIJam Arriani ineptam,' quaITi 'Sanctitas sua habet et, cum istic fui, .. (I sua
a;a __
suggestion, then it would appear that after noting the loan to Bessarion
of "quinterniones aliqui in Latino de geometria Archimedis"16 Calix-
tus In allowed Bessarion to keep the copy already loaned to him
by Nicholas V. Hence it seems likely that the copy of Cremonensis'
benignitate) mihi promisit, sed impedita egritudine dare non potuit: ea habita ex rectis et
celeris (! et rectius et celerius) et cum minore labore prosequar opus inceptum. Oro iiiiur '.' :..-
ut 'eum librum a Serenissimo (! Sanctissimo) Domino Nostro petat et viro docto et per-
humano Benedicti:) Moran(f<;, qui d. v. has litteras reddidit, ad me vehendum det, quod
ascribarn inter cetera dignitatis vestre erga me immortalia beneficia. Promisit etiam et
(delete) mihi Ser. (! Sanct.) Dom. Noster, cum primum d.v. Romam rediiset, se misurum
ad me Archiniedem grecum et latinum. Hunc quoque queso, d. v. ut ad me mittat, sed in
primis Arrianum." (Note: the corrections noted in parentheses are corrections in tran-
scription pointed out by G. Mercati, Per la cronologia della vita e degli scritti di Niccolo
Perotli arcivescovo di Siponto [Rome, 1925], pp. 39-40.) From this letter it appears
that when Perotti visited Rome in 1451 the Pope not only promised to give him an earlier
inept Latin translation of the Arrian text which the Pope had commissioned him to translate
anew but also Greek and Latin versions of Archimedes. The copy of the Greek text promised
was undoubtedly Greek manuscript A but the copy (indeed even the version) of the Latin
text is open to debate. If the Cremonensis version is meant by this reference (as I believe),
then we would judge that Cremonensis had already started his translation in 1451 and was
far enough along for the Pope to want Perotti to check Cremonensis' translation just as
he (the Pope) had asked Cremonensis himself to check Trebizond's translation of the
Almagest (see note 12 above). On the other hand, if the Pope had not yet at the time
of Perotti's visit in 1451 assigned the Archimedes translation to Cremonensis, then the
Latin version referred to may have been the Moerbeke translation and so perhaps the
Pope was tentatively lining up Perotti to redo the Archimedes texts after completing trans-
lations of Polybius and Arrian. I think this second explanation far less likely than the
first, for it squeezes unduly the time for Cremonensis' completion of the translations of
Archimedes and Diodorus Siculus and it would imply that by January of 1454 Perotti had
not heard of Cremonensis' translation. This would be strange in view of the close relation-
ship between Perotti and Tortelli and the intimacy of Bessarion with the Pope. At any
rate, I would further suppose that Perotti's letter of 7 Jan., 1454, produced results and
that the Pope or rather Tortelli sent the unbound quinternions of Cremonensis' translation
to Bessarion, i.e. to Perotti, as Heiberg has suggested (see the next note), and along with
it Greek manuscript A, perhaps with the instruction that the Greek manuscript be returned.
Hence it could be that at this time (about 1454) Bessarion's Greek manuscript (Greek
MS E) was copied from A. At least we know that both the Cremonensis translation
and Greek manuscript E were in Bessarion's possession some eight years later when
Regiomontanus copied Cremonensis' translation from Bessarion's copy (MS Venice, Bib!.
Naz. Marc. f.a.327) and corrected his own copy with attention to Greek manuscript E
(see the next section, notes 19 and 20). There is no evidence that Perotti did anything
with Archimedes regardless of the time when Bessarion acquired the text and Cremonensis'
translation. However, Perotti was still in close intimacy with Bessarion when Regiomontanus
appeared on the scene (see Mercati, Per la cronologia, pp. 50-51), and so perhaps he
influenced Regiomontanus to turn his attention to Archimedes.
16 E. Miintz et P. Fabre, La Bibliotheque du Vatican au xve siecle (Paris, 1887), p.
342: "Libri accomodati per s. d. m. Re
mo
Cardinal Niceno.... Quinterniones aliqui in
Latino de Geometria Archimedis et certi in pergameno versu." Heiberg, loc. cit. in note
15, concludes: "suspicior igitur, codicem Marc. 327 a Iacobo non expolitum necdum com-
pactum (ideo quinterniones nominantur) a Nicolao V Bessarioni commodatum esse, sed
deinde in posessionem eius cessisse dono Calixti Ill, qui mathematicam parum curabat
(cf. Miintz et Fabre, p. 117)." P. L. Rose, "Humanist Culture and Renaissance Mathe-
matics: The Italian Libraries of the Quattrocentro," Studies in the Renaissance, Vo!. 20
(1973), pp. 46-105, p. 83, asserts that Heiberg's suggestion is open to doubt because MS
f.a.327 is on paper while the quires given to Bessarion were on parchment. But it seems
llanslation now at Venice (Bibl. Naz. Marc. f.a.327), and on which
Bessarion's name is inscribed, is the original archetype of Jacobus' text.
Certain characteristics of the manuscript such as the presence of lacunae
iD the text and Greek words in the text and the margins would seem
to bear this out.
17
Nicholas' key role in sponsoring the translation and
particularly Cusa's ambiguous statement that the translation was made
as the result of the Pope's "effort" seem to have given rise to the base-
less story mentioned by Bernardino Baldi in his Vite dimatematici italiani
as appearing in the "Chronicles of M. Guazzo, [namely] that the book
On the Sphere and the Cylinder was translated into Latin by Tomasso
cia Sarazzana, who was afterwards made Pope and called Nicholas V. "18
ID me that Rose has misunderstood the passage indicating the loan of the Archimedean
flllintemions to Bessarion. It does not say that the presumably unbound quires of the
Archimedes are on parchment but rather that certain other quires were on parch-
....t ("et certi in pergameno versu"). The passage is silent on the Archimedean quires.
17 Heiberg, Archimedis opera omnia, Vol. 3, p. LXXVI: "omnino cod. Marc manum
ipsius interpretis summa cum fide videtur conservasse; nam interdum vocabula Graeca,
tfIae non intellexit, aut in textu retinuit aut in mg. adposuit; velut [Vol.] III p. 56, 22 ante
IfIMKlam lacunam reliquit, in mg. adscripsit crwAYWL, p. 98, 15 scripsit in ab crwAiWOl assialem,
p. 98, 24 denique in axem confixum XEAOllOlpW percurrenti in solyne assiali; efr. p. 98,
7l.lnriwcrpayyVATJlI que incumbat; p. 90, 24- 25 perforationes [in mg. KOl'TOl'Tpr,crL<;, chinicidas ]
.. DIg. XOLlILKi80l<;." The references are all to Volume 3 of Heiberg's edition. In the course
C'I preparing this volume I have often checked all of the manuscripts of Cremonensis' trans-
lation and there is little doubt in my mind that all of the extant manuscripts derive directly
.. indirectly from the Venetian manuscript, as I intimate in my description of the manu-
scripts below. The fact that Bessarion owned it and that it was used by Regiomontanus
iD. about 1462-64 confirms its early date (see below, Section rn, note 19). Hence, even
if it was not actually Cremonensis' own copy (as I believe), it does represent the best
Iicxt we have of Jacobus' translation.
18 "Vite inedite di matematici italiani scritte da Bemardino Baldi e pubblicate da Enrico
NanJucci," in Bullettino di bibliograjia e di storia delle scienze matematiche e jisiche,
Vol. 19 (1886), p. 396, whole article pp. 335-406, (in the life of Archimedes, dated 1595):
1'roviamo ancora nelIe Croniche di M. Guazzo, che iI Iibro deIla Sfera e del Cilindro fu
1Iadotto in latino da Tomasso da Sarazzana, che fU poi creato Pontefice e chiamato Nicola
quinto, ne gl'anni della nostra salute 1447 ... Questa traduttione non so che si trovi,
.e meno mi sono abbattuto in altro scrittore che ne ragioni." (Incidentally, J. E. Montucla,
Bistoire des mathematiques, Vol. 1 [Nouv. edit., Paris, 1798], p. 538, on the basis of
Nicholas of Cusa's statement, draws the same conclusion, namely, that Nicholas V trans-
lated Archimedes.) Earlier Baldi had noted (ibid., p. 395) the translation by Cremonensis:
"'radussele ancora nella stessa linqua un Giacopo Cremonese, aggiuntici i Commentarii
"'Eutocio Ascalonita, le quali furono anch' esse stampate in Basilea." Incidentally, Baldi
also attributed a Latin translation of Archimedes to Giovanni Aurispa, but this is doubtful.
The source of the attribution was probably A. Decembrius, Politiae literariae ... ad
SMlftmam pontijicem Pium Il libri septem (Augsburg, 1540). In the second edition (Basel,
1562, p. 44) we read: "Fertur atque Archimedis opera traduci a Ioanne nostro Auruspa
(!). cuius graeca seu etiam latina videbimus." Cf. Conrad Gesner, Bibliotheca universalis
(Zurich, 1545), 386v: "Ioannes Aurispa Siculus, fertur traducere Archimedis opera." Though
m trace of such a translation has been found, it is worth remembering that
Decembrio was a friend of Aurispa, as Rose has pointed out, "Humanist Culture and
Renaissance Mathematics," p. 65. One further translation of Archimedes is attributed by
Baldi (ibidem) to Johann Wemer: "et alcune di loro tradotte in latino da Giovanni Vemero,
et adomate di bellissime figure." I have found no trace of such a translation and I would
DOt be surprised if this is simply a confused reference to Regiomontanus' copy of the
Cremonensis translation at Nuremberg.
But, Baldi continues, he does not know whether the translation exists or
at least he has not come upon any other author who mentions it.
It is not my purpose in this work to study the translation of Jacobus
in detail but only to discuss the question of whether he was influenced
by Moerbeke in preparing it. But before addressing myself to this question,
it will be useful to describe the new translation briefly. I know ofthe follow-
ing manuscripts of it, which I have arranged into two groups depending
on whether their origin is the complete archetype of Venice, Bibl. Naz.
Marc. f.a.327 or is the incomplete version of Vat. Urb. lat. 261 where
the works of Eutocius are missing:
A. MSS Containing both Archimedes and Eutocius
1. Venice, Bibl. Naz. Marc. f.a.327. 15c. As I have said, this is probably
Jacobus' archetype. If so, it was written about 1450. It has Bessarion's name
in Greek on the verso of the cover sheet, and was one of the manuscripts he
gave to the Bibliotheca Marciana in 1468 (cf. H. Omont, Inventaire des manu-
serits grecs et larins donnes a Sainte-Mare de Venise par le Cardinal Bessarion
en 1468 [Paris, 1894], p. 48, item 197). See Heiberg, Arehimedis opera omnia,
Vol. 3, p. LXXIV. The three works of Eutocius precede the works of Archi-
medes. I hardly think that this was the order in which Cremonensis made his
translations, since in Greek MS A, from which Cremonensis made the transla-
tions, the works of Eutocius followed those of Archimedes. I think the explanation
of the order in this manuscript lies in the fact that when Bessarion received
it, it was probably in the form of unbound quires (see above, note 16). Later,
the quires were bound in the order that they now appear. This must have been
before the copies numbered 3 to 6 were made. See also J. Valentinelli,
Bibliotheea manuscripta ad S. Marci Venetiarum, Vol. 4 (Venice, 1871), pp.
215-16.
2. Nuremberg, Stadtbibl. Cent. V.15. Regiomontanus' copy, executed from the
preceding codex in about 1462 (see above, note 6). It was corrected by Regio-
montanus with considerable attention to Greek MS E (Bessarion's Greek Manu-
script) and at least one reference to an exemplar vetus in the possession of Master
Paul [Toscanelli]. The works of Eutocius follow those of Archimedes. This manu-
script will be discussed in the next sectionof this chapter. See Heiberg, Archimedis
opera omnia, Vol. 3, pp. LXX-LXXIV; Zinner, Leben und Wirken des Joh.
Milller, pp. 322-23. This manuscript was the source of the Latin translation
published with the first Greek edition, Basel, 1544, by Thomas Venatorius and
in fact the manuscript has his name on the bottom of page 1.
3. Vatican, Ottob. lat. 1157. End of 15c or beginning of 16c. Almost certainly
copied from the first codex. It has the same works, arranged in the same order,
as the first codex. See Kristeller, Iter italicum, Vol. 2, pp. 427-28.
4. Paris, BN lat. 7220. End of the 15c or beginning of 16c. It has the same
works in the same order as the first codex. It was almost certainly copied by
the same scribe as the third codex; thus it would appear that he made two copies
from the first codex. See Catalogus codicum manuscriptorum Bibliothecae Regiae.
Pars tertia, Vol. IV (Paris, 1744), p. 328.
5. Paris, BN lat. 7221. 15c-16c. It has basically the same order as the first
codex, but starts abruptly in the midst of Book 11 of Eutocius' Commentary on
the Sphere and the Cylinder. There are no diagrams in the text of Archimedes'
On the Sphere and the Cylinder. The text of On Conoids and Spheroids
(73r-78v) ends abruptly in the middle of Prop. 5, while On Spiral Lines
(19r-v) begins with Prop. 12 and ends abruptly. A further fragment from
On Conoids and Spheroids, Prop. 27, occupies folio 8Or-v, and one from On
Spiral Lines, end of Prop. 10 plus Prop. 11, in toto, is on folio 81r-v. On the
Equilibrium of Planes, On the Quadrature ofthe Parabola, and the Sandreckoner
are missing. See Catalogus codicum, ibid.
6. Escorial, f.III.9. About 1539-45. It has the same works in the same order as
the first codex and was almost surely copied from it. It belonged to Don Diego
Hurtado de Mendoza, the celebrated diplomat and collector of manuscripts. See
P. G. Antolin, Catdlogo de los codices latinos de la Real Biblioteca del Escorial,
Vol. 2 (Madrid, 1911), pp. 180-82. Antolin dates this codex to the end of the
fifteenth century. But this seems to be wrong, since it is most likely that Mendoza
had it copied in Venice from the first codex when he was Charles V's ambassador
to Venice (1539-46). This was the period in which Mendoza had a great number
of his manuscripts copied. With this hypothesis in mind I asked Father Gregorio
de Andres at the Escorial if the watermarks of the paper of the codex revealed a
date more consistent with my proposal. He very kindly replied that he had re-
viewed the watermarks by means of Briquet (Les Filigrans) and reached the
conclusion that this manuscript was copied between 1530 and 1550, 'more or
less." He also reported that none of the watermarks coincides exactly with any
of those in Briquet but that on the basis of two of the watermarks it seems that
the paper comes from Udine (Italy). Finally, he reported that the watermarks
agree most closely with the following watermarks in Briquet: ff. 1-92, the arrow
of Briquet No. 6299; ff. 93-198, the anchor of Briquet No. 493; ff. 193-214, the
crossbow of Briquet No. 761. I suggest further that the terminus ante quem
for the preparation of this copy was 1545. I deduce this in part from the fact that
a register of books borrowed from the Biblioteca di San Marco between 29 May,
1545, and 18 November, 1548, contains notices of a number of books borrowed
by Mendoza between 29 May, 1545, and 18 May, 1546, but the Cremonensis
codex is not among the books borrowed (H. Omont, "Deux registres de prets de
manuscrits de la Bibliotheque de Saint-Marc a Venise (1545-1559)," Biblio-
theque de l'Ecole des Chartes, Vol. 48 [1887], pp. 651-86; C. Castellani, "n
prestito dei codici manoscritti della Biblioteca di San Marco in Venezia, "Attl
del Reale Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Artl, Vol. 55 [1896-97], pp.
311-66). Hence it is clear that Mendoza did not have Bib!. Naz. Marc. f.a.327
copied during the period of this first register. Furthermore, he had already left
Venice in 1546 (a date consistent with his last recorded borrowing from the
library in the first register). Therefore, it is not surprising that a second register
of books borrowed between 1551 and 1559 records no instance of books being
borrowed by or for Mendoza. I believe, then, that Mendoza must have borrowed
the San Marco manuscript sometime between his arrival in Venice in 1539 and his
first recorded borrowing from the library on 29 May, 1545. I would suppose
that this codex of Mendoza was among the collection that was shipped to Spain
after 1552 (see C. Graux, Essai sur les origines du Fonds grec de l' Escurial
[paris, 1880], p. 195). My conclusions about the dating of this copy make it
extremely unlikely, as I had originally thought, that this was the manuscript re-
ferred to by Juan Luis Vives in his De tradendls disciplinis (Antwerp, 1531),
cf. Opera (Basel, 1555), p. 498; and the English translation of F. Watson, Vives:
-
On Education (Cambridge, 1913), Bk. IV, Chap. 5, p. 207: "There is no doubt
that the works of Archimedes are the most accomplished in this kind [i.e.
mathematics], works which I myself have not seen. My pupil Juan Vergara
directed my attention to them. He read them in Spain with the greatest possible
care, and wrote them out in the night watches from a secret manuscript." Of
course Vives might have been referring to a Greek manuscript, and indeed I know
of five such manuscripts, but most of them also seem to have come into the
Spanish libraries somewhat later in the century.
7. Florence, BibI. Naz. MagI. XI,50, 16c. Contains two versions of Book I of
De aequeponderantibus: the first, 3r-19v, is in a 16c hand with corrections and
marginal notes from Eutocius' commentary on 3r-v in the same hand; the second,
36r-51r, is in a later hand (also 16c) and is very free, with additional lemmas and
expanded proofs; both versions may have had Cremonensis' translation as their
starting point, but certainly we cannot label them as mere copies of that transla-
tion. I have published the earlier version below as specimen A of Appendix IV,
Section 4. There are two fragments of On the Sphere and the Cylinder (25r, the
first few lines of Book I; 82r-96v, Propositions 26-34 [but labeled as Propositions
25-32, with Greek Proposition 28 missing] of Book I only; the first is in the early
hand, the second in a later hand [perhaps different from the hand of the second
version of On the Equilibrium of Planes]; the lines of the first fragment and the
enunciations of the second are close to Cremonensis' version but the proofs of
the second are freely rendered and expanded). There is an extract, in a hand
similar to the early hand, from Eutocius' Commentary on the Sphere and the
Cylinder, giving the various methods of finding two mean proportionals (27r-32r).
It is falsely labeled as Book 11 of Archimedes' work. It breaks off at the beginning
of Pappus' method of finding the mean proportionals. There is also a very free
version, in the same hand as the second version of On the Equilibrium of Planes,
of On the Quadrature of the Parabola, which is divided into two works: Quadra-
tura parabolae geometrica (52r-57r) and Quadratura parabolae mechanica
(58r-79r). G. T. Tozzetti, Inventario dei manuscritti del Fondo Magliabecchiano
(handwritten), Vo!. 4, p. 239, and Heiberg, Archimedis Opera omnia, Vo!. 3,
p. LXXIV, misdesignate the codex as of the 17c. The latter says that it is a copy
of fragments of Cremonensis' translation, without describing its complexities.
The various sheets all bear watermarks that are of the sixteenth century. I have
examined this codex at greater length in Appendix IV, Section 4.
8. Venice, Bibl. Naz. Marc. VIII.34 98r-99r, 115r-21r, late 16c? Contains a
compendium of The Sandreckoner and an opuscule from Eutocius' Commentary
on the Sphere and the Cylinder describing the various methods of finding two
mean proportionals. Beyond the methods given by Eutocius, there is a "modus
Buteonis," i.e. of Jean Borrel. These fragments constitute a free rendering and
may not be based on Cremonensis' translation. See Valentinelli, Bibliotheca manLl-
scripta ad S. Marci Venetiarum, Vol. 4, pp. 258-59.
B. MSS without Eutocius
9. Vatican, Urb. lat. 261. 15c. (about 1458?). This manuscript contains the
works of Archimedes in the same order as (and was probably copied from) the
first codex but without the commentaries of Eutocius. It begins with Proposition
1 of Book I of On the Sphere and the Cylinder. It was executed by the order of
Franciscus de Burgo Sancti Sepulchri, in all likelihood at the request of the
Duke of Urbino, Federigo da Montefeltro. See Heiberg, Archimedis opera omnia,
Vol. 3, pp. LXXIII-LXXIV; C. Stornajolo, Codices Urbinates latini, VoI. 1,
p.245.
10. Paris, BN Nouv. acquis. lat. 1538. 15c? This manuscript is closely related
to the preceding codex. It too begins with Proposition 1 of Book I of On the
Sphere and the Cylinder instead of with the Proemium. The translation is here
incorrectly attributed to Franciscus Cereus de Burgo Sancti Sepulchri.
11. Florence, Bib!. Riccard. 106. 15c. This codex has the works in the same
order as codex no. 9 (except that part of Book I of On the Sphere and the Cylinder
is out of order on folios 2Or-29v, i.e. between On the Measurement of the Circle
[l7v-18v] and On Conoids and Spheroids [3Or-51v]). It also begins with Proposi-
tion 1 of Book I of On the Sphere and the Cylinder. Its colophon, "Finis librorum
Archimedis," is like the beginning of the colophon of Urb. lat. 261, from which it
was probably copied. See Heiberg, Archimedis opera omnia, VoI. 3, p. LXXIV;
Kristener, Iter italicum, VoI. I, pp. 184-85.
Other copies of this translation may well turn up if a more determined
search is made. In order to facilitate such a search and to distinguish
such copies from the Moerbeke translation, I shall here present the
various works in the order they are found in Venice, Bib!. Naz. Marc.
f.a.327, giving their incipits and, for the sake of comparison, the incipits
cl the Moerbeke translations as we have presented them in Volume Two
above:
Jacobus Cremonensis
(V = Naz. Marc. f.a.327; Ed=Edition,
Basel, 1544; words in parentheses are
from edition; those in brackets I have
added.)
l. Commentarii Eutocii Ascaloniti
(Ascalonitae) in primum [et secun-
dum librum] Archimedis de sphera
(sphaera) et kylindro (cylindro)
Inc.: "Cum (Quum) in Archimedis
libro quem de sphera (sphaera) et
kylindro (cylindro) confecit . . ."
(V, 2r-48r; Ed Part 11, 1-52)
2. Eutocii Ascaloniti (Ascalonitae)
commentarii in mensurationem cir-
culi Archimedis
Inc.: "Consequens utique (igitur)
fuerit (fuit) mihi ..." (V 48r-
53r; Ed I1, 52-57)
3. [Commentarii] Eutocii in primum
theorema equiponderantium (aequi-
ponderalium) Archimedis [i.e., in
libros aequiponderantium]
Inc.: "Momentum ipsum, 0 gen-
erosisse (generosissime) Petre,
commune gravitatis et levitatis esse
genus. "(V, 53r-63r; Ed 11,
57-68)
William of Moerbeke
(See Volume 2 above; I have omitted
the name of Archimedes in the titles
below)
Eutokii Ascalonite rememoracio in
librum Archimedis de spera et cylindro
Inc.: "In ea que de spera et cylindro
Archimedis nullum eorum que ante
nos ..."
Missing in Moerbeke Translations
Euthochii Ascalonite rememoracio III
primum librum de equerepentibus
Inc.: "Ropen, i.e. reptionem, 0 gen-
erosissime Petre, genus esse commune
gravitatis et levitatis . . ."
r
4. Archimedis De sphaera et cylindro
(no title in V)
Inc.: "Archimedes Dositheo sa-
lutem. Prius quidem ad te misi
que (quae) a nobis inspecta es-
sent ..." (V, 63v-l06r;Ed, 1-54)
5. Archimedis Circuli dimensio
Inc.: "Quilibet circulus triangulo
rectangulo equalis (aequalis) iIli
videlicet cuius latus alterum . . ."
(V, l06v-08v; Ed, 55-58)
6. Archimedis De konoidalibus (con-
oidalibus) et speroidibus (sphaer-
oidibus) figuris inventa sequuntur
(om. Ed)
Inc.: "Archimedes Dositheo recte
agere. Reliquorum theorematum,
demonstrationes ..." (V, 109r-
45r; Ed, 58-98)
7. Archimedis Inventa circa elicas
hoc est spirales lineas et spacia
dictis lineis contenta (Ed, Archi-
medis de lineis spiralibus)
Inc.: "Archimedes Dositheo sa-
lutem. Eorum que (quae) ad Cono-
nem missa fuerant theorematum,
quorum assidue a me flagitas . . ."
(V, 145v-68v; Ed, 98-124)
8. Archimedis Planorum equeponder-
antium (aequeponderantium) in-
venta vel centra gravitatis planorum
Inc.: "Petimus gravia equalia
(aequalia), equali (aequali) dis-
tantia posita, inter se equaliter
(aequaliter) ponderare . . ... (V,
169r-83r; Ed, 125-42)
9. Archimedis Quadratura parabole
(parabolae) idest portionis con-
tente (contentae) a linea recta et
sectione rectanguli koni (coni)
Inc.: .. Archimedes Dositheo recte
agere. Cum audissem Kononem
(Cononem) mortuum esse, qui
nobis adhuc in amicitia reside-
bat ..... (V, 184r-93r: Ed, 142-
55)
10. Archimedis Tractatus de arene
(arenae) numero
Inc.: "Existimant quidam, rex
Gelon. .. (V, 193v-202v: Ed,
155-63)
De spera et cylindro
Inc.: "Archimedes Dositheo gaudere.
Prius quidem misi tibi ex hiis que
a nobis speculata sunt
Circuli dimensio
Inc.: "Omnis circulus est equalis tri-
gono rectangulo cuius que quidem ex
centro ..."
De conoydalibus et speroydalibus
Inc.: "Archimedes Dositheo bene
agere. Mitto tibi scribens in hoc libro
reliquorum theorematum demonstra-
tiones . . ."
De quam pluribus theorematibus
Inc.: "Archimedes Dositheo gaudere.
Theorematum ad Cononem misso-
rum ..."
De centris gravium vel de planis eque-
repentibus
Inc.: "Petimus equales gravitates ab
equalibus longitudinibus equaliter m-
clinare ..."
Liber qui dicitur quadratura parabole
Inc.: "Archymenides Dositheo bene
agere. Audiens Kononem quidem
mortuum esse qui erat nobis ami-
cus ...
Missing in Moerbeke Translations
.. Heiberg, Arehimedis opera omnia, Vo\. 3, pp. LXXV-LXXVII.
F. Ehrle, Historia Bibliothecae Romanorum pontifieium, Vo!. 1 (Rome, 1890), p. 97,
item 612. See A. Pelzer, Addenda et Emendanda Francisci Ehrle Historiae ete. (Rome,
1941), p. 95.
n Ehrle, Historia, Vo!. I, p. 95, n. 357; Pelzer, Addenda, p. 92.
ZI Heiberg, Arehimedis opera omnia, Vo!. 3, p. LXXX.
D Ibid., pp. LXXX-LXXXIII. All of the evidence is also presented by R. Sabbadini,
C4rteggio di Giovanni Aurispa, pp. 161-62. He places great stress on one of Ambrosius
Traversarius' letters to Nicolaus Niccoli, dated vii Kalends of August, 1424, in which it
is declared that Rinutius confessed that his copy of Archimedes was entitled De instru-
-entis bellicis et aquaticis ("Rinutius Archimedem se habere De instrumentis bellicis et
tlqlUlticis cum pictura confessus est . . ."). If Rinutius was telling the truth, and Sabbadini
believes his character was such as to support this belief, then Heiberg's suggestion that
Rinutius' copy was Greek manuscript A cannot be correct. Actually, that was Heiberg's
earlier suggestion. Later, in the citation noted above, he proposed that the reference to this
particular work (the De instrumentis) was not to a manuscript of Archimedes but rather to
Ibe manuscript that is now Vat. gr. 218 containing a fragment of Anthemius' 7T'p"L 7T'opo86gwlJ
and a copy of Pappus' Collectio. But, Heiberg continues, the story of Rinutius'
possession of an Archimedes may have been prompted by his possessing (in addition to
Vat. gr. 218) manuscript A, which for some reason he did not want to admit having, and
that it was manuscript A which a certain Philip claimed to have seen in Rinutius' posses-
sion. Added support for this proposal would come from my suggested identification of Vat.
If. 218 with item 604 in the catalogue of the Vatican Library dated 1311 (see below, Chap.
2. Sect. Ill, note 56). For if this suggestion is correct, then it would mean that Rinutius
bad acquired at least one manuscript from the old papal collection. One could then suppose
Now it is evident, as Heiberg has shown, that Jacobus Cremonensis
executed his translation from Greek manuscript A.19 Thus MS A must
have been present in Rome about 1450, and no doubt this was the
manuscript referred to by Nicholas of Cusa in his oft-mentioned dedica-
tion to the Pope (see above, note 1). How Nicholas V acquired this
manuscript is a matter of speculation. The last clear-cut mention of it
was in the papal catalogue of 1311.
20
The inventories of 1327 (John
XXII) and 1339 (Benedict XII) of the old Papal Library, then at
Assisi, speak only of "libri seripti in lingua greca" and "quosdam alios
.Oros grecos.' '21 Apparently these Greek codices remained neglected at
Assisi until 1368 when Urban V brought them to Rome and distributed
them to monastic and church libraries.
22
At any rate, there is no
further evidence of the whereabouts of MS A until the next
century. One possibility, suggested by Heiberg, is that it somehow came
into the possession of Rinuccio da Castiglione,23 perhaps in the 1420's
when the rumor spread that Rinuccio had brought back a Greek manu-
script of Archimedes from Constantinople, a story examined in detail
and rejected by Heiberg. Heiberg further argues that, if Rinuccio had'MS
A, it would be easy to explain how Nicholas V was able to
acquire it, since Rinuccio is known to have done Greek translations
at the request of the Pope.
De insidentibus aque
Inc.: "Supponatur humidum habens
talem naturam ut partibus ipsius . . ."
11. Missing in Cremona Translations
s ~
Another possibility is that the Pope acquired the manuscript from
Paolo Toscanelli, the celebrated Florentine mathematician. We know from
a marginal note by Regiomontanus on his copy of Jacobus' translation
that Master Paul had an exemplar vetus of Archimedes, which seems
to have been either Greek MS A or Moerbeke's holograph,24 these being
the only two copies of Archimedes that would qualify as an "old
exemplar. " Heiberg without sufficient reason judges that Paul's copy
was William of Moerbeke's holograph. But if it were rather MS A, then
it is possible that Toscanelli loaned it to the Pope for the purpose of
Jacobus' translation and that, on the completion of the translation, it
was returned to Toscanelli's care at least before the 1460's when Regio-
montanus saw it. However, I must admit this seems doubtful to me,
since I am inclined, on other grounds than those of Heiberg, to believe
that Toscanelli's exemplar vetus was Vat. Ottob. lat. 1850, containing
the translations of Moerbeke (see below, the next section, note 22).
Since Jacobus utilized only MS A, MS B not being available, Jacobus
was unable to present a translation of On Floating Bodies, which was
not present in MS A. But Jacobus did include translations of the two
works in MS A that Moerbeke failed to translate: The Sandreckoner
and Eutocius' Commentary on the Measurement of the Circle.
We are now prepared to consider our principal question: Did Jacobus
Cremonensis also have Moerbeke's translations at hand when he set upon
the task of translating Greek MS A? This is a difficult question to answer
with certainty because of the markedly different styles of the translators,
Moerbeke's being literal, while Jacobus' is considerably freer.
25
Still the
following evidence does, I believe, indicate that Jacobus had his eye on
the translations of Moerbeke.
26
As we shall see, the principal evidence
rests on Jacobus' apparent following of Moerbeke in the latter's errors
or in readings which had their origin in Greek MS B, available only to
Moerbeke. A less persuasive kind of evidence consists in the presence
of whole sentences or phrases that are identical in both sets of transla-
tions. The latter kind of evidence when coupled with the former seems to
that he might have acquired a second manuscript from that collection, namely manuscript
A of Archimedes, which we know to have been item 612 of the catalogue of 1311 (see note
20 above).
24 Heiberg, ibid., p. LXXI.
25 Heiberg, ibid., pp. LXXVII-LXXVIII, gives some examples of how Jacobus' freedom
was manifested in supplying readings for lacunae, in adding gratuitous readings, in suppress-
ing things he did not understand, and in boldly transforming corrupt passages. But, in
general, the freedom is everywhere apparent in his abandonment of the Greek syntacti-
cal order and the requirement that so far as possible there ought to be an equivalent Latin
term for each Greek word. Hence we see that, unlike Moerbeke, he does not feel it neces-
sary to translate Greek articles before letters designating geometrical magnitudes by the use
of relative pronouns, perhaps the most extreme case of Moerbeke's literalism.
26 Heiberg in his "Neue Studien zu Archimedes," Abhandlungen zur Geschichte der
Mathematik, 5. Heft (1890), pp. 1-84, at p. 83, arrived at a similar conclusion on the
establish at least the occasional dependence by Jacobus on William's
earlier translations. In the following list the Greek citations are to Heiberg's
edition (abbreviated Gr), those from Moerbeke to my edition in Volume
Two above (abbreviated 0), and those from Jacobus to Venice, Bibl.
Naz. Marc. f.a.327 (abbreviated V) and to the edition of 1544 (abbrevi-
ated Ed).
A. Marked Similarities in Errors or in Readings from Greek MS B.
1. Gr 1, 234, 11-12: ol T<{J rrZA 0J.t0WL
0, 22vL: Accipiantur sectores similes ipsi PZA
V, l06v, 24; Ed, 55: sumpte sint itaque portiones similes ipsi pfa
Thus "Accipiantur" of Moerbeke and "sumpte sint" of Jacobus are similarly
incorrect. The meaning is rather "relinquantur." Jacobus' use of "portiones"
is better than Moerbeke's "sectores" even though is generally
rendered as "sector." The little figures in question are actually areas bounded
by two tangents and an arc of the circle. Portio is general enough to
represent such a figure.
2. Gr 2, 210, 14: Ta (Greek MS A had E, Gk MS B probably
had
0, 20r<ll: sequentia
V, 182v, 15; Ed, 141: sequentia
Hence Moerbeke probably made his translation from Greek MS B and was
followed by Jacobus in that reading.
3. Gr 2,268, 1: B.:l1TOTt TaJ/ BZ (Gr. MS A; MS B no doubt added J.taKL after BZ)
0, 20vN: BD longitudine ad BZ
V, 185r, 6 Ed, 144: bd ad bf longitudine
Thus Jacobus seems to be following Moerbeke in accepting a reading from
Greek MS B. Perhaps one could argue that this is an obvious addition
mathematically.
4. Gr 2, 268, 15-17: 1TOTt TaP BE> iaat yap ai .:lZ KH' apaAoyoJ/
apa EJ/Tt al Br (This whole set of phrases was in MS B, not in A.)
0, 20vP-Q: ad BT potentia; equales enim que DZ, KH. Proportionales
ergo sunt que BG
V, 185r, 18-19; Ed, 144: ab bt (df) potentia equales enim sunt (sunt enim)
df, kg. proportionales igitur sunt be (Note: the words in parentheses are
from Ed.)
I believe this to be a most conclusive case, since Jacobus without any
knowledge of Greek MS B, has followed Moerbeke exactly in B's reading
(changing only the magnitude letters, as he was accustomed to do).
basis of only three of the cases I have listed below: "Nicht nur Gauricus und Tartaglia
beuteten sie aus, sondern schon fruher hatte sie dem Jacobus Cremonensis bei seiner
Neulibersetzung gedient."
Gr 2,280, 1: A
0, 21rJ: spatium L
V, 186v, 30; Ed 146: I spacium
Gr 2, 278, 20: Z
0, 21rI: spatiumZ
V, 186v, 25: Ed, 146: spaciumj
5. Or 2, 268, 19-270, 1: aez 7T01"t Tav eH (In MS B, missing in MS A)
0, 20vQ: ita que TZ ad lineam TH
V, 185r, 20-21; Ed, 144: itafh ad hg
Again Jacobus seems to follow Moerbeke in an addition from MS B, changing
only the letters designating the lines.
6. Gr 2, 270, 23: 0:7T0 TOV f
0, 20vT: a signo G
V, 185v, 7-8; Ed, 144: a puncto c
Gr 2, 270, 30: Af
0, 20vU: lineamAG
V, 185v, 12;Ed, 145: lineamac
Gr 2, 278, 19: A
0, 21rH: spatium L
V, 186v, 25;Ed, 146: spaciuml
All of these represent additional words added to the Greek text by Moerbeke
and Jacobus alike. They may merely be coincidences since Jacobus on other
occasions adds "punctum" where "signum" is missing in Moerbeke's
translation. It could be that Moerbeke found these additional words in MS B.
7. Gr 2, 272, 24-25: Ka Af ypaJLJLa 7Tapa TOV ai
(Reconstructed by Heiberg; Greek MS A had the very puzzling ...
ypCXJLJLCX aVTOV without accents; MS B seems to have had
. . . YPcxJLJLa aVT4) ai)
0, 20vX: assimilatur linea AG ipsi orizonti
V, 186r, 1; Ed, 145: ac linea ipsi libre (librae) assimillatur (assimilatur)
The key word is "assimilatur" apparently drawn by Moerbeke from EOLKE
in MS B. Faced by the puzzling phrase of MS A, Jacobus seems to have
succumbed to Moerbeke's translation based on MS B, for it seems hardly
likely that he could have dredged up "assimillatur" from MS A's
Hence this appears to be a very strong case supporting Jacobus' use of
Moerbeke's translation.
8. Gr 3, 112, 19-20: E7TCXYCXYWlJ BY] TO EK TWV (TVlJaX(}VTWlJ 7TOPUTJLCX E7Tt
TAEL TOV
0, 39rT: Inducens itaque corolarium ex conductis, perficit theorema
V, 25r, 24; Ed 11, 28; Inducens itaque ex collectis corolarium, perficit theorema
Not only are the two translations almost completely identical but the same
basic error is made in both of them. E7T/. TAEL TOV is translated
as if it were E7TLTEAE"i (}EWpTJJLCX. This is one more strong indication of
Jacobus' dependency on Moerbeke.
B. Some Identities of Expressions in the Two Translations
1. Or 2, 262, 9: KC;WOVL ypaq;ELlJ EyVWKOTE<; 7JJLE<; (MS A: ELJLElJ)
0, 20vF: Cononi scribere consueveramus
V, 184r, 11; Ed, 142: Kononi scribere consueveramus
Perhaps Moerbeke found another word in MS Band Jacobus followed him.
At any rate, Jacobus appears to be following Moerbeke in word selection,
word order and tense.
2. Gr 2, 262, 18-19: Aaf-L!3avOVTE() OVK 1J1TapaxwpT/Ta ATJf-Lf-LaTa
0, 20vG: sumentes non facile concessibilia fundamenta
V, 184r, 23; Ed, 142: sumentes non facile concessibilia fundamenta
The chance that these identical translations would be given independently
for this phrase seems, to me, remote, particularly the use of the same two
words "facile concessibilia" for EV1mpaxwPYJTa. So this is another strong
piece of evidence supporting the interdependency of the two translations.
Rather than extending the list of identities of individual phrases, I
should like merely to give a random paragraph from Jacobus' translation
in which I have italicized all of the phrases that are found verbatim in
the Moerbeke translation (V, 63v, 1-17; cf. Gr 1,2,1-20; 0, 23vA-D):
Archimedes Dositheo salutem. Prius quidem ad te misi que a nobis inspecta
essent, conscribentes eorum demonstrationes, quod omnis portio contenta a
Trcta et a koni rectanguli sectione, sesquitertia sit triangulo habenti basem cum
portione eandem et altitudinem eidem equalem. Nunc autem quorundam OCCUf-
cntium theorematum, que effectu probata videntur, demonstrationes conscrip-
simus. Ipsa vero huiusmodi sunt. Primum quidem quod omnis sphere superficies
""adrupla est circulo in ea maximo. Deinde quod superjiciei cuiuscunque por-
tionis sphere circulus ille equalis est, cuiusque que ex centro equalis sit recte
ducte a vertice portionis ad circuli qui basis est portionis circumferentiam. Ad
Wc quod cuiusque sphere kylindrus qui basem habeat circulum in sphera maxi-
mum et altitudinem eqllalem sphere diametro sesquialter habetur et superficies
eius cum basibus superficiei sphere est itidem sesquialter. Hec autem accidentia
IUltura ipsa inerant prius circa dictas figllras. . . .
One could, I suppose, put down the frequency of identical phrases to
the fact that both translators were forced to use the same rather restricted
geometrical vocabulary. But in view of all of the other similarities which
have been demonstrated above, it seems more likely that Jacobus occa-
sionally looked at Moerbeke's translation as he made his own. One might
weD ask why Jacobus left a large lacuna after the above-quoted passage
(he omits Gr 1, 2, 21-1, 4, 21) if he had had Moerbeke' s translation
in front of him, for apparently Moerbeke was able to read MS A more
easily at this place than was Jacobus. My answer is simply that this leaf
cl A, which was probably in bad condition when Moerbeke used it, deteri-
orated even further in the two centuries between the two translators,
and Jacobus felt constrained not to include a translation for a passage he
could not read in the Greek. The difficulty of reading this passage in
MS A by the time of the Renaissance is illustrated by the state of the
principal copies made from A. The scribes of Greek MSS D and G at-
tempted to read the same section omitted by Cremonensis but they left
many lacunae, and those of E and H omitted virtually the whole section,
=
as Heiberg reports in his Prolegomena to Volume 3 of his edition of
Archimedes' works (pp. IX-X). On the other hand, why Cremonensis
left untranslated (with a vacant space of about 10 lines) the end of the
opening paragraph of Eutocius' Commentary on the Sphere and the Cyl-
inder (V 2r; Ed, p. 1; Gr 3, 2, 12-22) I do not know, since there does
not seem to be any great difficulty with the Greek text and Moerbeke
supplied a translation (34rC- E). Perhaps Cremonensis meant to return
to this passage, but was prevented by death from doing so. While I am
convinced from the arguments and passages cited above that Cremonensis
on some occasions consulted Moerbeke's text, it is equally clear that he
did not systematically consult it, since, as I shall show below, he would
have been saved numerous errors had he done so.
Now if I am right in concluding that Jacobus occasionally used the
Moerbeke translations, we would have the first clear-cut evidence of the
presence of Moerbeke's holograph (Vat. Ottob. lat. 1850) in Italy since
1269- 70 when Moerbeke wrote out his translations, although, as I have
suggested in Part I, this manuscript may well have been at Paris during
the 1340's and 1350's.27 For the most part, Cremonensis correctly rendered
the passages where Moerbeke had committed flagrant errors.
28
But at
27 See Part I, pp. 5, n. 6; 20; 141.
28 In Volume 2, I listed a number of errors of translation made by Moerbeke (see
Part I, Chap. 1, Sect. Ill). Here I should like to illustrate how Jacobus translated a few
of the same passages or words mistranslated by Moerbeke:
(1) Gr 1, 102, 8: 7TEptAEAEtIJ-IJ-EVOV
0, 28rH: circumacceptum
V,84r, 12-13; Ed 27: residuum ... relictum
(2) Gr 2,44, 27-46, 1: aPXa ri]<; ei!(JEicx, av IJ-E-V
0, 13rT: principium circulationis rectum. Si quidem
V, 154r-v; Ed, 107: initium circulationis. Linea vero recta
(3) Gr 2, 156, 16, 21 etc.: E7TEt81J7TEP
0, 18rM: quoniam itaque
V, 174v, 15; Ed, 131: cum
(4) Gr 2, 202, 15: T0P-OV
0, 20rP: sectoris
V, 181v, 7; Ed 140: frustri (frusti)
This error was made often by Moerbeke in On the Equilibrium of Planes (but not else-
where). Jacobus usually corrects it. Jacobus was one of the earliest authors to use
"frustum" (or rather "frustrum") in a geometrical sense. On the other hand, Cremonen-
sis often mistranslates T0IJ-V<; as "portio" rather than "sector"; see below in the list of
Moerbeke's preferred readings, No. (3), and see Val. 2, pp. 45-46.
(5) Gr 2, 208, 23: a-uvSVO ACXIJ-{3avo,uvot<;
0, 20r8: cum duabus acceptis
V, 182v, 3-4; Ed, 141: duabus simul sumptis
(6) Gr 2, 286, 12; SuxX(Jw yap
0, 21rW: sit enim divisa
V, 188r, 6-7; Ed, 148: Ducatur itaque
(7) Gr 3, 88, 8: P-tKPOV y'
0, 38rG: modicum turn risisset
V, 20r, 22-23; Ed, 1I 22: parvum utique (utique inde) subiecisse
(8) Gr 3, 110, 4-5: Ol7TOAcxp-{3av0p-EVYj<; nw Kc;WOV
0, 39rM: superficie coni intus absumpta
V, 24 v, 21: Ed, 11 28: non a comprehensa (compraehensa) intus a kono (cono)
:1IIe same time, he himself often committed errors which Moerbeke
',,8Oided, and in one important case examined by Helier, Moerbeke' s ver-
lion is clearly superior.
29
Of the many passages in which Moerbeke's
RDdering is to be preferred, I shall cite some from On the Sphere and
Cylinder alone, in order not to extend the list greatly:
I. Gr 1, 8, 18-19: ijTOL OATJ 1TEpLAaJ.L{3O:ll'Y/TaL 1mo rile; eTEpae; 1] TEpa
E1TuplxJlELa (for 1] ETEpa Gr MS A seems to have had TEpa)
O. 23vN: aut tota comprehenditUf ab altera superficie
V, 64v, 14: vel altera contineatur ab altera
2- Gr 1, 40, 28-42, 3: Kat . . . XVAiv8Pll!
O. 25rD: translates this passage completely as in the Greek text, including
the two errors of Tpiywva in 1, 40, 28 (and E:1Ti1TE8a in I, 42, 4, just
beyond this passage).
V. 71v, 9: omits this crucial passage
J. Or 1, 144, I: TOJ.LEa
O. 3OrF: sectorem
V. 91v, 5: portionem
a. V 92r, 3, 10; 92v, 5, 6, 22; 94r, 27 where the same mistranslation occurs.
In 0 3OrL, M, Q; 30vA, D; 31rA, Moerbeke has the correct translation.
4_ Gr 1, 148, 20-21: 0 yap N KVKAoe;
O. 30rQ: Circulus enim N
V. 92v, 5: 19itur n circulus
,. Gr 1, 168, 6: 8tU TWV (}EWPTJJ.LO:TWJI (Gr MS A had (}EoPTJJ.LaTwv)
0, 31rL: per theoremata
V, 95v, 6: ex inspectis et theorematibus
6.. Gr 1, 182, 3: AE in Gr MS A)
0, 31vQ: AEl (corr. m. 1 ex DE)
V.98r, 10: de
It is evident that Moerbeke caught the error of MS A while Cremonensis
did not.
7. Gr 1, 182, 4: AE (SE in Gr MS A)
0, 31vQ: A2 (corr. m.l ex TE)
V,98r, 10: he
Again Moerbeke has made the proper correction.
I. Gr 1, 190, 22:
0, 32rN: DZ2
V, 99v, 13: dL
, S. HelIer, "Ein Fehler in einer Archimedes-Ausgabe, seine Entstehung und seine
Abhandlungen der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Mathematisch-
Klasse, Neue Folge, 63. Heft (1954), full article, pp. 5-38, but see
"... 19-21, gives the details favorable to the Moerbeke translation of Proposition 21
(=Prop. 22 of the Moerbeke translation, Prop. 21 of the Cremonensis translation) of the
conoidalibus.
9. Gr 1, 190,25: eXEt
0, 32rO: habet
V, 99v, 15: non habet
Moerbeke is correct. Perhaps Or MS A had OUK eXEt and then deleted the
OVK but in an ambiguous manner so that Cremonensis translated it anyway.
10. Gr 1, 202, 15: TOJuxi
0, 32vP: sectiones
V, 101v, 19: portiones
11. Or 1, 216, 14-20: 0 Br, (OE in Or MS A) mu BA6. TO Bf6.
<rovij7TTaL EK mu, DV ExEt TO BAd T/-LT)/-La TOV KWVOV, oU [1]]
/-LEV EUTtV 0 7TEPL BUX/-LETPOV rilv B6. KVKAO" KOpVtpr, Be TO A
uTJ/-LEiov, Kat 0 aVTo" KWVO" TOV KWVOV TOV (om. MS A) {3auLv
/-Lev ExovTa T7]V aVT7}V, KOPVlp7]V Be TO r uY//-LEiov, KaL 0
7Tpor; TO Bfd T/-LYJ/-La.
0, 33vC: Proportio autem portionis BAD ad portionem BGD composita
est ex ea quam habet portio BAD ad conum cuius basis quidem est circulus
qui circa diametrum BD, vertex autem signum A, et idem conus ad conum
habentem quidem basem eandem, verticem autem signum G, et dictus
conus ad portionemBGD.
V, 100r, 17-22: Proportio autem bad portionis ad bed componitur ex pro-
portione bad portionis ad conum cuius basis sit circulus circa
bd diametrum descriptus, vertex vero a punctum, et idem conus ad
conum habentem eandem basem, verticem vero e punctum, habet eandem
proportionem, et dictus conus ad bed portionem habet eandem.
It is evident that Cremonensis by adding the two phrases I have rendered
in italics, namely habet eandem proportionem and habet eandem (with
proportionem understood), has transformed a ratio compounded of three
ratios into a series of equal ratios. Regiomontanus removes all the ambiguity
of Moerbeke' s text and the errors of Cremonensis' text; see below in the
next section in the list of Regiomontanus' corrections, n, 4.
12. Gr 1, 216, 27: TO a7TO ef (Gr MS A had He ef)
0, 33vD: id quod a TG
V, 100r, 27-28: id quod fit ex gh (=H8) in he (=8f)
Thus Moerbeke once more gives us a sound correction of A, while
Cremonensis fails to do so.
13. Gr 1, 218, 5: 8Z (Gr MS A had AZ)
0, 33vF: TZ
V, 100v, 3: af = (AZ)
Again Moerbeke makes the proper correction of MS A, while Cremonensis
does not.
These few examples could be multiplied many times if we were to give
a line by line comparison of the readings of the two translations of all
the works present in both translations. But even this short list shows
that Moerbeke was often following the Greek text more closely than
was Cremonensis. We must, then, qualify to some extent Heiberg's gen-
erally favorable view of the Cremonensis translation.
30
Indeed we can
approach Torelli's somewhat more critical estimate, especially when we
realize that Torelli was actually criticizing Cremonensis' translation as
extensively corrected by Regiomontanus.
31
30 Heiberg, Archimedis opera omnia, Vo!. 3. pp. LXXVII-LXXVIII.
31 Archimedis quae supersunt omnia cum Eutocii Ascalonitae commentariis (Oxford.
1792), pp. xiii-xiv: "IlIud etiam percommode accidit, quod latina Archimedis versio
quam Joannes (!) Cremonensis olim confecerat, Nicolai V. Pontificis jussu cum descripta
diligenter fuisset a Joanne Regiomontano. qui earn ab amicis acceperat, paulo post
Basileam transmissa, atque una cum Archimede edita est. Cum enim Cremonensis
codice usus sit aliquanto emendatiore, quam sit Basileensis, nonuUa quae in hoc depravata
erant hujus Versionis ope emendavi; plura etiam emendaturus, si quantum ille Graecam
linguam, tantum Geometriam calluisset. At ubi haec Versio defecit, defecit autem in
pluribus, ingenio et conjectura usus sum, quae ut in caeteris lubrica est atque incerta, ita
in iis stabili vestigio ingreditur, quae non hominis arbitrium, sed veritas regit ac moderatur."
A more specific criticism is given later, pp. xvi-xvii: "Emendatis Archimedis Iibris, quod
primum mihi proposueram, restabat alterum facilius iUud quidem, sed longe molestius,
ut singulos e Graeco in latinum sermonem converterem. Quod cum Joannes (!) Cremonensis
jampridem fecerit. et post ilium magna ex parte Federicus Commandinus, videbor fortasse
aliquibus si non inutilem, certe non necessarium laborem suscepisse. Quibus respondendum
est, Cremonensis versionem contemnendam non esse, si temporum ilIorum ratio habeatur,
quibus confecta fuit: at vero in hac tanta litterarum luce. quando nihil nisi perfectum
absolutumque hoc in genere ferri potest, nullius esse pretii. Nimirium iUe Vir Graecis
litteris mediocriter imbutus parum admodum peritus fuit latini sermonis, et. quod caput
est, Geometriae; ut vix mediocris Archimedis interpres, nedum optimus, haberi potest.
Quorum unum cum adeo certum sit. ut probatione non egeat, place alterum exemplo,
quod primum mihi occurrit confirmare. Petitionum. quas primo libro de Sphaera et Cylindro
Archimedes praesmisit, haec una est: T(iW BE aAAwl' E.7TLlpal'LWV, Kat Ta airra 7TEpaTa
qOVfT(iw, EaVEl' E7TL7TEBiIJ Ta 7TEpaTa tt. ell'aL E7TLBav wow
<
E7Tt Ta aiTra KOLAcn. Kat Tjrot OA'Y} 7TptAalll3fxvrm inTo eTpac; ETEpa E7TlAPallLa,
Km E7Tt7TEBov Ta airra 7TEPaTot XOV07JC; cxinil. 1/ TLva p,El' 7TptAap,{3a.V'Y}Tat, Twa
L
KOLva EX1J, Kat EAa.fTfTol'a lvat 77}1' 7TptAap,{3avop,EV'Y}l'. Quam ego petitionem ita verti:
'aliarumvero superficierum, quae eosdem terminos habent, si in pIano terminos habeant, eas
inaequales esse, quarum utraque ad easdem partes cava est, alteraque ab altera. et a piano,
quod eosdem ac ipsa terminos habet, vel tota comprehenditur. vel aliqua quidem
comprehenditur, caetera vero communia habet, eamque minorem esse, quae compre-
benditur.' Quid Cremonensis? 'Aliarum vero superficierum. et eosdem terminos habentium, si
in pIano terminos habeant, eas esse inaequales. Ubi autem ambae in easdem partes cavae
foerint, et vel altera tota contineatur ab altera. aut alteram earum ab altera superficie, et pIano
eosdem cum ilia terminos habente, aut ejus partem quidem comprendi constet, partem vero
communemhabere, et comprensamesse comprendente minorem.' Itane vero bone interpres?
Quae sententia una est. hanc tu in duas dividis: atque id adeo inepte facis, ut altera falsa fit,
a1tera autem nulla." While Torelli's general estimate of Cremonensis' translation appears to
be sound, this specific criticism is unjust, particularly as applied to Cremonensis' translation.
since it is rather a criticism of Regiomontanus' corrected translation as present in the edition
cl 1544. Let me explain further. To do so, I shall first quote the postulate as given in
Cremonensis' pristine version (Venice, Bib!. Naz. Marc. f.a.327. 64v): "Aliarum vero
superficierum et eosdem terminos habentium si in pIano terminos habeant eas esse inequales
ubi ambe in partes easdem cave fuerint, et vel altera contineatur ab altera et plana eosdem
terminos cum ilia habente aut eius partem quidem comprehendi constet partem vero
communemhabere. et comprehensam esse comprehendente minorem. Nowin the edition of
Basel (p. 2) there is no actual sentence division at Ubi. Rather we have "eas esse inaequales:
Our final conclusion concerning the comparison of the medieval and
Renaissance translations ought to be that each has its advantages and
disadvantages. The painful literalness of the Moerbeke translation,
while of great advantage to the student of the Greek text of Archimedes,
often left the meaning obscure, an obscurity that tended to vanish in the
freer rendering of Cremonensis' translation. On the other hand, the many
omissions and carelessnesses of Cremonensis' translation compare
unfavorably with the great care taken by Moerbeke to render the Greek
text completely. Each translator was on occasion baffled by the state of
MS A, and sometimes one suggested a successful emendation and some-
times the other.
11. Regiomontanus
I have already mentioned briefly the role played by Regiomontanus in
copying and correcting the translation of Archimedes and Eutocius made
by Jacobus Cremonensis. Now I should like to study in some detail
Regiomontanus' knowledge of the medieval tradition of Archimedes, for
Regiomontanus combined in his training a remarkable command of both
medieval mathematical works and the new Greek texts that were being
discovered and exploited in the Renaissance. He gained this unusual com-
mand in a short but fruitful life.
1
Born as Johannes Muller near Konigs-
berg (from which the popular form of his name was derived) in 1436, he
studied at Leipzig in 1447-50, and then studied and taught at the Uni-
versity of Vienna between 1450 and 1461, where his friendship with Georg
Peurbach (who was his most important teacher) was of particular signif-
icance. It was during this period that he read widely and copied medieval
mathematical and astronomical works. This period was followed by an ex-
traordinarily profitable stay in Italy from 1461 to about 1465 (perhaps even
to 1467, there being no trace of his activities between 1465 and 1467).
ubi autemambae". I admit that the use ofautem gives the sense ofa contrastingthought rather
than of a continuing sentence. But notice that in this passage from the manuscript there is no
punctuation at all between inequales and ubi and that Cremonensis did not have the autem
which was added to the text in the edition from the correction made by Regiomontanus
(Nuremberg, StadtbibI. Cent. V.15, p. 2). The edition does not dojustice to the Cremonensis
translation in another respect. While it does correctly add tota after altera (the tota being
missing in the Cremonensis manuscript), it adds the phrase aut alteram earum ab altera
superficie, which originated in Regiomontanus' reading of Greek MS E (except that
Regiomontanus had altera instead of alteram). Hence, it is obvious that Torelli's criticism,
while to some extent justified for Regiomontanus' corrected version, is not just so far as
Cremonensis' version is concerned.
1 I have followed the oft-quoted E. Zinner, Leben und Wirken, for the main outlines
of Regiomontanus' life. Regiomontanus enjoyed a high reputation as a mathematician in
his own age. For example, Pico della Mirandola speaks of him as "the most learned mathe-
matician of our age." See Disputationes adversus astrologiam divinatricem (Bologna, 1496),
Bk. ix, cap. vii, sig. G(l) v: "Ioannes de regio monte sublimis aetate nostra doctissimusque
mathematicus...." I have not seen the recent Joannis Regiomofltani opera collectanea,
ed. F. Schmeidler (Osnabriick, 1972).
REGIOMONTANUS AND ARCHIMEDES 343
In Italy he in all likelihood perfected his knowledge of Greek with Bes-
sarion, who remained his patron during most of this period. There he col-
lected copies of Greek and Latin mathematical texts. He seems to have met
many of the leading humanists and translators, such as Theodore of Gaza.
He also met and admired Paolo Toscanelli, as I have said earlier. A
sojourn in Hungary from 1467 to 1471 (with a trip to Vienna in 1467
sandwiched in) followed. His career culminated with his move to Nurem-
~ g where he lived from 1471 to 1475 and where he founded a press with
the intention of publishing a vast collection of medieval and classical math-
ematical and astronomical works as well as his own writings,2 a project
which was unfortunately cut off by his tragic death in Rome in 1476 at
the age of forty.
Needless to say, Regiomontanus' initial acquaintance with the medieval
Archimedes lay in the early period at Vienna. No doubt he learned some-
thing of that tradition from Peurbach. While we have no Archimedean
discussions from Peurbach, we do know that he was acquainted with the
Archimedean bounds of Tr (see note 40 below), thus attesting some ac-
quaintance with On the Measurement of the Circle in one or another of
the medieval versions. It was apparently at Vienna that Regiomontanus
copied the so-called Gordanus Version of Proposition I of the De mensura
circuli, which appeared as Chapter 23 of Part VIII of Gordanus' Com-
pi/acio (see Volume 1, pp. 142-65). This copy remains in the National-
bibliothek at Vienna, Cod. 5203, 131v- 33r.
3
This text in the Vienna manu-
script differs but little from the original Gordanus text, except that
Regiomontanus has introduced it by a paragraph drawn from Chapter 18 of
the same part of Gordanus' Compilacio:
4
2 This list of books to be published was printed at Nuremberg in about 1474 (see the
preceding section, note 8). It was rendered into German by E. Zinner, Geschichte und
Bibliographie der astronomischen Literatur in Deutschland zur Zeit der Renaissance
(Leipzig, 1941), pp. 4-7, and into English in B. Hughes' English translation of the De
triangulis omnimodis (Regiomontanus on Triangles, Madison, Wise., 1967, pp. 15-17).
3 This manuscript is described by Zinner, Leben und Wirken, pp. 307-08. Zinner has,
I believe, misidentified the Briquet number of the watermark of the sheets including
this section of the manuscript. He designates it as no. 11782 (which would indicate a paper
too late to have been used by Regiomontanus), while Hofrat Dr. Franz Unterkircher, Director
of the Manuscript Collection, kindly writes me that the watermark is closer to Briquet
Nrs. 11797-98, which would indicate a paper dating from the late 1440's or the 1450's.
See C. Briquet, Les Filigrans, Vol. 3 (Leipzig, 1923), p. 594.
4 MS Vienna, Nationalbibl. 5203, 131v: "Circuli aream concludere. Medietas dyametri
ducatur in medietatem circumferentie, et exibit area circuli. Item ducatur dyameter in se,
et productum multiplicatur per 11, et quod exit divide per 14, et exit area. Probatio pre-
mittitur (? p2 in MS) concesso quod linee curve possit dari equalis recta. Tunc a termino
semidyametri circuli ducatur linea contingens circulum equalis circumferentie et fiat trigonus
ortogonius qui secundum Archimenidem est circulo equalis. Est enim propositio Archi-
menidis: omnis trigonus orthogonius contentus semidyametro circuli et linea recta equali
periferia (I) illius circuli, que due linee faciant ilium rectum angulum talis trianguli, equalis
est circulo. Demonstrat autem Archimenides sic. Nam hic triangulus non est maior circulo
nec minor, igitur equalem esse reputabimus." Cf. Clagett, Archimedes in the Middle Ages,
Vo!. I, pp. 143 n. 4, 148.
To conclude the area of a circle. Let half the diameter be multiplied by half
the circumference and the area of the circle will arise. Also, let the diameter be
multiplied by itself, and let the product be multiplied by 11, which [new] product
divide by 14, and the result is the area.
A proof is premised (!) when it has been conceded that a straight line could
be given equal to a curved line. Then from the terminus of the radius of the
circle, let a tangent to the circle be drawn equal to the circumference. [Then
by connecting the end of the tangent with the center of the circle] let a right
triangle be constructed, which, according to Archimedes, is equal to the circle.
For this is the proposition of Archimedes: "Every right triangle contained by the
radius of a circle and a straight line equal to the circumference of the circle-these
two lines forming the right angle of such a triangle-is equal to the circle."
Now Archimedes demonstrates this as follows. Since this triangle is not greater
than nor less than the circle, therefore, we judge it to be equal to it.
Then follows the remainder of the Gordanus Version as given in Chapter
23.
5
FOllowing these extracts from Chapters 18 and 23 of Gordanus' Com-
pi/ado, Regiomontanus adds a passage of four paragraphs that reflects
further medieval Archimedean knowledge:
6
[1] To assign a circle equal to any square. Let this square be taken 14 times
and the product divided by 11. The root of the division will be the diameter of the
circle equal to the given square. [Marginal addition: This assumes a ratio of the
circumference to the diameter of 22 to 7.]
5 Clagett, Archimedes in the Middle Ages, Vo\. 1, pp. 148-62. It might be argued that
because Regiomontanus designates the excess by which the circle is said to exceed the
triangle in the first part of the indirect proof by the quantity N (rather than H) that he
is following the copy of the Gordanus version found in the Geometry of Wigandus Dum-
heimer written about 1390 and present in a Vienna codex (Nationalbibl. 5257, 67r-69r).
But I believe this not to be the case, since Regiomontanus includes references to Euclid
given in Gordanus' Compi/acio but missing in Dumheimer's version of it. I already ad-
mitted in my text of the Gordanus chapter (Vo\. 1, p. 146) that the reading for the said
excess in the basic manuscript might indeed be N rather than H, as it clearly is N in the
drawing.
6 MS Vienna, Nationalbibl. 5203, 133r: "[1] Quadrati cuiuscunque circulationem assignare.
Ipsum quadratum I4
es
ducatur, et productum per 11 dividatur, et divisionis radix erit
dyameter circuli equalis quadrato proposito. [mg. Hoc sumpsit proportionem circumferentie
ad dyametrum 22 ad 7.] [2] Quadratum circumscriptum se habet ad circulum cui circum-
scribatur sicut 14 and 11. [3] Circulus autem ad quadratum ibi inscriptum sicut 11 ad 7.
[4] Ctibus se habet ad speram sibi inscriptam sicut 21 ad 11. Ideo circuli (! spere) crassi-
tudinem habere si vis, dyameter ducatur cubice, et proveniet cubus qui speram lateribus
contingit sed angulis 8 et lineis ab angulo in angulum procedentibus excedit. IlIum igitur
excessum rescinde, ut solius spere soliditas remaneat, dividendo cubum per 21 et productum
per 11 multiplicando. Et convertitur hec doctrina, sicut enim per dyametrum spere crassi-
tudo reperitur ita per spere crassitudinem dyameter habebitur, dividendo spere crassitudinem
per 11 et productum per 21 multiplicando et producti radix cubica erit dyameter spere.
Totum id presumpsit predictam rationem (1) periferie ad dyametrum circuli [mg.: nota, ex
ductu semidiametri in 3
am
partem superficiei spere consurgit corpulencia (1) spere]. Item
si dyameter circuli ducitur in aream eius surget columpna que sesquialtera semper est ad
ipsam speram. Ideo hoc modo iterum patebit spere crassitudo, ducendo dyametrum in
aream et productum duplando et quod exit dividendo per 3, et proveniet quesitum."
[2] A circumscribed square is related to the circle about which it is circumscribed
as 14 is to 11.
[3] But the circle to the square inscribed in it is as 11 to 7.
[4] A cube is related to the sphere inscribed in it as 21 is to 11.
Therefore, if you wish to find the volume of the sphere, let the diameter be
cubed and a cube will be produced which touches the sphere with its sides [i.e.,
its faces] and extends beyond it by means of the eight angles and the lines drawn
from angle to angle. Cut away the excess so that only the solidness of the sphere
remains behind, by dividing the cube' by 21 and multiplying the result by 11. And
this technique IS reversible. For just as the volume of the sphere is found by the
diameter, so the diameter is found by the volume, by dividing the volume of the
sphere by 11 and then multiplying the result by 21. The cube root of the
product will be the diameter of the sphere. The whole procedure presumes the
above said ratio of circumference to diameter [i.e., 22 to 7]. Also, if the diameter
of a circle is multiplied by its area, a cylinder will be produced which is always
% the sphere. [Therefore, the volume of the sphere will once more be found by
this number, if we multiply the diameter by the area, double the product, and
divide by 3.] The result is what we seek. [Marginal note: From the product of
the radius and one-third the area of the sphere is produced the volume of the
sphere.]
The principal source of these paragraphs was again the Compi/acio
of Gordanus, this time Chapters 24-26,33 of Part VIII.
7
But some changes
and shortenings were executed by Regiomontanus. The marginal addition
to [1] by Regiomontanus is merely an obvious reference to the common
assumption in antiquity and the Middle Ages of 1T as 2217, an approxima-
7 MS Vat. Pal. tat. 1389, 111v: "[24] Quadrati circulationem assignare. Capitulum 24
um
Latus quadrati ducatur in se, productum multiplicetur per 14, summa excrescens dividatur
per xi, denominationis radix erit dyameter circuli equalis quadrato proposito. Istud
probatur per illud theoreuma quo superius area circuli concluditur. [25] Circuli quadrato
inscripti excessum deprehendere. Capitulum 25
um
Per premissa nota est area circuli, similiter
et area quadrati. Si igitur subtracta fuerit area circuli ab area quadrati, remanebit excessus
notus. Verbi gratia, sit latus quadrati circumscripti 14, area eius erit 196. Et quoniamdya-
meter circuli similiter est 14, erit eius area 154. Si ergo subtraxeris hoc ab ilIo, remanebit
excessus 42. Si fuerit latus quadrati et dyameter circuli 7, excessus erit 10 et dimidium.
[26] Quadrati circulo inscripti excessus scire. Capitulum 26
um
Ab area circuli subtrahatur
eius quartadecima quinquies et insuper una habetur, eiusdem residuum dabit aream quadrati
inscripti, ut, si fuerit area circuli 154, subtrahantur quinquies xi et insuper et (del. MS)
unum, et emnt 56; istis ablatis remanebunt 98. Hoc est area quadrati inscriptio ...
(l13r) [4) Circuli crassitudinem spericam perscrutari. Capitulum 33[uml. Nota est dyametros
circuli per premissa. Illa in se cubice ducatur, et proveniet cubus qui speram lateribus
contingit. Sed angulis et lineis ab angulo in angulum procedentibus excedit. IlIum ergo
excessum rescinde ut spere sive circuli propositi precise remaneat soliditas. Et procedes
sic. Summam cubi divide per 21, quod exierit multiplica per 11, et proveniet quod queris,
scilicet spera, que est globositas circuli.... Et nota quod ista doctrina convertitur, quia
(?) sicut per dyametrum notam crassitudo circuli, i.e. spera, invenitur ita e converso dya-
meter invenitur per speram, hoc modo, spere quantitas per undecim dividatur, quod exierit
rnultiplicetur per 22, et proveniet (? sive forte proveniret) cubus cuius radix sive latus
cubicum est dyameter que queritur. Item nota quod si dyameter circuli ducatur in
aream eius surget colurnpna que sper (del. MS) est sesquialtera ad speram, et sic patebit
circuli crassitudo.' ,
tion drawn from Archimedes' upper bound. Paragraphs [2] and [3], while
suggested by Chapters 25 and 26 of Gordanus' work, have been altered
by Regiomontanus to express general ratios instead of Gordanus' calcula-
tions of excesses based on these ratios. In fact, [2] is essentially
Proposition 2 of the De mensura circuli which circulated widely in the
Middle Ages, as I have shown in Volume 1. Paragraph [4] is closely related
to Gordanus' Chapter 33, except for the final marginal addition by Regio-
montanus which expresses the volume of the sphere as one-third of the
product ofthe radius and the area of the sphere. This formulation he could
easily have learned from the Verba filiorum of the Banii Miisa, either
directly in that text where it appears in precisely this form (see Volume
One, pages 332-34), or indirectly in its repetition by Leonardo Fibonacci
in his Practica geometrie, for it will be evident later that not only did he
indeed read and cite the Verba filiorum, but that in--this same manuscript
(134v) he refashioned the proof of this theorem on the volume of the sphere
from the Verbafiliorum in a manner similar to that found in the Practica.
Before examining this proof, I shall prove that Regiomontanus possessed
a copy of the Verba filiorum and also one of the De arte mensurandi of
Johannes de Muris with its fairly extensive extracts from Moerbeke's
translation of the Archimedean corpus.
On examining the catalogues of 1512 and 1522, studied so carefully by
Zinner to reconstruct Regiomontanus' library, we find that Regiomontanus
possessed a codex which contained a number of medieval mathematical
works. Its contents as described by the catalogue of 1522 include as the first
two items: "Liber in quo libellus trium fratrum Moisi; Commensurator."8
The first of these is, of course, the Verba filiorum of the Banii Miisa,
which I have just mentioned and which has been edited in Volume One,
pages 223-367. That Regiomontanus not only had a copy of this work but
also read it is indicated by his reference to it in his De quadratura
circuli dedicated to Toscanelli (see the text below, Proposition XII).
Thus Regiomontanus had access to and utilized this favorite medieval
Archimedean tract. The second work in the codex noted above, the Com-
mensurator, has been misidentified by Zinner with Regiomontanus' Prob-
lemata geometrica omnimoda, mentioned by Regiomontanus among those
works of his own which he hoped to publish.
9
This misidentification was
8 Zinner, Leben und Wirken, p. 330. The full entry in the 1522 catalogue as given by Zinner
runs: "Liber in quo libelIus trium fratrum Moisi; Commensurator; epistola Ahmeti de pro-
porcione; Menelaus de spericis; de ponderibus; Tebith de carascove (! carastone); planis-
perium Jordani; demonstracio circulorum azimuth dicte; isoperimetria Jordini (! Jordani);
Teodosius de Speris; et de speculis comburentibus." In the catalogue of 1512 it is described
as "libellus trium fratrum cum multis aliis." Note that in the entry from the 1522 catalogue,
I have added the";" after "Speris."
9 Ibid., pp. 172-73; for the mention of the Problemata geometrica omnimoda among the
list of his own books to be published, see Zinner's reproduction of the printed sheet,
Tafel 26, c. 2. One of the earliest references to Commensurator after Regiomontanus
occurs in a list of works belonging to Andreas Stiborius of Vienna. This list was pub-
based, in part, on the fact that Conrad Gesner had assigned the Com-
mensurator to Regiomontanus in 1548.
10
As noted by Zinner, it was copied
by Praetorius before 1575 and this copy is preserved in Schweinfurt as
lished by his student Georg Tannstetter Collimitius, professor ordinarius in astronomy at
the University of Vienna. Tannstetter's work is entitled Viri mathematici quos inclytum
Viennense gymnasium ordine celebres habuit and was published with the Tabulae eclypsium
magistri Georgii Peurbachii etc. (Vienna, 1514), a work edited by Tannstetter. The list
of Stiborius' books occurs on folio aa5 verso and is worth giving in toto to illustrate that
the books of one professional mathematician and astronomer in about 1500 were largely
medieval books: "Index vetustissimorum exemplarium magistri Andree Stiborii Boii. In
perspectiva: Vitelonis ingens et consummatum opus. Alhacen auctorem perspective.
Bachonis rogerii perspectivam singularem. Bachonem de speciebus. Eundem de loco stel-
larum. Alius liber de loco steIlarum singularis. Librum de iride demonstrativum et con-
summatissimum. Balneolum de centro visus. Librum de speculis ustoriis secretum.
Bachonem de eisdem. Balneolum de foramine triangulari. Eundem de sinibus et chordis
optimum. In Geometria: Euclidem cum antiquissimo commento incerti auctoris. Geo-
metriam commensuratoris absolutissimum opus [i.e. the De arte mensurandi of Johannes
de Muris]. Dominicum parisiensem de commensurationibus. Quadraturam circuli Cuse,
Archimedis et aliorum. Cusam de transmutationibus figurarum. Idem de complementis
theoricis. Liber Geometrie quadripartitus singularis. Quadratum geometricum cum
canonibus et tabulis Georgii peurbachii. Demonstratio linearum semper approximantium et
nunquam concurrentium. In Astronomia: Almaiestum maius duplici translatione et glosulis.
CommentariumGeorgii valle in almaiestum. Epitoma Almaiesti Virdunni. Epitoma albategni.
Opus demonstrativum Gebri novem librorum. Planispherium ptolemei. Planispherium
Iordani. Demonstratio astrolabii Iordani. Opus theodosii de spheris. MilIeus [i.e. Menelaus]
de triangulis sphericis. Liber demonstrativus tabularum primi mobilis. Demonstrationes
albionis instrumenti nobilissimi. Theorice campani opus singulare. Theorice henrici de hassia.
Demonstrationes campani super theoricas. Reprobationes epicyclorum [Henrici de Hassia].
Ptolemeus de arte sphaerica. Esculeus de ascensionibus. Abhomadi de nubibus. De figura
sectoris. Canones Ioannis de monte regio super albione. Eiusdem super astrolabio. Eiusdem
super Torqueto. Eiusdem super quadrato geometrico. De valore triangulorum liber an-
tiquissimus. In Arithmetica: Quadripartitum numerorum consummatissimum [Johannis de
Muris]. Arithmetica Iordani. Algorismus demonstratus. Rithomathia. De misticatione
numerorum. Achmetus de proportionibus singularibus. De commensuratione motuum coeli
[Nicolai Oresme]. Dedomenorum euclidis. Iordanus de datis. Demonstrationes cosse. In
metaphisica: Albertum de causis Epitoma totius platonice philosophiae. Metaphisicam,
phisicam et theologiam lulli. Propositiones proculi ducente et undecim. Propositiones
methodii singulares. Propositiones clementis pape. In Magia: Margiam alberti magni.
Alkindus de radiis stellicis. LibeIlus Lico[l]niensis de lineis phisicis. De potentia activa
et passiva mirabilis. Et quedam alia." It is of interest that Tannstetter gives brief biog-
raphies of his predecessors at Vienna, starting with Henry of Hesse, and proceeding through
Johannes de Gmunden, Georg Peurbach, Regiomontanus, and others down to Stiborius. In
his treatment ofRegiomontanus he gives the whole list ofworks that Regiomontanus hoped to
publish, obviously copying it directly from the list printed by Regiomontanus.
1() Ibid., p. 173. Cr. C. Gesner, Pandectarum libri XXI (Zurich, 1548), 79r. Part of
Zinner's difficulty was that he apparently believed that Archimedes' On the Sphere
and the Cylinder was translated into Latin for the first time in 1450, thus ignoring the
earlier Moerbeke translations. Hence, Zinner believed that the lengthy citation of the propo-
sitions from On the Sphere and the Cylinder found in the Proemium of Chapter 10 of the
Commensurator indicated a date for the work of post 1450, a date compatible with the
Commensurator's having been composed by Regiomontanus. But I have already shown
in Part I, Chapter 6, above, that this long citation was taken by Johannes de Muris from
the Moerbeke translation.
H.67. It was on the basis of this manuscript that a German translation
was made and ascribed once more by the translators to Regiomontanus.u
But on examining this manuscript, I found the Commensurator to be
nothing more than the propositions (without proofs) of the De arte
mensurandi of Johannes de MuriS.
12
Thus, before his visit to Italy,
Regiomontanus apparently had a copy of Johannes de Muris' work which
gave him access to a truncated version of On Spiral Lines, the full sub-
stance of On the Measurement of the Circle, numerous propositions from
On the Sphere and the Cylinder, some propositions from On Conoids
and Spheroids (albeit misused by Johannes de Muris), and three of the
proofs on mean proportionals from Eutocius' Commentary on the Sphere
and the Cylinder (see above, Chapters 3-6 of Part I).
The previously mentioned proof of the theorem on the volume of a
sphere given by Regiomontanus in the Vienna codex which we have
been examining ought now to be discussed:
13
11 W. Blaschke and G. Schoppe,Regiomontanus: Commensurator, Akademie der Wissen-
schaften und der Litteratur Un Mainz]: Abhandlungen der mathematisch-naturwissen-
schaftlichen Klasse, Jahrgang 1956, Nr. 7.
12 H.67 contains, among other works, the Commensurator, pp. 25-60; some propositions
not in the Commensurator, pp. 60-63; some proofs by Praetorius (dated 1575 at Warsaw)
of propositions from Chapters IV- V of Commensurator, pp. 75-85; proofs by him of
some of the propositions not in the Commensurator, pp. 87-98; brief comments for some
propositions in the Commensurator, Chapters 111- V, pp. 99-101; Libellus triumfratrum, pp.
103-04 (i.e. enunciations without proofs from the first nine propositions of the Verba
filiorum). The presence ofthis last work is one more link between H.67 and Regiomontanus'
codex, since Regiomontanus' codex as listed in the catalogue of 1522 included both Com-
mensurator and the Verbafiliorum (see above, note 8).
13 MS Vienna, NationalbibI. 5203, 134v: "Corpulenciam sive embadum spere compre-
hendere. Multiplica semidiametrum in terciam partem superficiei spere et exibit ipsa
corpulencia. Demonstracio. Sit spera ab super centrum g [Fig. 111.2.2.1], cuius semidia-
meter sit ag. Si enim mUltiplicacio ag in terciam partem superficiei spere non est equalis
corpulencie spere, aut erit maior ea aut minor. Sed neutrum horum est possibile, igitur
etc. Sit enim primo multiplicacio spere (del. MS) semidiametri ag in terciam partem super-
ficiei spere maior corpori spere. Dabilis est ergo spera [maior spera ab (in MS, sed
Idelendum)J cui est equalis ilia multiplicacio, que maior erit (in MS: erit" maior") similiter
spera ab. Sit igitur talis spera de et sit concentrica spere ab. Possibile est ergo ut in spera
de sit figura corporis plurium basium regularis sive irregularis cuius bases sint non con-
tingentes superficiem spere ab. Quare erit unaquaque perpendicularium cadencium a centro
g super superficies eius maior linea ag. Si ergo continuentur anguli ilIius corporis evenientis
(?) in spera de cum centro spere proveniunt piramides quarum omnium capita est centrum
spere et earum bases erunt bases corporis, et embadum seu corpulencia cuiusque piramidis
exit ex mUltiplicacione sue perpendicularis in terciam partem superficiei basis sue, ut patet
et 8[al et 12
1
Euclidis. Et quia ag est medietas dyametri spere ab, ipsa erit minor una-
quaque illarum perpendicularium. Igitur multiplicacio linee ag in terciam superficiei
cuiusque basis minor erit embado piramidis cuius est basis ilia. Et per consequens mul-
tiplicacio eiusdem linee ag in terciam partem superficiei ilIius corporis est minor cor-
pulencia talis corporis. Unde multiplicacio !inee ag in terciam superficiei spere ab est minor
embado corporis. Igitur et multiplicacio (in mg.) minor embado spere de. Sed iam positum
fuit sibi esse equale. Est igitur minus et equale, quod est impossibile. Vel sic. Cum mul-
tiplicacio linee ag in terciam superficiei spere ab sit minor embado corporis inscripti in
speram de, ipsa autem multiplicacio ag in terciam superficiei spere ab est equalis de (del.
To comprehend the volume or measure of a sphere. Multiply the radius by one-
third the surface of the sphere, and this volume will result.
MS) spere de ut propositum est, igitur spera de est minor corpore sibi inscripto, quod
est impossibile. Igitur multiplicacio ag in terciam superficiei spere ab non est maior spera
ab. Sit nunc ipsa multiplicacio ag in terciam superficiei spere ab minor. Assignabilis est
ergo spera que sit hz, cui ipsa multiplicacio est equalis, que similiter erit minor spera
ab. Tunc sunt ambe spere ab et hz super uno centro. Possibile iterum est ut sit in spera
ab corpus plurium basium cuius bases non contingant superficiem spere zh. 19itur erit
unaquaque perpendicularium cadencium ex centro spere ab super superficies ilIius corporis
minor semidiametro ag. Erit ergo multiplicacio ag in terciam superficiei cuiusque earum multo
(del. MS) maior embado piramidis cuius basis ilia est superficies et cuius caput est centrum
g. Ergo multiplicacio linee ag in terciam superficiei spere ab est maior plurimum embado
corporis. Sed ipsa est equalis spere zh ex posito. Ergo spera zh est multo maior corpore
in quo ipsa spera totaliter est, pars scilicet toto, quod est impossibile. Non est ergo mul-
tiplicacio linee ag in terciam superficiei spere ab maior neque minor corpore eius, igitur
est equalis, quod restabat declarandum." Other medieval Archimedean considerations
of the volume of a sphere were apparently available to Regiomontanus: those found in
the De ysoperimetris and the De curvis supeificiebus. For in this same manuscript (Vienna,
Nationalbibl. 5203, 142r-46r) Regiomontanus copied a version of the De ysoperimetris
which he attributed to Jordanus. It is by no means certain that this work is by Jordanus,
but presumably the exemplar from which the work was copied bore the name of Jordanus.
The original Latin De ysoperimetris was translated in the early thirteenth century from an
anonymous Greek text (cf. Pappus, Collectio, ed. of F. Hultsch, Vol. 3, pp. 1138-65)
and is extant in many manuscripts, a few of which are Oxford, Bodl. Ubr. Auct. F.5.28,
105r-06v; Bodl. Libr. Digby 174, 135r-36v; Basel, Bibl. Univ. F. 11. 33, 107r-08r; Cam-
bridge, Cambridge Univ. Libr. Mm. 3.11, 194-%r; and Florence, Bibl. Naz. Conv. soppr.
J. V.18, 4r-5v. While there are some divergencies in these various copies, they repre-
sent essentially the same text. The text which Regiomontanus ascribes to Jordanus is an
even more divergent form. Its beginning and the first four lines of Proposition 1 are found
in Florence, Bibl. Naz. Conv. soppr. J.V.30, l2v, but without the author's name noted.
This version is marked particularly by a definition of isoperimetric bodies which precedes
the enunciation of Proposition 1. That definition begins: "Ysoperimetra sunt quorum latera
coniunctim sumpta sunt equalia. . . ." Another, this time complete, copy of this divergent
text is contained in Florence, Bibl. Naz. Cent. Conv. soppr. J.V.18, llr-12v, also without
any mention of the name of the author (while later in the same codex, folios 96v-97v,
there is still another anonymous copy with the same beginning but whose text is completely
different and quite corrupt and does not contain the Archimedean citations that are of
concern). Regardless of the manifold changes present in the various copies of the original
text they all agree in the way in which they cite Archimedes in the last proposition whose
enunciation stated: "Omnium ysoperimetrorum solidorum maxima (or maximum) est
spera." This is also true of the complete copy of the so-called Jordanus version in Conv.
soppr. J. V.18, llr-12v. The citations are to Archimedes' treatment of the volume of a sphere
without any specification of the title of Archimedes' work or the numbers of the relevant
propositions. I have given the texts of these citations in Volume One, pages 631-32, identi-
fying the propositions of On the Sphere and the Cylinder intended by the author. Now the
version of Jordanus' text which Regiomontanus gives not only has the citations to the
name of the Archimedes, but, in all but the first case, adds the title and proposition num-
bers-not of On the Sphere and the Cylinder, which was intended, but rather of the De
curvis superjiciebus. Clearly these explicit references, which are to Propositions 7 and 8
of De curvis superjiciebus, were additions beyond the original text and even beyond the
text of Jordanus if Conv. soppr. J.V.18, llr-12v is a faithful representation of that text.
Hence it would seem reasonable to conclude that Regiomontanus made these additions.
If so, it follows that the De curvis superjiciebus must be added to the corpus of medieval
Archimedean works known by Regiomontanus in Vienna.
Demonstration. Let there be a sphere ab on center g [see Fig. III.2.2.1],
with its radius ag. For if the product of ag and one-third the surface of the sphere
is not equal to the volume of the sphere, either it will be greater than it or
less. But neither of these is possible; therefore, etc. In the first place let the
product of radius ag and one-third the surface ofthe sphere be greater than the body
of the sphere. Hence, there can be given a sphere to which that product is equal,
which sphere will similarly be greater than sphere ab. Therefore, let de be such
a sphere and let it be concentric with sphere ab. Therefore, it is possible to insert
in sphere de a regular or irregular polyhedron whose faces do not touch the
surface of sphere ab. Hence, any perpendicular falling from the center g on its
surface [i.e. on the interior surface of the polyhedron] will be greater than line ag.
Therefore, if the angles of this polyhedron inscribed in sphere de are joined
to the center of the sphere, pyramids will be formed whose [common] apex is the
center of the sphere and whose bases are the faces of the polyhedron. And
the measure or volume of each of these pyramids arises from the product of its
perpendicular [i.e. its altitude] and one-third of the surface of its base, as is evident
from XII.8 and XII.9 of [the Elements of] Euclid. And because ag is the radius
of sphere ab, it will be less than each of those perpendiculars. Therefore, the
product of ag and one-third the surface of each base will be less than the measure
of the pyramid of which it is the base. Consequently, the product of the same line
ag and one-third the surface of that [whole] polyhedron is less than the volume of
such a polyhedron. Hence the product of line ag and one-third the surface of
sphere ab is less than the volume of the polyhedron. Therefore, the product is
less than the volume of sphere de. But it has already been posited to be equal
to it. It is, therefore, both less and equal, which is
Or [prove it] as follows. Since the product of line ag and one-third the
surface of sphere ab is less than the volume of the polyhedron inscribed in sphere
de, while this same product of ag and one-third the surface of sphere ab is equal to
sphere de (as has been proposed), therefore sphere de is less than the body in-
scribed in it, which is impossible. Therefore, the product of ag and one-third of
the surface of sphere ab is not greater than sphere ab.
But now let the product of ag and one-third the surface of sphere ab be less
[than the volume of sphere ab]. Hence one can assign a sphere hz to which this
product is equal, which sphere will similarly be less than sphere ab. Then both
spheres ab and hz are on the same center. And again it is possible to insert in
sphere ab a polyhedron whose faces do not touch the surface of sphere zh. There-
fore, each of the perpendiculars falling on the faces of that polyhedron from the
center of sphere ab will be less than radius ag. Therefore, the product of ag
and one-third the surface of any face of the body will be greater than the volume
of the pyramid whose base is that surface and whose apex is center g. Therefore,
the product of line ag and one-third the surface of sphere ab is greater than the
volume of the polyhedron. But it is equal to sphere zh by supposition. Therefore,
sphere zh is even greater than the body in which this sphere wholly lies, evidently
the part is greater than the whole, which is impossible. Therefore, the product of
ag and one-third the surface of sphere ab is neither greater nor less than its volume.
Therefore, it is equal [to it], which remained to be shown.
It will be immediately clear to the reader of the first volume that not only
the enunciation of the proposition but the form of its proof is similar to
Proposition XV of the Verbafiliorum (see Volume One, page 332). There
is one interesting modification in the proof presented by Regiomontanus.
In Proposition XIV (which leads to Proposition XV) of the Verbafiliorum
(ibid., page 330) the figure inserted between two spheres but not touching
one was one composed of conical segments and generated by the rotation
of a regular polygon inscribed in a great circle of one of the spheres. This
was the same kind of figure employed by Archimedes in On the Sphere
and the Cylinder. But for this figure Regiomontanus substitutes in his proof
a polyhedron composed of pyramids. In doing so, he was following
Fibonacci's Practica geometrie where the same substitution was made
(see Appendix I, Sect. 3B [8]). In employing such a polyhedron Regiomon-
tanus was forced to say that the polyhedron was either regular or irregular.
It obviously could not simply be a regular polyhedron, for in this indirect
proof the difference between the concentric spheres must be any possible
amount. But the five regular bodies inscribable in a given sphere must
necessarily be of specific sizes and so one could have a difference between
the concentric spheres too small for the insertion of any of the five regular
bodies without its touching or intersecting the interior sphere. Hence the
necessity to fall back on some irregular polyhedron in such an eventuality.
By appealing to an irregular polyhedron, he substituted an intuitive pro-
cedure for the neat and simple method employed by Archimedes and his
successors, the Banii Miisa. Another interesting feature of Regio-
montanus' proof is that he presents two forms of the contradiction de-
veloped in the first half of the proof: (1) that one quantity is simultaneously
less than and equal to a second quantity, and (2) that a part is greater
than its whole. Francesco Maurolico in his version of On the Sphere and
the Cylinder was later to repeat these two forms of the contradiction (see
below, Chapter 5, Text C, Proposition XXV).
Still another source of the medieval Archimedean tradition was known
to Regiomontanus when he was at Vienna. This was the De triangulis
of Jordanus. It is apparently this work which is listed with other works of
Jordanus in the catalogue of 1512.
14
That he knew 10rdanus' text is made
clear from a passage he composed on the trisection of an angle: 15
14 Zinner, Leben und Wirken, p. 318, notes that the catalogue of 1512 lists the works:
"quadripartitum numerorum, Iiber triangulorum." (Note: I have added the comma.) The
first work is obviously the Quadripartitum numerorum of Johannes de Muris, while the
second is almost certainly the De triangulis of Jordanus. For another possible influence
of this work on Regiomontanus, see M. Curtze, "Die Quadratwurzelformel des Heron
bei den Arabem und bei Regiomontan etc.," Zeitschrijt fUr Mathematik und Physik, Vol.
42 (1897), Suppl., pp. 145-52, at pp. 150-51.
15 M. Curtze, "n. Der Briefwechsel Regiomontan's mit Giovanni Bianchini, Jacob von
Speier und Christian Roder" in Urkunden zur Geschichte der Mathematik in Mittelalter und
der Renaissance, Abhandlungen zur Geschichte der mathematischen Wissenschaften, 12.
Heft (1902), pp. 258-59: "Iubetur septima angulum, qui est tertia pars duorum rectorum,
dividi in tres equales. Sunt certi modi id faciendi, quorum unum adduco [Fig. m.2.2.2].
Sit angulus bac, qualis supponitur, duabus Iineis ab et ac contentus, super cuius vertice
a facto centro describo circulum bcde secundum quantitatem ab, in cuius cireumferentia
reperietur punetus c. Prolongo semidiametrum ba, donee futura diameter concurrat eir-
In the seventh [query] it is desired that the angle which is a third part of two right
angles be divided into three equal parts. There are sure methods of accomplishing
this, one of which I adduce [see Fig. III.2.2.2]. Let there be L bac, of the kind
supposed, which angle is contained by two lines, ab and ac. With its vertex a
made a center, I describe the circle bcde, with radius ab, and in whose cir-
cumference point c will be found. I prolong the radius ba until, on becoming
a diameter, it meets the circumference of the circle in k. On this diameter a per-
cumferentie circuli in k, supra quam ex centro a egrediatur orthogonalis ad semidiameter
circuli. Intelligo deinde lineamrectam quandam terminari ad punctum c indefinite quantitatis
ex parte sinistra. Hanc lineam intelligo moveri circa punctum c immotum secando semi-
diametrum ad tamdiu, quod portio linee mote inter semidiametrum ad et circumferentiam
circuli versus sinistram intercepta sit equalis semidiametro circuli ad. Sit ergo in hoc situ
ge portio huiusmodi equalis ipsi ad, aut per modum ALHACEN in quinto per-
spective sue, ubi punctum reflexionis in speculis sphericis determinare docet, a puncto c
dato in circumferentia ducatur in circulo bede (! bcde) corda eg (! cg), cuius pars inter
ad positione datam et circumferentiam circuli intercepta sit equalis semidiametro ad. Quo
facto ex puncto e oriatur corda eh secans diametrum circuli bk orthogonaliter in puncto
l, ductaque diametro circuli per h punctum, que sit hm, ipsa dividet angulum bac in duos
partiales bam etmac, quorum alter, scilicetbam, alterius medietas est. Si ergo supra punctum
a linee am constituerimus angulum equalem angulo bam, habebimus totum angulum bac
divisum in tres equales. Sed redeo ad probationem huius. Cum uterque angulorum ela et dal
sit rectus, similiter due !inee eh et ag equedistantes, quarum summitatibus adiecte sunt
due !inee equales ah et ge, et uterque duorum angulorum hag et egd obtusus est, neces-
sario due !inee ha et eg sibi equedistabunt. Item arcus eh divisus erit per medietatem
in k, et erit arcus hk equalis arcui bm, arcus vero he equalis arcui me propter equidis-
tantiam linearum hm et ec, quare angulus cam duplus erit angulo mab. Cetera facile
concluduntur. ' ,
This passage is contained in a letter written at Rome and replying to a letter from the
astronomer Giovanni Bianchini, dated 5 February, 1464, and received by Regiomontanus 11
February, 1464. Incidentally, it can be noted that in the original letter Bianchini (ibid.,
p. 236) refers to a "rule of Archimedes or Arsemides": "Si vero hec propositio presupponit
latera quadranguli supra circumferentiamcirculi, facHis erit hec conclusio per regulam Archi-
medis aut Arsemidis a1legati per Ptholomeum." This "rule" is obviously the first proposi-
tion of On the Measurement of the Circle. It is worth noticing that, in addition to the
Greco-Latin form Archimedes, Bianchini gives the Arabo-Latin form Arsemides cited in
the translation by Gerard of Cremona of the Almagest (see below, note 39, where the
text of the printed edition gives the comparable form Arsamides). It is also worth noticing
that, in the passage immediately preceding the one on the trisection of an angle, Regio-
montanus, as the result of a calculating slip, gives the value of 'TT as 1554 to 497 (ibid.,
p. 258: "Usus sum proportione circumferentie ad diametrum 1554 ad 497."). How this
mistake arose is shown on page 285, where Regiomontanus' calculations are revealed.
His method was to take the Archimedean bounds of 3
1
h and 3
10
/71 and convert them to
improper fractions with 497 as the denominator. For 3
1
h he quite correctly gives 1562/497
Then, on multiplying 3 by 71, he gets 211 instead of 213. He thus misconverts 3
10
/71 to
1547/497 He then approximates the mean between 1547 and 1562 as 1554. On the other hand,
this slip is corrected in a calculation dated 27 June, 1464 (published in his De triangulis
omnimodis, Nuremberg 1533, SuppL, p. 44) where the bounds are correctly presented as
1562/497 and 1561/497 , and even earlier in his Dialogus (see below, note 33). Needless to say,
I must stress once more that the idea of taking the mean between the bounds is not implied
in any way by Archimedes' procedure. Regiomontanus perhaps got this idea from Leonardo
Fibonacci'sPractica geometrie, where such a procedure is followed (see Appendix I, Sect. 3,
B[8], or from Ptolemy (see below, note 39), or from Johannes de Muris (see Part I, Chap.
4, n. 4).
pendicular radius of the circle, ad, is drawn from center a. I then understand that
a certain straight line of indefinite extent toward the left be terminated [on the
right] at point e. I then understand that this line is moved around immobile point c
while [always] cutting radius ad until that segment of the moved line which is
intercepted on the left between radius ad and the circumference of the circle be-
comes equal to the radius of the circle, ad. Therefore, in this position, let ge be
such a segment equal to ad. Or [proceeding] by the method of Alhazen in the fifth
[book] of his Perspective, where he shows how to determine the point of re-
flection in spherical mirrors, in circle bcde let chord ce be drawn, from a given
point e in the circumference, such that the segment [of this chord] intercepted
between ad, given in position, and the circumference of the circle be equal to
radius ad. With this done [by either method], let chord eh be drawn, from point
e, perpendicular at I to diameter bk of the circle. Then with diameter hm of the
circle drawn through point h, it [i.e., hm] will divide Lbae into the two partial
angles barn and mac, one of which, namely barn, is half the other. If, therefore,
we construct on point a of line am an angle equal to L barn, we shall have the
whole Lbac divided into three equal angles. But I return to the proof of this.
Since each of the angles ela and dal is a right angle, the two lines eh and ag are
parallel. At summits of these lines have been added two equal lines ah and ge,
and since each of the two angles hag and egd is obtuse, then necessarily the
two lines ha and eg will be parallel. Also, arc eh will be bisected at k, and arc
hk will be equal to arc bm, while arc he is equal to arc me because of the parallel
lines hm and ee. Hence, Lcam = 2 Lmab. The rest is concluded easily.
While the proof, save for the reference to Alhazen, could have been
drawn either from the Verba filiorum (Volume One, pages 344-48) or
from the De triangulis of lordanus (ibid., pages 672-76), the reference
to the Perspective demonstrates, I believe, that Regiomontanus had con-
sulted the De triangulis, where a similar reference (but without Alhazen's
name) appears (ibid., page 669). In Volume One, I have already discussed
the relationship of this solution with the eighth lemma of the Lemmata
attributed to Archimedes (ibid., pages 666-68).
It was also in the Viennese period that Regiomontanus learned of the
parabolic burning mirror which he designates as a speculum Archimedis;
for he had copied the text of Gerard of Cremona's Latin translation
of Alhazen's De speculis comburentibus and in addition he copied and
explained another tract on burning mirrors. 16 Finally, I presume that in
16 M. Curtze, "11. Oer Briefwechsel Regiomontan's," p. 335: "Habeo speculum Archi-
medis annulare ex portione parabolica, cuius margo circularis maior quinque pedes con-
tinet, minor autem tres; profunditas vero speculi est bipedalis: quero locum ustionis itemque
sagittam cum latere erecto. Voco autem profunditatem speculi partem axis que inter centra
duorum circulorum marginalium conducitur." This letter is dated at Nuremberg, 4 July,
1471. It reflects the knowledge and terminology of Gerard of Cremona's translation of
Alhazen's De speculis comburentibus, a copy of which Regiomontanus had made (MS
Vienna, NationalbibI. 5258, 39r-48v). This work also seems to have been contained in the
manuscript in which the Libel/us triumfratrum (or Verbafiliorum) was the first item (see
above, note 8). Incidentally another work on parabolic mirrors preceded Alhazen's work
in Vienna codex 5258, 27r-38v. It is the treatise Speculi almukefi compositio. See
above Part n, Chapter 4, Section I, note 43 and also M. Clagett, "A Medieval Latin
:;:a
this period he became acquainted with the medieval Scientia de ponderibus
which reflects indirect Archimedean influences.
17
It was not long after going to Italy that Regiomontanus (in about 1462-
64) made his copy of Jacobus Cremonensis' translation of Archimedes,
the copy to which I referred in the preceding section of this chapter
and which is extant in Nuremberg, Stadtbibl. Cent. V.15.
18
A close com-
parison of this manuscript with Venice, Bibl. Naz. Marc. f.a.327 reveals
Translation of a Short Arabic Tract on the Hyperbola," Osiris , Vol. 11 (1954),
pp. 359-85, particularly at pp. 362, 366n, 368n, 370-71n, 372n, 384-85 and "John
of Palermo," Dictionary of Scientific Biography, Vol. 7 (New York, 1973), pp. 133-34.
This tract was copied and partially annotated by Regiomontanus. It is of interest that
in the first proposition, which holds that the common section of a right circular cone and
a plane passing through the apex and the center of the base is a triangle whose base
is the diameter of the base of the cone, the author refers to the "primam conclusionem
de curvis superficiebus" (28r) , indicating that the author knew that Pseudo-Archimedean
work. Presumably both of these works on burning mirrors copied by Regiomontanus
were to serve or did serve as the basis for his own work De speculis ustoriis, which he
lists among those works to be published (Zinner, Leben und Wirken, Tafel 26, c. 2). No
such completed work has been found.
17 In the manuscript described in note 8 above, we find mention of a De ponderibus,
which presumably was one of the various works on statics attributed to Jordanus. Also
included was a copy of Thabit ibn Qurra's Liber karastonis (present as well in Vienna
codex 5203, 172r-78v, where it is copied in Regiomontanus' hand). In the latter codex,
178v, Regiomontanus also copied the short De canonio. All of these works were parts
of the medieval statical corpus, which had indirect roots in Archimedean statics (see
Vo!. 1, pp. 8-9). There are also some interesting statical problems mentioned in Regio-
montanus' correspondence with Christian Roder (see Curtze, "H. Der Briefwechsel Regio-
montan's," pp. 334-35). The first of these (p. 334) runs as follows: "In statera sive bilance
ponuntur duo pondera in proportione horum numerorum 35 et 32: quero quantitatem anguli
acuti, quem continet perpendicularis sive alterum brachiorum cum ipso suspensorio." This
is not clear but seems to involve bending the beam at the fulcrum to make the horizontal
distances of the weights from the vertical inversely proportional to the weights. If so.. its
solution demands a knowledge of the bent lever law. It thus would seem to reflect Proposi-
tion R1.08 of the De ratione ponderis attributed to Jordanus (see Moody and Clagett, The
Medieval Science of Weights, pp. 184- 88). The second of these problems (p. 335) is de-
scribed thus: "Duo sunt pondera colligata atque secundum situm equipollentia [Fig.
III.2.2.3], quorum alterum quidem recte, alterum vero oblique descenderet, si a communi
ligatura solverentur. Via autem obliqua secundi ponderis cum orizonte angulum continet
viginti graduum qualium unus rectus est nonaginta. Quero proportionem talium ponderum.
Equipollentia autem voco pondera, que sese vicissim a descensu prohibent. Ut si be recto
vice orizontis inteUigatur, ab autem ad centrum mundi vergat, et ae cum be angulum viginti
graduum contineat, d pondus minus per ab, et e pondus maius per ae decensum petat
abiecto communi vinculo." The solution of this problem requires a knowledge of the in-
clined plane law and thus suggests acquaintance by Regiomontanus with Proposition
Rl.lO of the De ratione ponderis (Moody and Clagett, The Medieval Science of Weights,
p. 190). If I am right in these suggestions, it would mean that Regiomontanus singled
out two of the most original propositions of the De ratione ponderis by posing problems
these propositions would allow him to solve. Finally, we should note that Regiomontanus
intended to compose some sort of work on weights, for in his list of works to be pub-
lished (Zinner, Leben und Wirken, Tafel 26, c. 2) there appears: "De ponderibus et aque-
ductibus cum figurationibus instrumentorum ad eas res necessariorum."
18 See the description of this manuscript above, page 328.
that Regiomontanus used the latter as his exemplar.
19
I would suppose
that he made his copy at Rome or Venice when the Venice manuscript
was in the possession ofBessarion, since the latter was his patron. Further-
more, it is clear that Regiomontanus also used Greek manuscript E, which
Bessarion owned and which bears his name, to make his many Greek
additions to the margins of Cent. V.15. 20 And he has one reference to a
19 The correspondence between these two manuscripts is quite exact, except for the
many corrections in translation executed by Regiomontanus. Of the various copies which
contain the whole of Cremonensis' translation (as does Regiomontanus' copy) only
Bessarion's copy is old enough and complete enough to have been used by Regio-
montanus. Furthermore, in the first part of the marginal note on page 139 of his copy,
Regiomontanus clearly refers to both the Latin and Greek copies of Bessarion: "male
stat. Vide exemplar utrumque Domini Niceni grecum et latinum. Vide etiam exemplar
vetus apud magistrum PauIum." Nicenus is, of course, Bessarion (see Heiberg, Archimedis
opera omnia, Vo\. 3, p. XV). Another reference to Bessarion's Latin copy occurs on page
144: "Sic scribitur in exemplari domini b. cardinalis et verisimile est ita translatum esse
ex greco. Sed male actum est." A third reference, on page 154, is no doubt to Bessarion' s
copy: "in exemplari domini [Niceni?] erat additamentum." The reference is to an addition
made by Cremonensis that is not present in the Greek text; that is, it is present in
Bessarion's Latin manuscript but not in his Greek codex.
20 A very large number of the pages of Regiomontanus' copy contain Greek marginalia
that range in extent from a single word to many lines (see the table of corrections and
additions below). Presumably these were all drawn from Bessarion's copy, i.e., Greek
manuscript E, which appears to have been the earliest Renaissance copy made from the
old Byzantine manuscript A, having perhaps been copied as early as 1454 (see the pre-
ceding section, note 15) and certainly before 1462 or thereabouts when Regiomontanus
used it. It was one of the manuscripts given to the Bibliotheca Marciana in 1468 by
Bessarion (see H. Omont, Inventaire des manuscrits grecs et Latins donnes par Le Cardinal
Bessarion aSaint-Marc de Venise en 1468 [Paris, 1894], p. 31, item no. 261). We have
seen in the preceding footnote that Regiomontanus made specific reference to Bessarion's
Greek exemplar on page 139 of his copy. Further and conclusive evidence that it was
Greek manuscript E which Regiomontanus used for his marginalia is found in the large
number of instances where his readings agree with E against manuscript A and Greek
manuscript no. 14 (=Nuremberg, Stadtbibl. Cent. V App. 12). Now all of the other extant
Greek manuscripts are to be dated in the fifteenth century (after the time of Regiomontanus'
death) or in the sixteenth century (see Heiberg,Archimedis opera omnia Vo\. 3, pp. IX-XLI;
note Heiberg's probably mistaken date for Greek manuscript no. 14, discussed below in the
next footnote). Hence the dependence of Regiomontanus on Greek manuscript E in these
various passages becomes a certainty, A few examples of Regiomontanus' use of readings
that appeared exclusively in Greek manuscript E can be noted: Gr 1, 8, 17-22 (Reg.,
2 mg.; see below, the table of Regiomontanus' corrections and additions, 11.1); 1, 374,
17 (Reg., 85 mg. adds E's ovv where there is a lacuna in the other manuscripts); 2, 274,
18 (Reg., 151 mg. in! has the unique reading of E: lcrOpp01TEOVTt instead of A's tcrOPP01TEwVTt);
3, 84, 11 (Reg., 196 mg. sup. has E's unique reading of j.LUKUptKWP instead of A's
Kaj.LaptKwP); 3, 88, 9 (Reg., 196 mg. in! has E's mpaAEIS instead of A's mpaA"I<;); 3,90,
19 (Reg., 197 mg. has E's reading of j.LEtltj.LVOP instead of A's /-LEtltj.LVWV); 3, 90, 26 (Reg., ibid.,
has E's /-LEAAEt instead of A's /-LEAEt); 3, 130,6 (Reg., 206 mg. omits a1TAw<; as does E).
Note again the absence of accents in Gr MS A.
I think it quite possible that it was Regiomontanus who alerted Bessarion to Eutocius'
inclusion of the supposed solution of Plato to the problem of finding two proportional
means between two given lines. Bessarion's remarks on the problem and its connection
with the problem of the duplication of the cube occur in his In calumniatorem Platonis
libri IV, ed. of L. Mohler (Paderborn, 1927; reprinted 1967), Bk. 1,8, 2, p. 75 (the Latin
"new Greek exemplar," which appears to be the Greek manuscript now
at Nuremberg, Cent. V. App. 12.
21
As we have seen, he must also have
translation given here is based on the edition of Rome, 1469, without pag. but see 34v-35r):
"Illud quoque de eo legitur, cum aliquando Athenienses Apollinis oracula sciscitatum
venissent, quo pacto a pestilentia, qua maxime vexabantur, possent liberari, huiusmodi
responsum accepisse: Ita demum sospitem futuram civitatem, si illius aram, cuius figura
cubica erat, duplicarent. Quapropter illos e vestigio alterum cubum arae coniunxisse. Sed
non propterea morbum aliquo modo desaevisse. Quod cum ad deum relatum esset, nondum
sibi obtemperatum respondisse, quippe iussisse, se, ut cubum duplicarent, eos vero cubum
superposuisse. Quam ob rem Athenienses, cum aliquamdiu ancipites consilii fuissent, ad
extremum Platonem adiisse, quem norant mathematicarum rerum esse peritissimum. Con-
sultum igitur Platonem, quod sibi Apollinis oraculum vellet, ita respondisse: Probro dare
Atheniensibus deum, quod geometriae disciplinam contemnerent. Post haec ita duplicari
cubum discipulis suis ostendisse, si duabus lineis rectis duae mediae rectae proportionales
invenirentur. Duabus enim unam mediam proportionalem inveniri compertum iam erat; sed
duabus duas reperiri posse proportionales adhuc erat ignotum. Platonem itaque id primum
comperisse, et quod nunc in libris Archimedis legitur, illius esse inventum." (Mohler has
altered the punctuation of the 1469 edition and added capitalization in a number of places.)
It is the last sentence that I believe shows the influence of Regiomontanus. The source of
Bessarion's account of the origin of the problem is not immediately evident. None of the
the known accounts from Antiquity speak of the supplicants to Apollo as Athenians but
rather as Delians. Somewhat later Diirer also calls them Athenians, perhaps under
Bessarion's influence (see below, Chapter 6, Section Ill, note 4).
21 Cent. V.15 p. 119, mg.: "notos illos sumpsi ex greco novo exemplari 19." The refer-
ence is to a series of numbers of propositions added discretely in the margins for the later
propositions of On Spiral Lines. They are in addition to the numbers which Regiomontanus
had written when first copying the Cremonensis text. As Heiberg notes (Archimedis opera,
Vo!. 3, p. LXXIII, where he misreads the first three words as: "notas illas proposi-
tionum . . ."), these new marginal numbers correspond to those appearing in Greek
manuscript no. 14 (=Nuremberg, Stadtbibl. Cent. V. App. 12). He concludes therefore
that Regiomontanus' reference to a "new exemplar" must be to the Nuremberg manu-
script (Zinner in his first edition of Leben und Wirken [Munich, 1938], pp. 95, 233, concurs,
but drops this identification in his revised edition pp. 91, 323). This observation of Heiberg
is hardly consistent with the sixteenth-century date he had already assigned to the Nurem-
berg manuscript (op. cit, p. XL) or with his opinion that this manuscript, which was used
by Venatorius for the preparation of the editio princeps of 1544, was the codex obtained
by Willibald Pirckheimer. Venatorius in his introduction to the editio princeps (2v) speaks
of the Pirckheimer codex in the following words: "Bilibaldus Pirckheymerus ... cum
Rhoma graece scriptum Archimedis nostri exemplar, opera amici cuiusdam, tandem post
longam expectationem accepisset, non tantum quasi vilem aliquem in aedibus suis passus
est habitare hospitem, sed illum quotidianae studiorum suorum consuetudini voluit essem
(.I esse) consortem." Heiberg's interpretation of this passage is succinctly stated (p. XLI):
"hunc codicem [Cent. V. App. 12] Bilibaldus Pirckheymer (t1530) Romae comparaverat."
Thus Heiberg has clearly read "Rhoma" as if it were "Rhomae." Actually, Venatorius
only says "when he had received it from Rome ..." and not "when he had received it at
Rome...." (Cr. Willibald Pirckheimers Briefwechsel, ed. E. Reicke, Vo!. 1, Munich, 1940,
p. 11.) In rejecting Heiberg's reading of Venatorius' statement, Zinner in his first edition
(the statement is missing from the second edition) of the Leben und Wirken, p. 233, claims
that Venatorius erred when he said that Pirckheimer had obtained the manuscript in Rome,
since there is no evidence that Pirckheimer had visited Rome. Zinner no doubt omitted this
conclusion from the second edition because of Reicke's suggestion that Pirckheimer had
probably accompanied Diirer to Rome (op. cif., ibid.). It is possible to suppose that Cent.
V. App. 12 was consulted briefly by Regiomontanus in Rome and that it was later acquired
consulted, at least briefly, either Greek manuscript A or (more likely)
the Vatican manuscript (Ottob. lat. 1850) of Moerbeke's translations of
Archimedes.
22
Regiomontanus' corrections, additions, and comments are quite exten-
sive. They indicate, I believe, that Regiomontanus had a far greater
understanding of the works of Archimedes and Eutocius than any other
figure of the fifteenth century. These various comments and corrections
can be divided into six categories, which I illustrate here by a few ex-
amples. In giving these examples, I note first the reference to the appro-
priate place in Heiberg's edition, which as usual I have abbreviated as
Gr, followed by the volume, page and line numbers. I then give the cor-
responding references to the text of Cremonensis as appearing in Venice,
Bibl. Naz. Marc. f.a.327 (abbreviated as V) and to Regiomontanus'
autograph copy of Nuremberg, Stadtbibl. Cent. V.15 (abbreviated as
Reg.). I have not given references to the text printed from Reg. at Basel,
1544, to accompany the editio princeps of the Greek text, since they can
by Pirckheimer from Rome through the kindness of a friend, as Venatorius says. On the
other hand, it seems somewhat more likely that Regiomontanus acquired Cent. V. App.
12 late in his stay in Italy and brought the manuscript to Nuremberg and that Pirckheimer's
copy was not Cent. V. App. 12 but some other manuscript. In fact, Venatorius does not
say that he has used the Pirckheimer copy for his edition. His purpose in mentioning
Pirckheimer is merely to say that this distinguished scholar thought so much of Archimedes
that, having acquired a copy of his works, he made that copy a constant partner of his
studies. Whatever the truth is about Pirckheimer's copy, it is certain that Cent. V. App.
12 was employed by Venatorius for his edition (his emendations and corrections are
everywhere on it), and it is probable that this manuscript was originally written in the
fifteenth century and was the copy referred to by Regiomontanus as the "new exemplar."
22 Regiomontanus' fuH marginal reference has been given above in note 19. The part
pertinent to my present discussion is "vide etiam exemplar vetus apud magistrum Paulum. "
I have said that Toscanelli's exemplar vetus was more likely the Moerbeke manuscript
than Greek manuscript A for two principal reasons. First, I have found no trace of his
correcting the Greek readings taken from E to agree with different readings from A, even
though such corrections would have solved some puzzling readings in E. Second, and more
important, Regiomontanus seems, in some instances, to have corrected the Latin text of
Cremonensis on the basis of readings found in the Moerbeke translation. Thus, HeHer,
"Ein Fehler," pp. 24-26 presents a strong case for Regiomontanus' having used Moerbeke
in correcting Cremonensis' proof of Proposition 23 (=Gr Prop. 21; Moerbeke Prop. 22)
of the De conoidalibus. Similarly, I can point to a later Latin marginal addition in the
De conoidalibus (Nuremberg, Stadtbibl. Cent. V.15, p. 91): "primum ad ipsumet, secundus
autem kylindrus eorum qui in toto kylindro habens axem ep ad secundum kylindrum eorum
qui in circumscripta figura existunt habentem axemep earn habet proportionem quam secun-
dum quadratum." This renders the Greek text (Gr 1, 402, 14-18) and was omitted by
Cremonensis. It is quite similar to Moerbeke's passage (see Vol. 2, 51rJ). Regiomontanus'
usual procedure was merely to give the Greek for such an omission in Cremonensis' text.
If I am correct in the view that Regiomontanus did use the Moerbeke manuscript, I
must further suppose from the many times that Moerbeke's correct readings were ignored
in favor of Cremonensis' incorrect ones, that Regiomontanus read the Moerbeke translation
after he had just about completed copying the Cremonensis exemplar and that he had only
had limited access to the Moerbeke manuscript, presumably in about 1464 when he met
Toscanelli.
be easily found by a comparison with the Greek text. The reader should
further observe that the printed edition includes only those corrections
of Regiomontanus that appear in the text or are in the margin but flagged
for insertion in the text; it does not include the large number of marginalia
that indicate Regiomontanus' doubts concerning the translation or that
supplement the Latin text with the appropriate Greek text. To gain some
idea of the extent of internal corrections for a given work, the reader
may consult the variant readings to the texts of Specimens A and B of
Section 1 of Appendix IV, where I have included all of Regiomontanus'
textual corrections to Cremonensis' translations of Proposition 3 of On
the Measurement of the Circle and Book I of On the Equilibrium of
Planes. Now let us turn to the various categories of corrections and
additions made by Regiomontanus. I have given only a very small fraction
of such corrections and additions since my purpose is merely to illustrate
the types of corrections. (In fact, most of my examples have been drawn
from Regiomontanus' versions of the works included in Volume 1 of Hei-
berg's edition.) To include them all would demand a complete collation
of the manuscripts that would vastly increase the size of this volume.
1. Single Word Improvements or Corrections
1. Gr 1, 2, 16: EXWV
V, 63v, 13: habet
Reg., 1, 13: habeat
2. Gr 1,4, 22: &gunp,aTu (Gr MSS D, E and probably A: agtwp.,u)
V, 64r, 1: dignitas
Reg., 2, 1: dignitates
Here Reg. thought that the plural was demanded by the content in spite
of the use of the singular in Gr MS E.
3. Gr 1, 6, 2-3: 7T7Tpmrp.,vaL
V, 64r, 2: finite
Reg., 2,2 mg.: terminate
4. Gr 1, 12, 22: EAmr(TOV
V, 65v, 24: inferiorem
Reg., 4, 5: minorem
5. Gr 1, 148, 20: 'Yap
V, 92v, 5: igitur
Reg., 37, 25: crosses out "igitur" and writes "qm" (=quoniam) above.
6. Gr 1, 168, 6: 8La TWV (JEwPYJp.,aTwv
V, 95v, 6: ex inspectis et theorematibus
Reg., 41, 15: writes and deletes "ex inspectis" and corrects "et theorema-
tibus" into "per theoremata. "
7. Gr 1, 182,3: AE (Gr MS A: ~
V, 98r, 10: de
Reg., 44, 22: ae
Reg. is correct as was Moerbeke (see above, Vol. 2, 31vQ).
8. Or 1, 182, 4:
V, 98r, 10: hd
Reg., 44, 22: ah
Reg. is wrong in his correction.
9. Or 1, ibid.: AE (Gr MS A: BE)
V, ibid.: he
Reg., ibid.: ae
Reg. is correct as was Moerbeke, Vol. 2, 31vQ, A2.
10. Gr 1, 190, 2:
V, 99r, 27: dl
Reg., 46, 8 mg.: rx
Here Reg. is wrong.
11. Gr 1, 190,22: AZ (=df)
V, 99v, 13: dl
Reg., 46, 21: db
Both Cremonensis and Regiomontanus are wrong.
12. Gr 1, 192, 7: avlJTE(JiWETaL
V, 99v, 24: componetur (cf. Vol 2, 32rP)
Reg., 46, 30: componitur
13. Or 1, 236, 1: rH
V, 107r, 10: c!(=rZ)
Reg., 55, 15: cg (=rH)
14. Gr.l, 248, 22: TOJLar;
V, 109v, 14: portioni
Reg., 58 mg.: sectioni
11. Simple Additions of Words and Phrases
1. Gr 1,8,18-19: Kat 1JTOt OAT/ TTEptAaJLf3aVTJTaL lJ1TO rijr; 1] (om.
Gr. MS A) ETEpa ETTtcpaIJta
V, 64v, 14: et vel altera contineatur ab altera
Reg., 2, 32: et vel altera tota (supra ser. Reg.) contineatur ab altera. (In
the mg. below he adds) aut altera earum ab altera superficie.
In the margin Reg. also adds from Or MS E the Greek of the whole passage
of Or 1, 8, 17-22. Thus for this particular part of the passage he adds before
lJ1TO the following: 1/ TEpa. aVTiiw; then fJ TEpa. is omitted and
is written instead of ETTtcpaIJEta.. This explains his marginal
addition. See the discussion in the preceding section, note 31.
2. Or 1, 40, 28-42, 4: . . . ETTLTTEoa.
V, 71v, 9: omits this crucial passage
Reg., 11, 15: partially rectifies the omission, first by deleting "trianguli"
(V, 71v, 9), itself based on a bad reading of the Greek text that just
preceded the omission, and then adding below in the margin the following:
"et superficies composita ex superficiebus quadrangulis equedistantium
laterum quarum bases sunt ae, eb, altitudo vero eadem cum kylindro et
triangulis." Still missing is the first part of the omitted passage which
indicated that the cylindrical surface is limited by the circular segments
aeb, cfd. Perhaps, the designation of these segments as triangles in the
Greek MSS threw Regiomontanus off the track. Note that in his marginal
addition Reg. (like m.3 in Vol. 2, 25rD var.) has corrected the
.'7Ti7T5a ofGr 1,42,4 to "triangulis."
3. Gr 1, 190, 19: apa
V, 99v, 10: omits
Reg., 46, 19 mg.: igitur
4. Gr I, 216, 14-20: For the Greek text, see above in the table of comparison
of the Moerbeke and Cremonensis translations (Part Ill, Chap. 2, Sect. I,
Table at end, item 11). Also included there are the texts given by
Moerbeke and Cremonensis.
Reg., 52, 9-13: proportio autem bad portionis ad bcd componitur ex pro-
portione bad portionis ad konum cuius basis sit circulus circa bd diametrum
descriptus, vertex vero a punctum et [add. mg. Reg.: ea quam habet]
idem konus ad konum habentem eandem basem, verticem vero c punctum
[deinde ser. et del. Reg. habet eandem proportionem] et [add. mg. Reg.:
ex ea quam habet] dictus konus ad bed portionem [deinde ser. et del.
habet eanden].
By his marginal additions and textual deletions Regiomontanus has corrected
the erroneous translation of this passage by Cremonensis, that is, he has
restored the intent of the Greek text to present a ratio composed of three
ratios. Cremonensis' translation had presented the passage as if equal ratios
were intended. In the lines following this passage, Regiomontanus has made
further corrections and deletions not all of which are sound.
5. Gr 1, 278, 18: EXL 8E
V, 115v, 8: omits
Reg., 65, 26 mg.: habet autem (ef Vol. 2, 46rQ)
6. Gr 1,290, 1: apa (not in Gr MS A)
V, 117v, 4: omits
Reg., 67, 36 mg.: igitur (ef Vol. 2, 46vR: ergo et var.: ergo non in greco)
7. Gr 1,292, 16: 8Laj.LETpov
V, 118r, 3: omits
Reg., 68, 19 mg.: diametri
8. Gr 1, 294, 17: 5E
V, 118r, 21: omits
Reg., 68, 35 mg.: verum
9. Gr 1, 298, 28: raaL
V, 119r, 13: omits
Reg., 69, 39 mg.: equales (ef Vol. 2, 47rK)
Ill. Greek Marginal Additions from Greek MS E
(Note: Regiomontanus often adds to his quotations from the Greek text
Greek phrases for "et cetera" like Kat, Ta in Reg., 2 mg. or Kat Ta
AOL1Ta in Reg., 71 mg.)
1. Gr 1, 2, 21-4, 21: 1TEPL. ... EppW/LEvwr;
Reg. 1-2: leaves space (as Cremonensis also did); but he is unable to add
the Greek text in the margin as he customarily did, for as he adds on
p. 2: "exemplar grecum non habuit prefationem totam." And indeed Greek
MS E has only the very beginning and the very end of this section.
2. Gr 1, 8, 7: E1TEL8av ... KOtAaL
Reg. 2 mg.: adds this.
3. Gr 1, 8, 17-22: E7TEL8av.... 7TEpLAa/L{3aVO/LEVTW
Reg. 2 mg.: adds this but with the somewhat different readings of Greek
MS E (see correction n.l above).
4. Gr 1, 14, 4: wprwOwa-av yap 8vo EVOEtaL al e, KA
Reg. 4 mg.: adds this Greek as a check on Cremonensis' free translation
(V, 66r, 2-3): "Invente iam due recte supra proxime fuerunt, quarum
sit k maior, lm minor." The "supra proxime" is not in the Greek text
and was added by Cremonensis because these lines can be found by using
the preceding proposition (Prop. 2).
5. Gr 1, 148, 24-25: TO ... KWVC1!
Reg., 37 mg.: adds this, and below the Greek Reg. has "TO/LEa portio
translata est." Thus for the first time Reg. seems uneasy about Cremonen-
sis' translation of this word although Cremonensis had several times
earlier already so translated it. Notice also that TO/LEa in Gr 1, 150, 19
is translated as portionem, concerning which Reg., 38, 1 mg. says
"sectorem." (See the preceding section of this chapter, note 28, item 4.)
6. Gr 1, 156, 2: IIaVTor; . . . YJ/LLm{)aLpiov
Reg., 38 mg.: adds this, and writes the Greek T/LTJ/La "portio" with the
intention perhaps of contrasting it with TO/LEVr; also translated by Cremo-
nensis as portio.
7. Gr 1, 168, 3-4: 7TEa-TELAar; /LOt ypal/JaL TWV 7TpO{3ATJJL6.TWV Tar;
Reg., 41 mg .: adds this, perhaps because he was uneasy about Cremonensis'
use in this passage (V, 95v, 4) of mitto to translate E1rLa-TAAW when it
seems to mean here admoneo or iubeo. Moerbeke (Vol. 2, 31rL) also
used mitto.
8. Gr 1,190,21: TOVTa-TL 7Tpor; 800v
Reg., 46, 20 mg.: adds this as an implied criticism of Cremonensis' "quod
est datum" (V, 99v, 12). Moerbeke (VoI. 2, 32rN) had "hoc est ad datum."
9. Gr 1, 190, 25-192, 1: T01JTO 800ELUWV
Reg., 46 mg.: adds this, except that for EXEL in line 25 Reg. has OVK EXEL
(even though OVK is missing in Greek MS E). Like all the Greek MSS
Reg. interchanges the Ti/r; and Tilv of line 28.
10. Gr 1, 204, 25: Kat yap Ta KaTCt. l)tatpECTtV
Reg., 49 mg.: adds this, questioning, I suppose, Cremonensis' "et enim
sunt secundum divisionem" (V, 102r, 20).
11. Gr 1, 242, 5-9: ETL ... KAf
Reg., 57 mg.: adds this but with all the errors of Greek MS A as repeated
by E. He does this because V, 108r, has a lacuna of 2!--2 lines (see below,
Appendix IV, Section 1, Specimen A, note 16).
12. Gr 1, 248, 20-22: El: Ka ... l)ta/LETpOV
Reg. 58 mg.: adds this.
13. Gr 1, 254, 18: O/Lo>"oyov,>
Reg., 59 mg.: writes this word and next to it substitutes "correlativas" for
Cremonensis' "consimiles" (V, 11Ov, 27).
14. Gr 1, 266, 2-15: Ei Ka ... >..oyov
Reg., 62 mg.: adds this, no doubt because the whole enunciation seemed
obscurely translated by Cremonensis. He also notes above the Greek text
{l1TEp{3A'Y//La. "additamentum. corrige lectionem latinam." Cremonensis
(V, 112v, 28) had used "excessus."
15. Gr 1, 278, 7: Tpa7TEgwv
V, llSr, 28: spacium tabulare
Reg., 65 mg.: writes the Greek word as if to question the translation. Moer-
beke (V01. 2, 46rP) used "trapezale."
16. Gr 1,288,2-3: TO 8e M VOEtfT(}W /LETEWPOV E7Tt TaS' 7TEpt({!EpEiaS' avTOv
Reg., 67, 18 mg.: writes to justify his correction of Cremonensis' "super
superficiem eius" (V, 117r, 12) to "in circumferentia eius."
17. Gr 1,292,10: El8e /L1)
Reg., 68,18 mg.: adds as if to question the "sin autem" in V, 118r, 2.
Moerbeke (Vo!. 2, 46vW) had "si autem non."
18. Gr 1, 294, ~ 13: TO ..
Reg., 68 mg.: adds this.
;
. KWVOV
19. Gr 1, 306, 2-4: EL Ka TO op(}oywvwv KWVOEt8e,> E7Tt7TE8qJ T/LU(}i;! 8ta TOV
agovoS' f) 7Tapa TOV agova, Ix. TO/La EfTfTEimt opOoywviov KWVDV
(KwvoEt8EO'> in Gr MSS A and E)
V, 120r, 18-19: Si figura konoidalis rectangula pIano per axem ducto
scindatur sectio erit konoidalis rectanguli.
Reg., 71 mg.: gives the Greek as in MS E, no doubt because Cremonensis
in his translation failed to render ij 7Tupa T(W &govu.
20. Grl,316, 1-3:oJ.l-oiwS' ... fA
Reg., 73 mg.: adds, perhaps because he was upset by the reading gl that
is present in both the Greek text and in Cremonensis, although according
to the sense and the figure it ought to be ga as Torelli noted. Heiberg,
VoI. 2, 317, n. 2, would delete these lines.
IV. Corrections, Additions or Comments Based Primarily
on Mathematical Considerations
1. Gr 1, 40, 28: Tpiyw"Va (this was in Gr MS A but ought to be deleted)
V, 71v, 9: trianguli
Reg., 11, 15: deletes
Compare correction 11.2 above.
2. Gr 1, 42, 4: E7TL7TOa (in Gr MSS; ought to be deleted)
V, 71v, 9: omits whole passage.
Reg., 11, 15 mg.: triangulis
Compare correction 11.2 above.
3. After Gr 1, 206, 13, i.e. between Propositions 6 and 7 of Book 11 of On the
Sphere and the Cylinder, Reg., 49, 34-38 writes and then deletes the
following: "Duabus portionibus sive eiusdem sive non eiusdem sphere datis
tertiam invenire sphere portionem que quidem alteri datarum portionum sic
similis, superficiem vero habere alterius portionis superficiei equalem. Sint
spherice portiones secundum abe, def circumferentias sumpte et esto portio
cui similem invenire operteat secundum abe sumpta."
4. Gr 1,216,26: tJ7TO T(;;V HE>A (Gr MS A had HAS)
V, l04r, 26: ex ga (=HA) in ah (=A8)
Reg., 52, 17: ex gh (=H8) in ah (=AE.
5. Gr 1, 216, 27: TO a7TO E>r (Gr MS A had HE>, 8r)
V, l04r, 27-28: id quod fit ex gh (=HE in he (=8n
Reg., 52, 18: quadratum hc (=8n. (Cf. Moerbeke, Vol. 2, 33vD: id quod
a TG.)
Again Reg. corrects Cremonensis' text, either on mathematical grounds
or on the basis of Moerbeke's translation.
6. After y]jLUTV in Gr 1, 234, 11, Reg. 55, 2-3, adds a clause not in the Greek
nor in Cremonensis' text and not necessary for the meaning but which
spells out the intention of the proof: "quare et maior dimido ac (ser. et
del. Reg.) eius partis pars (scr. et del. Reg.) quadrati circulo circumscripti
que est ex parte 0."
7. Gr 1, 296, 1-2: TO lJ7TO Ta"V AK, KB (Gr MS A had 7TOT'a KB)
V, 118v, 2: quadratum kb (cf. Moerbeke, Vol. 2, 47rC: quidem que KB)
Reg., 69 mg.: id quod fit ex ak in kb
Reg.' s correction is mathematically sound.
8. Gr 1,298, 1-2: TciJ OU:X<TTT,jLan ni"V AZ, BR
V, 118v, 23-24: intervallo quod inter af et bg lineas
Reg., 69 mg.: T4) oW<TTIJ/J,an intelligit lineam inter af (=AZ) et bg (=BH)
perpendiculariter incidentem
This is an evident geometrical clarification by Regiomontanus.
9. The translation of Gr 1, 300, 11-19, for some reason is written down three
times in V, 119r-v. Reg., 70, writes it twice and then places in the margin
by the second writing "va ... cat," meaning of course to delete the
repetition.
10. Gr 1, 302, 12: ZH (Gr MS A had ZMH)
V, 119v, 18: fmg (=ZMH)
Reg., 70, 28: deletes the "m" leaving "fg" (=ZH) since he evidently realized
that m does not lie on the diameter.
11. Gr 1, 302, 13: E7TL Tal; 7TepLCpepEial; Tal; Toil 1}p,LKVKAiov Toil 7Tep'i Tav ZH
(Gr MSS om. 7TepLcpepeLa<; nil
V, 119v, 19-20: super semicirculum circa fg constitutum (thus following
Gr MS A)
Reg., 70 mg.: in arcu semicirculi circafg constituti
Reg.'s addition is an attempt to reduce the ambiguity of the Greek. Moerbeke
(Vol. 2, 47rQ) had wrongly interpreted the phrase thus: in superficie semi-
circuli que circa ZH.
12. See below, Appendix IV, Sect. 1, Specimen B, note 2, for Regiomontanus'
restatement of the enunciation of Proposition 1.9 of On the Equilibrium of
Planes (Gr 2, 140, 17-19), which Cremonensis had given in a somewhat
confused fashion.
13. See also Regiomontanus' marginal proof for a statement in Proposition 1.15
of On the Equilibrium ofPlanes (Appendix IV, Sect. 1, Specimen B, note 4).
14. Gr 3, 304, 1: /3 (Gr MS A wrongly had 7])
V, 60r, 30: octupla (=1j)
Reg., 246, 34: dupla (=/3)
Reg. has corrected this on mathematical grounds alone.
V. Marginal Notations of Greek Forms of Unusual Words or Proper Names
1. Gr 1, 292, 9: EB (Gr MS A had EB TJ accents)
V, 117v, 30: circulus . . . eb aut elipsis (I)
Reg., 68, 17 mg.: EAALI/JLl;
2. Gr 1, 316, 5: 7Tapap,aKl; U"cpaLpOLl)Et;
V, 122r, 11: speroides oblongum
Reg., 73 mg.: writes the Greek (cf. Moerbeke, Vol. 2, 47vP: "oblongum
speroydale.' ')
3. Gr 1, 318, 20: E7TL7TAaro
V, 122v, 13: speroides prolatum
Reg., 74 mg.: writes the Greek (cf. Vol. 2, 47vU: "superlatum speroydale.")
4. Gr 3, 36, 2: T'ijl> ITOLXUVU"Wt;
V, 9v, 10: stoechioseos (although he previously on several occasions trans-
lated it by "elementatio")
Reg., 185 mg.: writes the Greek
Note that both IToLxeLa and ITOLXeiwU"Ll; are used for the Elements of
Euclid. Moerbeke had distinguished these two words as elementa and
elementatio (see Vol. 2, Index of Latin Terms) as had Cremonensis for the
most part.
5. Gr 3, 66, 8: 'ill; EV TIepi 7rVpiwv
V, 16r, 3: Modus dioclis in libro de pyriis 7rVpiwv
Reg., 192 mg.: writes the Greek
6. Gr 3, 88, 18: 0 XiOl;
V, 20v, 3: Ippocrates chius
Reg., 197,5: writes "Hippo-" above "ypocrates" and the Greek in the margin,
writing XeLol; instead of XWl;
7. Gr 3, 100, 10: 'YPcxq;eiov
V, 23r, 1: graschium (i.e. as if the q; were read as ex [=schD
Reg., 199, 14 mg.: writes the Greek as an indication of Cremonensis' faulty
transcription
8. Gr 3, 120, 8: 'APKCX8iCli
V, 26v, 22: archadium
Reg., 203, 39 mg.: 0 apKa8LOl; (i.e. has changed it to the nominative case)
9. Gr 3, 120, 22: 'HPWVCXl;
V, 27r, 6: heronas
Reg., 204, 8 mg.: writes the Greek
10. Gr 3, 132, 2: EK TiiJV 1TTCXUTfUXTWV
V, 29r, 18: ex ptesmatibus
Reg., 206, 35 mg.: writes the Greek and adds "1TTCXL(J'J,La error, peccatum"
VI. Notes That Are External to The Text Itself
1. In this category are the various notes by Regiomontanus added concerning
the exemplars he consulted (see above, notes 19-21).
2. In regard to Gr 1, 52, let seq., Reg., 14 mg, gives, in Greek, definitions
of a cone, a pyramid and a prism.
3. Regiomontanus also adds occasional references to Apollonius. Concerning
Gr 1,288, 15-18, he adds (67 mg.): "ex 21
a
primi Apollonii de conicis."
Similarly concerning Gr 1, 294, 24-26, he adds (68 mg.): "ex 21 a primi
Apollonii. "
4. Concerning Gr 1, 294, 5 et seq., Reg., 68 mg., adds the word "demonstratio"
and indeed the demonstration follows.
5. There are several queries about the text added by Regiomontanus in the
margin. For example, see below, Appendix IV, Section 1, Specimen B, note 1.
See also Reg.' s query (240 mg .): "ubi?" concerning a statement by Eutocius
that Archimedes has demonstrated a conclusion (Gr 3, 278, 10).
6. Also of this category is Reg's instruction to the binder (140 mg .): "cum
vales ligare librum hunc alvei plicabis hanc cartam."
This brief sampling from what must total several hundred internal
corrections and marginal additions will give the reader some idea of the
kinds of corrections and comments made by Regiomontanus. Indeed one
supposes that they constituted the preliminary work for the commentaries
which he mentioned in the list of his own works to be published: "Com-
mentaria in libros Archimedis eos qui Eutocii expositione carent. "23
Thus we can consider the corrections and comments as the skeleton
form for a published text that would have included a vastly changed
edition of Cremonensis' translation of Archimedes and Eutocius along
with some commentaries of his own. While death prevented him from
completing any such project (and only the actual textual changes were
later incorporated in the edition of 1544), he did make some limited use
of his knowledge of Archimedes in other works.
It will also be noted that the next item on his list of works to be
published, following the proposed commentaries on Archimedes, is "De
quadratura circuli. contra Nicolaum Cusensem." And indeed Regio-
montanus spent considerable time, particularly in 1464, in an effort to
refute and emend Cusanus' works on quadrature. The supplement on
quadrature published with his De triangulis omnimodis in Nuremberg in
1533 contains eleven short tracts on rectification of a curved line and
quadrature of the circle and bears the following title: Ioannis de Regio-
monte Germani, Nationis Francicae, Mathematicarum discipLinarum
principis De quadratura circuli, diaLogus, et rationes diversae separatim
aliquot libeLLis exquisitae: Ad ea de re Cardinalis Cusani tradita et inventa,
quibus autor haec praescripsit verba Graeca, quae, ne quid iLlius
subtraheremus studiosis, subiici curavimus. Since I have not considered
at length Nicholas ofCusa's non-Archimedean attempts at the rectification
of curved lines and their consequent approximations of the quadrature of
the circle, I shall not consider Regiomontanus' refutations in complete
detail.
It seems apparent that Regiomontanus assumed Peurbach's position
against Cusa at an early period but that later he made this opposition
his own.
24
His principal procedure in all these works was to show that
23 Ziner, Leben und Wirken, Tafel 26, c. 2.
24 In the supplement to the De triangulis omnimodis, p. 51, in a piece dated 8 July,
1464, Regiomontanus refers to a method of rectification recounted to him by his teacher:
"Georgius ille doctissimus Mathematicorum praeceptor olim meus quandam curvi rectifi-
cationem brevem admodum mihi obiecit ac factu expeditissimam, cui principio quidem
plurimum fidei habuit autoritate inventoris persuadente; ubi vero pro acumine ingenii fui
inventumhuiusmodi examinare coepit, namdemonstrationem nusquamcomperit, longe aliter
quam ratus erat accidere didicit: lineam enim rectam quam inventor ille praedicavit aequalem
semicircumferentiae circuli, multo minorem eadem semicircumferentia conclusit: modus
tamen Georgii acutissimi, quem huic negocio discutiendo accomodavit, memoriam reliquisse
videtur meam: si tamen is est, quem inferius exponam, non pudebis unquam aliena scripta
retractare, quo recenitor ad memoriamredeat imago praeceptoris." When writing in privacy,
Regiomontanus' reference to Cusa is scathing (Curtze, "I1. Der Briefwechsel Regiomon-
tan's," p. 329): "Nicolaus autem Cusensis cardinalis, geometra ridiculus, Archimedisque
emulus, quantas ostendabundus nostra tempestate invexit nugas? Quippe qui plurimos
quadrabilis circuli modos edidit frivolos penitus et non nisi Lullianis quibusdam suasiuncu-
lis initentes."
Cusa's assumptions do not lead to approximations as close as that of
Archimedes (this was also the basis of Johannes Buteo's, i.e. Jean
Borrel's, manifold criticism of Cusa in his De quadratura circuli of 1559).
To give an example, let us consider first Regiomontanus' Dialogus de
quadratura circuli secundum Nicolaum Cusensem, which Zinner
implies was written some time after 1462
25
(and indeed I believe some
time after February 11, 1464).26 This work consists of a dialogue between
Aristophilus and Critias which is a critique of Nicholas of Cusa's
Dialogus inter Cardinalem sancti Petri, episcopum Brixenensem, et
Paulum physicum Florentinum, de circuli quadratura, also published in
the supplement to the De triangulis omnimodis, pp. 10-12. Aristophilus
is the proponent of Cusa's views and Critias those of Regiomontanus.
Aristophilus commences by talking to himself:
27
I have great admiration for the man to whom Nature herself has brought forth
from her treasury such an important gift to philosophy, even while he is hemmed
in by arduous public affairs. I know indeed that while the desire of achieving
such an aim [as quadrature] had occurred to many philosophers-and to many
who sought it in vain-the prize came not unjustly to Archimedes, even if the
mind is not only not forced to admit his principles but even in a certain way
to shrink from them: as, for example, [that of) drawing a spiral and applying a
tangent to it at a certain point. Here [in what follows] the proven herald of God
and Nature seems to add nothing at all ambiguous.
In this opening passage we see that Aristophilus is already preparing
to proclaim Cusa's gift. We also see his repetition of Cusa's criticism
of Archimedes' use of the spiral to achieve rectification of the circum-
ference.
28
After this monologue, Aristophilus rushes over to Critias'
ZS Zinner, Leben und Wirken, p. 123.
Z6 My opinion that it was written some time after 11 February, 1464, rests on the fact that
it presents the correctly calculated bounds for 1T, while the letter of Regiomontanus indud-
iIIg the erroneously calculated lower bound was written shortly after that date (see above,
-ate 15).
27 Dialogus de quadratura circuli, ed. in the supplement to the De triangulis omnimodis,
p- 22: "Aris. Grandis me tenet huius viri admiratio, cui etsi publicis arduisque circum-
-.:Ito negociis, tantum tamque darum philosophiae munus suo ex thesauro natura ipsa
4qtrompsit. Scio equidem plurimis iamdudum philosophis huiuscemodi metae attingendae
- 'nem ineessisse; plerique quidemfrustra nitentibus, Archimedi autem palmamnon iniuria
'sse, tametsi principia sua non modo non admittere cogatur animus; verumetiam quo-
odo horreat: spiralem videlicet lineam designare, eique in puncto quolibet con-
ntem applieare. Hie autem speetatissimus Dei et naturae praeco, nihil prorsus ambigui
.scere videtur."
In the introduction to another piece regarding one of Cusa's efforts (dated 5 July,
), Regiomontanus once more mentions the use of the spiral in rectification of the
erence (De triangulis omnimodis, Suppl. p. 39): .. Apud maiores nostros vetus
iu agitatum est problema, cireulum propositum quadrare, breve quidem verborum
, effeetu autem arduum atque inexplicabile, ut plurimis philosophis id absolvere
tibus, tametsi diversam quisque pro modo ingenii sui eligeret viam, spes omnis adempta
nemo autem eorum satis docte rem hane tradidisse videtur. Nam etsi Archimedes
usanus egegrie atquo propinque ad metam hanc aceesserit, adeo, ut universos alios
l
f
,
longe superasse credatur, tamen quia utitur lineis spiralibus ad propositum suum, quarum
descriptio difficilius ferme problema obiicit intellectui, quam ipsa circuli quadratura, visum
est plerisque Archimedi huiusce problematis absolutionem haudquaquam constitisse. Adde
quod in hac re utitur linea recta contingente spiralem in prima revolutione descriptam in
termino suo: quod profecto obscurum atque incertum factu est. Neque mireris, quod
Archimedis in hoc negocio meminerim, de quo nihil scripsisse videtur: quippe qui nulli
librorum suorum de quadratura circuli titulum imposuit. Satis revera hoc intendisse videtur,
dum circumferentiae circuli aequalem rectam describere conatur, que quidem descripta,
nihil reliqui est, quod circulum quadrare prohibeat. Verum Archimedes ipse, quo pacto
linea recta aequalis circumferentiae circuli describeretur, non tradidit, quamvis hanc con-
clusionem enunciaverit. Si linea recta contingat spiralem in prima circulatione descriptam in
termino eius, educaturque recta ab initio spiralis, continens angulum rectum cum linea,
quae circulationis existit, principium recta quae ipsa contingente, et dicto circulationis prin-
cipio intercipitur, circumferentiae circuli aequabitur. Describere enim rectam aequalem cir-
cumferentiae circuli praesupponit descripsisse lineam spiralem, eique contingentem appli-
cuisse, quae duo non minus profecto difficilia videntur, quam circumferentiae circuli
aequalem rectam designare." In the introduction to an examination of still another method
of rectification, Regiomontanus repeats his remarks on the spiral and praises Archi-
medes highly. He also calls attention to the fact that Archimedes taught how to turn
a curvilinear figure into a rectilinear figure when he demonstrated that a parabolic section
of a cone is 4/3 the rectilinear triangle having the same base and altitude as the parabolic
section (ibid., pp. 60-61): "Saepe et multum ipse mecum recensui, atque admiratus sum
vehementer, tantam tamque inexplicabilem curvi et recti distantiam, ut nemo ad hunc usque
diem satis aperte tradiderit, quo pacto a1terum ex altero nasceretur, praesertim in lineis:
quibus tantum discrimen propter curvitatem et rectitudinem interiectum est, ut neque ex
recta linea curvam, neque curvae propositae aequalem rectam constituere possimus. Qua
de re factum esse arbitror, ut post multas veterum vigilias, ac varios curvum rectificandi
modos, Archimedes tandem permotus sit excogitare quoddam medium, utroque extremorum,
videlicet curvo et recto participans, exemplum trahens a transmutationibus naturalibus, ubi
de extremo ad extremum nunquam transitur, nisi intercesserit quoddam medium, cum
quo extrema ipsa transmutanda communitatem quandam habeant. Nativitas autem lineae
rectae fit per motum puncti brevissimum, curva vero linea circularis ex fluxu puncti
cuiuslibet a puncto centrali in motu suo aequedistantis nascitur. Hos igitur duos motus,
rectum videlicet et circularem Archimedes commiscens, motum quendam promiscuum
adinvenit, et per eum motum quandam lineam mediam inter rectum et curvum constituit,
quam spiralem appelavit, cuius quidem lineae officio curvae circulari aequalem rectam
designare conatus est. Sed sicuti modum producendi hanc lineam non tradidit nisi per
imaginationem, ita neque contingentem rectam ei applicare in puncto quolibet docuit: quae
res necessariae sunt ad hoc, ut curvae circulari aequalem rectam designemus. Dnde non
iniuria quispiam dicere ausit Archimedem curvae circulari nunquam aequalem rectam
designasse: quippe qui contingentem rectam spirali lineae applicare nusquam docuerit. Quis
enim, ut ex primordiis Geometriae exempla sumamus, a puncto quolibet dato lineae rectae
propositae aequalem rectam produceret, nisi prius triangulum aequilaterum super lineam
datam collocare sciret? Nemo denique angulo pIano rectilineo aequalem redderet angulum,
si prius tribus lineis propositis, quarum quaelibet duae tertia reliqua maiores sunt, ex
tribus aliis eis aequalibus triangulum constituere didicisset. Ingentes nihilominus Archimedi
habendae sunt gratiae, qui tot et tantis tamque subtilibus inventis Geometricis posteritatem
adomavit, ut sempiter num inde monimentum haud indigne nactus sit: qui profecto rem
hanc plenius edidisset, nisi importuno milite Marci Marcelli Syracusas obsidentis,
spiritum coelo reddidisset. 0 ingenium viri acutissimum. 0 vigilias et labores perennes,
quos in Geometricis studiis ad mortem usque pertulit philosophus ille celeberrimus. Quis
unquam dignum aliquid tantis sudoribus rependet? Quem non miserebit huius hominis, qui
cariora duxit posteritatis ornamenta publica quam vitam propriam? Cui minime pepercit,
ut maximum Geometriae thesaurum posteris congereret. Occurrit demum illud inter omnia
opera sua admiratione dignissimum, quod superficiem planam curvilineam in planam
house, bursting with the news of Cusa's supposed quadrature. He rather
coyly tries to draw out of Critias the nature of this important problem
and make him guess the name of the new discoverer. At one point
Aristophilus, in order to give Critias a hint of the subject, says that
29
'\
the report is that Archimedes surpassed everyone else in this matter. Crit.
Why do you continue to speak in puzzles? Arist. Very few people were disposed
to rectify the circumference of a circle and to square its area. Crit. In fact, the
way [to do thisJ would be evident to no one attempting it if that Sicilian flower
among geometers had not entrusted his discoveries to letters.
But Aristophilus says that he has in mind another person "who promises
to give lucidly and briefly a straight line equal to a circular line; and
hence to square the circle will hardly seem to be difficult. "30 Critias
implies that the unknown discoverer of which Aristophilus speaks cannot
be Hippocrates, for he failed in his effort to accomplish it by lunes
"where he assumed as certain and firm that a given rectilinear triangle
is equal to a hexagonallune, since he only showed that a given rectilinear
triangle is equal to a tetragonal lune.' '31 Aristophilus says that it is not
Hippocrates but rather an outstanding modern. After some verbal jockey-
ing he affirms that it is Cusa of whom he speaks. He then describes
Cusa's method in the following way:32
rectilineam vertere docuerit, nullo medio intercedente, quod curvi et recti naturam com-
muniter saperet. Demonstravit enim sectionem coni parabolam (! parabolicam) esse
sesquitertiam triangulo rectilineo, qui basim haberet communem cum ipsa sectione parabola
(! parabolica) et altitudinem eandem, quamobrem facile redditur ipsi parabolae (! para-
bolicae) sectioni aequalem rectilineam designare superficiem. Sic in transmutandis super-
ficiebus vir.ille acutissimus iter praebuit, quod in lineis inventu erat difficillimum. Nolim
tamen quispiam mihi succenseat, quod superius dixerim, Archimedem curvae circulari
aequalem rectam non descripsisse, atque idcirco quadraturam circuli nunquam attigisse:
ipse enim de seipso id confiteri videtur, ubi in IibeIlo de mensuratione circuli curvae cir-
culari aequalem ferme, non tamen praecise rectam designare docet: officio numerorum con-
cludens proportionem circumferentiae circuli ad diametrum eius inter duas consistere pro-
portiones: quem quidem Iibellum post lineas spirales scripsisse creditur: ut saltem propinque
ad verum quomodolibet accederet, quandoquidem aequalem curvae circulari rectam in
veritate consequi non posset, ad metam enim si prope conieceris sagittam, tametsi punc-
tum non tangas, haud inglorius habeberis."
29 Ibid., p. 22: "Aris. Archimedem in ea re caeteros superasse fama est. Cri. Pergin
perplexe loqui? Aris. Ambitum circuli dirigere, areamque suam quadrare perpaucis hactenus
libuit. Cri. lmo nemini conanti etiam iter pateret, nisi Siculus ille Geometrarum flos inventa
sua literis mandasset."
30 Ibid.: "Aris. Alium tibi dabo qui lucide breviterque lineae circulari aequalem rectam
dare pollicetur, unde et circulum ipsum quadrare haud arduum videbitur."
31 Ibid.: "Cri. Hippocratem forsitan quem per lunulas id assequi conatum defecisse
clamant, ubi lunulae exagonae aequalem triangulum rectilineum datum iri tanquam certum
pridem et firmatum assumit, non enim nisi lunulae tetragonae aequum trigonum rectilineum
designavit. Aris. Non Chium illum, sed moderniorem virum prrestantissimum."
32 Ibid., pp. 23-24: "Pingo igitur circulum abgd, cuius duae diametri ag et bd ad rectos
angulos se secent in e centro circuli, ducta corda quadrantis ad, alius demum circulus
zhkl super centro n descriptus, diametrum habeat zk aequalem duabus lineis, ed videlicet
semidiametro circuli dati et ad cordae quadrantis, pariter iunctis. Inscribatur denique huic
I draw a circle abgd [Fig. 111.2.2.4] whose two diameters ag and bd intersect
at right angles in the center e of the circle. Then chord ad of a quadrant [of
circle abgd] is drawn and another circle zhkl is described on center n, with its
diameter equal to two lines joined together: ed, the radius of the given circle, and
ad, the chord of the quadrant. Then let the equilateral triangle zhl be inscribed
in this second circle. Crit. What then? Aris. He says that 6.zhl is isoperimetric
with circle abgd. Crit. Therefore, he affirms that the three straight lines zh, hi
and iz are equal to the circumference of circle abgd. Aris. You have it. Cri.
Oh conclusion worthy of mention! If it bespeaks the truth, the old long-standing
incompatibility of the circle and the rectilinear figures will be completely abolished,
for hereafter the circle will be easily transmutable into any rectilinear figure and
conversely a rectilinear figure into a circle, which will be clear to anyone paying
attention to your figures drawn above, Aristophilus. For, with chord ad being
secundo circulo triangulus aequilaterus zhl. Cri. Quid turn postea? Aris. Triangulum zhl
inquit ille isoperimetrum esse circulo abgd. Cri. Tres ergo lineas rectas zh, hi et lz
ambitum circuli abgd aequare affirmat. Aris. Rem tenes. Cri. 0 memoratu dignam conc1u-
sionem. Quae si verum praedicat, vetus iamdudum inimicitia circuli et figurarum rectiline-
arum prorsus abolebitur, circulus enim posthac in figuram rectilineam quamlibet ac vice
versa spacium rectilineum in circulum facile transmutabitur, quod in figuris tuis Aris-
tophile supra definitis intueri licebit. Corda enim quadrantis ad semidiametrum ed poten-
tialiter duplans ex penultima primi elementorum Euclidis principis nostri data erit, utraque
igitur rectarum ed et ad unde et zk aequalis eisdem data veniet, cumque ipsa zk diameter
circuli zhkl potentialiter sesquitertia sit ad latus trianguli aequilateri eidem circulo inscriptio
Aris. Hem quam turbam mihi ingeris, ubi dicis zk diametrum potentialiter esse sesquitertiam
lateri trianguli zhl? Cri. Scies quid uelim. Potentiam lineae rectae quadratum suum vocant
Geometrae. Aris. Id me non fugit, verum quadratis linearum zk et zl proportionem esse
sesquitertiam ostendas quaeso. Cri. Duc igitur in circulo tuo maiori cordamkt. Aris. Factum.
Cri. Ea habebitur latus exagoni aequilateri circulozhkl inscriptibilis. Aris . Confiteor, quando-
quidem arcus kt est sexta pars de ambitu circuli huius. Cri. Dimidiam insuper circuli aequabit
diametrum nisi decimumquintum quarti elementorum theorema mentiatur, quadratum ergo
zk diametri ex quarta secundi quadrato kl quadruplum accipietur. Angulus autem rectus
ztk duo quadrata cordarum zt et lk ipsi quadrate zk aequipollere iubet. Unde et ipsa quad-
ratum kl quadruplabunt: quadratumque kl tertiam partem esse quadrati zt nemo inficias ibit.
Congeries itaque duorum quadratorum zt et tk, cui aequipollet quadratum diametri zk super
quadratum zl, addit eius tertiam partem. Duo igitur quadrata zk videlicet diametri, et zt
lateris trianguli proportionem habebunt sesquitertiam. Aris. lam satis est, ostendisti etenim
ipsam zk diametrum lateri zt potentia sesquitertiam fore, perge quod coepisti. Cri. Datam
ergo accipiemus cordamzl, ideoque congeries trium laterum trianguli zhl aequilateri dabitur,
cui aequalem rectam pr designare licebit, quae et ambitum circuli abgd si verum prae se
fert conclusio aequabit. Quod si ex termino p eiusdem rectam ps erexeris aequalem semi-
diametro ed circuli dati claudendo triangulum spr: ille triangulus circulo abg aequabitur,
quemadmodum in libello mensurationis circuli demonstravit Archimedes. Ex ultima autem
secundi elementorum triangulo spr aequale quadratum describere didicisti, quod et circulo
abgd nimirumaequabitur. Aris . Recte procedit ratio tua. Sed de conclusione supra memorata,
quae caput huius rei videtur, quid sentis? ueram ne accipis, an non? Cri. Auctoritas viri
magna est. Aris. Quid ni? Cri. Fama praeclara. Aris. Etiam. Cri. Nihil neque sapientiae
neque bonarum artium reliquit intentatum. Verum ut profunde res divinas in animo versat,
ita subtiliter omne genus philosophiae perlustravit. Aris. Quas per ambages serpis? Siccine
satis mihi respondisse te arbitraris? Quin ad rem ipsam convertaris decet. Cri. Tantae rei
idoneus iudex aliunde petendus est. Sed tu si quam huiusce conclusionis probandae viam
habes proferto. Aris. Nullam prorsus invenio, ratione tamen quadam demonstrasse videtur,
quae nunc in mentem venire non potest. Cri. Ita negligentiam tuam aperte fateris?"
double in power to radius ed [i.e., with ad
2
= 2 ed
2
], from the penultimate [prop-
osition] of [Book] I of the Elements of Euclid, our Prince, chord ad will be given.
Therefore, each of the straight lines ed and ad, and hence their sum zk, will
be given, and [also zl] since diameter zk of circle zhkl is % in power the side
of an equilateral triangle inscribed in the same circle [i.e., zk2 = 4zJ2/3]. Aris.
Well, you upset me when you say that the diameter zk is 4f3 in power the side
of .6.zhl. Cri. You know what I mean. Geometers call the "power" of a straight
line its' 'square." Aris. That does not escape me, but I want you to demonstrate
that the square of zk is % the square of zl. Cri(. Therefore, take the chord kl in
your larger circle. Aris. Done. Crit. It will be the side of a regular hexagon
inscribable in circle zhkl. Aris. I agree, seeing that arc kl is a sixth part of the
circumference of the circle. Cri. It will equal half the diameter, unless
Proposition IV.IS of the Elements is wrong. Therefore, by 1104 [of the Elements],
zP = 4 k1
2
. But Lzlk is a right angle. Therefore, it is necessary that zF + Ik
2
= zk
2
. Hence these squares will be quadruple kF; and that kF will continue to
be one-third part of zF neither you nor anybody can spoil. Therefore, the sum
of the two squares, i.e., zl2 + lP, to which zk
2
is equivalent, exceed Zl2 by a
third part of it. Therefore, zk
2
/zf2 = 4/3. Aris. This is already enough, for you
have demonstrated that diameter zk would be % in power side zl; finish what
you began. Cri. Therefore, we shall accept the chord zl, and hence the sum of
the three sides of the equilateral triangle zhl will be given, for which sum we
shall let an equal straight line pr [Fig. III .2.2.5] be designated, which, if the
conclusion is true, will be equal to the circumference of circle abgd. But if from
terminus p of the same [line] you erect a straight line ps equal to radius ed of
the given circle, and you complete the triangle spr, this triangle will be equal
to circle abg, as Archimedes has demonstrated in the booklet On the Measure-
ment of the Circle. But from the last [proposition] of the second [book] of the
Elements you have learned how to construct a square equal to .6.spr, which
square surely will be equal to circle abgd. Aris. Your argument proceeds
correctly. But concerning the conclusion mentioned above which seems to be
the source of the argument, what do you think of it? Do you accept it as true,
or not? Cri. The authority of the man is great. Aris. Why not? Cri. His fame
is outstanding. Aris. True. Cri. He has left untried nothing of wisdom or the fine
arts. But he has as profoundly considered divine matters as he has subtly
reviewed every kind of philosophy. Aris. Why do you twist about enigmatically?
Do you think that you have answered me sufficiently in this way, that you do
not have to turn to this matter? Cri. A suitable judge of such a matter is to be
sought elsewhere. But if you have any way of proving this conclusion speak
out. Aris. I find no way at all. Still it seems that he had demonstrated it by a
certain argument which I cannot now recall. Cri. So you confess your negligence
openly.
Mter some further conversational byplay Critias consents to explain a
method of checking its certitude.
33
331bid" pp. 25-27: "Ausculta igitur. Archimedes noster in libello mensurationis circuli
officio numerorum demonstravit ambitum circuli sive circumferentiam addere super triplum
diametri suae minus quidem septima parte eius: maius autem decem septuagesimis primis
eiusdem diametri. Aris. Nemini dubium id est. Quid turn postea? Cri. Scies pedetentim,
si prius semidiametrum ed circuli minoris in quadringentas nonaginta et septem aequas
particulas apud intellectum secueris, erit enim una earum quaelibet mensura communis
omnibus lineis proposito nostro servituris. Cum rationales duntaxat lineas admittere sit con-
silium: ubi ergo unitatis characterem videbis in lineis quidem unam huiusmodi particularum,
in quadratis autem quadratellum eius fac intelligas. Mirandum praeterea nequaquam est quod
numeros huic linearum negocio accommodarim, cum Archimedis supra memorato exemplo
satis liceat. Lineis denique sive longitudine sive potentia communicantibus proportionem,
esse quam et numerorum decimus Euclidis theoremate suo quinto docuit. Imo vero lineae
tales sunt numeri realiter, intellectu secundumunitatem mensurae communis eas discernente.
Aris. Placet apprime haec tua introductio: iam enim pridem arbitrabar numeros in huiusce-
modi linearum comparatione nihil habere loci, cumet alius quidam circulum quadrare frustra
tentarit numeris fretus. Sed tu quo tendebas Critia perge. Cri. Diameter ad circumferentiam
circuli se habet, quemadmodum semidiameter ad semicircumferentiam.Aris. Confiteor totius
ad totum, dimidiique ad dimidium eandem habitudinem. Cri. Dimidia ergo circumferentia
super triplum semidiametri addit minus quidem una eius septima: maius autem decem
septuagesimis primis, sic enim totis accidebat. Aris. Non eo inficias Cri. Mille quingentae
sexaginta una partes addunt super triplum quadringentarum nonaginta septempartiumdecem
septuagesimas primas ipsius simpli. Aris. Ita est, una enim septuagesima de quadringentis
nonaginta septem partibus est septem. Haec decies facit septuaginta, quae superaddita mille
quadringentis nonaginta uni particulis triplo videlicet quadringentarum nonaginta septem
partium, summam conflabunt mille quingentarum sexaginta unius partium. Cri. Laudem
mereris Aristophile, qui tarn facile veritatem accipias nonne igitur semicircumferentia
circuli mille quingentas sexaginta unam partes superabit? Aris. Necessario res ita
est. Cri. Totam denique circumferentiam abgd duplo dictarum partium videlicet tribus
milibus centum viginti duabus maiorem haberi negabis? Aris. Minime. Cri. Id ergo
memoriae sedulo haereat, ut dum opus eo fuerit extemplo respondeas. Nunc ad triangulum
zhl veniendum est, ut quanta sit eius perimeter non lateat: aut quanta magnitudine minor
necessario sit exploremus. Semidiametrumed constituimus secari in quadringentas nonaginta
septem partes, quarum quadratum tu elicias. Aris. Ducenta quadraginta septem milia et
novem invenio. Cri. Tantum est quadratum ed semidiametri, et toties quadratellum unius
saepe memoratarum partium in quadrato ipsius semidiametri ed reperietur. Sicut enim pars
linealis lineas omnes ita quadratellum eius omnes metietur superficies. Cum autem quad-
ratum cordae ad quadratum semidiametri ed duplet, erit ipsum quadratum ad quadringenta
nonaginta quatuor milia et decemocto. Aris. Verum est. Cri. Hic numerus non est
quadratus: proximus tamen eo maior quadratus radicem habet septingenta et tria.
Quamobrem cordam ab minorem esse septingentis et tribus constat. Aris. Nemini dubium.
Si enim quadrato quadratum minus existat, costam quoque costa minorem haberi necesse
est. Cri. Erat autem semidiameter ed quadringentae nonaginta septem partes: quibus adiunge
memoratas septingentas et tres, ut summa resultet mille ducentarum partium, quibus profecto
minor est congeries duarum linearum ed et ad. Aris. Ratio convincit, nam idem commune
duabus inaequalibus adiectum quantitatibus duarum summarum alteram altera minorem
efficiet. Cri. Duabus demum lineis ed et ad simul iunctis aequalem statuebam diametrum
zk, quae ob earn rem mille ducentis partibus minor existet, quadratumque eiusdem dia-
metri mille quadringenta et quadraginta milia nequaquam attinget. Aris. Teneo, mille nanque
et ducentis partibus in se multiplicatis, mille quadringenta et quadranginta milia resultabunt.
Cri. Quarta item pars quadrati diametri zk ex eo quadrate sublata, relinquet quadratum
lateris trianguli aequilateri circulo inscriptio Habent enim, ut supra commemoratum est,
haec quadrata proportionem sesquitertiam: veluti quatuor ad tria, ex quatuor autem si
quartam sui dempseris partem, tria residuabuntur. Aris. Bene. Cri. Quarta insuper pars
de mille quadringentis et quadraginta milibus est tricenta sexaginta milia, quam ex toto
suo auferens mille et octuaginta milia relinqui cernes. Cumque sit proportio quadrati zk
ad quadratumzl , tanquam mille quadringentorum et quadraginta miliumad mille et octuaginta
milia: utraque enim earum sesquitertia est: erit permutatim quadrati zk ad mille quadringenta
et quadraginta milia, ea proportio quam habet quadratum zl ad mille et octuaginta
milia. Quadratum autem diametri zk minus est mille quadringentis et quadraginta milibus:
unde et quadratumzl mille et octoginta milibus minus habebitur. Haec omnia patere videntur:
aut si quam habes ambiguitatem pulsam faxo. Aris. Certa intelligo universa. Cri. Quadratus
demum proximo maior mille et octoginta milibus, is enim quadratus non est, radicem habet
Cri. Listen then. Our Archimedes in the booklet On the Measurement ofthe Circle
demonstrated by means of numbers that the periphery or circumference of the
circle exceeds three times its diameter by an amount that is less than its
seventh part but more than 10hl of the same diameter. Ads. No one doubts this.
What then? Cri. You will know in due course, if you cut, mentally, the previous
radius ed of the lesser circle into 497 equal small parts, for anyone of them will
be the common measure to serve for all the lines in our proposed [exposition]....
The diameter is related to the circumference of the circle as the radius is to the
semicircumference. Aris. I confess that the half to the half has the same rela-
tionship as the whole to the whole. Cri. Therefore, half the circumference
exceeds triple the radius by an amount that is less than its one-seventh but more
than 10hl [of it], for so it was with the wholes. Aris. I do not find fault in this.
Cri. 1561 parts exceed 3 times 497 parts by 1/71 of this simple [number] ....
Therefore, will not the semicircumference be more than 1561 parts? Aris. This
is necessarily so. Cri. Therefore, will you deny that the whole circumference
abgd has more than twice as many of the said parts, that is, that it has more
than 3122 parts? Aris. Not in the least. Cri. Keep this carefully in mind so that
when there is need for it you may respond immediately. Now we must come to
/:"zhl so that the magnitude of its perimeter will not remain unknown or so that
we may search out a magnitude which it is necessarily less than. We have con-
stituted the radius ed as being cut into 497 parts, whose square you may produce.
Aris. I get 247009. Cri. . . . . But since the square of chord ad is double the
square of radius ed, ad
2
= 494018. Aris. It's true. Cri. This number is not an
[exact] square. But the closest square greater than it has 703 as its root. Therefore,
chord ad < 703. Aris. No one doubts it. For if the square is less than the square,
so necessarily the side is also less than the side. Cri. Moreover, the radius ed
was 497 parts, to which we add the noted 703, so that the resulting sum is 1200
parts and the sum of the two lines ed and ad is actually less than this number. . . .
Then when I joined the two lines ed and ad together, I was constructing an equal
diameter zk, which, therefore, is less than 1200 parts, and the square of the same
diameter is less than 1,440,000.... Then with one-fourth part of zk
2
subtracted
mille et quadraginta, quamobrem linea zl minor erit iam dictis mille et quadraginta. Aris.
Haud incertum. Si enim quadratum lineae zl minus est mille et octoginta milibus, minus
quoque erit pluribus: quare et ipsa costa zl minor erit radice quadrata huiuscemodi plurium.
Cri. Firma igitur in animo tuo latus trianguli zl minus esse mille et quadraginta partibus:
prope enim portui concessimus. Aris. Non inficiabor unquam quod syllogismo ratum
dedisti tuo. Cri. Veritas sibi me delegit amicum: earn equidem operae precium investigare
studeo, inventam autem suis commonstrare cultoribus: qua perspecta autor ipse veritatis
altissimus digniuscule saltemlaudetur. Aris . Quam iuvat audire quonamrerum tandem evades
o Critia. Cri. Pauculis prius detinebere verbis Aristophile: continuoque nisi faIlax con-
tentus abibis. Sed latus zl trianguli nostri aequilateri minus esse mille et quadraginta par-
ticulus adhuc confitere? Aris. Et confiteor et certum scio. Cri. Si hasce mille et quadraginta
particulas ter repetiero, summam trium milium centum et viginti partium coIligens, nonne
partes ille triplum lateris zl, id est perimetrum trianguli aequilateri zhl superabunt? Aris.
Maxime cum ut simplum ad simplum, ita triplum ad triplum, terminosque proportionum per-
mutando luce clarius id videatur. Cri. Perimeter itaque trianguli zhl minor erit tribus milibus
centum et viginti. Aris. Negare non possum. Cri. Multo igitur minor erit tribus milibus
centum et viginti duabus particulis. Aris. Verum concludis, quid turn? Cri. lam redde quod
antehac dudum memoriae mandatum iri iusseram. Aris. Quid hoc erat? Cri. Circumferentiam
circuli abgd maiorem esse tribus milibus centum et viginti duobus. Aris. In memoria habeo.
Cri. Perimeter ideo trianguli zhl, quae minor erat tribus milibus centum et viginti duobus,
multo minor erit circumferentia circuli abgd. ... Perimetrum earn trianguli zhl non
aequalem esse circumferentiae dicti circuli demonstratum habes."
from zk
2
, the remainder will be the square of the side of the equilateral triangle
inscribed in the circle. For, as was noted above, these squares stand in a
sesquitertiate ratio, i.e., as 4 to 3. But if one-fourth part of 4 is subtracted from
4, the remainder will be 3. Aris. Good. Cri. Then one-fourth part [of 1,440,000]
is 360,000. And you see that 1,440,000 - 360,000 = 1,080,000. But since zk
2
/z1
2
= 1,440,000/1,080,000, for each is a ratio of 4 to 3, permutatively zk
2
/1,440,000
= z[2/1,080,000. But zkZ is less than 1,440,000, hence zl2 is less than
1,080,000. All of this ought to be clear, but if you have any doubt, I shall make it
disappear. Aris. I understand everything. Cri. Then the next nearest square to
1,080,000 (for the latter is not an [exact] square) has 1040 as its root. Therefore,
line zl is less than 1040. Aris. This is scarcely uncertain. . . . Cri. If we take
the 1040 small parts three times, producing the sum 3120, will not these three
parts exceed triple side zl, that is exceed the perimeter of equilateral triangle
zhl? Aris. Obviously.... Cri. And so the perimeter of 6zhl is less than 3120.
Aris. I cannot deny it. Cri. Therefore, it will be less than 3122 particles by even
more. Aris . Your conclusion is true. What then? Cri. Now repeat what I asked you
to commit to memory somewhat earlier. Aris. What was that? Cri. That the cir-
cumference of circle abgd is greater than 3122. Aris. I remember it. Cri. Therefore,
the perimeter of 6zhl, which was less than 3121, will be less than the circum-
ference of circle abgd by even more.... [Hence] you have demonstrated that
this perimeter of 6zhl is not equal to the circumference of the said circle.
Then follows more byplay between the two as to whether the calcula-
tions and the arguments are correct and Aristophilus admits, "By
Heracles, you are sufficiently persuasive...." All that this long argu-
ment leads to is that Cusa's method gave only an approximation and that
the approximation fell below the Archimedean lower bound. And indeed
Cusa no doubt knew it to be only an approximation. The dialogue is
concluded by a brief discussion of how good an approximation Cusa
achieved with his method. We may note, finally, that from the Archi-
medean knowledge displayed (namely knowledge of Propositions 1 and 3
of On the Measurement of the Circle) we would be unable to decide
whether the dialogue was completed before or after he copied the Cre-
monensis translations. For in his reading at Vienna he was familiar with
the conclusions of Propositions 1 and 3, as I have noted above. But since,
as I have also suggested, this work was probably written some time after
February 11, 1464, it would appear that it was composed after he had
made his copy of the Cremonensis translations.
One final text among the various pieces on rectification and quadrature
composed by Regiomontanus ought to be examined, as it exhibits
Regiomontanus' continued use of the medieval texts even after he had
copied the Cremonensis translations. This is his De quadratura circuli
addressed to Toscanelli and apparently written before 26 June, 1464.
34
In
34 Zinner, Leben und Wirken, p. 123. The complete tract occupies pages 29-38 in the
supplement to the De triangulis omnimodis. The dedication to Toscanelli and the opening
sentence (p. 29) follow: "Ioannes Germanus Paulo Florentino artium et medicinae doctori
celebratissimo, ac Mathematicorumpraestantissimo. S.P.D. Nisifidelemte mihi praestolarer
iudicem atque tutorem Paule optime, tarn audax facinus, tamque dubium scribendi genus
haud quaquam attentassem, siquidem novam ac propriam tractantibus materiem, vix hac
nostra tempestate satis parcitur, quin livore quodam praeter aequum et bonumpertubentur."
the proemium of this work, Regiomontanus indicates that he is going to
follow the example of Archimedes in the latter's On the Measurement of
the Circle by using only lines that are themselves rational (i.e. related
rationally) or that are rational in their squares (Le. whose squares are
related rationally).35 He goes on to say that Archimedes was accustomed
to place a line that was rational only in its square between two known
rational lines. He also notes that in imitation of Archimedes, who oc-
cupies the first rank of all mathematicians, he will add certain pre-
fatory propositions (praeambula) necessary for this matter. These pre-
liminary propositions are eleven in number and all involve quantities that
lie between "bounds," which "bounds" are quantities "known per se."
Let us first see how Regiomontanus defines these terms :36
We shall designate a quantity "known per se" if some well-known measure-
or one assumed at will according to a known number-measures it. The "bound"
(terminus) of any quantity we let be designated as another quantity "known per
se" that is greater or less than the original quantity [for which it is a bound].
The purpose ofthe succeeding preambulatory propositions that concern
irrational quantities and their bounds is obviously to permit manipula-
tions that will eventuate in the determination of bounds for 'TT. They can
be summarized briefly, without Regiomontanus' proofs, as follows:
37
35 Ibid., p. 29: "Ne autem pluribus detinearis, ad rem ipsam proprius accedendum censeo,
ubi exemplo Archimedis in Iibello suo de mensuratione circuli non nisi lineis sive longi-
tudine sive potentia rationalibus utendum erit. Solebat enim Archimedes, si qua linea poten-
tialiter tantum rationalis occurrit, inter duas notas lineas longitudine rationales earn consti-
tuere: quem virum inter orones Mathematicos primarium imitatus ego quaedam praeambula
huic negotio conscripsi necessaria, quo faciIius caetera intelligerentur: neque eadem saepius
quam decet repetere oporteret."
36Ibid., pp. 29-30: "Definitiones. Quantitatem per se notam vocabimus, quam mensura
aliqua famosa aut prolibito assumpta secundum numerum notum metitur. Terminus quanti-
tatis cuiuslibet dicetur quantitas alia per se nota maior aut minor huiusmodi quantitate. Ut
si b quantitas minor fuerit a quantitate, et c maior eadem, fueritque utraque quantitatum
b et c per se nota, b et c dicentur termini quantitatis a, sive ipsa a quantitas per se
nota existat sive non. Dicemus quoque a quantitatem inter huiusmodi terminos contineri.
His demum communibus animi conceptionibus utemur. Minus adiectum minori constituit
minus, maius quoque maiori adiunctum maius reddit. Subtractio minoris quantitatis ab alia
quantacunque maius relinquit quam subtractio maioris ab eadem. Hae sententiae sunt
manifestissimae. "
37 Ibid., pp. 30-36: "Praeambula. I. Si utraque duarum quantitatum propositarum inter
duos notos constituta fuerit terminos, congeries quoque earum inter duos notos reperietur
tenninos.... 11. Si fuerint duae quantitates inaequales, quarum altera quidem inter duos
notos terminos concludatur, altera vero per se nota existat, aut utraque earum inter duos
notos constituatur terminos: differentia quoque earum inter duos notos habebitur ter-
minos. . . . Ill. Si quis duas lineas inter binos terminos habuerit notos, quod ex ductu alterius
earum in alteram nascitur, inter duos quoque notos terminos comprehendetur.... IIII.
Datis duabus quantitatibus singulatim inter duos terminos notos, quod ex divisione alterius
per alteram e1icietur, inter duos quoque c1audetur tenninos notos.... V. Lineae duobus
notis interiectae terminis, quadratum quoque inter duos notos concludetur.... VI. Cuius-
libet quadrati per se cogniti, costa aut per se nota redditur, aut inter duos terminos
notos compraehendi potest. . . . VII. Si quadratum quodlibet inter duos terminos notos
contineatur, costam quoque eius duobus notis terminis interponi.... VIII. Si aliqua
quantitas inter duos terminos notos comprehensa fuerit, quaecunque ad earn quantitatem
Preambles
I. If two given quantities are constituted between two known bounds, their sum
will be found between two known bounds....
n. If there are two unequal quantities one of which is included between two known
bounds, while the other is known per se, or if both of them are included between
two known bounds, their difference will also be found between two known
bounds....
Ill. If one has two lines between a pair of bounds, then their product will also
be comprised between two known bounds. . . .
IV. With two quantities, each between two known bounds, the quotient arising
from the division of one by the other will also be included between two known
bounds ....
V. If a line lies between two known bounds, its square will also be included between
two known bounds. . . .
VI. In the case of any square known per se, its side will either be known per
se or can be comprehended between two known bounds. . . .
VII. If any square is contained between two known bounds, its side can be inter-
posed between two known bounds. . . .
VIII. If some quantity is comprehended between two known bounds, and any
other [quantity] will have a given ratio to this quantity, then this other quantity
will be located between two known bounds....
IX. If there are three continually proportional lines, any two of which are con-
stituted between a pair of known bounds, then the remaining line will also be
found between two known bounds....
X. In the case of four proportional lines, if any three lie between known bounds,
the fourth will be set between two known terms. . . .
XI. If there are two quantities whose ratio although unknown lies between two
known [ratios], and if one of the two quantities is given per se, then the other
also will be contained between two known bounds. . . .
With these praeambula proved, Regiomontanus presents his last two
conclusions, which I shall give here in totO:
38
habuerit datam proportionem, et ipsa inter duos terminos notos collocabitur. . . . IX. Si
fuerint tres lineae continuae proportionales, quarum duae quaecunque inter binos terminos
notos constituantur, reliqua quoque inter duos notos terminos reperietur.... X. Quatuor
linearum proportionalium, si tres quaelibet inter notos iaceant terminos, quartae quoque
duos terminos notos suscitabimus.... XI. Si fuerint duae quantitates, quarum proportio
etsi ignota sit, inter duas tarnen notas consistat, fueritque altera duarum quantitatum per
se data, reliqua quoque inter duos notos continebitur terminos."
38 Ibid., pp. 37-38: .XII. Nunc ad primordia exercitii nostri propius veniendo certissimum
pronunciamus, circumferentiam circuli esse eiusdem generis cum qualibet linea recta, imo
omnes lineas, sive rectae fuerint, sive curvae, qualicunque curvitate, non differre specifice.
Nam idem est principium generationis omnibus lineis commune, scilicet punctus, cuius
fluxu sive motu imaginario lineas nasci praedicant Mathematici: eo enim fluente, per viam
brevissimam linea recta creatur, per viam autem aliam curva generatur. Similiter sentiendum
est de superficiebus omnibus, et item de corporibus sicut enim ex fluxu puncti linea, ita
ex motu lineae superficies, et ex fluxu superficiei corpus conficitur. Ad hanc rem
confirmandam testimonia subsistunt plurimorum Geometrarum. Nonne Archimedes in
principio primi de sphaera et cylindro demonstraturus congeriem laterum polygonii circulo
circumscripti maiorem esse circuli circumferentia, assumit quaslibet duas rectas a punctis
contactuum polygonii et circuli ad punctum unum concurrentes, esse maiores eo arcu, qui
inter ipsa puncta contactuum intercipitur? Maiores autem esse non possent, nisi de eodem
genere quantitatis existerent: alias enim inter eas et arcum circuli non caderet proportio.
Archimedes denique in de spiralibus lineis circumferentiae circuli aequalem rectam inveniri
posse supponit. Item in libello de mensuratione circuli eum triangulum rectangulum circulo
aequalem esse demonstrat, cuius unum quidem latus rectumangulum ambiens semidiametro,
reliquum vero circumferentiae circuli aequale est, unde aperte sensisse dinoscitur Archi-
medes curvum et rectum lineale eiusdem esse generis. Ptolemaeus quoque in sexto libro
magnae compilationis suae capitulo septimo, ubi ex digitis eclipticis linearibus super-
ficiales conatur elicere, Archimedem imitatus, proportionem circumferentiae circuli ad
diametrum eius inter duas proportiones c1audi notas enunciat: aream insuper circuli
dimensurus, semidiametrum circuli in semicircumferentiam suam dudt, quam rem profecto
imprudenter ageret, nisi eiusdem generis diametrum cum circumferentia circuli esse
cognovisset. Sed et in libello trium fratrum talia supponuntur, ubi etiam demonstrandum
proponitur cuiuslibet circuli circumferentiam ad diametrum suam eandem habere pro-
portionem. Id autem praesupponit curvam circularem et rectam esse eiusdem generis:
proportionem enim diffiniunt Geometrae duarum quantitatum eiusdem generis certam
habitudinem. Quo vehementius admirandi sunt, qui nescio quibus territi somniis, curvi
ad rectum inquiunt non esse proportionem. Rogatique cur nam id fieri oporteat, respondent
curvum et rectum non esse de eodem genere quantitatis, quae res quam temeraria sit,
facile quisque senserit, curvum revera et rectum passionem quidem quantitatibus inferunt,
genus autem non diversificant. Hunc rumorem Ortum esse arbitror ex verbis Aristotelis
in Praedicamentis, ubi ad tempus usque suum neminem circuli quadraturam testatur
invenisse. Circuli autem quadratura non uidetur possibilis, nisi doceatur quonam pacto
circumferentiae circuli aequalis recta describatur. Difficultatem igitur quam nonnulli im-
possibilitatem dicunt, quadrandi circulum ex difficultate, aut si vis dicere ex impossibilitate,
circumferentiam rectificandi consurgit. Hanc autem impossibilitatem rectificandi circum-
ferentiam circuli, sive aequalem ei rectam describendi c1amitant inde evenire, quod non
sint eiusdem generis.
"XIII. Praeterea non est ignorandum, circumferentiam circuli addere super triplum
diametri suae, minus quidem una septima eius, plus autem decem septuagesimis primis
ipsius diametri.
"Cuius rei certitudinem Archimedes in Iibello de mensuratione circuli manifestavit,
numerorum fretus officio. Utemur autem et nos pene simili ingenio numerorum in hoc
nostro preposito, licentiam id faciendi ab Archimede sumentes. Neque turbabit nos
unquam, quod plerisque visum est, ineptum sive impertinens linearum habitudines per
numeros investigare: nam in proposito nostro non nisi lineis rationalibus communicantibus
utemur, quarum proportionem quinta decimi demonstrat esse ut numerorum. Quid quaeso
aliud suspicaris esse lineas, aut quantitates quasvis communicantes, nisi numeros ex
coacervatione mensurae earum communis resultantes? Cur autem nonnullis in negocio
Iinearum numeri suspecti sint, nisi me fallit animus, apertum dabo. Arabes olim circulum
quadrare polliciti, ubi circumferentiae suae aequalem rectam descripsissent, hanc pronunci-
avere sententiam. Si circuli diameter fuerit ut unum, circumferentia sua erit radix quadrata
de decem. Quae quidem sententia, cum sit erronea, quemadmodurn alibi explanavimus,
cunque numeros rectilineationem effecturos introducat, numeri ipsi in hoc negocio suspecti
habentur. Ex supra commemoratis trahitur, quod si diameter circuli divisa fuerit in 497
particulas aequales, circumferentia circuli erit minor 1562 huiusmodi particulis, maior
autem quam 1561. Similiter si semidiameter posita fuerit 497 particularum aequalium,
semicircumferentia minor quidem erit linea recta complectente 1562 huiuscemodi particulas,
maior autem linea recta habente 1561 tales particulas. Nam 1562 addunt super triplum de
497 unam septimam de ipsis 497, circumferentia autem circuli, ut praemissum est, minus
addit. Item 1561 addunt super triplum de 497 decem septuagesimasprimas de 497,
circumferentiam autem addere super triplum diametri, quae ponitur 497 plus quam decem
septuagesimasprimas, superius explanatum est. Non iniuria igitur dicemus circumferentiam
circuli inter praedictos numeros existere, non quidem tanquam numerum, cum inter dictos
numeros nullus cadat medius, sed tanquam maiorem minore eorum, et minorem maiore,
ita quod addat supra minorem aliquam particulam unitatis, cuius particulae quantitatem
nemo usque ad hodiernum diem didicit, sicut neque comprehensum est circumferentiam
esse communicantem diametro, aut incommunnicantem (!). Hoc suspicor etiam esse illud,
quod plerosque impulit dicere, curvi ad rectum non esse proportionem: ubi enim non
XII. Now in coming closer to the original [objectives] of our exercise, we assert
as most certain that the circumference of a circle is of the same genus as any
straight line, in fact that all lines whether straight or curved with any sort of
curvature do not differ specifically.
For the origin of generation of all lines is the same, namely the point, by whose
flux or imaginary motion mathematicians assert lines to be generated. For if a
point flows through the shortest [Possible] way, a straight line is created, but if
through any other way, a curve is generated. It ought to be perceived in a similar
fashion with regard to all surfaces, and to bodies as well, for just as a line is
produced from the flux of a point, so is the surface from the motion of a line,
and a body from the flux of a sutface. The testimony of many geometers
exists to confirm this view. Has not Archimedes in the beginning of [Book] I of
On the Sphere and the Cylinder, in order to demonstrate that the sum of the sides
of a polygon circumscribed about a circle is greater than the circumference of
the circle, assumed that any two straight lines joined together at a single point
[and proceeding] from the points of tangency between the polygon and the
circle are [together] greater than the arc which is intercepted between these points
of tangency? But they could not be greater unless they were of the same genus
of quantity; otherwise no ratio would apply between them [i.e., the straight lines]
and the arc of the circle. Further, Archimedes in On Spiral Lines supposes that
a straight line equal to the circumference of a circle can be found. Also, in the
booklet On the Measurement of the Circle, he demonstrates that that triangle is
equal to a circle one of whose sides including the right angle is equal to the
radius while the other is equal to the circumference of the circle. Whence Archi-
medes is seen to have perceived openly that a curve and a straight line are of
the same genus. Also Ptolemy in the sixth book of his Almagest, Chapter 7,39
es'se proportionem cognitam sive datam dicere debebant, simpliciter abnegavere propor-
tionem, quasi non sit proportio aliqua non cognita sive non data, quales tamen muItae sunt.
Sic ex genere proportionis ignoto proportionem nullam prorsus esse falso putaverunt. Dictos
itaque numeros vocabo terminos circumferentiae quod inter eos quantitas circumferentiae
concludatur, quem loquendi morem in aliis similibus negociis observatum ire decrevi. Non
autemsolumillos sed quoslibet etiamnumeros maiores maiore dictorum, et quoslibet minores
minore eorum, terminos appellabo. Nam si (verbi gratia) circuli circumferentia est inter
hos duos 1561 et 1562, erit etiam inter hos 1560 et 1563 et similiter de aliis. Quod autem
de circumferentia circuli enunciavimus, ad omnes alias quantitates quibus binos huiusmodi
terminos circumponimus, accomodandum erit. "
39 Ptolemy, Syntaxis mathematica, ed. J. L. Heiberg, Claudii Ptolemaei opera . . .
omnia, Vo\. 1 (Leipzig, 1898), pp. 512-14. In the Latin translation of Gerard of Cremona,
Almagestum (Venice, 1515), 67v-68r, we read: "Et quia plures eorum qui considerant
principia eclypsium: non numerant quantitates magnitudinis tenebrarum secundumdiametros
orbium: sed plures eorum numerant eas secundum totas superficies orbium que videntur
per contactum aspectus absoluti, qui addit totum quod videtur ad illud quod non videtur:
addidimus super has differentias differentiam parvam: in qua erunt duodecem aree et tres
tabule.... Est autem proportio circulorum ad diametros sicut proportio trium partium et
8 rninutorum et 30 secundorum ad partem unam. Hec enim proportio est: que est inter
triplum et septimam eius et inter triplum et decem septuagesimasprimas partium ipsius fere,
et illud est opus Arsamidis secundum opus absolutum. . . . Et similiter est proportio aree
intra unumquemque duorum circulorum, quoniam cum multiplicaverimus medietatem dia-
metri in totum circulum: proveniet inde duplum aree circuli." I have made slight changes
in punctuation. In Trebizond's translation, which both Cremonensis and Regiomontanus
criticized, the reference to Archimedes is given as follows (Almagestum seu magnae con-
where he attempts to produce sUIfaces from ecliptic lines by digits, and, in imita-
tion of Archimedes, enunciates that the ratio of the circumference of a circle to
its diameter is included between two known ratios; and further, in order to measure
the area of the circle, he multiplies the radius of the circle by the semicircumfer-
ence. In proceeding thus he would be completely imprudent unless he recognized
that the diameter is of the same genus as the circumference of the circle. But in
the Booklet of the Three Brothers [Verba filiorum] such things are supposed,
where it is proposed for demonstration that the circumference of any circle has the
same ratio [i.e., a constant ratio] to its diameter; this presupposes that a
circular curve and a straight line are of the same genus, for geometers define
a ratio as a certain relationship of two quantities of the same genus. How much
more are they [i.e., these various authors cited] to be admired than those, ter-
rified by I know not what kind of dreams, say that there is no ratio between a
curve and a straight line, and who, when asked why this must be so, reply that a
curve and a straight line are not of the same genus of quantity. This matter is ac-
cidental, as anyone can easily perceive; actually the "curved" and the" straight'"
allow passion [i.e. accidents] in quantities without changing [their] genus. I be-
lieve that this popular opinion [concerning the difference in genus between the
straight line and the curve] has arisen from the words of Aristotle in the Cate-
gories, where he reports that up to his time no one has discovered the quadrature
of the circle. But the quadrature of a circle does not seem possible unless one is
shown how a straight line is drawn equal to the circumference of a circle. There-
structionis mathematicae opus [Venice, 1528], 62r): "consideravimus autem haec quasi
proportio circumferentiarum ad diametros sit: quam habent 3.8.30 ad unum. Haec enim
proportio proxime est inter triplam (septima parte adiecta) et inter triplam (decies sep-
tuagesima prima parte adiecta) quibus Archimedes simplicius usus est. . . . Similiter
autem et arearum totarum quoniam linea quae a centro ad circumferentiam est in circum-
ferentiam multiplicata duas areas circuli facit." For comparative purposes we can also cite
the Epytoma Joannis de monte regio in almagestum Ptolomei (Venice, 1496), sig. h 3v,
Bk. VI, Prop. xxvii: "proportio denique circumferentie circuli ad diametrum: ut ostendit
Archimedes: est minor quam tripla sexquiseptima: et maior quam tripla superpartiens 10
septuagesimasprimas. Inter has autem media proportio est trium partium, 8 mi., 30 secun.
ad unam partem. . .. Quare cum in eisdem partibus sit etiam nota superficies circuli abg,
quia fit ex ductu eb [i.e., semidiametri] in semiperiferiam dab . ..." We can compare
Ptolemy's approximation to the Archimedean bounds by converting them all to decimal
fractions:
3
1
17 = 3.14286
3:8,30 = 3.14166
31/71 = 3. 14085
Heath, A History of Greek Mathematics, Vo!. 1, p. 233, suggests that Ptolemy arrived
at his approximation independently of the Archimedean bounds, even though Ptolemy notes
that his figure is approximately the mean of the Archimedean bounds, since Ptolemy's
value is a closer approximation to TT than is the mean between the Archimedean bounds.
Heath shows how Ptolemy's value can be obtained from his table of chords. Cf. the recent
article of W. R. Knorr, "Archimedes and the Measurement of the Circle: A New Inter-
pretation," Archive for History of Exact Sciences, Vo!. 15 (1976), pp. 115-40, and par-
ticularly p. 132 for Ptolemy. This is a rich article with many interesting suggestions con-
cerning the calculation of TT in antiquity. It came into my hands too late for extensive
consideration in my volume.
fore, they say that the difficulty-or as some would say the impossibility-
of squaring a circle arises from the difficulty, or, if you wish to say, from the im-
possibility, of rectifying the circumference. But this impossibility of rectifying the
circumference of a circle, or describing a straight line equal to it, they cry out,
arises from the fact that these lines are not of the same genus.
XIII. Further, one must not disregard the fact that the circumference of a circle
exceeds triple its diameter by an amount that is less than one-seventh of it but
more than 1/71 of the diameter.
Archimedes in his booklet On the Measurement ofthe Circle has made manifest
the correctness of this matter, relying on the method of numbers. And we also
use a quite similar technique of numbers in this proposition of ours, assuming
license to do so from Archimedes. Nor will it disturb us at all that it is viewed
by many as inept or inappropriate to investigate the relationships of lines by means
of numbers. For in our proposition we use only commensurable, rational lines
whose ratio the fifth [proposition] of the tenth [book of the Elements] demonstrates
is as of numbers. What else, I ask, do you think that lines or any commensurable
quantities are except numbers resulting from the accumulation of their common
measure? Why numbers are considered suspect by some (if my mind does not
fail me) in the matter of lines I shall leave open. The Arabs, having promised
to square the circle, where they had described a straight line equal to its circum-
ference, once asserted this opinion: If the diameter of the circle is as one, its
circumference will be the square root of 10. Since this opinion is erroneous, as
we have explained elsewhere, and since it introduces numbers to effect rectifica-
tion, numbers themselves are held as suspect in this matter [of rectification].
From what was noted above it is deduced that if the diameter of a circle is di-
vided into 497 equal small parts, the circumference of the circle will be less than
1562 particles of this kind but more than 1561. Similarly, if the radius is posited
as 497 equal particles, the semicircumference will indeed be less than a straight
line containing 1562 particles of this kind but greater than a straight line having
1561 such particles. For 1562 exceeds triple 497 by one-seventh of 497, while
the circumference of the circle, as was shown, exceeds it less. Also, 1561 exceeds
triple 497 by 1/71 of 497, while the circumference exceeds triple the diameter,
posited as 497, by more than 1/71 [of the diameter], as has been explained above.
Therefore, we shall say, not unjustly, that the circumference of the circle lies
between the aforesaid numbers, but it exists indeed not as a number since there
is no mediate number occurring between the said numbers, but it exists rather
[as a quantity] greater than the lesser and less than the greater, so that it exceeds
the lesser by a fraction of unity, the quantity of which fraction no one up to this
day has taught, just as it has not been comprehended whether the circumference
is commensurable with the diameter or incommensurable with it. I suspect that
this is also what has impelled many to say there is no ratio between a curved line
and a straight line. For where they ought to have said that there is no known or
given ratio, they have simply denied [the existence of] a ratio, as if there is no
ratio that is not known or given although there are many such ratios. So from the
unknown genus of ratio they have falsely thought that there is no ratio at all.
And so I shall designate the said numbers [i.e., 1561 ~ 1562] as the "bounds
of the circumference" because the quantity of the circumference is included be-
tween them. I have decided that this manner of speaking ought to be observed
in other similar matters. But I shall call "bounds" not only these numbers but
also any numbers greater than the larger of the said [numbers] and any less than
the smaller of them. For if, for example, the circumference of a circle lies be-
tween 1561 and 1562, it will also lie between 1560 and 1563, and also between
other [smaller and larger numbers]. What we have enunciated for the circum-
ference of a circle, must be applicable to all other quantities which we surround
by pairs of bounds of this kind.
It is evident from these extracts that Regiomontanus in this tract has
drawn his Archimedean knowledge directly from the works of Archimedes
rather than from the medieval treatises reflecting them as he had done in
the pieces found in the Vienna codex. This change was of course the re-
sult of his having copied the Cremonensis translations of Archimedes in
the year or two before the composition of this tract. Thus he has here
cited not only On the Measurement of the Circle but also On the Sphere
and the Cylinder and On Spiral Lines. But it is also worth noting that
Regiomontanus brings into the discussion the medieval Verba filiorum;
and his reference to the Categories of Aristotle is to the passage on
quadrature that was often cited in the Middle Ages (see Volume One,
pages 588, 607-08). Certainly, Regiomontanus' treatment of "bounds"
is a lucid and original element when compared with its medieval predeces-
sors. Notice also his mention of the Arabic approximation of 1T as V1'O,
which he rejects.
40
40 This Arabic approximation of 1T was first indicated, in Latin works, in the Liber
ysagogorum Alchorismi, perhaps composed by Adelard of Bath (see above, Part Il, Chap.
3, Sect. Il, n. 3) and in Gerard of Cremona's translation of the Canones sive regule super
tabulas Toletanas of al-ZarqaIi (see the extract in M. Curtze, "Urkunden zur Geschichte
der Trigonometrie im christlichen Mittelalter," Bibliotheca mathematica, 3. Folge, Vol. 1
[1900], p. 343): "Quantitas vero diametri circuli sic poterit inveniri. Divide circulum, qui
est 360 graduum, per 3 et septimam, et invenies probabiliter diametri quantitatem. Vel si
volueris, multiplica circulum [i.e., circumferentiam] in semetipsum, et quod exieret, divide
per 10, et numeri ex divisione provenientis quere radicem, que erit circuli diameter.'.'
Johannes de Lineriis in his Canones tabularum (CuTtze, "Urkunden," p. 405) repeats this
statement, adding a third approximation: . 'vel aliter, multiplica circulum [i.e., circumfer-
entiam] in 20,000 et divide quod colligitur per 62,832." This is equivalent to 1T = 3.1416,
and thus is very close to Ptolemy's approximation (see above, note 39). Both of these
approximations of 1T given by Johannes de Lineriis were also given in the Quadrans novus
of Prophatius Judeus in the version of Pierre de St. Omer (see above, Part Il, Chap. 3,
Sect. Il, n. 15). Incidentally, notice that in the first part of the passage from al-ZarqaIi,
where 1T is indicated by 3
1
h, the approximate nature of the procedure is indicated by the
expression "invenies probabiliter," a somewhat unusual use of probabiliter. H. Busard
writes me that Johannes of Gmunden (one of Peurbach's immediate predecessors) in his
De sinibus, chordis et arcubus has copied the v10 value for 1T from Johannes de Lineriis.
Peurbach picks up the reference in his Tractatus super propositiones Ptolemaei de sinibus
et chordis (Nuremberg, 1541), but I have used the edition of Basel, 1561, published with
the De triangulis of Regiomontanus, p. 131: "Magistri Geometriae non potuerunt perfecta
ratione comprehendere, quanta esset diameter circuli respectu suae circumferentiae, eo quod
recti ad curvum non est proportio. Practici autem posuerunt circumferentiam triplam sesqui-
septimam diametro. Archimedes autem probat circumferentiam continere ter diametrum,
et minus quam decem septuagesimas et plus quam decem septuagesimas primas. Sed
Ptolemaeus in Almagesti probat, quod decima circumferentiae habet chordam 27 grad. et
4 minut. fere. Et ideo dicit, si ponimus diametrum 150 graduum, erit circumferentia fere
377 graduum, qui nunc ad numerum graduum diametri nullam proportionem habent notam.
It is regrettable that Regiomontanus did not live long enough to exploit
his very promising beginning in the study of Archimedes. If he had lived,
possessing as he did the techniques and abilities in language and mathe-
matics, he might have been able to anticipate the mastery of the Archi-
medean corpus first achieved in the sixteenth century by Maurolico
and Commandino. As it was, by the time of his death, Regiomontanus
had not developed any interest in the higher geometrical problems sus-
ceptible to the method of exhaustion. At least, we find little evidence of
any serious interest in such problems in his extant works. In the main,
Indi vero dicunt: Si quis sciret radices numerorum recta radice carentium invenire, ille
faciliter inveniret quanta esset diameter respectu circumferentiae. Et secundum eos, si diam-
eter fuerit unitas, erit circumferentia radix de decem: si duo, erit radix de quadranginta:
si tria, erit radix de nonaginta, et sic de aliis. Et est differentia inter Indos et Practicos
Geometriae 1 minut. et plusquam septima pars unius minuti, unde patet diametrum ex cir-
cumferentia, et circumferentiam ex diametro diversimode posse reperiri. Dicunt etiam non-
nulli quod proportio diametri ad circumferentiam, sit sicut 20000 ad 62832...." Busard
further tells me that this work of Peurbach is an abridgment of the work of Johannes
of Gmunden. It is clear from this passage that Peurbach also knew the Archimedean values
of 3'17 and 3'/71 for the bounds within which 7T lies. Regiomontanus' reference to an earlier
work in which he refuted the Arabic value of vIOis probably to his Compositio tabuLarum
sinuum rectorum published with the previously cited work of Peurbach, pp. 140-146, a
work composed by about 1462 (Zinner, Leben und Wirken, p. 307). In connection with
the early history of the use of 7T = vIO, it should be noted that al-Khwarizmi in his
Algebra indicated that vTO d was one of the formulations for the circumference of the
circle (see F. Rosen, The Algebra of Mohammad ben Musa [London, 1831], p. 71). Rosen
conjectures that this approximation was taken over from Indian mathematicians. Neither
of the known Latin translations of al-Khwarizmi's Algebra contains the section on men-
suration in which this formulation is found (at least in the published versions of those
translations, i.e., in Gerard of Cremona's translation as published by G. Libri, Histoire des
sciences mathematiques en [talie, Vo!. I [paris, 1838], pp. 253-97, or in Robert of Chester's
translation published by L. Karpinski, Robert of Chester's Latin Translation of the Algebra
of Al-Khowarizmi [New York, 1915]). D. E. Smith, History of Mathematics, Vo!. 2 (Dover
reprint, New York, 1958), p. 307, after noting that 3
1
/7 was a widely used approximation
for 7T, says: "Since one of the common approximations for a square root in the Middle
Ages was
v n ~ a _ r _
2a + 1
and since this gives
1
v'IO = 3 + = 3V7.
23 + 1
it is natural to expect that v10 . . . would often have beengiven as the value of1T, and this was
in fact the case." (Cf. M. Cantor, Vorlesungen iiber Geschichte der Mathematik, Vo!. 1[3rd ed.
Leipzig, 1907], pp. 647-48.) The value of 1T = v'IOwas also found in China and India (see A. P.
Juschkewitsch, Geschichte der Mathematik im Mittelalter [Leipzig, 1964], p. 57, and the Rosen
and Cantor references already cited). Georg Peurbach, we have seen, attributed this value of
1T = v'IO to the Indians. Charles de Bouelles, a generation later, devised a geometrical
construction leading to this value and presented it as if it were a true quadrature (see
below, Chap. 6, Sect. IV). Finally, I can point out that in MS Vienna, Nationalbib!. 5203,
168r, Regiomontanus gives a quite detailed approximation of the value of vlO (cf. M.
Curtze, .. Die Quadratwurzelformel, "pp. 146-48). He does not, however, relate this approxi-
mation to the ratio of the circumference to the diameter.
his interest was limited to the question of rectification in terms of numerical
approximations, and the remaining tracts in the supplementary section
on quadrature published with his De triangulis omnimodis are rather
strictly concerned with rectification in these terms. Quadrature in its
wider geometrical aspects occupied only his fleeting attention, as is evi-
dent from his casual reference in one of the tracts on rectification to
Archimedes' accomplishment in demonstrating that a parabolic segment
is 4/
3
the triangle having the same base and altitude as the parabolic seg-
ment, an obvious reference to On the Quadrature of the Parabola (see
above, note 28).
Ill. Piero della Francesca
In examining the works of Nicholas of Cusa and Regiomontanus, we
noticed a rather interesting phenomenon, namely that in the early part
of their careers their knowledge of Archimedes came from medieval
sources but that later, after seeing the Cremonensis translation, they took
to citing the text of Archimedes. The same pattern can be noticed with
respect to the mathematical career of the celebrated painter Piero della
Francesca, who was born some time between 1410 and 1420 and who died
in 1492.
1
His whole career is associated intimately with his native town of
Borgo Sansepolcro, also the native town of Luca Pacioli, whose math-
ematics I shall treat in the next section of this chapter. Virtually nothing
is known of Piero's training in mathematics. One should perhaps assume
that he did not study mathematics with any master in Borgo Sansepolcro
but rather in nearby Florence where we have notice of him in 1439. Thus
it is tempting to suggest that he made the acquaintance in Florence of
Paolo Toscanelli and Antonio Manetti at that time and that they en-
couraged his study of mathematics; and one also wonders whether or not
he discussed such matters with Leon Battista Alberti.
2
An examination of Fiero's three extant works: (1) De prospectiva
pingendi, (2) Trattato di aritmetica, algebra e geometria (also known as
1 The standard study is that of Roberto Longhi, Piero della Francesca, 1927 con aggiunte
fino al 1962 (3rd ed., Florence, 1963). See also K. Clark, Piero della Francesca (London,
1951). I have also found useful the recent account of P. Hendy, Piero della Francesca
and the Early Renaissance (London, 1968). It will be evident further that the editions of the
works of Piero which have been published are important for my study: G. Mancini, L'Opera
"De corporibus regularibus" di Pietro Franceschi detto Della Francesca usurpata da Fra
Luca Pacioli (Rome, 1916), published in the Memorie della R. Accademia dei Lincei: Classe
di scienze morali, storiche e filologiche (Anno CCCXII 1915), Ser. 5, Vo\. XIV, Fasc.
VIIB, G. Arrighi's edition of Piero della Francesca, Trattato d'abaco (Pisa, 1970), and G.
Nicco Fasola's edition of Piero della Francesca, De prospectiva pingendi (Florence, 1942).
2 Mancini, L' Opera, pp. 447-48, mentions the document of 1439 and discusses the various
people that Piero might have known in Florence. Of this group Toscanelli no doubt had
the deepest knowledge of mathematics. We have seen in the preceding section that he pos-
sessed a copy of Archimedes.
Trattato d' abaeo), and (3) De quinque eorporibus regularibus (with a
fourth part: De eorporibus irregularibus) , reveals Piero as an accomplished
geometer. It lends some if not complete substance to Vasari's estimate
of him as "maestro raro nelle difficulta dei corpori regolari, e nell'arit-
metica e geometria," and of his writings as "scritti di cose di geometria
e di prospettive, nelle quali non fu inferiore a niuno ne'tempi, ne forse
che sia stato in altri tempi giammai.' '3
In my attempt to determine the extent of Piero' s knowledge of Archi-
medes only the last two works are of primary concern. The so-called
Trattato di aritmetiea, algebra e geometria appears anonymously and
without title in MS Florence, Bib!. Med. Laur. Ashburn., 280, 4r-127v,
with the geometrical section occupying folios 81r-120r. It is in Piero's
hand and we owe its proper identification to G. Mancini.
4
There can be
no doubt that this work is earlier than the De quinque eorporibus
regularibus since, as we shall see later, some of the same problems with
the same numerical examples appear in both works and all of the errors of
calculation found in the Trattato are corrected in the De quinque eor-
poribus regularibus. Further, in the later treatise Piero added specific
references to Archimedes' works which were missing in the earlier work.
The Trattato may well have been written before 1477-78, when a similar
treatise was composed by Luca Pacioli, for Pacioli's treatise is quite
close in form and content to that ofPiero della Francesca's and we know
of Pacioli's proclivity for borrowing the work of his predecessors (see
the next section of this chapter).
In the Trattato, Piero gives numerous calculations involving circles
that depend on the assumption of 3
1
h as the value of the ratio of circum-
ference to diameter.
5
He does so without reference to Archimedes, al-
3 G. Vasari, Le Opere, ed. ofG. Milanesi, Vol. 2 (Florence, 1878), pp. 487,490. I suspect
that Piero would have disclaimed such high praise. In the dedication of his De quinque
corporibus regularibus, ed. of Mancini, L'Opera, p. 488, Piero claims only the novelty of
having translated for arithmeticians the [geometrical] treatment of the subject by Euclid and
other geometers: "Poterit namque, saltem sui novitate, non displicere. Etenim licet res
apud Euclidem, et alios geometras nota sit, per ipsum tamen nuper ad arithmeticos
translata est."
4 G. Vasari, Vite cinque annotate da G. Mancini (Florence, 1917), pp. 210-14. See the
full description of MS Bibl. Med. Lam. 280 (359) in Ministero della Pubblica Istruzione,
Indici e Cataloghi: VIII. I codici Ashburnhamiani della Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana di
Firenze, Vol. 1, Fasc. 6, prepared by E. Rostagno and T. Lodi (Rome, 1948), pp. 462-
67, and Arrighi's edition, pp. 8-16.
5 Ed. cit., p. 198: "Egl'e uno tondo che il diametro suo e 7. Domando quanto sira la sua
circumferentia. Sappi che omni diametro de ciascuno tondo entra nella sua circumferentia
tre volte et uno sectimo; pero montiplica 31/7 via 7 fa 22, et 22 dirai che giri il tondo che
e 7 per diametro. Et per 10 simile, quando sapesse che la drcumferentia fusse 22, per
sapere quanto e il diametro parti 22 per 3
1
/7 e queUo che ne vene sira il diametro. Egl'e
uno tondo che il suo diametro e 7. Domando quanto che sira quadro. Tu dei fare cosl.
Montiplica 7 in se fa 49; et perche la superficie d'omni quadrato de tondo e 11/14 de la pos-
san'Ya del suo diametro, pero montiplica 11 via 49 fa 539 e questo parti per 14, che ne vera
~ : tanto e la sua superficie. Posse per altro modo sapere; doe pigla me'Y'Y0 diametro e
------ ------
PIERO DELLA FRANCESCA AND ARCHIMEDES 385
though it is evident that he is at least the indirect heir of the De mensura
circuli not only because he uses this value of 'TT but also because he
determines the area of a circle by multiplying the radius by the semi-
circumference, as well as using the common method of taking 11/14 of the
square of the diameter. We can hardly guess which exact source Piero
is using, for calculations of circles with this value of 'TT abounded on all
sides in the medieval and Renaissance geometrical tracts, as did the
Archimedean formula for the area of a circle. The only mention of Archi-
medes' name in the whole work occurs in the section on the sphere, where
he says: .. And Archimedes says that every surface of a sphere is four
times the surface of the greater circle of the same sphere."6 While it is
not impossible that Piero took this reference from On the Sphere and the
Cylinder, it is much more likely that some medieval work or works (or
Renaissance work based on medieval works) is his source since nowhere
else in the Trattato does he mention Archimedes by name or refer to the
title of a work of Archimedes. This is in such marked contrast to his
practice in the later De quinque corporibus that we almost certainly should
assume that it was only after the composition of the Trattato that Piero
read Archimedes directly. If he had not read Archimedes' On the Sphere
and the Cylinder before composing the Trattato, what had he read that
supplied him with the proposition for the surface of a sphere? Perhaps
anyone of the many texts described in the chapter on medieval handbooks
above (Part Il, Chapter 3). But the following principal possibilities
exist: (1) Savasorda's Liber embadorum, Chap. 4, Problem 24 (see Ap-
pendix I, Sect. 3, A.[6]), (2) Practica geometrie of Leonardo Fibonacci,
"De embado et superficie spere" (ibid., B.[8]), (3) The Verba jiliorum
of the Banu Musa (Vo!. 1, p. 331), (4) De curvis superjiciebus Archi-
menidis of Johannes de Tinemue (Vo!. 1, p. 481), (5) Johannes de Muris'
De arte mensurandi, Chap. 10, Proemium and Prop. 8 (see above, Part I,
Chap. 6). It appears that he saw either (1) or (2) since he employs the
same numerical example. On the other hand, he probably also read either
(4) or (5), for it is only in these works that the proposition is as-
sociated with the name of Archimedes. It could be, of course, that he was
familiar with all of these works since they all were available in Italy. 7 He
la meta de la circumferentia et montiplica l'uno con l'altro, e arai che fa 381;2, conmo di
sopra." I have checked all of my citations of this edition against the manuscript, and have
made an occasional correction.
6 Ibid., p. 228: "EgI'e uno corpo sperico che if suo diametro e 7 bracci. Domando quanto
sira la sua superficie. Ecci molti modi a saperlo. Primo e che tu montiplichi il diametro
suo, ch' e 7, via la sua circumferentia, ch' e 22, che fa 154: e tanto ela sua superficie. Et
Archimede dici ch'e, omni superficie de spera, 4 tanti che la superficie del magiore circulo
de quella medessima spera. Et il magiore circulo a il diametro ch' e 7, che produci de
superficie 381;2 che, montiplicato per 4, fa 154: conmo de sopra. Si che di' che la superficie
de la spera, che il diametro suo e 7, sia 154."
7 Curtze's text of (I) does not mention an Italian manuscript, but see Florence, Bib!.
Naz. Conv. soppr. J.VI.36, 23r-40v. It seems likely that both Piero della Francesca and
Luca Pacioli read (2) in the copy of Vat. Urb. lat. 292, which was probably in Urbino. We
could have also known some later tract that depended on the medieval
texts, such as the Compilatio of Leonardo of Cremona (see above, Part
Il, Chap. 3, Sect. Ill), or the anonymous De inquisicione capacitatis
figurarum (ibid.). A comparison of Piero's Trattato with the contemporary
Geometrie of Nicolas Chuquet, which was dependent on Italian sources,
might prove of interest (see above, Part II, Chap. 3, Sect. Ill, n. 30).
Piero's calculation of the surface of a sphere is followed by the calcula-
tion of the volume of a sphere on the basis of the formula V = S 'r'Y3,
where V is the volume, S the surface, and r the radius.
8
Again his source
could have been one or more of the various medieval works listed above.
In the succeeding problem Piero uses the relationship of 11: 21 between
a sphere and the cube of the diameter.
9
This is, of course, the relationship
specified in Proposition X of the De curvis superficiebus (Vol. 1, p. 504)
and was very commonly used in medieval and Renaissance handbooks,
as I have demonstrated above in Part II, Chapter 3.
After a series of problems on regular polyhedra and two of the thirteen
semiregular polyhedra discovered by Archimedes (which latter will be dis-
cussed later and compared with the much fuller treatment of semiregular
polyhedra in the De quinque corporibus regularibus), Piero takes up
further problems that make use of his knowledge ofthe surface and volume
of a sphere. They are problems that involve the transformation of solids
by means of numerical calculations.
Io
They illustrate that he knew that the
shall comment shortly on Piero's visits to Urbino and we should also note that Pacioli may
have finished at Urbino the Summa which depends so heavily on Fibonacci. For a list of
the manuscripts of Leonardo Fibonacci's Practica geometrie, consult B. Boncompagni,
Intorno ad alcune opere di Leonardo Pisano (Rome, 1854), p. 96, n. 1. In my text of (3) I
did not refer to any Italian manuscript, but there was obviously at least one since Fibonacci
had much earlier incorporated large parts of the Verba filiorum into his Practica. Further-
more, it is probable that Regiomontanus brought his copy of (3) to Italy, since, as we have
seen, he cited it in one of his tracts on quadrature addressed to Toscanelli and written just
before June 26, 1464 (see the preceding section, note 38, where the treatise is cited as
Libellus trium fratrum). In my text of (4), I noted three Italian manuscripts, two of which
are Florentine manuscripts (see Vol. 1, pp. 448-49). I have also listed four Italian manu-
scripts of (5) in my partial text (see Part I, Chap. 3).
8 Ed. cit., p. 228: "Egl'e uno corpo sperico che il suo diametro e 7 bracci. Domando
quanto sera quadrato il dicto corpo. Tu ai che la superficie sua c 154 et il diametro c 7,
montiplica la superficie sua per la meta del diametro, ch'c ~ fa 539; del quale pigla 1;3 che e
179%: tanto dirai che sia quadrato il dicto corpo."
9 Ibid., p. 229: "Posse fare ancora per altra via. Perche tu dei sapere che omni corpo
cuba contene in se uno corpo sperico che quadrato e 11121 del quadrato del cubo; adunqua
se il diametro de la spera e 7, che e equate al diametro del cubo, il quale diametro reducto
a cubo fa 343 e la spera e 11/21 de 343; pero montiplica 11 via 343 fa 3773, partilo per 21 ne
vene 17921.>: conmo di sopra."
10 For example, see ed. cit., p. 248: "Egl'e uno cubo ch'e 4 bracci per lato; voglo de la
superficie sua fare una superficie de una spera. Domando quanto sira il diametro de la spera.
Fa' cosi. Vedi prima quanto e la superficie del cubo, it quale a 6 facce et eper faccia 16
bracci. Adunqua 6 via 16 fa 96 bracci et tu voi una spera che la superficie sua sia %. Pero
montiplica 96 per 14 fa 1344, il quale parti per 11 ne vene 122
2
11 1; et tu ai a piglare la meta
de la radici de 122
2
/11 conmo radici, pero reca 2 a radici fa 4, parti 1222f111 per 4 ne vene
30
6
/11. Et la radici de 3Q6/11 sira il diametro de la spera."
volume of a cone is one-third that of a cylinder on the same base and
with the same altitude.u More interesting are the problems indicating
knowledge of Archimedean propositions concerning the surface and
volume of spherical segments. The formula Piero uses
12
for the surface
area of a spherical segment is the following:
A = [(d - h)'h + h
2
] '4.
11
/14,
where d is the diameter of the sphere and h is the height of the
spherical segment. This is essentially the same as On the Sphere and the
Cylinder, Bk. I, Prop. 42. But it is unlikely that Piero had yet used this
work of Archimedes. And I think it also unlikely that he employed the
De arte mensurandi, where the proposition is associated with Archimedes'
On the Sphere and the Cylinder (see above, Part I, Chap. 6, Prop. 9).
But he could have used either the Liber embadorum of Savasorda or the
Practica geometrie of Leonardo Fibonacci, where the formula is simpli-
fied to A = dhTT, or its equivalent, (hlr)'r'd'7T (see Appendix I, Sect.
3, A.[6], B.[9]). But, of the two, it would appear more likely that he used
Leonardo' s account, since he has the same numerical example involving
a sphere of diameter 14 with a spherical segment of height 4, while
Savasorda employed a different example.
Illbid., pp. 250-51: "Egl'e una piramide che la basa sua e circulare, et il suo diametro
e equale a' lati, et iI suo assis e4; voglo de la sua quadratura fare una spera. Domando
quanto sira il suo diametro. Bisogna prima quadrare la piramide che sai che il suo assis
e 4; et la posanc;a de l'assis a la posan\ta del suo lato e proportio sexquitertia (MS corrects
from sexquioctava but in fact it should read subsexquitertia, i.e., %) et la posanc;a de l'assis
e 16, dunqua la posam;a del diametro de la basa, ch'e equale allato, e 21Y3 (corr. MS ex
12Y3). Il quale montiplica per 11 fa 234.3, partilo per 14 ne vene 16
16
/21: e tanto e la super-
ficie de la basa. La quale montiplica per l'assis ch'e 4, fa 67
1
/21; perche questo e kelindro
e noi volemo la piramide, che omne piramide e Y3 del suo kelendro, pen) devidi 67V21 per 3 ne
vene 22
H
/42 (! 22
22
/63): tanto e quadrata la piramide. Et tu ai, per la passata, che la
quadratura de la spera ch'e 179.3 da 343 [per il cubo del suo diametro), pero montiplica
22
u
/42 (!) per 343 che fa 7635
35
/42 (f), il quale parti per 179.3, ne vene 4410131121636 (1). E la
radici cuba de 4410131/21636 (!) sira il diametro de la spera." All of these numerical correc-
tions are mine and were not noted by the editor. The final four calculating errors arose
from the error of 22
u
/42 when the correct figure was 22
22
/63. It can be shown very simply
that the diameter equals the cube root of 42.3, since Vcone = 4/3tT 1% and d
3
= 8.
16
13 = 42.3.
12 Ibid., pp. 251-52: "EgI'e una spera, che il suo diametro e 14 bracci; levone cor una
linea piana tanto che tagla del diametro 4 bracci. Domando che leva de la superficie de dicta
spera, e quanto e la linea devidente. Avemo dicto, neUi corpi sperici, che la superficie de la
spera e 4 tanti che la superficie del magiore circulo de la spera; et dissese che a montiplica'
il diametro de la spera nella circumferentia del magiore circulo, produciva la superficie de
la spera. Adunqua la superficie de questa spera e616; hora per trovare quella parte che leva
la linea, che tagla del diametro 4 bracci, montiplica 4 nel resto del diametro ch'e 10 fa 40;
e radici de 40 e la mem de la linea devidente, et tucta e radici de 160. Tu ai iI diametro
AD, ch'e 14 [Fig. III.2.3.1], et la linea devidente eBC, ch'e radici de 160, che sega il
diametro in punctoE, etai cheBE eradici de 40, ch'e la meta de la lineaBC,etAEe 4 bracci:
montiplica in se fa 16, giogni con 40 fa 56, adunqua AB e radici de 56. II quale se vole
adoppiare conmo radici fa 224, cioe radici de 224; e questo montiplica in se fa pure 224, il quale
montiplica per 11 fa 2464, paltila (!) per 14 ne vene 176: tanto se leva de la superficie de la
spera, che tucta e616. Et it diametro e 14; SI che, se se tagla 4 bracci del diametro, se leva
de la superficie 176 bracci."
For the computation of the volume of the same spherical segment, Piero
assumes that the volume of the segment is equal to the volume of the
spherical sector which has the same surface as the segment and whose apex
is at the center of the sphere minus the volume of the cone whose base
is the base of the spherical segment and whose apex is also at the center
of the sphere,13 i.e. V = - - h)'1T'(r - h), where A is
the surface area of the spherical segment, h is its height, and r is the radius
of the sphere; this could be simplified, although Piero does not do so, to
V = Y3'1T' h2 (3 r - h). Piero could have solved this problem by referring
immediately to Archimedes, On the Sphere and the Cylinder, Book I,
Prop. 44, if he had read that work, or to Johannes de Muris' De arte
mensurandi, Chap. 10, Prop. 12, which employed Archimedes. But instead
Piero used a somewhat different procedure. This he almost certainly drew
from Leonardo Fibonacci'sPractica since he follows the latter's formula
although the calculations differ (see Appendix I, Sect. 3, B.[9]). His source
could not have been the Liber embadorum since the latter used an er-
roneous formula (see Appendix I, Section 3, A.[6]). Finally, we should
note that Piero completed his geometrical section by calculating the
surface and volume of a spherical segment of two bases.
14
He did this by
13 Ibid., pp. 254-55: "Egl'e una spera, che il suo diametro e 14 bracci; taglone, cor una
linea piana, 5 bracci. Domando che levara de la quadratura del corpo. Fa'cosl: vedi prima
quanto e la linea devidente ch'eBC [Fig. III.2.3.2] e fa' cosi. Tu sai cheAE e 5 et DE e 9,
ch'e il resto del diametro; pero montiplica 5 per 9 fa 45 e la radici de 45 e BE ch'e la meta
de la linea devidente. Et tu voi AB pero montiplica AE, ch'e 5, in se fa 25, giognilo co'
la de BE ch'e 45, fa 70, et la radici de 70 e AB. La quale radoppia conmo radici
fa 280, il quale montiplica per 11 fa 2080 (! 3080), partilo per 14 ne vene 148
4
h (! 220):
tanto leva de la superficie. Etu voi del corpo; pero montiplica 148
4
h per la meta. del diametro
ch' e 7, fa 1040 (! 1540) e questo parti per 3, ne vene (! 513lh), del quale se vole trare
il cono BCF, doe cos]. Tu ai la linea BC che e radici de 180, perche s'e dicto cheBE ch'e la
meta e radici di 45 SI che redoppiata fa radici de 180; la quale montiplica per 11 fa 1980, parti
per 14 ne vene 1420/7 (! 14Ph); et questo montiplica per FE ch'e 2, fa 285
5
h (! 282
6
17),
partilo per 3 ne vene 95
5
121 (! 94
2
17), trallo de (! resta 25Ph (! 419
1
,h): e tanti
bracci se leva del solido de tale spera, cioe bracci 25P/7 (! 419
1
121)." Notice that although
the method employed by Piero is quite correct, his initial incorrect multiplication of 28011
produced an erroneous volume of 34M3 for the volume of the sector and hence an incorrect
figure of 25 Ph for the volume of the spherical segment. I have added the correct figures
throughout, which are missing in the edition.
14 Ibid., p. 255: "Egl'e una spera, che it suo diametro e 14 bracci; segone in doi luoghi
con do' linee piane equidistante l'una a l'altra; la prima tagla del diametro tre bracci, l'altra
ne tagla sei bracci. Domando quanta superficie sira tra una linea e l'altra. Fa' COS!: vedi
prima quanto e la linea che tagla 6 bracci del diametro. Tu sai che il diametro suo AD e 14
[Fig. III.2.3.3], et la linea FG 10 sega in puncto H, che AH e 6 et HD e 8; montiplica 6
via 8 fa 48: tanto e FH, doe radici de 48. Hora montiplicaAH, ch'e 6, in se fa 36; giogni con
48 fa 84, il quale radoppia conmo radici fa 336 e questo montiplica per 11 fa 36%; parti per
14 ne vene 264: et questo serba. Hora vedi quello ch'e la linea BC che segaAD in puncto
E che AE e 3 et ED e 11; montiplica 3 via 11 fa 33, et montiplica AE ch' e 3 in se fa 9; pollo
sopra 33 fa 42: tanto e AB. 11 quale radoppia conmo radici fa 168, montiplicalo per 11 fa
1848, parti per 14 ne vene 132, trallo de quello che serbassti ch'e 264, resta 132. Et 132
bracci se leva de la superficie de la spera infra le do' linee BC et FG, che l'una sega 3 bracci
del diametro AD e l'altra ne sega 6." Then follows on pp, 255-56 the last problem con-
considering such a segment as the difference between two spherical seg-
ments, one of which segments has one of the two bases of the spherical
segment of two bases as its base while the other has the other base as
its base. Nothing new in the way of geometrical knowledge is found in
these last solutions but it ought to be remarked that no such problems
are found in Leonardo's Practica .
So much, then, for Piero's early geometrical work, which, I have
argued, reveals essentially a knowledge of the medieval Archimedes (and
particularly a knowledge of the Archimedean sections of Leonardo Fi-
bonacci's Practica geometrie). Now let us look at the De quinque
corporibus regularibus, 15 which, we shall see, shows that Piero has dis-
covered and read the Cremonensis translation of Archimedes. Before
presenting the argument in detail, I must first say something about the
date of this work. In the dedication to the young Duke Guidobaldi of
Urbino, Piero speaks of his debt to the Duke's father Federigo.
16
On this
ceming the volume of a spherical segment between two bases. "Egl'e una spera, che il
diametro suo AD e 14 bracci; menD do' linee piane equidistante l'una da l'a[l]tra, l'una sega
il diametro in punctoE e l'altra in punctoH, etAE e 3 etAH e 6 e la superficie ch'e tra l'una e
l'altra linea e 132 bracci. Domando quanto se levara de la quadratura del corpo sperico
infra una linea e l'aItra. Tu sai che il diametro de la spera e 14 bracci, pigla la meta ch'e 7
et montiplica 7 via la superficie ch'e ilia portione FAG, che fa 1848, il quale parti per 3 ne
vene 616. Rora se ne vole cavare il cono; et tu ai per la precedente che FH eradici de 48, il
quale radoppia conmo radici fa radici 192 che montiplicato in se fa 192; montiplicalo per 11
fa 2112, partilo per 14 ne vene 150
6
17, montiplicalo per 1 che e daB al cintro, fa pure 150617,
partilo per 3 ne vene 5Q217, traUo de 616 remane 565
5
17: et tanto se levara de la quadratura del
corpo sperico, levando tucta la portione FAG, bracci 565
5
17. De la quale tra' la quadratura
de la portione RAC che sai che la sua superficie e 132; montiplicala per 7 fa 924, parti per
3 ne vene 308 del quale se vole cavare la quadratura del cono. Cosi sai che ER e radici
de 33, radoppia conmo radici fa 132, montiplica per 11 fa 1452, parti per 14 ne vene 103
5
17, il
quale montiplica per 4 fa 414
6
!r, parti per 3 ne vene 136
2
!r (! 138
2
17), traUo de 308 esta 17P!r
(! 169
5
17). Trallo de 565
5
17 remane 394 (! 396), et 394 (! 396) sira quadrato fra le do' linee.
Adunqua tu ai che la quadratura infra le do' linee e 394 (! 396)." Although Piero has added
another figure for this problem, I have omitted it since it is the same as the one already
given, except that the calculations for the volumes are entered upon it. Again notice the
calculating error.
15 In addition to using Mancini's text (see note 0, I have also used the original manu-
script from which it was prepared (Vat. Urb. lat. 632) and the Italian version added by
Pacioli to his Divina proportione (Venice, 1509). In the last version, the pagination for the
work is separate and it bears in Latin the inaccurate title: Libellus in tres partiales tractatus
divisus quinque corporum regularum (the printer has failed to label the fourth part of the
tract, lumping it together with the third, although the problems of the fourth part have re-
tained their own numbering).
16 De quinque corporibus regularibus, ed. ofMancini,L'Opera, p. 488: "Cumautem opera
picturaeque meae a splendidissimo et fulgentissimo sidere, et maiori nostri temporis luminare
optimi genitoris tui totum quicquid habent claritatis assumpserint: non ab re visumfuit opus-
culum quod in hoc ultimo aetatis meae calculo, ne ingenium inertia torpesceret, in
mathematica de quinque corporibus regularibus edidi numini tuo dedicare, ut et ipsum ex
obscuritate sua a claritate tua illustretur. Nee dedignabitur celestitudo tua ex hoc iam
emerito, et fere vestutate consumpto agello, unde et illustrissimus genitor tuus, uberiores
percepit, hos exiles et inanes fructus suscipere, et libellum ipsuminter innumera amplissimae
ground alone, it is apparent that the De quinque corporibus was at least
dedicated after the death of the father in 1482. Furthermore, Piero tells
us that he composed this work in his old age to keep his brain from be-
coming torpid.
17
One would expect, therefore, that the work was com-
posed some time late in the 1480's, and thus not too long before his death
in 1492. His supposed early blindness mentioned by Vasari might be
thought of as an obstacle to the late composition date, but Vasari's state-
ment has been refuted by Mancini who reproduces a copy of Piero's will
done in 1487 in his own hand.
18
My later argument will show that Piero
in all likelihood employed the Urbino manuscript of the Cremonensis
translation of Archimedes. Presumably he would have used this manu-
script in the Ducal library of Urbino. It is apparent that he visited
Urbino often. We know that Piero had close relations with Guidobaldi's
father, the Duke Federigo da Montefeltro (see note 16), and that he ex-
ercised commissions to paint Federigo and members of his family. It
seems probable that it was after an attested visit to Urbino in 1478 that
Piero composed his De prospectiva pingendi. It was originally written in
Italian and then was translated into Latin by his fellow townsman
Matteo da Borgo Sansepolcro.
19
He seems to have sent this Latin version
to Duke Federigo for inclusion in the Duke's library.2o It was, then, com-
pleted before the Duke's death in 1482. Hendy notes that, although we
know that Piero was in Rimini in 1482, there is no,record of him there at
Rimini or in Sansepolcro for more than five years, and so he suggests
that "perhaps he was mostly at Urbino. "21 If so, he could have seen and
studied the Cremonensis translation of Archimedes in the Urbino copy at
this time and begun to compose his De quinque corporibus regularibus.
If Piero followed the same procedure with this work that he had in the case
of the De prospectiva pingendi, he would have composed the De quinque
corporibus regularibus in Italian and then had it translated into Latin
before submitting it to the young Duke. But only the unique Urbino
manuscript of the Latin version has been discovered.
22
The original Italian
version of this work is not known. Still there is the interesting possibility
tuae, patemaeque bibliothecae volumina penes aliud nostrum de Prospectiva opusculum,
quod superioribus annis edidimus, pro pedissequo et aliorum servulo, vel in angulo
collocare. "
17 See the preceding note.
18 Mancini, L'Opera, pp. 450-51, Proemio tav. 1.
19 See Fasola's introduction to her edition ofDe prospectiva pingendi, pp. 45, 47. For Piero's
visits to Urbino and relations with Federigo da Montefeltro, see Hendy, Piero delta
Francesca, Chaps. 9-11.
20 See note 16 above. Actually no dedication survives in either the Italian autograph or
the Latin copies of the De prospectiva pingendi. But the remarks quoted from Piero's De
quinque corporibus regularibus in note 16 certainly give the impression that Piero had
offered his De prospectiva to Federigo.
. 21 Hendy, Piero della Francesca, p. 146.
22 For descriptions of Vat. Urb. lat. 632, see Mancini, L'Opera, pp. 449-50, and C.
Stomajolo, Codices urbinates Latini, Vo\. 2 (Rome, 1912), p. 151.
that the Italian version of it which Pacioli added to his Divina propor-
tione in the edition of 1509 as if it were his own composition (an act of
plagiarism most difficult to justify) was taken from Piero's Italian
version.
23
Gino Loria in his introduction to Mancini's text of the De
quinque corporibus regularibus claims that Pacioli's Italian version does
not penetrate into the thought of the work and that "Pacioli has limited
himself to a translation which merits the epithet of 'literal' and which
(perhaps because it is written in a barbarous language mixed up from all
the dialects of Italy) subtracts rather than adds clarity to the original
Latin.' '24 But actually the same conclusion could be asserted of the Italian
of Piero's earlier Trattato. Furthermore, neither Loria nor Mancini gives
any hard evidence to show that the Italian text misrepresents Piero' s
Latin version, except in the case of numerical errors, which are plentiful
and could have been the fault of the printer. And, as I shall show below
in my translation of the tenth problem of the fourth part, the Italian text
of Pacioli contains a crucial phrase necessary for the demonstration
23 Vasari' s condemnation of Pacioli for plagiarizing Piero' s work is well known (Le Opere,
Vol. 2, pp. 488, 498). Compare the discussion of Mancini, L'Opera, p. 453, who quotes
from the somewhat different version of Vasari's condemnation in the first edition of the
Vite in 1550. And indeed Mancini was the first to give a full bill of particulars on the
plagiarism and to show conclusively that the Italian version (published in 1509 as if it were
Pacioli's own work) is virtually identical with the Latin text ofPiero'sDe quinque corporibus
regularibus. Hendy, anxious to prove that the Brera altarpiece is the last of Piero's paint-
ings, attempts to establish a friendship between the two fellow townsmen that manifested
itself in the rougWy simultaneous use by Piero of Pacioli as a model for St. Peter Martyr
in painting the altarpiece and cooperation between the two in the production of the De
quinque corporibus regularibus. In the course of this discussion Hendy says (Piero delta
Francesca, p. 155): "The inclusion of his [i.e. Pacioli's] portrait in the S. Bernardino
altarpiece [Le., the Brera altarpiece believed by Hendy to have been painted for
the Church of S. Bernardino] suggests that Piero was his friend, perhaps his teacher;
and it is not impossible that Pacioli gave Piero some assistance in producing his
treatise on the five basic volumes and was able to remain in possession of his orig-
inal manuscript in Italian." Without necessarily accepting Hendy's disputed view of the
date of the Brera altarpiece or its original location, we can perhaps accept the possibility
that Pacioli somehow acquired Piero' s original Italian version of the De quinque corporibus
regularibus, but no doubt considerably later than Piero's death in 1492. It is certain that
Pacioli had access to Piero's earlier Trattalo before 1494 since he reproduces long sections
from that treatise in his Summa of 1494 (see the next section on Pacioli, note 67). How-
ever, he probably acquired Piero's De quinque corporibus regularibus later than 1494
because the latter work contains a number of corrections of calculating errors made in the
Trattalo. It would seem absurd for Pacioli to have repeated the calculating errors of the
early Trattato if he had had the De quinque corporibus regularibus available at the time
of the composition of the Summa. Furthermore, this silent repetition by Pacioli in 1494 of
the errors of the Trattato without providing the corrections contained in the De quinque
corporibus regularibus strikes me as a very weighty argument against any close coopera-
tion between Piero and Pacioli in the composition of the De quinque corporibus regularibus.
Had Pacioli played any significant part in the preparation of this treatise he would cer-
tainly have been aware of the errors of the Trauata and hence made the appropriate correc-
tions when he incorporated the offending calculations of that treatise into his Summa.
24 Mancini, L'Opera, p. 444.
and the Latin text omits it.
25
While such an addition could be interpreted
as a correction made by Pacioli (if this version was indeed his translation
from the Latin), it could just as easily be explained by saying that the
phrase was in the original Italian text which Pacioli is merely reproducing
or following closely and that it was inadvertently omitted by the translator
of the original text into Latin.
Now I am prepared to consider Piero' s use of the translations of Cre-
monensis. I shall present the Archimedean citations before considering the
content of the propositions. These Archimedean citations appear ex-
clusively in the third and fourth parts of the De quinque corporibus
regularibus. The full context of these citations is presented below where I
treat the contents of the propositions. In Problem XV of the third tract (see
below, note 34) we find the citation: "Habes per xxxn
am
I Archi-
medis, quod superficies sperae quadrupla est ad superficiem sui maioris
circuli." Thus the proposition that the surface of a sphere is four times
the area of its great circle is given as Proposition 1.32. And though in this
place Piero has left out the title of Archimedes' work, he obviously means
to refer to On the Sphere and the Cylinder. The question which immedi-
ately confronts us is, which translation is Piero citing, Moerbeke's or
Cremonensis '? If we look at the Moerbeke text we see that there the
proposition is numbered as Proposition 31; then if we examine the Bes-
sarion manuscript of the Cremonensis translation (which, as I have sug-
gested, may be Cremonensis' original copy) and the printed edition of 1544,
we are puzzled to discover that the proposition is once again designated
as the 31st. It is only when we turn to the Urbino manuscript of the
Cremonensis translation that we find the proposition labeled as the 32nd,26
that is, with the designation given it by Piero. The presumption is that
Piero was citing this copy.
The next citation of Archimedes occurs in Problem XVI of the same
third part (see below, note 35): "Et [babes] per lam IP Archimedis 'De
spera et chilindris', quod quadratura sperae est sexquialtera ad quadra-
turam chilindri sui." And similarly in Problem XX (see below, note 36):
,'et habes, per primam secundi De spera et chilindro Archimedis, quod
sperae quadratura sui chilindri est sexquialtera." Setting aside the trivial
difference in titles ("chilindris" in the first citation and "chilindro" in
the second), we should first notice that Piero has turned the Archimedean
proposition about, since the correct formulation is that the volume of the
25 See below note 59. There are also some difficulties with the woodcut drawings in the
Italian version but there again the fault could lie with the printer; or perhaps the drawings
were not carefully prepared by Piero for the Italian version but only for the Latin version
to be presented to Guidobaldi. It would take us too far afield to compare the Italian and
Latin versions in all their divergencies. But my impression in comparing those sections of
the tract with which I am concerned here is that the Italian version of Pacioli could
have been very close to an original Italian version of Piero.
26 Vat. Urb. lat. 261, 22v: "Cuiuslibet sperae superficies quadrupla est 0 (del. MS) circuli
qui in ea maximus habetur. [mg.: XXXII]"
cylinder is three-halves the volume of the sphere. Furthermore, one would
expect that Piero would quote rather the corollary to Proposition 1.34 of
the Greek text (Le., Prop. 1.32 in the Moerbeke translation and the Bes-
sarion copy of the Cremonensis translation, or 1.33 in Urb. lat. 261)27
where the proposition is clearly and precisely stated. But, if one examines
Proposition ILl of On the Sphere and the Cylinder ("Given a cone or a
cylinder, to find a sphere equal to the cone or cylinder"), he notices that
the conclusion of the earlier corollary is used in the course of the proof.
But since Proposition 11.1 has the same number in all versions of both
translations, these two citations do not supply any further evidence for
determining which translation of Archimedes Piero is citing.
But the succeeding citation of Archimedes in Problem XXIII (see below,
note 37) does give us further evidence of Piero's specific source: "sicut
per XLI primi Archimedis demonstratur," the citation being in support of
the formulation for the surface area of a spherical segment. This is
Proposition 1.42 in the Greek text of On the Sphere and the Cylinder and
1.40 in both the Moerbeke translation and the Bessarion copy of the
Cremonensis translation. But once more, when we turn to the copy of the
Cremonensis translation in Urb. lat. 261, we find that the relevant
proposition bears the designation of the 41st proposition,28 thus reinforc-
ing my assumption that Piero was using this copy of the Cremonensis
translation. However, the citation of the same proposition as 1.40 in Prob-
lem XXVI (see below, note 38: "sicut habes per XLam primi Archi-
medis' ') is puzzling. Here the citation would agree with both the Moer-
beke translation and the Bessarion copy of the Cremonensis translation
rather than with Urb. lat. 261. I have no explanation for this one puzzling
case, since three further citations again appear to be to the Urbino
manuscript.
In Problem X of the fourth part (see below, note 59), we see what at
first appears to be a completely erroneous citation, "per quintam tertii
Archimedis De conoidalibus," for the proposition that relates the area of
an ellipse to the area of a circle as the area of the rectangle circum-
scribing the ellipse to the square of the diameter of the circle. We are
first startled by the inclusion of tertii since there is only one book of the
De conoidalibus. But this can be explained by an exceedingly simple
hypothesis, namely, that in this one instance Piero is referring to the third
work in the corpus of Archimedean works which he is consulting. And in
the Cremonensis translation found in Urb. lat. 261 the De conoidalibus
27 Ibid., 24v: "Ex illis igitur quae supra demonstratum(!) est manifestum est quod quilibet
kilindrus qui basimhabeat maximum in spera circulumet a1titudinemdiametrum (corr. MS ex
semidiametrum) sperae ad ipsam speram sequi (!) alter habetur. . . ."
28 Ibid., 29r: "[mg.: XLI]. Superficies cuiuscunque (post cuius- del. MS basis) porcionis
sperae, que quidem porcio sit dimidia spera minor equalis est circulo cuius semidiametros
(post hoc del. MS 0) equatur lineae illi quae a vertice porcionis ad circumferenciam circuli
ducta sit, qui circulus porcionis est basis."
is indeed the third work, following after On the Sphere and the Cylinder
and On the Measurement of the Circle (while in the Moerbeke translation
the De conoidalibus is the seventh work). Now let us look at the number
given to the proposition, namely the fifth. In the Moerbeke translation
and in Bessarion's copy of the Cremonensis translation this proposition
is designated as the sixth; but in the Urbino manuscript it is numbered
as the fifth,29 that is, as Piero has cited it. Finally two more citations link
Piero with the Urbino codex. They are both to the same proposition.
The first occurs in Problem X of the fourth part (see below, note 59):
"Igitur per XXXlIIam primi Sperae et coni Archimedis, ubi dicit quam-
libet speram esse quadruplam suo cono, cuius basis est aequalis maiori
circulo sperae, et axis aequalis semidyametro." The second is in the next
problem, XI (see below, note 68): "et per XXXIBam P Sperae et Coni
Archimedis, quae est quod spera, cuius cuius (I) basa (1) sit maior
circulus sperae, et axis sit aequalis semidiametro sperae, et est quadrupla
suo cono." The Italian text of this last citation is much better: "Et per
la .33. del primo del (I) spera e cono de archimede che la spera e quadrupla
suo cono che la sua basa fia il magiore circulo dela spera e laxis equale
al semidiametro dessa spera. "30 We ought to note first that he has twice
given the title incorrectly, substituting coni for the correct cylindri. But
the most important consideration for my investigation is that he cites the
proposition as 1.33, which is again in agreement with the numbering in
Urb. lat. 261,31 while the Moerbeke translation and the Bessarion copy
of the Cremonensis translation number it as the 32nd proposition. And
so in summary, we can observe that five of the six citations where
the numbering allows us to distinguish which version of Archimedes Piero
has used are to the Cremonensis translation as given in Urb. lat. 261, a
fair indication, I believe, that this was indeed the manuscript employed
by Piero. It could well be that he was informed of this copy's presence
in the Urbino library much earlier by his fellow townsman Francesco da
Borgo Sansepolcro, who was responsible for its preparation.
32
Now we must turn to a more detailed investigation of the Archimedean
content of the De quinque corporibus regularibus. As I have said above,
it is only in the last two of the four parts of the treatise that Archi-
29 Ibid., 51v: "Quodlibet spatium a koni acuti anguli sectione comprehensum ad
quemcumque circulum comparetur earn habet proportionem quam superficies ex utrisque
eius sectionis diametris producta habere percipitur ad quadratum eius circuli ad quem fuerit
comperatum (!). [mg.: 5]"
30 Ed. cit. in note 15, 24v.
31 Vat. Urb. lat. 261, 23v: "Quaelibet spera quadrupla est eius coni qui quidem conus
basem habuerit aequalem circulo in spera maximo, altitudinem vero equalem semidiametro
sperae. [mg.: XXXIII]"
32 See above, Section I of this chapter. I say "much earlier" because Francesco seems to
have died in 1469 (see Mancini, L'Opera, p. 487). In view of Nicholas V's friendship
with Federigo, it could well be that Nicholas asked his apostolic scriptor Francesco to see
to it that the Duke got a copy.
medes' works are cited. However, in the first part there is a series of
calculations with the circle where Archimedes is not mentioned. The most
interesting comment in this material occurs in Problem XLIII:33
You know that truly demonstrated knowledge has not yet been discovered con-
cerning the circumference of the circle. But since those who excel in geometry
have determined it approximately, let us follow their statements concerning it.
For they pose that the circumference is less than 3
1
17 the diameter and more than
3Y8, and so if the diameter is taken 3V7 times, there will result 22 ulnae, which will
be the circumference.
The most intriguing aspect of this passage is the statement of the bounds
of TT as 3
1
/7 and 3Y8. We have noted that the principal author before Piero
to so represent the bounds was Johannes de Muris in his De arte men-
surandi, Chap. 8 (see above, Part I, Chap. 4). This raises the possibility
that in the earlier part of the composition of this work Piero was still
depending on medieval sources for his Archimedean knowledge. But we
need not conclude this, since 3Y8 was also added by Jacobus Cremonensis
to the end of this translation of Proposition 3 of On the Measurement of
the Circle in spite of its absence from the Greek text (see Appendix
IV, Section 1), and since we have already shown how widely Piero used
that translation, he could easily have obtained the value from the Urbino
copy of the translation. At any rate, it should be noted that at the end of
the passage Piero settles for 3lf7 as his approximation and sticks to this
throughout his work. This is evident in the third part of the treatise where
he undertakes the solution of numerous problems concerning spheres.
For purpose of comparison with the almost identical problems given in
the Trattato di aritmetica, algebra e geometria, a few of these problems
on the sphere will be given, of which the first concerns the surface of a
sphere:
34
xv. To investigate the surface of a sphere whose axis [i.e., diameter] is 7.
Proceed as follows. Multiply the axis by the circumference of a greater circle
of the sphere, which you have from the preceding [problem] as 22. And 722
= 154. Say that this is its surface.
33 Mancini, L'Opera, p. 515: "Scias quod adhuc reperta non est scientia vere (1) de-
clarata de circumferentia ipsius circuli. Sed secundum quod proxime (1) accesserunt ii qui
in geometria excelluerunt de eo verba faciemus. Ipsi enim ponunt circumferentiam esse
minus (2) tribus diametris, et unius parte septima (2), et plus tribus et octava unius. Itaque,
si capiantur diametri Y17, erunt ulnae 22, quae erit circumferentia." (l) MS Urb. lat. 632,
21r has "verae.... proximae." (2) Pacioli: "meno de 2 diametri e 117."
34 Ibid., p. 549: "XV. Eius sperae cuius axis est 7, superficiem investigare. Age sic:
Multiplica axem (1) in circumferentia maioris circuli sperae, quem habes per praecedentem
esse 22, et axem 7. Et septies* 22, fiet 154: die esse superficiem suam. Alio modo: Habes
per XXXIIam, P, Archimedis, quod superficies sperae quadrupla est ad superficiem sui
maioris circuli. Et diameter maioris circuli est 7, qui, in se multiplicatus, redditur 49, qui,
multiplicatus per 11, et divisus per 14, evenient 381t2. Tanta est maioris circuli superficies,
quam si per 4 multiplices reddit 154, ut supra. Igitur eiusmodi sperae superficies est 154."
(1) MS, 44v: "assem" * MS: "setties."
[Proceed] in another way. By 1.31 of [On the Sphere and the Cylinder of]
Archimedes you have it that the surface of a sphere is quadruple the surface of
a greater circle of it. And the diameter of a greater circle is 7, which, when
multiplied by itself, produces 49. When this is multiplied by 11 and then divided
by 14, the result is 38V2. So much is the surface of a greater circle. This
you multiply by 4, and the result is 154, as above. Therefore, the surface of the
same sphere is 154.
I have already commented on the use of the Urbino manuscript by
Piero in citing Archimedes. The only points worth adding are: (1) that
the numerical example is the same as in the earlier Trattato (see above,
note 6), (2) that the reference to Archimedes is here to a specific numbered
proposition rather than just to Archimedes, and (3) that two formulations
for the surface of a sphere are given: [I} A = d c, where d and care
respectively the diameter and circumference of a great circle of the sphere,
and [2} A = 4d
2
1l
/14. Let us pass on to the next proposition concerning
the volume of the sphere:
35
XVI. With the axis of the sphere posited as 7, the quadrature of the same sphere
is to be sought.
You know that the quadrature of a sphere is 11121 of its cube. Now the axis of
the sphere, which is 7, is the side of the cube. Therefore, cube 7 and the result
is 343. This number you multiply by 11 and the result is 3773. Divide it by 21 and
the result is So much is the quadrature of the sphere.
[Another method.] And by 11.1 of Archimedes' On the Sphere and the
Cylinders (I) [you know] that the quadrature of the sphere is 3/2 the quadrature
of its cylinder (I should be the quadrature of the cylinder is 3/2 the quadrature of
its sphere). And you have it that the base of the cylinder is 38Y2. This is multiplied
by 7, which is the axis of the sphere and the altitude of the cylinder, and the
result is 269V2, which you divide by 3 to produce 89516. Subtract this from 269Y2
and remains, as appeared above. Therefore, say that the quadrature of a
sphere whose axis is 7 is
Again notice that Piero has used the same numerical example as in the
earlier Trattato but has added the specific citation to Archimedes. Also
notice that Piero here gives two formulations for the volume of the sphere:
[I} V = d
3
ll
hl, the formula appearing in Proposition X of the medieval
De curvis superjiciebus (see Vo!. 1, p. 504) and often used elsewhere (see
above, Part II, Chap. 3), and [2} V = circumscribed cylinder, taken di-
rectly from Archimedes, On the Sphere and the Cylinder. Problem XX is
quite similar and uses the same proposition of Archimedes. It concerns the
35 Ibid, p. 549: "XVI. Positum axem sperae esse 7, eiusdem sperae quadraturam in-
quirendam. Scias quadraturam cuiusque sperae esse undecim vigesimas primas sui cubi.
Axis sperae, qui est 7, est cubi latus. Itaque reducas 7 ad cubum, fiet 343, quem numerum
multiplica per 11, erit 3773: eum partire per 21, evenient tanta est sperae quadratura.
Et per lam, lP, Archimedis 'De spera et chilindris. quod quadratura sperae est sexquialtera
ad quadraturam chilindri sui. Et tu habes quod basis chilindri est qui multiplicatus
per 7, quae est axis sperae, et altitudo chilindri, erit quem partire per 3, evenient
89%. Deduc de supererit sicut superius apparuit. Die igitur quod sperae eius,
cuius axis est 7, quadraturam esse
determination of the diameter when the volume of the sphere is given.
36
The next problem of interest in this part of the work concerns the surface
of a spherical segment:
37
XXIII. With a given sphere whose diameter is 14 and a [cutting] plane which
cuts 4 from the axis, how great is the surface [of the spherical segment] which is
cut off by the plane?
In the fifteenth [problem] of this [part] it was said that the surface of a sphere
is four times as large as the surface of a great circle of the same sphere. And
accordingly it was said that by multiplying the axis of the sphere by the cir-
cumference of a great circle the surface of the whole sphere is produced. There-
fore, if 14, which is the diameter, is multiplied by 44, which is the circumference,
the result is 616. So much is the surface of the sphere. You have a sphere
ABCD [see Fig. 111.2.3.1 in note 12] whose axis is AD and dividing line is BC.
We may find the quantity of BC, which cuts AD in point E, for it was said that
AE is 4. Therefore, proceed as follows. You multiply 4 by the rest of the diameter,
which is 10, and the result is 40, and the root of 40 is BE, as is demonstrated
in 111.34 [of the Elements] of Euclid. And if BE is the root of 40 and BE is half
of BC, the whole of BC will be the root of 160. And you have it that the diameter
of AD is 14 and the cutting line BC is the root of 160 and it cuts the diameter
in point E, and you have it that BE is the root of 40 and it is half of BC; and AE
is 4. Multiply 4 by itself and the result is 16. Add 16 to 40 and the result is 56.
AB is the root of 56 because the latter [number] is the sum of the squares of the
two lines AE and BE by the penultimate [Proposition] of [Book] I of [the Elements
of] Euclid. Then double this at the root and the result is 224; and this is because
it is the root of 224. Then 22411 = 2464, and 2464/14 = 176. So much is cut from
the surface of a sphere with diameter 14 when 4 brachia are cut [from the axis] by
36 Ibid., p. 551: "XX. Si de cubo, cuius quadratura est 64, fiat spera, quaeritur quantus
sit diameter eius. Sciendum est quod omnis sperae quadratura est 11/21 ad quadraturam
sui cubi, et habes, per primam secundi De spera et chilindro Archimedis, quod sperae quad-
ratura ad quadraturam sui chilindri est sexquialtera. Et chilindrus est 11(14 sui cubi, et sperae
quadratura est 11/21 sui cubi. Et cubus propositus est 64, quem multiplices per 21, habebis
1344, qui, si per 11 partiaris, reddet 122
2
/11 et radix cuba 122
2
/11 dic quod sit diameter axis
sperae quaesitae: id est radix cuba 122
2
/11 quod quaerebatur."
37lbid, p. 552: "XXIII. Data spera cuius diameter est 14, et linea plana quae to11it de axe
4, quanta sit superficies quae per lineam tollitur. In XV
a
huius dictum est quod sperae
superficies est quater tanta quanta est superficies maioris circuli eiusmodi sperae. Ac
praeterea dictum est, quod multiplicando axem sperae cum circumferentia maioris circuli
producebatur superficies totius sperae. Igitur, si multiplicetur 14, qui est diameter, cum 44,
quae est circumferentia, fient 616: tanta est totius sperae superficies. Habes speram ABCD,
cuius axis est AD, et linea dividens est BC. Nunc reperiatur quanta sit BC, quae resecat
AD in puncto E, quia dictum est AE esse 4. Ideo fac: multiplices 4 cum reliquo diametri,
quod est 10, fient 40, et radix 40 est BE ut XXXIIIP, lIP Euclidis demonstratur. Itaque
si BE est radix 40, quae est medietas BC, erit tota BC radix 160. Et habes quod diameter
AD est 14, et linea partiens, quae est BC, est radix 160, quae resecat diametrum in puncto
E; et habes quod BE est radix 40, quae est medietas BC, et AE est 4. Multiplica in se,
est 16; adde ad 40, tiet 56. Ergo AB est radix 56, quia potest quantum duae lineae AE
et BE, per penultimam primi Euclidis. Duplica 56 secundum radicem, tiet 224, id est quia
est radix 224, quae multiplicata per 11 habebis 2464, quem partire per 14, evenient 176,
tantum tollitur de superficie sperae, cuius diameter est 14, cumresecentur 4 brachia, mediante
linea plana, quae to11it de superficie 176, sicut per XLI primi Archimedis demonstratur.'
....
means of a plane-that is, 176 is the amount of the surface cut off, as is demon-
strated by 1.41 of [On the Sphere and the Cylinder of] Archimedes.
It is evident that this problem is virtually an exact duplicate of one in
the earlier Trattato (see above, note 12). The only difference is that Piero
now cites Archimedes as his authority, while no authority was mentioned
earlier. Notice, as before, that the surface is calculated by determining
first the line drawn from the apex of the segment to the circumference of
its base; this line, as Archimedes had originally shown, is the radius of a
circle whose area is equal to the surface of the spherical segment in
question. One incidental fact may be noted. In both the problems here
and in the earlier tract, Piero calculates BC unnecessarily, since only BE
and AE are utilized in determining AB. There are several other problems
that concern calculations with spherical segments, of which I can mention
only Problem XXVI, where, as I observed earlier, Archimedes' On the
Sphere and the Cylinder is again cited.
3s
The remaining three problems
(XXVII-XXIX)39 are taken directly from the earlier Italian Trattato (see
above, notes 13 and 14), except that the errors in calculation noted in the
earlier version are now corrected. There is no need to repeat my analysis
of them. I shall be content with noting that, as mere repetitions of the
earlier problems, they reveal no evidence of Piero's new interest in Archi-
medes.
We can now pass to the fourth part of the treatise, which bears the
title De corporibus irregularibus. The extraordinary fact that first emerges
is that somewhere Piero has learned more, beyond the rudimentary knowl-
edge found in the Trattato, of the thirteen semiregular polyhedra which
Pappus declared were discovered by Archimedes. These are polyhedra
38 Ibid., p. 553: "XXVI. Si sperae, cuius axis est 14, linea plana toIlit de superficie
100, quantum amputet de axe investigandum. [Fig. III.2.3.1, to which the numbers here
derived can be added]. Spera ABCD, cuius axis AD est 14, et linea dividens est BC:
trahas ergo AB, dicque quod sit res I, et hoc conduplica et flent 2 res: multiplicatae in se,
D D
flent 4 census, qui, multiplicati per 11, erunt 44 census. Et tu vis 100 de superficie. Igitur
D
multiplica 100 per 14, fient 1400: et hoc totum partire per 44 census, evenient 31
9
/11, et radix
31
9
/11 valet res, quae est BA. Multiplica in se: deinde AD axem, qui est 14, reddet 196.
Per penultimam primi Euclidis habes AD potest quantum duae lineae AB et BD. Igitur
deme vim AB, quae est 3]9/11 de vi AD, quae est 196, supererunt 164
2
/11, et radix 164
2
/11
est BD. Et quia fecisti triangulum, qui est ABO, ut invenias ubi secat linea dividens reperias
cathetum hoc modo: Coniunge vim AB, quae est 31
9
/11, cum vi AD, quae est 196: habebis
277
9
/11. Deme nunc 164
2
/11, relinquetur 63
7
/11, quem partiaris per duplum AD, quod erit 28,
evenient inde 2
3
/11. Tantum recidit de axe AD, quae est 14, cum auferat de superficie sperae
centum ulnas. Alio pacto fieri potest. Tu vis removere de superficie sperae 100: invenias
diametrum circuli cuius superficies sit 100 u1narum. Sic multiplicatio fiat 100 per 14, resulta-
bunt 1400: fiat partitio per 11, evenient 1270/11: divide sicut radicem per aequas partes,
erit 31
9
/11, tanta erit AB radix 31
9
/11, quae potest quantum BE et AE. Et AE est 2
3
/11, qui in
se multiplicata reddit 5
2
/121, deme de 31
9
/11, supererunt 26
79
/121. Et radix 26
79
/12I est BE,
sicut habes per XLam primi Archimedis, ubi dicit quod semidiameter circuli sit linea AB, quae
est superficies eiusmodi circuli, et aequalis superficiei portionis BAC sperae ABCD. Et
ita habes quod si removeantur de superficie sperae 100 reciditur de axe 2
3
/11."
39 Ibid., pp. 554-56.
which abandon the requirement in regular polyhedra of the congruence
of the faces, although the faces remain regular polygons. Pappus describes
all thirteen as follows:
40
Of this sort [of solids inscribed in a sphere] there are not only the five [regular]
polyhedra described by the divine Plato, i.e. the tetrahedron, the hexahedron
[i.e. cube], the octahedron, the dodecahedron, and the icosahedron, but also the
thirteen discovered by Archimedes which are contained by equilateral and equi-
angular, but not similar, polygons. Of these the first [PtJ is a polyhedron of 8
faces [i.e., an octahedron] which is contained by 4 triangles and 4 hexagons. Then
there are three polyhedra of 14 faces. The first of these [P
2
] is contained by 8
triangles and 6 squares, the second [P
3
] by 6 squares and 8 hexagons, the third
[P4] by 8 triangles and 6 octagons. Then there are two polyhedra of 26 faces. The
first of these [P
5
] is contained by 8 triangles and 18 squares, while the second
[P
6
] by 12 squares, 8 hexagons and 6 octagons. Then there are three polyhedra
of 32 faces. The first of these [P
7
] is contained by 20 triangles and 12 pentagons,
the second [Pg] by 12 pentagons and 20 hexagons, and the third [P
9
] by 20 triangles
and 12 decagons. Then there is one polyhedron [P10] of 38 faces which is con-
tained by 32 triangles and 6 squares. Then two of 62 faces. The first [P11] is
contained by 20 triangles, 30 squares and 12 pentagons, and the second [P
I2
] by
30 squares, 20 hexagons and 12 decagons. Finally there is one polyhedron [P13]
of 92 faces which is contained by 80 triangles and 12 pentagons.
The work in which Archimedes' discoveries were contained had long
since vanished by the time of the Renaissance and would not have been
available to Piero. Of the thirteen polyhedra listed above, Piero in his
earlier Trattato included problems concerned with only two, namely PI
and P2' But in the De quinque corporibus regularibus he describes Ps,
P
9
, Ps, P
4
, and PI in Problems II-VI of the fourth part. Thus Piero de-
scribes in both works together a total of six of the thirteen. As we give
extracts from these problems below, it will be evident that Piero knew how
to construct these polyhedra from regular polyhedra by methods oftrunca-
tion. We know of such methods from only one antique source, a scholium
to the above quoted passage of Pappus' Collectio. This scholium gives
the generation of only the first four cases [P1-P4]' 41 The methods oftrunca-
tion found in the scholium have been neatly described by Dijksterhuis:
42
The method by which the polyhedra described are produced is explained in a
scholium to Pappus, which, however, has unfortunately been preserved only in
part; it breaks off in the discussion of the solid No. V [P
5
]. From what is left it
appears that for the construction of solids I-IV [P
C
P
4
] Archimedes started from
the five regular polyhedra, and that he applied to these the three procedures which
Stevin in his study on the semi-regular polyhedra has styled successively trunca-
tion 1) per laterum media, 2) per laterum tertias, and 3) per laterum divisiones
in tres partes. In this construction the edges of the regular polyhedra are divided
successively into two equal parts, into three equal parts, and into three parts,
40 Pappus, Collectio, ed. F. Hultsch, Vol. 1 (reprinted, Amsterdam, 1965), pp. 352-54.
41/bid., Vol. 3, pp. 1169-72.
42 Archimedes (Copenhagen, 1956), p. 407.
,
the middle one of which is to [each of] the two outermost as the diagonal of a
face to the side. In all three cases the polyhedron is truncated at every vertex
by a plane which of each edge bounded by said point contains the point of division
closest to that point. Thus according to the scholium the solid I is formed from
the tetrahedron by construction 2), II from the hexahedron by 1), III from the
octahedron by 2), IV from the hexahedron by 3).
Now we can look at what Piero says about the generation of the semi-
regular polyhedra which he is considering, but without following Piero's
detailed calculations. It will be noticed below that Piero in the Trattato
produces P1 and P2 respectively from the regular tetrahedron and the cube.
That is, he includes two problems concerning P1 after he has treated of
the regular tetrahedron and then two problems involving P2 after he has
considered the cube. It would appear that his intention was to treat suc-
cessively other such semiregular bodies after considering the regular
bodies from which they may be generated. If this was his intention, it
remained unfulfilled. But later in the De quinque corporibus regularibus he
gives five semiregular polyhedra that can be generated from the regular
polyhedra but in reverse order, i.e., the first one (P8) from the icosahedron,
the second (P9) from the dodecahedron, the third (P3) from the octa-
hedron, the fourth (P4) from the cube, and the fifth (P1) from the tetra-
hedron. He thus seems to have picked these particular semiregular
polyhedra for the De quinque corporibus so that he would have one
example formed from each of the five regular solids. Of the eight remain-
ing semiregular polyhedra only two more could have been formed from
the three methods of single truncation noted above, namely P2 (which
can be formed from either the cube or the octahedron by truncation per
laterum media) and P
7
(which can be formed from either the dodeca-
hedron or the icosahedron by truncation per laterum media). But since
Piero described P 8 and P 9 as examples of semiregular solids formed re-
spectively from the icosahedron and the dodecahedron, he perhaps felt
it unnecessary to include P
7
Similarly, since he included P3 and P4 as
examples of polyhedra formed respectively from an octahedron and a
cube, he may have decided not to include P 2 even though he had included
it in his earlier Trattato. I shall now run through the series of semi-
polyhedra described in the De quinque corporibus regularibus, referring
in its proper place to Piero's earlier description of PI' Then I shall com-
plete this section on semiregular polyhedra by including Piero's descrip-
tion of P2 from the Trattato.
In the De quinque corporibus regularibus Piero begins with a problem
concerning P8:
43
43 Mancini, L'Opera, p. 559: "11. Reperitur quoddam corpus trigintiduas habens bases,
id est XX exagonas, et XII pentagonas, quarumcuiuscumque latera sunt duorum brachiorum,
et ipsarum anguli concavam superficiem sperae ipsum corpus continentis contingunt.
Quaeritur de diametro ipsius sperae et superficie, et de quaclratura ipsius 32 basim cor-
poris. Hoc corpus effingitur ex corpore XX basium triangularium quod habet 20 bases tri-
angulares, et 12 solidos angulos, compositum ex quinque angulis. Ideo, si unus angulus
n. One can find a certain solid having 32 bases, that is, 20 hexagons and 12
pentagons, each of whose sides is 2 brachia, and the angles of these [bases] touch
the concave surface of a sphere containing the solid. We seek the diameter of
this sphere, and the surface and volume of the solid of 32 bases.
This solid is fashioned from a [regular] icosahedron of 20 triangular bases
which has 12 solid angles each composed of 5 [plane] angles. Therefore, if one
[solid] angle is divided [i.e., cut off by a plane], it forms one pentagon [as the
section]. If all [of the solid angles] are cut off, 12 pentagons are formed. And in
order that the 20 bases which are triangular be recut as equilateral [hexagons], since
we wish to fashion a hexagon out of each of them, it is necessary to divide each
side [of each triangular face of the icosahedron] into three equal parts.
It is evident from this brief description that Piero has generated P8 by
the method designated by Stevin as truncation per laterum tertias. 44 That
is, Piero has performed the truncation by dividing each edge of the ico-
sahedron into three equal parts and then passing planes through the
similarly placed points of division, leaving 12 pentagonal sections in place
of the solid angles and reforming the original 20 triangular faces into 20
hexagons. Piero then moves on to Pg in Problem III:45
Ill. Given a solid of 32 bases that consists of 20 equilateral triangular bases and
12 equilateral decagons and all of whose angles touch the concave surface of a
sphere in which it is contained-to investigate the diameter of the sphere, the
sides, the surface and the volume [of the solid].
And . . . this solid is produced from a regular solid containing 12 pentagonal
bases by cutting off its 20 [solid] angles [each consisting of 3 plane angles] and
thus producing 20 [equilateral] triangular surfaces, with 12 regular decagonal bases
remaining.... Now we ought to divide BC [which is the side of one of the
pentagonal faces of the regular dodecahedron and assumed to have a value of 4]
so that the middle part is the side of the regular decagon described in the
dividatur, conficit unum pentagonum. Si vero omnes dividantur, conficiunt 12 pentagoni.
Et ut 20 bases, quae sunt triangulares, resecentur aequilaterae, cum volumus ex qualibet
conficere exagonum necesse est quodlibet latus in tres aequales partes dividere."
44 S. Stevin, Problematum geometricorum libri v (Antwerp, 1583), Bk. Ill, Def. 22, pp.
54-55: "Si omnia latera icosaedri dividantur in tres partes aequas, et pIano singuli anguli
solidi icosaedri abscindantur per quinque laterumdivisiones ipsis angulis proximas: Reliquum
solidum vocatur [truncatum] icosaedrum per laterum tertias. NOTA. Habet hoc corpus
viginti plana hexagona, et duodecim pentagona, et sexaginta angulos solidos , et nonaginta
latera." I have added truncatum since it appears in all of the other definitions of semi-
regular solids given by Stevin.
45 Mancini, L'Opera, pp. 560-61: "Ill. Dato corpore 32 basium, 20 triangularium aequi-
laterarum, et 12 decagonarum aequilaterarum, cuius omnes anguli circumferentiam con-
cavam sperae in qua continetur contingunt, diametrum sperae, latera, superficiem et quad-
raturam investigare. Et quia hoc corpus conficitur a corpore regulari continente 12 bases
pentagonales incidendo suos 20 angulos, qui conficiunt 20 superficies triangulares, et rema-
nent 12 bases decagonales aequaliumlaterum. . . . Modo debemus dividere BC cuius media
pars sit latus decagoni aequilateri in base pentagonali descriptio Faciam itaque circulum,
cuius diameter sit 8: medietas est 4, et est latus exagoni. Et per VIIIIam, XlIIi Euclidis,
ad dividendum latus exagoni secundum proportionem [habentem] medium et duo extrema,
maior pars est latus decagoni in eodem circulo descripti." I have added habentem since
it appears in the common Euclidian phrase for a mean and extreme ratio.
pentagonal base. And so I shall draw a circle whose diameter is 8 and radius is 4.
4 is also the side of hexagon [described in the same circle]. And by XIII.8 (! 9)
of [the Elements of] Euclid for dividing the side of the hexagon according to an
extreme and mean ratio, the larger segment [resulting from that division] is the side
of a decagon described in the same circle [and is also the side of the decagon to
be described in the pentagon]....
It is apparent from this account that Piero has used truncation per
laterum divisiones in tres partes to form P9' However, he did not directly
find the middle part of this division by finding the ratio of a diagonal of
the pentagon to its side as Stevin did.
46
Rather Piero has used the side of
the pentagon as the radius of a circle and hence as the side of a hexagon
inscribed in the circle. He then divided the side of the hexagon according
to an extreme and mean ratio. The larger segment resulting from that di-
vision is not only equal to the side of a decagon described in that circle
but is also equal to the side of the decagonal face ofP9' Hence if that larger
segment is bisected to find its center and that center is placed on the center
of the side of a pentagonal face, it fixes the side of the decagonal
face in place and thus establishes the points of division to form P9'
Piero's next problem concerns the third Archimedean semiregular poly-
hedron [P
3
]:47
IV. In the case of a solid containing 14 bases-6 squares and 8 hexagons-for
which the side of any base is 2, we seek its surface and volume, and the
diameter of the sphere containing this solid.
This solid is formed from a solid of 8 triangular bases [i.e., from an octahedron]
by cutting off its solid angles and by dividing any edge of it into three equal parts.
Thus Piero has generated P3 from an octahedron by truncating per
laterum tertias, in short by the same method suggested by the scholiast
to Pappus and by Stevin.
48
And then, as we have noted, Piero presents a
problem-concerning P4:
46 Stevin, Problematum geometricorum libri v, Bk. Ill, Def. 20, p. 54: "Si omnia latera
dodecaedri dividantur in tres partes, hoc modo ut singulae mediae partes ad utramque alteram
partem ipsius lateris se habeant ut chorda arcus duarum quintarum peripheriae circuli ad
chordam arcus unius quintae eiusdem peripheriae et pIano singuli anguli solidi dodecaedri
abscindantur per trium laterum divisiones ipsis angulis proximas: Reliquum solidum vocatur
truncatum dodecaedrum per laterum divisiones in tres partes. NOTA. Habet hoc corpus
duodecim plana decagona, et viginti triangularia, et sexaginta angulos solidos, et nonaginta
latera. "
47 Mancini, L'Opera, p. 562: "IV. Corporis 14 bases, 6 quadratas et 8exagonas continentis,
cuius latus cuiuslibet basis est 2, quae sit eius superficies, et quadratura et diameter sperae
ipsum corpus continentis quaeritur. Hoc corpus formatur ex corpore 8 basium triangularium
incidendo eius sex angulos solidos, et quodlibet eius latus in tres aequales partes dividendo."
48 Pappus, Collectio, ed. Hultsch, Vol. 3, pp. 1171-72: "TOVrO yEvvaTm f:K TOV
oKTae8pov TEp.,VOp.,Evy/<; TpiXa EKaUT1)<; TWV aVTov 1TAEVPWV Kat 8La TWV TOp.,WV 1TL1TE8wv
EK{3aAAoI-tEVWV Kat TWV <;' yWVLWV EK1TL1TTOVUWv." Cf. Stevin, Problematum geometri-
corum libri v, Bk. III, Def. 18, p. 53: "Si omnia latera octoedri dividantur in tres partes
aequas, et pIano singuli anguli solidi octoedri abscindantur, per quatuor laterum divisiones
ipsis angulis proximas: Reliquum solidum vocatur octoedrum truncatum per laterum tertias.
V. In the case of a given solid of 14 bases, that is, of 6 equilateral octagons and 8
equilateral triangles, and which is contained in a sphere whose axis is ID, we seek
the side of the surface and the volume [of the solid].
This solid is formed from a cube by cutting off its 8 [solid] angles so that the
faces of the cube remain as equilateral octagons. We shall perform this division
by means of the ratio [of the diagonal to the side? J. 49
I have added but questioned the additional phrase since Piero does not
start with the edge of the cube as given but rather with the diameter of the
sphere containing the truncated body. Hence by an elaborate calculation
he works back to the length of the side of one of the faces of the semi-
regular body in question. At any rate, it is clear that truncationper laterum
divisiones in tres partes was employed by Piero, as it was by the scholiast
to Pappus and by Simon Stevin. In the accounts of both of these last the
division was accomplished by noting that the ratio of the middle part to
either extreme part is that of the diagonal of the square face of the cube
to the side of the square (although in point of fact the scholiast merely
says that "the middle part is double each extreme in square," i.e. A 2
= 2B2, where A is the middle part and B is either end part).50
Finally, Piero adds a problem involving the first Archimedean semi-
regular polyhedron [Pd, which he generates in the same manner as in
his earlier Trattato: 51
NOTA. Habet hoc corpus sex quadrata, et octo plana hexagona, et viginti et quatuor angulos
solidos, et triginta et sex latera."
49 Mancini, L'Opera, p. 563: "V. Dato corpore 14 basium, id est 6 octangulorum et 8
triangulorum aequilaterorum in spera, cuius axis est 10 contento, de latere superflciei et
de quadratura quaeritur. Formatur hoc corpus a cuba incidendo eius octo angulos ita quod
latera cubi remaneant octo angulorum (! octangulorum; Paccioli: octagoni) aequilaterorum.
Et hanc divisionem cum proportione faciemus."
50 Pappus, Collectio, ed. Hultsch, Vol. 3, p. 1ln: "TOVrO yEwaTaL EK TOV KiJl30v
TEJLVOfJ.ElrrJ<; EKacrTT/<; awoii 7TAEvpa<; OVTW<; WcrTE yivEcr()aL Tpia TJLi}fJ.aTa, WV TO fJ.crov
EKeXTEpov TWV aKpwv 8L7TAacriov EcrTtV 8vvCtfJ.EL." Cf. Stevin, Problematum geometricorum
libr; v, Bk. III, Def. 14, p. 51: "Si omnia latera cubi dividantur in tres partes, hoc modo
ut singulae mediae partes se habeant ad utramque alteram partem ipsius lateris ut diagonalis
quadrati ad suum latus, et pIano singuli anguli solidi ipsius cubi abscindantur per trium
laterum divisiones ipsi angulo proximas: Reliquum solidum vocatur truncatus cubus per
laterum divisiones in tres partes."
51 Mancini, L'Opera, p. 564: "VI. Quaedam est spera, cuius axis est 12 brachiorum, in
qua intercluditur quoddam corpus irregulare constitutum ex octo basibus, hoc est quatuor
triangularibus et quatuor sex lateris, cuius anguli superficiem concavam sperae contingunt.
Quaeritur de lateribus, superficie et quadratura. Facito hoc modo: Capias corpus 4 basium
aequilaterarum AB, CD, et axis eius AE fit 12: erit quodlibet eius latus radix de 216,
quorum quodlibet dividas in 3 partes aequales: quaelibet erit radix 24. . .. Tu scis
quod tale corpus formatur a corpore 4 basium triangularium, scindendo eius quatuor
angulos." Cf. Piero's earlier Trattato, ed. of Arrighi, p. 230: "Egl'e uno corpo sperico che
il suo diametro e 6; vogloci mectere dentro uno corpo de 8 base, 4 triangulare e 4 exagone.
Domando del suo lato. Tu ai, per la 5
a
de' corpi 4 base triangulare il quale e ABCD,
[Fig. III.2.3.4J, che dal centro ad ciascuno suo angulo e 3; et, perche ciascuno suo angulo
contingi la circurnferentia de la spera, sura 3 semidiametro et tucto il diametro de la spera
sira 6, che contene que] corpo de 4 base triangulare; et I'assis e 4 che eAE, et i lati
VI. There is a certain sphere whose axis is 12 brachia and in which there is in-
cluded a certain irregular solid constituted of 8 bases, i.e., of 4 triangles and
4 hexagons, and its angles touch the concave surface of the sphere. We seek the
sides, the surface, and the volume.
Do it in this way. You take a [regular] tetrahedron ABeD, whose axis AE be-
comes 12. Then any edge of it is the root of 216. Then you divide any edge into
three equal parts and each part will be the root of 24. . . . YOll know such a solid
is formed from a tetrahedron of 4 triangular bases by cutting its 4 [solid) angles.
It is obvious that Piero has generated P1 by truncation per laterum
tertias, just as have the Vatican scholiast to Pappus and Stevin.
52
One last semiregular solid remains to be treated, namely P
2
, which was,
as we have seen, omitted from Piero' s later discussion and included only in
the Trattato:
53
suoi e ciascuno radici de 24. Et, perche questo corpo a 4 base, volendolo reducere ad 8
e necessario taglare i suoi 4 anguli et che remanga i lati equali. Pero fa' dei lati suoi 3
parti equali, cioe devidi AB ch'e radici de 24 in tre parti equali, pero reca 3 a radici fa 9,
parti 24 per 9 ne vene et radici de sira ciascuna parte, cioe AL, LM, MB. Hora
fa' 3 parti de l'assisi AE, che e 4, che sia AG, GH, HE, sini ciascuna lY3. Devidi BE,
ch'e del diametroBO, ch'e radici de 8 in tre parti equali in punctol etK, che sira ciascuna
radici de %. Et lE, ch'e e equale MH et de radici de 8 sono radici de 3%; dunqua
MH e radici de 3% che montiplicato in se fa 3%, et FH e Y3 che in se montiplicato
fa 1/9; gionto con 3% fa Adunqua MF e radici de pero di' COSt: se radici de 3
2
/1
me da radici de che me dara radici de 9, ch'e semediametro (I) de la spera, radici
de del corpo de 8 base et (I del.?) dft de lato radici de Dunqua montiplica
radici de via radici de 9 fa radici de 24, parti per radici de 3
2
1.3 ne vene 6
6
/11. Et radici
de 6
6
/11 sira per lata il corpo de 8 base, 4 triangulari e 4 exagone, contenuto dal corpo
sperico che il suo diametro e6 bracci." This is followed immediately by a second problem
on this same body. (Pacioli takes over these propositions in his Summa, Il, 69v.) Thus it
is clear that in the earlier Trattato Piero has understood the generation of PI in the same
way as in the later work, namely from a regular tetrahedron by truncation per laterum
tertias. Piero here seeks to find the side of a semiregular polyhedron of 8 faces-4 equi-
lateral triangles and 4 regular hexagons-when the diameter of the enclosing sphere is
6. He first generates such a semiregular polyhedron (P1) from a regular tetrahedron which
is itself inscribed in a sphere whose diameter is 6. He finds that in such a case the regular
tetrahedron has an edge of length V24, which he then divides into three equal parts, each
part of which is v'ffi and this would be the side of the semiregular body contained in
a sphere whose radius he computes as So then he asks that, if a sphere with this
radius gives an edge of "\lW, what will be the edge when the radius is 3? This is the
proposed problem. The answer is calculated by a simple proportion and comes out to be
\16
6
/11.
52 Pappus, Collectio, ed. Hultsch, Vol. 3, p. 1171: "rovro 'YvvaraL EK rr,<; 1TPWrYJ<;
1TlJpajLi5o<; 5tatpovjLv(JJv TWV 1TAEVPWV aVTiJ<; El<; y' lfa Kat 8t/X TWV TOjLWV E1Tt1T.5(JJv
K{3aA,A,OjLEV(JJV Kat rwv EK1Tt1TTOVlfWV. " Cf. Stevin, Problematum geometricorum libri
v, Bk. Ill, Def. 12, p. 50: "Si omnia latera tetraedri dividantur in tres partes aequas, et piano
singulus angulus solidus tetraedri abscindatur, per trium laterum divisiones ipsi angulo
proximas: Reliquum solidum vocatur truncatum tetraedrum per laterum tertias. NOTA.
Habet hoc corpus quatuor plana hexagona, et quatuor triangularia, duodecim angulos
solidos, et decem et octo latera. "
53 Ed. cit., pp. 231-32: "Egl'e uno corpo sperico, che il suo diametro e6 bracci; vogloci
mectere dentro una figura de quatordici base, 6 quadrate et 8 triangulare, de equali lati.
Domando quanto sin't ciascuno lato. Questa tale figura se cava del cubo, perch: a6 base
There is a spherical body of diameter 6 and I wish to inscribe in it a figure of 14
bases-6 squares and 8 equilateral triangles. I seek the length of each side [i.e.,
edge].
Such a figure is cut out of a cube because the latter has 6 bases and 8 [solid]
angles. When the 8 angles are cut off, 14 bases are produced. So you have the
cube ABeD, EFGH and divide each side [i.e. edge of the cube] into two equal
parts....
With these points of divisions on the edges established, planes are
passed through the points of division on each set of three lines forming
the eight solid angles. In this way 8 triangles are so formed and the original
faces of the cube are transformed into 6 smaller squares each of whose
side is equal to a/y!2, where a is the edge of the original cube. This
method of truncation understood by Piero is clearly that of truncation
per {aterum media and is precisely the same as that given by the Vatican
scholiast to Pappus and by Simon Stevin.
54
So much then for this brief exposition of Piero's knowledge of the
nature and generation of Archimedean semiregular polyhedra. I remain
profoundly puzzled as to Piero's source. We know that Luca Pacioli in
1489, and so at about the same time that Piero composed his work, built
models of regular polyhedra and the bodies dependent on them (see the
next section of this chapter, note 9). Presumably some of the models were
of semiregular polyhedra. But even ifPiero derived some of his knowledge
of such polyhedra from Pacioli, the difficulty remains as to the source of
Pacioli's knowledge. It is possible, although I have no evidence of this,
that Piero somehow learned of the passage in Pappus' Collectio, V, with
its scholium. If such be the case, then he must have learned it from some-
one who read the only manuscript of Pappus known to have been written
et 8 anguli; che, taglando i suoi 8 anguli, fa 14 base, cioe eusi. Tu ai il cubo ABCD, EFGH
(Fig. 111.2.3.5], devidi ciaseuno lato [del cubo] per equali: AB in puncto I, et CD in puncto
L, BD in puncto K, AC in puncto M. et AG in puncto N, GH in puncto O. HB in
puncto P, HF in puncto Q, FD in puncto R, FE in puncto S, EC in puncto T, EG in puncto
V. Tira una linea da T ad P passante per 10 centro K, la quale quanto
le do' linee TN et NP, perche N e angulo recto oposto a la linea TP; et l'angulo P e
I'angulo T tocchano la circumferentia de la spera, et simili fanno gl'altri anguli M, K, I,
L, 0, Q, N, S, V, R. Adunqua TP e diametro de la spera, che e 6, e la sua
e 36 che e quanto le do' linee NP et NT. Dunqua e ciascuna radiei de 18; et
se NP e radici de 18, la quale quanto le do' linee NI et lP, dunqua
NI e radici de 9; e cus.IP che sono lati de la figura de 14 base eontenuta da la spera
ehe il suo diametro e 6. Si che di' che il lato de la figura de 14 base, 6 quadrate e 8
triangulare, e radici de 9 che e 3." This is followed by a second problem concerning P
2
(Cf. Pacioli's repetition of these propositions in his Summa, Il, 69v.)

54 Pappus, Collectio, ed. Hultsch, Vol. 3, p. 1171: "ToVTO 'YEWtXTaL K TOV KiJ{3ov
8uuPOVILEVWV 1>i)(o: TWV 7T'Arupwv O:V'roii Ko:t SLa TWV T01J-WV E7T'L7T'E8wv K{3o:'A.'A.0ILEvwv, TWV
.,.,' 'YwvLiiJv EK7T'L7TTOVo-WV." Cr. Stevin, Problematum geometricorum libri v, Bk. Ill, Def.
13, pp. 50-51: "Si omnia latera cubi dividantur in duas partes aequas, et pIano singuli anguli
solidi cubi abscindantur, per trium laterum divisiones ipsi angulo proximas: Reliquum
solidum vocatur Truneatus Cubus per laterum media. NOTA. Habet hoc corpus sex plana
quadrata, et octo tnangularia,-et duodecim solidos, et 24 latera.'
prior to the sixteenth century, namely the tenth century Vat. gr. 218,
that is, the manuscript from which all of the extant manuscripts of Pappus
ultimately derive. This manuscript may have been in the possession of
Rinuccio d' Arezzo before 1424 (see above, Part Ill, Chap. 2, Sect. I, note
23). However, nothing is known of the whereabouts of this manuscript
during the last half of the fifteenth century, or in fact before its appearance
in the Vatican Library by 1533.
55
It could be that item 604 in the Vatican
catalogue of 1311 is this old manuscript,56 but even if this is so it is not
helpful since I can find no trace of this item after that date.
It is not my intention in this volume to trace the interest in the Archi-
medean semiregular solids in the sixteenth century since their treatment
is not a part of the tradition of extant Archimedean works. But I shall
briefly mention Pacioli' s description of them in my next section. Here I
would merely note that there was a brisk concern with solids on the part
of Diirer, Daniel Barbaro, r n ~ o i s de Foix, R. Bombelli, Stevin, and
Kepler.
57
Following the treatment of semiregular polyhedra Piero presents a long
problem (IX) concerning a triangle whose sides have ratios of 2 to 3 and
3 to 4. Most of this problem is not of interest to our Archimedean in-
vestigations. However, one of the things determined for this triangle is its
center of gravity by drawing straight lines from each of the angles to the
55 A. P. Treweek, "Pappus of Alexandria. The Manuscript Tradition of the 'Collectio
mathematica,' " Scriptorium, Vol. 11 (1957), p. 231, whole article pp. 195-233.
56 Ehrle, Historia Bibliothecae Romanorum pontificium, Vol. 1, p. 96: "604. Item unum
librum, qui dicitur Commentum Papie super difficilibus Euc1idis et super residuo geometrie,
et librum de ingeniis, scriptum de lictera greca in cartis pecudinis, et est in dicto Iibro
unus quaternus maioris forme scriptus de lictera greca, et habet ex una parte unam
tabulam." Ehrle suggests in a note that Papie is perhaps Pappus. See also J. L. Heiberg,
"Les premiers manuscrits grecs de la bibliotheque papale," Oversigt over det Kongelige
Danske Videnskabernes Selskabs (Resume du Bulletin de I'Academie Royale Danoise des
Sciences et des Lettres pour l'annee 1891), Copenhagen, 1891-92, p. 314, whole article
pp. 305-18. Heiberg would identify the "super residuo geometrie" with Pappus' Collectio,
and the "librum de ingeniis" with Philo's Pneumatica. I suspect however that the whole
entry in the Vatican catalogue refers to Pappus' Collectio . The last part of the description
"librum de ingeniis" perhaps only refers to the excerpts from Hero's Mechanica at the end
of Bk. VIII of the Collectio. If this is so, it might have been the present Vat. gr. 218.
S. Unguru, Witelo as a Mathematician (Dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1970) pp.
303-05, 310-11, has shown that Propositions 1.22, 1.38 and 1.39 of Witelo's Perspectiva
almost certainly originated in Book VI of Pappus' work, thus suggesting the possibility that at
least a partial Latin translation was made ofthe Collectio in the thirteenth century. Ifso, I would
assume that Vat. gr. 218 was the manuscript used by the translator. We can further note
that Witelo (Perspectiva, V.65) was acquainted with Anthemius' 7TP'i. 7Tapa80{wlI
i-LTJXaJl11/LtXTWlI, possibly through a translation of it made by William of Moerbeke, or, less
likely, through the Greek text of it (read, one would presume, with the help of Moerbeke).
But an appropriate fragment of Anthemius' work is included on the first folio of Vat. gr. 218,
which fact seems to strengthen my belief that Vat. gr. 218 was indeed item 604 of the
Vatican catalogue of 1311.
57 See The Principal Works of Simon Stevin, Vol. 2, ed. D. J. Struik (Amsterdam, 1958),
p. 128.
midpoint of the side opposite it. The conclusion is that these three lines
"LQ, MP, NO will mutually intersect in point X. And because the center
of gravity is in line LQ and in line MP and in line NO, it will of necessity be
in their intersection, which is in pointX. "58 This contains the substance of
Archimedes' On the Equilibrium ofPlanes, Prop. 13 ("In any triangle the
center of gravity lies on the straight line joining any angle to the midpoint
of the opposite side") and Prop. 14 ("The center of gravity of any triangle
is at the intersection of the lines drawn from any two angles to the mid-
points of the opposite sides respectively"). Archimedes is not cited by
Piero and indeed the substance of Piero's conclusion is rather common-
place in geometry for the determination of the simple center of a triangle.
The only point worth noting is that it is not merely the geometric center
of the triangle that Piero is finding but that he specifically designates the
center of gravity as his objective, and it could be that Piero's inclusion
of this concept in an essentially geometric problem came as the result of
his examination of On the Equilibrium of Planes. Incidentally, I have
omitted any discussion of Piero's treatment of the center of a regular
tetrahedron (Part n, Problem VI), which he merely repeats from his earlier
Trattato, since he does not speak of it in terms of center of gravity. But
even so, it could have played some part in forming Leonardo da Vinci's
views on the center of gravity of the tetrahedron, views which I shall
discuss in the next chapter.
Finally one more intriguing Archimedean question must be raised in con-
nection with the fourth part of Piero's treatise. It centers on Problems X
and XI. Although they are intimately connected in view of the fact that
Problem X concerns the volume of the common segment of two perpendic-
ularly intersecting cylinders, while Problem XI makes use of the surface
area of that common segment, I should like to take them one at a time. First
let us look at Problem X:59
58 Mancini, L'Opera, p. 568: "Postea lineas LQ, MP, NO, et se invicem intersecabunt
in puncto X. Et quia centrum gravitatis est in linea LQ, et in linea MP, et in linea NO, de
necessitate erit in eorum intersectione, quae est in puncto X, quem dixi esse centrum
vitae (Pacioli: centro de la mita) trianguli."
59 Ibid., pp. 569-70: "X. Est quaedam columna rotunda ad circinum, cuius diameter
est 4brachiorum, id est cuiuslibet eius basis, et alia columna eiusdem grossitiei orthogonaliter
petforat. Quaeritur quae quantitas auferatur a prima columna per ipsum foramen. Scire
debes quod columna perforata et in concavitate sua ubi incipit foramen, et in concavitate
ei opposita, ubi foramen desinit, petforatur ad rectam lineam, et axis columnae perforantis
transit per axem columnae petforatae ad angulum rectum, et ipsarum lineae conficiunt unum
quadratum in eorum concavitate, et superius et inferius se in duobus punctis contingunt,
id est uno in superiori et altero in inferiori parte. Exemplum. Sit columna (corr. ed. ex
olumna in MS) perforata H, et columna perforans G, et foramen sit ABeD, et puncta se
tangentia in earum concavitate sit EF: et huius foraminis quaeritur quantitas. Diximus quod
cuiuslibet columnae grossities erat 4 brachiorum. Igitur quadratum ABeD est 4 brachiorum
in quolibet latere, quae latera in se multiplicata faciunt 16, et EF, quae est grossities columnae
est 4, quod multiplicatum cum superficie basis, quae est 16, conficit 64, quod dividas per
3, remanet 211;3, et hoc duplicatum fit 42.3, et tantum aufert de columna H propter dictum
foramen, id est brachia 42.3. Probatur sic. Tu scis quod dictae columnae in foramine con-
X. There is a certain cylinder whose diameter is 4 brachia-the diameter of each
of its bases-and another cylinder of the same size pierces it orthogonally. We
seek the quantity that is removed from the first cylinder by means of this hole
[i.e. we seek the of the common segment of the two cylinders].
You ought to know that the perforated cylinder is perforated in a straight line
both at the beginning and the end of the cavity [i.e., the common segment], that
is, where the hole [in the middle horizontal plane of the common segment] begins
and ends [or, to put it another way, the common segment of the cylinders begins
and ends in its middle horizontal plane with a straight line only], and the axis of
the piercing cylinder crosses through the axis of the pierced cylinder at right angles
in their cavity [i.e., in their common segment], and the lines of these [cylinders
parallel to, and in the plane of, the intersecting axes] form a square [and, in fact,
the intersecting lines in all the planes above and below and parallel with the plane
ficiunt quadratum, quod est ABCD. Ideo facias unam superficiem quadratam eiusdem mag-
nitudinis, quae sit etiam ipsa ABCD, in qua facias circulum, qui sit IKLM, et centrum
eius sit N: deinde facias aliam superficiem cuius duo latera opposita, quodlibet sit aequale
diagonali AC foraminis dictae columnae, et alia duo latera, quodlibet aequale AB, qui sit
TVXY, in quo describas unum circulum proportionabilem tangentem quodlibet latus dicti
quadrati in punctis 0, P, Q, R, et eius centrum sit S, dieo eam proportionem esse quadrati
ABCD ad quadratum TVXY, quae est circuli IKLM [ad circulum OPQR, et eadem est
proportio circuli IKLM (addidi ex versione Pacioli qui habet: al circulo OPQR, et quella
proportione e dal tondo IKLM)] ad suum quadratum ABCD, quae est circuli OPQR ad
quadratum suum TVXY, pro ut per quintam tertii Archimedis De conoidalibus ostenditur.
Nunc dividas quadratum ABCD in partes aequales cum linea KM. Postea trahas lineas
KL, ML, conficietur triangulus KLM, et dividas in aequales partes quadratum TVXY cum
linea PR. Postea [trahas] lineas PQ, QR, fiet triangulus PQR. Dico eam esse proportionem
trianguli KLM ad triangulum PQR, quae est quadrati ABCD ad quadratum TVXY, et ea
quae est trianguli KLM ad suum quadratum ABCD, eadem est trianguli PQR ad suum
quadratum TVXY. Et superius dictum fuit quod talis proportio erat circuli IKLM ad super-
ficiem ABCD, qualis erat circuli OPQR ad superficiem TVXY. Sequitur itaque ex communi
scientia talem esse proportionem trianguli KLM ad suum circulum IKLM, qualis est tri-
anguli PQR ad suum circulum ORPQ. Et hoc intellecto faciemus figuras corporeas. Prima
erit sperica notata EKMF, et eius axis EF, et alia quae circumdat quadratum TVXY sunt
duo corpora. Unum est TRXS, et aliud YRVS, quae se intersecant in puncto R, et in
puncto S. In quibus figuris corporeis faciam in qualibet unam pyramidem. In spera EKMF
lineabo KM circulariter, postea traham !ineas KE, EM, et fiet KEM pyramis supra base
rotunda KLMI. Postea faciam aliam pyramidem in alia figura corporea, quae erit TR, YR,
XR, VR, quae pyramides sibi invicem sunt in proportione, sicut sunt ipsarum matres, id
est figurae corporeae in quibus sunt fabricatae, sicut superius ostenditur in superficiebus
planis, sicut circulus TRXS est aequalis circulo OPQRin superficie TVXY, et latera pyramidis
TR, RX sunt aequalia duobus lateribus trianguli PQR, id est PQ, QR et KFM (del.?) latera
pyramidis sperae: id est KE, EM sunt aequalia duobus lateribus trianguli KLM circuli
IKLM, id est KL, LM. Concludamus earn esse proportionem pyramidis TR, YR, XR, VR
ad suum corpus TRXS, quae est pyramidis KEM cuius basis circularis est IKLM ad suum
corpus spericum KEMF. Igitur per XXXIIIam primi Sperae et Coni (1) Archimedis, ubi dicit
quamlibet speram esse quadruplam suo cono, cuius basis est aequalis maiori circulo sperae,
et axis aequalis semidiametro [spera KEMF est quadrupla sue pyramidis KEM et sic corpus
TRXS est quadruplum sue pyramidi TR, YR, XR, VR (addidi)]. Capias itaque basem
TVXY, quae pro quolibet latere quatuor brachia: multiplica in se fiunt 16 brachia, quae mul-
tiplica cum suo axe, qui est 2, fit 32, et hoc dividas per 3, remanet et eius corpus
TRXS est quater tantum. Ideo multiplica cum 4, fit pro ut superius dictum
fuit. Et sic babes quod aufertur a columna H per illud foramen, brachia 42
2
1.3."
of the axes form squares except] at the top and the bottom [where single lines only
intersect] and [there] they touch each other in two points [only], one at the top and
one at the bottom.
Example [see Fig. 111.2.3.6]: Let the pierced cylinder be H and the piercing
cylinder be G and let the hole [i.e., the middle horizontal element of the common
segment of the intersecting cylinders] be ABCD, and let [the upper and lower]
touching points in their cavity [i.e., in their common segment] be E and F, and we
seek the volume of the hole [i.e., of the common segment of the intersecting
cylinders]. We have said that the width [i.e., the diameter] of each cylinder was
4 brachia. Therefore, the square ABCD is 4 brachia on each side. These sides
multiplied together make 16 and EF, which is the width [i.e., the diameter] of a
cylinder, is 4, and when multiplied by the surface of the base, i.e., by 16, makes 64.
This you divide by 3 and 21Y:3 is the result. This doubled becomes 4 2 ~ and so much
is removed from cylinder H as the result [of the formation of the] said hole, i.e.,
4 2 ~
This is proved as follows. You know that the said cylinders make a square in
the hole, which square is ABCD [see Fig. 111.2.3.7]. Therefore, you may draw a
square hole of the same size, which we let be ABCD, and in it you inscribe
circle IKLM with center N. Then you draw another [rectangular] surface TVXY,
each of whose opposite sides is equal to the diagonal AC of the said hole, while
each of the other two sides is equal to AB. In this you describe a "proportional
circle" [i.e., an ellipse] tangent to each side of the said rectangle in points 0, P,
Q and R. Let its center be S . I say that the ratio of square ABCD to rectangle TVXY
is as circle IKLM to ellipse OPQR, and the ratio of circle IKLM is to its square
ABCD as ellipse OPQR is to its rectangle TVXY, as is demonstrated by the fifth
[proposition] of the third [work] of Archimedes, On Conoids. Now you divide
square ABCD into equal parts by line KM. Then you draw lines KL and LM, and
b:.KLM will be formed; and you divide rectangle TVXY into equal parts by line
PR. Then you draw lines PQ and QR, forming b:.PQR. 1 say that
b:.KLM / b:.PQR = square ABCD / rect. 1VXY
and
t::.KLM / square ABCD = t::.PQR / recto 1VXY.
And it was said above that
circle IKLM / square ABeD = ellipse OPQR / rect. 1VXY.
And so it follows from common knowledge [viz., the axiom: quantities equal to
the same quantity are equal to each other] that
b:.KLM / circle IKLM = b:.PQR / ellipse OPQR.
And with this understood, let us make solid figures [see Fig. 111.2.3.8]. The first
will be spherical and designated EKMF with axis EP, and the other which encloses
square 1VXY by means of two ellipses. One is TRXS and the other is YRVS, and
they intersect each other in point R and in point S. In each of these two [solid]
figures, I shall produce a pyramid. In the sphere EKMF, I shall delineate EM
circularly. Then I shall draw lines KE and EM and produce pyramid KLMI on the
round base [i.e., I shall produce cone KLMI]. Then I shall produce another
pyramid in the other corporeal figure, which will be TR, YR, XR, VR. These
pyramids [i.e., the cone and the pyramid] are in the same ratio as their parents,
i.e., as the corporeal figures in which they are constructed, as is demonstrated
above in the plane figures, since circle TRXS is equal to circle OPQR in smface
TVXY [in Fig. 111.2.3.7], and the sides of the pyramid TR, RX are equal [re-
spectively] to the two sides of !:::.PQR, i.e. PQ and QR. And the sides KE and
EM of the cone in the sphere are equal [respectively] to the sides KL and LM
of !:::.KLM of circle IKLM [in Fig. 111.2.3.7]. Let us conclude then that the ratio
of the pyramid TR, YR, XR, VR to its [parent] solid TRXS [i.e. to the common
segment of the two cylinders] is as the ratio of cone KEM, whose base circle is
IKLM to its [parent] spherical solid KEMF. Therefore, by 1.33 of On the Sphere
and the Cone (!) of Archimedes, where he says that any sphere is quadruple
the cone whose base is equal to a greater circle of the sphere and whose axis is
equal to the radius [of the sphere], sphere KEMF is quadruple cone KEM and thus
the parent solid TRXS [which is the common segment of the two cylinders] is
quadruple pyramid TR, YR, XR, VR. And so you take the base TVXY, which is
4 brachia on each side; multiply the sides together and the result is 16. This you
multiply by the axis which is 2 and the result is 32. This you divide by 3 and
10
2
13 is the result [as the volume of the pyramid]. Its [parent] solid TRXS [i.e., the
common segment of the cylinders] is 4 times as great. Therefore, multiply Iffi.'3
by 4 and the result is 423, as was said before. And thus you have what is removed
from cylinder H by that hole, [namely,] 423 brachia.
I have attempted to render the imprecise language and meaning more
intelligible to the modern reader by adding phrases in brackets. I have also
had to make certain emendations in Piero's text, as is clearly evident in
the original text in the footnote. The reader has to watch carefully which
figure Piero is referring to, since the same letters are used for quite dif-
ferent quantities as he passes from the passage on the plane figures to that
on the solid figures (thus, for example, TVXY is a rectangle of unequal
sides in Fig. 111.2.3.7 and a square in Fig. 111.2.3.8). One should notice
that Piero's expression for an '"ellipse" is circulus proportionabilis (cir-
culo proportionato in the Italian text). This is similar to the expression
used by Nicole Oresme to describe figures erected on a diameter that
are higher and lower than the semicircle on that diameter but which are
"proportionalis altitudinis huk semicirculo," figures that are in fact el-
liptical but not so identified by Oresme.
60
Before commenting on the historical questions raised by the appearance
of this problem in Piero's treatise, I should first like to restate what I be-
lieve to be the intent of Piero' s proof. He starts by considering two plane
figures. The first is a circle (lKLM in Fig. 111.2.3.7) inscribed in a square
(ABeD). The second is an ellipse (OPQR) inscribed in a rectangle
(TVXY). These figures are related, in that the rectangle has one side equal
to the side of the square and the adjacent side equal to the diagonal of
the square. Thus the minor axis (OQ) of the ellipse is equal to the side of
the square or the diameter of the circle, while the major axis (PR) is
equal to the diagonal of the square. Needless to say, the square is equal
60 Clagett, Nicole Oresme and the Medieval Geometry of Qualities, pp. 200, 442-43.
to a face of the cube containing the common segment of the two per-
pendicularly intersecting cylinders and thus it is also equal to the common
section of the two cylinders made by passing a plane through the upper
and lower points of the common segment and through the axis of either
cylinder. The rectangle is formed by passing a plane through either pair of
parallel diagonals of the upper and lower faces of the cube. The ellipse
contained by the rectangle is for Piero a diagonal section of the common
segment of the two cylinders. Now by Proposition 5 (=Gr. Prop. 6) of
Archimedes' De conoidalibus, Piero demonstrates that t:,KLM has the
same ratio to the semicircle in which it is inscribed as t:,PQR has to the
semiellipse in which it is inscribed. Piero then proceeds to a consideration
of the solids involved. The first solid is a sphere formed by the rotation of
a circle equal to IKLM. This then is the sphere EKMF inscribed in the
cube that contains the common segment of the two cylinders (see Fig.
111.2.3.8). In the course of the generation of the sphere a triangle equal
to KLM generates a cone KEM. The sphere is spoken of as the parent of
the cone. The second solid is the common segment of the intersecting
cylinders, whose middle plane element is the square TVXY (not to be con-
fused with rectangle TVXY of Fig. 111.2.3.7) and whose top and bottom
apexes are Rand S. In his curious way of speaking Piero describes the
common segment of the two cylinders by saying that the middle square
TVXY is enclosed by the intersecting elliptical lines TRXS and YRVS.
These two elliptical lines constitute for him the curved edges of the com-
mon segment of the two cylinders. Now this common segment is not con-
sidered by him to be formed by the simple rotation of the ellipse as was
the sphere formed by the rotation of the circle. Rather Piero seems to have
held that as the ellipse is rotated the minor axis is held constant while
the major axis continually changes from its maximal value when contained
by the rectangular section through the diagonals of the opposite faces
of the cube to a minimal length where it is equal to the minor axis (or
diameter of the circle) and then back again to the maximal value. Thus the
common segment seems to have been conceived as being generated by
this fluctuation in the ellipse. At the same time Piero believed that the
pyramid TR, YR, XR, VR is generated by a similarly changing triangle
inscribed in the changing semiellipse. Now there can be no doubt that
Piero holds that for any section of the sphere (represented by a circle
equal toIKLM in Fig. 111.2.3.7) there is a corresponding elliptical section
of the common segment of the two cylinders. And thus for whatever cor-
responding sections are taken, the relationship between the semicircle and
its triangle is always the same as the relation between the corresponding
semiellipse and its triangle, however much the major axis ofthe ellipse may
change, for the minor axis is always the same, it being equal to the diam-
eter of the circle. Hence if the relationship holds for any corresponding
sections it ought to hold for the whole solids. Thus, whatever relationship
exists between the sphere and its cone, the same relationship should exist
between the common segment of the two cylinders and its pyramid. But
Archimedes has demonstrated in On the Sphere and the Cylinder that the
volume of the sphere is four times that of its cone. Hence the volume of the
common segment of the cylinders is four times that of its pyramid. Now
the volume of the pyramid is 1/6 that of the cube in which it and the
common segment are contained; hence the volume of the common segment
of the cylinders is that of its enclosing cube. Such then is the intent of
Piero's ingenious proof.
Now the first point that strikes the student of the history of mathematics
is that Piero has given us the proposition which Archimedes made
one of the major objectives of his brilliant On the Method and which con-
stituted one of his proudest discoveries. Unfortunately, the proof of that
proposition is lost from the text as preserved to us in Greek manuscript
C. But here is what Archimedes says in the preface:
61
Archimedes to Eratosthenes greeting. I sent to you on a former occasion some of
the theorems discovered by me, merely writing out the enunciations and in-
viting you to discover the proofs, which at the moment I did not give. The enund-
ations of the theorem which I sent to you were as follows .... 2. If in a cube a
cylinder be inscribed which has its bases in the opposite parallelograms (i.e.
squares) and touches with its surface the remaining four planes (faces), and
if there also be inscribed in the same cube another cylinder which has its bases
in other parallelograms and touches with its surface the remaining planes (faces),
then the figure bounded by the surfaces of the cylinders, which is within both
cylinders, is two-thirds ofthe whole cube. Now these theorems differ in character
from those communicated before; for we compared the figures then in question,
conoids and spheroids and segments of them, in respect of size, with figures of
cones and cylinders: but none ofthose figures have yet been found to be equal to a
solid figure bounded by planes; whereas each of the present figures [i.e., the
cylindrical hoof, here omitted, and the common segment of the intersecting
cylinders just described] bounded by two planes and surfaces of cylinders is found
to be equal to one of the solid figures which are bounded by planes. The proofs
then of these theorems I have written in this book and now send to you.
And although Archimedes' proof of the second of these theorems, the
one that interests us, is missing, H. G. Zeuthen and others have shown
how the method of Archimedes could be applied for its discovery. 62 Need-
less to say, there is absolutely no evidence that this treatise, redis-
covered by Heiberg in 1906, could have been known to Piero or to anybody
in the Renaissance. It thus is virtually certain that Piero did not take the
theorem directly from Archimedes. Now the actual proposition on the
61 Opera omnia, ed. Heiberg, Vol. 2, pp. 426-28. I have used here Heath's translation,
The Works of Archimedes . . . with a supplement: The Method ofArchimedes, suppl. pp.
12-13.
62 Heath, The Works of Archimedes etc., suppl. pp. 48- 51, gives a reconstruction, based
on H. G. Zeuthen, "Eine neue Schrift des Archimedes," Bibliotheca Mathematica, 3. Folge,
Vol. 7 (1906-07), pp. 356-57. (The full article is by J. L. Heiberg and Zeuthen, and occu-
pies pages 321-63.)
- __
volume of the common segment of the perpendicularly intersecting cyl-
inders was also given by Hero of Alexandria in his Metriea:
63
The same Archimedes shows in the same book [i.e., On the Method] that if in
a cube two cylinders penetrate whose bases are tangent to the faces of the cube,
the common segment of the cylinders will be two-thirds of the cube. This is useful
for vaults constructed in this way. . . .
It is worth pointing out that there is no demonstration of the proposition
in the Metriea. It is also of interest to see that Hero refers it to vaults,
thus giving to it an architectural context. Unfortunately, the Metriea
itself does not appear to have been known in the Renaissance,64 although
other metrical treatises attributed to Hero were. The Archimedean formula
seems to be rather obscurely involved in cross vault problems in the
Stereometriea attributed to Hero,65 and perhaps someone reading a Greek
manuscript of this work could have reported the results to Piero (although
who this would have been I do not know). It is true that the cylindrical
cross vault was everywhere about him and no doubt was the object of dis-
cussion by architects then and at earlier times.
66
And indeed Piero has
given a problem involving the perspective of the cross vault in his De
prospeetiva pingendi .67 But I know of no medieval or early Renaissance
Latin treatise that treated the geometry of the cross vault. At any rate, if
Piero did receive the enunciation of this proposition from some one, then
his curious and obscure proof was rather an attempt to justify the
enunciation rather than the method by which he discovered it. A clearer
demonstration would have resulted if he had considered the common seg-
ment of the two cylinders as the summation of horizontal squares and
then related those squares to the corresponding square elements of either
the double pyramid inscribed in the common segment or the correspond-
ing square element of the cube enclosing the common segment, an ap-
proach that Archimedes probably took in On the Method (see above,
note 62). With modern techniques of integration, and realizing that the
horizontal sections are squares, we can easily show that the volume V
of the common segment is 16a
3
/3, where a is the radius of each cylinder.
Then, since 2a = d, where d is the diameter of each cylinder and also the
edge of the cube, V = 2d
3
/3, as Piero maintained. At any rate, Piero's
63 Hero, Metrica, ed. H. Schoene (Opera omnia, Vo\. 3), Bk. n, XV, pp. 130, 132. Cf.
Codex Constantinopolitanus Palatii Veteris No. 1, ed. E. M. Bruins, Vo\. 3 (Leiden, 1964),
p.302.
64 The Codex Constantinopolitanus published in photographic reproduction by Bruins is
the only known copy of the Metrica and was not rediscovered until the nineteenth century.
I have looked in vain for any reference to this or any other copy in Renaissance accounts.
65 Codex Constantinopolitanus, ed. Bruins, Vo!. 3, Stereometrica, I, 59-60, pp. 114-15.
66 For example, see the discussion of cross vaults in Alberti's De re aedificatoria, Bk.
Ill, cap. XIV (ed. G. Orlandi, Leon Battista Alberti, L'Architettura, Vol. 1 [Milan, 1966],
pp. 241,243). .
67 Ed. Fasola, Bk. 11, Problem XI, pp. 122-25.
pi
proof is the first extant effort to demonstrate the proposition, and it
clearly is a response to his discovery of Archimedes.
The common segment of intersecting cylinders also plays a part in
Piero's next problem, which he introduces as follows: "XI. There is a
certain arch or cross vault which is 8 brachia [wide] on each face and
is 4 brachia at the summit of the arches and in the middle of the vault;
we seek its concave surface. "68
It is evident, as Piero's account shows, that in order to find the con-
cave surface of the vault formed by the intersection of two half cylinders,
we must subtract the surface area of their common segment from the total
surface of the two half cylinders. To compute the surface area of the com-
mon segment Piero first determines the volume of the common segment
in the same way as in the preceding proposition:
And [1] with the help of the preceding figure [in Problem X], in which you have
it that the ratio of the cone to half its sphere is as the ratio of the pyramid of square
base to its circular body on the square base [i. e., to the common segment of the
two half-cylinders], if they are of the same altitude; and [2] by 1.33 ofOn the Sphere
and the Cone (I) of Archimedes, which is that a sphere is quadruple its cone
whose base is a great circle of the sphere and whose altitude is equal to the radius
of the sphere; therefore [3] half the sphere is double its cone, and [4] if we pose
a cone (I pyramid) AE,BE,CE,DE [see Fig. III.2.3.9] whose base is [the square]
ABCD, each side of which is 8, and thus the area [of its base] is 64, then multiply
64 by the axis, which is 4, and 256 is the result; divide it by 3 and 85Y:3 is the result,
68 I shall in this note include the whole of Problem XI from Mancini, L'Opera, p. 571:
"XI. Est quaedam testudo, seu volta, per modum crucis, quae est pro qualibet facie 8
brachia, et in altitudine 4 brachia, tarn in summitate arcuum quam in medio voltae: quaeritur
de superficie concava? Scire debes quod testudo in modum crucis facta componitur ex
duobus semicannonis, qui se invicem intersecantes in eorum coniunctione conficiunt 4
puncta, ad similitudinem 4 punctorum facierum triangularium, seu scachettorum pilae et
posamentae super 4 bases coniunguntur ad bina puncta, terminando in uno solo puncto,
ut apparet in demonstratione, cuius basis est ABCD; et primus arcus est AGB: secundus
BHC: tertius CID: quartus DKA: et cruceria AEC et BED, et axis est EF, cuius voltae
quaeritur de superficie concava ipsorum duorum semicannonorum AGB, CID, et alterius
AKD, BHC, quorum cuiuslibet diameter est 8 brachiorum, et altitudo 4, qui semicannoni
simul iuncti conficiunt unum cannonum perfectum et rotundum, cuius diameter est 8
brachiorum et est longus per totidem brachia, et eius superficies concava est 20Ph, de
qua volumus extrahere superficiem4 scacchettorum AEB, BCE, CED, DEA. Et cum auxilio
praecedentis figurae, in qua habes quod eadem est proportio pyramidis rotundae ad dimidiam
eius sperarn, quae est pyrarnidis quadratae ad suum corpus circulare in base quadrata, si
sint eiusdemaltitudinis, et per XXXIIIam JI Sperae et Coni (!) Archimedis, quae est quod spera
cuius [coni] basis sit maior circulus sperae, et axis sit aequalis semidiametro sperae,
et est quadrupIa suo cono. 19itur dimidium sperae est duplum suo cono. Et nos ponimus
conum AE, BE, CE, DE, cuius basis ABCD est 8 pro qualibet latere, eius superficies
est 64, quod multiplica cum axe, qui est 4, fit 256, et dividas per 3 remanet 85lh, tanta
est pyramis AE, BE, CE, DE, quam duplica, fit 170:%; tot brachiorum est quadratum
corpus AEC. Et nos quaerimus superficiem 4 scacchettorum: ideo multiplica 170:% per 3,
fit 512, quod divide per axem EF, qui est 4, remanet 128, quod detrahe de superficie
cannoni, quae 20Ph, remanet 73
1
h. Tanta erit superficies concava voltae per modum crucis
factae, quae est pro qualibet facie 8 brachiorum." In the citation to Archimedes, where
Mancini has cuius basis and I have written "cuius [coni] basis" the manuscript has "cuius
cuius basa."
which result is the [volume of the] pyramid AE,BE,CE,DE, which you double to
produce 1702A. This is the total [volume] in brachia of the squared body AEC [i.e.,
of the common segment of the half-cylinders].
Having determined the volume of the common segment of the half-
cylinders, Piero then applies the following formula (without demon-
strating it) to determine the surface of that common segment: A = 3Vir,
where A is the surface, V the volume and r the radius (or height, as he
calls it) of the half-cylinders:
And we seek the surface of the four triangular faces (scachetti) [of the common
segment of the half-cylinders]. Therefore, multiply 1702!3 by 3 and the result is 512,
which you divide by the axis EF, which is 4, and 128 remains. This you subtract
from the surface ofthe cylinder [since the surface of the two half-cylinders equals
the surface of one whole cylinder], which surface is 201
1
17, and the result is
73V7. So much will be the concave surface of the cross vault which is 8 brachia
[wide] on each face.
The calculation is correct. But where did he get the formula for the
area of the common segment? He may have acquired it from discussions
with architects or mathematicians in the same way that he acquired the
formula for the volume. Or, since I know of no other medieval or Renais-
sance work before Piero to have this formula, he may have derived it
analogically, without demonstration, from the relationship between the
volume of a sphere and its surface area, since precisely the same rela-
tionship holds there. If so, then he would have "discovered" the rela-
tionship for himself. But how he would have justified this use of his
analogy I do not know.
Once more we should remember that these propositions on the common
segment of two cylinders became historically important only with the
publication of the Italian version of the work by Pacioli in 1509. Thus
it was Pacioli's account that stood at the head of a long history of the
treatment of these problems on the volume and the surface of the common
segment of two perpendicularly intersecting cylinders. But this later treat-
ment lies far outside of the chronological limit of my investigation. 69
One final remark concerning Piero is in order. Although we have estab-
lished a modest knowledge of Archimedes' works on the part of Piero
in the De quinque corporibus regularibus, there is little evidence that
Piero's acquaintance with the Archimedean texts played any decisive role
in Piero's well-known use of geometry in his painting. The latter is
easily accounted for by his knowledge of Euclidian geometry, which he
certainly acquired long before reading the Urbino manuscript of Archi-
medes.
69 For brief allusions to the history of these problems after Piero's account, see G. Vacca,
"Piero della Francesca nella storia dell' algebra, ed i suoi tentativi di dimonstrazione di
due teoremi di Archimede," Rendiconto dell'Accademia delle Scienze Fisiche e Mate-
matiche (Ciasse della Societa Reaie di Napoii) , Ser. 3, VoI. 26 (1920), pp. 235-36. Cf.
in the same volume, F. Amodeo, "Le ricerche di un matematico napoletano deI settecento
su alcuni teoremi di Archimede e sulle loro estensioni," pp. 170-77.
IV. Luca Pacioli
In the preceding section, I had the occasion to mention Piero della Fran-
cesca's fellow townsman from Borgo Sansepolcro, the well-known mathe-
matician Luca Pacioli. Pacioli' s career presents a striking contrast to that
of Piero. One might have suspected that, since Piero was primarily a
painter and Luca exclusively a mathematician, the contributions of the
latter to the study of Archimedes would have been more original. Such
was not the case. Pacioli's role in Archimedean studies was almost entirely
that of a disseminator. In this role, (1) he presented in an early unpublished
Trattato the general formulas for the measurement of the circle and the
sphere that were part of the medieval Archimedean tradition; (2) he trans-
mitted the Archimedean geometry of Leonardo Fibonacci' s Practica
geometrie, composed in 1220 or 1221, by including large sections of that
work in Italian translation or paraphrase in his Summa of 1494; (3) he
published as an annex to his Divina proportione an Italian version of
Piero della Francesca's De quinque corporibus regularibus, which I have
studied in the preceding section. There is only one or possibly two cases
which suggest that Pacioli may have examined the Archimedean corpus
itself, as we shall see below.
Before elaborating these judgments, I can point briefly to the highlights
of Pacioli's career.
1
He was born at Borgo Sansepolcro in about 1445.
2
While an early relationship with Piero della Francesca has often been
suggested, there is no evidence to link his early mathematical studies
with the celebrated painter. Pacioli went to Venice at an early age (prob-
ably around the year 1464), where he lived with the Venetian merchant
Antonio de' Rompiasi and studied mathematics with Domenico Bragadino,
who occupied a public professorship as a successor to Paolo da Pergola.
3
In 1470, Pacioli wrote a mathematical work (now lost) which he dedicated
to his fellow students, the sons of Antonio de' Rompiasi.
4
In the course
1 The best treatments of the biographical data concerning Pacioli are still those by B.
Boncompagni, "Intorno alle vite inedite di tre matematici (Giovanni Danck di Sassonia,
Giovanni de Lineriis e Fra Luca Pacioli da Borgo San Sepolcro) scritte da Bernardino
Baldi," Bullettino di bibliograjia e di storia delle scienze matematiche e jisiche, Vol. 12
(1879), pp. 352-438 (pp. 377-438 concern Pacioli); H. Staigmiiller, "Lucas Paciuolo. Eine
biographische Skizze," Zeitschrift jUr Mathematik und Physik, Vol. 34 (1889), hist.-lit.
Abth., pp. 81-102, 121-28; and G. Mancini, L'Opera 'De corporibus regularibus' di Pietro
Franceschi detto deLla Franeesea usurpata da Fra Luca Pacioli (Rome, 1916), published in
the Memorie deLla R. Aeeademia dei Lineei: Classe di Scienze morali, storiehe e filologiehe
(Anno CCCXII 1915), SeT. 5, Vol. XIV, Fasc. VII
B
(pp. 454-76 for the section on Pacioli).
A good deal of the factual information concerning Pacioli's activities is supplied by Pacioli
himself in his various works, as will be evident.
2 Staigmiiller, "Lucas Paciuolo," p. 84; Mancini, L'Opera, p. 454, n. 1.
3 L. Pacioli, Summa de arithmetiea (Venice, 1494), I, 67v. Cf. Staigmiiller, "Lucas
Paciuolo," pp. 85-86; Mancini, L'Opera, p. 454; and G. Stabile, "Bragadin, Domenico,"
Dizionario biografieo degli italiani, Vo!. 9 (Rome, 1971), pp. 668-69.
4 Pacioli, Summa, I 67v; Staigmiiller, "Lucas Paciuolo," pp. 86-87; Boncompagni, "10-
torno alle vite," pp. 379-80.
416
LUCA PACIOLI AND ARCHIMEDES 417
of 1470-71, Pacioli visited Rome and stayed with Leon Battista Alberti.
5
Sometime between 1470 and 1476, Luca entered the Franciscan order
and then appeared as a lecturer in mathematics at Perugia from 1477 to
1480.
6
At Perugia he composed an extensive work, primarily on arithmetic
and algebra, which he dedicated to his students and which is now extant
in the Vatican Library (MS Vat. lat. 3129), a work that was completed
on 29 April, 1478, and begun on the vigil of S. Lucia (December 12).7
Sometime later he visited Zara where in 1481 he wrote another mathe-
matical work which is now lost.
8
After visiting Florence and sojourning
again at Perugia (where he was again teaching mathematics in 1487-88),
he taught mathematics at Rome in 1489, during which time he made
models of regular polyhedra and bodies derived from them.
9
There is also
5 Staigrniiller, "Lucas Paciuolo," p. 87; Pacioli, Divina proportione (Venice, 1509), 35r
(numbered 29); Boncompagni, "Intomo alle vite," p. 405.
6 Staigrniiller, "Lucas Paciuolo," pp. 87-88; Boncompagni, "Intomo alle vite," pp.
383-86, 432-36.
7 In the preface of this work (MS Vat. lat. 3129, 2r) Pacioli indicates the date: "In perosa
adi. 29 aprile 1478 in vigilia ascensionis fuit finis impositus; incepi tamen in vigilia sancte
lucie virginis." He does not actually specify that it was the preceding "Vigil of S. Lucia"
on which he began the work, but this is usually assumed, and so the date is given as
Dec. 12, 1477. This preface has been printed by Boncompagni, "Intomo alle vite,"
pp. 428-30.
8 It is not known when he arrived at Zara. However we do know that Pacioli was
still in Perugia in December of 1480 because of a receipt entered on MS Vat. lat. 3129,
396v, acknowledging that he has retumed a copy of Euclid to the convent library at Perugia:
"1480. adi. 11 dicembre. In peroscia. Recepi ego frater franc[isc]us antonii ad presens
guardianus conventus perusii et alter ex armaristis dicti conventus librum euclidis a fratre
lucha de burgo sancti sepulchri quem per antea sibi comprestavimus pro ut manu sua propria
apparet in libro cedularum dicti armarii et in fidem premissorum hanc propria manu
scripsi. Ego frater franc[isc]us de perusio qui (? q) supra scripsi." He mentions the book he
wrote in Zara in 1481 in the Summa, I, 67v.
9 Boncompagni, "Intorno alle vite," pp. 386-87. The first document indicating his invita-
tion to return to Perugia is dated 15 December, 1486, but presumably he did not start teaching
until 1487. He tells us about his preparation in Rome of the models of regular bodies and
bodies dependent on them in the Summa, n, 68v: "Questi son quelli Magnanimo Duca di
quali le forme materiali (con assai adornezze) nelle proprie mani di V.D.S. [presentai]
nel sublime palazzo Del Reverendissimo cardinale nostro protectore Monsegnor de san piero
invincula: quando quella venne ala visitatione Del summo pontiflce Innocentio octavo:
neglianni de la salute nostra 1489. Del mese de aprile che gia sonno 5 anni elapsi. E insiemi
con quelli vi foron molti altri da ditti regulari dependenti. Quali fabricai per 10 Reverendo
monsegnor meser Pietro de valetarii de Genoa dignissimo vescovo de carpentras: al cui
obsequio alora foi deputato in casa de la felicissima memoria del Reverendissimo
Cardinale de Fois nel palazzo ursino in campo de flore." This seems to say he made two
sets of models, one of regular solids for Guidobaldo, Duke of Urbino (to whom the Summa
is dedicated), the other of regular bodies and bodies dependent on them for Pietro de
Valetarii, Bishop of Carpetras. Afew folios later (74v) he notes' 'nel 1489 nella cita di roma
dove publice legiavamo" (see below, note 42 for the whole passage), indicating that he was
teaching publicly in Rome in 1489. Mancini, L'Opera, p. 464, n. 2, believes Pacioli erred
in dating the incident with Guidobaldo, believing it to have been in 1490. Incidentally,
Boncompagni, "Intomo alle vite," p. 411 cites a document showing that on 30 August, 1504,
Pacioli was paid for some "corpi geometrici cioe di geometria" he had given the Signoria of
some evidence of a short teaching stint at Naples at about this time, and
of visits to Padua, Assisi, and Urbino.
10
Perhaps it was at Urbino that
he did some work on his Summa de arithmetica. From various references
in the Summa we ought to conclude that he had been compiling this large
work for some years.
11
At any rate, he returned to Venice, where he pub-
lished the Summa in 1494. Two years later he was given a post teaching
mathematics at Milan in the court of Ludovico il Moro, the Duke of
Milan. 12 He participated in the activity of this brilliant court and established
a close friendship with Leonardo da Vinci, who, Pacioli repeatedly tells
us, drew the various figures of regular and semiregular polyhedra for the
Divina proportione, which Pacioli completed in 1498 and dedicated to
Ludovico.
13
(He was able to publish this work only in 1509, adding at that
Florence. A passage in the section on architecture added to the Divina proportione is
sometimes taken to refer to three sets of models of regular bodies but is probably only a
reference to three sets of drawings that accompanied three different manuscripts of the
Divina proportione. This passage reads (ed., 1509, 28v): "Ele forme de dicti corpi materiali
bellissime con tutta ligiadria quivi in Milano demie proprie mani disposi colorite e adome e
forono numero 60 fra regulari e lor dependenti. El simile altre tanti ne disposi per 10 mio
patron S. Galeazzo Sanseverino in quelluogo. E poi altre tante in firenze ala exempla del
nostro S. Confalonieri perpetuo P. Soderino quali al presente in suo palazo seritrovano."'
It should be noted that the Divina proportione was in fact accompanied by 60 drawings (one
was to be canceled, leaving 59 in the 1509 edition). Furthermore, he often refers in the tract
to the figures by such phrases asfigura materiale or forma materiaLe. On the basis of this
passage, Stanley Morison in his Fra Luca de PacioLi ofBorgo S. SepoLcro (New York, 1933),
p. 10, suggests that the actual drawings accompanying the Milanese manuscript of the
Divina proportione and the woodcuts of the 1509 edition of it were prepared by Pacioli
himself and not by Leonardo, in spite of Pacioli's many references to Leonardo's role in
preparing the drawings. Morison concludes "Evidently the friar means that he worked out
Leonardo's ideas." I suspect however that Pacioli merely colored and arranged Leonardo's
drawings or perhaps closely copied them. At any rate, even if the exact role of Leonardo
in making the actual drawings is not clear, I shall continue to call them Leonardo's
drawings (see note 13 below).
10 Boncompagni, "Intomo alle vite," pp. 405-07. Staigmiiller, "Lucas Paciuolo," p. 90,
mentions the possibility that the time of his teaching at Naples may have been as early as
1472-75. Baldi (Boncompagni, p. 425) tells us "Erafrate Luca spesse volte in Urbino...."
11 Mancini, L'Opera, p. 461, n. 2; Staigmiiller, "Lucas Paciuolo," p. 90.
12 Staigmiiller, "Lucas Paciuolo," p. 92. Boncompagni, "Intomo alle vite," p. 407, in-
dicates that Pacioli received an ecclesiastical benefice on 28 October, 1496. In the section on
architecture pUblished along with his Divina proportione (Venice, 1509), 28v, Pacioli
refers to Leonardo da Vinci and their stipends from Ludovico il Moro and the duration of
their stay in Milan (1496-99): "Comme a pien in le dispositioni de tutti li corpi regulari
dependenti di sopra in questo vedete quali sonnon stati facti dal degnissimo pictore,
prospectivo, architecto, musico, e [corr. ex E] de tutti virtu doctato, Lionardo davinci
fiorentino nella cita de Milano quando ali stipendii dello Excellentissimo Duca di quello
Ludovico Maria Sforza Anglo ciretrovavamo neUi anni de nostra Salute 1496 fin al [14]99,
donde poi da siemi per diversi sucessi in queUe parti ci partemmo e a firenze pur insiemi."
(Punctuation altered.)
13 The reference in the preceding note and various other references byPacioli to Leonardo's
role in making the drawings for the Divina proportione are collected by Mancini, L'Opera,
p. 459. Cf. Boncompagni, "Intomo alle vite," pp. 402-04. (Cf. my remarks in note 9 above.)
Some of these drawings are found in Codice Atlantico, 263r and 31Or. The 1498 date is
mentioned in the dedication of the Divina proportione to Ludovico (ed. cit., lr; cf. the
time a short tract on architecture and the already mentioned Italian ver-
sion of Piero della Francesca's De quinque corporibus regularibus which
Pacioli published under the title Libellus in tres partiales tractatus divisus
quinque corporum regularium.
14
) Also between 1496 and 1508 Pacioli com-
posed another mathematical work De viribus quantitatis, which exists in
manuscript only (MS Bologna, Bibl. Univ. 250).15 In the proemium of this
work he tells us that he composed an Italian translation of the Elements
of Euclid, as well as a work De ludis. 16 Both works are lost, although
edition from MS Bibl. Ambros. & 170 Sup.: De divina proportione, Milan, 1956, p. 3).
Actually the 1498 date refers to the time when the dedication was written. In the 1509
edition (23r) it is asserted in the colophon that the text was completed 15 December, 1497
(this date is missing from the text based on the Ambrosian manuscript).
14 The full title in the 1509 edition is Divina proportione Opera a tutti glingegni perspicaci
e curiosi necessaria Ove ciascun studioso di Philosophia: Prospectiva Pictura Sculptura:
Architectura: Musica: e altre Mathematiche: suavissima: sottile: e admirabile doctrina
consequira: e delectarassi: con varie questione de secretissima scientia. M. Antonio Capella
eruditiss. recensente: A. Paganius Paganinus Characteribus elegantissimis accuratissime
imprimebat. (I have retained the inconsistent punctuation of the title.) After the title page
and dedication to Petrus Soderinus and before the beginning of the treatise is a list (in
Latin, Greek, and transliterated Greek) of the names of the solids which are considered in
the Divina proportione and for which Leonardo provided drawings in perspective (the
drawings appear at the end of the volume with a separate pagination in Roman numerals).
After a table of contents, the Divina proportione occupies folios lr-23r. Its colophon ends:
"Ex Venetiis kal. Maii M.D. VIllI." Then a section on architecture begins on folio 23r and
ends on 33v (misnumbered 35) with the colophon: "Venetiis Impressum per probum virum
Paganinum de paganinis de Briscia. . . . M.D.IX. klen. Iunii. . . ." Then follows the
Libellus ... quinque corporum regularium with its own pagination, ff. 1-27. Mter the
Libellus there is one drawing of the proportions of the human head; then there are 23 folios
on the formation of the letters of the alphabet, 3 folios on architectural figures, 59 pages
with 59 drawings of regular solids and other figures (the drawings of Leonardo), and finally
a single page entitled Arbor proportio et proportionalitas, also found in Leonardo da Vinci's
Codex Madrid 11, 78r. (In different copies of the text these various drawings are sometimes
bound in different order.) The text of the Divina proportione without the Libellus (and with-
out Leonardo's beautiful drawings of the figures involved in the Divina proportione) was
published by C. Winterberg: Fra Luca Pacioli, Divina Proportione. Die Lehre vom goldenen
Schnitt (first published in Quellenschriften fUr Kunstgeschichte und Kunsttechnik des
Mittelalters und der Neuzeit, Neue Folge, Vol. 2 [1889], and then separately in Vienna,
18%). I have already mentioned the edition from the Ambrosian manuscript, Milan, 1956,
which does not include either the section on architecture or the Libellus . It includes beautiful
color reproductions of Leonardo's drawings, as present in the Ambrosian manuscript.
Incidentally, this last edition uses the title De divina proportione. The "De" is not in the
title of the 1509 edition. In the opening paragraph preceding the table of contents in both
the Ambrosian manuscript and the 1509 edition the title is given as compendio detto de la
divina proportione, while the initial lines of the dedication to Ludovico il Moro, in Latin,
read as follows: "Excellentissimo principi Ludovico mariae Sfor. Anglo Mediolanensium
duci: pads et belli omamento fratris Lucae pacioli ex Burgo sancti Sepulchri ordinis
Minorum: Sacrae theologiae professoris. De divina proportione epistola." (I have retained
the punctuation and capitalization of the 1509 edition, lr.)
15 The preface to the De viribus quantitatis has 1?een published by Boncompagni,
"Intomo alle vite," pp. 430-31.
16 Ibid., p. 430 (MS Bologna, Bibl. Univ. 250, 18r): "Ma ormai a proximandosi de mia
vita lultimi giomi acio le durate fatighe et assidue vigilie non dovesino al tutto anichilarsi
coma e ditto ali no mediocri affani posta gia la extrema mano con la egregia per noi
he did publish in Venice in 1509 a corrected version of the Latin text of
the Elements prepared by Campanus of NovaraY Earlier, after leaving
Milan in 1496 with the fall of Ludovico from power, and after a brief trip
to Borgo Sansepolcro, he taught mathematics in Florence and Pisa from
1500 to 1505 (but he was also on the roll of professors at Bologna in
1501-02).18 Somewhat later he returned to Venice, where on 11 August,
1508, he gave the introductory lecture for a course on Book V of the
Elements. 19 I have already mentioned that he was in Venice in 1509 when
he published his expanded version of the Divina proportione and
Campanus' text of the Elements . In 1510 Pacioli was again teaching mathe-
similmente traductione de latino in vulgare de verbo ad verbum del maximo Monarcha dele
Mathematici discipline megarense. Euclide insiemi col iocondo et alegro tractato de ludis
in genere cum illicitorum reprobatione spetialmente di quello de schachi in tutti modi detto
schifa noia. . . ." Cr. note 17.
17 Euclidis megarensis philosophi aeutissimi mathematieorumque omnium sine eon-
troversia principis opera a Campano interprete fidissimo tralata ete. (Venice, 1509). The
printer was A. Paganius Paganinus. In the dedication (2v) Pacioli again refers to his rendering
of Euclid into the vernacular language: 'Leges qua soles frontis serenitate vernacula
lingua per me donatum Euclidem: ut quod opus ad utilitatem nostrum omnium conscriptum
est maximasque humano generi utilitates parit." I suspect that it is this Italian translation
of Pacioli of which Leonardo da Vinci had a copy (see his list of books in Codex Madrid
II, 3r: "Euclide vulgare c[i]oe e primi libri 3"). If so, then Leonardo either had an incomplete
copy or Pacioli only translated "the first 3 books." One wonders whether Tartaglia acquired
a copy of this Italian translation of Euclid before making his own, which is sometimes
described as the first translation of the Elements into Italian. (Another translation of the
Elements into Italian was made by Costanzo Bolognese at about the same time that
Tartaglia was completing his, i.e. 1539-41. See A. Masotti, "Matematica e matematici
nella storia di Milano etc," extract from Rendieonti del seminario matematieo e fisieo di
Milano, Vol. XXXIII [Pavia, 1963]). Incidentally in one copy ofPacioli's Latin Euclid in the
British Museum (715.k.5) on folio 2v a later 16c or 17c hand has written out in Greek the three
propositions of Archimedes On the Measurement of the Circle. Concerning the second
proposition the unknown annotator says: "Haec secunda propositio videtur esse vitiosa:
quia in earn nihil scripsit Eutocius. Archimedes videtur ostendere voluisse differentiam inter
circuli et quadrati spatium. Ea autem est O ~ Posita enim diametro 7 partium, circulus
habet aream 3 8 ~ et quadratum diametri est 49. Videtur igitur hoc significare proposito, sic
se habere spatium circuli et quadrati circa ilIum adscripti, quoadmodum se habent undecim
ad quatuordecimfere." Concerning the third proposition, the annotator says: "Hoc posterius
probat Archimedes per duas figuras 96 angulorum, quarum circumscripta minor est quam
3
1
%0 id est quam triplum diametri cum una septima: inscripta vero maior est quam
3
1
0/71. Propterea sic inquit Archimedes . . ." (followed by the Greek of the last lines ofthe
proof). The annotator on folio 3v mentions the Arabic version of the Elements attributed
(but falsely) to al-Tusi published in 1594 and hence the annotator must be dated at least
after this year. He must also have had a knowledge of Arabic since he gives the title in a
good Arabic hand and he makes references later to the content of the Arabic text (cf. 4v,
48v). Also there are considerable references to the Greek text, a reference to Pappus (55r) , to
Clavius (74v, last sheet), and to the first part ofthe quadrature oflunes attributed to Hippoc-
rates of Chios (l12v). There are a few notes in another larger hand. In this edition the
comments of Pacioli appear under the rubric "castigator."
18 Boncompagni, "Intorno alle vite," pp. 408-409.
19 Ibid., p. 411. For this speech, see the edition of Euclid cited in note 17, f. 30r.
matics at Perugia, while during that same year he was made eommisario
of the Franciscan convent at Borgo Sansepolcro.
20
He returned to Flor-
ence in 1512.
21
Last mention of him is in 1514, when he was summoned
to Rome by Leo X to teach mathematics and when he named a fellow-
citizen of Borgo Sansepolcro to represent him in a legal dispute.
22
Pre-
sumably he died about this time.
The Trattato di aritmetica e d' algebra
Our study ofPacioli's knowledge of Archimedes must begin with a brief
look at his Trattato di aritmetica e d' algebra completed in 1478. This
is a lengthy work (396 folios in MS Vat. lat. 3129) which has the same
general character as Piero della Francesca's early Trattato di aritmetica,
algebra e geometria, At least, in the geometrical section it has the same
kind of calculating problems and very much the same vocabulary. The
only part of the work of Pacioli that is relevant to my study is this sec-
tion on geometry (Part XIV of the whole tract), This part is contained
on folios 265r-312v (with a supplementary section on folios 389v-96v)
ofthe Vatican manuscript. Like Piero, Pacioli gives numerous problems in-
volving calculations of circles, all of which assume 3
1
/7 as the value of
the ratio of circumference to diameter. 23 Various expressions for the area
of a circle are given, e.g., A = lld
2
/14, A = (d 'cI4), A = (dI2)' (eI2),
A = (c'44/16)'(dlll), with 'TT assumed as 3
1
/7, No mention is made of
Archimedes and presumably these formulas were taken from one or more
of the many medieval or Renaissance treatises which we have studied
earlier.
20 Boncompagni, "Intomo alle vite," pp. 407, 413, 437.
21 Ibid., p. 414.
22 Ibid., p. 415; Mancini, L'Opera, pp. 475-76. In a roll of Pope Leo X's court initially
drawn up in 1514, Pacioli is listed as a cubicularius and the names of two domestics are
mentioned with him: "I D. Lucas de Burgo Sancti Sepulcri. Joannes Baptista de Pratto,
Placentinus dioc. Theodericus Lescuyer." See A. Ferrajoli, "n Ruolo della corte di Leone
X (1514-1516)," Archivio della R. Societa Romana di Storia Patria, VoI. 34 (1911), p. 377,
whole article pp. 363-91.
23 Vat. lat. 3129, 281v: "Uno tondo asesto la chui circumferentia e 22, dimando che fia
suo diametro. Fa chosi: parti 22, che la sua perifera (!) per 3
1
17; ne vene 22 partito per
3
1
17 ne sira 7, e tanto fia el suo diametro ibi mandato etc. Uno tondo, el cui diametro e 7,
dimando la circumferentia. Fa chosi: multiplica el diametro per 3
1
17, fa 22, e tanto fia suo
giro facta, secundum quesitum etc. Uno tondo, che gira 44, dimando la quadratura. Fa
chosi: prima trova el suo diametro procedendo ut supra, 44 per 31f7, ne vene 14. Ora multi-
plica questo in se, fa 196, e di questo pigiia li 11/14 , che sono 154, e tanto fia quadro. Vel
aliter, muItiplica el diametro via la circumferentia, cioe 14 via 44, fa 616, e questo parti per 4,
ne vene 154, e tanto fia per questo dita quadratura, quod idem est ut patet de superius.
Aliter, togli la lh del diametro, che 7, e piglia la lh de la circumferentia, che 22. Multiplica
7 via 22, fa 154, e tanto fia anchora per questo modo. Aliter, togli elll.t della circumferentia,
che 11. Multiplicalo in se, fa 121. Poi multiplica questo per 10 diametra, doe per 14, fa
1694. Or[a] partilo per 11, ne vene 154, ut prius. Omnes isti quatuor modi idem."
Skipping over the many problems involving circles with inscribed and
circumscribed polygons, we can note one interesting problem concerning
the surface of a cylinder:
24
Proceed as follows when you wish to know the surface of a cylinder. Find a
line which is the mean proportional between the height of the cylinder and the
diameter of its base. And when you have found it, use the magnitude of this
mean proportional line [as a radius] in order to draw a circle. This circle con-
tains as much surface as the whole cylinder except for the bases.
The point of interest here is that Pacioli's formulation follows the state-
ment of Proposition 1.13 of Archimedes' On the Sphere and the Cylinder
("The surface of any right cylinder excluding the bases is equal to a circle
whose radius is a mean proportional between the side [Le., a generator]
of the cylinder and the diameter of its base") rather than the more com-
mon enunciation of Proposition 11 of the De curvis superjiciebus ("The
lateral surface of any [right] cylinder is equal to the rectangle contained
by lines equal [respectively] to the axis Qf the cylinder and the circum-
ference of the base." See Volume 1, p. 461). Be that as it may, there
is no other evidence in this work of Pacioli of any direct knowledge of
the works of Archimedes. It is possible that Pacioli drew this formulation
from the Proemium of Chap. 10 of the De arte mensurandi where it
appears in the Archimedean form (see above, Part I, Chapter 6).
We can notice finally that Pacioli in the Trattato gives many problems
concerned with the measurement of spheres. In one place he states the
formula that the surface of a sphere is equal to four great circles of
the sphere, and this is falsely attributed by him to Euclid, with a proof
assigned to Book XII (of the Elements ).25 But Euclid's name is deleted in
the manuscript and Archimedes is written in the margin, without, how-
ever, any deletion of the reference to Book XII. I think that the mar-
24 Ibid., 286v: "Fa cosi sempre quando tu voli sapere la superficie di una colonna: trova
una linea media proportionale infra lalteza de dita colonna et 10 diametro de la sua (suo
in MS?) base e se tendo la quantita de quella linea media proportionale che arai trovato
formarsi un cerchio e tanta superficie contira quello cerchio quanto tuta la colonna ex-
ceptuate (exceptuato in MS?) le base."
25 Ibid., 289v: "Una palla tonda, el chui diametro e 7, dimando quanto sira quadra. Fa
chosi: togli che 1f6 de 7, che 1%, giognilo a 7, fa 8
1
/6. Poi vedi quanto gira la palla intomo.
Multiplica 7 per 3lf7, fa 22 e tanto volgi la palla. Poi multiplica questa circurnferentia via
8
1
/6, fa 179.3, e tanto e quadra la palla. Aliter, multiplica el diametro in se, fa 49, pigliane
li 11/14 , che sira 8 ~ e tanto fia la superficie del suo magiore cerchio. Ora mUltiplica questa
superficie per 4, fara 154, e tanto fia la superficie de tuta la palla, perche commo vole el
filosofo euchlide (in marg.: archimede) in 10 12 libro: Sempre la superficie della palla e
quadrupla a la superficie del magiore cerchio che sia in la palla, vuoi dir spera, ut clare ibi
probatum est. Ora per avere e1 corpo pia la!h del diametro, che 3!h, multiplicalo via 154, che
la superficie tuta, fa 539.3 (del. "%" et add. in marg. e de questo pia el ~ peroche la
conio, ne vene 179%), e tanto avia a tenere dicta palla.... Aliter, multiplica el diametro
che 7 via tuta circumferentia che 22, fa 154, e tanto e tuta la sua superficie senza stare a
togliere 1i 11/14 del cerchio etc., 0 vero cavar di 3/14 che tanto vol dire. Poi multiplica via !h el
diametro ut supra, fara 179.3.... Aliter, mu1tiplica eI diametro in se cubice: fa 7 in se,
fa 49; 7 via 49, fa 343, e di questa summa cavane li 1/21 over pigliane li 11/21 che tanto
vale, sienno 179%.... Aliter, multiplica el diametro in se, fa 49, pia el
1
/6, che 8%; multi-
plicalo via tutta la circurnferentia che 22, fa 179%, facta ut prius."
ginal correction is in the same hand as the text, and thus presumably is
in Pacioli's hand. But I have no idea when the correction was made.
At any rate, this marginal reference is the only mention of Archimedes'
name which I have found in the manuscript. The same passage includes
computations of the volume of spheres, with various formulations in-
cluded: V = lh'(d/2)'S, V = Y'(d/2)'4'(lld
2
/14), V = lh'(d/2)'c'd, V
= d
3
- (lOd
3
/2l), V = lld
3
/21, V = (d
2
/6)'c, where S is the smface of a
sphere, d its diameter and c its circumference. All of these formulas are, of
course, equivalent to V = 41Tr
3
/3, with 1T assumed to be 3lf7. Again there is
no evidence of any direct use of Archimedes on Pacioli' s part in this
section on spheres. Presumably the basic formulations were taken from
Leonardo Fibonacci's Practica or some other medieval or Renaissance
handbook, as was the case in Piero della Francesca' s early Trattato.
Pacioli's Trattato should also be compared with Chuquet's Geometrie
written about the same time and reflecting Italian sources (see Part 11,
Chap. 3, Sect. Ill, n. 30).
The Summa de arithmetica
The next of Pacioli's works to consider is his Summa de arithmetica,
geometria, proportioni et proportionalita, published in Venice in 1494.
My concern for this massive work will be with the second part, Le., the
part devoted to geometry, which has separate pagination (and hence all
of my references to this part will be to Summa, 11, followed by a folio
number in this second series of numbers). My examination of this noted
work will reveal that its meager harvest of Archimedean geometry is
drawn almost entirely from Leonardo Fibonacci's Practica; indeed most
of the time Pacioli is merely giving an Italian translation or paraphrase of
Fibonacci's text. The latter's Archimedean knowledge, we should recall,
was for the most part taken from the Verba filiorum of the Banii Miisa
supplemented by the Liber embadorum of Savasorda (see Appendix I,
Section 3 for the principal Archimedean passages from the works of
Savasorda and Leonardo Fibonacci). It will be evident that Pacioli is
employing the full Latin text of the Practica rather than the greatly re-
duced Italian version prepared by Cristofano di Gherardo di Dino some-
time after 1442,26 since most of the geometrical proofs rendered by Pacioli
were omitted by Cristofano.
It will be convenient to present my discussion of the Archimedean
content of the Summa under a series of sub-rubrics.
(1) The Practical Measurement of the Circle
Let us first examine the section of the Summa which contains calcula-
tions of the circle based upon the assumption of 1T as 3
1
17.
27
In these
26 See Leonardo Fibonacci, La Practica di geometria volgarizzata da Cristofano di
Gherardo di Dino cittadino pisano etc., 00. G. Arrighi (Pisa, 1966).
27 Summa, n, 30r: "Havendo bene indutto a nostro proposito el 3 de Euclide hora
darasse modo a lapratica demesurare li tondi e suoi parti, e operaremo tutto con numeri
siche harai atento. Quando adunque del cerchio sai il diametro e vorrai lacirconferentia
problems Pacioli follows the conventional practice of assuming a diameter
of 14 from which a circumference of 44 is calculated, or vice versa as-
suming a circumference of 44 and calculating a diameter of 14. Pacioli
also includes the two basic formulas for the area of a circle: A = (d/2) . (cl2)
(Le., the general formula based on Proposition I of On the Measurement
of the Circle) and A = lld
2
/14 (equivalent to Proposition 11 of the same
work and thus embodying the value of 'TT' as 3lf7). These are the two
forms also found in Fibonacci's Practica (see Appendix I, Sect. 3, B[I]),
as they were as well in Piero della Francesca's two geometrical works.
Needless to say, here, as in his early Trattato, Pacioli manipulates these
two forms to produce various equivalent formulations. In fact, this sec-
tion is almost a duplicate of that found in his earlier Trattato (see note 23).
(2) On the Proof of Proposition I of On the
Measurement of the Circle
Mter his few practical calculations concerning the circle, Pacioli gives
a proof of Proposition I of On the Measurement of the Circle which he
quello diametro in 3
1
h multiplica, 0 vero quello diametro per 22 multiplica e dividi in 7 e
harai quel che e ladetta circonferentia. Comme diciammo. Eglie un tondo chel diametro e
14, quanto e lacirconferentia. Multiplicarai 14 per 3
1
/7. 0 vero multiplicarai 14 per 22 e
partirai in 7 e harai 44. E 44 dirai giri il detto tondo benche (comme disotto mostraro) questo
non sia pontalmente la verita: ma e molto presso.
"E similmente per averso dicendo, eglie un tondo la cui circonferentia e 44, adimando
quanto e ildiametro. Partirai 44 per 3117. Overo 44 per 7 multiplica e per 22 dividi e
harai sempre 14. E 14 fia ildetto diametro, cioe per loaverso al modo passato facciendo.
"E volendo trovare larea dun tondo (comme dichiarero) farai. E diciamo eglie un tondo
chel suo diametro e 14, adimando quanto e quadro. Puoi multiplicare lamita del diametro
per lamita dela sua circonferencia: e quello che fanno e larea del detto circulo. Comme
mUltiplicando lamita del diametro, cioe 7, per lamita dela circonferentia, che e 22, fanno
154, e 154 e larea dil (1) ditto tondo. Ancora puoi multiplicare tutto ildiametro perla mita
dela circonferentia e partire ilprodutto in 2, e quello che neviene e larea detta: comme
nelo exempio passato multiplica 14 via 22, fanno 308, el quale in 2 partito vienne 154 per
larea del detto tondo. Overo ancora multiplicare lamita del diametro per tutta lacircon-
ferentia, e di quel pigliare lamita che a quel medesimo.
"Ancora poi multiplicare tutto ildiametro per tutta lacirconferentia e dela somma pigli-
[a]re il Comme nelo exempio dato multiplicarai 14 per 44, fanno 616. Del quale il e
154. E 154 e quadro etc. Ancora puoi multiplicare ildiametro in se medesimo e di quel pigliare
gli 11/14 E quello fia larea del detto tondo, comme in detto exempio multiplicarai 14 in se,
fanno 196, del qual gli 11/14 , sonno 154 per larea del detto tondo. Ancora prendi el dela
circonferentia, che 11, mUltiplica in se, fa 121, qual multiplica per lodiametro, che e 14, fa
1694, qual parti per 11, neven[e] 154 per tutta larea del tondo che volgesse 44 etc. Ancora
puoi multiplicare lacirconferentia per se e lasomma partire in 12
4
17 e quello ne viene sira larea
del detto tondo, cioe mUltiplicare lacirconferentia per se epoi per 7 e dividere in 88, comme
in detto exemplo multiplicarai 44 in se, fanno 1936, e questo per 7, fanno 13552, e questo
88 dividi, cioe in 8 ell, e harai 154 per larea del detto tondo." (I have altered the punctua-
tion somewhat, eliminated the periods which surround numbers [Le. changed ".2." to "2"],
made lower-case letters of a few capitals in order to keep sentences intact, and I have left
the joining of words as they appear in the edition in all but a few cases [e.g. I have retained
"Iamita" instead of writing "la mita" and "Iarea" instead of "l'area"]. These practices
are followed in all my notes from the Summa. Incidentally, in this edition there is great
inconsistency in the spelling of words and repeated shifting from Italian to Latin forms and
back again.)
draws directly from Fibonacci's Practica (see Appendix I, Sect. 3, B[2]).
I shall give the complete text with a translation in order that we may
be able to compare Pacioli's account with its source:
28
All of the said methods derive from the first method, i.e., of multiplying half
the diameter by half the circumference. And therefore the noble geometer Archi-
medes said that the circle is equal to a right triangle with a base equal to the
whole circumference and an altitude equal to half the diameter. The area of
such a triangle is found by multiplying the altitude by half the base, i.e., by mul-
tiplying half the diameter by half the circumference. Hence, I wish to demon-
strate that the multiplication of half the diameter by half the circumference pro-
duces the area of the circle. Let there be a circle abgd whose center is e [see
Fig. 111.2.4.1]. And in it I shall describe any kind of rectilinear figure I wish.
Let it be a quadrilateral [i.e., a square] abgd, which from the center e I shall
resolve into four triangles, i.e., by drawing lines from the center to each angle.
And let these [triangles] be eab, ebg, egd and eda. Each of these triangles is
28 [bid., 30v: "Tutti 1i detti modi escano del prima modo cioe di multiplicare lamita del
diametro per lamita dela circonferentia. E pero disse el nobit geometra Archimede, El
cerchio e iguale a uno triangolo ortogonio: fatto per la basa di tutta la circonferentia e per
10 catetto dela mita del diametro, larea del quale fa multiplicare el catetto in mezza labasa:
cioe di multiplicare mezzo il diametro in mezza lacirconferentia.
"E donde questo procieda che a mUltiplicare lamita del diametro per lamita dela circonfer-
entia facia larea del tondo: lovoglio dimostrare. Sia il cerchio abgd. Del quale ilcentro sia e.
E in quel descrivero una figura rettilinea qual vorro. E sia uno quadrilatero abgd. El qual
dal centro e risolvero in 4 triangoli: doe dal centro a ciascuno angolo tirando lelinee. E
sienno eab e ebg, egd, eda. E nominase triangolo equic[r]urio ciascuno diquelli, impero
che lelinee ea, eb, eg, ed infra loro sono iguali per ladiffinitione del cerchio. E menando
a ciascuno dal centro e una perpendiculare cadra ciascuna insu lamita dela basa del suo
triangolo. Dnde porremo sopra ala mita di dette base liponti z, i, t, k. Per li quali produrro
dal centro e ala circonferentia le rette el, em, en, eo. E faciase al, lb, bm, mg, gn, nd, do,
oa e fienno 4 triangoli sopra le base ab, bg, gd, da fatti. E perche laretta ez e catetto
sopra laretta ab se multiplicaremo ez nela mita del ab, ne perverra larea del triangolo eab.
Similmente perche lz e catetto del triangolo lab, a multiplicare zl nela mita del ab ne
perviene larea del triangolo lab. Dnde multiplicando tutta el, cioe mezzo el diametro del
circulo, nela mita del ab ne perverra larea del quadrilatero ealb. Per 10 simil modo multi-
plicando em, cioe el, nela mita dela linea bg neperverra larea del quadrilatero ebmg. E per
10 detto modo se multiplicaremo en nela mita del gd e eo nela mita del da ne perverra
larea diquadrilateri egnd e edoa, cioe se multiplicaremo el, cioe el mezzo diametro del
circulo nela mita delati de quadrilateri abgd ne perviene larea dela figura di molti lati
cadente nel cerchio. Ma larea dela detta figura multilatera che e albmgndo e minore de
larea del circulo. Adonca dela multiplicatione dela mita del diametro del cerchio nela mita
dele rette ab, bg, gd, da ne perviene meno che larea del cerchio. Ma lamita dele linee
ab, gd, da e gb e meno dela mita dela circonferentia del cerchio abgd. Adunque a multi-
plicare lamita del cerchio, cioe lamita dela circonferentia, nela mita del diametro fara larea
del cerchio, impero che habiamo mostro che a multiplicare lamita del diametro nela mita
della detta figura che e menD che lacirconferentia del cerchio: fa menD che larea del detto
circulo. E hora resta amostrare che a multiplicare lamita del diametro nel piu che
lamita dela circonferentia fa piu che larea del detto circulo. Rquesto per prova e che a multi-
plicare ik che mita del diametro in mita del ab e be e cd e de e ef e fg e gh e ha fa
larea dela figura dotto angoli predetta. E pero a multiplicare lamita del diametro per lamita
de1a circonferentia del detto fara piu che larea del detto circulo, comme appare nela presente
figura. E pero adonca a multiplicare lamita del diametro per lamita dela circonferentia fara
larea del detto circulo. E questo volavamo intendere." (I have italicized the letters of geo-
metrical magnitudes. For example I have altered ".ez." to "ez".)
called isosceles in as much as the lines ea, eb, eg and ed are mutually equal
by the definition of a circle. And if to each of these lines a perpendicular is
drawn from the center e, it will fall on the midpoint of the base of each triangle.
Hence, let us make the midpoints of the said bases be z, i, t. k. Through these
points 1shall produce, from center e to the circumference, straight lines el, em, en,
eo. Connect al, lb, bm, mg, gn, nd, do, oa, and there will be produced four
triangles on the bases ab, bg, gd, da. And because the straight line ez is the
altitude on straight line ab, if we multiply ez by half of ab, the area of triangle
eab will result. Similarly, because lz is the altitude of triangle lab, multiplying
zl by half of ab produces the area of triangle lab. Hence on multiplying the
whole of el, i.e. half of the diameter of the circle, by half of ab, the area of the
quadrilateral ealb will result. By the same method, on multiplying em, or el, by
half of line bg, the area of the quadrilateral ebmg will result. And by the said
method, if we multiply en by half of gd and eo by half of da, the areas of the
quadrilaterals egnd and edoa will arise, i.e., if we multiply el, namely half the
diameter of the circle, by half of the sides of the quadrilateral abgd, from this
results the area of the polygon inscribed in the circle. But the area of the said
polygonal figure, which is albmgndo, is less than the area of the circle. Hence,
from the multiplication of half the diameter of the circle by half of [the sum of]
the straight lines ab, bg, gd, da arises [an area] less than the area of the circle.
But half of [the sum of] the lines ab, -gd, da, gb is less than half the circum-
ference of circle abgd. Therefore [we have completed the first half of the proof of
the proposition holding that] the multiplication of half the circle, i.e., half the cir-
cumference of the circle, by half the diameter will produce the area of
the circle, in as much as we have demonstrated that multiplying half of the diam-
eter by half [of the perimeter of] the said figure, which latter is less than the
circumference of the circle, produces [an area] less than the area of the said circle.
And now it remains to demonstrate [the second half of the proof, namely] that
multiplying half the diameter by more than half the circumference produces [an
area] greater than the area of the said circle. And this [is done] by proving that
multiplying ik, which is half the diameter, by half of [the sum of] ab, bc, cd, de,
ef, fg, gh, ha produces the area of the aforesaid octagon. And, therefore, mul-
tiplying half the diameter by half the circumference [I perimeter] of the said
[octagon] produces [an area] greater than the area of the said circle, as is apparent
in the present figure [Fig. 111.2.4.2]. And therefore [since the product of half the
diameter and half of any perimeter which is less than the circumference is less
than the area of the circle and the product of half the diameter and half of any
perimeter which is greater than the circumference of the circle is greater than the
area of the circle ,] the multiplication of half the diameter by half the circumference
will produce the area of the circle. And this is what we wished to prove.
As can be readily seen from comparing this account with the Latin text
of Fibonacci's Practica already referred to, Pacioli is quite careless in his
reproduction of Fibonacci's proof. Furthermore, Fibonacci's proof itself,
while suggested by Archimedes' proof in Proposition I of On the Meas-
urement a/the Circle, is very much inferior to it. Gone is the Archimedean
reductio proof embodying the method of exhaustion and resting on Propo-
sition X.I of the Elements, to be replaced by an intuitive procedure. First
we are shown that i Pi'r is the area of any inscribed regular polygon
where Pi is the perimeter of a polygon with half as many sides and r
is the radius of the circle in which the polygon is inscribed. Since Pl is
always less than the circumference c, then! PI'r is always less than
! C or. But! PI'r as the area of an inscribed polygon is also always less
than the area of the circle. Further, ! P2"r is the area of any circum-
scribed regular polygon, where P2 is its perimeter and r the radius of the
circle about which the polygon is circumscribed. Since P2 is always greater
than c, then ! P2' r is always greater than! C r. But ! P2' r as the area
of a circumscribed polygon is also always greater than the area of the
circle about which it is circumscribed. From these considerations the
proof concludes that the area of the circle is equal to ! c r. As given,
this is very loose indeed. What seems to be implied but not stated is some-
thing like the following. The area of the circle is the limit toward which
both inscribed and circumscribed regular polygons converge as we double
the number of sides of these polygons. Hence the measures of these
polygons, namely! PI'r and! P2'r, also converge toward the area of
the circle. But since PI and P2 converge toward c, the measures of the
polygons, ipI'r and ip2'r, converge toward !cr. Hence, since these
measures converge toward both the area of the circle and i C r as limits,
the limits must be the same and so the area of the circle must be equal
to ! c r.
It will be noticed that after the first half of the proof concerning the in-
scribed polygon, Pacioli suddenly puts in the conclusion to the whole
proof. I have suggested in brackets the phrase "we have completed
the first half of the proposition holding that" in order to save Pacioli
from complete absurdity. I have also added a long bracketed phrase at
the end of the proof to indicate the drift of the proof. Without some
such statement the "proof" is no proof at all. All in all, Pacioli's ren-
dition of this proof is certainly poor. One final point is worth noticing.
Pacioli attributes the basic proposition, A = i c "r, to Archimedes (al-
though not specifically the proof of it, which he drew from Fibonacci,
as I have said), while Fibonacci does not so attribute it. But, of course,
by the time of Pacioli so many versions of Proposition I of On the Meas-
urement of the Circle were available, that he could have picked up this
information in any number of places. I shall have some comments below
on which tradition of On the Measurement of the Circle he may have
known. One must assume that the attribution to Archimedes was missing
in Fibonacci's text because it was missing in the Verba filiorum, which
was Fibonacci's principal source.
Following this proof, Pacioli notes that from the product of the whole
diameter and half the circumference and the division of that product by
two arises the area of the circle.
29
Hence, if we multiply the whole diam-
29 Ibid., 30v-31r: "Avendo dicbiarato elprimo modo diquadrare licirculi, avendo detto
che a multiplicare tutto ildiametro per lamita dela circonferentia: e quello che fanno partendo
in 2 haremo larea. E questo viene cbe a multiplicare lamita de diametro per lamita dela
circonferentia fanno larea del circulo. Onde a multiplicare tutto ildiametro per mezzo lacir-
conferentia fara 2 cotanti comme tutto eldiametro e a mezzo ildiametro 2 cotanti. E cosi
ancora a multiplicare tutta lacirconferentia per mezzo il diametro fara 2 cotanti delarea per
la ragione predetta.
"E dicemmo che a multiplicare tutto il diametro per tutta lacirconferentia fanno 4 cotanti
eter by half the circumference an area twice that of the circle is pro-
duced, and if we multiply the whole diameter by the whole circumference
an area four times that of the circle results. Further, A = d
2
11/14 , which
he easily proves assuming 3lf7 as the ratio of circumference to diameter.
He also proves that A = (c
2
/12
4
17), following the same basic assumption
about 1T. This brings him to the determination of 1T itself, which is the
object of the next section.
(3) On the Calculation of 1T
Once more I should like to begin with the presentation of the whole
passage given by Pacioli in order that it may be compared with its source,
Fibonacci's Practica (see Appendix I, Sect. 3, B[3]):30 .
delarea del cerchio. E questo chiaro appare per la ragione passata, impero che a multiplicare
tutto il diametro per lamezza circonferentia fara due cotanti dela detta area, e a multiplicare
tutta la circonferentia per mezzo ildiameriro (! ildiametro) fa ancora 2 cotanti detta area.
Dnde a multiplicare tutto it diametro per tutta lacirconferentia fa 4 cotanti di detta area.
E questo sideve dichiarare.
"Ancora dicemmo che a multiplicare il diametro perse e pigliarne 11/14 haremo larea del
circulo laqual cosa voglio mostrare. Noi habiamo detto che a multiplicare il diametro per
3
1
17 sa (! fa) queUo che gira lacirconferentia. Adonca a multiplicare ildiametro in se e poi in
3
1
17 et queUo che fanno [a multipli]care ildiametro per lacirconferentia: e ancora tanto e
amultiplieare ildiametro per la circonferentia e partire in quanto a multiplicare ildiametro
per se, e quello che fanno per 10 quarto di 3
1
17. E acio che chiaro appaia (! appara). Sienno
2 numeri de quali il magiore eontenga el minore 8 volte; Dieo che tanto e multiplieare
ilminore per 10 magiore e partire in 4 quanto a multiplicare ildiametro, eioe il minore, in
se e poi per loquarto del 8, cioe per 2. E eosi e quanto a multiplicare ildiametro in se e
poi per loquarto di 3
1
17, che e ll1t4. e questo volemmo mostrare.
"Quel modo che e demultiplicare lacirconferentia in se et partire in 12
4
/ 7 E quello che
vien e larea del circulo: per 10 passato chiaro appare, impero che se sonno 2 numeri e
uno sia 8 tanti delaltro: ehe tanto e a multiplicare el magiore per 10 minore e pigliare
ilquarto quanto a multiplicare ilmagiore in se e partido per quattro cotanti del 8, eioe in
32. Cosi a multiplicare lacirconferentia in se e partida per 4 cotanti di quel che
lacirconferentia contiene il diametro, che e 12
4
17, e quanto a multiplicare ildiametro per la
circonferentia e partire in 4, e questo volemmo mostrare."
30 Ibid., 3Ir-v: "Aneora eglie da dimonstrare comme e fo trovata da Arehimenide
lalinea circonferentiale essere 3 volte 117 del diametro, la quale inventione fo bella e sotile
in questo modo, bene che con brevita se diea. Sia uno eercio (!) abgd, del quale it diametro
sia ag e ilcentro sia c. E menero lalinea ez contingente ileerchio sopra il ponto a, dove
ildiametro ag e eatetto sopra ez. E faro zae lato del exagono stante intomo alcirculo abgd.
E questo fatto concio sia eosa che langolo c sia .3 del retto. E porro ce essere 30 dove
ae fia 15. E perche langolo a e retto: se del quadrato del lato ce si toglie il quadrato del
lato ae, cioe 225, di 900, rimane 675, la cui radici e poco menD di 26, cioe 26 menD 1/52
Dipoi dividase langolo eca in 2 mezzi dala linea cf, che divide lareo ab sopra il ponto y.
E commo sa per le demonstrationi de Euclide gli angoli sopra ilcentro siando iguali hano
iguali archi; onde la periferia ay ala periferia yb e iguale. Dnde ae e lamita del lato delo
exagono. Dnde af e lamita duna figuradi 12lati contenente ilcerchio abgd. E perche langolo
eca e di viso in 2 parti iguali dala linea cf, sira proportionalmente cosi ec al ca cosi ef al
fa, eomme nel sexto de Euclide se dimostra. Dnde fia cosi elcongionto del ca e ec al
ea (! ca), cio comme 56 menD lf52, e al ea (! ca) cosi el congionto del ef e fa, che e 15,
e al fa. E permutatim fia cosi elcongionto del ec e ca al ea cioe comme 56 menD lf52
sonno a 15 cosi ca e (! al) af. Dnde io porro ca essere 56 menD 1/52 e af 15. Dnde
congiongnendo Iiquadrati de le linee af e ac haremo per 10 quadrato dela linea cf 3359
o poco meno. La cui radici e a presso 58 per 10 lato cf. E dipoi dividero langolo fca in
2 parti iguali dalalinea ch e fia ab lamita del lato duna figura equilatera avente 24 lati e
scritta intorno alcerchio abgd. E perche langolo fea e diviso in 2 parti iguali dala linea
eh, sira laproportione del congionto del fc e ea al ca comme fa al ha. E permutatim fia
cosi elcongionto delfe e ca alfa, cioe 1140 poco meno e a 15 cosi ca al ha. Dove pOITO
ca 114 0 poco meno e ah fia 15. Onde agiongnendo elquadrato di poco meno che 114 e
14 e dipoi togliendo laradici haremo 115 0 poco meno per la linea ch. Ancora dividero
langolo hea in 2 parti iguali dala linea ci e fia ai lamita del lato duna figura equilatera
avente 48 angoli scrita intorno alcerchio abgd. Del quale ai la sua proportione e al ae e
comme 15 al congionto del QC e ch, cioe 229 e poco meno. Dico secondo lappressamento,
imper che leradici loro sono sorde: e secondo lapropinquita diciamo in quel modo. POITO
adunque ea 229 e poco meno. E ai 15. E agiongo Ii detti quadrati: e di quel piglio laradici e
haremo 229 e lf3 0 poco piu per lalinea ci. E dividero langolo iea in 2 ignal (! iguali)
parti dala linea ek. Dove la proportione ca al ak e comme la proportione del congionto
del ic e ca al ai. Adunque la proportione del ca al ak e quasi comme 458
1
/5 a 15. Ma
la proportione del ca al ak e comme la proportione del diametro ga al doppio del ak.
Mal doppio del ak e uno lato duna figura avente 96 lati iguali stante intorno al cerchio
abgd. Onde e cosi 458
1
/5 a 15 cosi ildiametro ga e a uno di deti lati dela figura dette avente
96 lati iguali. Onde multiplicando 15 per % haremo 1440 per la somma delati di quella
figura. Adunque la proportione di tutti elati duna figura sopra detta al diametro del circulo,
el quale cade dentro e comme 1440 a 458, che e comme 1 ad 3
33
1:129, che e piccola cosa
piu che 3
1
h. E pero disse Archimenide ildiametro del cerchio essere ala circonferentia
comme 1 a 3
1
h, e questo volemmo mostrare.
"(31v) Ancora unaltra volta voglio trovare la detta proportione in una figura cadente
dentro al cerchio che habia 96 lati iguali. In questo modo. Sia ilcerchio abgd. Dove pOITO
in quello ellato delexagono ad, che e iguali al mezzo diametro ca. E compiro gd e fia
iltriangolo gda ortogonio, impero che g1ie nel mezzo cerchio gda, comme nel passato
dicemmo. E perche lalinea ad e illato delo exagono sara laperiferia ad laterza parte dela
periferia adg. Onde laperiferia dg e doppia ala periferia ad. Onde langolo gad e doppio
alangolo agd e soooo amendoi iguali a uno angolo retto. Onde langolo agd e laterza parte
dun angolo retto. E pOITO per lordine detto ildiametro ag 30. Onde la retta ad sara 15.
E laretta gd fia circa a 26, comme disopra dicemmo. E dividero langolo agd in 2 parti
iguali dal linea gm. E faro laretta am e fia laproportione dela retta al al Id comme ag al
gd. E per lacongionta proportionalita: sara cosi ad al Id comme elcongionto dele rette
ag e gd ala retta gd. E per lapermutata proportionalita fia cosi ag e gd ala retta ad, cioe
comme 56 e poco meno e a IS, cosi gd al dl. E perche langolo agd e diviso in 2 parti
iguali da lalinea gm, langolo amg e iguali alangolo gda, impero che ciascuno e retto
conciosia cosa che sieno nel mezzo cerchio per la 30
a
del 3. Laltro angolo adunque gld
alaltro gam. Equiangoli sonno adunque e triangoli gdl e iltriangolo gma. Onde eglie cosi
dg al dl cosi gm al ma. Onde pOITO gm 56 0 poco meno e ma sia 15. E sara am illato
dela figura di 12 facie iguali cadente dentro alcerchio abgd. Dove ag fia 58 0 poco meno:
per lolato ago Ancora dividero langolo agm in 2 parti iguali cola linea gno. E compiro
laretta ao e trovero laradici congionta del quadrato ag che e (comme 0 detto) circa 58.
Dove fia cosi ag e gm al ma, cioe comme 114 0 pocho meno a 15, cosi gm al mn. Ma
cosi gm al mn cosi go al oa. Sonno etriangoli gmn e goa simili e ortogonii. E adunque
cosi 114 0 poco meno a 15 cosi go al oa. Onde pOITO go essere 114 0 poco meno e oa
15. E torro laradici de quadrati dele linee go e oa. E haro per lalinea ga 115 meno alcuna
cosa. E lalinea oa e illato dela figura aventi [2]4 lati iguali: scritta nel cerchio abgd. Ancora
dividero langolo ago in 2 mezzi dela linea gp (! gpq) E compiro grp (! qa). E fia cosi
ga ego al oa cosi go al or (! op). Ma cosi og al or (! op) cosi gp (! gq) al ra (!qa). Fia cosi
2290 poco meno a 15 cosi gp (! gq) al pa (! qa). Onde pOITO gq essere 229 0 poco meno
e seguendo comme nelaltre Iinee: trovero che le facie duna figura avente 96 lati iguali
fia al diametro comme 1440 a 458 0 poco piu che e quasi comme 31f7 a 1. E perche glie
poca differentia quella, pero posaro gli savii phylosophi chel diametro alIa circonferentia
e comme 1 a 31f7. E questo era damostrare."
It further remains to demonstrate how Archimedes found the circumference to
be 3
1
/7 times the diameter. This discovery which is beautiful and subtle I present
in this way (although it is described with brevity).31 Let there be a circle abgd, of
which the diameter is ag and the center c [see Fig. 111.2.4.3]. And I shall draw
the line ez tangent to the circle at point a, where the diameter ag is perpen-
dicular to ez. Then I shall make zae
32
the side of a hexagon circumscribing the
circle abgd. Accordingly, I know the angle at c to be of a right angle. And
I posit ce to be 30, and so ae becomes 15. And because angle a is a right
angle, if from the square of side ce the square of side ae is subtracted, i.e.
225 from 900, 675 remains, whose square root is a little less than 26, i.e. 26
less 1J52.
33
Then Leca is bisected by line cf, which line [also] bisects arc ab at y,
as is known from the demonstration of Euclid to the effect that if the angles on
the center are equal the arcs are equal; whence arc ay = arc yb. Hence ae is
half of the side of a hexagon. Therefore, af is half of [the side of] a figure of
12 sides which contains the circle abgd. And because Leca is bisected by line
cf, so ec / ca = ef / fa, as is demonstrated in [Book] VI of (the Elements of]
Euclid. Hence [by the composition of ratios] (ca + ec) / ca = (ef + fa) I af or
(56 - 1/52) / ca = 15 I afand permutatively ca I afequals (56 - 1/52)/15. I shall positca
to be (56 - 1/52) and af becomes 15. Therefore, by adding the squares of lines
af and ac, we shall have for the square of line cf 3359 or a little less, whose
square root is close to 58 for side Cf.34 Then I shall bisect Lfca by line ch
and ah will be one half of the side of an equilateral figure having 24 sides which
is circumscribed about circle abgd. And because Lfca was bisected by line
ch, so (fc + ca)1ca = fa / ha. Andpermutatively, (fc + ca)/fa = ca / ah = 114 (ora
little less)/15. Whence I shall posit ca to be 114 minus a small amount and ah
becomes 15. Hence, adding the squares of a little less than 114 and 15 and taking
the root, we shall have 115 or a little less for line ch.
35
Further, I shall bisect
Lhca by line ci, and ai becomes one-half of the side of an equilateral figure
having 48 angles which is circumscribed about circle abgd. Then, ai I ac
= 15 I (ac + ch) = 15 I (229 minus a small amount).36 I speak by approximation in as
much as the roots are surds, and in such a method we speak only in approxi-
mations. Then I shall posit ca to be 229 minus a small amount, and ai becomes
15. Adding the squares of these and taking the root of the sum, we shall have
2291;3, or a little more, for line d. Then I shall bisect Lica by line ck, and then
ca lak = (ic + ca)/ai. Hence ca lak = 458V51 15. But ca lak = diameterga/2ak. Now
2 ak is one side of a figure having 96 sides which is circumscribed about circle
31 Pacioli has omitted the statement of Leonardo that he will not use Archimedes'
numbers but smaller numbers "since it is possible to demonstrate very completely with
small numbers those things which he [Le. Archimedes] showed with large numbers."
32 Here Pacioli has considerably abbreviated the text of Leonardo.
33 Leonardo gives this value in terms of perticae et unceae: "inveniemus, ipsam esse
secundum propinquitatem perticarum 26 minus unceis 1/13 2." Notice that Pacioli has here
(as is his general custom) converted Fibonacci's measures to abstract numbers, correctly
giving the approximation as "26 meno 1/52."
34 For the sum of the squares Fibonacci gives "3359 minus unceis 2/3 16" and Pacioli
merely says "3359 0 poco meno." For the line cf Fibonacci has "58 minus unceis
4/54" while Pacioli converts it to "apresso 58."
35 Again notice how Pacioli has rounded off Fibonacci's detailed approximation to "115
o poco meno."
36 Once again Pacioli has rounded off Fibonacci's figure to "229 0 poco meno."
abgd. Hence, 4581fs / 15 = diam. ga / (side of reg. polygon of 96 sides). Therefore,
1596 = 1440, which is the perimeter of the [circumscribed] figure. Hence the
ratio of the perimeter of the aforesaid figure to the diameter of the circle which
falls in it is as 1440 to 458 (!), which is as 3
3
31229 to 1 [Text has 1 to 3
3
31229],
and this is a little greater than 3
1
17. And therefore Archimedes said that the diameter
of the circle is to the circumference as 1 to 3
1
17. This is what we wished to
demonstrate.
Further I wish once more to find the said ratio in a figure inscribed in the
circle, which figure has 96 sides, in this way. Let there be the circle abgd [see
Fig. HI.2.4.4]. In it I place the side of a [regular] hexagon ad, which side is equal
to the radius ca. I draw gd, thus forming the right triangle gda, in as much
as it is inscribed in the semicircle gda, as we have said earlier. And because
line ad is the side of a hexagon, arc ad = Y3 arc adg. Hence arc dg = 2 arc
ad. Hence Lgad = 2 Lagd, as both together are equal to one right angle. Hence
Lagd = Y3 of a right angle. I shall posit for the said arrangement that the diam-
eter ag is 30. Hence, straight line ad will be 15. Line gd becomes about 26,
as we said above.
37
And I shall bisect Lagd by line gm. I draw the line am,
and ai/Id =ag / gd. Then, by the composition of ratios, ad / Id =(ag + gd) / gd. And
permutative1y, (ag + gd) / ad = gd / dl = (56 minus a small amount) /15. And because
Lagd has been bisected by line gm, [Lagm = Ldgm; and] Lamg = Lgda in as
much as both of them are right angles since they are inscribed in a semicircle,
by III.30 (=Gr IH.3!) [of the Elements of Euclid]. Therefore, the remaining angle
gld [of triangle gdl] is equal to the remaining angle gam [of triangle gma]. There-
fore, triangles gdl andgma are equiangular. Hence, dg / dl = gm / ma. Hence I posit
gm to be 56 or a little less, and ma will be 15. And am will be the side of a
figure of twelve equal sides inscribed within circle abgd, in which ag will be 58
or a little less. Then I shall bisect Lagm by line gno. I shall complete line ao
and I shall find the [square] root of the sum [of the squares of lines gm and
ma, i.e. the square root] of the square of ag, which root is (as I have said)
about 58. In this situation, (ag + gm) / ma = gm / mn = 114 (or a little less) /15. But
gm / mn = go / oa, since triangles gmn and goa are similar and right. Therefore,
114 (or a little less) /15 = go / oa. Then I shall posit go to be 114 (or a little less) and oa
will be 15. I shall take the root of the [sum of the] squares of lines go and oa,
and I shall have for line ga 115 less something. And line oa is the side of a figure
having [2]4 equal sides which is inscribed in circle abgd. Further I shall bisect Lago
by line gp (! gpq). 38J shall draw line grp (! qa). And (ga + go) / oa = go / or (! op).
Butog / or (! op) = gp (! gq)/ra (! qa). So, 229 (ora little less)/ 15 = gp (! gq)/pa (! qa).
Hence I shall positgq to be 229 or a little less; and following as in the other lines,39
I shall find that the sides [Le., the perimeter] of a figure having 96 sides [which
37 That is, 26 - 1/52
38 The reader comparing this part of the proof with Fibonacci's text will see that the
whole second half of the proof is much truncated, particularly as to the calculations in-
volved. At this point, Pacioli became confused about the lettering on his figure. I have
indicated the correct lettering in parentheses by referring to the letters in Fibonacci's
account.
39 Most of the remainder of Fibonacci's proof is simply omitted by Pacioli and the end
is altered to conform to Pacioli's intention of showing that the second half of the proof is
merely another way to support the common assumption of 7r as 3
1
/7, as I shall explain
below.
is inscribed in circleabgd] will be to the diameter as 1440 to 458, or a little more than
3
1
h to 1. And because there is little difference between these figures, therefore,
the wise philosophers posited that the diameter is to the circumference as 1 to 3
1
h.
And this was to be demonstrated.
As my notes have indicated, Pacioli has not followed Fibonacci's text
accurately. Indeed, as we shall see, he has ignored the whole idea of
finding bounds within which 'TT must lie. But it should also be pointed out
that Fibonacci, himself, had not completely understood the approximation
procedures of Archimedes and had as a result not produced as rigorous
a proof for his bounds as had Archimedes.
40
In the first part of his proof,
Archimedes had very carefully assumed as a value for the v'3 the ratio of
265: 153, which is less than the actual value, and all of his succeeding
approximations of square roots were less than the actual values. Hence,
at the end, he was assured that the ratio of the perimeter of the cir-
cumscribed polygon of 96 sides to the diameter of the circle was less than
4 6 8 8 : 4 6 7 ~ (and thus less than 3
1
17). Thereby he was further assured
that the circumference was less than 3
1
h times the diameter. Similarly,
in the second part of the proof, he took as the value of V3 the ratio
151:78, which is greater than the actual value, and in all subsequent ap-
proximations of square roots values greater than the actual values were
taken. And so, in the end, he was certain that the ratio of the perimeter
of the circumscribed polygon of 96 sides to the diameter was greater
than 6336:20171;4 (and thus greater than 3
H
Y71). Thereby he was also
certain that the circumference was greater than 3
1
0/71 times the
diameter. But Leonardo exercised no such care. In the first place,
he used the same approximation of Y3 in both parts of the proof,
one that was greater than the actual value, and furthermore in
finding the succeeding approximations he simply took the nearest numbers
regardless of whether they were too great or too small. In doing so, he ob-
tained 4 numbers that were too great and 6 that were too small. And in both
parts of the proof he arrived at numerical figures that he said were "equal
to" the respective perimeters. Thus he concluded that the perimeter of the
circumscribing polygon is equal to (14401 458
1
/5)'d, while the perimeter
of the inscribed polygon is equal to (1440 1458
4
/9)d. Assuming these ratios
to be the bounds, he then concluded that 1440/458Y3 (=approximately
31/7) is the mean between 1440/458
1
/5 and 1440/458
4
/9. This is not completely
accurate, since 458Y3 is a little closer to 458% than to 458
1
/5. (But in fact
Fibonacci's mean is considerably closer to 'TT than is 3
1
h, for if we reduce
both figures to the decimal notation, we find that 3
1
/7 = 3.14286, while
1440/458Y3 = 3.14182.) I have already mentioned that Fibonacci's idea of
taking the mean between his bounds was not in any way implied by Archi-
medes' procedure (see Part Ill, Chapter 2, Section ll, note 15). All in all, .
it is clear that Fibonacci did not really understand the basic direction of
Archimedes' proof.
40 See the excellent analysis of H. Weissenbom, "Die Berechnung des Kreis-Urnfanges
bei Archimedes und Leonardo Pisano," Berliner Studien fur classische Philologie und
Archeologie, Vo!. 14 (1894), 3. Heft, pp. 1-32.
But poor as the Fibonacci text is, Pacioli's is far worse. In the first
place, the basic idea of the procedure, namely to find bounds between
which 7T must fall, has been completely obscured-nay abandoned. The
result is that he has reduced the whole demonstration to two alternate
methods for showing that 7T is approximately 3
1
h. He shows first that the
perimeter of a circumscribed polygon of 96 sides has approximately this
ratio to the diameter and then, following this, that the perimeter of an in-
scribed polygon of 96 sides also has approximately this ratio to the diam-
eter. Hence, the circumference lying between these perimeters must
also have this approximate ratio. He has performed this reduction by
altering Fibonacci's calculations. Thus first notice that, at the end of the
calculation of the ratio of the perimeter of the circumscribed polygon of
96 sides to the diameter, he suddenly alters the ratio from 1440:458%
to 1440:458, which altered ratio he correctly calculates as 3
3
%29; t ~ ratio
he then asserts (correctly) to be a little more than 31f7. Then in the second
half of the proof, Le., in the calculation of the ratio of the perimeter
of the inscribed figure of 96 sides to the diameter, he further alters
Fibonacci's calculations that lead to the ratio 1440:458% and substitutes
the conclusion that once more, as in the first half of the proof, the ratio
will be approximately 1440:458, again noted by him to be a little more than
3
1
17. Hence the second half of the proof appears merely as an alternate
way of justifying the approximation of 31f7 rather than as a way of
finding a lower bound to 7T. And when one adds to these basic misrepre-
sentations the various specific errors indicated in the notes, he must
certainly conclude that Pacioli's performance in this case was very bad
indeed. I have treated this case in detail, not just because it is indicative
of Pacioli's general lack of care and comprehension, but because the
Summa was the first printed account of what purported to be Archimedes'
determination of 7T and the Summa was very widely read in the next
half-century. Thus when more and more readers turned to this printed text,
they must have been left with a completely inadequate understanding of
Archimedes' intention and procedure.
While Pacioli misunderstood (or perhaps purposely altered) Fibonacci's
account of the Archimedean procedure for the determination of bounds
for 7T, he seems not to have been unaware of the fact that Archimedes
did determine such bounds. This is revealed by a short discussion of
quadrature at the end of the Summa, where Pacioli remarks that the
measurement of casks is difficult because no ancient or modern philos-
opher has been able exactly to square a circular figure by means of a
simple plane one,41 He goes on to note that when he squared the circle in
the earlier sections of the Summa he did so by using
42
41 Summa, n, 74r: "Sappi che de tutte le mesure geometriche quella de la botte e
difficile: e del scemo difficilis[s]ima, peroche se finora duna figura semplici plana circulare
non sa per li antichi e modemi phylosophi aponto sua quadratura. . . ."
42 Ibid., n, 74v: "E benche disopra in questo mostrassemo de quadrare icerchi e sue
parti nella distinctione 4
3
al capitulo primo (! 2) a carti 26 (! 30), questo fo facto solo
con 10 prosuposito de Archimede che in 10 suo 3 libro che fa de quadratura circuli ci
mostra la proportione del suo diametro ala circunferentia essere magior che tripla
the assumption of Archimedes, who in his third book (! proposition) which he
devotes to the quadrature of the circle demonstrates that the ratio of its diameter
(! circumference) to its circumference (! diameter) is greater than 3Ys and less
than 3
1
17. Therefore, by means of this we have up to now settled upon this
conclusion, that the diameter multiplied by 3
1
/7 produces its circumference, not
an exact result but one having a small difference [from the exact result]; as
Ptolemy says, it [i.e., the difference] is an insensible amount. If you ask why we
have settled on 3
1
/7 rather than on 31;8, [we answer that] this is because the dif-
ference between 3 + the [exact] amount and 3 + 1/7, for the circumference, is less
than [the difference] between 3 + the [exact] amount and 3 + 1;8. And it was done
by means of this [approximation]. And if one exactly had the ratio of the diameter
to the circle [Le., circumference], we should be able exactly to square the circle
and its parts. This [quadrature] has not been found up to now, although it could
be that someone has already been born who is destined to give an exact method
of squaring the circle. No philosopher denies its possibility. Whence Aristotle
says that the science of squaring a circle is knowable but not yet known or given.
But in this effort all mathematicians (and particularly Raymond) have toiled
greatly. Indeed in 1489, in the city of Rome, where I was teaching publicly,
Master Pierlione da Spoleto, the physician who was staying there in the home
of the Very Reverend Cardinal of San Marco (at a banquet at which I and every-
body were present by his kindness) showed to his reverend lordship a book in
quarto folio of about 150 pages that was printed beyond the mountains (ultra
montanes) and compiled by a certain bishop of those parts, in which he said he
was studying the whole matter, that he was treating nothing but the quadrature
of the circle with very many figures. And he said that he was treating it con-
clusively. But in regard to this matter, I was never able to see the book, since I
did not have the time.
This passage has many interesting features. In the first place, Pacioli
here gives the specific bounds between which 7f lies as 3
1
,/s and 3lf7,
bounds which he attributes to Archimedes' De quadratura circuli, while
in his earlier treatment borrowed from Fibonacci he had concluded that
3lf7 was the approximate value both for the ratio of the circumscribed
perimeter to the diameter and for the ratio of the inscribed perimeter
to the diameter. It will also be noticed by the reader that in this passage
sexquioctava e minore cbe tripla sexquiseptima onde per questo finora ci siamo fermati
a questo chel diametro multiplicato via 3lf7 facia la sua circunferentia che conpredsione
non e da mettere ma poco varia, commo did Phtolomeo e quanta non sensible. Se tu
domandi perche piu a 3
1
h che Y/s ci siamo fermati, si fa perche menore e la differentia
da 3 tanto e 117 ala circunferentia che non e da 3 tanto e 1;8, e per questo se facto. E sel
si havesse aponto la proportione del diametro ala circunferentia, aponto ancora
quadraremmo el cerchio e sue parti. La qual finora non se trovata essere, porria che gia
fosse nato colui che ci habia adar modo aponto quadrarlo. La cui possibilita per niun
philosopho se denega; onde Aristotele dici che 'scientia de quadratura circuli est scibilis
et dabilis quamvis non dum sit scita neque data.' E sopra de questo molti se sonno
affatigati tutti li matematici, maxime Raymundo. Havenga che nel 1489 nella cita di roma
dove publice legiavamo Magistro pierlione da spoleti medico che li se stava in casa del
Reverendissimo Cardinale de san marco a sua Reverendissima Signoria (me presente e
tutti a una mensa per sua humanita) mostro un libro in 4 foglio de circa carti 150 impressa
ultra montes compilato per un certo vescovo de queUe parti dove lui diciva haverlo studiato
tutto. E che altro non trattava che de quadratura circuli con moltissime figure, e diciva
che la concludiva. La qual cosa non poddi mm vedre ellibro da poi non ebbi in liberta."
he has replaced Archimedes' 3
1
/71 by 3!1l, just as had Johannes de Muris
in his De arte mensurandi (see above, Part I, Chapter 4), Jacobus Cre-
monesis at the end of his translation of On the Measurement of the Circle
(see Appendix IV, Section 1, Specimen A), and Piero della Francesca
in his De quinque corporibus regularibus (see the preceding section of
this chapter, note 33). In view of the fact that Pacioli later published the
De quinque corporibus regularibus as his own work, one is tempted to
believe that he had already acquired a copy of this before 1494 and that
it was this work that suggested to him the use of 3Ml as the lower bound.
However, as I shall show later in this chapter, it is very doubtful that
Pacioli used Piero's work in the preparation of the Summa. Hence he
may have seen the 3!1l approximation in Johannes de Muris' work. Or he
may have seen this value in Cremonensis' translation of the Archimedean
tract, since he probably used that manuscript for constructing a theorem
on the surface area of the sphere, as we shall see shortly. But however he
acquired the value of 3Ml, he may very well have used the alteration of
Archimedes' figure of 3
1
/71 to 3!1l on his own in order tojustify the common
usage of 3% as the approximation for 11'. This can easily be shown to follow
from his explanation as to why 3
1
17 is to be preferred to 3!1l. He asserts
that the true value of 11' is closer to 3
1
/7 than to 3!1l. How could he have
arrived at such a conclusion? The simple explanation is that he considered
the actual Archimedean bounds of 3
1
/71 and 3
1
/ 7, which he evidently knew
since he speaks in this passage and elsewhere of Archimedes' De quadra-
tura circuli, giving it the title found in the second tradition of Gerard of
Cremona's translation from the Arabic (see below, note 78). Then if he
supposed 11' to be the mean between the actual Archimedean bounds (an
idea he could easily have picked up from Ptolemy's Almagest or even
from Fibonacci's Practica), it would have been obvious to him that, should
he substitute 3!1l (which is less than 3
1
/71) for 3
1
/71, 3!1l would be further
removed from that mean than would be 3%. Hence, of the two, 3
1
17 would
be a closer approximation for 11'. At any rate, after justifying the use of
3
1
/7 as the approximation, Pacioli goes on to say that, if the exact value
of the ratio of diameter to circumference is known, then the circle can
be squared exactly. He believes the exact quadrature can be found, for no
philosopher denies it. Indeed Aristotle asserts (in the Categories) that it
is knowable although not yet known (see Volume 1, pp. 607-09). Then
Pacioli speculates that perhaps some one has already been born who will
work it out. He notes that mathematicians have labored at it. The refer-
ence to Raymond is almost certainly to Raymond Lull (see Vol. 1, p. 15,
n. 2). The reference to the work published "beyond the mountains" is
most probably to Nicholas of Cusa's Opuscula varia, published at Stras-
bourg in the 1480' s. 43
43 The actual title of this first edition of the collected works of Nicholas of Cusa is in
part: Prohemium [I]N hoc volumine continentur certi tractatus etc. There has been
considerable difference of opinion as to the date of this edition published by Martin FIach
in Strasbourg. Hofmann in his Die mathematisehen Schriften gives the date as 1488. It
was published in two parts. In the copy of the British Museum the De mathematicis
eomplementis is included in Part I, 33v-5lr, and the De mathematica peifectione in the
(4) On the Volume of a Cylinder
The next passage in the Summa of interest is the very brief treatment
of the volume of a cylinder, taken directly from Fibonacci'sPractica (see
Appendix I, Sect. 3, B[6]):44
And if you wish to measure a cylinder whose base diameter is 7 and whose alti-
tude or axis is 20, first find the surface of the base by saying: "There is a
circle whose diameter is 7, how much is [its] square?" By using the methods
worked out, you will have the square to be 8 ~ which you multiply by its altitude,
i.e., by 20; the result is 770, and 770 is the volume of the said cylinder.
The only difference between this passage and that in the Practica is that
in the latter the quantities are specified in terms of feet while they remain
only as numbers in Pacioli's account. This is the common practice of
Pacioli, to convert all of Fibonacci's measures to abstract numbers. I
should also point out that Pacioli does not here treat of the area of the
cylinder as he had earlier in the Trattato. The reason is that his source,
Fibonacci's Practica, also excluded any problem concerned with the
lateral surface of the cylinder.
(5) On the Volume of a Truncated Cone
In treating truncated cones, Pacioli once more draws a passage directly
from Fibonacci's Practica (see Appendix I, Sect. 3, B[7]):45
Let there be a truncated cone whose base is circle abed and whose upper base is
circle efgh and whose altitude is line ik [see Fig. 111.2.4.5]. The termini of this
same part, 14Ov-44v (the pagination has been added in ink). There seems to have been
different arrangements of the leaves, however, since in Hofmann's copy the first of these
works is included on folios 224v-42r and the second work on 244v-48v. We have no idea
how complete the copy seen by Pacioli was. His impression that it was all devoted to the
quadrature problem (if indeed that is what he is implying) was wrong. No doubt Pacioli's
memory of the details of this work was hazy after five years had passed.
44 Summa, Il, 44v: nE se voi misurare una colonna de la quale il diametro de la basa
sia 7 e laltezza, cioe lasse, sia 20. Prima trova larea de la basa dicendo: eglie un tondo
chel diametro e 7, quanto e quadro. Dove li modi operati tenendo, harai essere quadro
38!12, li quali per la sua alteza multiplica, cioe per 20, fanno 770, e 770 corporale e la dicta
colonna.' ,
4S Ibid., Il, 47v-48r: "Le una piramide corta de laquale la basa el circulo abgd e it suo capo
sia il cerchio efgh e la sua altezza sia la linea ik , de laquale altezza li termini sonno e centri de
ditti cerchi. E menise li diametri loro bd efh e sienno e ditti circuli e ditti circuli infra loro
equedistanti. Onde si multiplicara el terzo del ik ne la summa de lesuperficie de cerchi abed et
efgh e de la superficie che in mezzo de la proportione di ciascuno cerchio. Verbi gratia: sia il
cerchio omn cioe cosi efh al mno cosi it cerchiomno al cerchioabc . Onde multiplicandola mita
de ciascun diametro de ditti cerchi per 3
1
17, haremo larea de ditti cerchi laquale multiplicata per
10 terzo dela sua altezza, cioe nel terzo del ik, haremo larea de la piramide corta ee, che voglio
si mostri con numeri. Sia it mezzo diametro bk 4 e il mezzo diametro if sia uno; unde it mezzo
diametro lm sia 2 impero che glie cosi 4 a 2 cosi 2 a uno, e giongnamo li quadrati di questi 3
mezzi diametri, sonno 21, cioe agiongni 16,4, 1, liquali multiplicati per 31f7 fanno 66, e questo
multiplicato nel terzo de la sua altezza, che sia 5, cioe it terzo del ik, vienne per larea di tuUa la
piramide ae (! ee) 330. E volendo sostituire tU11a la piramide qabcd intendiamo il triangolo qbd
segare lapiramide qabcd in 2 parti iguali, ne la quale superficie e il catetto ik elquale menato in
altitude are the centers of the said circles. And let their diameters be bd andjh
and let the circles be parallel to one another. Therefore, ik / 3 will be multiplied
by the sum of the circles abed, efgh and the sutface [of the circle] which is in
mean proportion between them [i.e. between abed and efgh]. For example, let
there be a circle mno such that ejh / mno = mno / abe.
46
Therefore, on multi-
plying [the sum of the squares of] the half diameters of the said [three] circles
by 3
1
/7, we shall have the area ofthe circlesY Then multiply this product by Y3 the
altitude, i.e., by ik / 3, we shall have the area (! volume) of the truncated [cone]
ee, which I wish to demonstrate by numbers. Let the half-diameter bk be 4 and
the half-diameter if be 1. Hence, half-diameter lm will be 2, because 4 / 2 = 2 /1.
And we add the squares of these three half-diameters. The result is 21; Le., add 16
+ 4 + 1. This sum multiplied by 31f7 makes 66. With this product multiplied by
1;3 the altitude, which we let be 5 [i.e. ik / 3], the result for the area (! volume)
of the whole [truncated] cone ae (! ee) is 330.
48
And if one wishes to complete
the whole cone qabed, let us imagine 6qbd as cutting cone qabd into two equal
parts. In this [triangular] sutface the altitude ik is extended up to q, forming the
altitude qk of 6qbd, in which linefr is drawn parallel to ik;fr will be equal to line
ik, because linefi is parallel to line bk .49 And rk is equal tofi, and 6 qif is similar
to 6frb. Therefore, if we subtract rk, i.e., if, from kb, br [=3] will remain. And
because br / if = fi / iq, if we multiply rb byfi and divide the product by br, then
the result for the altitude qi is 5. Therefore, the whole qf (! qk) is 20, which is the
altitude of cone qabed.
I have already noted Pacioli's omissions in the notes. Furthermore, I
have called attention in parentheses to the places where Pacioli has
rendered embadum by "area" when "volume" is intended. In classical
usage both area and embadum signify surface area only. But both
Savasorda and Fibonacci extend the use of embadum to cubic measure
as well as square measure. And so Pacioli in this passage is accepting
the classical identity of the terms at the same time that he is accepting
the medieval extension of the term embadum. Furthermore, while
fi(48r)no al q fia la linea qk catetto del triangolo qbd, nelquale menato lalinea fr eque-
distante al ik; sira fr equale a la linea ik. perche equedistante e la linea fi ala linea kcbk
(! bk) e sia rk iguale al fi, e il triangolo qif e frb sonno simili. Onde se traremo rk, cioe if,
del kb rimarranno br, 3; e perche eglie cosi br al if cosi fi al iq, onde multiplicando rf
perfi e dividendo per br, vienne 5 per 10 catetto qi. Onde tutta qf (! qk) e 20, che e laltezza
de la piramide qabcd.' ,
46 Pacioli leaves out a long demonstration, as the reader comparing this passage with
Fibonacci's text will note.
47 Pacioli's omission of the phrase "the sum of the squares of" is a mere slip since
it is evident in the succeeding sentences that Pacioli uses the sum of the squares of the
radii in his computations.
48 The phrase rendered in Fibonacci's text is "pro embado totius pyramidis ec 330."
Hence Pacioli's translation is a literal rendering except for his error in substituting "ac"
for "ec". The use of the phrase "totius pyramidis" ("tutta la piramide") for truncated
cone is somewhat curious in view of the fact that in the succeeding sentence it is used
for the complete cone qabcd. One would have rather expected to find "curte piramidis"
("piramide corta,,), as in the earlier part of the proof. I have tried to rectify the unfortunate
implication of the expression by adding "[truncated]" before "cone."
49 The erroneous reading "kc, bk" in Pacioli' s text came from the equally erroneous
"ke, bk" found in Fibonacci's text. I think the latter error arose from a scribal misreading
of "le" (Le. "linee") as "ke".
t
L
Pacioli generally uses area for surface measure, he sometimes uses it for
volume as when he employs l'area corporale d'una spera for the volume
of a sphere (see below, note 55). We should also remark on the fact that
there are several errors in lettering on the figure accompanying Pacioli' s
account.
(6) Propositions Drawn from the Verba filiorum via
Fibonacci's Practica Leading to the Volume of a Sphere
Pacioli follows his treatment of the truncated cone by abbreviated ver-
sions of Fibonacci's account of Propositions VIII, IX, XI, XII, XIV, and XV
from the Verbafiliorum of the Banii Miisa (see Vol. 1, pp. 290-334; and
below, Appendix I, Sect. 3, B[8]). After giving the enunciation of
Proposition VIII on locating the center of a sphere, Pacioli omits the proof
given by Fibonacci from the Verba filiorum and merely says: "This is
clearly apparent and hence there is no need of demonstration. "50 Pacioli
then goes on to give the full version of Proposition IX of the Verbafiliorum
on the surface of a cone very much in the same fashion as Fibonacci, so that
after proving that all of the elements (hypotenuses, in the medieval
terminology) of a right circular cone are equal, he proves that S = (s/2) .c,
where S is the surface, s is the slant height and c the circumference of the
base. 51 Pacioli does not include Proposition X of the Verba filiorum
although it was given by Fibonacci (see Appendix I, Sect. 3, B[8], Prop. X).
50 Summa, 1I, 48r: "Se innuna (! in una) spera si piglia un ponto dal quale 4 rette linee
si menino infra loro iguali e vadino ala superficie de la spera e queUe linee non sienno
inuna superficie piana que! ponto fia il centro de la spera. Verbi gratia, sia la spera ab
e in quella sia il ponto z dalquale sienno menate 4 linee infra loro iguali zb, zg, zd, ze e
non sienno li ponti b, g, d, e inuna superficie piana, dico il ponto z essere centro de la
ditta spera, e questo evidentemente appare e pero nonna bisogno de dimonstratione."
51 Ibid., 1I, 48r-v: "Quando sira menato dal ponto del capo dogni piramide colonnale
al centro de la basa sua perpendiculare sopra la sua basa: alora le linee rette che sonno
menate dal ponto del capo al cerchio contenente la superficie de la sua basa sonno infra
loro iguali. E la multiplicatione duna di queUe linee che sonno menate dal capo loro al
cerchio contenente lasua basa ne la mita del cerchio contenente la ditta basa e larea de
la superficie de ditta piramide colonnale. Verbi gratia, sia la piramide colonnale abgd
delaquale la sua somita sia a e la sua basa sia it circulo bgd del quale sia it centro e
[Fig. 111.2.4.6]. E la linea ae ortogonalmente sia ritta sopra it piano del cerchio bgd,
e dal ponto a ala linea circunferentiale contenente it circulo bgd de la basa de la data
piramide di colonna se meni molte linee ab, ag, ad. Dico certamente le rette ab, ag, ad
infral (! infra) loro essere iguali. La prova: menise dal centro e le rette eb, eg, ed che
sonno tutte iguali infra loro. E perche ae e perpendiculare sopra il piano del circulo bgd,
sienno gliangoli aeb, aeg, aed retti. Onde li triangoli sonno ortogonii aeb, aeg, aed, e
hano le basi iguali che sonno eb, eg, ed, e illato ae e commune. Onde lilati subtendenti
a gliangoli retti, che sonno ab, ag, ad, sonno infra loro iguali. E per questo e manifesto
che tutte le rette linee che si possono menare dal a ala linea circunferente bgd essere
iguali a la linea ab.
..Ancora dico cbe multiplicato ab nela mita de la linea circunferente bgd fara larea de
la superficie de la piramide, cioe larea difuora de la superficie abgd, la quale superficie
e dal circulo de la basa bgd infino ala sua summita. E se non fosse cosi, atora sia la
mUltiplicatione de la linea ab de (! ne) la mita del circulo bgd magiore 0 minore queUa
It is concerned with the formation of a truncated cone by passing through a
cone a plane parallel to the base and with proving (1) that the common
section of that plane and the cone is a circle and (2) that a line drawn from
the apex of the cone to the center of its bases passes through the center of
the common section. Perhaps Pacioli felt this to be sufficiently self-evident
after what had been said earlier about the volume of a truncated cone. But
Pacioli does give Proposition XI of the Verba filiorum on the smface of a
truncated cone (i.e. of a segment of a cone) in much the same manner as
Fibonacci (see Appendix I, Sect. 3, B[8], Prop. XI), although Pacioli leaves
out Fibonacci's first geometric proof and gives only what Fibonacci calls
che facia larea de la superficie; dico che quella quantita che se multiplica per ab a fare
larea de la superficie sua (! sia) minore over magiore de la mita de la linea circunferente
bgd. E sia la quantita iz; e il doppio del iz e piu chel cerchio bgd. Adonca faro sopra il
cerchio bgd una figura retti linea havente e lati e gliangoli iguali contenente quello, e sienno
li lati insiemi agionti menD che 10 doppio del iz, che sia la figura lkt. E menero la linea
ab laquale e perpendiculare sopra la linea bk in questo modo. Menero la linea et; sienno
li quadrati de le linee eb et bt iguali al quadrato de la linea et, [e commune a tutti sia il
quadrato de la perpendiculare ae, siranno li quadrati de le linee eb e ba iguali al quadrato
de la linea et] (He ... et" enclosed in brackets is in the text but ought to be deleted) e
communamente sagionga il quadrato de la perpendiculare ae, sienno li quadrati de le linee
ae, eb, bt, cioe li quadrati de le linee ab e bt, iguali al quadrato at. Onde langolo abt e
retto. Perpendiculare e adonca la linea ab sopra la linea tk. Similmente si mostra la linea
ag essere perpendiculare sopra kl e ad sopra la linea tl. E perche le rette ab, ag, ad
sonno infra loro iguali virra de la multiplicatione duna di queUe comma del ab ne la mita
de lati del triangolo tkl lembado over area de la superficie de la piramide atkl magiore
de la superficie de la piramide abgd, conciosia cosa che la contenga quella, cioe quello
che infral cerchio bgd e il ponto ae. E la mita de lati del triangolo tkl e minore che la
quantita iz. Adonca gia fo la multiplicatione de la linea ab [e] queUo che e menD de la
linea iz e magiore de la superficie de la piramida (!) di colonna, che e impossibile. Adonca
non ne possibile che la mUltiplicatione de la linea ab ne la linea che sia magiore de la
mita del cerchio bgd sia lembado over continentia de la superficie abgd.
. Ancora porro la linea iz minore de la mita de la circunferentia del circulo bgd, e se
possible e che del dutto ab in iz ne pervenga larea de la superficie de la piramide abgd.
A multiplicare adonca de [ab ne] la t2 de la circunferentia del circulo bgd fara la superficie
duna minore (! magiore) piramide de la piramide abgd (48v) che sia la piramide acjh, de
laquale la somita sia [a] e la sua basa sia il circulo fch. E descrivero nel cerchio feh la
figura rettilinea cfh, e menero dal centro e sopra la linea cf el catetto el, che dividera la
linea ef in 2 parti iguali, e compporro la retta ac, al, af, ah. E pero quello che se detto
si mostrara la linea al essere perpendiculare sopra la linea fe, e fienno (! sienno) iguali
le perpendiculari cadenti sopra le linee ch,jh ala perpendiculare al. Fia la retta al magiore
che ab impero che magiore e el che eb, e la mita de lati de le figure cfh e magiore de
la mita de la linea circunferentiale del cerchio bgd, e la mita del cerchio bgd e magiore
che iz, e a multiplicare al ne la mita de lilati de le figure (! la figura) dirette linee cfh
fanno larea de la piramide acfh, de la quale la basa e il triangolo efh; e de la multiplicatione
del ab, che e minore del aI, nel iz, che e minore [Y2] de lati efh, ne perviene larea dela
piramide magiore che la piramida (l) acfh, che e inconveniente. Adonca a multiplicare
ab ne la mita de la circunferentia del cerchio bgd faranno larea de la superficie de la
piramide abgd, chera da dimostrare: la quale superficie e dal summo de la piramide, cioe
dal ponto a e il cerchio bgd. Dnde se poniammo la perpendiculare ae essere 24 e il mezzo
diametro eb 7, sira lalinea ab 25, la quale multiplicata nela mita de la circunferentia del
circulo bgd che e 22, faranno 550 per larea de la superficie de la piramide abgd."
the proof "with numbers." Hence, Pacioli gives the formula S
= S '(c
l
+ C2) / 2, whereS is the surface, S the slant height, andCl andc2 are the
circumferences ofthe bases. 52 Pacioli also gives the enunciation but not the
proof of Proposition XII of the Verba filiorum (see Appendix I, Sect. 3,
B[8], Prop. XII).53 Then Pacioli makes a crucial omission of Proposition
52 Ibid., II, 48v: "Se fia una piramide di colonna corta de laquale la basa sia uno cerchio e
it capo sia il cerchio, e sia equedistante la basa al capo, e tu voglia la superficie di quella
piramide corta, dico che te bisogna sapere la linea che si mena da la circumferentia del
cerchio del capo de la basa ala circonferentia de la basa de la ditta piramide e quella nela mita
de la circumferentia de 2 cerchi, cioe del capo e de la basa, multiplica. E la multiplicatione
sira la superficiei de la ditta piramide corta. Commo sia la piramide corta de laquale la basa
sia il cerchio abg [Fig. III.2.4.7], e it suo capo sia it cerchio dez, liquali cerchi sienno infra
loro.equedistanti, e da centri loro si meni la retta it perpendiculare a damendoi li cerchi
e le stremita di ditti cerchi si congionga per le linee be e gz. Dico che la multiplicatione de
luna de linee be, gz ne la mita de la circumferentia de cerchi abg e dez ne pervenga larea de
la superficie de la corta piramide, cioe larea de la superficie che e infra ditti 2 cerchi.
Commo sia il diametro bg 14 e il diametro ez sia gli 2/5 , cioe 5%. Per la linea be 15 e it sia
14
2
/5; e compoITo la retta mi; e per gli ponti e, Z menero le linee ec, 7/ equedistanti ala retta
it; e fienno le rette ct e tJ iguali comma sonno ei e iz; laltre bc e gf infra loro iguali. Onde li
triangoli ecb e 7/g sonno simili infra loro e iguali e gliangoli al b e al g sonno infra loro iguali.
Onde il triangolo mbg e equic[r]urio havente lati bm e mg iguali. E perche la retta ez e
equedistante ala retta bg fia il triangolo mez simile al triangolo mgb. [Onde il triangolo
mez] e equic[r]urio havente gliangoli che sonno al e e z iguali. Onde la retta mi fia catetto
sopra ez, conciosia cosa [il ponto i] sia in suI mezzo ez; fo adonca langolo tib retto. Onde
e manifesto la linea mit essere continuata. Adonca me (! mt) e perpendiculare de la piramide
mbag e passa per 10 centro del cerchio edz. E perche la retta mb e mg sonno iguali, se
da quelli si togli me e mz, rimarranno eb e zg infra loro iguali. Adoncagz e 15; e perche ez al bg e
comma 2 a 5, e per questo me al mb e comma 2 a 5. Onde me del eb e gli %, doe 10; onde
mb sia 25, delquale il quadrato che e 625 se sene togli el quadrato tb che e 49, rimarranno
576 per 10 quadrato del catetto mt; e larco mag (! bag) fia 22, che vengono del tb in 3
1
17; e
larco edz fia 8
4
/5, doe li 2/5 de larco bag, liquali archi agionti fanno 30
4
/5, liquali multiplicati
ne la linea eb, cioe in 15, fanno 462 per larea de la superficie che e infra circuli abg e dez;
es (! e) se de larea de la superficie de la piramida (! piramide) mabg, che viene del mb ne
larco bag, cioe del 25 in 22, si togli larea de la superficie de la piramide mez, che viene
del me ne larco [e ]dz, doe de 10 in 8
4
/5, rimarranno similmente 462 per larea contenta
infral circulo edz e it cerchio bag, e questo volia mostrare."
53 Ibid., 11, 48v-49r: "Quando uno cerchio e diviso in 4 parti iguali da li doi diametri liquali
fanno sui centro 4 angoli retti, dico che sel si divide larco dun di quelli 4 quarti parti iguali
quante voi e de ciascunadi queUe parti si meni nel cerchio lalineaequedistante alo diametro, e
dal ponto del diametro insu la circunferentia si pona il regola et passi per 10 primo ponto de la
prima parte e menisi in infinito infino si congionga colla linea del diametro menata
infinitamente: comma sia [Fig. III.2.4.8] il cerchio abed diviso in 4 parti iguali dal diametro ab
e cd che fanno 4 retti angoli al centro e e dividase una parte, cioe il quarto che e larcoda, in 4
parti iguali, che fienno dJ, fh, hk e ka, e menise le linee da ditti pontif, h, k equedistanti a 10
diametro ab, e fiennofg e hi e kl, dieo ce menando lalineadJin infinito infino a tanto si congiooga
(! congionga) con 10 diametro ab menato in continuo ("colla ... continuo" is mistakenly
reprinted on thefirstfive lines oJJolio49r except that the repetition begins with "con lalinea"
instead aJwith "colla linea") e diritto, elquale ponto del congiongnimento fia ilponto m; dico
che lalinea che e dal ponto dove si congiongono, cioe dal ponto m infino al centro del detto
cerchio, doe lalinea me, essere iguale ala giongnimento di tutte lelineefg, hi, kl e ala mita
del diametro ea. E questo te fia manifesto." All but the last phrase constitutes in fact a
single sentence, but the printer has broken it into six sentences. In each case I have converted
the capital letters to minuscules. The printer's text with its long repetition and false capitaliza-
tions would have made it very difficult for the reader, particularly since the diagram was
very poor indeed (see Fig. III.2.4.8).
XIII (see Appendix I, Sect. 3, B[8], Prop. XIII). This proposition
concerned the surface areas of a body circumscribed about and a body
inscribed in a sphere, that is a body formed by the rotation of a regular
polygon circumscribed about or inscribed in a circle and thus composed of
two cones and intermediary segments of cones. This proposition held that
the area of half of such a circumscribed body is greater than two great
circles of the hemisphere about which it is circumscribed and that the area
of half of such an inscribed body is less than two great circles of the
hemisphere in which it is inscribed. In the Verba filiorum all the
propositions preliminary to and including propositions concerning the
areas of cones and segments of cones were thus necessary for Proposition
XIII. Hence, it seems absurd to omit this crucial proposition after giving
the earlier propositions if one were following the steps of the proof made by
the authors of the Verba filiorum. Needless to say, this Proposition XIII
was itself the crucial proposition leading to Proposition XIV, to the effect
that the surface area of a hemisphere is twice the area of a great circle of
that hemisphere. But we can perhaps partially excuse Pacioli for omitting
Proposition XIII when he realized that his source, the Practica of
Fibonacci, after giving Proposition XIII then proceeds to omit the proof of
Proposition XIV (Appendix I, Sect. 3, B[8], Prop. XIV) where Proposition
XIII is utilized. Thus one wonders why either Fibonacci or Pacioli
bothered to give all or part of the set of propositions leading to Proposition
XIV. Pacioli follows Fibonacci in the omission of the proof of Proposition
XIV and indeed changes the form of the enunciation to the more
conventional Archimedean form, namely, that the surface area of a sphere
is equal to four great circles of it. 54 (It is true, as we shall see shortly, that
Pacioli gave a proof of this proposition at the end of his Summa, a proof
drawn directly from Proposition 1.33 of On the Sphere and the Cylinder;
but this hardly excuses him for his confused rendition of Fibonacci's
extracts from the Verbafiliorum.) Now Pacioli follows Fibonacci in one
more important departure from the line of argument proposed by the Verba
filiorum. Mter giving the enunciation of Proposition XV of the Verba
filiorum to the effect that the volume of a sphere is equal to the product of its
half-diameter and one-third its surface area, Fibonacci gives a proof that
makes a significant change in the proof given by the BanG Miisa (see
Appendix I, Sect. 3, B[8], Prop. XV). The altered proof abandons the kind
of circumscribed and inscribed bodies described in Proposition XIII, that
54 Ibid., n, 49r: "Se la superficie duna spera voi havere multiplicarai larea del magiore
cerchio per 4. E haremo larea dela superficie duna spera e ildiametro del magiore cerchio
cadente nela spera e i1diametro 0 vero laxe dela spera. Onde dicendo eglie una spera dela quale
ildiametro e 7, adimandasse quanto e lasuperficie dela spera. Dico che larea del cerchio che
i1suo diametro sia 7 truovi. E questo harai per gli modi dati. 0 vero multiplicando lamita del
diametro in se e la multiplicatione in 3
1
h, e haremo 38lh, e 38lh e larea del detto circulo, laquale
multiplica per 4, fanno 154, e 154 e larea dela superficie dela spera. 0 veramente elquadrato del
diametro del detto cerchio multiplica in 3
1
17, e haremo quello medesimo, cioe 49 muItiplicati in
3lf7 fanno 154. 0 vero ildiametro muItiplicato per lacirconferentia, cioe 7 in 22, e haremo quel
medesimo, cioe 154. E se vuoi larea dela mita dela superficie dela spera quando harai larea
dela spera, in 2 ladividi, e harai larea dela predetta mezza spera."
is, bodies composed of cones and intermediary segments of cones. In their
place are substituted polyhedra composed of pyramids. Thus Pacioli, like
Regiomontanus before him (see above, Part Ill, Chap. 2, Sect. n, note 13),
repeats in its essential form Fibonacci's proof:
55
55 Ibid., n, 49r-v: "Ese lareacorporale duna spera vuoli, lareadela superficiedi detta spera
nel sexto del diametro di detta spera multiplica, e la multiplicatione fia larea corporale
predetta: comme nelo exemplo dato multiplicarai 154 per 10 sexto di 7, doe per P/6, fanno
9 ~ per larea corporale di deta (1) spera, impero cbe glie provato dagli anticbi savi (commo
disotto di lei piu amplamente nel tratato particulare de corpi regulari parlaremo) cbe
lamultiplicatione dela terza parte de la superficie dela spera nella mita di tutto ildiametro fara
larea di tutta laspera, doe larea corporale di tutta la spera, cbe ancora tel mostrero. Sia laspera
ab [Fig. Ill. 2.4.9] e lamita del diametro suo sia lalinea ag. E ilcentro suo sia ilponto g. Dico
adunque cbe la multiplicatione del ag nel terzo della superficie dela spera ab e iguale ala
misura del corpo dela spera ab. Della quale questa e ladimostratione. Se non e
lamultiplicatione del ag nel terzo dela superfide dela spera ab iguale alcorpo dela spera, sira
iguale a uno corpo magiore cbe laspera ab. 0 vero minore. Sia adunque prima iguale a una
magiore spera cbe lasperaab e sia lasperade cbe sia con lasperaab insuuno medesimo centro.
Possibile adonca e cbe nela spera de sia uno corpo di piu lati de lequali quelli lati cbe
lidiciammo base non sienno contingenti ala superficie dela speraab. Onde sira ciascuna dele
perpendiculari 0 vero lelinee cadenti dal centro g sopra lesuperficie di quelle: magiore chel
mezzo diametro ag. Se adonca si continuan gli angoli di quel corpo che caggiano nela spera de
col centro della spera faranno piramide dele quali elloro capo fienno licentri dela spera: e
leloro base fienno base di corpi. E lamisura di tutte ledette piramidi viene dela multiplicatione
dela sua perpendiculare nel terzo dela sua basa. E percbe lalineaag e mezzo il diametro della
speraab e la e minore di ciascuna delaltre perpendiculari, e sira quello la multiplicatione dela
linea ag nel terzo di caduna basa minore cbe la misura de lapiramide delaquale labasa e quella.
Adunque lamultiplicatione delalineaag nel terzo dela superficie di quel corpo e [minore diquel
corpo. Ma la superficie di quel corpo e] magiore della superficie ab. [Adunque] la
multiplicatione del ag nel terzo di quella superficie e minore dique} corpo. E gia fo posto
lamultiplicatio[n]e dela linea ag nel terzo dela superficie dela spera ab essere iguale al de
spera. Adunque e dibisogno cbe la spera de e sia minore molto del corpo cbe e infra quella, cbe e
impossibile. Non adonca lamultiplicatione dela lineaag nel terzo dela superficie dela speraab
e magiore dela spera ab. E ancora dico cbe nonne minore della spera ab, comme e la spera zh
che sia sopra ilcentro g. E possibile ancora e cbe sia nella spera ba uno corpo di piu base
dequali lebase non sienno contingenti lasuperficie de laspera zh. Adonca sira ciascuna dele
perpendiculari cadenti sopra lesuperficie di quelli corpi moventisi dal centro dela spera ab
menD dela mita del diametro dela spera ab, cbe e lalinea ag. Sira adonca lamultiplicatione
del [ag nel] terzo di ciascuna superficie loro magiore cbe lamisura dela piramide, dela quale
labasa e quella superficie e dela quale [il capo] e ilcentro g. Lamultiplicatione (49v) adunque
dela linea ag nel terzo di ciascuna (! delete) superficie ab e magiore del corpo di piu base
gia posto fo equale alembado 0 vero capacita spere zh. [Adunque lasperazh] e molto magiore
del corpo detto e quella e infra quello, e questo e impossibile. Non adunque lamultiplicatione
dela linea ag, cbe e lamita del diametro della spera ab, nel terzo dela superficie sua e [minore
del corpo, e gia provato non essere] magiore del corpo suo. Quella adunque e iguale di
quello corpo e quello. E quello vogliamo ladiscbiaratione. E quando questo dicbiarato sia
e vogliamo bavere lamita dela spera, e multiplicaremo larea dela superficie sua nel sexto
delo suo diametro. 0 vero lamita del diametro suo multiplicaremo nel terzo dela sua
superficie. Verbi gratia, sia ildiametro dela data spera 10, laquale per lamita sua fanno 50,
liquali in 3V7 multiplicati fanno 1571f7, cbe sonno larea dela superficie dela mezza spera:
laquale se multiplicaremo per losexto di quello, vienne 261
1
!21, doe multiplicando 157l.f7
via 1.3, cbe e ill.f6 di 10, fanno 261
1
%1, comme disse per larea dela mita dela spera."
If you wish the volume of a sphere, multiply the surface area of the said sphere by
1f6 the diameter of the said sphere, and the product will be the aforesaid volume.
As in the example given, I shall multiply 154 by 1/6 of 7, i.e. by 1
1
/6. The result
is 9 ~ for the volume of the said sphere, for it was said by the ancient savants
(and we shall speak more clearly about this in the particular tract on regular
bodies)S6 that the multiplication of Y3 the surface of the sphere by ~ the diameter
will produce the area of the whole sphere, that is, the corporeal area [or volume]
of the sphere, which I shall also demonstrate as follows. Let there be a sphere
ab with half-diameter ag [see Fig. III.2.4.9]. And let its center be point g. I say,
therefore, that the multiplication of ag by Y3 the surface of sphere ab is equal to
the measure of the volume of sphere ab, the demonstration of which is this. If
the multiplication of ag by Y3 the surface of sphere ab is not equal to the volume
of the sphere, it will be equal either to a body greater than sphere ab or to one
less than it. And so first let it be equal to a sphere greater than sphere ab, that is let
it be equal to sphere de concentric with sphere ab. Then it is possible to construct
in sphere de a polyhedron with sides (we call them bases) which do not touch
the surface of sphere ab. Hence there will be a perpendicular line extended from
the center g to each surface [i.e., face or base]. Each of these lines will be greater
than the half-diameter ag. Then if the angles of this body, which lie in [the
surface of] sphere de, are joined to the center of the sphere, they will form
pyramids whose apexes are the center of the sphere and whose bases are the bases
[or faces] of the body. And the measure of each pyramid arises from the
multiplication of its perpendicular by Y3 its base. And because line ag is the half-
diameter of sphere ab and is less than each of the perpendiculars, so it will be that
the multiplication of line ag by Y3 of a base is less than the measure of the pyramid
with that base. Therefore, the multiplication of line ag by Y3 the [total] surface
of such a body [is less than the volume of that body. But the surface of that
body] is greater than the surface of ab. [Therefore] the multiplication of ag by Y3
that surface is less than [the volume of] that body. But it was already assumed
that the multiplication of line ag by Y3 the surface of sphere ab is equal to sphere
ab. Therefore, it is necessary that sphere de be much less than the body which is
within it, which is impossible. Hence the multiplication ofline ag by Y3 the surface
of sphere ab is not greater than [the volume of] sphere ab.
I also say that neither is it less than [the volume of] sphere ab, say [equal to]
sphere zh with center g, [for if so,] then it is also possible to construct in sphere
ab a polyhedron whose faces do not touch the surface of sphere zh. Then each
of the perpendiculars drawn from the center of sphere ab to the bases of the body
is less than the half-diameter, line ag, of sphere ab. Therefore, the multiplication
[of ag] by Y3 each surface [or base] is greater than the measure of the pyramid
whose base is that surface and whose [apex] is the center g. Therefore, the multi-
plication of line ag by Y3 the surface of ab is greater than the polyhedron, while
it was already posited to be equal to the measure or capacity of sphere zh.
[Therefore, sphere zh] is much greater than the said body in which it is included,
and this is impossible. Therefore, the multiplication of line ag, the half-diameter
:ill There are a number of problems concerning the areas and volumes of spheres in the
part on regular bodies (Summa, I1, 72v-73r). These problems were taken by Pacioli from
Piero della Francesca's early Trattata.
of sphere ab, by Y:3 its surface is [less than its volume, and it was proved earlier
not to be] greater than its volume. Therefore, this product is equal to the
[volume of the] sphere. And this is what we wished to demonstrate. And when
this has been shown and we wish to find the [volume of the] hemisphere, we shall
multiply its area by 1/6 its diameter, or Vz its diameter by Y:3 its surface. For example,
let the diameter of the given sphere be 10, which if you multiply by its half pro-
duces 50. With this multiplied by 3
1
/7, the result is 157
1
/7, which is the surface
area of the hemisphere. If we multiply this by 1/6 the diameter, it becomes 261
19
/21,
i.e., multiplying 157
1
17 by (which is 1/6'10) produces 26p
9
121 for the area (!
volume) of the hemisphere. 57
I have already discussed the character of this proof and the significance
of the change of the including and included bodies to polyhedra in the
section on Regiomontanus (Part Ill, Chapter 2, Sect. 11). We should
merely note here that, although Pacioli's account of Fibonacci's proof is
fairly accurate, he (or possibly the printer) has omitted key phrases toward
the end of each half of the proof. I have added these phrases in brackets,
for otherwise the conclusions make no sense.
(7) Pacioli' s Theorem on the Surface of a Sphere
As I have already said in my discussion of Pacioli's extracts from
Fibonacci's account of the propositions from the Verba filiorum, Pacioli
attempted at the end of the Summa (Proposition or Problem 57 in his
section on regular bodies) to rectify his earlier omission of a proof of the
proposition on the surface area of the sphere by adding the proof of Archi-
medes. Before analyzing Pacioli's effort in detail, I should first like to give
an English translation of the whole passage:
58
57 The result given by Fibonacci is "V3 617 261," which in Fibonacci's fractional form
is equivalent to "Vu + "17 + 261." This latter number is itself equivalent to 261 1!21.
58 Ibid., 11, 73v-74r: "57. Quadrupla e la superficie di qualunque sphera a la superficie
dil magior cerchio in essa contenuto, che cosi si prova. Sia una sphera qual voli e sia
de poi una superficie quadrupla al magior cerchio che in essa capi e sia it cerchio A [Fig.
111.2.4.10], qual dico che equal a tutta la spoglia de la sphera. Se non e equale, donca e
magior 0 vero minore. Or sia prima magiore per laversario la superficie de la sphera chel
cerchio A. Donca habiamo doi quantita inequali luna la sphera laltra el cerchio A. Possibile
adonca prendere doi linee (74r) recte inequali in tal modo che la magiore habia minore
proportione ala minore che la superficie de la spera al cerchio A, e sienno ditte linee b
(carr. ex B), c; b maior e c minor. Poi fra queste per la 9
8
del 6 trova la linea d media
proportionale. Poi sia una superficie piana che seghi dicta spera in doi parti e passi per
10 centro de dicta spera e sia dicta superficie piana el cerchio efgh, el qual de necessita
sira el magior cerchio che sia in spera. Poi in questo cerchio imagina 1
8
figura multiangola
inscripta e una altra figura par multiangola circumscripta simile ala prima inscripta: cioe
che lati di luna alati de laltra sienno proportionali e gliangoli di luna iguali aliangoli de
laltra, secondo la diffinitione prima del 6, e poni che il lato de la figura circumscripta
allato de la figura inscripta habia minore proportione che bald linee. Queste cose cosi
disposite arguesci in questa forma 10 intento dicendo la superficie de la multiangola inscripta
e minore che la superficie del cerchio A perche el cerchio A quadruplo al cerchio efgh
nel qual ditta multiangola e inscripta perche eglie il maximo ne la spera contenuto perche
la segha in centro. Donca magior proportione ara la superficie de laspera ala inscripta
The surface of any sphere is quadruple the greatest circle contained in it. This
is proved as follows. Let there be a sphere of the kind I have sought and let
there be a surface quadruple the greatest circle in it; let that surface be circle A
[see Fig. 111.2.4.10]. I say that this surface is equal to the whole skin [i.e., surface]
multiangola che alcerchio A. Donca la superficie multiangola al dicto cerchio circumscripta
e minore che lasuperficie de la spera perche ex ypotesi dala circumscripta ala inscripta e
minore proportione che da la superficie de la spera al cerchio A, peroche forro posti ilati
de ditte figure multiangole in tal modo chel lato de la inscripta havesse minor proportione
che bald. E per consequente asa molto minore che dal bale e poi molto piu che da la spera
al cerchio A, diche sequita che duplata la proportione dallato de la circumscripta allato de
la inscripta sira anche minore che duplata la proportione dal b al d, cioe dal b al c perche
la proportione dal bale e doppia ala proportione dal b [all d, per la lOa diffinitione del SO.
Ma la proportione della circumscripta piana ala inscripta piana e doppia ala proportione del
lato de la circumscripta ala inscripta, per la 18
a
del 6, perche sonno figure simili.
"Ora ymagina doi figure solide multiangole facte de medesimi lati de la inscripta e circum-
scripta, e che una sia dentro ala spera e laltra difore, che li angoli de le intrinseca tochino
equaliter la pancia dentro e quella difore le base tochino dicta spera aponto. Poi recogli
tutta la superficie de la figura solida circumscripta e anche recogli tutta la superficie de la
figura solida inscripta; sira ancora minore la proportione de tutta la superficie de la solida
circumscripta a tutta la superficie de la solida inscripta che dal b al c, cioe che la doppia
dal b al d, e molto piu minore ancora che quella dela spera al cerchio A.
"E sia la intrinseca ala extrinseca de quante voi base, che pare siranno a numero la
dentro ela di fore, havenga che non si grandi pari. Ora questo notato, dirai la superficie de la
solida intrinseca tutta mai sira quanto la superficie di tutta la spera perche abia quante
face si voglia mai saguaglia ala spera. Donca dirai che la superficie tutta de la solida circum-
scripta ara magior proportione al cerchio A che non havera la spera al cerchio A perche
molto piu magiore la superficie dela multiangola circumscripta che la spera; e per consequente
magior proportione avera la superficie de la multiangola circumscripta ala multiangola in-
scripta che la spera a essa multiangola inscripta. Le qual cose finqua serba in mente. Poi
argumenta cosi: 0 la superficie tutta de la multiangola inscripta e magior 0 minor 0 uguale
al cerchio A; e sia qual voglia sequita 10 inconveniente contra la ypotesi. Or sia prima
la superficie tutta de la multiangola inscripta magior chel cerchio A. Donca minor fia la
proportione de la spera a essa de la spera al cerchio A. E pur magior non dimeno fia ancorla
proportione de la multiangola extrinseca ala multiangola intrinseca che da la spera ala
intrinseca; et ex consequenti magior sira la proportione de la extrinseca alintrinseca che
da la spera al cerchio A, e gia prima avamo minore per la ypotesi; ecco contra al prosup-
posito; ergo non est ita che la spera sia piu che 4 tanto de la superficie del maximo cerchio
in lei contento; el medesimo molto piu magior sequiri laproportione de le strinseca (1 lestrin-
seca) ala intrinseca che dala spera al cerchio A quando la intrinseca fosse equale al cerchio
A over minor, arguendo comma finora e scito. Donca non e piu che 4 tanto.
"E anco per le medesime vie poi provare che non e manco che 4 tanto del ditto cerchio,
ponendo ogni cosa commo di sopra excepto chel cerchio Asia magior che la spera mediante
ditte linee proportionali e figure multiangole intrinseca e extrinseca etc.
"Nota che tal proportione e da una superficie multiangola a unaltra multiangola simili
descripte intra doi cerchi qual e dal quadrato de diametri de lor cerchi uno alaltro, per la
prima del 12, le simili sintendeno comma e ditto in principio del 6 dangoli iguali e lati
che li contengono proportionali a sui relativi.
HE ancora de ponto la superficie de la spera per ditto archi[mede] quanto la superficia
(! superficie) dum quadrangolo ortogonio che sia contenuto sotto linee equali al diametro
de la spera e ala circunferentia del maximo cerchio in lei contento. Commo sia il diametro
de la spera 7, la circunferentia del magior cerchio fia 22, donca il quadrangolo a lei equale
fia longo 22 e largo 7, e possiede 154, che e il medesimo che habiam mostrato. E questo
havene perche tal quadrangolo fia composto de la superficie deponto di 4 cerchi maximi
de la spera, comma de sopra e detto."
i
J
of the sphere. If it is not equal to it, then it is greater or less than it. First let us
grant to the adversary that the surface of the sphere is greater than circle A.
Then we have two unequal quantities: the [surface of the] sphere and circle A.
It is possible, then, to take two unequal straight lines such that the greater has
to the lesser a smaller ratio than the surface of the sphere has to circle A. Let
these given lines be band c; the greater is b and the lesser c. Then between these
lines, by VI.9 [of the Elements], find the mean proportional line d. Then let there
be a plane surface which cuts the said sphere into two parts and passes through
the center of the said sphere; and let the said plane surface be the circle efgh,
which will necessarily be the greatest circle in the sphere. Then imagine one
[regular] polygon inscribed in this circle and a second similar polygon circum-
scribed about it, i.e., the sides of the one polygon are proportional to the sides of
the other and the angles of the one are equal to the angles of the other, follow-
ing the first definition of [Book] VI [of the Elements].59 Then let the side of the
circumscribed figure have a lesser ratio to the side of the inscribed polygon than
line b has to line d.
With these things so disposed, argue the intent [of the proof] in this form, by
saying that the surface of the inscribed polygon is less than the surface of circle
A because circle A is quadruple circle efgh in which the said polygon is in-
scribed, circle efgh being the maximum circle contained in this sphere in
as much as it cuts the sphere in the center. Then the surface of the sphere will
have a greater ratio to the inscribed polygon than it has to circle A. Then the
surface of the polygon circumscribed about the said circle is less than the surface
of the sphere because by hypothesis the ratio of the circumscribed [polygon]
to the inscribed [polygon] is less than the ratio of the surface of the sphere to
circle A. [This latter proportion follows by hypothesis] because I have posited the
sides of the polygon such that the side of the circumscribed [polygon] has a lesser
ratio to the side of the inscribed [polygon] than b has to d. Consequently, it will
be even smaller than the ratio of b to c, and still smaller than the ratio of the
surface of the sphere to circle A. [This last argument] follows [1] from the fact
that the square of the ratio of the side of the circumscribed [polygon] to the side
of the inscribed [polygon] is less than the square of the ratio of b to d, that is
[it is less than the ratio] of b to c because the ratio of b to c is equal to the square
of the ratio of b to d by the tenth definition of [Book] V [of the Elements];60
and [2] from the fact that the ratio of the circumscribed plane [figure] to the in-
scribed plane figure is equal to the square of the ratio of the side of the circum-
scribed [figure] to the side of the inscribed figure, by VI.18 [of the Elements],
because the figures are similar. 61
Now imagine two solid polygonal [figures] formed from [the rotation of] the
same sides of the inscribed and circumscribed [polygons] and that one of the solid
figures be inside of the sphere and the other outside in such a way that the angles
59 In the Campanus version of the Elementa (Basel, 1546), p. 137: "Superficies similes
dicuntur, quarum anguli unius angulis alterius aequales, lateraque aequos angulos conti-
nentia proportionalia.' ,
60 Ibid., p. 108: "Si fuerint tres quantitates continue proportionales, dicetur proportio
primae ad tertiam, proportio primae ad secundam duplicata."
61 Ibid., p. 152: "Omnes duae superficies similes multiangulae sunt divisibiles in triangulos
similes atque numero aequales, estque proportio alterius earum ad alteram, sicut cuiuslibet
sui lateris ad suum relativum latus alterius, proportio duplicata."
of the interior figure touch both the inside belly [i.e., the interior surface of the
sphere] and the outside solid at those points where the outside figure touches the
sphere.
62
Then add all the surfaces of the circumscribed solid figure and also add all
of the surfaces of the inscribed solid figure. [The conclusion is that, as in the case
of the areas of the circumscribed and inscribed polygons,] the whole surface
of the circumscribed solid will also have a smaller ratio to the whole surface of
the inscribed solid than b has to c, i.e., than the square of the ratio of b to d,
and an even smaller ratio than that of the [surface of the] sphere to circle A.
And let the exterior and interior [figures] be of as many sides as you please,
there being the same number of sides in both figures. Now with this known, I
would say that the total surface of the interior solid will never be as great as the
total surface of the sphere because, regardless of the number of faces you wish, it
will never become equal to the sphere. Then, I say that the whole surface of the
circumscribed solid will have a greater ratio to circle A than the [surface of the]
sphere has to circleA because the surface of the circumscribed solid is much greater
than [that of] the sphere. Consequently, the surface of the circumscribed solid
will have a greater ratio to the [surface of the] inscribed solid than the [surface
of the] sphere has to [the surface of] this inscribed solid. Keep this matter in mind
for now. Then argue as follows. The whole surface of the inscribed solid is
greater than, less than, or equal to circle A. Anyone of these [suppositions]
leads to a contradiction of the hypothesis. First let the whole surface of the in-
terior solid be greater than circle A. Then the ratio of the [surface of the] sphere
to [the surface of] this [interior solid] is less than that of the [surface of the]
sphere to circle A. But more rather than less is the ratio of the [surface of the]
circumscribed [solid] to the [surface of the] inscribed [solid] than that of the
[surface of the] sphere to the [surface of the] inscribed [solid]. And consequently
the ratio of the [surface of the] exterior [solid] to the [surface of the] interior
[solid] is greater than that of the [surface of the] sphere to circle A. But already
before we concluded it to be less by the hypothesis. And so this is contradictory
to the supposition. Therefore, it is not so that the [surface of the] sphere is greater
than four times the surface of the greatest circle contained in it. In the same way
it follows that even greater is the ratio of the [surface of the] exterior [solid]
to [that of] the interior [solid] than is the ratio of the [surface of the] sphere to
circle A when the [surface of the] interior [solid] is equal to circle A or less than it,
by arguing as before. Therefore, [with either of these assumptions of "equal to"
or "less than"] it [i.e., the surface of the sphere] is not greater than four times
[the greatest circle in the sphere].
And also by the same methods one proves that it is not less than four times the
said circle. Everything is proved as above, except that the circle A is assumed
to be greater than the [surface of the] sphere; the said proportional lines are used
as well as the interior and exterior polygonal figures, etc.
Note that such a ratio as that of the surface of one polygonal figure to another
similar polygonal figure, the figures being described within two circles, is as the
62 Notice that in the proof of Archimedes the circumscribed and inscribed bodies pro-
duced by the rotation of the polygons remain similarly placed, while in his proof Pacioli
first rotates the inscribed polygon about the center of the circle so that its angles touch
the points oftangency of the circumscribed polygon with the circle. Then, after this rotation,
the polygons and the circle are rotated together about a diameter of the circle to fonn the
circumscribed and inscribed bodies.
ratio of the squares of the diameters of these circles, by XII.! [of the Elements]63_
"similar" being understood as defined in the beginning of [Book] VI [of the
Elements], namely [figures] of equal angles whose sides containing them are
respectively proportional.
And furthermore, by the said Archimedes, the surface of the sphere is exactly
equal to the rectangle which is contained by lines equal [respectively] to the
diameter of the sphere and to the circumference of the greatest circle contained
in it. Hence, if the diameter of the sphere is 7, the circumference of the
greatest circle becomes 22. So the rectangle equal to it [i.e. the surface of the
sphere] becomes 22 in length and 7 in width and has [as its area] 154, which is the
same amount as we demonstrated above. This is the result of the fact that such
a rectangle is composed of four great circles of the sphere, as was said above.
We should first realize that this is the only piece of the Summa which
shows a direct relationship to the text of Archimedes, although there is
one case (discussed below) where he utilized Piero's text but added an ap-
propriate reference to Archimedes in connection with the area of a seg-
ment of a sphere. It will be immediately evident that the passage under
discussion was based on Proposition 1.33 of On the Sphere and the
Cylinder (Proposition 1.31 in the Cremonensis translation). Further, I
deduce that it was Cremonensis' translation rather than that of William of
Moerbeke which Pacioli consulted, since Pacioli, like Cremonensis, em-
ploys here the Latin order of letters to mark the geometrical magnitudes
rather than the Greek order used by Moerbeke.
64
For example, Pacioli
63 Elementa (ed. cit.), p. 388: "Omnium duarum superficierum similium multiangularum
inter duos circulos descriptarum, est proportio alterius ad alteram, tanquam proportio
quadratorum quae ex diametris circulorum eas circunscribentium proveniunt."
64 For the text of Cremonensis' translation of this proposition, which is numbered 31 in
this translation, see MS Venice, Bibl. Naz. Marc. f.a. 327, 87v-88r: "Cuiuslibet spere
superficies quadrupla est circuli qui in ea maximus habetur. Esto spera quecunque; esto
deinde superficies quedam quadrupla ad maximum in spera circulum, que sit circulus a.
Dico igitur quod a est equalis superficiei spere. Nam si non, vel maior erit vel minor.
Ponatur primo quod sit maior spere superficies circulo a. Habemus iam duas magnitudines
inequales, scilicet superficiem spere et cireulum a. Possumus igitur sumere ducas rectas
lineas inequales, ita ut maior ad minorem habeat minorem proportionem quam superficies
spere ad eirculum a, sint itaque sumpte b, C, quarum media proportionalis sit d. Intelli-
gatur etiam spera secta a plana superficie transeunte per eius centrum, sitque ilIa secans
circulus efgh. Intelligatur preterea illi circulo una figura cireumscripta, altera inscripta mul-
torum angulorum figura, ita ut circumscripta sit inscripte similis, et circumscripte latus
minorem habeat proportionem ad latus inscripte quam b habet ad ipsam d, et sic illa pro-
portio duplieata minor erit hac similiter proportione duplicata. Proportio autem band c
est duplicata ea quam habet b ad ipsam d. Proportio autem lateris figure circumscripte
ad latus figure inscripte duplicata est tanta, quanta est superficiei circumscripte figure solide
ad superficiem inscripte. Superficies igitur figure solide circumscripte spere ad superficiem
figure inscripte minorem habet proportionem quam superficies spere ad a circulum, quod
quidem est inconveniens et absurdum. Nam superficies figure circumscripte superficie
spere maior existit, superficies vero inscripte a circulo minor est, ostensum est
enim superficiem figure inscripte minorem esse quam quadruplam circuli in spera maximi.
Circulus autem a quadruplus est positus circuli in spera maximi. 19itur spere
superficies non potest maior esse superficie circuli a. Dieo item quod neque minor
esse potest. Nam si potest, esto. Inveniantur similiter due linee recte b. c ita
ut b habeat (S8r) ad c minorem proportionem quam circulus a ad superficiem
spere, sitque iUarum media proportionalis d, et circumscribatur iterum et inscribatur
figura ut supra, ita ut circumscripte ad inscriptam minor sit proportio quam b ad lineam
d, igitur et ea duplicata erit minor. Quare superficies circumscripte ad superficiem inscripte
minorem habet proportionem quam a circulus ad spere superficiem, quod sane absurdum
est, nam circumscripte superficies maior est a circulo, inscripte vero superficies spere super-
ficie minor existit. Non ergo superficies spere a circulo potest esse minor. Cum etiam
demonstratum sit quod nequit maior esse, necessario colligitur earn circulo a, hoc [est]
quadruplo circuli in spera maximi, equalem esse." Cf. the edition of Basel, 1544, pp. 31-32.
The reader may wish to compare Cremonensis' translation with that of Moerbeke in Vol-
ume 2, 29rA-H. They are very close to each other. Hence I was forced to rely on Pacioli's
use of Cremonensis' letters rather than those of Moerbeke to conclude that Pacioli had
seen the translation of Cremonensis.
(side of circum. polyg.)2
_________<b2Id2 Now
(side of inscri. polyg.)2
b
2
1d
2
= ble, since bid = dIe. Hence
(1)
(3)
(2)
follows Cremonensis in using e instead of G and efgh instead of EZHT.
There is no evidence in this brief section as to which manuscript of
Cremonensis' translation Pacioli consulted. I think it a plausible sugges-
tion, however, that Pacioli had looked at the same manuscript that Piero
della Francesca had used, namely Urb. lat. 261.
Now I should like to analyze Pacioli's proof in some detail, indicating
the essential steps of the proof and rearranging these steps in a direct way.
Pacioli's proof takes its over-all structure from Archimedes' proof. Hence,
if S is the surface of the sphere and A is posited as equal to four great
circles of the sphere, then either S = A or S *" A. If S = A, the proposi-
tion is had. If S =t= A, then either S > A or S < A. Let us posit first that
S > A. Then one further posits two linear magnitudes band e such that
b > e and SlA > ble. Further, line d is given such that bId = dIe. Then
the sphere is cut by a plane passing through its center, producing the
common section, great circle efgh. Similar regular polygons are circum-
scribed and inscribed in circle efgh of such a nature that a side of the
circumscribed polygon is to a side of the inscribed polygon as b is to d.
To this point Pacioli has followed Archimedes closely, as a comparison
between his text and that of Archimedes (given in note 64) reveals. But
from this point on Pacioli is forced to diverge from Archimedes' text
because he does not have the reservoir of preceding propositions of On
the Sphere and the Cylinder to fall back on (that is, he has not presented
these previous propositions).
Pacioli first proves, with the given hypothesis of S > A, that
area of circum. polygon h' . h l' 11 .
[1] < SIA. He does t IS m t e 10 owmg way:
area of inscri. polygon
side of circum. polyg.
--------< bId (given); and so
side of inscri. polyg.
I ~
(side of circum. polyg.)2
--------<ble, from (2) and (3). And
ble < SIA (given). Further
(4)
(5)
(6)
area of circum. polyg.
area of inscri. polyg.
(side of circum. polyg.)Z
--------- . Hence
(8)
(7)
.........
--------< ble, from (4) and (6),
Therefore, < SIA, from (7) and (5).
So far, Pacioli has considered only the areas of the polygons that are
circumscribed and inscribed about a great circle of the sphere. Now he
shifts to the solids formed by the rotation of these polygons. Without
any formal proof, he jumps from conclusion [1] concerning the ratio of
the areas of the polygons to the following conclusion relative to the ratio
of the surface areas of the solids generated by the rotation of the polygons:
surface of exterior body
[2] <SIA.
surface of interior body
This was the crucial conclusion in the first half of Archimedes' proof.
Archimedes had no need of developing conclusion [1] concerning the
areas of the polygons because he had already shown in Proposition 1.32
of On the Sphere and the Cylinder that
surface of exterior body (side of circum. polyg.)2
surface of interior body (side of inscri. polyg.)2
Hence, Archimedes was able to prove [2] directly by a series of steps
like those of (1) to (8) above, except that the above noted conclusion
of Proposition 1.32 is to be substituted for step (6) and consequently
the left-hand member of the expressions in (7) and (8) is to be
(surface of exterior body)
(surface of interior body)
rather than Pacioli' s
(area of circum. polyg.)
(area of inscri. polyg.)
Returning to Pacioli's proof, we should realize that conclusion [2] was
inferred from the hypothesis of S > A. Now Pacioli sets out to show
that conclusion [2] is contradicted by the nature of the relationship
between such bodies and the sphere about which they are circumscribed
or in which they are inscribed, since this nature leads to the conclusion
surface of exterior body. .
[3] .. > SIA, dIrectly contradIctory to [2]. Con-
surface of mtenor body
clusion [3] had been shown very simply by Archimedes. In Proposition
1.28 of On the Sphere and the Cylinder he had proved that the surface
of the exterior body is greater than that of the sphere, while in Proposition
1.25 he had showed that the surface of the interior solid is less than
A, i.e., less than four great circles of the sphere. But Pacioli, not having
presented these previous propositions, was forced to prove conclusion
[3] in another way. He does it as follows:
(1) surface of interior body < S, since the interior body is included within the
sphere. And
(2) surface of exterior body> S, since the exterior body includes the sphere. So
(3) surface of exterior body / A > S/A, from (2). Hence
surface of exterior body S
(4) > , from (1) and (2).
surface of interior body surface of interior body
(5) Surface of interior body is greater than, equal to, or less than A.
(6) If surface of interior body >A, then S/A >S/surface of interior body.
surface of exterior body
(7) Hence, >S/A, from (4) and (6). [This in fact does
surface of interior body
not follow, as I shall explain below.]
(8) The conclusion of step (7) contradicts main conclusion [2] inferred from
the hypothesis S > A. Hence, S :}A .
(9) Conclusion of step (7) would also follow [so says Pacioli] from the assumption
that surface of interior body = A. Hence, main conclusion [2] would again
be contradicted, and thus S :}A .
(10) Finally step (7) would also follow from the assumption that surface of
interior body <A, with its consequent contradiction of main conclusion
[2]. Thus again S :}A.
(11) Since these are all the possible cases, we must conclude that S :}A .
We should first note that Pacioli does not present the second half of the
proof, which demonstrates that a contradiction results from the assump-
tion of S < A. He merely mentions that it is similar to the first half and
that it uses the proportional lines and the inscribed and circumscribed
figures.
I hasten to point out that Pacioli, without Proposition 1.25 of On the
Sphere and the Cylinder to lean on, commits a grave error of argument
from step (7) onward. In fact, step (7) does not necessarily follow when
the surface of the interior body is assumed to be greater than A; nor does
it follow when that surface is assumed to be equal toA (step 9). It only fol-
lows when the surface is actually shown to be less than A. This last is
precisely what Archimedes demonstrated in Proposition 1.25. Pacioli ap-
parently thought that he had a neat way of avoiding this earlier proposi-
tion. Thus, to prove that step (7) is always true, he presents an erroneous
argument from all the cases, when what was needed was the proof of the
factual truth of one case. It seems evident that he was misled by simple
errors in the manipulation of ratios. He could easily have avoided using his
false argument had he included rather than omitted Proposition XIII of
the Verba filiorum when he gave his extracts from Fibonacci's account
of the Verba jiliorum, for Proposition XIII was equivalent to Proposition
1.25 of On the Sphere and the Cylinder.
At the end of the proof Pacioli has included a note on the circumscribed
and inscribed polygons, relating them to Proposition XII. 1 of the Ele-
ments.
65
This note, however, cannot be construed as a proof of his un-
supported move from conclusion [1] to conclusion [2].
Beyond this proof with its note, Pacioli adds another enunciation for
the proposition concerning the surface of a sphere. He indicates that, ac-
cording to Archimedes, "the surface of the sphere is exactly equal to the rec-
tangle which is contained by lines equal [respectively] to the diameter of
the sphere and to the circumference of the greatest circle contained in it."
This is the exact enunciation of Proposition VI of the De curvis super-
ficiebus Archimenidis (see Vol. 1, p. 478). The fact that Pacioli assigns
this enunciation to Archimedes is clear evidence, I believe, that he was in
fact quoting from the De curvis superjiciebus. The significance of this for
our study is that he has juxtaposed his unsatisfactory proof drawn from
Cremonensis' translation of Archimedes, that is, from the Renaissance
Archimedes, to a statement taken from one of the most popular works in
the medieval tradition of Archimedes. This is one more indication of how
thoroughly mixed the old and the new Archimedes were in this period.
(8) On Segments of a Sphere
Returning to the section on the sphere drawn from Fibonacci's Prac-
tica, we can refer briefly to the passage concerned with the area and
volume of segments of a sphere that are either smaller or larger than a
hemisphere.
66
Once more Fibonacci's text is his direct source (see Ap-
65 See note 63 above.
66 Summa, 11, 49v: "E sefia debisogno a noi misurare una portione de spera che sia
magiore 0 minore dela mezza spera, comme sonno le fonte ritonde e gli vasi iquali hano
lifondi tondi: Ialtezza del detto corpo che e una linea che si extende dal centro del cerchio
dela bocca di quella tale parte e va infino al ponto del polo del detto cerchio col lamita
del diametro dela spera proportionare curiamo e quella parte dela superficie dela mita
de1a spera e ancora dela misura sua togliamo. E haremo ildesiderio. Verbi gratia, sia lalinea
ab el diametro de1a bocca duna fonte ritonda, e g sia ilsuo centro, e ilponto d sia ilpolo
del detto cerchio [Fig. III.2.4.11]. Dnde lalinea dg sta ortogonalmente sopra lasuperficie
del cerchio del quale ildiametro e ab dove ilquadrato dela mita del diametro ab divideremo
per gd e haremo quello che resta di tutto ildiametro dela spera sopra lalinea gd. Verbi
gratia, sia lalinea ab, cioe ildiametro, radici di 160. Dnde gb, che e lamita del ab fia radice
di 40, del quale ilquadrato fia 40. Elquale selo dividiamo per gd. che loponiamo 4, vienne
10 per 10 avanzo del diametro sopra lalinea dg, elquale diametro in 2 parti iguali diviso
sopra ilponto z fia ildetto z centro del cerchio grande cadente nela spera, e1quale cerchio
sia ilcerchio aebd. Proportionero adonca lalinea gd con 10 mezzo ildiametro dela spera, che
pendix I, Sect. 3, B[9]). For the area of the segment of a sphere, Pacioli
employs the formula A seg = (hlr)' (S/2) or A = h 2r .TT (equivalent to
A = h d .7T), where h is the altitude of the segment, r is the radius of the
sphere, d its diameter, and S the surface of the whole sphere. For the
volume of the segment he gives: V = (vol. of sector of base A) - (vol. of
cone with base equal to base of segment and height equal to [r - h D
= (A 13)'r - (h / 3)(2r - h)'7T"'(r - h). Pacioli omits the long geometric
demonstration given by Fibonacci. Pacioli returns to problems like these
in the section near the end of the Summa which he has entitled Parti-
cularis tractatus de corporibus regularibus. This tractatus includes a large
number of problems taken directly from Piero della Francesca's early
Trattato; of these I shall here give only those concerned with spheres
and their segments.
67
In one of these problems (Problem No. 51 given in
e zd, cioe 4 con 7, fia gd del zd gli 417. Onde torremo li 417 de larea dela superficie dela
mita dela spera, cioe di 308, che viene dela superficie del dz in de multiplicato in 3
1
/7,
viene 176 per larea dela superficie dela portione dela spera, delaquale labasa e ilcerchio
del quale ildiametro e ab e ilsuo polo e d, e larco cadente in quella portione e larco abd
fatto dal cerchio grande cadente nela spera. Ela sua misura corporea, doe lamisura corporea
dela detta portione sara sel terzo delarea dela sua superficie si multiplica in 7, cioe nelo
mezzo diametro zd, e diquella se ne traga lamisura corporea dela piramide di colonna
delaquale lasommita e uno ponto z e la sua basa e uno cerchio del quale il diametro e
lalineaab e la sua alteza e la lineazg che e 3; e la sua misura, cioe lamisuradela detta piramide e
125
5
17; rimangano adonca tratti di 4 ~ che e lamultiplicatione del mezzo diametro in el
terzo di 176, rimangono 285 menD 1/21 per larea corporale dela portione detta." This passage
is followed by a brief treatment of a segment larger than a hemisphere, which I shall
omit. It too is taken from Fibonacci's text. Pacioli however omits the long succeeding
demonstration given by Fibonacci.
67 A few good examples for comparison with the text of Piero della Francesca's Trattato
will suffice: Summa, Il, 69r: "11. Eglie un corpo sperico chel diametro suo e 7, dimando
quanto sira la sua superficie. Ecci molti modi a saperlo; primo e che tu multiplichi 10
diametro suo che 7 via la circunferentia che 22, fa 154, e tanto fia la sua superficie e
Archimede did che ogm superficie de spera e 4 tanto che la superficie del magior cerchio
di quella propria spera commo in figura di questo porremo sua demonstratione, che e il suo
diametro che se ditto che e 7, che la superficie sua e 3 8 ~ che multiplicato per 4 fa 154
aponto, commo di sopra siche dirai che la superficie de la spera chel suo diametro e 7 sie
(! sia) 154 facta." Compare with Piero's text given in the preceding section, note 6.
Summa, Il, 69r: "12. Eglie un corpo sperico chel suo diametro e 7, dimando che fia
quadrato 1otto el corpo. Tu hai che la superficie e 154 el suo diametro e 7; multiplica la
superficie sua via la ~ del diametro over la ~ dela superficie via tutto el diametro, che
ognuna fa 539. Del quale piglia el Y:3, che e 17m; tanto fia quadro ditto corpo etc. Posse
ancora fare per altra via per che tu die sapere che ogni cubo contene in se un corpo
sperico che ene li 11/21 del ditto cubo, cioe sel cubo fosse 7 per faccia possede in tutto 343,
dequesto senevol pigliare li 1lf21 nevene 7 9 ~ commo prima, over de 343 se ne vol bugliare
li 1/21 che remarra 17m, e tanto sira el tenuto de la spera; la ragione per che se ne getti
li 1/21 sie che s10 (! tu) hai un dado 7 per faccia; e tu ne voglia fare una pallotta, tu loviene
ascantonare per modo che glie provato che quello che sene getta ene li 1/21 de tutto quello
che prima era el cubo e quello che remane vene a essere li 11/21 de tutto el ditto dado etc.
siche bastL" Compare Piero's text given in the preceding section, notes 8-9.
Summa, Il, 72v: "[45.] Eglie un cubo che e 4 bracci per lato, voglio de la superficie
sua fare superficie de una spera; domando quanto sira il diametro de ditta spera. Fa cosi:
vedi prima quanto e la superficie de tutto el cubo, il quale a 6 facce e 16 per facia; adonca
6 via 16 fa 96. E tu voi una spera che la superficie sua sia 96; pero multiplica 96 per 14,
fa 1344, el qual parti per 11, nevene I22
2
/11 , e tu hai a pigliare la commo radice pero
reca 2 a radice fa 4, parti 122
2
/11 in (I per) 4, nevene 30
6
/11, e radice 30
6
/11 sira il diametro
de ditta spera. Tu sai chel \4 de 96, che 24, e la superficie del magior cerchio it cui diametro
e diametro de la spera." Compare with Piero's text given in the preceding section, note 10.
Summa, Il, 73r: "49. Eglie una piramide 0 voi dire cono che la basa sua e circulare
el suo diametro e equale alilati el suo axis e 4, voglio de la sua quadratura fare una sphera;
dimando che sira suo diametro. Bisogna prima quadrare la piramide che sai che laxis e 4,
e la possanza de laxis a la possanza del suo lato e in proportione sexquitertia, e la possanza
de laxis e 16, adonca la possanza dellato ene 21Y3, laqual mUltiplica per 11, fa 234.3;
partilo in (! per) 14, neven[e] 16
16
A!l, e tanto e la superficie de la basa, laqual multiplica
con laxis che 4, fa 64
1
/21 (! 67%1). E perche questo e cheli[n]dro e noi volemo la piramide,
e ogni piramide e el Y3 del suo chelindro; pero dividi 67
1
/21 per 3, nevene 22
22
/63, e tanto
fia quadrata la piramide. E tu hai per la passata che la quadratura de la spera che 179.3
te da 343, che te dara 22
22
/63, multiplica 22
22
/63 via 343, fa 7665%, el qual parti per 179.3,
nevene 42.3, ela radice cuba de 42.3 sira el diametro de la spera che cerchiamo a ponto etc. "
Compare with the text of Piero in the preceding section, note 11. This is a rare instance
in this section of Pacioli's correcting an erroneous calculation of Piero. One could suppose
that Pacioli took the correction from Piero's later De quinque eorporibus regularibus, Tract
Ill, Case No. XXII (ed. of Mancini, p. 551) except that the latter correction is given in
a form different from that found in the Summa. Piero gives the final answer of the cube
of the diameter as 42
7M6
/11319, while Pacioli reduces the fraction in giving 42.3. Needless
to say, a mere reduction in fractions is hardly conclusive evidence that Pacioli calculated
his answer independently of Piero's corrected calculation. Still I do not believe that this
instance of approximate agreement with Piero's later tract vitiates my general conclusion
that Pacioli did not employ the De quinque eorporibus regularibus in preparing the Summa.
For the fact remains that in Problems 54 and 56 (noted below) Pacioli repeats the uncorrected
figures given by Piero in the Trattato although these figures were corrected by Piero in
his later work.
Summa, Il, 73r: "51. Eglie una spera it cui diametro e 14, levone con una linea piana
tanto che taglia del diametro 4 bracci; domando quanto che levara de la superficie de ditta
spera e quanto sira la linea dividente. Havemo ditto nelli corpi sperici che la superficie de la
spera e 4 tanto che la superficie del magior circulo de la spera. E disesse che a multiplicare
il diametro dela spera nella circunferentia del magior cerchio produciva la superficie de tutta
la spera. Adonca multiplicando 14 via 44 fa 616 per la superficie di questa spera. Ora per
trovar quella parte che leva quella linea che taglia del diametro 4, multiplica 4 nel resto
del diametro, che 10, fa 40; e radice 40 e la de la linea dividente e tutta e radice 160.
Ora tu hai el diametro ad che 14 [Fig. III.2.4.12] e la linea dividente be radice 160, che e
corda e sega il diametro in ponto e, ai che be radice 40, che la de be, e 10 ae, che e
saetta, e 4, multiplicalo in se, fa 16, giongnilo con 40, fa 56; donca ab e radice 56, el
qual se vuol dopiare commo radice, fa radice 224, [el qual] multiplica in se, fa 224, pigliane
li 11114 per quello dici Archimede nevene 176, e tanto fia la superficie di quella portione
menore che laxis e 4 e 10 diametro de la sua basa e radice 160 facta etc." Compare with
Piero's text in the preceding section, note 12.
Summa, n, 73v: "54. Eglie una sphera il cui diametro e 14, taglione con una linea piana
5 bracci; domando che levara de la quadratura del corpo. Fa cosi: vedi prima quanto e
la linea dividente be a questo modo [Fig. 1lI.2.4.13]. Tu sai che ae e 5 e de e 9, che il
resto del diametro; pero multiplica 5 via 9, fa 45, e la radice 45 e be, che la de la linea
dividente. E tu voi ab; pero multiplica ae, che 5, in se, fa 25, giongnilo con la possanza be,
fa 70; e radice 70 fia ab, la qual redopia commo radice, fa radice (! delete) 280; donca
piglia li 11/14 de 280, nevene 148
4
17 (! 220), e tanto eva (! leva) de la superficie de ditta
spera per la portione bae; e tuvoli del corpo, pero multiplica 148
4
/7 (! 220) per la del
diametro che 7, fa 1040 (! 1540), e questo parti per 3, nevene 346.3 (I 513Y3), del qual se
vol trare el cono be!, cioe cosi. Tu hai la linea be, che e radice 180, e perche se ditto be,
note 67) Pacioli adds to Piero's account of the determination of the surface
of a spherical segment a reference to Archimedes (' 'per quello dici
Archimede") which could indicate that Pacioli had noticed Proposition
1.42 (labeled as 1.41 in the Urbino manuscript of the Cremonensis
translation) of On the Sphere and the Cylinder. It should be recalled that
Piero della Francesca' s version of this problem in his earlier Trattato
(which indeed Pacioli was literally copying) was probably based on
Fibonacci's Practica geometrie rather than on Archimedes' On the Sphere
and the Cylinder. But in Piero' s later version of this same problem con-
tained in his De quinque corporibus regularibus (see the preceding sec-
tion, note 37), he added a reference to Archimedes. It could be, therefore,
that Pacioli's remark about Archimedes came from the De quinque
corporibus regularibus of Piero. Against this interpretation is the fact that
Pacioli does not make use of the De quinque corporibus regularibus to
correct major errors of calculation that Piero had committed in the earlier
Trattato and had corrected in the later work. If this last argument is of any
moment, we ought then to opt for the conclusion that Pacioli, while study-
ing the proposition on the area of a sphere, (which he reproduced as
Problem or Proposition 57 and which I have studied in detail above) also
noticed Proposition 1.42 of On the Sphere and the Cylinder and saw its
relevance for his own Problem No. 51.
(9) On Semiregular Bodies
I have already indicated something of Pacioli's interest in regular and
semiregular bodies. Thus I mentioned the fact that he reports having
constructed models of such bodies in 1489 when at Rome.
68
His interest
in the so-called Archimedean semiregular bodies is expressed in writing
first in the Summa, in the section devoted to regular bodies. There he
repeats from Piero della Francesca's early Trattato the two problems de-
voted to P1 (the semiregular polyhedron of 8 faces, 4 of which are equi-
lateral triangles and 4 of which are equilateral hexagons) and the two prob-
lems concerned withP2 (the semiregular polyhedron of 14 faces, 8 of which
che la Y2 del be, e radice 45 siche dopia e radice 180, e la possanza de be. che diametro
de la basa de ditto cono, sie (1 sia) 180; pigliane li ll/i4, nevene 142
6
17 (1 141
3
17), e questo
mUltiplica perle, che lalte[z]za de ditto cono che 2, fa 285517 (1 282
6
17); pigliane ~ nevene
955121 (1 94
2
17); traUo de 3 4 ~ (! 5 1 3 ~ che di sopra havesti, resta 251317 (! 419
1
fill), e tanti
bracia leva del solido de ditta sphera." Compare the text of Piero in the preceding section,
note 13. AU of Piero's errors are repeated by Pacioli. I have added in parentheses the
successive correct computations. As I noted earlier, these corrections were made by Piero
in his De quinque eorporibus regularibus. To this point I have given enough examples of
how Pacioli copied problems almost verbatim from Piero's Trattato. I can merely add that
Pacioli also included the two remaining propositions of Piero on spherical segments which
I have included in the preceding section, note 14. -For Pacioli they became Problems 55 and 56.
In Problem 56, Pacioli once more repeated the erroneous calculations of Piero.
68 See above, note 9.
are equilateral triangles and 6 of which are squares).69 But it was in his
Divina proportione, written, as I have noted, in 1498, that Pacioli greatly
extended his treatment of semiregular bodies. In that tract he described
the following semiregular polyhedra (I use the designations employed in
my treatment of Piero della Francesca, which see): (1) PI formed from a
regular tetrahedron per laterum tertias ;70 (2) P2' from a cube per laterum
media;71 (3) P3, from a regular octahedron per [aterum tertias ;72 (4) P8,
from a regular icosahedron per laterum tertias ;73 (5) P7' from a regular
69 These four problems are numbered 15-18 in the Summa, I1, 69v-7Or. I have given
the texts of one of each set as they appeared in Piero's Trattato. See the preceding section
on Piero, notes 51 and 53. I shall not repeat the texts here.
70 Ed. of Milan, 1956, pp. 86-87 (cf. 00. of Venice, 1509, 14r-v): "Capitulo XLVIII. ...
El tetracedron scapezzo 0 vogliam dire absciso, solido piano over vacuo, fia contenuto da
18 linee quali causano 36 anguli superficiali e 12 solidi. E 8 basi 10 circundano, de le quali
4 sonno exagone cioe de 6lati equali e 1'altre 4 sonno triangole, similmente equilatere e
anco equiangole. Ma de le ditte 18 linee, le 12 sonno commune a le basi triangule e a le
exagone, le quali non di meno sonno tutte proprie de quelli exagoni, perche de necessita
quelli 4 exagoni gionti asiemi con alcuni soi lati, causano quelli 4 triangoli, si comma la
experientia nella sua propria forma materiale a l'ochio nostro rende chiaro [Fig. III.2.4.14].
E nasci dal precendente, ne li suoi lati per terzo uniformi tagliati."
71 Ed. of Milan, 1956, pp. 88-89 (cf. ed of Venice, 1509, 14v);"Capitulo XLVIIII ....
Lo exacOOron scapezzo over absciso piano, similmente solido over vacuo, ha 24 linee
quali circa epso causano 48 anguli superficiali, de li quali 24 sonno recti e li altri acuti.
E hane 12 solidi e fia contenuto da 14 superfide overo basi, cioe da 6 quadrate e 8 triangule.
E tutte le ditte linee sonno commune a le quadrate e a le trigone perche queHe 6 quadrate
gionte asiemi angulariter, de necessita causano 8 trianguli si commo fecero li exagoni
neHo tetracedron absciso. E nasci dal cubo tagliato uniforme neHa mita de ciascun suo lato,
commo demonstra a l' occhio la sua propria forma materiale [Fig. III.2.4.15]."
72 Ed. of Milan, 1956, pp. 90-91 (cf. ed. of Venice, 1509, 14v-15r): "Capitulo L. ...
L'octocedron absciso over tagliato, piano solido over vacuo, ha linee 36 che fanno 72
anguli superficiali, cioe 48 sonno de li exagoni e 24 de li quadrati. E contene 24 solidi
e ha 14 basi, de le quali sone exagone doe de 6lati, e 6 ne sonno tetragone doe quadrate.
Ma de dicte linee, 24 ne sonno comune, cioe a li quadrati e a li exagoni. E quelli tali
quadrati se formano da li exagoni quando uniformi tutti 8 se continghino, che di tutto 1'occhio
ne la forma suamateriale chiaro a l'intellecto la veritafa nota [Figs. III.2.4.16 and III.2.4.17].
E de questo ancora, non e possibile se formi et suo elevato che uniforme s'apresenti per
10 deffecto similmente de li exagoni, quali, comma del tetracedron absciso fo decto, non
e possible che causino angulo solido. E formase dal precedente, nella terza parte de ciascun
suo lato uniforme tagliato." In giving two of Leonardo da Vinci's drawings here, I have
given an example not only of the "solid" body but also of the "vacuous" body. The
reader should realize that illustrations of both such bodies were executed for each semi-
regular polyhedron under discussion.
73 Ed. of Milan, 1956, pp. 92-93 (cf. ed, of Venice, 1509, 15r): "Capitula LI.... Lo
icocedron absdso piano over solido, ha 90 lati over linee, e si ha 180 anguli superficiali,
de li quali 120 sonno de li trianguli a la sua compositione concurrenti, e 60 sonno de li
pentagoni che pur a queHa convengano, quali tutti sonno equilateri. E queste linee formano
intomo dicta carpo, 32 basi de le quali 20 sonno exagone, doe e 6 lati equali, e 12 ne son
pentagone, cioe de 5 lati equali. E cadaune in suo grado, sonno fra loro equilatere e anco
equiangule, cioe che tutti li exagoni fra loro sonno de angoli equali e cosi li pentagoni
fra loro sonno de angoli equali. Ma li lati tutti, si de' pentagoni commo de li exagoni,
tutti fra loro sonno equali. Solo in li angoli sonno differenti li pentagoni e li exagoni. E
questo si facto corpo nasci dal precedente regulare, quando ciascun suo lata ne la sua
dodecahedron per laterum media ;74 and finally (6) P5, from a cube without
the method of truncation specified (he refers only to the model or pictorial
representation).75
In the first place, notice that Pacioli has given descriptions of the
polyhedra but no problems of the sort found in Piero' s De quinque
corporibus regularibus. The second point of interest is that, unlike Piero,
Pacioli did not include either P9 orP4which involve truncationper laterum
divisiones in tres partes. Perhaps he thought these divisions too compli-
cated to describe. However, Pacioli did giveP
7
, which Piero had omitted.
I have explained Piero's omission by the suggestion that Piero had already
given P8 and P9 as examples formed respectively from an icosahedron and
terza parte uniforme se taglino. E di tal tagli se causano 20 exagoni e 12 pentagoni comma
e dicto, e [30] anguli corporei over solidi. Ma de le dicte linee, 60 ne son comune a li
exagoni e pentagoni perche de li 20 exagono insiemi uniformamente gionti, de necessita
causano 12 pentagoni [Fig. III.2.4.18]. E de questo ancora non se po dare 10 elevato per
10 defecto del dicto exagono, comma nel tetracedron absciso e de l' octocedron absciso
di sopra dicto habiamo."
74 Ed. of Milan, 1956, pp. 94-95 (cf. ed. of Venice, 1509, 15r-v): "Capitulo LIl....
El duodecedron scapezzo over absciso, piano, solido over vacuo, ha 60 linee tutte de
equal longhezza, e ha 120 anguli superficiali e hane 30 solidi. Ma de li 120 superficiali,
60 sonno de' trianguli e 60 sonno de' pentagoni, e quelli trianguli de necessita se causano
da' dicti pentagoni se angularmente fra loro se congionghino: comma in la causatione de
quelli tetracedron e octocedron abscisi fo decto, quali da exagoni e quadrangoli e trianguli
se formavano, e cosi in quelli de 10 icocedron absciso, da exagoni e pentagoni, commo la
figura material demostra. E caduno de' dicti anguli solidi fia facto e contenuto da 4 anguli
superficiali, de li quali doi sonno de' trianguli e doi sonno de pentagono concurrenti ad
uno medesimo ponto. E tutte le sue linee over lati, sonno comune a li triangoli e a li
pentagoni perche l'uni e gli altri insiemi debitamente aplicati, l'uno e causa de l'altro,
doe li triangull de li pentagoni e li pentagoni de li triangoli. E si comme li 12 pentagoni
equilateri angularmente congionti, formano in dicto corpo 20 trianguli, cosi ancora possiam
dire che 20 trianguli equilateri, angularmente fra lor congionti, causino 12 pentagoni simil-
mente equilateri. E per questo appare: tutte dicte linee fra loro esser comune, comma e
dicto. E Le superficie che questo circundano sonno 32, de le qual, 12 sonno pentagone
equilatere et equiangule e 20 sonno triangole pure equilatere et equiangule, tutte fra loro
commo habiamdetto, reciprocamentecausate. E in sua material forma apare [Fig. IlI.2.4.19];
e questo deriva dal precedente in la mita de ciascun suo lato uniforme tagliato."
75 Ed. of Milan, 1956, pp. 97-98 (cf. ed. of Venice, 1509, 15v): "Capitulo LIII.
Un altro corpo, excelso Duca, da li gia ditti assai dissimile se trova detto de 26 basi, da
principio e origine ligiadrissimo derivante. De le quali, 18 sonno quadrate equilatere e
rectangule, e le 8 sonno triangule equilatere similmente et equiangule. E questo tale ha 48
lati overo linee e ha % anguli superficiali, de li quali 72 sonno tutti recti e sonno quelli
de le sue 18 basi quadrate, e 24 sonno acuti e sonno quelli de li suoi 8 trianguli equilateri.
E questi 96 fra loro concorreno a la compositione in epso de 24 anguli solidi, de li quali
ciascuno consta de uno angulo superficiale del triangulo e de 3 anguli recti de 3 quadrati.
E de le 48 sue linee, 24 sonno comune a li trigoni e a li quadrati pen) che de quelli 18
quadrati, asiemi secondo la debita oportunita agionti, de necessita ne resultano quelli 8
trianguli formati si comma che degli altri abscisi, de sopra s'e detto. E 1'0rigine de questo
fia da 10 exacedron uniforme secondo ogni suoi parti tagliato. comma similmente a l'occhio
la sua material forma ci demostra [Fig. IIl.2.4.20]. E fia la sua scientia in molte con-
siderationi utilissima a chi bene la sa accomodare, maxime in architectura. E questo a
notitia de suo solido piano e vacuo."
456 SfS;>
JES IN THE MIDDLE AGES
.todecahedron, and hence did not feel it necessary to give P
7
which can
Je formed from either of these two regular polyhedra. It is also worth
noting that Ps was included by Pacioli but not by Piero. Its method of
construction by truncation was not included in the scholium to Pappus'
Collectio which we discussed in the section on Piero della Francesca.
Nor indeed is its method of construction detailed by Pacioli. He merely
invites visual inspection. It seems very likely that Pacioli acquired much
of his knowledge of the semiregular bodies from Piero. As we have noted,
the only problems on such bodies in the Summa were taken from Piero's
early TraUato, while the whole of Piero's De quinque corporibus
regularibus was added without acknowledgment in the edition of the
Divina proportione in 1509. Possibly Pacioli had heard about Pappus'
account of the semiregular bodies, and his knowledge owes something
to that source. One can further suppose that Leonardo da Vinci, who
prepared the magnificent drawings in perspective of these bodies for the
text of the Divina proportione, also assisted Pacioli in arranging and
describing his materia1.
76
Certainly, Pacioli's account was more sys-
tematically presented than Piero's, if less mathematically interesting.
Pacioli also included not only the Archimedean semiregular bodies
formed by truncation from the regular bodies but a series of augmented
or "elevated" solids formed by the addition of pyramids to the faces of
each of the five regular bodies and to the semiregular bodies P3' P7 and
Ps (e.g. see Fig. III.2.4.2l). But these bodies fall outside of my Archi-
medean investigation. I have already suggested the important historical
role that the Divina proportione with its supplementary text of Piero' s De
quinque corporibus regularibus played in inaugurating a brisk treatment
of semiregular bodies in the sixteenth century (see the discussion of Piero
della Francesca above), but it is not my intention to follow any further
down this byway.
Before leaving the Divina proportione we can mention its specific refer-
ences to Archimedes. Pacioli describes Archimedes as "the noble, in-
genious geometer and most worthy architect" and mentions his role in the
defense of Syracuse against Marcellus.
77
We also find mention of Archi-
76 See above, note 13. Figs. III.2.4.14-III.2.4.21 are samples of Leonardo's drawings.
The sixty drawings are beautifully reproduced in color in the edition of Milan, 1956, pp.
153-212.
77 Ed. of Milan, 1956, pp. 9-10 (cf. ed. of Venice, 1509, 2r): "E oltra la fama e degna
commendatione a Vostra Ducale Celsitudine, in suo excelso Dominio acresceni probita
non poca in suoi cari familiari e diletti subditi, sempre a la defension de quello al tutto
parati, non manco che per la propria patria el nobele ingiegnoso geometra e dignissimo
architecto Archimede fesse. El qUal-como escritto-con sue nove e varie inventioni de
machine, per longo tempo la citta syracusana contra l'impeto e bellicoso successo de'
Romani, fin che apertamente per Marco Marcello cercaron de expugnarla, salvo incolume."
The source ofPacioli's knowledge of the story of Archimedes' role in the defense ofSyracuse
could have been one or more of the various accounts in Latin (see Appendix Ill) or Plutarch's
Life of Marcellus, which was widely known by the time that Pacioli was writing.
medes' On the Measurement of the Circle in Chapter LXII devoted to
the measurement of a cylinder:
78
First one of its bases is measured by converting it into a square according to the
method of approximation of the noble geometer Archimedes given in his volume
entitled On the Quadrature ofthe Circle and adduced in our work [i.e. the Summa]
together with a demonstration of it. This method follows. Find the diameter of
the base; multiply it by itself, and take 11/14 of the product . . . and
multiply the result by the height of the cylinder. This last product produces the
corporeal mass [i.e., volume] of the whole cylinder.
Later in the same chapter, Pacioli again refers to Archimedes' ap-
proximation for the conclusion "that the circle in comparison to the square
of the diameter is as 11 to 14."79 The same approximation is referred
to Archimedes once more in Chapter LXVI. 80 All of these references are,
of course, to the second proposition of On the Measurement of the Circle.
It is of interest that Pacioli gives the title of this work as On the Quadrature
of the Circle. From this we would judge that he has consulted one of the
manuscripts of the second tradition of Gerard of Cremona's translation
of the work, for in that tradition the title appeared as De quadratura
circuli (see Vo!. 1, p. 32).
There is little to arrest our attention in the De viribus quantitatis of
Pacioli.81 It contains no Archimedean mathematics, although Archimedes'
name is mentioned several times. In one passage concerned with how
18 Ed. of Milan, 1956, pp. 119-20 (cf. ed. of Venice, 1509, 19r-v): "Prima se mesuri
una de le suoi basi recandola a quadrato secondo el modo proximano dal nobile geometra
Archimenide trovato, posto nel suo volume sub rubrica 'de quadratura circuli' e in l'opera
nostra aducto con sua demostratione, cioe cosi: trovise el diametro de la basa e quello se
multiplichi in se e del producto se prenda li 11/14 doe li undici quatordicesimi over quatuor-
decimi, e quelli multiplicati per I'altezza de la colonna, quest' ultimo producto fia la massa
corporea de tutta la colonna." It is of interest that in the Venice edition Pacioli refers
to his own work in this passage by "I' opera nostra grande." One other point of interest
is that the medieval form Archimenide is given by Pacioli. This would fit well with my
theory that he is referring to one of the medieval versions of Gerard of Cremona's trans-
lation of On the Measurement of the Circle.
79 Ibid., p. 121 (cf. ed. of Venice, 1509, 19v): "El perche si prenda dicti 11/14 cioe de le
14 parti de la multiplicatione del diametro in se in ogni cerchio, si fa perche gli etrovato,
con molta aproximatione per Archimede, che'l cerchio in comparatione del quadrato del
suo diametro, fia commo da 11 a 14."
80 Ibid., p. 128 (cf. ed. of Venice, 1509, 20v): "El perche eda notare per la precisione
aducta, che nelle rotonde a numero convengano respondere secondo la proportione finora
trovato fra'l diametro e la circumferentia, e per quella de sopra detta, fra 11 e 14. Le
quali commo in quelluogo se disse, non sono con precisione ma poco varia, per Archimede
trovata."
81 As I have noted, this work is found in MS Bologna, Bib!. Univ. 250. A facsimile of
this manuscript was made for Boncompagni by A. Caronti in 1852; it is in the Bibl. Casa-
natense in Rome (cod. 4066). The preface has been published by Boncompagni, "Intomo
alle vite," pp. 430-31. An analysis of contents (primarily of the first part) has been made
by A. Agostini, "11 'De viribus quantitatis' di Luca Pacioli," Periodico di matematiche,
Serie IV, Vol. 4 (1924), pp. 165-92.
much snow and rain falls on the whole world in one night, Pacioli rather
obliquely refers to Archimedes' Sandreckoner: "just as Archimedes told
Dionysius the number [indicating the amount] of the sand [which could
be contained in the universe]. "82 Pacioli could have seen Cremonensis'
translation of the Sandreckoner (which bore the title De arene numero)
when he consulted a codex of Cremonensis to produce his form of 1.33 of
On the Sphere and the Cylinder. If this was the case, then he inadvertently
substituted the name of Dionysius for King Gelon to whom Archimedes
actually addressed the work. In another passage in the De viribus quan-
titatis, in which Pacioli is discussing the making of clocks, he tells us that
he is omitting theoretical means in favor of practical. Hence, he says that
he is leaving aside "that which is called the cylinder of Archimedes
and other astronomers. "83 This may be a reference to the cylindrical
horologue, alternately called horologium viatorum, which was often de-
scribed in medieval manuscripts.
84
But I have not noticed its being desig-
nated as "the cylinder of Archimedes" before. Or the reference may
simply be to the treatise On the Sphere and the Cylinder. However, I
cannot see what relevance this treatise would have to the making of clocks.
A third mention of Archimedes occurs in the form of a modification of
the usual story told about Archimedes that if he had a place to stand he
could move the' earth. Pacioli tells us that" Archimedes was accustomed
to say that if he had enough material he would be able to make a mirror
which would bum up the whole world just as at Syracuse he set fire to
one transport and another ship. "85 In the same passage he appears to be
attributing a De speculis comburentibus to Archimedes, a not uncommon
attribution.
86
Finally, we can point to a fourth passage; this is in one of the
82 MS. cit, 192r: ". . .comme del numero della arena dissi a Dyonisi Siracusano Archi-
mede...."
83 Ibid., 198r: "E perche di sopra moho se facto mentione delo arlogio (I) e da sapere
che questi se fanno in diversi modi, luno piu speculativo delaltro, deli quali el pratico
geometrapin (! geometra piu) presto prende la via facile non curando altra speculatione
la quale in sua potissima parte lascia al docto theorico; pero qui sequente al modo commune
et sucinto de ditto arlogio se dara via, lasciando commo e ditto el chilindro de archimede
et altri astronami (!) e ancho li gradi de lor quadranti; solo prenderemo li modi piu martiali
(! materiali?). . . ."
84 L. Thomdike, A History of Magic and Experimental Science, Vol. 3 (New York,
1934), pp. 211-12.
85 MS cit., 200v: "Et quando si parla desi facti strumenti martiali (! materiali?) tu debi
intendere in quel modo che disponere se possono piu commodamente, comme diceva
Archimede che se la materia 10 servisse lui farrebbe uno specchio che arderebbe tutto il
mondo si comme intomo seragusa con uno abrusciava una nave et altra veta in quello che
fa de speculis conburentibus."
86 For Archimedes' connection with burning mirrors, see above, Part Ill, Chapter 2,
Section 11, note 16. It is worth noting that Alhazen's De speculis comburentibus, in Gerard
of Cremona's translation, was attributed to Archimedes in MS Erfurt, Stadtbibl. Amplon.
Q.387, 59v: "Explicit liber Archimenidis de speculis comburentibus." Note that Maurolico
in his Praeparatio ad Archimedis opera says that some people attribute a De speculis com-
burentibus to Archimedes (see below, Chapter 5, Text A, Proem).
GIORGIO VALLA AND ARCHIMEDES 461
untitled appendages to the De viribus quantitatis. In this passage a rather
vague description of the crown problem is given, with Vitruvius designated
as the source.
87
As we look back at this brief survey of Pacioli' s knowledge of Archi-
medes, the justice of my original observation seems evident. Certainly
Pacioli's role in the spread of Archimedean geometry was that of a dis-
seminator, and primarily the disseminator of the medieval traditions as-
sociated with the Practica geometrie of Leonardo Fibonacci, with the
Arabo-Latin version of On the Measurement of the Circle, and with the
works of Piero della Francesca. We have seen little direct knowledge of
Archimedes' works on Pacioli's part. I have stressed again and again
Pacioli's careless treatment of the sources he transmitted. His interest in
geometry, on the whole, seems to have been that of the calculator. Hence
he was primarily concerned with the arithmetical manipulation of the
simplest well-established Archimedean formulas rather than with their dem-
onstration. In this respect he was quite in line with the medieval tradi-
tion of practical geometric handbooks, and indeed his Summa, with ~
wide popularity, certainly transmitted the basic conclusions of that tradi-
tion. In certain instances, we have seen, his efforts to include geometric
demonstrations were either disastrous (e.g. in his renditions of Fibonacci' s
account of Propositions I and III of On the Measurement of the Circle
or in his reworking of Proposition 1.33 of On the Sphere and the Cylinder)
or grossly incomplete (as in his treatment of the various propositions of
the Verba filiorum presented by Fibonacci). It must be acknowledged,
however, that his publication of the Divina proportione with its supple-
mentary text of Piero della Francesca' s De quinque corporibus regularibus
played an important part in initiating a lively development of interest in
the Archimedean problems contained therein.
V. Giorgio Valla
I have made no effort to evaluate in general the importance of the
Humanistic movement to the spread and development of interest in the
works of Archimedes. Obviously that movement was reflected in the
activity of Jacobus Cremonensis, whose translations of Archimedes and
Eutocius were of considerable importance, as has been noted above.
Furthermore, the pivotal role of Bessarion and his library in the activity of
87 Mter mentioning the dropping of gold and silver coins into a vase filled with
water, Pacioli then says (MS. cit., 245r-v): "Con questo mezzo trovo archimede siragusano,
comme memora victruvio, el fraudo che (?) li maestri fecero a hierone principe de seragusa,
nelluoco doro puro che loro li dovieno fare et quelli robando loro misero argento ellavoro
fu al peso. Et hierone per non guastare el lavoro chiamo Archimede acuto mathematico
et con aqua in doi vasi proportionandola trovo loro a ponto che quelli havia fraudato...."
From the similarity of the Italian expressions to the account of the crown problem by
Alberti (see Part Ill, Chap. 1, Sect. 11, note 2), I would judge that Pacioli had probably read
Alberti's description.
Regiomontanus, discussed in the second section of this chapter, can be
counted as an important contribution of the Humanistic movement to
Archimedean studies. So also should we mention briefly the modest
activity of a late fifteenth-century Humanist Giorgio Valla (ca. 1447- 1500)
as one more (but this time minor) contribution of Humanism to Archi-
medean studies.
l
Celebrated as a translator and collector of manuscripts,
Valla seems to have had a continuing interest in Archimedes during his
scholarly career. This interest was perhaps first stimulated by his teacher
Giovanni Marliani when Valla studied with this well-known physician and
natural philosopher at Pavia in the late 1460's or 1470's. Or, at least, Valla
tells us in a letter that he saw a copy of a Latin translation of Archimedes
(presumably Cremonensis' translation) at Marliani's home.
2
We know
further that Valla acquired for his library Greek manuscript A of the
Archimedean texts, the copy from which all Renaissance copies ultimately
derived and from which Moerbeke executed most of his translations and
Cremonensis all of his. This manuscript was obtained by Valla by 1490-91,
for Janus Lascaris mentions in his diary that among the books he found in
Valla's library, when he visited VenIce at this time, was a manuscript
including the various works of Archimedes.
3
That it was indeed Greek
manuscript Awe can safely infer from a statement about Valla' s copy made
1 The most important biography of Giorgio Valla is still that of J. L. Heiberg, "Beitrage
zur Geschichte Georg Valla's und seiner Bib1iothek," Centralblatt fUr Bibliothekswesen,
XVI. Beiheft (1896), pp. 353-481 (reprinted, Wiesbaden, 1968). In addition to the sections
containing the Archimedean materials which are discussed below, one other piece of in-
formation for Archimedes' biography is gleaned in Valla's De expetendis, Bk. I, Chap. 6,
where he has Archimedes saying to the Roman soldier about to kill him: "TaP KEcpaXCtp,
Kat ILTJ ypaJLp.ap" ("the head but not the drawing"), i.e. "kill me but do not disturb
my drawing." This was shown to have been drawn by Valla from an anonymous Greek
prolegomenon to Porphyry'sIntroductio; see J. Bemays, Gesammelte Abhandlungen, Vol. 2
(Berlin, 1885), pp. 336-40.
2. Heiberg, "Beitrage zur Geschichte Georg Valla's," Epist. 31, p. 437: "Subnectis,
vir doctissime, nonnulla Archimedis opuscula, si per me Latina fiant, usui posse esse multis.
Scito igitur multa iam pridem conversa in Latinum eius praestantissimi geometrae opera
ad quemdam summum pontificem, cuius mihi nunc nomen excidit, easque esse et Romae
et Florentiae et Ferrariae audivimus. Vidimus ipsi translata apud olimpraeceptorem nostrum
Johannem Marlianum, praecipuum nostro tempore Mathematicum pariter et physiologum,
huius geometrae nonnulla, inter quae fuerunt de sphaera et cylindro bina volumina,
de circuli quadrato et de harenae emensione. Sunt apud nos eius authoris aliquot opera,
quorum si norim aliquod necdumin linguam nostram conversum, tibi libenter transtulerim. "
This letter is addressed to Petrus Barocius, Bishop of Padua and probably the bishop
designated by Leonardo da Vinci as the possessor of a copy of Archimedes (see above
Chapter 3, note 5). The letter was written Oct. 24, 1495, according to Heiberg (p. 401).
The reference to "acertain pontiff" is of course to Nicholas Vand his role in the Cremonensis
translation. The mention of the Sandreckoner confirms that it was the Cremonensis trans-
lation which he saw at Marliani's home since that work was not included in the Moerbeke
codex. For a general study of Giovanni Marliani, see M. Clagett, Giovanni Marliani and
Late Medieval Physics (New York, 1941; reprint, New York, 1967).
3 Archimedes, Opera omina, Vol. 3, p. XI.
in Greek MS G.4 We also know from references made in letters by Valla
that he intended some sort of translation of Archimedes.
5
But in actuality Valla fell far short of any systematic translation or use of
the Archimedean texts, perhaps because he examined the Cremonensis
translations more closely and realized that they represented a complete
rendering of his manuscript (Le. Greek MS A). At any rate, there are only
two sections in his posthumously published De expetendis et fugiendis
rebus opus (Venice, 1501) which contain Archimedean considerations or pas-
sages. The first appears in Book XI, Chapter 8; it is a general exposition on
quadrature with no Archimedean passages translated. The second occurs
in Book XIII, Chapter 2. It contains translations of (1) On the Sphere and
the Cylinder, Book 11, Prop. 1, (2) Eutocius, Commentary on the Sphere
and the Cylinder, Book 11, Prop. I (and thus Eutocius' complete account of
the various methods of finding two mean proportionals between two given
lines), plus two parts of his comment on Prop. 4, and (3) Eutocius,
Commentary on the Equilibrium of Planes, the first 62 lines of the text.
These three sets of translations constitute the first fragments of the
Archimedean corpus to appear in print in any language. And though these
fragments reflect nothing of the medieval Archimedes, I must treat them
briefly and present them in part because they are useful for my later
analysis of the Archimedean knowledge of other authors like Leonardo
da Vinci and Francesco Maurolico.
Ofthis various material, I shall include the first part ofValla's discussion
of quadrature, that is, the part which concerns his knowledge of Archi-
medean propositions, enough of the section on mean proportionals to be of
use for my later discussion of Leonardo da Vinci's knowledge of Archi-
medean texts, and all of the brief fragments from Eutocius' Commentary
on the EquilibriumofPlanes-again because of the interest that Leonardo
da Vinci showed in On the Equilibrium of Planes. In presenting this
material from Valla's De expetendis, I have altered the punctuation and
changed the capitalization in a number of places to make it readily readable
4 Ibid., p. X.
5 Heiberg, "Beitrage zur Geschichte Georg Valla's," Epist. 13 to Jacobus Antiquarius
(p. 422): "Hoc anno [1494], si deus dabit, in portum invehemur. Senectuti nostrae quietem
uspiam hoc opere quaerimus indipisei, et perinde hoc ipsum in obsidione fortassis aliquamdiu
distinebit; nee tamen tantisper dormitabimus, sed Arehimedem nostrum, quem te eerno
magnopere eoneupiseere, ne semper Graeeanico atque adeo Doriensi Sieuloque illius modi
prisco palio a paucissimis cognitus veritus in publicum prodire latitet, nostratem togam,
ut eompareat, induemus." Epist. 14 to the same person (ibid.): "Quod me de Victruvio
Archimedeque commonefacis, equidem teneo; Archimedem in procinctu quidem habeo, ut
cum primum opus meum confecero, quod iam pridem summo labore prosequor, cuique
totus mente corporeque inhaereo, turn demum Archimedes me authore prodeat in lucem
una cum Eutocio Ascalonite mirifico eius interprete." (This letter is to be dated earlier,
Aug. 8, 1492.) Epist. 36 to the same person (dated still earlier, July 13, 1492) (ibid., p. 440):
"Itaque dedimus operam damusque quottidie, ut non modo Euclidis, sed ne quidem Archi-
medis opera amplius lateant." See also the reference in note 2 above.
to the modern student. I have also italicized the letters indicating
geometrical magnitudes. for I have altered "cefd. trapezium"
to read "cefd trapezium." Furthermore, in the section from Eutocius'
Commentary on the Equilibrium of Planes I have added quotation marks
around the statements of Postulates 4 and 5, which Eutocius is quoting
from the Archimedean text.
Before giving these brief texts without I should like to make a
few comments on Valla's understanding of his sources. In the section on
Valla mentions the statement from Aristotle's Categories to
the effect that quadrature is knowable but not yet known (see Archimedes in
the Middle Vol. 1, pages 607-09). He further remarks on the
quadrature methods of Antiphon and Bryson (ibid., pages 426-29) and
gives the so-called quadrature by means of lunes of Hippocrates of Chios
(ibid., pages 610-26; cf. Appendix 11 below), surely drawing it directly
from the Greek text of Simplicius' Commentary on the Physics ofAristotle
rather than from the medieval versions since he gives Simplicius' name
after criticiZing the solution. He comments that the procedure is
not valid for the quadrature of the circle since it assumes that because the
lune on the side of an inscribed square has been squared the lune on the side
of an inscribed hexagon is also squarable. We should also note that Valla
mentions with high praise the role of Archimedes in quadrature solutions.
He points out that Archimedes "by means of spirals and curved lines has
demonstrated that the ratio of the circle to the square of the diameter . . .
is as 11 to 14 and that the ratio of the orbicular line (Le. the circumference)
to the diameter is less than 3lf7 and more than 3
1
/71," thus giving the con-
clusions of Propositions 2 and 3 of On the Measurement o/the Circle with a
vague reference to the role of On Spiral Lines in the quadrature problem.
6
He also mentions Ptolemy's value of that ratio as 3; 8, 30, in sexigesimal
numbers (see above, Section 11 ofthis chapter, note 39), which, he says, is a
mean between 3; 8, 34 and 3; 8, 27, and that these last two numbers
approximate respectively 3lf7 and 3
1
/71.
Valla then reports the substance of Eutocius' remarks on other efforts to
find the ratio of circumference to diameter at the end of the latter's
6 Later in a section on mensuration (De expetendis, Bk. XIV, Chap. xi, sign. z iii verso)
Valla indicates the substance of Proposition 2 of On the Measurement of the Circle:
.. Archimedes in libro qui de dimensione circuli ab ipso inscriptus est demonstrat 11 quadrata
quae a diametro circuli aequalia esse fere quatuordecim circulis...." On the same folio
in Chap. xii, he mentions On the Sphere and the Cylinder: "Sphaerae data diametro pedum
10 si velis solidum invenire. Archimedes ubi de sphaera et cylindro loquitur demonstrat
quemadmodum cylindrus basim quidem habens maximo in sphaera alicui circulo, fastigium
vero aequale sphaerae diametro sesquater (! sesquialter) ad sphaeram est." Then on the
next page (z iiii recto): ". . . Archimedes docet superficiem sphaerae quadruplam esse unius
maximi circuli...." Later on the same page he erroneously reports: " ... demonstrat
Archimedes quod 11 cubi aequales sunt undecim (l 21) sphaeris." This last statement per-
haps reflects, in an erroneous way, Proposition X of the Liber de curvis super./iciebus
(see Volume One, p. 504).
Commentary on the Measurement of the Circle.
7
Hence Valla mentions
that Apollonius of Perga, by using other numbers, came a little closer to the
value of the ratio and he repeats Eutocius' observation that Apollonius
missed the point of Archimedes' determination since the latter's objective
was to find an approximation for use in daily life. Valla also repeats
Eutocius' account of Sporus' criticism of Archimedes and claim that his
(i. e., Sporus') master Philon of Gadara had found a closer approximation
than had Archimedes. Incidentally, following Greek Manuscript A, Valla
gives Sporus' name as Porus. Valla also follows Eutocius in recommending
the procedure of Ptolemy's Almagest if one wishes to make a closer ap-
proximation (although Valla makes this observation in a most obscure
way). It is only at the end of these comments that he mentions the name
of Eutocius, claiming that Eutocius believed "that a straight line cannot
be shown to be equal to a circular line," while actually all that Eutocius
says is that, by the methods exposed in On the Measurement of the Circle,
no straight line equal to the circumference can be found. Valla's own
account of quadrature that terminates this chapter I have omitted since it
carries with it no Archimedean implications whatsoever.
In turning to Valla's translations, which make up the remainder of my
selections, we should first realize that Valla is making them directly from
Greek manuscript A in his possession. It is possible that he also consulted
the Cremonensis translation, since in general he uses much of the same
Latin terminology as Cremonensis and also Latinizes the Greek letters in
the same fashion. However, in one important instance, in his translation of
the first lines of Eutocius' Commentary on the Equilibrium of Planes, he
adopts finiens (from Cicero, De divinatione, 11, 92) as a translation for
the Greek p ~ w v instead ofCremonensis' (and indeed the more common)
horizon.
8
Sometimes the letters used are in error, but these could as well be
the printer's errors as Valla's (I have indicated such errors in parentheses).
Occasionally Valla truncates passages and thereby obscures their
meaning, as for example his abbreviated account of Eutocius' remarks on
Eudoxus' treatment of the problem of finding two mean proportionals (see
the paragraph at the end of his translation of Eutocius' direct comment on
Proposition 1 of Book 11 of On the Sphere and the Cylinder, i.e., just
preceding the comment inscribed as "Ut Plato"). Also in his translation of
the beginning of Eutocius' Commentary on the Equilibrium of Planes,
Valla obscures the distinction made by Eutocius between Aristotle's and
Plato's understanding of momentum (i.e., fJOTTiJ). Eutocius tells us that
Aristotle and Ptolemy said that momentum is a common genus of gravity
and levity, while Plato in the Timaeus says that it arises from gravity
(alone) since levity is a kind of privation (of gravity). Now Valla skips the
7 Archimedes, Opera omnia, Vol. 3, pp. 258-60.
8 Later in the section on mensuration (ibid., sign. z iiii recto) Valla confirms the Ciceronian
origin ofjiniens: "Horizon quem Cicero finientem vocat circulus est. ..."
distinction and lumps Plato and Timaeus with Aristotle and Ptolemy. The
only importance this error of Valla may have had is that, if we assume
that the abandonment of the Aristotelian dichotomy of gravity and levity
in the late sixteenth century was influenced by the observations of
Eutocius, it was not through Valla's version of Eutocius that such in-
fluence was exercised but more likely through the widely used editio
princeps of Archimedes and Eutocius of 1544. Finally we should note
that in the same passage of his translation of Eutocius' Commentary on
the Equilibrium of Planes, Valla omits Eutocius' approving quotation of
Geminus to the effect that Archimedes has called postulates what are
really axioms. Instead, Valla makes Geminus a coauthority with
Archimedes of Postulate 4 ("the centers of gravity of coinciding equal
and similar plane figures themselves coincide"), although it is clear from
Eutocius' account that he is simply quoting Archimedes at this point.
As I have noted above, in the sectionfrom Eutocius' Commentary on the
Sphere and the Cylinder, Book II, Prop. 1, Valla translates all twelve
methods of finding two mean proportionals given by Eutocius, but I have
included below only those attributed to Plato, Hero, Philo, and Apollonius
and the introduction to the method attributed to Eratosthenes, for it was
these solutions which may have influenced Leonardo da Vinci and I shall
concern myself with Leonardo's knowledge of Archimedes and Eutocius
in the next chapter. Incidentally, we should observe that Valla added to the
Eutocian passage an additional treatment of the mean proportionals
problem found in Philoponus' Commentary on the Posterior Analytics of
Aristotle. This section I shall include in the next chapter since Leonardo
made an Italian translation of it and I shall examine that translation in
some detail in that chapter.
One last observation concerns the inclusion by Valla of a section from
Eutocius' Commentary on the Sphere and the Cylinder, Book Il, Prop. 4.
Valla limits his translation to the solutions by Dionysodorus and Diocles
for the problem of cutting a sphere so that its segments have a given
ratio. This section I have omitted. Both it and the preceding section on
mean proportionals specifically stimulated commentaries or paraphrases
on the part of Johannes Werner in Nuremberg which he included in the
following work: In hoc opere haec continentur: Libellus Ioannis Verneri
Nurembergen. super vigintiduobus elementis conicis. Eiusdem commen-
tarius seu paraphrastica enarratio in undecim modos con./iciendi eius
problematis quod cubi duplicatio dicitur. Eiusdem commentatio in Di-
onysidori problema, quo data sphaera pIano sub data secatur ratione.
alius modus idem problema con./iciendi ab eodem Ioanne Vernero novis-
sime comperus demonstratusque. Eiusdem Ioannis, de motu octavae
sphaerae, tractatus duo. Eiusdem summaria enarratio theoricae motus
octavae sphaerae (Nuremberg, 1522).
I have refrained from including English translations of these sections
from Valla's work, since, for the most part, they are quite similar to the
rather more complete sections taken from Maurolico's works which are
provided with English translations below (see the texts accompanying
Chapter 5).
G. Valla, De expetendis et jugiendis rebus opus
(Venice, 1501), Liber XI, Cap. VIII
De quadrato circuli
Proximo problemate dicuntur prisci commoti philosophi magna animi
contentione, concertationeque ut ex circulo quadratum investigarent ipsi
parem. Quando quidem si parallelogrammum omni rectilineo aequale in-
venitur, quaerendum quoque videbatur num rectilineae quoque figurae
possent orbicularibus pares inveniri. Quamobrem ne nos quidem id quaes-
tionis genus duximus omittendum. Ut antiqui igitur complures philosophi
ad hoc ipsum inveniendum multum insudarunt, ita pluribus in locis con-
fessus ac praese tulit Aristoteles id quidem sub scientiam cadere atque
cognitionem, sed tamen nec dum scitum. Sunt nanque Aristoteli pecu-
liaria exempla ut cum citra controversiam et ambiguitatemullam quicquam
esse pronuntiet dicat ut triangulum tres habet angulos duobus rectis
aequales. Cum vero quicquam nullo modo fieri posse vult indicare turn
dimetientem ita lateri esse incommensurabilem atque itidem cum sciri
posse quicquam quod tamen ignoretur, tale ait quadratum orbis ac cir-
cuncurrentis esse lineae. Conatus igitur ut complures alii est Antiphon
demonstrare, verum id non est assecutus. Quippe qui circulo quadratum
inscribendo quae ex quadrato supererant circuli spacia intra quadrilatera
et circularem lineam, nempe spatia quatuor ratus est triangulis absumi
posse isoscelibus, ut cum id accepisset reliquum quadrati, pariterque cir-
culi foret quo utrunque spatium, quod intra quadratum quodque extra
unum quoddam totum efficiant esseque quadratum; at id factu impos-
sibile, cum omnis magnitudo infinities sub divisionem cadat siquidem
magnitudinis nomen nunquam amittit. Alioqui sit contra omnium dogma
philosophantium qui aiunt, ut ex nihilo nihil fieri ita nequid nihil ad nihilum
pervenire. Bryson porro commune quiddam indagans captiuncula potius
quam vera usus est argumentatione tria nanque is circulo quadrata ac-
commodabat quorum orbi unum in altero circulum includebat tertium
communi et pervulgata ad demonstrandum usus ratione se putabat in-
venisse non geometrica, non naturali, non alia quapiam innixus scientia
inquiens. Quoniam medium quadratum pariterque orbis, quadrato altero
sunt maiores, nempe incluso, altero autem minores, nempe circulumambi-
ente, cumque eisdem maiora pariter et minora inter se invicem sint in-
quiebat aequalia erit utique quadrato medio aequalis circulus. At id quo
nam modo potuerit asserere ipse viderit siquidem octo et novem minora
sunt, quam decem eademque maiora quam septem neque ideo tamen
=
inter se sunt aequalia; atqui eadem ratio non magis in hoc quam in tem-
poribus et locis et corporibus valet.
Hippocrates vero Chius idem molitus est lunulis indagare mirabili certe
sollertia et laude dignissima, licet ea demonstratio negotii quidem labo-
risque plurimum habuerit, nec satis evidentiae, neque quod ipse cupiebat
arguatur satis demonstrasse. Est autem huiusmodi eius demonstratio
ostensum certe est in elementis geometricis Euelidis ubi de solidis figuris
est doctrina quod ut a dimetientibus quadrata habent et circuli et hemi-
cyelia. Duplum ergo est abe [Fig. III.2.5.1] hemicyclium ipsius ace hemi-
cyclii. Aequalis ergo pars quarta circuli afed ipsi aee hemicyelio. Com-
mune (eorr. e communi) igitur auferatur ate segmentum circuli, hemi-
cyelio minus, reliquum ergo ade triangulum reliquo aee menisco, seu
lunulae, aequale est; ita demonstravit Hyp[p]ocrates aequale meniscum
triangulo, deinceps molitur quadratum facere ex circulo hoc modo.
Sit recta linea ab et ipsi circunscribatur hemicyelium, duplum vero sit
ab ipsius cd, et circunscribatur ipsi haemicyelium (I) cmd, intra autem
ipsum sexangula latera connectantur ee, ef,fd, in hisque sexangulis lateri-
bus hemicyelia circunscribantur cge, ehf,jkd. Et quoniam quodlibet sex-
angulorum laterum dimidium est ipsius cd dimetientis, quodlibet ergo
ipsorum cge, ehf, jkd hemicyeliorum aequale est ipsi ab hemicyelio.
Quatuor igitur sunt invicem aequalia inter se. Et quoniam quod ab dupla
dimetiente quadratum quadruplum est eius, quod ab dimidia dimetiente
quadrati, ac ut habent quae a diametris quadrata, ita habent etiam circuli
et hemicyclia. Quadruplum ergo est cmd hemicyelyum (1) ipsius ab hemi-
cyclii; aequale ergo est cmd hemicyelium quatuor hemicyeliis; ab ipsi,
cge, ehf, fkd. Communia auferantur de, emf, fnd segmenta circulorum,
reliquum ergo cefd trapezium reliquis cgel, eh/m, fkdn meniscis, lunulis
inquam, et ipsi ab hemicyelio aequale est. Ceterum quoniam omnis (corr.
ex ommis) figura rectilinea dissolvi potest in triangula, si trapezium
resolvatur in triangula, denturque trina triangula tribus meniscis aequalia,
nam id prius demonstratum, quod reliquum est triangulum aequale erit
ipsi ab hemicyelio, atqui ab duplicatum circulum totum absolvet. At tri-
angulum duplicatum quadratamfaciet figuram, eritque quadratum aequale
circulo et perinde circulus in quadratum et permutabitur. Est nimirum
haec artificiosa indagatio et ex geometricis principiis demonstrata eatenus
tamen mendosa, quatenus praedemonstratus meniscus aequalis triangulo
ex quadrato constitit latere, hi vero menisci ex sexangulis constant lateri-
bus. Ut tamen fateamur astipulante Symplicio ita in quadratum delabi
circulum operosissime posse ob theorematis varietatem. Hos secutus
ingenii acutissimi admirandaeque solertiae Syracusanus Archimedes om-
niumfere posterorum mathematicorumlaudibus insignis praesertim tamen
Heraclidis qui eius vitam scripsit et Eutotii Ascalonitae ipsius interpretis.
Is itaque per helicas incurvasque lineas demonstravit circulum ad id quod
fit ex diametro, quem nos dimetientem dicimus, quadratum habere ratio-
nem, quam undecim ad quatuordecim orbicularemque lineam ad ipsius
dimetientem habere proportionem minorem tripla sesquiseptima, ac maio-
rem decem septuagesimis primis, quod est supra triplicatam dimetientem
ex 71 partibus decem, seu dicas minor quam 22 ad 7 et maior quam 71
unitatum decem. At quoniam plurribus (I) illa complexus est quam hic
referre liceat mittimus qui scire cupiat ad libros de sphaera et cylindro
et librum de dimensione circuli. Ptolaemeus Archimedem secutus in sexto
constructionis mathematicae. Inter has mediam sibi capit proportionem
quae est 3 et 8 et 30 ad unum, nam 3 8 34 ad unum ad triplam sesquisep-
timam proxime accedunt sed 3 8 27 ad unum similiter triplam adiectis
decem septuagesimis septimis (! primis), inter quas est proportio 3 8 30 ad
unum. Post Ar[c]himedem igitur Apollonius Pergaeus numeris aliis ad
mensuram circuli aliquanto propius accessit qui utcunque non absolverint,
rem tarnen utilissimam, ne ipsos debita laude fraudemus, tarn cognitioni,
quam vitae humanae attulerunt. Quamobrem audiendus non est Porus
(! Sporus, sed Poros in gr MS A) Nichaeus qui sibi visus, maledicendi studio
commotior, locum nancisci idoneum ubi Archimedemincesseret inquiens non
fuisse edendum quod non consumasset, quando perfectam non invenit
lineam inquit rectam, quae circulo par esset. Proinde ait Philonem
Gaditanum magistrum suum numerum invenisse propinquiorem quam qui
ab Archimede iam a nobis memoratus. Is igitur sicut etiam Apollonius
in maximam sese multiplicandi summam profudit, quam rem ab illis pro-
ditam ita imperfectam si cui placuerit paucioribus numeris inspicere is
legat quae in constructione mathematica tradidit, ut paulo ante memo-
ravimus, Ptolemaeus partibus et scrupulis per rectas lineas in circulum
actas idem exquirendo.
Caeterum Eutocius Ascalonita existimat rectam lineam circulari parem
non posse demonstrari, ac siquis vicina inquit contentus esse potest satis
putet quod invenit Archimedes idem alii quidam dixere.
G. Valla, De expetendis, Liber XIII, Cap. ii
De duobus cubis ad unum redactis ut Archimedes.
[Cr. De Sphaera et Cylindro, Lib. 11, Prop. 1, ed. Heiberg, I, pp. 170-74]
Cono dato vel cylindro sphaeram invenire cono vel cylindro aequalem.
Sit datus conus vel cylindrus a [Fig. 111.2.5.2] et ipsi a aequalis b sphaera,
ponaturque ad a conum vel cylindrum sesqualteri (I) cylindrus cfd, ipsius
autem b sphaerae sesqualter cylindrus, cuius basis qui circa diametrum
gh circulus; axis autem kl aequalis diametro b sphaerae. Aequalis igitur b
cylindrus ipsi k cylindro, at aequalium cylindrorum mutuo respondent
bases altitudinibus; ut igitur e circulus ad k circulum, hoc est, ut ex cd
ad id quod est ex gh, ita kl ad ef. At aequalis kl ipsi gh. Siquidem sesqualter
est cylindrus ad sphaeram, aequalem habet axem diametro sphaerae, et
circulus maximus est eorum qui in sphaera; ut ergo quod est ex cd ad
id quod est ex gh ita ipsa gh ad ef. Sit ipsi quod est ex gh aequale,
quod est sub cdmn; ut igitur cd ad mn ita quod ex cd ad id quod est
ex gh, hoc est, gh ad ef et vicissim, ut cd ad gh ita gh ad mn et mn ad ef.
Estque data utraque ipsarum cd, ef. Duabus igitur datis rectis lineis cd,
ef duae mediae proportionales sunt gh, mn; data igitur utraque gh, mn.
Componetur hoc modo problema. Sit datus conus aut cylindrus a; oportet
a cono vel cylindro aequalem sphaeram invenire. Sit a coni vel cylindri
sesqualter cylindrus, cuius basis qui circa diametrum cd circulus. Axis
autem ef et sumantur ipsi cd, ef duae mediae proportionales gh, mn.
Proinde est ut cd ad gh, gh ad mn, et mn ad ef. Intelligaturque cylindrus,
cuius basis qui circa diametrum gh cyrculus (!), axis autem kl aequalis
ipsi gh diametro. Aio igitur quod aequalis est e cylindrus ipsi k cylindro.
Et quoniam est ut cd ad gh, mn ad ef, et vicissim, etiam aequalis gh
ipsi kl; ut igitur cd ad mn, hoc est, ut ex cd ad id quod est ex gh, ita e
circulus ad k circulum, sicut igitur e circulus ad k circulum, ita kl ad ef;
ipsorum ergo e, k cylindrorum mutuo respondent bases fastigiis, aequalis
igitur e cylindrus ipsi k cylindro; k autem cylindrus sphaerae, cuius di-
ameter gh sesqualterus est; et sphaera igitur cuius diameter aequalis est
ipsi gh, hoc est gh aequalis ipsi a cono vel cylindro.
Ut Eutocius.
[Cf. Eutocius, Commentarius in libros de sphaera et cylindro,
Liber Il, Prop. 1, ed. Heiberg, Ill, p. 50, line 6 et seq.]
"Sumatur dati coni vel cylindri sesqualter cylindrus," hoc duplum
facere possis, tarn basi eadem quam altitudine in utrisque custodita. Ac
quo manifestius fiat quod diximus intelligatur conus vel cylindrus, cuius
basis quidem a circulus [Fig. IIl.2.5.3], altitudo autem ac, sitque ipsius
sesqualterum cylindrum indagare atque comperire. Ponaturque prima ac
cylindrus, et educatur altitudo cylindri, ponaturque ipsius ac dimidia cd;
ergo ad sesqualtera est ipsius ac. Si nempe norimus cylindrum basim
quidem habentem a circulum, altitudinem vero ad rectam lineam sesqual-
tera erit propositae ac; nam qui in eadem sunt basi coni et cylindri ad
se invicem sunt ut ipsae altitudines. Quod si conus fuerit ac, secta ac
bifariam tanquam in e si rursus noscatur cylindrus, basim quidem habens
a circulum, altitudinem vero ae, erit sesqualter ac coni; nam cylindrus
basimhabens a circulum, altitudinemveroac rectamlineam, ipsius quidem
coni triplus est, ipsius autem cylindri ae duplus; et perinde non dubium
quin ae cylindrus sesqualter sit ac coni. Itaque eadem basi conservata
in proposito, et in assumpto fiet problema, est porro basi differente, axe
eodem manente, idem efficere. Sit nanque rursus conus vel cylindrus,
cuius basis fg circulus, altitudo autem hk recta linea, sit quod non est
sesqualterum cylindrum invenire qui altitudinem habeat aequalem ipsi
hk. Describatur exfg circuli diametro quadratumj7, et productafg ponatur
ipsius dimidia gm, compleaturquefn parallelogrammum; ergofn sesqual-
terum est ipsius fi et mf ipsi fg. Constituatur ipsi fn parallelogrammo
aequale quadratum xp, et circa diametrum unum latus ipsius xo circulus
describatur. Sit utique xo sesqualter ipsiusfg; nam circuli ad se invicem
sunt, ut ab ipsis diametris quadrata. Et si rursus noscatur cylindrus, basim
quidem habensjh circulum, altitudinem autem aequalem ipsi hk erit ses-
qualter cylindri, cuius basis quidemfg circulus, altitudo autemhk. Quod si
conus fuerit itidem eadem facientis etiam tertiae parti ipsiusfn parallelo-
grammi aequale constituentes quadratum, ut xp, et circa latus ipsius xo
circulumdescribentes, noverimus ab ipso cylindrumaltitudinemhabentem
hk; habebimus ipsum sesqualterumproposito cono. Namquoniamfn paral-
lelogrammum ipsius xp quadrati triplum, ipsius autemfi sesqualterum,
ipsumfi ipsius xp erit duplum, et ob hoc etiam circulus circuli duplus,
et cylindrus cylindri. Verum cylindrus qui basim habens fg circulum,
altitudinem vero hk, triplus est eo qui circa basim et altitudo eadem coni.
Proinde etiam cylindrus basim habens xo circulum, altitudinem vero
aequalem ipsi hk, sesqualter est propositi coni. Quod si opus sit neque
axem eundem esse neque basim,fiet problema rursus duplex; nam basim
habebit aequalem datae vel axem exhibitus cylindrus. Sit nanque prius
basis data, ut xo circulus, et opus sit cylindrum invenire sesqualterum
dati coni vel cylindri a basi xO. Sumatur, ut dictum est, dati coni vel
cylindri sesqualter cylindrus basim habens eandem proposito zy, et fiat
quemadmodum ab xo ad id quod est ty, ita altitudo zy ad ro. Erit igitur
cylindrus ab xo basi altitudinem habens rs aequalis ipsi zy; reciprocae
enim sunt bases ipsis altitudinibus; fiatque praescriptum. Quod si non
basis data, sed axis, eidem praebito rationi zy fient quae fuere propo-
sitionis.
Hoc sumpto quoniam resolutionem ipsius praeeunt quae sunt problema-
tis terminante resolutione in id quod oportet duobus datis mediis pro-
portionale invenire in continua proportione, ait in compositione inveni-
antur. Inventionem vero horum ab Archimede descriptam non usque
quaque comperimus, verum multorum clarissimorum mathematicorum
scripta offendi hoc problema tractantia, inter quos Eudox (I) Gnidii (I)
scripta quae de inflexis inscribuntur Hneis inspeximus. At quis quorum
fuerit inveniendi modus memorare non detractabimus ab ipso Platone
incipientes.
Ut Plato.
Datis duobus rectis lineis, duas medias proportionales invenire in con-
tinua proportionalitate. Sint datae duae rectae lineae abc [Fig. 111.2.5.4]
ad rectos invicem angulos, quarum oportet duas medias proportionales
invenire. Producuntur in rectam lineam ad d, e, fabriceturque rectus
angulus qui sub fgh, et in uno crure, ut ipsi fg, moveatur regula kl in
canali quopiamqui sit in ipsofg ita, ut parallelumipsumefficiat permanere ipsi
gh. Erit autem hoc si etiam alterum regulare notum fuerit cognatum ipsi hg,
autem parallelum ipsifg, ut ipsi hm canali. Ponendo nanque super super-
ficiebus fg, hm canalibus securicularum faciem habentibus, factisque
cognatis callis ipsi kl. In iam dictos canales erit motus ipsorumkl parallelus
semper ipsi gh. Huic ergo constructo ponatur crus unum huius ipsum gh
haerens ipsi c, et transferatur angulus, et kl. Regula eousque quo ad
ipsum g punctum in bd rectam lineam, quae gh crus attingat, haereatque
ei c; at kl regula in k attingat be rectam lineam, in reliqua autem parte
a. Et perinde sit, ut in descriptione habet, rectum quidem angulum posi-
tionemhabentem, ut sub cde sit, at kl regulam positionemhabere convenit,
qualem habet ea. Talibus nanque constitutis erit propositum. Rectis nan-
que existentibus his ad l, e (! d, e) est, ut cb ad bd, db ad be, et eb ad ba.
Ex Herone In Mechanicis Traditionibus.
Sint datae due rectae lineae ab, be [Fig. 111.2.5.5], quarum oportet duas
medias proportionales invenire. Ponantur rectum comprehendere angulum
qui sit ad b, et compleatur bd parallelogrammum, et coniungatur ac , bd. Mani-
festum est, quod cum sint aequales bifariam se invicem secabunt, nam circa
unam ipsarum descriptus circulus penetrabit, etiam per extrema alterius ob
hoc rectangulum est parallelogrammum. Producantur dc, da adfg, et intelli-
gatur regulare, ut fbg, motum circa quendam callum manentem ad b, et
moveatur quoad seces aequales ex e, hoc est, ipsa eg, ef. Et intelligatur
desectum etiam positionemhabere fbg aequalibus, ut dictum est, factis eg, ef.
Ducatur ex e ad cd perpendicularis eh; bifariam certe secat ipsam
nempe cd. Quoniam igitur bifariam secatur cd in h; et ponitur cf, quod
sub dfc cum eo quod est ex ch aequale esse ei quod est ex hf. Commune
ponatur quod ex eh; ergo quod est sub dfc cum eo quod est ex ch, he
aequale est eis quae sunt exfh, he. Estque eis quae sunt ex ch, he aequale
quod ex ce; eis autem quae sunt ex fh, he aequale quod est ex ef. Ergo
quod sub dfc cum eo quod est ex ce aequale ei quod est ex ef. Similiter
utique demonstrabitur, quemadmodum etiam quod sub dga cum eo quod
est ex ae aequale est ei quod est ex eg. Estque aequalis ae quidem ipsi ec;
at ge ipsi ef; et quod sub dfc igitur aequale est ei quod est sub dga,
ut qui si quod est sub extremis aequale sit ei quod est sub mediis, quatuor
rectae lineae sunt proportionales. Est igitur ut fd ad dg, ita ag ad cf.
Verum utfd ad dh, itafc ad cb, et ba ad ag; trianguli siquidemfdg ad
unam quidem dg acta est cb, ad ipsam autem df ipsa ab. Ergo ut ba
ad ag, ita ag ad cf, et cf ad cb. Ergo ipsorum ab, be mediae sunt pro-
portionales ag, cf, quod oportebat invenire.
Ex Philone Byzantio.
Sint datae rectae lineae ab, bc, [Fig. III.2.5.6] quarum oportet duas
medias proportionales invenire. Ponantur itaque rectum angulum amplecti
eum qui est ab b, et coniuncta ac describatur circum semicurculus abec,
et ad rectos angulos ducantur ipsi quidemba ipsa ad, ipsi autembe ipsa cf,
ponaturque regula mota ad b, secans ad, cf moveaturque circa b, quoad
ex b in d aequalis fiat ei quae est ex e in f, hoc est ei quae est inter
circumferentiam circuli et ef. Intelligatur itaque habens normula positio-
nem qualem habet dbef, aequali existente, ut dictum est, db ipsi ef. Dico
quod ipsae ad, ef mediae sunt proportionales ipsarumab , be. Intelligantur
nanque productae da ,fe et concurrentes in h. Manifestum est quod paral-
lelis existentibus ipsis ba, jh qui ad h angulus rectus est, et aee circulus
perfectus perveniet etiam per h. Quoniam igitur aequalis est db ipsi ef,
etiam quod sub edb igitur aequale est ei quod est sub hda, utrumque
enim aequale est ei quod est ex apprehensa ex d. Quod autem sub bfe
aequale ei quod est sub hfe, utrumque enim similiter aequale est ei quod
est ex apprehensa ex f. Et perinde quod sub hda aequale est ei quod
est sub hfe, et ob hoc est ut dh ad hf, ita ef ad da; atqui ut hd ad hf,
ita be ad cf et da ad ab; trianguli siquidem dhf, in (corr. ex m) dh ducta
est be, sed in hf, ba. Est igitur ut bc ad ef, ef ad da et da ad ab, quod
nobis propositumfuit demonstrare. Sciendum autem quod huiusmodi con-
firmatio est propemodum eadem quae et Heronis, nam bh parallelogram-
mum idem est quod in constitutione fuit Heronis, et producta latera ha,
hc et ad b mota norma. Eatenus autem solum differt, quod illic quidem
eousque movemus circa b normam quoad ipsius bifariam factae sectionis
ipsius ac hoc est k aequales sunt sub ipsa quoad desecat in hd, hf pro-
cidentes, ut ipsae kd, /if, hic autem quo ad db aequalis fiat ipsi ef. In
utraque autem constitutione idem sequitur, at quod nunc dictum in usum
magis venit, nam ipsas db, ef aequales custodire contingit divisa df norma
in partes aequales et continuas, multo utique proclivius id circino experiri
ex k aequales ad ipsum kf.
Ut Apollonius.
Sint datae duae rectae lineae [Fig. III.2.5.7], quarum oportet duas
medias proportionales invenire, abe(! in gr MS A, but aetually bac, Le.
ba, ac) rectum comprehendentes angulum qui ad a; et centro quidem b;
intervallo autem ac , circuli ambitus describatur khl; et rursus centro c et
intervallo ab circuli ambitus describatur mhn, et secetur khl in h, con-
iunganturque ha, hb, he. Parallelogrammum igitur est ac (! be), diameter
_autem ipsius ha. Secetur bifariam ha in x et centro x describatur circulus
secans ab, ac eductas (eorr. ex educens se) per d, e, et perinde d, e in
recta linea sit ipsi h; quod sit regulari moto circa h secante ad, de (I ae)
et deducto eatenus quoad quae ex x in d, e fiant aequales. Hoc confecto
erit quod quaerimus, haec nempe constitutio eadem est quae Heronis et
Philonis, nee dubium quin eadem congruat demonstratio.
Ut Eratosthenes.
(Cf. ed. Heiberg, Ill, p. 88, line 3 et seq.)
Ptolemaeo regi Eratosthenes salutem plurimam dicit. Priscum quendam
tragicum accepimus introducere Minoa Glauco sepulchrum excitare vo-
lentem interrogatum respondisse centum pedibus quaqua versus erigen-
dum, ut duplicaretur hic quidam membrum unumquodque sepulchri
duplum putavit esset faciendum; qui turn hallucinari visus, iure quidem
est lateribus siquidem duplicatis planum quadruplum efficietur, solidum
vero octuplum. Quaesitum itaque est a geometris, quonammodo solidum
datum in eadem figura permanens posset duplicari. Vocatumque huius-
modi problema cubi duplicatio, proposito siquidem cubo quaerebant
quomodo ipsum possent duplicem efficere. Omnibus autem ambigentibus
aliquandiu, primus Hippocrates Chius percalluit si comperiatur duarum
rectarum linearum maior minore dupla duaeque mediae capiantur in con-
tinua proportione futurum, ut duplicetur cubus. Proinde ipsius addubitatio
in aliamnon minorem adduxit, devolvitque dubitationem. Aliquanto autem
post aiunt Delios cum ab oraculo iuberentur aram quamdam duplicare,
in eandem deventum esse dubitationem, increpante, obiurganteque in
Academia Platone geometras, quod censeret esse in veniendum quod
quaesitum foret. Huic se studiosius labori accinxerunt, quaesieruntque
duabus datis duas medias esse capiendas. Archytas quidem Tarentinus
fertur per hemicylindros invenisse, Eudoxus autem per inflexas lineas.
Evenit autem ut hi una omnes demonstrabiliter quidem descripserint, at
ut id sub manum duceretur in usumque caderet neutiquam assequi potu-
erunt praeter breve quiddam Menaechmi, idque subobscure. At excogitata
fuit a nobis per instrumentem facilis acceptio, qua id demonstravimus
duabus datis non binas modo medias, sed quotcumque quispiaminstituerit.
Valla, De expetendis, Liber XIII, Cap. ii (cont.)
[Cf. Eutocius, Commentarius in libros de aequiponderantibus,
Lib. I, ed. Heiberg, Ill, pp. 264-68]
Momentum commune genus gravitatis et levitatis Aristoteles, et secutus
in hac parte Aristotelem Ptolemaeus, Plato quoque ante Aristotelem et
Timaeus, esse dixerunt-Ptolemaeus certe in libro, cuius est index de
momento, et Aristoteles in naturalibus indigationibus. Archimedes autem
in libro qui aequalium momentorum inscribitur centrum momenti planae
figurae putat a quo elevatus manet finienti parallelus, duum aut plurium
planorum momenti centrum aut gravitatis; unde lanx elevata parallelus est
finienti. Ut sit triangulumabc [Fig. III.2.5.8], in medioque ipsius punctum
d, a quo elevatus manet parallelus finienti; non dubium putat quin aequi-
librae sint a, b, c partes sibi, neque altera magis altera rhepet in finientem.
Itidem lance existente ab et sublatis ex ipsa a, b magnitudinibus, si lanx
sustolletur a c, aequilibras habebit a, b partes parallelus manet finienti,
eritque centrum elevationis ipsarum a, b magnitudinum c.
"Aequalibus et similibus," inquit Geminus cum Archimede, "planis
figuris accommodantibus invicem etiam centra gravitatum invicem sese
accommodant." Nam omnes partes omnibus consentiunt. "Inaequalium
autem at similium centra gravitatum similiter erunt affecta. " Intelligantur
sane, ut in subiecta descriptione, abe, def triangula, inaequalium (I) et
similia. Centrum gravitatis ipsius abe sit g , ipsius autem def, h; et connec-
tantur ag , gc, be (! bg), dh, he, hf. Aio quod ad aequalia di vidunt angulos
qui ex g, h punctis coniuncti. Fiat nanque ut ef ad be, ita eh ad he (! hk),
et fh ad fl (I hi), et dh ad hm, et connectantur mk, kl, Im; erit simile
klm triangulum ipsi def triangulo. Nam quoniam ut eh ad hk et hf ad hi,
parallelus est ef ipsi kl. Itidem etiam mk ipsi de et Im ipsi df. Simile ergo
def triangulum ipsi klm est triangulo. Est igitur ut de ad mk, ef ad kl, et
df ad ml. Propositum autem est ob similitudinem ipsorumabe , def triangu-
lorum, ut de ad ab et be ad ef (I in gr MS A; actually, ef ad be) et df ad ae;
aequales igitur suntabe (i.e. ab, be) ipsismkl (i.e., mk, kl); ut conveniant
singulae singulis, ergo et simile est abe triangulum ipsi kml triangulo, et
perinde convenit centrum ipsius abe in mkl. Ipsius autem g in h con-
gruente etiam abe in mkl conveniente, et ag, bg, eg in mh, kh, Ih, et
aequales facient angulos ad m, k, I ipsis in abe triangulo; et perinde in
def eadem; nanque sunt rectae lineae ex h in m, k, I et in d, e ,fconiunctae.
CHAPTER 3
Leonardo da Vinci and the
Medieval Archimedes
In the course of completing my investigation of the knowledge of
Archimedes in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, I thought it
necessary to follow studies on Luca Pacioli and Giorgio Valla with an
examination of Leonardo da Vinci's understanding of Archimedes. This
makes chronological sense since Leonardo knew and worked with
PaciolP and owned and read Valla's De expetendis et jugiendis rebus,
as I shall mention below. This examination is made somewhat difficult
1 Cod. Atlant .. l04ra, 120rd. Leonardo was an associate of Pacioli in Milan from 1496
to 1499, then later in Florence and perhaps in Rome in 1514 (see above Part III, Chap. 2,
Sect. IV). We have seen that Leonardo worked with Pacioli, contributing the drawings
to the latter's Divina proportione. See also R. Marcolongo, Studi Vinciani: Memorie sulla
geometria e la meccanica di Leonardo da Vinci (Naples, 1937), pp. 39-40. For the various
manuscripts of Leonardo I have used the following publications: Reale Commissione
Vinciana, I manoscritti e i disegni di Leonardo da Vinci: Il Codice Arundel 263 nel
Museo Britannico, Vo\. I (Part I, fols. 1-116, Rome, 1923; Part n, fols. 117-220, Rome,
1923; Part III, fols. 221-83, Rome 1928); Ch. Ravisson-Mollien, Les Manuscrits de
Leonard de Vinci de la Bibliotheque de l'Institut, 6 vols. (Paris, 1881-91), (Vo\. I,
MS A; Vo\. 2, MSS B, D; Vo\. 3, MSS E, K; Vo\. 4, MSS F, I; Vo\. 5, MSS G, L, M;
Vol. 6, MSS Hand BN 2038 and 2037 of the Ashbumham collection); 11 Codice Atlantico
di Leonardo da Vinci, Edit. Regia Accademia dei Lincei (Milan, 1894-1904); see also the
Reale Commissione's edition of 11 Codice Forster, 4 vols. (Rome, 1936). Other
manuscripts that have been published were consulted but not used in this study. In quoting
the texts of Leonardo's notebooks I have employed the semidiplomatic transcriptions of
the Ravisson-Mollien edition for the manuscripts of the Institut since no other transcriptions
are given there. But for the other manuscripts I have employed the modem Italian
transcriptions found in the various editions rather than the diplomatic transcriptions also
given in those editions. J. P. Richter's The Literary Works of Leonardo da Vinci, 2 vols.,
2nd ed. (London, 1939), has been used, as well as E. MacCurdy's The Notebooks of
Leonardo da Vinci, 2 vols. (New York, 1938), but I have usually retranslated such
passages as are included by these two scholars. Finally, I must thank the late Professor
L. Reti for securing me a film of Madrid Codex II (i.e. codex 8936 of the Biblioteca
Nacional in Madrid), which, together with Codex I (8937), he has recently published in
facsimile, with a commentary, transcriptions and English translations: The Madrid
Codices. National Library Madrid. 5 vols. (New York etc, 1974). I should like also to
express my warm thanks to Professor Carlo Pedretti for suggesting a number of improve-
ments in this chapter, which I had originally published as "Leonardo da Vinci and the
Medieval Archimedes," Physis, Vo\. 11 (1%9), pp. 100-51.
477
and uncertain by the random and fragmentary character of Leonardo's
notebooks, by his peculiar and imprecise terminology, and by the fact
that Leonardo was not essentially interested in formal geometrical proofs
in the Greek manner but rather in graphic solutions of geometrical
construction problems.
2
Still, there are some traces in Leonardo's note-
books of the following works of Archimedes: (1) On the Measurement
of the Circle, (2) On Spiral Lines, (3) On the Sphere and the Cylinder,
(4) On the Equilibrium of Planes, (5) On Floating Bodies, and (6)
Eutocius' Commentary on the Sphere and the Cylinder. It is my hope
to show here that (4) was probably read in the translations of both
William of Moerbeke and Jacobus Cremonensis, that Leonardo's interest
in (2) was perhaps based on the use of the Moerbeke translation by
earlier authors, that there is no way to decide which of the many versions
of (1) was read by Leonardo, and that, while his passing knowledge of
the basic propositions of (3) may have been drawn from either the
Moerbeke or the Cremonensis translation of it, it is somewhat more likely
that it had its origin in the medieval De curvis superficiebus. I also shall
show that Leonardo's knowledge of (5) was probably indirectly acquired
in spite of the existence of fragments of it in the Codice Atlantico.
Finally, I shall show that he certainly had some knowledge of the section
of (6) on mean proportionals. He could have seen it in the Moerbeke
translation (but not in the Cremonensis translation since the copy of the
latter which he had seen did not contain Eutocius' Commentary). At any
rate, by 1508 Leonardo had read Valla's De expetendis, which included
a Latin translation of Eutocius' section on mean proportionals. For at
about that time Leonardo translated into Italian the section on mean
proportionals appearing in John Philoponus' Commentary on the Posterior
Analytics from Valla's Latin translation of the same, and Valla's
translation follows immediately upon his translation of the section from
Eutocius. But before I examine these various conclusions in detail, I
should first like to report Leonardo's remarks on the existence and
location of contemporary copies of Archimedes' works, following this
2 U. Cisotti, . 'The Mathematics of Leonardo da Vinci" in Leonardo da Vinci (New York,
1956), pp. 201-04, indicates the limits of Leonardo's knowledge of Greek mathematics. L.
Olschki, Geschichte der neusprachlichen wissenschaftlichen Literatur, Vol. 1 (Heidelberg,
1919), p. 341, has an interesting observation: "Leonardos geometrische Versuche sind aber
rein konstruktiv, und da er sich dabei auf die Anschauung verHisst, sind sie nicht nur
mathematisch wertlos, sondern auch aUe falsch." To this statement he appends a note stating
that the view holding Leonardo as a great mathematician is a legend. He further quotes a
critical judgment of M. Cantor, Vorlesungen iiber Geschichte der Mathematik, Vol. 2, 2nd
ed. (Leipzig, 1913), p. 296. Marcolongo in the work cited in note I gives a considerably more
favorable view. There is no doubt, however, of Leonardo's keen insights into the solution of
geometrical constructions, as for example in the transformation ofgeometric figures, as I shall
note at the end of this chapter.
LEONARDO DA VINCI AND ARCHIMEDES 479
with a brief discussion of Leonardo's remarks on the life and inventive
activity of Archimedes.
Leonardo's References to Copies of Archimedes
In the Codice Atlantico, we are told that "a complete Archimedes
is in the hands of the brother of the Monsignor of Santa Giusta in Rome.
He said that it had been given to his brother who was in Sardinia. It was
first in the library of the Duke of Urbino but was taken away at the
time of the Duke Valentino [Le., 1502]."3 Heiberg has reasoned per-
suasively that this reference is to the copy of the translation of Jacobus
Cremonensis that is now designated as Urb. lat. 261 ofthe Vatican Library.
4
In another place, Leonardo tells us "Borges will get for you the Archi-
medes from the Bishop of Padua and Vitellozzo the one from Borgo San
Sepolcro."5 Heiberg believed the second copy mentioned to be the same
Urb. lat. 261 since it was copied at the order of Franciscus de Burgo
S. Sepulchri. However, Heiberg was unaware of MS Paris, BN Nouv.
acquis. lat. 1538, where the translation itself is attributed (no doubt
erroneously) to the same Franciscus (see Part Ill, Chapter 2, Sect. I, above).
Hence, Leonardo's reference may well be to that manuscript. The
Paduan copy referred to by Leonardo could have been the Moerbeke
translation in Vat. Ottob. lat. 1850, as Heiberg supposed (Archimedis
opera, Vo!. 3, p. LXVII). At least this codex was acquired by Andreas
Coner in Padua in 1508 and it seems probable that he acquired it from
the library of Pietro Barozzi, Bishop of Padua from 1488 to 1507.
3 Cod. Atlant., 349v: "Archimenide eintero appresso al fratel di monsignore di Santagusta
in Roma; disse averlo dato alfratello, che sta in Sardigna; era prima nella libreria del duca
d'Urbino fu tolto al tempo del duca Valentino." For the reading "Santagusta" (i.e.
"Santa Giusta") instead of the usual reading "Sant' Agusta," see M. Cermenati,
"Leonardo aRoma," Nuova antologia, Vol. 202 (della raccolta 286, 1919), p. 324
(whole article, pp. 308-21). I was alerted to this improved reading by Carlo Pedretti.
4 Archimedes,Opera omnia, Vol. 3,pp. LXXIII-IV. a. Marcolongo,Memorie,p. 44, and
A. Favaro, "Archimede e Leonardo da Vinci," Atti del Reale Istituto Veneto di Scienze,
Lettere ed Arti, Vol. 71 (1911-12), pp. 957-58, whole article pp. 953-75. M. C. Johnson,
"Leonard de Vinci et les manuscrits d'Archimede," Scientia, Vo!. 53 (1933), pp. 213-17, is
an imprecise and general summary of Heiberg's considerations relative to the manuscripts of
Archimedes known to Leonardo. See also E. Solmi, "Le Fonti dei manoscritti di Leonardo da
Vinci," Giornale storieo della letteratura italiana, supplemento, n to-ll (Turin, 1908), pp.
68-70 (63-70 for the whole section on Archimedes; this scarcely goes beyond Favaro, and it
presents a rather exaggerated view of Leonardo's understanding of Archimedes).
5 MS L, 2r: "Borges ti fara avere archimede del vesscovo di padova e vitellozo quello
dail borgo asan sepolco [sepolcro]." a. Richter, The Literary Works, Vol. 2, p. 354;
Archimedes, Opera omnia, Vol. 3, pp.. LXVII, LXXIV. In MS L, 94v, there is another
reference to "The Archimedes belonging to the Bishop of Padua." Cf. Richter, The
Literary Works, Vol. 2, p. 369. In Cod. Atlant., 20vb, we see the single word "archimede,"
but there is no way to tell whether this is a reference to an Archimedean work or to some
formula or opinion of Archimedes.
Leonardo's Historical References to the Life of Archimedes
That Leonardo expressed respect and admiration for Archimedes'
historical role is well known. He gives a laudatory report of Archimedes'
role in the defense of Syracuse and its aftermath:
6
Archimedes indeed, although he had greatly damaged the Romans in the siege
of Syracuse, did not fail of being offered great rewards from these very Romans;
and when Syracuse was taken, diligent search was made for Archimedes; and he
being found dead greater lamentation was made for him by the Senate and the
people of Rome than if they had lost all their army; and they did not fail to
honour him with burial and a statue. At their head was Marcus Marcellus. At
the second destruction of Syracuse, the sepulchre of Archimedes was found
again by Cato in the ruins of a temple. So Cato had the temple restored and the
sepulchre he so highly honoured. . . . Whence it is written that Cato said he
was not so proud of anything he had done as of having paid such honour to
Archimedes.
The first part of this statement perhaps reflects the account in Plutarch' s
Lives, Marcellus (Chaps. XIV-XIX), which would have been available
to him in Latin, or Valerius Maximus' Memorabilia (Bk. VIII, Chap. 7)
or one of the several medieval accounts based on Valerius Maximus
(see Appendix Ill). In any case, Leonardo's account of the honors given
Archimedes by the Romans seems embroidered. The latter part of the
statement seems to be a rather mistaken account of Cicero's experience
of finding Archimedes' tomb when he was in Sicily as quaestor in 75 B.C.
(Tusculan Disputations, V, 64-65) with the name of Cato substituted
for Cicero. Leonardo also provides some misinformation on the life of
Archimedes in another passage. This passage begins: "I have found in
a history of the Spaniards that in their wars with the English there was
Archimedes of Syracuse who at that time was living at the court of
Ecliderides, King of the Cirodastri."7 This is followed by the description
of a device attached to the masts of ships to aid them in battle, a device
which Leonardo says was invented by Archimedes.
8
No Spanish
6 MS Arundel, 279v. a. Richter, The Literary Works, Vol. 2, p. 370.
7 MS BN 2037, 9v. Cf. Richter, The Literary Works, Vol. 2, p. 374. An approximately
contemporaneous reference linking Archimedes to Spanish history is found in the Recueil
des plus celebres astrologues et quelques hommes doctes jaict par Symon de Phares
du temps de Charles VIIle, ed. of E. Wickersheimer (Paris, 1929), p. 103: "Archymedes,
le Second de ce nom, duquel se lit icelui avoir laisse ung libelle De Quadratura circuli,
'de qua dixit Aristotilles quod scibilis quedam est, sed tamen non scitur.' De cestui parle
aussi Vallere le Grant, 'in capitulo de studio ...' Cestui predist, comme plaist cl aucuns,
la victoire que eut en Espaigne le duc Magone et partie des prodiges qui firent trembler
les Rommains, c'est assavoir I'apetissement du Soleil et la bataille entre le Soleil et la Lune
et I'apparicion de deux lunes que I'on vit en Sardaine et les deux escuz qui surent sang
et Ies espiz de bIe tumber sur Cordube, non pas qu'il declarast les choses par expres,
mais en quelques conjectures aprouchans de verite.' ,
8 In MS B, 33r, another device-a steam cannon to project iron balls, called an
architronito-is assigned to Archimedes by Leonardo. Cf. Favaro, "Archimede e
Leonardo," p. 972.
LEONARDO DA VINeI AND ARCHIMEDES 481
historical work with this story has been found. Nor is there classical
evidence of a visit to Spain by Archimedes.
On the Measurement of the Circle
Leonardo's somewhat imprecise knowledge of Archimedes' accom-
plishments is well illustrated by his various statements in regard to the
problem of squaring the circle. In one reference we read:
9
Archimedes gave the quadrature of a polygonal figure but not of the circle.
Hence Archimedes never squared any figure with curved sides; and I square
the circle minus the smallest portion that the intellect can conceive, that is the
smallest visible point.
It is evident that at the time that Leonardo wrote this passage, he
had little understanding of the main lines of Archimedean mathematics.
His remark concerning the approximate squaring of the circle at the end
of the statement is reminiscent of Albert of Saxony's conclusion that
the quadrature of the circle ad sensum is possible, Le., that it is possible
to construct "a square such that the sense reveals no difference between
it and some circle" (Vo!. 1, pp. 411, 413). The nature of Leonardo's
technique of approximation by converting "an almost infinitude" of
small sectors into triangles will be detailed below. Incidentally, in this
passage Leonardo uses the medieval form of Archimedes' name:
Archimenide. In another note on the squaring of the circle, Leonardo
ascribes to Archimedes the discovery of this quadrature, saying
that it "was first done by Archimedes of Syracuse, who by
multiplying the semidiameter of a circle by half its circumference
produced a rectangular quadrilateral equal to the circle. "10 This
is, of course, essentially Proposition I of On the Measurement
of the Circle. Needless to say, it is virtually impossible to dis-
cover where Leonardo first learned of this proposition since it
was a commonplace of medieval mathematics, as the first volume
of my work has shown. By the time he compiled the extended list of
9 Richter, The Literary Works, Vol. 2, p. 370, quoting Windsor drawing 12280 as re-
produced in K. Clark, Catalogue of the Drawings of Leonardo da Vinci (Cambridge, 1935):
"Archimede a dato la quadratura d'una figura laterata e non del cerchio; adunque
Archimede non quadro mai figura di lato curvo; e io quadro il cerchio menD una
portione tanto minima quanto 10 intelleto possa immaginare, cioe quanto il punto visible."
I have expanded Leonardo's abbreviations but followed Richter in capitalization and
punctuation. For this passage, cf. Favaro, "Archimede e Leonardo," p. 965.
10 MS G, 96v: "Vetruvio misurando lemig1ia cholle molte intere revolutioni dell rote chemo-
vano icharri distese sue stadi molte linie circhunferentiali del circulo ditali rote MalIui le inparo
dalli ani mali motori ditali charri Manon cho nobbe quello essere ilmezo adare il quadrato
equale aun circulo ilquale prima perarchimede siraghusano fu trovato cholla multiplichatione
del semi di amitro dun circulo cholla meta della sua circhun fe rentia facieva unquadrilatero
rettilinio equale al alcirculo." Here, as in the other passages quoted from Institut
manuscripts, italic print indicates deletions by Leonardo. For this passage, cf. Richter,
The Literary Works, Vol. 2, p. 375.
books he owned in Madrid Codex II (2v-3r), he mentions (3r) a "quadra-
tura del circulo," which presumably is one of the various medieval
versions that were circulating. At any rate, we do know that at the time
he wrote another note, he probably had some knowledge of one of the
various versions of the De mensura circuli that were circulating, since
in it he seems to show some acquaintance with both Propositions I and
III of that tract:
ll
The quadrature of the circle of Archimedes is both well stated and badly given.
It is well stated where he has said that the circle is equal to a right [triangle]
produced by the circumferential line and the semidiameter of a given circle. It
is badly given where he squares a polygon of 96 sides since the figure lacks
[being a circle] by the 96 segments cut off by the 96 sides. And this is not the
said quadrature of a circle in any way, but indeed by such rules it is impossible
to do otherwise [than he did].
This report of Leonardo reflecting Proposition III is a very loose one
and he does not delineate the basically different purposes of Propositions
I and Ill. He seems to want Archimedes to give some rectification
technique in Proposition III but cannot find it there. Leonardo's own
technique of converting a circle into a rectangle is described in many
different notes but I shall restrict myself to two successive passages of
MS K (see Fig. 111.3.1):12
11 Cod. At/ant., 85r [Margine sinistro:] "La quadratura del cerchio d' Archimede e ben
detta e male data. E ben detta e dove lui disse il cerchio essere equale a uno ortogonio
fatto della linia circunferenziale e del semi diametro d'un cerchio dato; ed e mal data
dove lui quadra una figura laterata di % lati, alIa quale viene a mancare % porzione
spiccate d'esse % lati; e questa (neini) in nessun modo e da essere detta quadratura di
cerchio; ma invero per tali regole eimpossibile a fare altre menti." In MS E 26v, Leonardo,
like Johannes de Muris in the first part of Chapter 6 of the De arte mensllrandi, gives
various alternate formulas for the area of a circle based fundamentally on Proposition I of
On the Measurement of the Circle (see above, Part I, Chap. 4, pp. 31-32). Cf. L. Pacioli,
Summa (Venice 1494), n, 30v, 31r. The formulas given by Leonardo are: (1) A = (el2)'( dI2),
(2) A = c'(dI4), (3) A = (cI4)'d, (4) A = (c'dI4), (5) [(c/2)'dI2] or [c(dI2)/2]. Cf. also MS
E, l1r and Cod. At/ant., 118ra, 118va. On this last folio, the formula for the area of a circle
(if I interpret the passage correctly) is called the "regola d' Archimede": "Tal proporzione
de circolo a circolo, quale da quadrato a quadrato fatto de lor di[. . .] (1 diamitri). Se un
cerchio e mille e un altro cerchio e un milione, un millesimo del cerchio maggiore epari
al cerchio minore. Fa adunque una piramide del(semi)la lunghezza del semi diamitro di tal
cerchio maggiore, della quale la sua basa sia una (braccio) quantim, della quale la basa
mUltiplicata per la mem della sua lunghezza fia cinque cento migliara di (braccia quadrate),
e arai la quadratura del cerchio minore, piu una minuzia, quantita insensibile, delle quali,
per la regola d'Archimede, tu n'arai menD 999 di simile minuzie, le quali tu poi fare di
grandezza vicina al punto matematico. Adunque non levare la porzione (alia piramide np)
al cerchio, ma (di) (ma) levala solo alIa piramide, e dirai che '1 cerchio sia la quantita di
tal piramide, piu la porzione che fu levata a tal piramide."
12 [1] MS K, 79v: "Ilcerchio evna figura para lella perche tuttutte lelinie che rette pro
dotte dal centro alIa cir chunferentia sono equali Echa giano inella lor linia circunfere
ntiale infra angoli equali eretti sperici-EIsimile accade ne lelinie trauersali delparalello co e
cagano insulli loro lati infra angoli retti-tutte lepiramide retti linie ecurui linie sopramedesime
base constitu ite e vni forme mente di sforme nel lelargeze dellelorlungheze infra Hni
[1] The circle is [akin to?] a parallel figure since all the straight lines produced
from the center to the circumference are equal and fall on the circumferential
line at equal and right spherical angles. The same thing happens in the trans-
versal lines of the rectangle, since they fall on the sides at right angles. All
the rectilinear and curvilinear pyramids [i. e., triangles] constructed on the same
base and uniformly difform in width throughout their length between parallel
circumferential lines are equal. [2] The circle is similar to a rectangle produced
by the diameter and the whole circumference or by Ih the diameter and [Ih]
the periphery. Just as if circle EF was thought to be resolved into almost infinite
pyramids [i.e., triangles] which are then distributed over the straight line which
touches their bases in BD; and, with halfthe altitude taken, the rectangle fashioned,
ABeD, will be precisely equal to circle EF. One wishes to measure the fourth
of the circumference with a bark of cane or sorghum by laying it out flat. . . .
The procedure outlined in passage [1] and the first half of [2] is clear
enough in spite of Leonardo's imprecision in geometric language and
logical looseness. Leonardo conceived of the circle as divided into an
approximate infinitude of equal sectors presumably so that the sectors
are virtually equivalent to triangles. At any rate, the sectors are in some
fashion converted to triangles with altitudes equal to the radius. The
triangles are then laid out on a straight line that equals the circumference;
that is, the combined bases of the small triangles are equal to the circum-
ference. Then since the altitude of each triangle is equal to the radius, the total
area of the triangles is equal to the rectangle produced by the diameter
and the whole circumference. A drawing accompanying the second
passage shows (1) the triangles laid out on a straight line and (2) re-
arranged to produce a rectangle equal to the circle. The last part of the
second passage is very difficult to disentangle, and I have not tried to
translate it. The mention in this second passage (MS K, 80r) of a distended
bark of cane or sorghum (which latter word he misread as "spiral"),
coupled with the drawing of a spiral on the preceding page (i.e., MS K,
79v) at a point in the margin opposite the mention of the spiral on 80r,
led Favaro to call attention to Archimedes' use of the spiral to produce a
straight line equal to the circumference of the circle.
13
Be that as it may,
paralelle circun feren tiale sono equali." [2] MS K, 80r: "La il cerchio essimile v avnpara
lello rettangulo fatto del quarto delsuo diamitro editutta lacircumferentia sua ovodire della
meta del diametro edellaperiffa [periferia]
we Figure:] e f
(2
e
Figure] ab c d
come seleierchio e f fussi imaginato es sere resoluto inquasi infinite pirami de chelequali
poi essendo disstese sopra laliniaretta chettochi lelorbase in b d ettolto la meta dellalteza
effatto ne ilparalello a b c d sara conprecisio ne equale al cerchio da to e f. Dela
circhunferentia delcerchio senevol misurare it quarto colla scorza della can na einli cha
(Ed., e melicha in MS) ecquella distendere effa re regola deue ilcentro delcerchio di cheffa
ilmoto della stremi ta dessa mi sura neldirizarsi ecosi ilcentro dal moto dimolte sue parti
effare regola generale." Cf. MS E, 25r-v, 26r, where the same evidence of quadrature is
given. Cf. also Madrid Codex II, 32v, where Fig. III.3.1 appears once more and the area
of a circle is given by the product of half the diameter and half the circumference.
13 Favaro, "Archimede e Leonardo," p. 967.
the distending of the bark in the second passage here seems innocent
of any Archimedean use of a spiral. The drawing may be only a repre-
sensation of a curled up piece of bark that Leonardo wants to extend
to act as a measure for the rectification of the circumference. As a matter
of fact, he was much taken up by the physical unwinding of a curved
length to produce a straight one (i.e., the tracing of a straight line by
rolling a curved one on a plane), as a remark quoted in note 10 reveals:
"Vitruvius, measuring miles by means of the repeated revolutions of the
wheels which move vehicles, extended over many stadia the lines of the
circumference of the circles of these wheels. He became aware of them
by the animals that moved the vehicles. But he did not discern that this
was a means of finding a square equal to a circle." (But concerning
the use of such a technique by Charles de Bouelles, see Chapter 6
below, Sect. IV, note 9.) In still another passage on quadrature, Leonardo
notes that if a wheel of thickness equal to the radius is rolled through
an entire revolution it leaves a tracing equal to the quadrature of the
circleY (It should rather be that the wheel's thickness is equal to half
the radius, unless by revolution Leonardo merely meant a "turning upside
down." If that is what he meant, then his statement is correct.) And we
shall see that this technique of rolling figures on a plane to leave tracings
was also employed by Leonardo when considering the lateral surfaces of
cylinders and cones. Such then seems to be the significance of the curled
cane bark mentioned earlier, namely that it gave a method of physically
rectifying a curved line. We are reminded in this connection not only of
Aristotle's wheel (Vol. One, pp. 166-67), but also of the physical
justification of rectification given by the author of the Corpus Christi
version oftheDe mensura circuli (Vo1. One, p. 171): "who will doubt-un-
less he is harebrained-that the hair or thread is the same whether it is
bent circumference-wise or extended in a straight line and is just as long
the one time as the other." There are numerous passages in which
Leonardo discusses the quadrature of the circle (MSS E 33r, G, 58r-v,
Cod. Atlant. 45va, 167ra, 167rb, Madrid Codex II, 105r [in fact, this codex
has many pages of notes for a treatise on the quadrature of curved
lines, see particularly folios 106v-37r and indeed on 112r he exultantly
and poetically claims to have found the quadrature of the circle: "La
notte di Sancto Andre[a] trovai il fine della 0 [i.e. quadratura] del 0
[i.e. cerchio], e in fine dellume e della notte e della carta dove scivevo,
fu concluso al fine dell' ora"]), but none bears directly on the question of
his knowledge of Archimedes; and so I pass on to Leonardo's knowledge
of On Spiral Lines.
14 MS E, 25v: "Laintera revolutione della rota deIla quale le lagrossezza sia equale alsuo
semidiamitro lasscia disce vesstiggio equate alia quadratura del suo cierchio." Cf. also MS E,
llr, 24v, where again rectification by motion along a straight line is suggested. MS G, 61r,
also suggests rolling a cylinder of height d /4 to produce a rectilinear surface equal to the base
circle of the cylinder.
On Spiral Lines
Although the passage quoted above concerning Leonardo's possible use
of a curled-up spiral bark was suggested as being without significance
for the question of the use of an Archimedean spiral for the quadrature
of a circle, there are several other places. where Leonardo uses or
discusses spiral lines (called by various names: linia eliea, linia rever-
tieulare, revertieulo). I should like to draw attention first to a passage
in which he defines a spiral: "A spiral is a single curved line which is
uniformly difformly curved and it goes revolving about a point at a
uniformly difform distance."15 It seems clear that this definition was not
taken directly from any translation of the Archimedean On Spiral Lines
but rather comes ultimately from the description given by Oresme in his
De eonfigurationibus, Lxxi, where the spiral is spoken of as having
uniformly difform curvature (see above, Part I, Chap. 7, note 21), since-so
far as I know- Oresme is the first (and perhaps only) author before
Leonardo to describe the curvature of a spiral line in this way. The second
part of Leonardo's definition could be justified by reference to Proposition
8 of the hybrid quadrature tract inserted in Chapter 8 of the De arte
mensurandi of Johannes de Muris (see above, Part I, Chapter 5); this is
equivalent to Proposition 12 in On Spiral Lines. And so one may say that
Leonardo, when confronted by the definition of Oresme, justified it by the
additional phrase based on his reading of the De arte mensurandi or
On Spiral Lines. However, it could just as well be justified by his reading
of Proposition Xin the section on spirals in Giovanni Fontana's De trigono
balistario (see above, Part Il, Chap. 4) and I think it quite possible that
this tract with its use of geometry in practical problems might well have
been read by Leonardo. 16
Four other passages of Leonardo's notebooks are of some interest in
our quest for the basis of Leonardo's knowledge of spiral lines. The
first tells US:
17
Straight motion is that which extends from one point to another by the shortest
line. Curved motion is that in which there is found some part of straight motion.
Spiral motion is that which is composed out of oblique and curved lines, in
which lines drawn from the center to the circumference are all found to be of
15 MS E, 34v: "Elicha eunafigura piana creata dauna so la linia laquale echurva dichurvita
uni forme mente disforme li essi va ralvol giento intomo alpunto choi nispatio [1 ed.;
MS seems to have che i inspatio] uni forme mente disforme."
16 Marcolongo, Memorie, pp. 361-62, has suggested the possible influence of Fontana
on Leonardo, without however giving any evidence.
17 MS E, 42r: "Moto retto ecquello chedaunpunto aunaltro ce perlinia brevissima
sasstende-moto churvo ecquel nelquale sitrova alchu na parte di moto retto-moto
c10cheale [cocleare] ecqu chonpossto di lina (1) obbliqua echurva enne dalquale tirate
lelinie dalmezzo allacirchunferentia tutte fi enD trovate di lunghezze varie ecquessto edi tre
4 sorte doe cocIeale convesso coclie ale piano echocleale conchavo e1quarto e chocleale
colunnale.' ,
varying length, and it is of four kinds, namely convex spiral, plane spiral, concave
spiral and the fourth is spiral in cylindrical form.
The placing of spiral motion as a third kind after rectilinear and curvi-
linear motions is, of course, the procedure followed earlier by Johannes
de Muris in his Quadripartitum numerorum (see above, Part I, Chap. 1);
and such a threefold division of motion is also implied in the organization
of the section on motion in the De trigono balistario of Giovanni Fontana,
discussed above in Part Il, Chap. 4, Sect. Il, text. Incidentally, Leonardo's
definition of straight motion assumes the so-called Archimedean
definition of a straight line (see Vo!. 1, pp. 627-28; cf. MS K, 78v).
Leonardo's definition of curved motion is obscure but probably reflects
the Aristotelian conception of circular motion as a composite motion of
which one element is straight motion. Among the four types of spirals
listed by Leonardo, the second is the Archimedean spiral. Its definition
is subsumed in his general definition of spiral figures "in which lines drawn
from the center to the circumference are of varying length." By this
he presumably meant something like the second part of the definition we
first discussed. In any case, it is clear that by the term "circumference"
he meant the "spiral line itself." The three other spirals mentioned by
Leonardo are three-dimensional spirals, and are adequately illustrated in
the accompanying figure (Fig. Ill. 3.2). The last of these, the spiral line
wrapped about a cylinder, is the gyrative line which so attracted the
schoolmen in the fourteenth century (see above, Part I, Chap. 1, Com-
mentary to lines 27-29). The remaining passages I want to discuss occur in
manuscript G and reveal details of the construction of spirals. On folio
54v we read:
18
The eight lines with eight divisions into which they are divided represent a
single line [in different positions of rotation] and this is a straight line [see Fig.
III.3.3]. Along it the weight, which descends through the elements in rotation,
passes through each one of the eight divisions and at the end this [rotating] line
returns to the same position from which it departed and the motion of the weight
has a double denomination, one curved and one rectilinear.
Needless to say, the curious locution regarding the spiral motion's
double denomination merely means that the spiral is produced by the heavy
body descending in a straight line while the body, the line and the earth
are rotating together. For an observer sharing the rotation, the descent is
rectilinear; for one not sharing it, the descent is spiral (and thus curved).
This description thus reflects the commonplace description of the genera-
tion of spirals found in the hybrid quadrature tract, in Johannes de Muris'
18 MS G, 54v: "Le 8 linie cholle 8 divisioni nelle quali es se son chonpartite anno
adimosstrare una sola linia ecquella errec ta perla quale ilpeso cheperli circhunvolubili
elementi dissciendano passa per in ciasschu na delle 8 sua partiti oni laqual linia al fine
ritoma almede simo sito donde essa si divise elmoto del grave a dupla denomina tione
cioe curvita eli cha rectilinea ec,'
Quadripartitum, in Oresme's De configurationibus, and in Fontana's
De trigono balistario. However, it only implies rather than directly says
that the rectilinear motion and the rotation are both uniform and are
completed in the same time. The passage is most interesting for its
consideration, before Copernicus, of the rotation of the earth and for its
assumption that a falling body and the elements surrounding the earth
would be carried around with the earth in rotation. On the same page
of this manuscript there is another figure of two spirals oppositely
directed and meeting in a common point of the circumference. This
no doubt refers to a sentence that appears above the passage we have
quoted: "On the Motion of the Arrow Shot by the Bow. The arrow shot
from the center of the world to the highest part of the elements will rise
and descend through the same straight line even if the elements are in a
motion of rotation about the center of the elements. "19 Hence, with that
straight line rotating, the arrow will rise along one of two oppositely
directed spirals and descend along the other, as viewed by an observer
not sharing the rotation.
The final passage for our consideration is another description of the
spiral descent of a falling body:20
On the heavy body descending in air, with the elements rotating in a complete
rotation in 24 hours. The mobile descending from the uppermost part of the sphere
19 Ibid.: "Delmoto delIa frecia sospinta dalIarcho-La freccia tratta dal cientro delmondo
alIa suprema parte de li elementi salzera ed disciendera per una me desima Iinia recta anco
ra chellielementi sieno inmo to circhunvolubile intomo al cientro delli elementi." The
title phrase appears in small caps in the edition.
20 MS G, 55r: "Dellgrave dissciendente infrallaria essendo lielementi delmoto circhunvo
lubile conintera revolutione in 24 ore-Hmobile dissciendente delIa subpre ma parte delIa
spera delfuocho fa ra moto recto insino alIa terra anchora chellielementi fussino in
chontinuo moto ch circhunvolubile intomo alcientro delmondo proo vasi essia chelgrave
cheddisscien de perIi elementi sia b chessimove dal a perdissciendere alcientro delmondo
m dicho chettal grave anchora cheffac cci discienso churvo amodo di linia elica che mm
sisviera delsuo disscienso rec tilinio sotto ilquale einchontinuo pro ciesso infrallocho
donde sidivise el el cientro delmondo perche sesiparti dal punto a edisciese al b neltenpo
chedi sciese in b effu portato in d ilsi to dello a serivoltato in c echosi di [ill mobile
sitrova nella rettitudine ches sastende infra c elcientro del mondo m sel mobile disciende
dal d al f c prin cipio delmoto ine1medesimo tenpo simove dal calf le] esse f dissciende in
h. esivolta in g echosi inventi 4 ore il mo bile disciende allaterra sotto iIIocho donde
prima sidivise ettal moto echon possto.
"[In the marg.] sel mobile disciende dalIa supplema allin fima parte delli ele menti ./. ./. in
24 ore ilmoto su fia chonpossto diretto e dicurvo Retto dicho perche mai sisviera del lla
linia brevissima chessastende dalIocho donde sidivise alcien tro delli elementi essi fermera
nelIo stremo intimo dital retti tudine laqua senpre sta perzenit sotto illocho donde tal mobi
le sidivise E ttal moto inse echurvo chontutte le quanti le parte della linia eper con-
seghuenta e al tine curvo chontutta lalinia ediqui nas scie che il sasso gitta to delIa torre
nonper chote nellato dessa tor re prima che interra.' This passage and the preceding ones
on G, 54v were discussed by Duhem, Etudes sur Leonard de Vinci, Vol. 2 (Paris, 1909;
reprint, 1955), pp. 251-55, who came to the conclusion that in spite of these passages
Leonardo da Vinci believed in the immobility of the earth. Marcolongo expresses astonish-
ment at Duhem' s conclusion in his Memorie, p. 292n.
of fire will produce a straight motion down to the earth even if the elements are
in a continuous motion of rotation about the center of the world. Proof: let b be the
heavy body which descends through the elements from [point] a to the center of
the world, m [Fig. 111.3.4]; I say that such a heavy body, even if it makes a curved
descent in the manner of a spiral line, will never deviate in its rectilinear descent
along which it continually proceeds from the place whence it began to the center
of the world, because when it departs from point a and descends to b, in the time
in which it has descended to b, it has been carried on to [point] d, the position of a
having rotated to c, and so the mobile finds itself in the straight line extending from
c to the center of the world, m. If the mobile descends from d tof, the beginning of
motion, c, is, in the same time, moved from c tof (! e). And iff descends to h, e is
rotated to g; and so in 24 hours the mobile descends to the earth [directly] under
the place whence it first began. And such a motion is a compounded one.
[In margin:] If the mobile descends from the uppermost part of the elements
to the lowest part in 24 hours, its motion is compounded of straight and curved
[motions]. I say "straight" because it will never deviate from the shortest line
extending from the place whence it began to the center of the elements, and it will
stop at the lowest extremity of such a rectitude, which stands, as if to the zenith,
under the place from which the mobile began [to descend]. And such a motion is
inherently curved along with the parts of the line, and consequently in the end
is curved along with the whole line. Thus it happened that the stone thrown from
the tower does not hit the side of the tower before hitting the ground.
This analysis is somewhat more particular in specifying the points of
movement and delineating more clearly the equality of the times of the
two movements than the preceding one on 54v, but it is essentially the
same. It is quite similar to the response given by Nicole Oresme in his
Livre du ciel et du monde to the objection that Hif one throws a stone
[or arrow] directly above [a place on the rotating earth], then it ought to fall,
not on the place from which it left, but rather a good distance to the
west.' '21 In his answer Oresme says:22
I wish to add a natural example verified by Aristotle. . . . It posits in the upper
region of the air a portion of pure fire called a [Fig. III.3.5]. This latter is of such
a degree of lightness that it mounts to its highest point b near the concave surface
of the heavens. I say that just as with the arrow in the case posited above, there
21 Clagett, The Science of Mechanics, p. 601.
22/bid., p. 603. This text was published most recently by A. D. Menut, Nicole Oresme,
Le Livre du ciel et du monde, Bk 11, Chap. 25, 139d-140a (Madison, Wise.,
1%8), pp. 524-26. Menut also includes an English translation differing slightly from mine.
The passage should be compared with Oresme's Latin Questiones super de spera, Quest.
12 (MS Vat. lat. 2185, 77r, col. 1; Dropper's text, p. 270, lines 35-40). In neither case does
Oresme call the curve produced a spiral. It is only in the De configurationibus that the
curve generated by simultaneous uniform rectilinear and angular motions is specifically stated
to be a spiral. Cf. also Jean Buridan, Quaestiones de caelo et mundo, Bk. I, Quest. 5
(ed. of E. A. Moody, Cambridge, Mass., 1942, p. 24): "Motus autem diceretur compositus,
si participaret aliquid de circuitione et aliquid de accessu vel recessu [a medio]; et sic
omnis motus tortuosus esset compositus." The word "tortuosus" is one of the locutions
for "spiral" in the Middle Ages. See above, Part I, Chap. 1, Commentary, lines 27-29.
Thus Buridan would appear to have identified the curve.
would result in this case [of the fire] that the movement of a is composed [in part]
of rectilinear movement and in part of circular movement, because the region of
the air and the sphere of fire through which a passes are moved, according to
Aristotle, with circular movement. Thus if it were not so moved, a would ascend
rectilinearly in the path ab, but because b is meanwhile moved to point c by the
circular daily movement, it is apparent that a in ascending describes the line ac and
the movement of a is composed of a rectilinear and a circular movement. So also
would be the movement of the arrow, as was said. Such composition or mixture
of movements was spoken of in the third chapter of the first book [of the
De caelo].
Oresme does not specify that the curve, ac, is a part of a spiral, but
since, as we have seen, Oresme knew and described the correct tracing
of a spiral in his De configurationibus, it seems likely that he also thought
of this motion of descent as taking place along a spiral path (when
observed from outside the moving earth). So much, then, for the principal
passages in which Leonardo treats of the spiral. There are other passages
with drawings that do not substantially add to our investigation of his
sources: G, 57v; K, 50r; Arundel, 44r; Cod. Atlant., 124ra, 152ra, 190va,
206ra, 221ve, 225vb.
On the Sphere and the Cylinder
In turning to remains fromOn the Sphere and the Cylinder in Leonardo's
notebooks, let us examine first a passage (in the Arundel manuscript,
begun in 1508), which includes the correct formulation for the area of
a sphere:
23
The lateral surface of the greatest cylinder which can be described in a cube
is equal to the surface of the greatest sphere which can be described in the same
cube or cylinder. The total surface of the greatest cylinder which can be described
in a cube is equal to six [times] the greatest circle which can be described in
[one face of] the surface of the same cube. The surface of the sphere is equal to four
times the greatest circle which can be placed in this sphere.
All of these statements follow directly from Proposition 33 of Book I of
On the Sphere and the Cylinder, which Leonardo could have seen in both
the medieval translation of Moerbeke and the Renaissance translation of
Cremonensis. However, it would not surprise me if the source of
Leonardo's statement was rather the medieval De curvis superficiebus,
for all three of Leonardo statements appear there together in the corollary
23 Arundel, 77r: "La superfizie laterale del magior cilindro che del cubo trar si possa,
vale la superfizie della maggiore spera che del medesimo cubo 0 cilindro trar si possa.
Tutta la superfizie del magior cilindro che del cubo trar si possa, vale 6 del magior circolo
che della superfizie del medesimo cubo trar si possa. La superfizie della spera vale 4 volte
il magior cierchio che d' essa spera trar si posa." Cf. Arundel, 197v: "n maggiore cilindro
che trar si possa del cubo, ha la superfizie rettangula equale a quattro cierche simili
alIa sua fronte."
to Proposition VI (although to be sure in a slightly different order and
form [Vo!. One, pp. 481, 483]):
From this, therefore, it is evident that the smface of a sphere is quadruple [the
area of] the greatest circle of the same sphere, and [it is further evident that] it is
equal to the lateral surface of a cylinder whose axis and base diameter are each
equal to the diameter of the sphere. Further, the whole surface of this cylinder
is three halves the surface of the sphere.
To connect these corollaries with Leonardo's passage, we must only
realize that the lateral surface of the cylinder is equal to the area of the
sphere (as both authors state) and that the area of the sphere is equal to
four of its great circles (as both authors state). Then, if we add the two
base circles of the cylinder, each equal to a great circle of the sphere,
we realize that the total area of the cylinder is equal to "three-halves the
area of the sphere" (as the medieval text has it) or to six great circles (as
Leonardo says). There is also the possibility that Leonardo deduced these
basic propositions from the abbreviated account in the Artis metrice
practice compi/atio of his predecessor, Leonardo of Cremona (see Part II,
Chap. 3, Sect. III-Cremona flourished between 1404 and 1438 and was
well versed in medieval geometry), for da Vinci mentions Cremona in
Cod. Atlant., 247ra: "tolli l'opere di Leonardo chermonese." Or perhaps
he was influenced by Nicholas of Cusa' sDe geometricis transmutationibus
(see Part Ill, Chap. 1, Sect. I), which was in good part derived from
medieval sources and which da Vinci almost certainly had read. Or he
could have been influenced in this account by Pacioli's Summa de
arithmetica etc. (ibid., Chap. 2, Sect. IV), which itself was based, in its
Archimedean conclusions, on the medieval Verba jiliorum, translated
from the Arabic. But none of these last accounts produces such a neat
comparison with Leonardo's treatment as does the medieval De curvis
superjiciebus.
On folio 61v of MS G, Leonardo da Vinci gies what is essentially
the first part of the passage we have been discllssing:
24
The surface of a sphere is equal to the surface of the cylinder which is as high
and as broad as the sphere. The greatest sphere which the cube contains has
a surface equal to the lateral surface of the greatest cylinder which can be found in
the same cube.
And, although they are not strictly speaking Archimedean propositions,
Leonardo was also familiar with the first two propositions (concerning
the lateral surface of a right circular cone and that of a right cylinder)
given in the De curvis superjiciebus, wherever he may have found them.
24 MS G, 61v: "Lasuperfitie della spera vale lasuperfitie delchi lindro alto ellargho quanto
essa spera. Larnaggiore spera diche ilchubo sia chapa cie e equa alIa superfitie equale alla
superfitie laterale delrnaggior chilindro che nel rnede simo chubo ritrovar sipossa."
Take the lateral surrace of the cone. In MS G, 60v, we have an interesting
and curious passage:
25
The cone whose base diameter is twice its hypotenuse [i.e., slant height] has a
smface equal to its base circle. Then the cone whose base diameter is equal to
its hypotenuse will have a surface double its base.
The first proposition is patently wrong except as expressing a limit,
since the hypotenuse would then be equal to the radius and the cone
would have no height and would in fact coalesce with the base circle.
Leonardo recognized this since, on the page preceding this passage, he
tells US:
26
It is impossible that the surface of a cone be equal to its base. It is proved because
the circle never produces from itself a conical surface without a sector of the circle
being removed, that is, without its axis being produced. The greatest size which the
base of cone has is terminated [exclusively] at the beginning of its axis. This is
proved because where the cone destroys its axis the surface of the cone changes
into the plane surface of the circle.... The greatest height of the cone is
terminated [exclusively] in the complete destruction of its surface....
It is evident here and in a number of other places where Leonardo con-
siders cones that he is introducing a mechanical way of forming a cone by
taking a circle with a sector removed and joining the two terminating
radii so that a conical cup emerges. Obviously if no sector is cut from
the circle the procedure cannot be followed; the circle remains a plane
figure and no axis is produced. The procedure of equating the lateral
surface of a cone to the sector of a circle whose radius is the slant height
of the cone and whose arc is equal to the circumference of the base of
the cone Leonardo da Vinci perhaps took from Leonardo of Cremona' s
Campi/alia (see above, Part 11, Chap. 3, Sect. Ill, note 29).
Now let us return to the second part of the original passage quoted from
MS G, 60v, where Leonardo gives the perfectly correct proposition that
the lateral surface of a [right] cone whose base diameter equals its slant
height is equal to twice the area of its base circle [i.e., in modern terms,
if A
cone
= ! s .c and s = 2r, then A = c .r, while the base circle is equal
to le r]. Leonardo's statement implies the correct formulation for the
lateral surface of the right cone found in Proposition I of the De curvis
25 [bid., 6Ov: '"Ilconio delquale ildiamitro della basa fia duplo alia ipotenisa sua
asuperfitie equa le alcierchio della sua basa. Adunque ilchonio che e delquale i1diamitro de I
la basa eequale alIa ipotenisa ara superfitie doppia alia basa."
26 [bid., 6Or: "Inpossiblile he chella superfitie dal chun chonio sia equale alIa sua basa.
Pruovasi perche mai i1circhulo giene ra fa dise superfitie chonicha senolli man cha un settore
dicirculo osse nonsi desstruggie nasscie ilsuo assis. Lamassima largcheza chealabasa delcho
nio finisscie nella superfitie piana delci erchio eallor"a etterminata lalungha s nel principio
del suo assis. Pruovasi perche dove i1conio desstrugie i1suo assis lasuperfitie delconio sicon
verte nella superfitie piana del circulo. . . . Lamassima alteza delcho I nio etter minata
d nella des intera desstructione della superfitie sua. . . ."
superjiciebus, A
cone
= ! sc. Whether or not Leonardo had read the
De curvis superficiebus, we know how he reached the particular proposi-
tion for the cone whose slant height is equal to the diameter of its base
circle. For he presents the mechanical technique of rolling such a cone
turned over on its side through a complete revolution while its apex re-
mains in a fixed position:
27
The cone in which the diameter of the base is equal to its hypotenuse [i.e., slant
height] describes a semicircle with its complete revolution made upon a plane
around its point immobile as to position.
One complete revolution of the cone, then, describes a semicircle on the
plane on which it is revolved and the radius of that semicircle is obviously
equal to the hypotenuse (or slant height) of the cone and thus to the
diameter of the base circle. Hence the semicircle traced has a radius
double that of the base circle of the cone and so that area of the
semicircle traced must be double the area of the whole base circle. 28
In a further passage the surface of the particular cone with slant height
equal to its base diameter is related to the surface of a cylinder (in which
apparently the height is equal to the slant height of the cone) and to the
surface of a sphere with a great circle equal to the base circle of the cone.
29
Ifthe extremities ofthe curved side of a semicircle are brought into mutual contact,
the semicircle will take the shape of a cone, and its base will be a circle one-half
the surface of the cone. This surface doubled will comprise the quadrature of
the whole circle [with whose semicircle we started] and it will be equivalent to
[the surface of] a cylinder whose entire revolution on a plane leaves a tracing
equal to a circle equivalent to 4 times the base circle of the cone and [thus] is equal
21 Ibid., 61v: "Quelchonio delquale ildiamitro della basa sua sara equale alia ipotenisa
sua desscri unsemicirculo cholla intera sua revolutione fatta sopra locho piano intomo
alia sua puncta inmobile disito."
28 Ibid., 6Ov: "11 cierchio conio delquale laipotenisa sara equale aldiamitro della basa
hasu perfitie doppia aessa basa. Pruova si perla settima chedicie il magior circulo chefar
sipossa nelsemicirculo vale lameta ditale semicirculo eperche iI predetto chonio effat
to dun semi circulo doppio alcirculo della sua ba sa noi diren che chelsemidiamitro de
lat tolto del del semicirculo n m eequ edetto ipotenisa delconio esser simile al diamitro
delcierehio n m diche sifa ba sa il predetto ehonio ec."
29 Ibid., 62r: "Selli stremi dellato churvo dunsemicirculo saranno infralloro inchontatto
esso semicirculo siconpor ra infighura dichonio ella sua basa sa ra uncirculo sub duplo
aesso alia superfitie desso chonio ecquessta superfitie radoppiata leeon pora la quadratura
delcierchio intero echonporra un cilindro delquale laintera revolutione fac ta sopra locho
piano lasscia dise vestigio equa le auncirculo che val4 volte ilcierchio chealla basa delchonio
evale due volte lasuperfitie di tal chonio evale lasuperfitie duna spera ma che chontiene
inse 4 circhuli simili alia basa delchonio-adunque direno cheilma gior chilindro chedel
chubo trar sipossa." Cf. Arundel, 197r: "11 eilindro d'alteza equale alli lati del predetto
conio, fatto sopra la basa d'esso eonio, ara superfizie laterale equale a quattro cierchi
equali alia basa del conio decto e equale al cierchio di che la superfizie del conio fu meta.
E ara superfizie equale alia superfizie della maggiore spera ehe in esso cilindro capere possa. "
Note that in this last passage the altitude is specified as equal to the side of the cone
(i.e. its slant height).
to two times the surface of the cone and is equal to the surface of a sphere
which contains [i.e., is equal to] 4 circles like the base of the cone. Then we shall
say that the greatest cylinder which can be drawn in the cube.... [Here the
passage cuts off.]
It seems likely that Leonardo intended in the cut-off sentence to make
an observation somewhat like that in G, 61v, with which we began this
discussion, except that no doubt he would have added here a statement
concerning the lateral surface of a cone described in the cube. Thus he
would probably have said that the surface of the greatest cylinder which
can be described in a cube is equal to the surface of the greatest sphere
that can be inscribed in the cube and double the surface of a cone whose
slant height is equal to the side of the cube. But perhaps he realized at the
last minute that such a cone was not the largest cone that could be fit
into the cube and thus the obvious parallelism with the sphere and the
cylinder broke down and so he decided not to include the summary
statement relating the surface of all three figures in the cube. At any
rate, the whole passage which we have just presented summarizes the
principal knowledge that Leonardo had of the propositions on areas found
in the De curvis superjiciebus and to a lesser extent in Archimedes' On
the Sphere and the Cylinder.
Before terminating this discussion of Leonardo's propositions regarding
the area of a cone, I should point out that he constantly uses the medieval
term hypatenusa for the slant height or side (generator) of the right cone.
This, of course, was the term used in the De curvis superficiebus and made
popular therefrom. This fact and the various similarities between
Leonardo's discussions and the De curvis superjiciebus have led me to
the tentative conclusion that Leonardo's knowledge of the basic formula-
tions here considered came first from the De curvis superficiebus or from
other geometrical texts based on medieval treatises, like the Campi/atia
of Leonardo of Cremona or the Summa of Pacioli.
I have not yet spoken of Leonardo's knowledge of the volume of the
sphere. Here we see no real traces of Archimedean proofs and we may
confine ourself to one rather vague non-Archimedean approach to the
cubing of the sphere:
30
To cube the sphere. When you have squared the surface of the sphere, divide
this square into as many small squares as you please, provided that they are equal
to one another, and make each square the base of a pyramid, of which the axis is
half the diameter of the sphere of which you wish to obtain the cube and let
them all be equal.
The technique suggested here may resemble that presentedfor the squaring
of the circle. Perhaps, he had in mind the dividing of the sphere into a
30 MS G, 39v: "Percuba re lasfe ra. Quadrato che ai la superfitie della sfera conpar ti
esso quadrato intanti qua dretti quanto atte piacie pur chesieno infralloro equali effa cho
ciasscu no quadrato sia basa duna piramide dellaquale las si sia di semidiarnitro della spera
che voi chu bare essien tutti equali."
vast number of spherical sectors with apexes at the center and bases
making up the surface of the sphere. All of these sectors, then, approx-
imate, as we take a larger and larger number of sectors, to pyramids whose
bases just cover the surface of the sphere which has been converted into
a square and whose axes are equal to the radius of the sphere, and this
assemblage of pyramids is then equal to the sphere and convertible into
a cube. We are not told at this point the steps taken to convert the
pyramids into a cube but presumably he would have used transformation
techniques like those described in his abortive tract on transformations
found in the Arundel manuscript, a treatise which I shall mention later.
At any rate, it must be clear that, however vague the transformation of
the spherical sectors into pyramids suggested by Leonardo may be, the
passage does imply a formulation for the volume of a sphere. This is
evident, since Leonardo knew that the surface of the sphere equals four
great circles of the sphere and that the volume of a pyramid is equal to
one-third of the base times the altitude. Thus, if we convert all of the
little pyramids into a single pyramid whose base is the surface of the sphere
and whose altitude is equal to the radius of the sphere, we are left with
the formulation: V = (r / 3) 417"r
2
, to put it in modern form. This single
pyramid to which the sphere would be equal is, of course, equivalent to
the cone to which the sphere is shown to be equal in Proposition IX of De
curvis superficiebus and to the four cones to which the sphere is equated
in Proposition I. 34 of Archimedes' On the Sphere and the Cylinder. There
are several other passages on spheres found in the notebooks, but none
bears directly on Leonardo's knowledge of Archimedes, and hence I
merely list a few: MSS E, 34v; G, 38v, 39r, 39v, 42v, etc.
On the Equilibrium of Planes (On Centers of Gravity)
Of Archimedes' works certainly the most influential for Leonardo was
On the Equilibrium of Planes. He cites its title without further elabora-
tion 01'1 the verso ofthe cover of MS F: . Archimede, de centro gravitatis.' ,
That he read the treatise is evident since, as we shall see, he makes specific
references to it in his considerations of centers ofgravity and he reproduces
(although sometimes in a confused manner) some of its postulates and
theorems. Before examining the various passages of an Archimedean
nature that Leonardo advances, I should first note that Leonardo's note-
books are crammed with references to the concept of center of gravity
(particularly in his extensive treatment of the flight of birds and the
movement of human bodies). But in general these numerous references
are not germane to my investigation of the influence of Archimedes on
Leonardo. It is when we turn to Leonardo's multiple considerations of
statical theorems and the determinations of the centers of gravities of
geometrical figures that we find material appropriate to our study.
It seems clear from the researches of Pierre Duhem that Leonardo,
quite probably before he had read On the Equilibrium of Planes, had
absorbed the doctrines and theorems of the medieval science of weights
associated with the names of Jordanus de Nemore and Blasius of Parma,
and that he had explicated and developed this medieval inheritance in
a skillful and often brilliant manner.
31
Hence it is not surprising that his
first knowledge of centers of gravity seems also to have come from
scholastic sources, particularly his distinction between center of
magnitude and center of gravity and possibly also that between center
of natural gravity and center of accidental gravity, as will become clear
in the discussion below. With such knowledge acquired, Leonardo would
have been well prepared to react to the reading of Archimedes' work.
I suspect that on reading Archimedes he decided to undertake the
composition of a treatise of his own on centers of gravity. I think that
the extensive notes copied in MS Arundel on centers of gravity were
preparatory to the composition of such a tract; and since he began to
make entries in MS Arundel in 1508, I further suggest that it was about
this time that he decided to undertake this composition. Whether or not
he actually had made such a decision, he did group together various
considerations on centers of gravity and we can detect four major divisions
or categories of remarks: [1] preliminary definitions and distinc-
tions concerning centers of gravity; [2] fundamental postulates and
theorems concerning the centers of gravity of magnitudes and bodies on
balances; [3] propositions on the determination of the centers of gravity
of plane figures; and [4] propositions on the determination of the centers
of gravity of solid figures, I have established these categories as the most
useful way to showthe relative dependence of Leonardo on the scholastics
and on Archimedes' On the Equilibrium of Planes, In brief, I hope to
showthat in the statements included in [1], Leonardo was largely following
the scholastics, that in the passages grouped in [2] and [3] he reworked
the content of Book I of On the Equilibrium of Planes, and that in the
theorems in group [4], which are apparently his own discoveries, he was
using the balance procedures described in [2] and [3], I shall also indicate
in passing how Leonardo apparently hoped to group the propositions of
[2] and [3] in an order somewhat different from the one I have here used
for purposes of our investigation.
[1] Preliminary Definitions
In Arundel, 72v, Leonardo introduces three different centers:
32
In every figure having weight there are found to exist three centers: the first
is the center of its natural gravity, the second [the center] of its accidental
gravity, and the third is [the center] of the magnitude of this body,
31 See P. Duhem, Les Origines de la statique, 2 Vols. (Paris, 1905-06). Cf. F. Schuster,
Zur Mechanik Leonardo da Vincis (Erlangen, 1915); Marcolongo, Memorie, pp. 105-252;
Leonardo da Vinci, I Libri di meccania, ed. of A. Uccelli (Milan, 1942); and my summary
of Leonardo's mechanics in the article on Leonardo in the Dictionary of Scientific
Biography. In Uccelli's work, the various passages of Leonardo on mechanics are ordered
under different topics. Particularly useful for our investigation is the section on centers of
gravity, pages 43-66.
32 Arundel, 72v: "In ogni figura ponterosa si trova essere 3 cientri de'quali I'uno ecentro
della gravitA naturale, it 2
0
della gravita accidentale, 3
0
della magnitudine d'esso corpo."
These distinctions are somewhat elaborated on folio 123v of the same
manuscript in connection with the centers of bodies uniformly difform
(i.e., bodies that depart from homogeneity in a uniformly di:fform way):33
Bodies uniformly difform [in weight] have in themselves three centers: one is
the center of the magnitude, the second is the center of the accidental gravity,
the third-less well known-is the center of the natural gravity. The center of
the magnitude of bodies is placed in the middle with respect to the length,
breadth, and thickness of these bodies. The center of the accidental gravity of
these bodies is placed in the middle with respect to the parts which resist one
another by standing in equilibrium. The center of the natural gravity is that which
divides a body into two parts equal in weight and quantity.
How, then, are we to interpret these definitions? The definition of
the center of magnitude is clumsy but clear enough. The center of mag-
nitude is merely the geometric center of figures that can be divided
symmetrically. If one then turns to gravity and considers the figures as
homogeneous as to weight, the center of natural gravity is, for Leonardo,
identical with the center of magnitude. This is specifically said in Arundel ,
123v:
34
"Every solid which will have its opposite parts similar and equal
to each other will have the center of its natural gravity coincide with the
center of its magnitude." The nature of Leonardo's concept of the center
of natural gravity where there is symmetry about a line or plane passing
through that center of natural gravity is elaborated in a not too lucid
manner:
35
The center of the true gravity of bodies is one and unique and exists without
place [Le., as a point] in the middle of the bodies in which it resides, leaving all
about it circularly the equal weight of the body investing it, so that however
many times the body including it is imagined to be divided by a single [plane]
section passing through the center [of gravity], you would always find the [total]
weight [of the body] to be divided into two parts of equal weight.... And it
often happens that such a center is outside of these bodies....
This last description is substantially the same as the last sentence of the
33 Ibid., 123v: "E' corpi uniformemente disformi hanno in se 3 centri de' quali l'uno e
il centra della magnitudine, l'altro e il centro della gravita accidentale, il 3 manco noto
e il centro della gravita naturale. n centro della magnitudine de' corpi e posto in mezzo
alIa lungheza e largheza e grosseza d'essi corpi. 11 centro della gravita accidentale d'essi
corpi eposta in mezo a quelle parti che resistano l'una all'altra, stando i equilibra. 11 centro
della gravita naturale equello che divide un corpo in due parte equali in peso e in quantita. "
34 Ibid.: "Ogni solido che ara le sue parte oposite simili ed equali l'una all'altra, ani
il centro della sua graviill naturale concentrico col centra della sua magnitudine."
35 Cod. Atlant., 153vb: "n centra della vera gravita de' corpi eunico e solo, e sanza loco
in mezo de' corpi si risiede, lasciando intomo a se circularmente equal peso del corpo
che 10 veste, in modo che tante volte quanto si potessi imaginare che con un solo
taglio tal corpo ove si rinchiude si potessi dividere, in modo che la linia d'esso taglio
tocassi i1 centro, tante volte troversti tale peso essere diviso in due parti d'equali pesi.
E spesse volte accade che tale centra efori d'essi corpi...."
preceding one and it is the same type of definition that we often find
in the scholastic tracts of the fourteenth century. For example, Oresme
in his Questiones super de spera has the following description:
36
(2) Middle or center is threefold. For it is the center of the whole world, namely,
a point equidistant from all parts of the convex surface of the whole world. And
this the Commentator [i.e., Averroes] calls the center of the whole. In the second
way, center is taken for the middle of the whole magnitude of the earth itself,
so that there is not a greater quantity of earth in one part than another. In the third
way, it is taken for the center of gravity, so that there is no more gravity in one
part than another.
(3) Center of magnitude is taken in two ways. In one way properly, and thus by
imagination it is a point from which all lines drawn to its circumference are equal.
And in this way no magnitude has a center unless it is circular or spherical. In the
second way, it is taken improperly as the middle of a thing and in this sense any
magnitude has a center.
(4) Center improperly speaking is found in two [cases]: namely, in surfaces and in
bodies. The center of a surface is the point in which two lines intersect, each of
which would divide the surface into two equal parts. The center, morever, ofa body
is the point in which three [plane] surfaces mutually intersect, anyone of which
would divide the solid into two equal parts. Whence, if there were some heavy
body, that which is in its middle would be its center.
(5) Some surfaces have the center within the surface, as in the case of a square,
while other surfaces have their center outside of the surface, as in the case of
the surface imagined in the heavens. And I speak in the same way of bodies;
whence an element [above the earth] has its center outside itself, for example, in
the center of the earth.
(6) Finally some bodies are heavy uniformly through all of their parts, while
others aredifform.
36 Questiones super de spera, Quest. 3 (ed. of Droppers, pp. 64-67; cf. MS Vat. lat.
2185, 72r, c.2): "2
a
distinctio est quod medium seu centrum est triplex. Est enim centrum totius
mundi, scilicet punctus equidistans ab omnibus partibus superficiei convexe totius mundi, et
hoc vocat Commentator centrumtotius. 2 modo capitur centrum pro medio totius magnitudinis
ipsius terre, ita quod non est plus de quantitate ab una parte quam ab alia. 3 modo
capitur pro medio gravitatis ita quod non est plus de gravitate ab una parte quam ab alia.
3
a
distinctio est quod centrum magnitudinis capitur dupliciter. Uno modo proprie, et sic est
punctus per ymaginationem a quo omnes linee ducte ad circumferenciam sunt equales.
Et isto modo nulla magnitudo habet centrum nisi sit circularis vel sperica. 2 modo
capitur improprie pro medio rei, et sic quelibet magnitudo habet centrum. 4
a
distinctio est
quod centrum improprie dictum reperitur in duobus, scilicet in superficie et in corpore:
centrum in superficie est punctus in quo intersecantur due linee, quarum quelibet divideret
superficiem in duo equalia: centrum autem corporis est punctus in quo intersecantur se tres
superficies, quarum quelibet divideret corpus in duo equalia. Unde si esset aliquod corpus
grave, istud esset centrum eius quod est in eius medio. 5
a
distinctio est quod quedam est
superficies que habet centrum suum in semet ipsam, sicut superficies quadrata; alia est que
habet centrum extra se ipsam, sicut una superficies ymaginata in cello (I), et ita dico de
corpore: unde elementum habet centrum extra se puta in terra. Ultima distinctio est quod
quedam (!) est grave uniforme in suis partibus omnibus, aliud difforme." For various
passages of Leonardo that resemble the scholastic treatments of the center of the world,
etc., see Uccelli's edition of Leonardo, I libri di meccanica, pp. 1-26.
.....
Other less extended but similar considerations are found in Jean Buridan's
Quaestiones de caelo
37
and in similar questions on De caelo by Albert of
Saxony, an author with whom Leonardo was familiar and whose possible
influence on Leonardo, Duhem has studied in detail. 38 It is evident that the
scholastic discussions focus upon the relations between the center of
gravity of the earth and the center of the world. At the base of these
discussions there is a concept, already well delineated in their Greek and
Arabic predecessors, that the center of gravity of any body would be
determined by placing the body at the center of the world and seeing which
point of it would coincide with the world's center, needless to say an
entirely theoretical procedure. Such was the theory that lay behind Nicole
Oresme's method of quadrature of the circle which I have outlined in Part I,
Chapter 7. One of the neatest expositions of this doctrine is found in an
Arabic manuscript which also includes a fragment of Archimedes' On
Floating Bodies and I quote it here because it expresses the view of the
schoolmen whom Leonardo read:
39
[fitle]. That which the geometer understands by the [following] expressions:
"weight," "the heavy body," "center of gravity," "distance," and "the ratio
of weight to weight is as the ratio of distance to distance inversely. "
If we assume any point and about it a number of magnitudes, and if we
assume a power in each of these magnitudes pressing toward the point initially
assumed and given, then the given point is the middle point of the whole. All
the given magnitudes which are about the point constitute the "heavy body."
The force by which it [the heavy body, concentrated] in that point pushes toward
the center of the universe is its "weight." Then we assume that this weight will
push toward the middle point of the universe. The middle point of the universe
must be contiguous to [i.e., identical with] a single point. Now that point of this
body with which the middle point of the universe coincides is the "center of
gravity" of this body. The "distance" is the line which is drawn between the
centers of gravities of two weights. We [now] turn ourselves to the expression
"the ratio of the weight to the weight is as the ratio of the distance to the distance
inversely." If one draws the distance, i.e., the connecting line in the space
between the centers of gravities of two weights in the plane which is parallel to
the horizon, then that expression signifies that the ratio of the weight to the weight
is as the ratio of the magnitudes of the distances which the common point-i.e.,
the place of the suspension of the mechanism-divides one from the other, and
indeed the ratio of one to the other is an inverse one.
So much for two of the three centers distinguished by Leonardo and
the common conceptions of them before Leonardo. Now we must turn
to the rather more obscure concept of the center of accidental gravity,
Le. "the middle with respect to the parts which resist one another by
37 Ed. of Moody, p. 231.
38 Les Origines de la statique, Vot. 2. Another possible source for Leonardo's distinction
between center of magnitude and center of gravity is Giovanni Fontana's Liber de omnibus
rebus naturalibus (see above, Part I1, Chap. 4, Sect. I1, n. 10).
39 Clagett, The Science of Mechanics, pp. 21-22.
standing in equilibrium." The meaning of this phrase is made somewhat
clearer by two drawings accompanied by legends on folio 31r of Arundel
(see Fig. III.3.6). It is evident from the left-hand drawing that we have a
uniform beam of four equal parts with equal weights hung at the ends. The
center of natural gravity is designated by Leonardo as in the center of the
beam. The hanging of equal weights, then, has not shifted the center of
gravity laterally in any way. But in the adjacent drawing, where a Roman
balance situation is illustrated, a similar beam is suspended from one end
of the original beam and consequently the fulcrum must be moved to
maintain equilibrium. According to Leonardo the center of gravity is, after
the shift, in n and this center is designated as "the center of the accidental
gravity. "40 Thus, the addition of a weight to one end has produced an
accidental shift of the center of equilibrium to n. Hence, as Marcolongo
points out, "the center of accidental gravity is the center of gravity of the
whole system, i.e. of the heavy beam and the accidental weights. "41 In
short, the accidental center arises from the abandonment of the sym-
metrical arrangement of weights and beam distances producing the
center of natural gravity. If this interpretation is correct, we can make
sense out of various other passages,42 and particularly the following
passage:
43
40 For some unclear reason, a line has been drawn through the text under the right figure.
Does this line indicate a deletion and is this deletion because "5 contra 3" is misleading
and the equilibrium is represented by the equation: 2 2 = 4 I? Pedretti thinks not. He has
kindly suggested to me that the line through the text is not in Leonardo's left-handed
direction and therefore cannot be taken as an indication that the text was meant to be
deleted.
41 Marcolongo, Memorie, pp. 187-88.
42 For example, the various statements in Arundel, 123r:
"Dato che sia il centro naturale della gravita d'un corpo, e' non e pero possibile a
trovare il centro naturale delle sua parte.
"Ancora che sia nota il centro accidentale delIa gravita d'un corpo, e' non si potra
mediante quello ritrovare iI centro della gravita accidentale di tal corpo.
"Dato il centro della graviffi accidentale delle parti d'un corpo, egli e possibile, mediante
quem, ritrovare ii centro della gravita accidenta1e di tutto il corpo.
"Data il centro della gravita naturale di ciascuna parte d'un corpa, e' fia possibile
mediante tal cognizione ritrovare il centro della gravita naturale di tutta il carpo.
"Col centro naturale d'una parte d'un corpo e col centro accidentale dell'aItra parte
non fia possibile investigare ne centro naturale ne centro accidentale della gravita di tutto
il corpo.
"Col sol centro della gravim naturale 0 accidentale d'un corpo non si troverra mai il centra
delIa gravita naturale 0 accidentale d'esso corpo.
"Col centro naturale della parte e di tutto un corpo non si investighera il centro della
sua gravita accidentale."
43 Ibid., 67r: "Della bilancia di braccia equali, appiccatovi pesi equali, il suo polo riceve
in se il centro della gravita naturale della bilancia e '1 centro della gravim naturale de'
pesi a quella attaccati. La bilancia di braccia equali e di pesi inequali e disequalmente
distanti dal polo attaccati, ara il centro della gravita naturale di se medesima nel suo polo.
Nel quale polo ancora fia il centro della gravim accidentale de' pesi a tal bilancia attacati.
La bilancia di braccia e di pesi inequali a esse braccia attaccati, ara il centro della
...
In the case of the balance with equal arms and to which equal weights are
attached [at equal distances from the pole, i.e., the support of the whole balance],
the pole receives in itself the center of natural gravity of the balance and the
center of natural gravity of the weights attached to it. The balance of equal arms
and unequal weights attached unequally distant from the pole will have the
center of natural gravi ty of itself in its pole. Also the center of the accidental gravity
of the weights attached to such a balance will be located in this pole. The balance
of non-uniform beam and unequal weights attached to this beam will have the
center of the accidental gravity of itself and of the weights attached to it in its
pole: that is, n is the center of the aforesaid accidental gravity.
In the second case where unequal weights are adjusted on equal arms
at unequal distances from the pole to produce equilibrium, the center
of natural gravity of the beam as well as the center of accidental gravity
of the weights will lie in the pole. But in the third case it is only the
center of accidental gravity of the whole system of beam and weights
which lies in the pole.
I cannot find Leonardo's actual distinction between the center of natural
gravity and the center of accidental gravity directly in scholastic sources,
but I think that it probably grew out of a distinction made by Nicole
Oresme, Marsilius of Inghen (and no doubt others) between the essential
gravity of a weight on a balance arm and its accidental or effective
gravity dependent on its position. Thus Marsilius says:44
In answer to the proof concerning a balance, I say that although the essential
gravity [of a weight on a balance arm] remains the same in that position, still
there is acquired [to the weight] an accidental gravity in that position arising from
its position ... and this accidental gravity is called "gravity according to
position," as is evident in the Treatise on Weights.
gravita accidentale di se e de' pesi a lei attaccati nel suo polo; cioe n e centro della
predetta gravita accidentale."
44 Marsilius of Inghen, Questiones ... super octo libros physicorum, Bk. IV, Quest.
11, (Lyons, 1518), 54r, c. 1: "Ad probationem de equilibra dico licet gravitas essentialis
maneat ibi eadem, tamen ibi acquiritur gravitas accidentalis ex situ, ex eo quod grave
directius aspicit centrum quam ante, et ista gravitas accidentalis vocatur gravitas secundum
situm, ut patet in tractatu de ponderibus." (Punctuation altered.) This observation of
Marsilius is in the context of an objection raised against the view that velocity follows
the ratio of force to resistance, to the effect that on a balance the same weight moves with
different speeds depending on where it is located on the balance arm. In answer, Marsilius
makes the distinction between essential and accidental gravity. Oresme, without using the
term "essential" does the same thing. Nicole Oresme, Questiones super septem libros
physicorum Aristotelis, Bk. VII, Quest. 9 (MS Seville, Bib!. Colombo 7-630, 78v, c. 1:
.. Ad primam de equilibra dieo quod absolute quamlibet gravitas sit semper equalis, tamen
non semper est eque potens ad movendum [sed] semper [facit] aliam et aliam aplicationem
et ilIa aplicatio solet appellari gravitas accidentalis in libro de ponderibus et que gravitas
secundum situm et non est nisi hic esse in tali situ, unde velotius movetur." Finally, it
should be noted that some schoolmen also designated the impetus acquired by a falling
body and producing its acceleration as accidental gravity (Clagett, The Science ofMechanics,
pp. 550-51, 566).
~ _ .
Hence, it is not hard to see how the concept of center of accidental
gravity would arise from this concept of accidental gravity. Obviously,
unequal weights on opposite arms would possess accidental gravities that
would balance around the properly assigned fulcrum or, as Leonardo
would call it, the center of accidental gravity. So much for Leonardo's
distinctions concerning centers of gravity. In fact, these various
distinctions that Leonardo makes seem to fade in significance when he
takes up the theorems and postulates of On the Equilibrium of Planes.
[2] Fundamental Postulates and Theorems concerning the
Centers of Magnitudes and Bodies on Balances
On folio 16v of MS Arundel, in the midst of some theorems on center
of gravity, we find a series of statements about equilibrium. His interest
in such theorems may have been stimulated by reading Valla's short
extract from the beginning of Eutocius' Commentary on the Equilibrium
of Planes (see the preceding Chapter, Section V). But these statements
given here have their source at least partially (but definitely) in the
postulates and early theorems of Archimedes' On the Equilibrium of
Planes:
45
Equal quantities placed at equal distances weigh equally [cf. first half of Post. 1 ] ~
and if equal quantities weigh equally, they are placed at equal distances [cf. the
converse of Post. 1]. And if unequal quantities weigh equally, they are placed
at unequal distances, the greater at the lesser distance and the lesser at the greater
distance [cf. Prop. 3]. And if equal quantities do not weigh equally, they are placed
at unequal distance [cf. the converse of the second part of Post. 1]; that which
weighs the more is at the greater distance. If two quantities at equal distances
weigh equally, all quantities equal [to them] placed at these distances will weigh
equally (cf. Post. 6J. Every (concave] plane space has its center of gravity in the
surface within its termini [cf. Post. 7].
As can be seen from my bracketed insertions referring to Archimedes,
Leonardo depended directly on Archimedes' work in at least three
instances and indirectly so in the others. I am inclined to believe that it
was the Renaissance translation of Jacobus Cremonensis which Leonardo
read when he wrote these statements since he repeatedly uses the Italian
ponderare (with equalmente) to express the idea of being in equilibrium
and the Cremonensis translation used the Latin ponderare (with
45 Arundel, 16v: "Le quantita equali poste nelle distanzie equali equalmente ponderano;
e se le quantita equali ponderano equalmente, esse son poste nelle distanzie equali. E se le
quantita non equali ponderano equalmente, queUe son poste in distanzie non equali, la
magiore nella minore distanzia e la minore nella magiore distanzia. E se le quantita equali
non ponderano equalmente. son poste in distanzie non equali; quella che piu pondera,
enella magiore distanzia. Se due quantita in distanzie equali ponderano equalmente, ogni
quantita equali, poste in esse distanzie, podereranno equalmente. E ogni spazio piano
ha i1 centro della gravita nella supertizie dentro a' sua termini."
aequaliter) in the same context, while Moerbeke used inclinare (with
equaliter) or simply equaliter repere (and on occasion equerepere ).46
If we turn back to folio 16r of the same manuscript we encounter
the first citation of Archimedes by name in connection with a theorem
on centers of gravity:47
The center of gravity of any two equal triangles lies in the middle of the line
beginning at the center of [gravity of) one triangle and terminating in the center
of [gravity of) the other triangle.
Let these two triangles be abc and de! [Fig. III.3.7]; let the center of abc be
g and the center of de! be h. Now let the line from center g to center h be gh, which
is bisected in point K. I say that if they are of equal weight, they are in equilibrium
(lit. they weigh [on the balance] equally). For the line gh, which goes out from
their centers, is bisected in point K, so that the ratio of gK to Kh is as that of one
triangle to the other. So K is the center of gravity of the two triangles by their
being in the same ratio as their distances from point K, the pivot of their
balance gh being suspended at the pole K. The first of the first of Archimedes
On Weights.
While Leonardo here cites Archimedes' work as De ponderibus, the
citation is obviously not to the Pseudo-Archimedean hydrostatic work
which went under the name of De ponderibus Archimenidis (see below,
Appendix I, Sect. 4) but rather to On the Equilibrium ofPlanes . However,
in mentioning the "first of the first" of Archimedes, he is not referring
either to Book I, Proposition 1 in the Cremonensis translation: "weights
which balance at equal distances are equal," or to the proposition num-
bered as the first in the Moerbeke translation (= Prop. 3 of the Greek text):
"Unequal weights will balance at unequal distances, the greater weight
being at the lesser distance." His reference may be, however, to the
first postulate (it is the first in both translations): "Equal weights at equal
distances are in equilibrium." Actually, Proposition 4 (=Prop. 2 in the
Moerbeke translation) would seem to be more appropriate: "If two equal
magnitudes do not have the same center of gravity, the center of gravity
of both taken together will be in the midpoint of the straight line joining
their centers of gravity." Still it is eminently clear that the proof is
completely unlike that of Proposition 4 of Archimedes. Leonardo is
46 For the Cremonensis translation, see Vatican, Urb. lat. 261, 102r-v (cf. ed. of 1544,
125-26). For the Moerbeke translation, see the text in Vol. 2, and particularly the Index
of Latin Terms under Tepo and inclino.
47 Arundel, 16r: "D'ogni due triangoli equali il centro della lor gravitl e nella meta della
linia che si parte dal centro dell'un triangulo, e termina nel centro dell'altro triangulo.
,. Sieno e' due triangoli a bee d e f; e1 centro di a b c sia g; el centro di d ef sia h. Ora linia
dal centro g al centro h; e sia la linia g h; la quale dividi per equale in punto K. Dico che,
se essi peseranno equalmente, essi pondereranno equalmente, esendo equali; perche la linia
g h che esce dai lor centri, e divisa per equali in punto K, in modo che tal proporzione
e da g K a K h, quale e da I'un triangolo all'altro. Adunque, K e centro della gravita
de' dua triangoli per essere infra loro nella nedesima (! medesima) proporzione, qual'e quella
delle loro distanzie dal punto K, bilico della loro equilibra g h sospesa al polo K. Prima del
primo d' Archimede de ponderibus."
offering a different proof which seems to introduce the law of the lever,
although that law is not proved in the Archimedean text until Propositions
6 and 7 (Propositions 4 and 5 in the Moerbeke translation).
Leonardo's passage then continues with the case of two triangles
unequal in weight:
48
If two unequal triangles are in equilibrium at unequal distances, the greater will be
placed at the lesser distance and the lesser at the greater distance. You have two
triangles abc and de! [Fig. 111.3.8]. The first is the greater and its center is g and the
center of the lesser triangle is h. Nowdraw the linefromg toh, and the center of the
gravity of the two triangles lies in this line in point K. Let the two triangles be
suspended in its extremities. Let their ratio be the same as that of their distances
from point K their fulcrum only inversely. Because .6.abc is 4/3 .6. de! and the space
Kh is 4fa the space gK, therefore, not being equal triangles, the inverse ratios that
they possess with their distances from the pole of balance make them to weigh
equally [i.e., they are in equilibrium], for space gK is 3 and space Kh is 4, while
.6.de! is 4 (! 3) and .6.abc is 3 (I 4).
This is similar to Proposition 3 (=Prop. 1 of the Moerbeke translation)
of On the Equilibrium of Planes, but again the "proof' is unlike that of
Archimedes. Leonardo once more employs the law of the lever, not proved
by Archimedes until Propositions 6 and 7 (= Props. 4 and 5in the Moerbeke
translation). It should be noted that Leonardo has altered the general
designations of the suspended objects from gravitates in the Moerbeke
translation or gravia in the Cremonensis translation to triangoli. This
is not surprising. In both the manuscripts of the Cremonensis translation,
i.e., Vatican, Urb. lat. 261 and Paris, BN Nouv. acquis. lat. 1538 (either
of which Leonardo might have read), the drawings accompanying the
text show the suspended weights as triangles. The same is true in both
the manuscripts of the Moerbeke translation, i.e., Vatican, Ottob. lat.
1850 and Madrid, Bib!. Nac. 9119 (either of which he might have read).
In the 1544 edition of the Cremonensis translation, and in most subsequent
editions and translations, the magnitudes in the drawing appear as
rectangles.
[3] The Centers of Gravity of Plane Figures
Both of Leonardo's statements regarding the placing of triangles on
the balance assume, it is obvious, the ability to find the center of gravity
48 Ibid.: "Se dua triangoli non equali perseranno equalmente in disequali distanzie, saran
posti iI magiore nella minore, e 'I minore nella magior distanzia.
"Tu hai i due triangoli a bee d e f. El prima e magiore, e 'I suo centro eg, e 'I centro
del triangolo minore eh. Ora linia dag a h, e arai in essa linia iI centro della gravita de'due
triangoli neI punto K. E ne' sua stremi fieno sospesi li due triangoli; de' quali tal fia la Ior
proporzione, qual'e quella delle distanzie oposite che essi hanno dal punto K Ior bilico.
Perche iI triangolo a bee sesquisterzia al triangolo d e f, e similmente 10 spazio K h e
sesquisterzia allo spazio g K; onde, non sendo essi triangoli equali, l'opposite proporzioni
che essi hanno colle Ior distanzie daI polo dell'equilibra, li fanno ponderare equalmente;
perche 10 spazio g K e3, e 10 spazio K h e4, e 'I triangoIo d e f e4 e 'I triangolo a bee 3. "
of a triangle. Hence, it is not surprising to find on folio 16v of Arundel
a passage describing the procedure for the location of such a center of
gravity: 49
Every triangle has the center of its gravity in the intersection of the lines which
start from the angles and terminate in the centers of the sides opposite them. For
example [Fig. 111.3.9], let there be an equilateral6abc and bd the perpendicular,
which contains in itself the center of gravity of such a triangle and which
divides it into two equal parts, making of these parts two similar and equal
triangles. Hence they weigh equally. That this is so, I prove: ab, a side of
6abd, is equal to side be of 6bed, and ad, a side of 6abd, is equal to cd, a side of
6. bed. And so bd is an equal and common side of both triangles. Thus it is
proved, by what has been said, that these two triangles are mutually similar
and equal. And the same thing is proved by the second of the first of Euclid.
Now draw the line from angle a terminating in the middle of side be, i. e., in point
e. Then draw the line from point b to the middle of side ae, i.e., to point d, and
[intersecting] ae in point g. I say that the center of gravity is in line ae. Then
draw the line from angle e to the middle of side ab, i.e. to point e(! f), which will
also pass through g, in which, I say, lies the center of gravity. And because
each of these lines divides the whole triangle into two parts similar and equal in
weight and measure and in each lies the center of gravity of the whole triangle,
which, although it lies in both lines, can only be one [point], whence it is concluded
that such a ccnter necessarily lies in the intersection of the two aforesaid lines,
i.e., in point g. And if each side of this triangle is 12, dg will be the [square] root
of 12, which is 1/
3
ofbd, that is, the [square] root of 108, andbg is the [square] root of
48, which is 2/3 of bd, by the eighteenth of the fourteenth of Euclid; etc.
This same thing is concluded for triangles of diverse sides. Proof: You have it
49 Ibid., 16v: "Ogni triangolo ha it centro della sua gravita nella intersegazione delle linie
che si partano dalli angoli, e terminano nella meta delle lor opposite base.
"Verbi gratia, sia il triangolo a b c di lati equali, e b d cateto, il quale tiene in se il
cientro della gravitfl di tal triangolo, e 10 divide in due parti equali facciendone due
triangoli simili e equali, onde equalmente pesano. Ch'e cosi, 10 pruovo. a b, lato del
triangolo a bd, e equale allato bedel triangolo bed, ea d, lato del triangolo a bd, e equale
a c d, lato del triangolo bed. E cosi b d e lato equale e comune all'uno e l'altro
triangolo. Si che, per quel ch'e detto, e si pruova essi due triangoli essere infra loro simili
ed equali. E 'I medesimo si conclude per la seconda del primo d'Euclide. Ora tira la linia
all'angolo a, che termini nella meta dellato be in punto e. Eppoi tira la linia dal punto b alla
meta del lato a c in punto d, ea'? in punto g. Dico che il centro della gravitfl e nella
linia a e. Di poi tira la linia dall'angolo c alia meta del lato a b in punto e, che
passera per g, nel quale dico essere il centro della gravitfl. E perche ciascuna d'esse
linie divide tutto il triangolo in due parte simile ed equali in peso e in misura, e in ciascuna e
il cientro della gravitfl di tutto il triangolo, il quale, benche esso sia inelle due linie, esso
non po essere se non uno; onde si conclude che tal cientro per neciessita sia nella inter-
segazione delle due predette linie, cioe nel punto g. E se esso triangolo eper ciascun lato
12, sara d g radice di 12, che e Y di bd, ch' eradice di 108; e b g e radice di 48 ch' e di bd, per
la 18
a
del 14
0
d'Euclide; ec.
"Questo medesimo si conclude ine' triangoli di diversi latL Pruovasi. Tu hai che le linie
tirate da ciascuno de' loro angoli al mezo delle base che tale linie dividano per ciascun verso el
triangolo in due parti equali, e in ciascuna linia eit centro di tutta la gravita del triangolo;
e non potendo essere il cientro se non uno, e necessario essere nella intersegazione di dette
linie. "
that the lines drawn from each one of the angles to the middle of the bases
divide each triangle in each direction [i.e., on both sides of the dividing line]
into two equal parts, and in each line lies the center of the entire gravity of the
triangle; and since the center could be only one [point], it necessarily lies in the
intersection of the said lines [Fig. III.3.1O].
This is, of course, Proposition 14 of Book I of On the Equilibrium of
Planes (numbered Prop. 12 in the Moerbeke translation), it having followed
immediately from Proposition 13 where Archimedes had demonstrated
that the center of gravity of any triangle lies in the straight line joining
any angle with the middle of the side opposite the angle. Leonardo in
his "proof' of Proposition 14 includes a demonstration of sorts for
Proposition 13, but a demonstration that completely ignores the beautiful
geometrical proof of Archimedes. Resting on balance considerations, it
is fundamentally like Archimedes' second proof of Proposition 13. It will
be noticed that Leonardo starts with an equilateral triangle and then
assumes that, because a median line divides the triangle into two parts
that are similar and equal, the parts balance each other and the center of
gravity lies in such a median; and since the center lies in each of the
medians it can only lie on their intersection. Leonardo makes a similar
assumption about the medians of any triangle, namely, that they divide
the triangle into two equal parts that balance each other, a statical
assumption that certainly demands proof. It will be evident from the
correct calculations that Leonardo makes of the lengths of dg and bg that
he is aware that the medians intersect at a distance from a given base
that is one-third of the length of that median. Much earlier on folio 3r of
MS Arundel, Leonardo also gave the rule, without proof, for finding the
center of gravity of a square. 50 "The center of gravity of every square will
be in the intersection of its diameters [i.e., diagonals]." This is a special
case of Proposition 10 of On the Equilibrium of Planes (numbered
Proposition 8 in the Moerbeke translation), which holds that "the center
of gravity of a parallelogram lies at the point of intersection of its
diagonals. " Leonardo repeats in different form his earlier conclusion in
the section of the Arundel manuscript devoted to centers of gravity, this
time adding a proof:
51
The center of gravity of every square of parallel sides and equal angles is equally
distant from its angles. Let the square of parallel sides and equal angles be
50 Ibid., 3r: "El centro della gravita d'ogni quadrato sanl nella intersegazione de' sua
diamitri. "
51 Ibid., 17v: "O'ogni quadrato di linie equidistanti e di angoli equali el centra della lor
gravita e equalmente distante dagli angoli suoi.
"Siail quadrato ab c d di lati equidistanti e d'angoli equali. Linia da l'angolo a all'angolo d;
e dall' angolo ball' angolo c: le quali linie s' intersegheranno in mezo del quadrato nel punto K.
Adunque K sanl centro della graviffi di tal quadrato; e se esso quadrato s'apendera nel
punto K, verra a pesare equalmente, perche tutte le sue parti opposite equalmente distano
daK centra, e equalmente pesano, onde equalmente distanno dal centra del mondo, essendo
sospeso in detto centra K. ,.
abed [Fig. 111.3.11]. Draw a line from angle a to angle d and one from angle b to
angle e. These lines will intersect in the middle of the square in point K. Then
K will be the center of gravity of such a square. And if this square will be
suspended in point K , it will be in equilibrium because all of the opposing parts are
equally distant from the center K and [thus] weigh equally. Hence they are equally
distant from the center of the world, being suspended in the said center K.
Again, Leonardo makes no effort to link his proof directly with those of
Archimedes for Proposition 10 of On the Equilibrium of Planes.
Archimedes' first proof is based on Proposition 9, holding that "the
center of gravity of any parallelogram lies on the straight line joining
the midpoints of opposite sides," which is itself based on Postulate 4 and
Proposition 5, Corollary 2. In a sense Leonardo's proof of Proposition 10
is fundamentally like Archimedes' second proof, which rests on showing
that one of the two triangles into which a diagonal divides a parallelogram
can be exactly superimposed on the other triangle and hence their common
center of gravity falls at the midpoint of the line which connects the
two centers of gravity, which line intersects a diagonal at the midpoint
of each of these lines. While such a balancing technique is not detailed
by Leonardo, presumably he had it in mind, as he no doubt also did in
his proof of the propositions concerning the centers of gravity of triangles.
The last of the plane figures whose centers of gravity Archimedes
examined in Book I of On the Equilibrium of Planes was the trapezium,
whose center of gravity he neatly located in Proposition 15 (Proposition
13 in the Moerbeke translation). In one place (MS Arundel , 3r), Leonardo
clearly ignored the correct Archimedean proposition in framing an
incorrect proposition concerning the center of gravity of a trapezium,52
or perhaps he simply had not studied Proposition 15 at that time. But
later in the same manuscript, in the section on centers of gravity, he gives
evidence that he had read Archimedes by including a perfectly valid
treatment: 53
52 Ibid., 3r.
53 Ibid., 17v: "D'ogni spazio mensolare il centro della sua gravita e nella linia che 10
divide in due parti equali, quando due de' sua lati sono equidistanti.
"Sia la detta mensola a bed, la quale dividi per equali con la linia f g, nella quale
dico essere il centro della gravita di tal mensola. Pruovasi, tirando la linia dall'angolo a
all'angolo d, la quale dividera la mensola, facendone dua triangoli a cd ea db; de' quali
per la 2
a
trova e' centri; e quello del triangolo a c d sia h, e queUo del triangolo a d b sia L.
Ora linia dal centro h al centro L: nella quale linia troverrai il cientro de' due triangoli come
per la 4
a
fu provato. E la liniafg divide tal mensola in due parti equali abf gee dfg, e divide
la linia h L in punto K, il quale ecentro della detta mensola, perche la liniaf g divide la
mensola per equali pacti, onde tanto pesa l'una quanto l'altra: si che in essa linia e il
centro della gravita sopradetta, cioe h L, la quale e divisa dalla liniaf g in punto K. Onde
quella proporzione e da h K a KL ch'e dal triangolo a cd al triangolo a db, si che stanno
in bilancia. E perche il centro della gravita e nella linia h L e nella liniaf g, eKe nell'una
linia e nell'altra, adunque K e centro della gravita di detta mensola, ch'e il proposto.
E se la mensola pesa 60, il triangolo a b d pesa 36, e il triangulo a c d pesa 24, e la linia
h L eradice di 15 e 1/9 , e divisa nella proporzione delli triangoli in punto K, che fia L K radice
di 5 e 11125 eh K radice di 2 e 94(225."
The center of gravity of every corbel-like figure [i.e., isosceles trapezium] lies
in the line which divides it into two equal parts when two of its sides are
parallel. Let the said trapezium be abed [Fig. III.3.12], which is bisected by
line fg, in which, I say, the center of gravity of the trapezium lies. Proof: Draw
the line from angle a to angle d (which will divide the trapezium into the two
triangles aed and adb). The centers of these triangles are found by the second
[proposition]: let that of liaed be h and that of liadb be L. Now draw the line
from the center h to the center L. In this line you will find the center of the two
triangles, as was proved by the fourth [Proposition]. And the linefg divides such
a trapezium into two equal parts abfg and edfg and it divides line hL in point K,
which is the center of the trapezium because the line fg divides the trapezium
into equal parts. Hence one part weighs as much as the other; so that the center
of the above said gravity lies in this line, i.e., hL, which is divided by linefg in
point K. Whence, hK/KL = liaedIliadb (! should be liadb/ liaed), so that they
stand in balance. And because the center of gravity lies in line hL and in linefg,
and K is in both lines, so K is the center of gravity of the said trapezium. Q.E.D.
If the trapezium weighs 60, liabd (1 should be liaed) weighs 36 and liaed (/ should
be liabd) weighs 24, and hence line hL is the [square] root of 15 lfg and it is
divided at point K in the ratio of the triangles, so that LK = and
hK = V2 94/225
Notice, as I have indicated within brackets, that the trapezium treated
by this proposition and designated throughout by the term mensola is an
isosceles trapezium, while Archimedes in Proposition 15 of On the Equili-
brium ofPlanes treated of any trapezium. Leonardo once more concludes
that a bisecting line (jg in this case) divides the figure into two parts that
balance each other. Like Archimedes in the aforesaid Proposition 15,
Leonardo concludes that the center of gravity lies at the intersection of
the bisecting line (jg) and the line connecting the centers of gravities
of the equal parts (hL); and also like Archimedes he uses the law of the
lever to relate the triangular parts (aed and abd) to the distances (hK and
KL). But instead of determining the ratio offK to Kg, which is the object
of the Archimedean proposition, he gives at the end of the proof a
numerical calculation of the length of hK and KL for a trapezium of
weight 60, with the aforesaid triangles 36 and 24 respectively. 54
This passage has an added interest for giving some indication ofthe order
in which Leonardo thought some of his propositions ought to be placed.
He notes that the proposition on the determination of the center of gravity
of any triangle was to be the second. No doubt, then, the proposition on
the determination of the center of gravity of an equilateral triangle that
precedes the proof for any triangle would have been the first (this seems
to be confirmed by the citation of this proposition as the "first" later
in treating of the centers of gravity of the faces of a regular tetrahedron in
a passage to be discussed below). He also notes here that the proposition
concerning the balancing of unequal triangles at unequal distances was to
be the fourth. Consequently, I would further suppose that the proposition
54 For a discussion of Leonardo's calculations, see Marcolongo, Memorie, pp. 194-95.
I
I
concerning the balancing of equal triangles at equal distances was
Leonardo's third, and perhaps the propositions for the determinations of
the centers of gravity of the square and the trapezium would have been
his fifth and sixth.
Although I have exhausted those propositions of Leonardo that depend
rather directly on Archimedes, it is worth noting that he followed the same
balancing procedures in passages that give the centers of gravity of both
a regular and an irregular pentagon (possibly Leonardo's seventh and
eighth propositions):55
The center of gravity of every equilateral pentagon is in the center of the circle
which circumscribes it. This is easily proved, for the equilateral pentagon with
all of its angles touching the circle comprises five similar and equal triangles
and their forces all terminate in the center of the circle which circumscribes it;
so that if the pentagon is suspended at this center, it will be in equilibrium because
its angles are equally distant from the center of such a pentagon, which is also
the center of the circle which circumscribes it.
a, 0, r, p, and m are the centers of the five triangles included in the circle and
comprising the aforesaid pentagon [Fig. III.3.13]. Lines ar and op are lines
connecting the centers of four of the triangles, and line cd connects the middles of
55 Arundel, l7r: "D'ogni pentauno equilatero el centro della sua gravita e nel centro del
circulo che 10 circunscrive.
"Questo facilmente si pruova, perche it pentauno equitatero con tutti li angoli suoi continge
it circulo, del quale si fa cinque triangoli simili ed equali, e le virtu loro terminano tutte
nel cientro del circulo che 10 circunscrive. Si che sospendo it pentagono a esso centro;
bilancercl equalmente, perche e' sua angoli sono equalmente distanti dal centro di tale
pentagono, ch'e ancor cientro del circulo cbe 10 circunscrive.
"a,a,r,p, m sono e' centri de'cinque triangoli inclusi nel circulo, e contengano it predetto
pentagono. E la linia are la linia a p sono i liniamenti usciti de' centri de' quattro
triangoli; e la linia c d esce de' mezi delle linie dette uscite de' predetti quattro centri,
il mezo della quale e s. Ora s e centro della gravita d'essi quattro triangoli. Restaci il 50
triangolo m, it quale s'ha a contrappesare colli altri 4triangoli. Onde dal cientro m si tiri la linia
in nel mezo della linia c d nel punto s; e tal linia m s si divida in cinque parti equali,
e si bilichi in modo nel punto n, che la linia sia divisa in proporzione sesquiquarta; cioe
4 contro uno, e nell'una parte appica e' 4 triangoli, e nelle 4 parti apica l'un triangolo,
cioe m; e cosi troverai divisa la linia s m nel punto n in tal proporzione, qual'e quella del
peso de'4 triangoli contra uno.
"Quando it pentagono non fussi di lati equali, e'si divide in triangoli; e di quelli si trova
e' cientri, e liniasi dall'uno centro all'altro, e secondo le proporzioni de' pesi de' triangoli
si divide le distanzie de' centri.
"Sia proposto il pentagono a bed e, it quale si divida in triangoli; e colla regola data
si trovi i lor centri; e che '1 centro del triangolo a b d sia a, e del triangolo a c d sia n,
e cosi r sia cientro del triangolo c de; ora linia dal centro del triangolo a b d al centro
del triangolo a cd, e arai la linia n a. Nella quale per la 4
a
e provato essere it centro
della gravitcl de' due triangoli. Ora dividi a b per equali in punto s, e c d dividi per equale
in punto p; poi linia dal punto s al punto p, e tal linia divide n 0 in punto m, che sara
quella, proporzione nelle parte divise ch'e nel peso de' due oppositi triangoli. Adunque m
e centro della gravitcl de' due triangoli si per essere in proporzione delle distanzie e si
per la 5
a
d' Archimede, e si perche il centro della gravitcl e nella linia n a e nella linia
s p, che divide quella in punto m', loro intersegazione. Ora tira la linia dal centro m al centro
r. "
LEONARDO DA VINeI AND ARCHIMEDES 509
the said lines connecting the aforesaid four centers. The middle of this [last] line
is [point] s. Now s is the center of gravity of these four triangles. Then there
remains the fifth triangle, rn, which has to balance the other 4 triangles. Hence,
from its center m is drawn a line to the middle of line cd, i.e., to point s; and such
a line is divided into five equal parts, and it [Le., the system of five triangles] is
in equilibrium in point n [located] in such a way that the line [srn] is divided [by n]
into a 5:4 ratio, i.e., 4 against 1; and on the [arm consisting of] one part the four
triangles are attached and on the [arm consisting of] 4 parts the single triangle,
i.e., rn, is attached; and so you will find the line srn divided in the same ratio that the
weight of the 4 triangles has to the [weight of the] one [triangle]. If the pentagon
is not equilateral, it is divided into triangles and the centers of gravity of these
triangles are found, and lines are drawn from one center to the other and distances
are divided according to the ratios of the weights of the triangles.
Let the pentagon abcde be proposed and divided into triangles [Fig. 111.3.14],
and, with the given rule, their centers of gravity are found, and let the center of
!:::.abd be 0, and of !:::.acd be n, and so let r be the center of !:::.cde. Now draw a line
from the center of !:::.abd to the center of !:::. acd, namely, the line no. It was proved
by the fourth [Proposition] that the center of gravity of the two triangles lies in
this line. Nowab is bisected in point s and cd in pointp. Then draw a line from point
s to point p and such a line intersects no at point m, which will produce divisions
[i. e. , linear segments] in the same ratio as the weights of the opposing two triangles.
So m is the center of gravity of the two triangles by their being in the same ratio
as the distances. And this is so by the fifth [Proposition] of Archimedes, and [it is]
so because the center of gravity is in line no and in line sp, which divides that
[line no] in point rn, their intersection. Now draw the line from center rn to center
r . ... [Here the passage cuts off.]
The remainder of the procedure is clear. He obviously intends that we
find the common center of gravity of the trapezium and the remaining
triangle by the law of the lever, i.e., by the same way that we found the
common center of gravity of the two triangles comprising the trapezium.
Again notice that Leonardo refers to the proposition concerning the
common center of gravity of unequal triangles at unequal distances as his
,'fourth. " But even more interesting is his reference to "the fifth of
Archimedes." CertainlY, Proposition 5 of On the Equilibrium of Planes
as numbered in the Cremonensis translation does not fit the proof, for it
holds that, "If three equal magnitudes have their centers of gravity in a
straight line at equal distance, the center of gravity of the system will
coincide with that of the middle magnitude." Leonardo is not concerned
here with three equal magnitudes. But Proposition 5 in the Moerbeke
translation (equivalent to Proposition 7 in the Cremonensis translation)
provides a considerably better fit, since it embraces the second half of the
lever law, that is, for incommensurable magnitudes. Clearly, Leonardo's
proof is requiring us, at the point where he cites Archimedes, to apply the
law of the lever, although there is no specific consideration as to whether
the triangles being balanced are commensurable or incommensurable. It
looks, then, that at this point Leonardo is referring to the Moerbeke
translation rather than to that of Cremonensis. Assuming that my earlier
argument concerning Leonardo's use of the Cremonensis translation
for his expression equalmente ponderare is correct and also that the
citation here is to the Moerbeke translation, we can conclude that
Leonardo not only knew the location of manuscripts of both translations
(as was indicated earlier) but also had read both translations (at least of
On the Equilibrium of Planes). It is clear, however, that the evidence
which we have presented here of Leonardo's knowledge of the Archi-
medean treatise points to Leonardo's disinterest in the full geometrical
proofs of Archimedes. He seems rather to have been interested only in
the substance of the enunciations (and even these are not very carefully
recorded by Leonardo) and in the application of the law of the lever to
the parts offigures whose centers of gravity were being sought. It is evident
that the rather abbreviated technique used by Leonardo in finding the
center of gravity of the pentagon resembles that employed in Hero's
Mechanics.
56
To this point, I have not exhausted Leonardo's investigations of the
centers of gravity of plane figures, but I have examined those most
pertinent to our study of Leonardo's dependence on Archimedes. The
reader seeking a fuller investigation of Leonardo will want to study care-
fully his passages on the approximate determination of the center of
gravity of a semicircle where he will find the same balance procedures
followed as in the other plane figures we have already treatedY
[4] The Centers of Gravity of Solid Figures
It is in the determination of the centers of gravity of solid figures that
Leonardo takes the first steps beyond the Archimedean doctrine of centers
of gravity then available (i.e. before the discovery of On the Method)58
but all the while following the Archimedean procedure of applying the
5& Hero in Book 11, Chap. 37, of the Mechanica (ed. of Nix and Schmidt, pp. 9 2 ~ 9 3
determined the center of gravity of a pentagon as being in the line connecting the centers of
gravity of the quadrilateral and triangle into which the pentagon has been divided. The point
is determined by the application of the law of the lever. In n, 35 and n, 36, he had already
determined the centers of gravity of a triangle and a quadrilateral with techniques like those
later used by Leonardo. Pappus, Collectio, Bk. VIII (ed. Hultsch, p. 1034) cites both
Archimedes and Hero for the determinations of centers of gravity, following this citation
in Proposition 2 with a determination of the center of gravity of a triangle in Proposition 3.
Leonardo could hardly have known Hero's Mechanica since the Greek text was lost and
the Arabic version had not been translated into Latin. Nor did he apparently know Pappus'
Collectio (see Marcolongo, Memorie, p. 185).
57 Arundel, 215r-v. See Marcolongo, Memorie, pp. 1%-98.
58 The discovery of this work by Heiberg makes us realize the loss to medieval and
early modern geometry of not having a general work from Archimedes on the determination
of the centers of gravity of solids. For in On the Method we see how Archimedes, by the
techniques described there, was able to determine with great simplicity the centers of gravity
of solids of rotation. The work contains five theorems on the centers of gravity of solids:
those of a paraboloid, of a spherical segment equal to or less than a hemisphere, of a
segment of an ellipsoid, and of a segment of an hyperboloid.
balance principle to the parts of the figures. This was a subject taken up
in more detail by Maurolico and Commandino in the sixteenth century.
I shall limit myself to presenting only two of the propositions investigated
by Leonardo, more to illustrate his procedures than to supply further
information on his dependence on Archimedes. Both propositions concern
the center of gravity of a pyramid, and appear to be discoveries of
Leonardo. The first of these is that the center of gravity of a pyramid
(actually, a regular tetrahedron, as we shall see) is at the intersection of
the axes, a distance on each axis of ~ of its length, starting from the
center of one of the faces. (By "axis" Leonardo understood a line
drawn from a vertex to the center of the opposite face.) In one place
(Arundel, 218v), Leonardo speaks of the intersection of the pyramidal
axes as follows:
59
The inferior [1 interior?] axes of pyramids which arise from [a point lying at]
1/3 of the axis of their bases [i.e., faces] will intersect in [a point lying at] Y<l. of their
length [starting] at the base.
In spite of the confusion of the expression "inferior axes," the proposition
is clear enough, particularly since Leonardo gives and explains a drawing
[Fig. Ill. 3.15]. The intersection point of the pyramidal axes is definitely
specified as the center of gravity in another passage (l93v):60
The center of gravity of the [pyramidal] body of 4 triangular bases [i.e. faces] is
located at the intersection of its axes and it will be in the ~ part of their length.
This proposition, but without reference to the center as the center of
gravity, could have been suggested to him by reading the geometrical
works of Piero della Francesca (see the preceding Chapter, Section Ill).
Leonardo's proof of this basic proposition is actually given on the page
of our original quotation about the intersection of the axes (218v), only
it is given as a proof following a more general statement about pyramids
and cones:
61
59 Arundel, 218v: "Li assis inferiori delle piramide laterate, i quali nascono nel terzo
dell'assis delle base loro, s'intersegheranno nel quarto della lor lungezza di verso la basa."
60 Ibid., 193v: "n cientro della gravim del corpo di 4 base triangulare fia nella inter-
segazione de' sua assis e sara nella 4
a
parte della sua lungheza."
61 Ibid., 218v: "De ogni piramide tonda, triangula 0 quadrata 0 di quanti lati si sia, il
centro della sua gravim e nella 4
a
parte della sua assis vicina alla basa.
"Sia la piramide a bed colla basa bed e la vertice sia a. Truova il cientro della basa
bed che fia f, poi truova il centra della faccia a b c che sara e, come per la prima, fu
provato; ora linia a f nella quale e it centro della gravita della piramide, perche f e centro
della basa bed, e la vertice a esopraf perpendiculare, e li angoli bee e d sono equalmente
distanti daf, e pesano equalmente, si che il centra e nella linia a f. Ora linia dall'angolo
d al centro e della faccia a b c segante a f in punto g, dico per le sopra dette ragioni it
centra della gravita essere nella linia de. Adunque, essendo it cientro in ciascuna e non
potendo esso centra essere piu d'uno, e neciessario che sia nelle intersegazioni di dette
linie ch'e it punto g, perche l'angolo a e l'angolo be l'angolo c e l'angolo d sono equalmente
distanti da esso g."
The center of gravity of any pyramid-round, triangular, square, or [whose base
is] of any number of sides-is in the fourth part of its axis near the base. Let the
pyramid be abed with base bed and apex a. Find the center of the base bed, which
you let bef, then find the center of face abe, which will be e, as was proved by the
first [proposition]. Now draw line af, in which the center of gravity of the pyramid
lies becausef is the center of base bed and the apex a is perpendicularly abovef
and the angles b, and e and d are equally distant fromf and [thus] weigh equally
so that the center of gravity lies in line af. Now drawa line from angle d to the center
e of face abe, cutting af in point g. I say, for the aforesaid reason, that the
center of gravity is in line de. So, since the center is in each [line] and there can
be only one center, it necessarily lies in the intersection of these lines, namely in
point g, because the angles a, b, e and d are equally distant from this g.
As I noted above, the proof is given only for a regular tetrahedron, no
proof being given for the cone and other pyramids designated in the
general enunciation. It represents a rather intuitive mechanical approach,
for Leonardo rather abruptly says that because the angles b, c and d weigh
equally about!, the center of gravity of the base triangle, and a is per-
pendicularly abovef, the center of gravity of the whole pyramid must lie in
line af, This is reminiscent of Hero's demonstration of the equilibrium of
a triangle supported at its center with equal weights at the angles.
52
This kind of reasoning then seems to be extended to the whole pyramid
by Leonardo at the end of the proof where Leonardo declares that each of
the four angles is equidistant from g and presumably therefore equal
weights at the angles would be in equilibrium if the pyramid were
supported in g. It is worth noting that Maurolico a generation later
gives a very neat demonstration of just such a determination of the
center of gravity of a tetrahedron by the hanging of equal weights at the
angles.
63
One further observation concerning this passage is worth making.
The citation of his "first" proposition for the determination of the centers
of gravity of the faces of his regular tetrahedron indicates that I was correct
in my earlier suggestion that Leonardo's determination of the center of an
equilateral triangle was to be his first numbered proposition on centers of
gravity.
Finally, in closing my consideration of Leonardo's debt to Archimedes'
On the Equilibrium ofPlanes, I can note one additional theorem (without
proof) concerning the center of gravity of a tetrahedron that appears to
have been Leonardo's discovery:64
The pyramid with triangular base has the center of its natural gravity in the
[line] segment which extends from the middle of the base [i.e., the midpoint of
62 Hero, Mechanica, Bk. 11, Chap. 40 (ed. of Nix and Schmidt, pp. 194-97).
63 Archimedes, Monumenta omnia mathematica. quae extant. . . ex traditione
Francisci Maurolici (Palermo, 1685), De momentis aequalibus, Bk. IV, Prop. 16, pp. 169-70.
Maurolico completed the De momentis aequalibus in 1548.
64 Arundel, 123v: "La piramide di basa triangolare ha 'I centro della sua gravita naturale
nel tagIio che s'astende dal mezo delIa basa al mezo del lato oposito a essa basa, fatto
equalmente distante alIa congiunzione della basa col predetto lato.'
one edge] to the middle of the side [i.e. edge] opposite the base; and it [the
center of gravity] is located on the segment equally distant [from the termini]
of the [said] line joining the base with the aforesaid side.
In spite of the unusual and imprecise language used by Leonardo which
I have attempted to rectify by bracketed additions, it is clear that Leonardo
has here expressed a neat theorem to the effect that the center of gravity
of the tetrahedron lies at the intersection of the segments joining the
midpoint of each edge with the midpoint of the opposite edge and that
each of these segments is bisected by the center of gravity. Again, it is
possible that Leonardo arrived at this proposition by considering four
equal weights hung at the angles. At any rate, the balance procedure
whose refinements he learned from Archimedes no doubt played some
part in his discovery, however it was made.
On Floating Bodies
In the Codice Atlantico appear certain fragments from On Floating
Bodies in the translation of William of Moerbeke. These fragments (which
in fact occupy a single sheet that has been bound into the codex) are
not written in Leonardo's customary mirror writing but rather in normal
fashion from left to right. Although sometimes considered by earlier
authors to have been written by Leonardo da Vinci in spite of their nor-
mality, the fragments are nowgenerally considered not to be in Leonardo's
hand.
65
Whether the sheet was once the property of Leonardo or whether
6S One of the earlier authors supporting the view that the fragments are in Leonardo's
hand was A. Favaro, "Archimede e Leonardo," p. 969, who said. "Osservo anzitutto che,
sebbene stesa alla maniera ordinaria cioe da sinistra a destra, questa scrittura e stata
riconosciuta della mano di Leonardo, e pare che in questa opinione consentano anche gli
editori del Codice Atlantico...." Cf. W. Schmidt, "Zur Textgeschichte der 'Ochtimena'
des Archimedes," Bibliotheca Mathematica, 3. Folge, Vo!. 3 (1902), pp. 176-79; and E.
Solmi, "Le Fonti," p. 69. Here Solmi speaks of the repeated use made by Leonardo of the
hydrostatic principle of Archimedes and refers to these passages in the Codice Atlantico;
cf. Nuovi studi sul/ajilosojia naturale di Leonardo da Vinci (Mantua, 1905), p. 36. I note here
as below in the text that I have nowhere found any precise statement by Leonardo of the
Principle of Archimedes. Carlo Pedretti in a letter to me states the now accepted opinion
is that the extracts are not in Leonardo's hand: "You may be interested to note that the
extracts from On Floating Bodies in Cod. Atlant., 153 rb, rc and ve are not in Leonardo's
hand, and that what may be taken as three fragments (as shown in reproduction) is actually
one single sheet. In fact, 153 ve is the recto of 153 rb (note in the latter the handwriting
coming through from the other side; the different size of ve is produced by the mount in
the original). The lower part of 153 ve is missing and might have contained notes or drawings
by Leonardo. The sheet may thus be taken as two folios of a manuscript. Filippo Arredi,
Le Origini dell'idrostatica (Rome, 1943), pp. 11-12, had already recognized that the notes
are not in Leonardo's hand." Incidentally, in the work just mentioned Arredi comes to the
further conclusion that there is no direct influence of On Floating Bodies on Leonardo,
although to be sure there is some indirect influence. This conclusion, coupled with the fact
that the fragments in the Cod. Atlant. do not appear to be in Leonardo's hand, caused
Arredi to suggest that the fragment was added to the codex after Leonardo's death. If
this is so, then we would have to conclude, as I have in the text below, that most of his
it was added to Leonardo's material after his death is simply not known.
At any rate, let us identify the nature and extent of the three fragments.
All three of the fragments are from Proposition 10 of Book 11. The first
(Cod. Atlant., 153ve) covers 59rD-J (see the Moerbeke text in Volume
Two above), the second (l53rb) covers 59rJ-Q, and the third (l53rc) covers
59vS-60rA. The source of these fragments was clearly MS Vat. Ottob.
lat. 1850 (our manuscript 0) and not MS Madrid, Bib!. Nac. 9119 (our
manuscript M) since the marginal letters to Proposition 11.10, 59vU which
are found in the Vatican manuscript but not in the Madrid manuscript
also appear in the margin of the passage as included in the Codiee Atlan-
tieo.
66
Presumably the sheet on which the fragment was written was part
of a more complete copy of On Floating Bodies whose remaining sheets
became lost. Whether or not Leonardo owned the fragments or the whole
treatise, it is clear from an examination of his notebooks that Leonardo
possessed only a sketchy and indirect knowledge of Archimedean hydro-
statics. This he seems to have drawn from the medieval tradition of De
ponderibus Arehimenidis (i.e. the Pseudo-Archimedean De incidentibus
in humidum). There are numerous passages which reveal a knowledge of
density and specific weight (e.g. C, 26v; F, 7Or; E, 74v). Similarly, Leo-
nardo certainly knew that bodies weigh less in water than in air (cf. F,
69r), and in one passage he proposes to measure the relative resistance
of water as compared to air by plunging the weight on one arm of a
balance held in equilibrium in air into water and seeing how much extra
weight must be added to the weight in water to maintain the balance in
equilibrium (Cod. Atlant., 284v). However, I have nowhere found the
Principle of Archimedes as embraced in Proposition 7 of Book I of the
genuine On Floating Bodies precisely stated by Leonardo. Even if he did
know the principle, as Solmi suggested (see note 65), he probably would
have learned it from Proposition 1 of the medieval De ponderibus Arehi-
menidis (see below, Appendix I, Section 4). As a matter of fact, Leo-
nardo many times repeated the basic first postulate of the De ponderibus
Arehimenidis, namely that bodies or elements do not have weight amidst
their own kind, that is air in air or water in water. As Leonardo puts
it: "no part of an element weighs in its element" (cf. Cod. Atlant., 365ra
and Arundel, 189r). Still he could have easily obtained the postulate from
Blasius of Parma's De ponderibus (see above, Part I, Chapter 7, note 19),
a work that Leonardo knew and mentioned (cf. Cod. Atlant., 210r, 236rb).
But Blasius himself took the postulate from the medieval tract, as he
categorically states. One might suggest that because Leonardo knew the
hydrostatic knowledge came through the Pseudo-ArchimedeanDe ponderibus Archimenidis
and its continuing tradition in the works of Albert of Saxony, Blasius of Parma and
Nicholas of Cusa (see above, Part 1, Chapter 7 and Part Ill, Chapter 1, Sect. I). Arredi
outlines with considerable skill Leonardo's rather successful solution of practical hydro-
static problems.
66 Archimedes, Opera omnia, ed. of Heiberg, Vol. 3, p. LXVI. Heiberg by a slip speaks
of the fragments as being from On the Equilibrium of Planes.
basic principle of floating bodies, namely that a floating body displaces
its weight of liquid (cf. Forster 11, 65v), he got it directly from reading
Proposition 5 of the genuine On Floating Bodies. But even this principle
was known in the medieval hydrostatic tradition. As I indicated in Part I,
Chapter 7, notes 11 and 15, this principle appeared in a Parisian manu-
script of De ponderibus Archimenidis and also in the rather popular re-
working of that tract prepared by Johannes de Muris in 1343. So, then,
the rather meager reflections of Archimedean hydrostatics found in Leo-
nardo's notebooks could easily have been drawn from medieval sources
and none of the more brilliant aspects of the genuine On Floating Bodies
are reflected in the notebooks. It is worth noting finally that, although
Leonardo's manuscripts demonstrated little knowledge of Archimedean
hydrostatics, when he addressed himself to practical hydrostatic questions
he had considerable success, as Arredi has demonstrated (see note 65).
This unfortunately lies outside of the field of my investigation.
Eutocius' Commentary on the Sphere and the Cylinder
In my pursuit of the relations between the Archimedean texts and Leo-
nardo's notebooks, I find that his knowledge of the techniques for finding
two mean proportionals presents a most intriguing problem. The puzzle
begins with a short passage in MS F:67
The other proof, which Plato gave to the Delians, is not geometrical because it
proceeds by means of an instrument of [or other than?] a compass and a rule
and experience shows it to us. But this [proof here presented in contrast to
Plato's proof] is all mental and consequently geometrical.
Setting aside for the moment the question of which proof it was that
Leonardo believed Plato gave to the Delians, let us first inquire into the
sources of the story that the Delians made inquiries of Plato concerning
the problem of the duplication of a cubical altar. Theon of Smyrna (On
the Mathematical Knowledge Useful for the Reading of Plato, Intro-
duction, ed. of Dupuis, 4-5) quotes the Platonicus of Eratosthenes as
the source of the story that the Delians sought the help of Plato in ful-
filling the command of the oracle to double the size of the altar. But
Plato, according to this story, answered that the oracle was only meant
as a reproach to the Greeks for neglecting mathematics and diminishing
geometry. Precisely the same story appears twice in Plutarch's Moralia
("The E at Delphi," 386 E, and "On the Sign of Socrates," 579 A-D).
In. the second of these citations mention is made of the fact that the
geometrical knowledge required for the solution of the Delian problem
was not ordinary since it necessitated the finding of two mean propor-
tionals. In reporting the same story, John Philoponus in his Commentary
67 MS F, 59r: "Laltra prova chedette platone non ac acque di delo none geometrica
perche siva conistru mento diseste ediriga ella sperienza noi 10 mostra ma questa ettuta
mentale eperconse guenza geometricha. "
t
r
f
on the Posterior Analytics (comment to 75 B12, ed. of Wallies, 102, and
see below, Chapter 5, Text A, Comment to Prop. XXIX) makes specific
that it was Plato in his reply who stated that the problem would be solved
by finding two mean proportionals. The Delian origin of the problem
of the duplication of a cube is also reported by Vitruvius, De architectura
(Bk. IX, Proemium, Sect. 13) and by the Pseudo-Eratosthenes letter in-
cluded by Eutocius in his Commentary on the Sphere and the Cylinder
(see Archimedis opera, ed. Heiberg, Vol. 3, pp. 88-90). The first omits
any statement about Plato and the identification of the problem with that
of finding two mean proportionals. The second says only that the Delians
sought the solution from "the geometers with Plato in the Academy."
The second also mentions that, as a result, the geometers applied them-
selves diligently to the problem of finding two mean proportionals and it
notes briefly the solutions of Archytas of Taras, Eudoxus, and Menaech-
mus. Hence this second passage does not speak of Plato's having himself
given a solution. Of these various passages mentioning Plato and the
Delians, we can only be sure that by 1508 or thereabouts Leonardo had
read Eutocius' section on mean proportionals in Valla's translation, for,
as I shall show, he included in MS Arundel an Italian translation of the
bulk of Philoponus' comment following the reference to Plato and the
Delians and that translation was unquestionably made from Valla' s trans-
lation of the comment, which comment Valla placed after his translation
from Eutocius. Thus by about 1508 Leonardo had no doubt read the
account given by Pseudo-Eratosthenes as well as the account by Philop-
onus (see Valla's translation of the Pseudo-Eratosthenes passage given
above in the preceding chapter, Section V). At any rate, we know that
Valla's work appeared in Leonardo's own list of books found in Madrid
Codex 11, 2v ("libro di g[i]org[i]o Valla;' a list tentatively dated by L. Reti
as of 1503-04 (Burlington Magazine, Vol. 110, 1968, p. 81).
Now let us turn to the problem of which proof Leonardo considered
as Plato's. He tells us only that it was "non-geometrical" since it pro-
ceeded with the help of an instrument, it being contrasted with Leonardo's
own proof which he claimed to be "geometrical." (Incidentally, the proof
presented by Leonardo is quite erroneous since it holds that if a diagonal
plane section of a cube passing through opposite edges is doubled, the
result will be the diagonal section of a cube double the first cube.
68
) It
seems to me that there are two possible choices for Leonardo's designated
Platonic proof. The first is the proof of Philo of Byzantium presented
by Philoponus in his passage commenting on Plato and the Delian problem.
Although Philoponus does not name the discoverer of this proof (see the
passage as quoted below), the proof does follow closely upon the state-
ment about Plato's reply to the Delians. Hence, exercising considerable
license, Leonardo might have assumed it to be part of Plato's reply. The
68 Ibid.: " ...radoppia il quadrato chessi genera neltaglio diami trale delcubo dato eara
i Uta glio diamitrale del cubo dopio aldato cubo.
Philonian proof would approximately fit Leonardo's description of its using
an instrument (or instruments?) of compass and rule, since the Philonian
proof does use a compass to describe a semicircle on the diagonal of the
rectangle formed by the two given lines and it does use a rule which is
always moved through a given point until the intercept between the given
point and one of the given lines extended is equal to the intercept be-
tween the rule's second intersection with the semicircle and the other
given line extended (see the proof as given below). But I should suppose
that Leonardo would have mentioned the second of the proofs presented
by Philoponus if he had in mind the first proof as Plato's. But no such
mention of an additional proof is made in Leonardo's treatment in MS F.
The second choice for Leonardo's Platonic proof is the proof that went
under the name of Plato in Eutocius' collection of proofs (see the Moerbeke
text in Vol. 2). If this was the proof meant by Leonardo, then it is evident
that he read Eutocius' commentary (either in the Moerbeke translation
or in the Valla version; and not in Cremonensis' translation since neither
manuscript of that translation which Leonardo might have seen contains
the work of Eutocius), saw the proof labeled as Plato's and then decided
that this proof must have been part of Plato's reply to the Delians. Plato's
proof, as given by Eutocius, does, of course, use an instrument (a car-
penter's square with an adjustable parallel arm added) but it could hardly
be said to involve a compass and a rule. Hence, if it is this proof which
Leonardo considered as Plato's, then perhaps the text of Leonardo's
passage ought to be emended from "instrument of compass and rule" to
"instrument other than compass and rule." This would mean that Leo-
nardo was emphasizing that the mechanical proof of Plato went beyond
the simple use of circle and straight line. The proof of Plato would also
have been available to him in the De geometricis transmutationibus of
Nicholas of Cusa, which he apparently knew, but without any designation
as Plato's. Similarly a proof like that of Plato is found in the Verba
filiorum of the Banfi Mfisa, but again without any mention of Plato (see
Volume One, pp. 340-45). The proof was also given anonymously by
Johannes de Muris in his De arte mensurandi, as I have indicated above
in Part I, Chapter 3. Finally, it should be remarked that there is no other
evidence that I have been able to find of Leonardo's use of the Platonic
proof of Eutocius. Whatever proof it was that Leonardo assigned to Plato,
it is ironic that a mechanical solution should be attributed to Plato by
Leonardo (and even more so by the Ancients), for we are told in one place
(Plutarch, Marcellus, Chap. XIV, Sect. 5) that Plato was incensed at the
mechanical solutions of the problem of mean proportionals by Archytas
and Eudoxus and in another place (Plutarch, Moralia, "Convivial Ques-
tions." Bk. VII, Sect. 2, 718 Ep) that Plato reprehended Eudoxus, Archy-
tas, and Menaechmus for treating the duplication of the cube by instru-
ments and mechanical means.
Turning away from elusive and erroneous considerations in MS F to
other manuscripts, we are immediately struck by the fact that Leonardo
-,
on numerous occasions employed the solution of Hero or that of Apollo-
nius (they are virtually the same) for the graphic solution of problems
in the transformation of solids. Several examples exist in the Codice At-
lantico ,69 and the transformation of solids was a subject on which Leo-
nardo presented (in apparent imitation of Nicholas of Cusa) an almost
complete treatise, which is extant in the Codice Forster ]10 and dates
from about 1505.
71
Two of the clearest examples of his use of this type
of solution will suffice here. The first is in the Codice Atlantico where
we see the following statement and figure:
72
an is the root of a first cube and the [second] cube arising from the root mn
becomes double [the first cube] [Fig. 111.3.16].
This is, of course, the solution of the Delian problem by means of the
figure found in the Heronian-Apollonian solution. A similar case for the
solution of the transformation of a right parallelopiped with a square base
into a cube is given in Codice Forster 1:
73
With a quadrilateral cylinder given, let us make a cube of it. One asks what is
the altitude of the cube?
Let the proposed cylinder be bcde and the cube into which it is to be trans-
formed let befcnm [Fig. 111.3.17]. 1 say that in order to effect this transformation
you must draw in [the face of] the cylinder its diagonals be and de and in the
intersection of these diameters you will place the foot of the compass and make
an arcfsp such that its chordfp touches the angle of the cylinder in b, and such
that the two angles of the arc and chord touch the two indefinite lines qe and oe;
and where the chord and arc touch the indefinite line [qe] in f, there is formed
one of the sides of the cube constructed under fe, into which the given cylinder
was transformed.
There is little doubt that it is the Apollonian solution that is being used
in this transformation. The only significant point missing from Apollonius'
account (and even this is implied in Leonardo's reference to the use of a
compass) is the movement of a rule to produce the chord passing through
69 Cod. Atlant., 89rb, 146ra (almost certainly not Leonardo), 231ra, 369rb. Cf. Arundel,
182r-83v, and Madrid Codex Il, 50v, 72v, 75v.
70 This treatise occupies the first 40 folios of Cod. Forster I. It has been nicely discussed
by Marcolongo, Memorie, pp. 306-37.
71 Cod. Forster I, 3v: "Principiato da me Leonardo da Vinci addi 12 luglio 1505."
72 Cod. Atlant., 85rb: "an (e illato) radice d'un cubo del quale il cubo nato dalla radice
mn gli fia duplo."
73 Cod. Forster I, 34v: "D'un dato cilindro quadrilatero se ne faccia un cubo; adimandasi
l'alteza d'esso cubo-Sia il cilindro propossto bcde, e 'I cuba in che esso si transmuta
sia fcnm; dico che a ffare essa transmutatione tu debbi tirare nel cilintro li sua diamitri
be e de, e nelle intersegazioni di tal diamitri porrai il pie del sesto, e ffa l' area fsp in modo
che Ha sua cordafp toehi l'angolo del eilindro in b, e cosi li due angoli deH'areo e corda
tochi le due linie indefinite qe e oe, e dov'esa corda e arco toca la linia indefinita in f,
quivi e creato un de'lati del cuba infrafe-nel quale s'e-convertito il dato cilindro.'
I have made all of the letters marking the figure italic letters, although some are not under-
lined by Leonardo.
b and intersecting qe and oe so that the lines from a, the intersection of
the diagonals, to p andf, are equal (see the solution attributed to Apollo-
nius by Eutocius in Archimedes, Opera omnia ed. of Heiberg, Vo!. 3,
pp. 64-66).
It is clear that in both of these transformation problems, and in a number
of others, Leonardo was using the Apollonian or Heronian solution. Where
did he find this solution? If some of Leonardo's use of it predates 1501
(although I have found no evidence of Leonardo's interest in the problem
that early), we would not be sure of his source. He could possibly have
seen it in the Moerbeke translation or even in Johannes de Muris' De arte
mensurandi (see above, Part I, Chapter 3). For the period after 1501,
Leonardo could easily have read the long section on proportional means
in Valla's De expetendis, which was published in 1501 and which, as
we have seen, was in his library about 1503-04. It contained Latin trans-
lations of the section of Eutocius' commentary on proportional means
and the comment ofPhiloponus devoted to the same problem (see Part Ill,
Chapter 2, Section V above). The Apollonian-Heronian solution appears
in both the Eutocian and Philoponian passages. At any rate, by 1508 or
thereabouts, Leonardo certainly had read this part of Valla's work, for,
as I have said, he rendered into Italian Valla's Latin version of the pas-
sage from Philoponus, preserving Valla's errors and vagaries. As the one
piece of sure evidence bearing on Leonardo's source of the mean pro-
portionals problem, I give the passage in full, merely noting that the
first solution is that of Philo of Byzantium and the second that of Apol-
lonius or Hero:
74
74 Arundel, 178v- 79v: "Date due rette linie trovare le due medie proporzionali.
"Sieno le due rette linie ab e be, e sia multiplici ab d'esso be, ma le due medie pro-
porzionali da trovarsi da ab e be, ad efg; e finiscansi bd rettangolo, e menisi il diamitro ae.
In ae si descriva el semicirculo adee, e per il d punto si meni la retta Iiniafg, e COS! che
fd sia equale a esso eg. Dieo adunque le due eg, af che sono d'esse ab, be essere le medie
proporzionali. In peroche equale e fd a essa eg, e la comune de, equale adunque ela fe
a essa dg. Equale adunque quello ch'e sotto esse dg e ge a quella ch'e sotto ef efd.
Ma quello ch'e sotto dg, ge, e equale a quello ch'e sotto bg, ge, come ne' semicirculi
s'e dimostrato. Inperoche quel ch'e sotto el,fd e equale a quello ch'e sotto bf efa. E
perche s'e dimostrato nel 6 delli elementi che delli equilateri ed equiangoli paralellogrami
e' lati sono mutui equali circa li equali angoli comefb a bg, COSt eg ad af; ma come df a bg,
COS! fa ad ad e ed ad eg, COS! eg ad af et ba ad de. Alle due adunque date rette linie ab,
be si sono trovate le due medie proporzionali eg efa.
"Aliter Parmenione discepolo d'Apollonio Pergeo. Siano le date due reUe linie ab be,
in modo che sia dupla ab a be, delle quali bisogna le due medie proporzionali trovare.
E finiscasi db paralellogramo rettangolo e tirinsi li diamitri diagonali ae, bd, e produchinsi
ab, be infg, e per d punto s'achomodifg, retta linia in modo sia equale ef a essa ego
Allora dico d' esse ab, be rette linie le due medie essere proporzionali eg e af. Inperoche
meninsi dal ab in be rettalinia el paralello eh, e perche il triangolo isosceles e bee e ad
eh e equale adunque bh a esso he, e COS! perche be e tagliato in h in due modi, e s'acosta
alIa retta Iinia eg media, quel ch' e adunque sotto be, eg con quello che da he e equale
a quello ch'e da he. Inperoche comune si ponga quello ch'e da eh. Quello adunque ch'e
sotto bg, ge, con quelle ch'e da he, he, e equale a quelli ch'e da eh, hg; ma a quelli
ch' e da he, he equaIe quel ch' e da ee, ed a quelli ch' e da eh, hg e equale quel ch' e da
With two straight lines given, to find two mean proportionals [between them]. Let
the two straight lines be ab and be [Fig. III.3.18] and let ab be a multiple of I! Gr.
"double"; Valla has "multiplex"] be. Now two mean proportionals are to be found;
from ab and bc, ad andfg [! for "from . . . fg" Gr has "which are extended towards
f, g:; Valla has only "ab, be adfg"]. And [thus] the rectangle bd is completed. Draw
the diagonal ae. And on ac the semicircle adee (! adee) is described. And through
pointd the straight linefg is drawn so thatfd is equal toeg [I eg]. I say, then, the two
lines eg and af are the two mean proportionals betweenab and be. Sincefd is equal
toeg, and de is common, thereforefe is equal todg. Hence (dg 'ge) = (effd). But
(dg 'ge) = (bg 'ge), as has been demonstrated in semicircles. Therefore,
(ef fd) = (bf fa). And since it is demonstrated in [the 14th proposition of] the sixth
[book] ofthe Elements that in equilateral [I equal] and equiangular parallelograms,
the sides about the equal angles are reciprocally equal [I proportional], [hence]
jb/bg = eg/af. But df[! bf]/bg = fa/ad = ed[! ed]/eg =eg/af =ba/de. [And,
therefore, ed/cg = eg/af = af/ad.] Hence [since cd = ab and ad = be], here have
been found the two mean proportionals eg andfa between the two given straight
linesab and be . Parmenion, a disciple of Apollonius ofPerga, [proves it] in another
way. Let the two given straight lines be ab and bc, with ab double be. It is between
these two lines that it is necessary to find the two mean proportionals. And let
the rectangle db be completed, with diagonals ac and bd drawn, and let ab and
be be extended tof and g. And through point d let straight linefg be accommodated
in such a way that ef is equal to eg. Then I say that cg and af are the mean pro-
portionals between these straight lines ab and be. For let line eh be drawn [from e]
to line be and parallel to line ab [Leon. says literally that eh is drawn "fromab "];
and because bee is an isosceles triangle and is equal[1y situated] with respect to
eh, hence bh = he, and so because be is bisected in h and is joined to the mean
line eg, (be' cg) + he 2 = he 2 [I hg 2]. Since to each side is added eh2, hence
(bg 'ge[1 ge]) + he
2
+ he
2
= eh
2
+ hg
2
Buthe
2
+ he
2
= ee
2
andeh
2
+ hg
2
= eg
2
.
And hence (bg 'ge) + ee
2
= eg
2
. By the same reasoning, (bffa) + ae
2
= ef2.
Butef = ego And so(bg 'ge L' gel) + ee
2
= (bffa) + ae
2
[Hence, sinceae = ce,]
ego E quel ch'e sottobg, ge addunque con queUo ch'e daee equale aqueUo ch'e daeg, questo
per cagione ancora perche sotto essi bf,fa con queUo che daae equate a queUo ch' e daef, maequate
ef a esso ego E quel ch'e sotto bg, ge adunque con queUo ch'e da ee e equale quel ch'e sotto
essi bf,fa e quel ch' e da ae. Resta adunque con queUo ch' e sotto bg, ge e equale a quel
ch'e da bf,fa. E perche, come s'e dimostrato nel 6
0
delli elementi delli equali ed equi-
angoli parateUogrami mutui sono e' lati equali circa li angoli equali, e adunque come bf
ad bg cosi eg ad af. *Ma come bf ad bg cosi ad ad, * ma come bf ad bg, cosifa ad ad e cd
ad cg. E come adunque de ad cg, cosi eg ad af e af ad ad, ed e a esso de equale a ab,
ma esso ad equale ad be; e come eadunque ab al eg, cosi cg ad af ed af ad cd.
"Adunque alle due date rette linie ab, be si sono trovate le due medie proporzionali cg,
fa, e come bisogni el solido col solido multiplicarsi, cosi si conosce. Sieno due rette linie
a, b, e sia dupla a al b, e piglinsi d' esse a, b le due medie proporzionali e, d in modo
che sia come a ad e cosi e al d et d al b. Dico adunque essere triplo quello ch'e dal e di
queUo ch' e dal b, perche a al b ha dupla ragione che ha a at e. Inperoche simili e' solidi
a se medesirni sono in tripla ragioni de' lati omolaghi cioe e d'equal razoni. E adunque
come a al b, inperoche e dupla, cosi quel ch'e da a a queUo ch'e da e. Ma dupla e
a al b, duplo adunque ancora queUo ch' e da a di quello ch' e da e. Ma essi dimostrato
che dal e triplo edi queUo che dal b. Adunque quel che da a e triplo di queUo ch'e da d."
I have altered the punctuation slightly to preserve the argument. The phrase between aster-
isks ought to be deleted. I have not translated it in order not to confuse the text at this
point.
it remains that (bg 'gc) = (bg fa). And because it is demonstrated in the sixth
of the Elements that in equal and equiangular parallelograms the equal (f delete]
sides about equal angles are reciprocally [proportional], so bflbg = eg [! eg ]laf.
But bflbg =falad = cdleg. And so delcg = cglaf= aflad. And de = ab and
ad =be. And so ableg =cglaf= aflcd[! bc].
Thus between the two given straight lines ab and be are found the two mean
proportionals cg andfa. And how a solid is multiplied by a solid, is recognized in
this way. Let the two straight lines be a and b and let a = 2b . And let the two mean
proportionals e and d be taken between a and b, so that ale = cid = dlb. I say that
e
3
= 3 b
3
[Valla and Leonardo have this; Gr. has a
3
= 2 e
3
] because alb = (ale)3.
For similar solids are to each other as the cubes of their similar sides. But since alb
=2/1, therefore a
3
= 2 e
3
[Gr. ends here]. But it has been demonstrated
that c
3
= 3 b
3
[!(ale)3 = (dlb)3?J, therefore a
3
= 3 d
3
[! d
3
= 2 b
3
?].
I have attempted to make the necessary corrections, primarily on the
basis of the Greek text,75 but also by referring to Valia's text. 76 In
75 John Philoponus, In Aristotelis analytica posteriora commentaria cum anonymo in
librum Il, ed. of M. Wallies (Berlin, 1909), pp. 103-05. Notice that Leonardo follows Valla
in having "multiple" instead of "double" in the beginning of the first proof. But in the
text beside this first proof Leonardo draws ab twice the length of bc, labelling the first
"8" and the second"4."
76 G. Valla, De expetendis et fugiendis rebus opus (Venice, 1501), Bk. XIII, Chap. ii
(no pagination):
"Ut Philoponus
"Quo pacto duos cubos unum possis cubumfacere inventumest, quod deliis (nota siquidem
est historia) pestilenti lue passin laborantibus, ac pereuntibus Apollo consultus responderit
earn luem sedari posse si aramduplicassent. Erat autem ea cubus hi a1terum a1teri, aequalem
cubum sibi capiendo arae imposuerunt, sed adhuc crudescente grassanteque pestilentia,
respondit Apollo eos quod fuerat imparatum non fecisse quod mandasset aram duplicandam.
Eos autem cubum cubo superimposuisse Platonem adierunt consulendo, quonam pacto
cubus foret duplicandus, qui respondit videri sibi numen eos incessere, quod geometriam
ignorarent. Cubi vero duplicationem, turn demum posse inveniri, cum binae mediae lineae
proportionales essent inventae et continuo suis hanc questionem proposuit indagandam
discipulis. Ex quibus fuerunt qui hanc scriberent inventionem. Docuit certe elementarius
geometres tribus proportionalibus existentibus lineis, ut habeat prima ad tertiam, ita a prima
descriptum quadratum ad id quod ab secunda, nec tamen tradidit disciplinam, quo pacto
binarum rectarum linearum binae mediae inveniantur proportionales; in planis igitur simpli-
citer demonstravit, quod ut habet prima ad tertiam, ita quod a prima quadratum ad id
quod est a secunda, ut sint tres rectae lineae proportionales, una 8, a1tera 4, tertia 2, ut
enim habet 8 ad 4 dupla siquidem est, ita habet etiam quae 4 ad 2, nam et ipsa dupla,
ac idcirco ut habet prima ad tertiam quae est 8 ad 2, nempe quadrupla ita etiam habet
quod a prima quadratum, quod est 64, ad id quod ab secunda, quod est 16; habet igitur
quod est 64 ad 16 rationem quadruplam. Quadrupla autem est etiam prima tertiae, quae
est 8 ad 2. Ita igitur in planis demonstravit, at in solidis universalius, quod ut est prima
ad tertiam, ita quod a prima datum quadratum ad id quod a secunda. Haec cum ita habeant
si inveniantur rectae lineae binae mediae proportionales, ut habebit prima ad quartam, ita
habebit quod a prima ad id quod a secunda. Comperiuntur vero hoc pacto.
"Sit propositumduabus datis rectis Iineis, binas medias invenire proportionales; sint rectae
lineae duae ab, bc, sitque multiplex ab ipsius be, at duae mediae proportionales inveniendae
ab, be ad fg et compleatur bd rectangulum, ducaturque diameter ac et in ac describatur
semicirculus adce, et per d punctum ducatur recta lineafg atque ita utfd sit aequalis ipsi eg.
Aio igitur duas cg, af quae sunt ipsarum ab, be medias proportionales esse, nam quoniam
particular, it should be noted that Leonardo, following Valla's text, has
an incorrect ending of the second proof. Further, he has added with Valla
an additional argument beyond the end of the Greek text. This conclusion
as it stands is hopelessly confused. Perhaps some Greek manuscript had
an ending like that suggested by my two bracketed phrases in the last
sentence and perhaps that correct ending became corrupted in the copy
used by Valla. For it is clear that Philoponus, as exemplified by the
currently established Greek text, is not applying the mean proportional
solution directly to the Delian problem, but rather is showing that, if we
have a cube of side a, we can find a cube one-half as large by using the
mean proportional c. One would rather have expected Philoponus (or his
source, Parmenion) to have shown that, if ale = cid = dlb and if a
= 2b, then alb = (dlb)3 or d
3
= 2 b
3
, so that d is the side of a cube double
aequalis estfd ipsi ego Communis autem de; aequalis ergo estfe ipsi dg; aequale igitur
quod sub ipsis dg. ge ei quod sub ef, fd. Sed quod sub dg, ge aequale est ei quod sub
bg. ge. ut est in semicirculis demonstratum. Nam quod sub ef. fd aequale est ei quod sub
bf,fa. Et quoniam demonstratum est in sexto elementorum. quod aequilaterorum et aequi
angulorum parallelogrammorum mutua sunt latera quae circa aequales angulos, ut estjb
ad bg, ita eg ad af. atque ut bf ad bg itafa ad ad. et ed ad eg, ita eg ad af. et ba ad be.
Duabus ergo datis rectis lineis ab. be inventae sunt binae mediae proportionales eg, fa .
.. Aliter describemus ad instrumentum magis accedendo, veluti etiam inquit Parmenion
Pergaei Apollonii discipulus. Sint datae duae rectae lineae [ab.l be. ut sit dupla ab ad be,
quarum oportet binas medias proportionales invenire, et compleatur db parallelograrnmum
rectangulum. ducanturque diagonii ae. bd, et producantur ab. be inf, g, et per d punctum
accommodetur fg recta linea, ut sit aequalis ef ipsi eg; turn aio ipsarum ab, be rectarum
linearum binas medias esse proportionales eg. af. Ducatur nanque ab e in be rectam lineam
parallelus eh. et quoniam isosceles triangulum est bee et ad eh, aequalis igitur bh ipsi he,
et perinde quoniam be secta est in h bifariam. adhaeret autem rectis lineis eg media, quod
ergo sub be. eg cum eo quod ab he aequale est ei quod ab he. Commune nanque ponatur
quod ab eh. Quod ergo sub bg. ge cum eis quae ab he. he aequales est eis quae ab eh. hg;
atqui eis quae ab he. he aequale quod ab ee. Eis autem quae ab eh, hg aequale quod ab eg;
quodque sub bg, ge igitur cum eo quod ab ee aequale ei quod ab eg. Id propterea autem
etiam quod sub ipsis bf, fa cum eo quod ab ae aequale ei quod ab ef; atqui aequalis ef
ipsi eg. Et quod sub bg, ge igitur cum eo quod ab ee aequale est [ei] quod sub ipsis bf, fa
et quod ab ae. Reliquum ergo cum eo quod sub bg, ge aequale est ei quod ab bf, fa. Et
quoniam ut est demonstratum in sexto elementorum, aequalium et aequiangulorum paral-
lelogrammorum mutua sunt latera quae circa aequales angulos, est igitur ut bf ad bg. ita eg
ad af; atqui ut bf ad bg, itafa ad ad; caeterum ut bf ad bg, itafa ad ad, et cd ad eg.
Et ut igitur de ad eg. ita eg ad af. et af ad ad. estque ipsi quidem de aequalis ab. ipsi
autem ad aequalis be. Et ut igitur ab ad eg. ita cg ad af, et af ad cd. Duabus ergo datis
rectis lineis ab. be inventae sunt duae mediae proportionales cg , fa .
"Quomodo autem oporteat solidum solido multiplicari ita dinoscitur. Sint binae rectae
lineae a . b, sitque dupla a ad b. et capiantur ipsaruma. b duae mediae proportionales c, d, ut
sit quemadmodum [a] ad c, ita e ad d, et d ad b. Aio igitur triplum esse quod ab e eius
quod ab b, quoniam a ad b duplam habet rationem quam a ad e. Similia namque solida
ad se invicem in tripla sunt ratione homologorum laterum. Est igitur ut a ad b dupla nanque
est ita quod ab a ad id quod ab e; atqui dupla est a ad b. Duplum ergo etiam quod ab a cius
quod ab c; at demonstratum est quod ab e triplum esse eius quod ab b. Ergo quod ab a
triplum est eius quod ab d." (I have altered the punctuation somewhat and italicized the
letters indicating geometrical magnitudes.)
the cube of side b, thus solving the Delian problem. Such is the ending
I have suggested by my bracketed corrections.
The fact that this passage is but an Italian translation of Valla's Latin
translation of Philoponus was not known to Marcolongo when he under-
took to discuss its possible source in an appendix to the edition of the
Arundel manuscript. 77 Hence his efforts to relate it to Eutocius' account
were erroneous. From Leonardo's faithful translation ofValla's erroneous
text, it is clear that Leonardo had not used the Greek text, which was,
however, available in the first Aldine edition of 1504.
78
Nor did he consult
any other Latin translation. 79
And so at long last I have reached the end of my investigation of
Leonardo's modest knowledge of Archimedean works. The foregoing
examination does, I believe, touch upon all of the principal passages
reflecting Archimedes' direct or indirect influence on Leonardo da Vinci.
We have seen that in all likelihood he possessed some indirect knowledge
of Archimedes through medieval sources, like the De curvis superjiciebus ,
or Renaissance sources that were themselves based in good part on
medieval sources, like the Campi/atia of Leonardo of Cremona, the
De geometricis transmutationibus of Nicholas of Cusa and the Summa
de arithmetica of Luca Pacioli. We have also shown that Leonardo saw
copies of both the medieval translation of Archimedes by William of
Moerbeke and the Renaissance translation by Jacobus Cremonensis,
and that he probably read the Eutocian sections of the De expetendis
of Giorgio Valla. But, so far as I can discern, except for the case of
On the Equilibrium of Planes, which he apparently read in the medieval
and the Renaissance translations, he made little direct use of the copies
of Archimedes he had seen.
77 See the edition of the Arundel MS cited in note 1, pp. 472-74. Marcolongo's article
is entitled "Sulla inserzione di due medie proporzionali tra due segmenti dati."
78 Johannes Philoponus, In posteriora resolutoria Aristotelis commentaria graece (Venice,
1504). I hardly need say that Leonardo does not appear to have known Greek.
79 The earliest Latin translation of the whole text of Philoponus' Commentary seems to
have been that of Euphrosynus Boninus of Florence, which appears in MS Florence, Bib\.
Riccard. 99 (L.I. 35), and bears the date 1524. The section on the duplication of the cube
occurs on folios I04r-06v. But even if the date is wrong and it was executed earlier, Leonardo
could not have used it since it does not contain both of the proofs translated by Leonardo.
Furthermore, it is clear that Leonardo hardly deviates at all (except for an occasional
letter) from Valla's translation.
CHAPTER 4
The Fate of William of Moerbeke' s
Translations of Archimedes in the
Sixteenth Century
I. Andreas Coner, the Corrector of Moerbeke' s
Archimedes
In the earlier chapters I have given brief indications of the possible
whereabouts during the fifteenth century of William of Moerbeke's
autograph of his translations of Archimedes, i.e. Ottob. lat. 1850, our
MS O. While there is no certain evidence of its location in the first half
of the century, it was most probably in Rome in 1450 where, as we have
seen, it was occasionally used by Jacobus Cremonensis in the course of
preparing his new translation (see above, Part Ill, Chap. 2, Sect. I). There
is also evidence that it was in the possession of Paolo Toscanelli in
about 1464 in Florence, where Regiomontanus seems to have seen it and
utilized it briefly in correcting Cremonensis' translation (see above, Part
Ill, Chap. 2, Sect. 11, note 22). Shortly after that time, it was used to
make corrections in the Greek text in MS Nuremberg, Cent. V App. 12.
The most telling interpolations in the Nuremberg manuscript that must
have arisen from consulting MS 0 are those readings that Moerbeke
himself had drawn from Greek manuscript B but were not in Greek
manuscript A.1 The scribe of the Nuremberg manuscript could have only
1 J. L. Heiberg, ed., Archimedis opera omnia, Vol. 3, pp. LXVII-LXVIII: "Vestigia
codicis B [=our MS 0] etiam in Graeco codice 14 Norimbergensi deprehendimus. is
enim in libris de plan. aeq. saepe cum interpolationibus codicis B ita ad verbum conspirat,
ut librarius scripturas eius Graece intepretatus recepisse existimandus sit. huius rei
gravissimum testimonium est 11 p. 180, 15 [=Moerbeke, 19rB-Cl ubi post TO N addit cod.
14: Kat E1TE'ElJ"XOW Ta e,M,I,N. wa apa E(TTtV ex. ex TQ: XM, ex. SE IT TQ: TN. &Ua Kat
Tptyomp T ~ AKB LlTOV Eent TO BAf, TfLaJLa SE TO AKB TfLCxlJ-an T ~ BAf. SiBUKTat
yap EV a O t ~ Ta TIJ-CxJLaTa E1TLTptTa elfLEV TWV Tptywvwv. nam haec non modo cum
interpolatione manifestissima codicis *B [=our Greek MS B] in universum consentiunt, sed
etiam originem ex interpretatione non optima ex Latino in Graecum prae se ferunt;
E1TE'WX(JW enim falso de punctis usurpatum errori debetur eius, qui pronomen quae (ante
525
drawn them from the Moerbeke text since Greek manuscript B had
completely disappeared and was unavailable at any time during the
Renaissance.
I also remarked that it was apparently manuscript 0 that Leonardo da
Vinci refers to as in the possession of Pietro Barozzi, the Bishop of
Padua, 1487-1507 (see Part Ill, Chap. 3, note 5). When Barozzi died in
1507 he left a large library of 350 volumes of legal works, Latin and Greek
classics and works of humanistic authors.
2
It was probably during its
possession by Barozzi that manuscript M was copied from it. We can
confidently date MS M before 1503, since it was used by L. Gaurico in
that year in his publication of two of the Moerbeke translations, namely
those of On the Quadrature of the Parabola and On the Measurement
tn) (litteras figurae ad Graecum codicem mutavit) pro neutro accepit, cum sit generis feminini;
etiam in sequentibus nonnulla minus bene reddidit; totus enim locus observato Guilelmi
more interpretandi sic Graece restituendus erat: Kat ai @M,IN. [<Ta
apa a f.LEJI @X TlJ XM, a oE IT TlJ TN. aAAa Kat Tll f.LEv AKB TptYWJlQJ [<TOV <TTt TO
BAf TpiYWJlOJl, TO BE AKB T,.wf.La TiiJ BAf Tf.Laf.Lan 0 Ta yap Tf.Laf.Lam TOW TptYWJlWV
OEBEtKTm EJI E1TiTptTa ELf.LEV eadem ratio est II po 184, 20- 22 [=Moerbeke,
19rI-J], ubi interpolatio aperta codicis *B sic interpretanda erat: E<T<TEiTat Ta..
Be. ex. He. E7T't:L BE TOV f.LEJI ABf . .. 0 TOV BE AKBAf EVfhrypaf.Lf.LOv
TO E, non ut in cod. 14: <Tmt Ta.. B@. Kat <TTW a eH. E7T'EtBij TOV ABr
Tf.Laf.LCiTO" . ... EVOvypaf.Lf.Lov SE ToV AKBAr TO E; n p. 188, 9 [=Moerbeke, 19rO-P],
ubi verum esset: KaTa Ta Z,H, Kat TlJ Bd 1TapaAA:r/AOt axOwv, cum cod. 14 praebeat:
KaTa Ta Z,H, Kat axOW<TCiV 1TCipa TaJl Bd; II p. 188, 17-18 [=Moerbeke, 19rQ], ubi
Eutocius veram forman servavit, cod. 14 autem cum Guilelmo praebet: a @d
7T'pO.. TaV MZ a8E Bd TETpCi7T'Aa<TiwJI KZ; II p. 172, 7 [=Moerbeke, 18vMJlacunam
ita supplevit*B: lineas rs <TA rectas et in mo /9 trapezalibus centra gravitatum erunt
similiter dividentia, hoe. AM, n KCit TWV ZHeI, YX'I'<I> (cf. n, p. 172,
2,5) Ta KEVTpa TWJI {3apEWV E<T<TOVVTm Of.Loiw.. BtmpEOVTa, cum cod. 14
praebeat: Ta.. AM, n.., Kat EJI Toi .. ze, Y'I' Ta KEVTpa TWV {3apEWV
E<T<TOVVTm OtCitpEOVTa; n p. 174, 22-23 sed sicut abg ad spatium x [MS 0,
18vQ, i.e. gr MS B, om. gr. MS A], aAA' TO ABr TpiywVOJl 7T'OTt TO K [cod. 14},
ubi <Tn et fortasse TpiywVOJl superflua sunt; II p. 212, 19 ri. et est totius quidem portionis
centrum gravitatis [MS 0, 20vD, i.e. Gr MS B, om. Gr MS A} PI. Kat <Tn f.LEV TOV
oAov T}J.-ixf.LCiTO" KEJlTPOV [cod. 14], ubi TOV f.LEJI oAov debuit reddi. ..." Another example
not mentioned by Heiberg occurs in n, p. 144, 12-13, where cod. 14 (and the edition of
1544) have KCit TET].uxa-ow Sixa a dB KaTa TO I omitted in Greek MS A. It no doubt
renders 0 17vP: "secetur in duo que DB penes T." Moerbeke's Latin was based on Greek
MS B. For a further example of the almost certain dependence ofGR MS 14 on Moerbeke's
translation, see above, Volume 2, Commentary, 20rQ. In the quotation from Heiberg above,
I have substituted *B for Heiberg's Gothic letter. In Volume Two I redesignated the Greek
manuscript as B (see Vo!. 2, p. 54).
2 R. Zanocco, "La biblioteca d'un grande nostro vescovo umanista (Pietro Barozzi,
1441-1507),"Bollettino diocesanodi Padova, Vo!. 12(1927), pp. 442-52; E. Govi,Patavinae
cathedralis ecclesiae capitularis bibliotheca. Librorum XV saec. impressorum index.
Appendix Petri Barocii bibliothecae inventarium (Padua, 1958), pp. 143-70. The codex of
Moerbeke's translations of Archimedes is not mentioned by name in the inventory of
Barozzi's books made in 1507 (but see above, Vo!. 2, Part I, Chap. 2, Sect. n, where I
suggest that the item in the inventory on page 147, designated as "Ioannis Pisani
mathematici," may be a reference to Moerbeke's codex). At any rate it seems likely that
Coner acquired it as well as other Latin codices from the Barozzi collection (see below,
note 11).
CONER AND MOERBEKE'S ARCHIMEDES 527
of the Circle. Gaurico, an astronomer and astrologer (1476-1558),
prepared these translations for publication at the University of Padua
and published them with other quadrature tracts in Venice under the title:
Tetragonismus id est circuli quadratura per Campanum, Archimedem
Syracusanum atque Boetium mathematicae perspicassimos adinventa.
It was the opinion of J. L. Heiberg, twice expressed,3 that Gaurico
employed, for his publication, the Ottobonian manuscript (MS 0) before
its correction by A. Coner in 1508 or thereafter. This, however, cannot be
so. The briefest glance at the variant readings which I have given
in Volume Two for these two texts shows that Gaurico used the Madrid
manuscript (MSM). His editionfollows MSMin virtually all ofits erroneous
readings rather than MS O. So far as I know, Gaurico' s use of MS M
is the first use of it that can be surely certified. It seems to have been the
work of someone particularly interested in mechanics since it includes,
among other works, Moerbeke's translations of On the Equilibrium of
Planes (with Eutocius' commentary on the same), On the Quadrature of
the Parabola, On the Measurement of the Circle and On Floating Bodies,
as well as the medieval De ratione ponderis attributed to Iordanus de
Nemore and the Pseudo-Archimedean De ponderibus (see Volume Two,
Part I, Chap. 2, Sect. II). Gaurico's interest in the manuscript, however,
no doubt arose from its inclusion of the two works on quadrature, since,
as is evident from the title of his work, Gaurico' s principal purpose was
to present a collection of tracts on quadrature. At this point little need
be said about Gaurico's work, except perhaps to lament that the very first
publication of any complete Archimedean tracts should have been taken
from the poor Madrid manuscript. Like manuscripts 0 and M, Gaurico' s
publication gives no indication of the name of the translator. I shall have
more to say about Gaurico's version of the two Archimedean tracts below
when I speak of Tartaglia's use of them in the next section of this chapter
and still more when I comment on their use by Maurolico in Chapter 5
and on the non-Archimedean parts of Gaurico's work in Chapter 6 below.
The next step in the continuing fortune of Moerbeke's translations in
the sixteenth century is that already alluded to above, the acquisition of MS
o at Venice in 1508 by Andreas Coner, a cleric of the diocese of Bamberg.
Coner inscribed his name, date, and location on the manuscript: "1508
Venetiis, Andreae Coneri Germani" and added his conventional sign of
ownership, a cone inscribed in a sphere (see Volume Two, Part I, Chap. 2,
Sect. II).4 Coner probably acquired the manuscript from the estate of
Pietro Barozzi, who, as we have seen, died in the preceding year.
3 J. L. Heiberg, "Neue Studien," Abhandlungen zur Geschichte der Mathematik,
5. Heft (1890), p. 45, and his ed. of Archimedis opera omnia, Vol. 3, p. LXIII.
4 We know of two other manuscripts inscribed by Coner at Venice in 1508. The first
is Rossiana 37 of the Library of the Jesuit College in Lainz (Vienna), containing some
Heronian mathematical material (see E. Gollob, "Die griechische Literatur in den
Handschriften der Rossiana in Wien," Sitzungsberichte der Kais. Akademie der Wissen-
Since Coner was an acute mathematician and has been so generally
ignored in the accounts of Renaissance mathematics, I should like now to
describe his role in the development of Archimedean studies in some
detail. Little is known of Coner's life. His career before coming to
Venice has eluded me. Nor do I know whether or not he stayed long in
Venice after acquiring MS 0 (and perhaps some other Latin manuscripts
from the Barozzi collection; see note 11), as well as Greek manuscripts
Ross. 37 and Paris BN gr. 2497 from some other collection (see note 4).
But another manuscript which he owned (now Paris, BN gr. 2367; see
note 4), and which contains two works of Serenus, is inscribed on the upper
margin offolio lr: "1510 mantuae n r e ~ Coneri. " On the lower margin of the
same folio we find his characteristic mark, the above noted cone inscribed
in a sphere. We have no way of knowing whether Coner was merely
visiting Mantua in 1510 while residing at Venice, or whether he spent
some extended time in Mantua. However, we do knowthat he was in Rome
on 1 September, 1513, since he addressed a letter from Rome on that date
to Bernardo Rucellai (of the well-known Florentine family) concerning
a sundial (the so-called Menologium Rusticum Vallense) in the possession
of the Della Valle family.5 It contained an ancient rustic calendar carved
on its base. The letter is indicative of Coner's interest in Roman
monuments. He seems to have been the owner of a collection of drawings
of Roman monuments, that was later augmented and then given an Italian
parchment binding of the eighteenth century, on the back of which is
written in ink: Architec [tura] Civilis Andrea [e] Coneri Antiqua
Monume [nta] Rome.
6
T. Ashby, the publisher of this volume of drawings,
first believed that Coner was the author of the great majority of these
drawings.
1
Later, however, under the influence of Hermann Egger,
Ashby decided against Coner's authorship.s The next notice of Coner
schaften in Wien, Vol. 164, 3. Abh. [1910], pp. 93-101). On folio 2r we read "1508,
Venetiis, Andreae Coneri," and on the same folio appears Coner's mark of ownership: a
black cone inscribed in a gold circular field (ibid., p. 93). This manuscript is identical with
the codex mentioned in the inventory of Coner's books (see note 11 below) under the
title Polygonorum mensuratio, as G. Mercati shows in his Scritti d'Isidoro it cardinale
Ruteno (Rome, 1926), p. 142. The second manuscript is Paris, BN gr. 2497, containing
Philoponus' treatise on the astrolabe and much other astronomical material. According to
Heiberg (ed., Claudii Ptolemaei opera . .. omnia, Vol. 2: Opera Astronomica minora
[Leipzig, 1907], p. CClI), it contains the note: "Andreae Coneri 1508 Venetiis." A third
manuscript, which we shall mention below in the text, is Paris, BN gr. 2367, inscribed
at Mantua in 1510 (see Heiberg, ed., Sereni Antinoensis opuscula [Leipzig, 1896],
pp. X-XI).
:; T. Ashby, Sixteenth-Century Drawings of Roman Buildings Attributed to Andreas
Coner, Papers of the British School at Rome, Vol. 2 (1904), reproduces a facsimile
(No. 47) of the letter and transcribes it (pp. 32-33). The letter refers to four drawings of
the sundial but only one survives in the volume that Ashby publishes. Mercati, Scritti
d'Isidoro, p. 141, n. 1, mentions two other copies of this letter.
8 Ashby, Sixteenth-Century Drawings, p. 1.
7 Ibid., pp. 3-5.
8 T. Ashby, "Addenda and Corrigenda to Sixteenth-Century Drawings etc.," Papers
is again in Rome, where he is recorded as having borrowed from the
Vatican Library on the second of February, 1516, "Euclidis Geometria
cum Musica Ptolemei" and having returned it on the first of April of the
same year.
9
Coner's subsequent activities seem to have escaped the notice
of historians until he appears in Ostia as witness to a document of 20
October, 1527.
10
Furthermore, an interesting inventory of his goods drawn
up in Rome on 8 November, 1527, allows us to reconstruct the last
of the British SchooL at Rome, VoI. 6 (1913), pp. 184-210, and particularly p. 189. The
crucial part of Egger's rejection of Coner as the author of the earlier drawings occurs
in a review of Ashby's Sixteenth-Century Drawings in the Kunstgeschichtlichen
Anzeigen-BeibLatt der Mitteilungen fur osterr. Geschichtsforschung, 1906, No. 3, p. 92:
"Im ersten Teile seiner Einleitung geht daher der Verf. des Niiheren auf die Frage ein, ob
wir infolgedessen in Ersterem den Autor oder nur einen Besitzer der Zeichnungen zu
erblicken haben: Coner, ein Priester der Diozese Bamberg, durfte aber gewiss nur letzteres
gewesen sein. Denn aus den von Mr. Ashby mit grossem Fleiss gesammelten Belegen
fur das Leben und Wirken dieses Mannes geht meines Erachtens gerade hervor, dass er
nie und nimmer der Autor dieser Zeichnungen (von der ersten Hand) gewesen sein kann,
sondem dass wir in ihm nur einen einstigen Besitzer dieser Blatter zu erkennen haben.
Der 'c1ericus Bambergensis diocesis' war, wie das glucklich gefundene Verzeichnis seiner
Biicher beweist, ein gelehrter Mann, dessen Interesse sich auf griechische Autoren, auf
Astronomie, Geographie und Mathematik erstreckte. So ist es erklfu-lich, dass Bemardo
Ruccellai sich an ihn wandte, urn AufkHirung iiber das Menologium zu erhalten. Es geht
nun doch nicht an, diesem Humanisten im Priestergewande die zahlreichen orthographischen
wie grammatikalischen Fehler in die Schuhe zu schieben, von denen die Beischriften (der
ersten Hand) begleitet sind. Hier eine kleine AuswahI: 'IN. CAPVA VETERA' (fol. 21);
'SVPRA MOTEM AVREO' (fol. 21b u. 34); 'Triarum columnarum' (fol. 85); triarum
columnarum sub capitolio' (fol. 133); 'apud columnam trojana' (fol. 134); 'arci (I) titi e
uespasiani media pars' (ebenda) u.s.w. Solche und verschiedene andere Schnitzer so11 sich
Andreas Coner zu Schulden haben kommen lassen?" However, in spite of this kind of
argument, which essentially rests on the assumed fact that Coner was too good a scholar to
make such errors in Latin, it must be confessed that the first hand that added these
notes to the drawings is very similar to Coner's hand as it appears on our MS 0 (cf.
Heiberg in his ed. of Archimedis opera omnia, Vol. 3, p. LVIII, where he categorically
identifies the two hands). Hence, whether or not Coner actually made the drawings, it is
quite probable that Coner added the many comments that appear in the first hand of the
portfolio of drawings.
9 M. Bertola, ed., I Due primi registri de prestito della Biblioteca Apostolica
Vaticana: Codici vaticani Latini 3964, 3966 (Vatican, 1942), pp. 43-44: "Ego Andreas
Conerus accepi mutuo a domino Phedro bibliotecario et custodibus domino Laurentio
Parmenione et domino Romulo Mammacino Euclidis Geometriam cum Musica Ptolemei,
librum ligatum in nigro scriptum in carta bombacina pro quo reliqui vas argenteum, die
secunda februarii anno Domini 1516. Idem Andreas Conerus manu propria.-Restituit die
prima aprilis 1516." The facsimile of this item (MS. Vat. lat. 3966, 3r) is given at the end
of the volume, page 5*. It is in Coner's hand and the writing resembles the specimens
of his hand mentioned in the preceding note. Incidentally, Mercati, Scritti d'Isidoro, p. 141,
n. 1, identified the codex borrowed by Coner as Vat. gr. 192, but Bertola (p. 44, n. 1)
believes it rather to be Vat. gr. 196.
10 Ashby, Sixteenth-Century Drawings, p. 4, citing a document of the Archivio di Stato
(Vol. 414, Reg. lac. Apocellus, 145r). It is in this document that Coner is referred to as
c[Lerico]Bambergen [sis] dioc [esis]. I read the ending as: "Actum Hostie in paIacio episcopaIi
presentibus domino Hermanno Crol scriptore Archivii (?) et Andrea Conero c. Bambergensis
diocesis testibus."
months of his life.
l1
It commences by listing his few remains (including
some items of clothing) at the home of Master Angelus Sauer, where
eoner died. It then goes on to list his books that were in two chests in
the home of Johannes Sander, who was a notarius of the Rota in the papal
Curia and who was a very important member of the German Con-
fraternitas B. Marie de Anima, having been many times chosen as one of
11 I am publishing the inventory of Coner's goods in full from Ashby, Sixteenth-Century
Drawings, pp. 75- 79, (editing MS Rome, Archivio di Stato, Vol. 414, Reg. lac. Apocellus,
148r-49r, against which I have checked Ashby's text, making minor changes therein)
because of its great interest for students of Renaissance mathematics and its details
concerning Coner's last days. In place of Ashby's notes I have added identifying phrases
in brackets, some based on Ashby's notes and some on other sources. (I have particularly
attempted to relate some of the titles of Coner's books with corresponding items of the
inventory of Barozzi's books mentioned in note 2.)
"Die Veneris octava Novembris 1527.
Inventarium bonorum quondam Andreae Coneri repertorum in eius hereditate per D.
Blasium Schuryker exequutorem testamenti.
"In domo D. Angeli Saurii
"Due materazie, duo linteamina usata, due camisiae .usatae, una copei'ta de tela alba,
et et (? del. MS?) cappa de panno nigro, par unum caligarum et gipponus. Presentibus
D. 10. Euskirchen procuratore contradictarum [in Curia Romana], et D. 10. de Ritiis alias
Bulgaro derico Firmanae diocesis testibus.
"In domo D. 10. Sander notarii Rote [in Curia Romana]
"Duae capsae una clavis clausa et ferrata, altera sera referte libris.
"In capsa habente seram fuerunt libri infrascripti
Dictionarium grecum Guarini.
Callidii [! Claudii] Ptolomei in greeo et pergameno.
Leo de Balneolis liber latinus in Astrologia [=Levi ben Gerson].
Cornucopia Sipontini [=Cornucopia sive linguae latinae commentarii of Nicolaus
Perottus, 14891].
Bartholomeus [Anglicus] de proprietatibus rerum in pergameno scriptus [item no. 150 in
the Barozzi inventory?].
Opus Jo. Verneri [Iohann Werner, Libel/us super . . . elementis conicis, Nurem-
berg 1522?].
Geographia Ptolomei in latino (del.) greco scripta in papiro.
Aesopus grecus in littera Aldi [=ed. of 1505?].
Euclides latinus [=the version of the Elements of Campanus (ed. of 1482, 1491 or
1509?) or that of Zamberti (ed. of 1505 or 151O?) or both (ed. of 1516). If not a printed
text, could it be item no. 67 in the Barozzi inventory?].
Epitome Jo. de Monte regio [=Regiomontanus' Epitome of the Almagest, ed. of Venice,
1496?].
Grapaldus de partibus aedium [=ed. of 1494, 1506, 1516, or 1517?].
Dictionarium Jani Lascaris greeum scriptum manu.
Virgilius cum commento.
Dioscorides grecus impressus [=ed. of 1499 or 1518?].
Elegantie Laurentii Vallae [first printed in 1471 and often thereafter].
Mechanica Pappi Alexandrini greca scripta in papiro [=Collectio mathematica?].
Opuscula Nicolai Leonicj [see Hain *10018, *10019, J()()20, *10021; Copinger 3544; Brunet,
III, 986].
Chronica Eusebii latina [item no. 218 in the Barozzi inventory?].
Hieronis llVl:v,uaTtKa greca scripta manu.
Excerpta latina [i.e., of the Pneumatica of Hero?].
Opusculum Amerucii (I) philosophi grecum cum figuris mathematicis [=De his quae
geographiae debent adesse: Georgi Amirucii opusculum with Nova translatio primi libri
geographiae Cl' Ptolomaei ... Ioanne Vernero Nurenbergen. interprete, Nuremberg,
1514].
Epigrammata graeca.
A. Gellius, Moretus (? or Marcus?), Manilius.
Docimius auctor grecus in Mathematica scriptus manu. [I have not been able to identify
Docimius.]
Polygonorum mensuratio cum aliis libellus grecus scriptus in papiro [=Ross. 37; see note 4]
Hieronis introductiones geometricae graece scriptae [manu?].
Julius PolIux.
Menelaus grecus scriptus [manu?] [=Sphaerica].
Lucianus grecus.
Suetonius Aldi [=ed. of 15167].
Augustinus Ricius de motu octavae spherae [=Hain *13917?].
Statius scriptus [manu?] [item no. 259 in the Barozzi inventory?].
Etymologicus grecus.
Archimedes grecus scriptus et (del) [manu] cum fragmentis [=MS 0].
Apsyrthius de Medicina veterinorum grecus, scriptus in pergameno, quem recepit D.
Blasius exequutor vigore testamenti [printed later in 1537].
Strabo latinus [item no. 56 in the Barozzi inventory?].
Petrarcha vulgare [item no. 271 in the Barozzi inventory?].
Tabula Cebetis, Vita Homeri, greci ambo [see Brunet I, 1709, Hain 4820-21 for Cebes
perhaps bound with the sheets of the Vita Homeri from the AIdine ed. of Homer of
1504, 1517 or 1524 (see Brunet Ill, 269-70)].
Elegantie Thome Magistri grecae (published in 1507].
Serra parva. Duae serae. Saqus canabinus.
"In alia capsa confixa clavis
Opera Jo. Pici Mirandulani [see Brunet, IV, 636].
Argonautica Apollonii red. of 1496 or 1521?].
Aristoteles de animalibus ex interpretatione Theodori [Gazae, 1476; item no. 74 in the
Barozzi inventory?].
Suidas [=ed. of 1490 or more probably the AIdine edit. of 1514].
Musica Ptolomei greca scripta [manu?].
Fasciculus temporum.
Blondus de Roma instaurata [first printed about 1471].
RaphaeI VoIaterr,anus commentariorum urbanorum [printed in Paris, 1510, 1515, 1526].
Historia Josephi latina [printed about 1475].
Chronica Sigeberti [printed in 1513].
Proverbia Erasmi [see Brunet, 11, 1039].
Vegetius de re militari (see Brunet, V, 1110-11].
Plautlls, Budeus de Asse (de!.), Juvenalis, Justinus, Lucanus, PolIux, Valerius (del.),
Victruvius (I) (items no. 241 or 286, 261, 262, 66 in the Barozzi inventory? There
is no Justinus or PolIux in the Barozzi inventory.].
Strabo grecus [=ed. of 1516?].
Cleomedes grecus scriptus [manu?].
Institutiones grece grammatices.
JuIius Firmicus Astronomicorum [see Hain *7121; Brunet, n, 1270, or is it item no. 216
in the Barozzi inventory?].
VaIerius Flaccus [see Brunet, V, 1044-45].
Ptolomei Iiber MaOTJ/La7"tKTJ'> fTVVTa(ew,> in Iittera greca moderna non ligatus, conculcatus
pedibus Barbarorum [no doubt damaged in the Sack of Rome in 1527].
Cato de re rustica scriptus manu [item no. 220 in the Barozzi inventory?].
Theodorinus de radiaIibus impressionibus scriptus manu cum libelIo greco Georgii
...
IIpoEK8LKOV 7TEpl rpt8t [the first work is Dietrich of Freiberg's De iride et radialibus
impressionibus; the second I cannot identify].
Astrarium latinum scriptum [manu?] [=the Astrarium of Giovanni de' Dondi?].
Hippocrates de Astrologia medicorum.
Chirurgia Albucasis scripta in pergameno, quam cepit exequutor [vigore] testamenti
D. Blasius [=transI. of Gerard of Cremona].
Plinius cum Cornelio Celso simulligati [item no. 59 or 333 in the Barozzi inventory?].
Thucydides cum correctionibus latinis [item no. 224 in the Barozzi inventory?].
Opera Campani [the medieval mathematician or the later author noted in Brunet I, 1521 ?].
Historia Calinit (!).
Index Plinianus.
Summa Arithmetice et geometriae vulgari [=the work of Francesco Feliciano da
Lazisio, Venice, 1526?].
Odyssea Homeri.
Cornelius Tacitus.
Acta concilii Constantiensis.
Canones Astrolabii latini scripti [manu?].
Commentum in Nicomachum grecum scriptum [manu?].
Historia vulgaris Marci Poli Veneti scripta [manu?].
Quedam Jo. Coclaei scripta [manu?] [see Brunet, 11, 117].
Apicius scriptus (de!.)
Pindarus grecus.
Calepinus [=the author of a Latin dictionary published in 1502 with the title Cornucopiae].
Homerus.
Ludus scaccorum [the treatise of Jacobus de Cessulis?].
Orationes Ciceronis in littera Aldi in tribus voluminibus [the entry originally read
Tertia pars orationum Ciceronis in littera Aldi.'] [=ed. of 1519?].
Grammatica Theodori Gazae [=Aldine ed. of 1495?].
Martialis [item no. 280 in the Barozzi inventory?].
Paulus Middelburgensis de numero atomorum [=ed. of Rome, 1518?].
Apicius de re Coquinaria.
Erotemata Chrysolorae [see Hain 5015-16; Copinger 1604; Brunet, I, 1892].
Theoria planetarum Purbachii [see Hain *13595, *13596, 13597; Copinger 4994; Brunet IV,
978].
Boetius scriptus [manu?] [item no. 200 or 269 in the Barozzi inventory?].
Epistole Ciceronis [item no. 226 or 313 in the Barozzi inventory?].
Comoediae Aristophanis.
Commentarii Caesaris scripti [manu?) [item no. 251 in the Barozzi inventory?].
Decades Titi Livii in 40r voluminibus [item no. 250 or 252 in the Barozzi inventory?).
Arithmetica vulgaris alias Summa Arithmetice fratris Lucae [=the Summa of Pacioli, 1494).
Riccardus Cervinus de annis solaribus.
Calcidius diaconus.
Euclides Latinus [see note to earlier entry on Euclid].
Presentibus D. Jo. Euskirchen predicto Philippo Aldehen et Guntero Dipel clerico
Moguntin. diocesis et D. Jo. Sander notario, qui apertis capsis discessit testibus.
Apicius scriptus, quem habuit exequutor presentibus quibus supra testibus excepto D. Jo.
Sander, qui apertis capsis et expositis libris discessit cum non videret aliud esse quam libros.
"Eadem die
"D. la. Euskirchen procurator contradictarum reddidit prefatis D. Angelo et Blasio
exequutoribus computum se pro D. Andrea exposuisse.
"Prima pro alimentis ipsius in infirmitate et duarum mulierum que ejus curam habuerunt
videlicet Catharine Lipsiensis et Antonine Salutiensis ducatos quatuor auri largos,
presentibus dictis mulieribus attestantibus esse verum, quia fuerunt presentes quando
deposuit eos in pluribus vicibus ducatos 4.
"Item ducatos duos similes pro eius sepultura et portatura ad sepuIcrum, presente me et
Quirino Galler et D. Hermanno Crol ... ducatos 2.
the confraternity's provisores and often as its chief provisor or rector.
12
Incidentally, the confraternity had a hospice and the church of S. Maria
dell'Anima on the Via dell'Anima near the Piazza Navona and also a col-
lection of houses occupied by its members. It was, then, at Sander's house,
still standing today next to the church of the Anima, that Coner's books
were stored.
"Item in presentia D. Blasii solvit D. Catharinae pro suo salario ducatos duos similes
quia servivit de die et de nocte per dies octo et ... ducatos 2.
"Antonine unum ducatum similem que servivit de die et per primam noctem . . .
ducatum 1.
"Item Julios duos.... pro pensione unius materazii et coperte et portatura earundem
et reportatura in domum Angeli et extra earn ... Jul. 2.
"Dictum Jo. de Riciis alias Bulgaro declaravit se in infirmitate ejusdem D. Andreae
exposuisse ad Julios septem in lignis, vino, pane et aliis, presentibus dictis duabus
mulieribus et facientibus fidem quod idem Jo. emit de suis pecuniis unam somam
lignorum et portavit panem et vinum et suo judicio credere quod non exposuerit minus
quam dixit, attentis temporibus et caritate rerum ... Jul. 7.
"Que dicti exequutores admiserunt et promiserunt solvere de primis pecuniis redigendis
ex hereditate. Actum in domo D. Angeli Saurii, Presentibus Jo. Bemal de Cita rodorico
et quoad factum Jo. Ricii, presente Jo. Euskirchen et quoad factum Jo. Euskerchen,
presente Jo. Ricio cum dicto Jo. Bemal testibus.
"Die 21 Novembris fuit venditum suprascriptum argentum pro juliis Quinquaginta, de
quibus Bulgarus habuit julios trigintaseptem et D. Jo. Euskirchen restantes tredecim in
deductionem sui crediti.
"Ego Bulgaris abui (l) supra scriptum Jul. 37 [note: this is a signed receipt].
"Eadem die
"Inventarium bonorum dicti quondam D. Andreae repertorum in ca [camera] ipsius in
palatio apostolico factum per eundem Blasium exequutorem.
"IIias Homeri. Odyssea Homeri. Horatius in littera Aldi [=ed. of 1501, 1509 or 1519?].
Horatius cum commento led. of 1509?]. Metamorphosis Ovidii in pergameno scripta
[item no. 266 or 275 of the Barozzi inventory?]. Epistole Heroidum Ovidii [item no. 276
of the Barozzi inventory?]. Tibullus. Duo curtini de ferro, unus magnus, unus mediocris,
a1ius parvus. Una regula ferrea. Alia regula ferrea. Unum pugnale. Virga argentea. Un
pezo d'oro in scatuletta de Othono data D. Jo. Euskirchen portanda ad domum D. Jo.
Sander ad alia bona [the words 'data D. Jo. Euskirchen' have been added in margin]. Actum
in dicta camera presentibus eodem d. Jo. et d. Jacobo Schutz preposito Velunen.
testibus. Et ego notarius habui collectanea ipsius in Epig. greca, et exequutor habuit pugnale.
"Eadem die
"Ego notarius [note: the whole document is in the hand of Jacobus Apocellus] per
attestationem D. Jacobi Schutz et Ursuline Venete feci fidem dicto D. exequutori quod
feci dicto quondam Andree expensas hostie [i.e. Ostie] per tempus quod ibi fuimus, fuimus
autem per mensem circa ubi exposui pro persona ejus ad ducatos septem cum dimidio
et amplius, quia ipsi fuerunt in nostra societate et viderunt et nobiscum vixerunt et
tantundem tetigit unumquemque ipsorum expendere. Fuit etiam nobiscum D. Jo.
Baptista de Robertis et D. Hermannus Croll qui idem sciunt.
"Amplius idem quondam Andreas vixit expensis meis a medio Julio usque ad xxiiij
Septembris exceptis aliquot x diebus quibus habuit panem, vinum et carnes in palatio.
Sciunt mei familiares Jo. Trunnilus qui adhuc presens est et Antonina tunc mea ancilla
et duo qui discesserunt Nicolaus et Jo. Hugonii. Pro conditione temporum que fuerunt
credo recte deberi septem ducatos per mensem, salva moderatione; obtuli ei facere fidem
ad omne eorum beneplacitum."
12 See the interesting biography by K. H. Schiifer, Johannes Sander von Northusen:
Notar der Rota und Rektor der Anima (Rome, 1913), where several photographs of
Sander's house are given.
---------------------
....
a
As we read further in the inventory, it becomes evident that another
German in Rome, Jacobus Apocellus, who was the notary responsible for
writing out the inventory and learned in Greek, Latin, and Hebrew,tJ had
supported Coner at his own expense for all but ten days of the period
between the middle of July and 24 September. During the ten days in
which Coner was not supported by Apocellus, he had bread, wine, and
meat at the Apostolic Palace. Presumably Apocellus was boarding Coner
at his home in Rome. Apocellus also indicates that he paid Coner's
expenses when they were together in Ostia for a month. It would seem
that this refers to a different and shorter period. I believe that it must have
extended from about 26 September to about 26 October. These dates
would square with the earlier document that placed Coner in Ostia on
20 October, 1527. One can guess that Coner went to the seashore for his
health or to escape the destruction and awful conditions brought about in
Rome by the Sack of that city in May. In Pastor's vivid account of the
Sack and its aftermath, we are told that by the twenty-second of July
two thousand five hundred Germans had died of the plague and the
streets were covered with the dead and dying. 14 The inventory says nothing
about an early period of illness for Coner and in fact gives only one
brief hint of the effects of the Sack, namely the reference added to Coner's
second copy of the Almagest, which is described as "conculcatus
pedibus Barbarorum," Le., "trampled under the feet of the barbarians."
If we again turn to the inventory we would judge that, in spite of the
conditions, Coner came back to Rome and fell mortally ill at the home of
Angelus Sauer. As the inventory indicates, one of the two executors of
Coner's will, Johannes Euskirchen (another member of the German com-
munity), paid for Coner's provisions during his illness and for those of two
nurses, one of whom was in attendance night and day for eight days and
the other of whom was on duty the first day and night and the succeeding
days. If we suppose that Coner came back to Rome on about 26 October,
then he must have died some eight days later, on 3 November. Euskirchen
also rendered account to the executors for the expenses he incurred from
Coner's burial, two more members of the German confraternity bearing
witness to this fact. Another friend who helped to pay Coner's expenses
during his illness was one Master Johannes de Ritiis, known as the
Bulgarian, a cleric from the diocese of Fermo. Finally, the inventory
reveals that Coner had a room at the Apostolic Palace, where he left a few
books and other possessions. I have not been able to confirm that
Coner occupied a bureaucratic post in the Curia, but that would certainly
have been possible if he had lived continuously in Rome since 1513. It is
regrettable that Coner comes alive to us only at the time of his death.
13 Ashby, Sixteenth-Century Drawings, p. 79, n. 3.
14 L. Pastor, The History of the Popes from the Close of the Middle Ages, Volume 9
(St. Louis, Mo., 1950), pp. 388-431; and for the effect of the plague on the Germans, see
p. 429. See also J. Schmidlin, Geschichte der deutschen Nationalkirche in Rom S. Maria
deU'Anima (Freiburg im Breisgau and Vienna, 19(6), pp. 272-79.
The most interesting feature of the inventory of Coner's goods, which
I have summarized above and given in full in note 11, is its list of Coner's
books. It will be noticed that the list contains many writers important for
the history of mathematics and astronomy, including Euclid, Ptolemy,
Pappus, Hero, Menelaus, Archimedes, Cleomedes, Peurbach, Regio-
montanus, Pacioli, and Johann Werner. The reference to Archimedes
("Archimedes grecus scriptus [manu?] ... cum fragmentis") is almost
certainly to our manuscript 0, i.e., to William of Moerbeke' s autograph of
his translations of Archimedes, which, we have seen, Coner acquired in
1508. I say this in spite of the appearance of the word grecus in the
inventory entry. This adjective must refer to Archimedes rather than to
the language in which the codex was written. It will be noticed that the
compiler of the inventory used the same style in his reference to
Menelaus: "Menelaus grecus scriptus." In this latter case, we know that
the indicated codex must have been in Latin since the Greek text of the
Sphaerica of Menelaus was not extant at that time (and indeed is still
not extant). 15
It is clear that Coner was no mere passive owner of MS 0, for there
are many evidences of his correction of the text, and he often erased and
redrew William's crude figures, particularly those which included conic
sections .16 Coner's corrections and additions are confined to five of the
nine works of Archimedes and Eutocius in MS 0: 1) On Spiral Lines (less
than half of it is corrected), 2) On the Measurement of the Circle, 3) On the
Sphere and the Cylinder, 4) On Floating Bodies and 5) Eutocius'
Commentary on the Sphere and the Cylinder. The various other works
bear no evidence of his corrections. We cannot be certain when Coner
made his corrections. I am inclined to believe that he made them some time
between 1508, when he acquired the codex in Venice, and 1513, when he
appears in Rome. At least, as we shall see, there is evidence that he
consulted Greek manuscript E (Bessarion's copy). That manuscript was
then at the San Marco library in Venice and would thus have been handy
for him if he were working on Manuscript 0 at Venice. I readily admit
that there is no evidence that he remained in Rome after 1516. He could
have returned to Venice later.
Coner's manifold corrections and additions have been fully noted in
Volume Two, in the variant readings to my texts of the five works
mentioned above, in the legends to their diagrams and in my Commentary.
They have often been referred to under the designation m. 3 (Le. manus 3).17
15 Heiberg, ed., Archimedis opera omnia, Vol. 3, p. LVIII, n. I; cf. A. A. Bjornbo,
"Studien liber Menelaos' Spharik," Abhandlungen zur Geschichte der mathematischen
Wissenschaften, 14. Heft (1902), pp. 1-154, and particularly, p. 2.
16 Most of the redrawing of the diagrams occurs in Eutocius' Commentary on the
Sphere and the Cylinder. For example, see Vol. 2, Figs. Es. 25, Es. 28, Es. 29, Es. 31,
Es. 32, Es. 33, Es. 36, Es. 37, Es. 42, Es. 43, Es. 45, Es. 47, Es. 48, Es. 49, Es. 50.
17 Heiberg, ed., Archimedis opera omnia, Vol. 3, p. XLIV, also denotes Coner's hand
as manus 3, but in his texts he always refers to Coner's corrections under the designation B2.
The most important of his corrections and additions are those that are
found in On the Sphere and the Cylinder and On the Measurement of the
Circle. Many of them were made on the basis of his mathematical
understanding of the text. 18 It is a tribute to Coner's mathematical skill
that so many of them were adopted by Heiberg in his second edition
of On the Sphere and the Cylinder in the face of incorrect or incomplete
readings in the Greek manuscripts and Moerbeke's close translation of
Greek manuscript A. Worth singling out is Coner's correction of the
erroneous numbers that appear in Moerbeke's translation of Proposition 3
of On the Measurement ofthe Circle (see note 18). These were errors that
were largely based on the poor readings of Greek manuscript A and some
of them were also present in Cremonensis' translation of manuscript A
(and indeed were left uncorrected by so able a mathematician as
Regiomontanus in his copy of Cremonensis' translation). Coner probably
took his corrections from Eutocius' Commentary on the Measurement of
the Circle (not translated by Moerbeke). At any rate, Coner's corrections
produced the first accurate account of this proposition as it appeared in
the Greek tradition, more accurate, for example, than Cremonensis'
version included in the editio princeps of 1544 (see Appendix IV) and of
course more accurate than the versions of Gaurico (1503) and Tartaglia
(1543) since the latter were based on manuscript M which was copied
from 0 before Coner's corrections had been added. (Incidentally, we
18 I can point to a number of examples, referring to the folio and section numbers which
I used in Volume Two followed by var for the variant readings to the section noted. In
parentheses I have added the comparable place in Heiberg's edition under the designation
Gr, followed by the volume, page and line numbers with var indicating the variant reading
to the designated line number. In using both the Heiberg line number and the line number
followed by var, I am indicating that Heiberg has accepted Coner's correction for that
line and has referred to Coner (i.e. to B2) in the variant reading for that line. Among the
corrections and additions in On the Sphere and the Cylinder we can note the following:
24vQvar (Gr 1, 36, 18 and 18 var); 26vNvar, Pvar (Gr 1, 80, 8 and 8var, 22 and 22var)
(cf. also 24vUvar [Gr 1,38, 23 and 23var, 25 and 25var]; 28rBvar "-acceptum" [Gr 1, 102,
8 and 8var]; 28rCvar [Gr 1, 102, 16 with Coner's correction not noted by Heiberg] 28rEvar
[Gr 1, 102,25 and 25var]); 27rQvar (Gr 1, 93, n.1); 29vRvar (Gr 1, 140, 1 and Ivar);
31vJvar (Gr 1, 178, 13 and 13var); 32rBvar (Gr 1, 184, 12-14-Coner's addition is mistakenly
indicated by Heiberg in 13-15var); 32rEvar (Gr 1, 186, 6 and 6var); 32vS "data
L3
"
(Gr 1, 204,7, 8 and 7var, 8var; the addition in 7var is attributed to B rather than B2 by
Heiberg); 33rCvar "circulo ... equalis" (Gr 1,206,5-6 and 5-6var); 33vEvar "super
l
-
3
"
(Gr 1,218, 1-3 and Ivar, 2var and 3var); 33vEvar "quam.... Sed" (Gr 1, 218, 6 and
6var); 33vFvar "habet ... TH3" (perhaps drawn by Coner from Eutocius) (Gr 1, 218,
8-10 and 8-1Ovar); 33vQvar (Gr 1, 224,6-7 and 6-7var). Coner made significant corrections
of numbers in Proposition 3 of On the Measurement of the Circle in 22vQvar, 23rEvar,
G-H-Ivar. He could have made these corrections on the basis of Eutocius' commentary,
available to him in Greek MS E. Also note his correction in 23rIvar "autem ... septu-
agesimunis" (Gr 1, 242, 21 and 20-21var). We can add a few minor corrections by Coner to
On the Sphere and the Cylinder: 24rQvar (Gr 1,22,27 and 27var); 30rLvar "adhuc" (Gr 1,
146, 10 and IOvar); 31vDvar (Gr 1, 174, 23var) (possibly Coner's correction); 32vDvar
(Gr I, 196, 11 and llvar); 33rWvar (Gr 1, 214, 25 and 25var); etc. In 26vA-Cvar, see
Coner's remark that the lemmata of these lines have been demonstrated by Euclid.
should observe that in the case of this proposition the medieval Arabic
tradition present in the translation of Gerard of Cremona yielded a more
accurate account of Archimedes' calculations than did the Greek tradition
represented by Greek manuscript A.)
While most of Coner's corrections and additions are mathematically
grounded rather than being based on the Greek text, it is clear that a
number of them did depend on readings in the Greek text that Moerbeke
had omitted. 19 Indeed, one of Coner's corrections constitutes indisputable
evidence that he had consulted Greek manuscript E at Venice.
20
Moerbeke's text in 37vT includes the reading kamaricorum (i.e. the
Kamarika or "On Vaultings" of Hero), a correct reading attested by
Greek manuscript A and all other Greek manuscripts except E. MS E
has rather /-LaKaptKwv. Similarly, Coner has added to Moerbeke's reading
the signs of transposition thus: kamaricorum. By these signs he means for
us to read the word as makaricorum, a clear indication that he had seen
the altered form in Greek manuscript E. We should note finally that a few
of Coner's corrections were not especially useful for textual purposes,21
and a few (particularly in Eutocius' Commentary) were actually false.
22
On the whole, however, one cannot help but be impressed by Coner's
understanding of the form and content of those works of Archimedes which
he corrected. It is also of interest that Coner was well acquainted with
19 For example, in 32rNvar (Gr I, 190, 16-18 and 16-18var) Coner added the lines
"Sed . . . ZP," which were in Greek manuscript A but which Moerbeke failed to
translate. Also, in 33rJvar Coner added "ab" where the Greek MS A wrongly had Ct1T0
(Gr 1,208,26 and 26var). He could only have added it from the Greek text, since it makes
no mathematical sense and in fact intrudes on the mathematics, as Moerbeke must have
realized when he failed to translate it. We can further note that in 33rR (Gr I, 212, ~ 7 and
25-27var), Coner made a considerable addition ("TB3 ... KZ3") that was in Greek MS A
and Moerbeke failed to translate. A final and conclusive piece of evidence that Coner was
using a Greek text on occasion for his corrections is the correction based on Greek MS E,
which we refer to in the next note and describe below.
20 Heiberg, ed., Archimedis opera omnia, Vol. 3, pp. LIX and 84, llvar. For another
piece of possible evidence that Coner used Gr MS E, see above, Vol. 2, the comment to
40rN ("erit").
21 For example, in 25rDvar (Gr I, 40, 28 and 28var) Coner substituted portiones pLane
for trigona. The portiones is a good correction but the pLane is not needed. Similarly, in
25vAvar (Gr I, 52, 4) Coner added after superficie the phrase preter basim, which is
in fact correct but hardly needed for the understanding of the passage. Also in 27vAvar
(Gr I, 94, 6) Coner added after superficies the expression que continetur a conicis
superficiebus, which is correct but not needed by the reader who has followed the
preceding proposition. At any rate, it is not in the Greek. This list could be greatly
extended, showing that Coner was primarily interested in a sound and explicit
mathematical treatment and not so much in a text that stayed exactly to the Greek text if he
thought the Greek text to be too truncated.
22 In 42rHvar (Gr 3, 168,5) and 42rMvar (Gr 3, 170,4) Coner twice made a mathematical
correction that is false. Also in 42rPvar (Gr 3, 170, 20-21) he twice inverted Moerbeke's
penectly correct ratio of Fad CY to read CY ad F. I should add, however, that Coner made
a great many valid corrections of Moerbeke' s translation of Eutocius' Commentary. These
the reader may observe by consulting my Commentary in Volume Two.
Apollonius' Conics, for, in connection with the text of Eutocius' Com-
mentary on the Sphere and the Cylinder, he often changed Eutocius'
citations of the Conics to bring them in line with the proposition numbers
of the extant manuscripts (see above, Vol. Two, my Commentary,
40vC-D, L, R, S, 41vD, 42rI, 0 and P). Finally, we should note that if,
as I believe, Coner was also the corrector and reorganizer of the
Pseudo-Archimedes, Liber de ponderibus Archimenidis, that precedes
the genuine works of Archimedes in manuscript 0, we have further
evidence of Coner's acuity (see below, Appendix I, Sect. 4).
11. Niccolo Tartaglia and the Moerbeke Translations
of Archimedes
Mter Gaurico's limited use of Moerbeke's translations in his publica-
tion of 1503, their next apparent use for publication purposes was by
Niccolo Tartaglia, although as we shall see in the next chapter (Sect.
Ill) the edition of Gaurico was used by Francesco Maurolico in preparing
his versions of the Quadratura parabolae and De dimensione circuli in
1534. I shall only note a few facts.! Tartaglia was born in Brescia, most
probably in 1499, of a humble family (his father was a letter carrier).
He lost his father in 1506, suffered the wounds to his head and face
in the Sack of Brescia in 1512 that resulted in the affliction to his speech
from which his name Tartaglia ("stutterer") derived. Apparently, before
he was twenty years of age (and most likely between 1516 and 1519)
he moved to Verona, remaining there until 1534. In Verona he taught
at the Palazzo dei Mazzanti. From Verona he moved to Venice, where
he lived until his death on 13 December, 1557, except for a year and a
half (1548-49) that he spent at Brescia. Among his teaching positions
at Venice we can single out the public instruction he gave at the church
of S. Zanipolo where he lectured on Euclid, statics, and gunnery.
Without going into any bibliographical complications or listing the later
editions (for which see P. Riccardi, Biblioteca matematica italiana , 2 vols.
[Milan, 1952], Vot. 1, cc. 496-507; Vol. 2 [first pag.], 71-72, 149, 189;
[second pag.], 158-59), we can note the following works of Tartaglia: 1)
Nova scientia (Venice, 1537); 2) Euclide Megarense philosopho (Venice,
1543); 3) Opera Archimedis (Venice, 1543); 4) Quesiti et inventioni diversi
(Venice, 1546); 5) Riposte (Venice, 1547-48), i.e. six separate replies to
six Cartelli of Lodovico Ferrari addressed to Tartaglia (all twelve cartelli
are bound together in a unique volume of the British Museum); 6) La
Travagliata inventione, with three Ragionamenti and a Supplimento
1 A. Masotti, ed., Afti del Convegno di storia delle matematiche 30-31 Maggio 1959:
Quarto centenario della morte di Niccolo Tartaglia (Brescia, 1962), pp. 17-20, 22-26,
132-37 et passim, refers to a wealth of material on Tartaglia. Cf. A. Favaro, "Per la
biografia di Niccolo Tartaglia," Archivio storico italiano, Anno LXXI (1913), pp. 335-72.
------------
TARTAGLIA AND MOERBEKE'S ARCHIMEDES 539
(Venice, 1551), wherein is included an Italian translation with commentary
of Book I of On Floating Bodies; 7) General trattato di numeri et misure,
in six parts (Venice, 1556-60). To these works we can add the editions
made from his papers left to Curtius Troianus (Curzio Troiano de'Navo;
sometimes printed Traianus) of Archimedes' De insidentibus aquae, Bks. I
and 11 (Venice, 1565) and lordanus' De ponderositate (Venice, 1565),
which in fact is the medieval De ratione ponderis, and to which is attached
without any indication of title Pseudo-Archimedes, De ponderibus
(l6v-19v) and some Esperienze fatte da Nicolo Tartalea (20r-23r), i.e.
some experiments for the determination of specific gravities made be-
tween 1541 and 1551. Incidentally, the privilege under which both of these
books were published seems to say that Troianus had Italian versions of
the work of lordanus and the second book of Archimedes' De insidentibus
aquae,
2
translations no doubt executed by Tartaglia. Troianus also pub-
lished an edition of Tartaglia's Euclid (Venice, 1565), to which was added
an Italian translation of Pseudo-Euclid, De ponderoso et levi, a translation
probably made by Tartaglia. All of these works (except Tartaglia's transla-
tion of the Elements) yield some information to the student of Tartaglia's
developing knowledge of the works of Archimedes.
The central thrust of my argument on Tartaglia's role in Archimedean
studies is that Tartaglia's knowledge of the works of Archimedes pri-
marily derived from the translations of William of Moerbeke, although
he certainly was familiar with the various extracts that appeared in Giorgio
Valla's De expetendis et fugiendis rebus and no doubt also with the
Cremonensis translations either in the Venice manuscript or in the editio
princeps of Basel, 1544. Tartaglia's first contact with Archimedes, or at
least the first contact of which we have hard evidence, occurred in the
year 1531 while he was still in Verona. This is reported in a para-
graph written by Tartaglia many years later to introduce his Italian trans-
lation of Book I of Archimedes' On the Sphere and the Cylinder, which
Tartaglia included in Part IV of his General trattato:
3
2 Jordanus, De ponderositate (Venice, 1565), 23v: "Che a Curtio Troiano mercante de
libri, sia concesso, che altri che lui, 0 chi haven't causa da lui, non possa in questa citta,
et Dominio nostro, stampar, ne in quello stampate vender per spatia de anni dieci prossi
futuri, li libri intitulati Giordano de Ponderibus, et il secondo libro d'Archimede de In-
sidentibus aquae, tradotti in lingua volgare; et medesimamente i sopradetti libri Latini. . . ."
The only changes I have made in this passage were to change "volgare. Et" to "volgare;
et" (since no break is intended) and to add a comma after "nostro."
3 N. Tartaglia, General trattato, Part IV, Book III (Venice, 1557, with a title page for
Part IV dated 1560; see below), 43v:
"Dapoi le praticali misurationi di corpi laterali vi se gli converrebbe immediate quella
della sphera, et deUe sue parti, come commune recettacolo di tutti quelli, si come fu fatto
anchora del cerchio, et delle sue parti, doppo le praticali misurationi delle laterali figure
superficiali, nondimeno avanti di tali spherice misurationi, per satisfare in parte quelli
dottrinati ingegni, che piu si dilettano da intendere speculativamente le cause propinque di
tai praticali attioni, che di esse attioni, mi e parso avanti di queUe di dichiararvi
speculativamente il primo libro di Archimede Siracusano, da me trovato, et tradotto da uno
After the practical mensurations of lateral [i.e. rectiplanar] bodies, one ought to
treat therewith the mensuration of the sphere and its parts, the sphere being
the common receptacle of all such [lateral bodies], just as was also done in
regard to the circle and its parts after [the treatment of] the practical mensura-
tions of lateral [i. e., rectilinear] plane figures. No less, before [the treatment of]
such spherical mensurations, and in order to satisfy those learned scholars who
are more delighted with the speculative consideration of the preceding causes
of practical actions than with these actions themselves, it appeared necessary to
me first to explain in a speculative way the first book of Archimedes the Syracusan.
[This was a book] which 1 found in Verona in 1531. It was rendered in Latin,
was almost in shreds, and was in the possession of a sausage seller (salzizaro).
Many parts of this book were completely corrupted and nonsensical. Hence, lest
such a worthy work of his [i.e., Archimedes'] be left to total destruction, 1resolved
to correct it and to interpret the parts that were so faulty. [I did this so] that
any ordinary scholar could judge demonstratively his [i.e., Archimedes'] great
doctrine in a matter of this kind, even if the same thing can be seen and judged
in his five other little tracts, which 1 already published a long time ago. And
to proceed in an orderly way, we shall begin by laying out his suppositions and
definitions, and then we shall follow with his propositions, adding in the end
some practical questions on the sphere and its parts.
The most important fact revealed by Tartaglia in this passage is that he
had discovered an Archimedean manuscript as early as 1531. He tells us
that it was in Latin and that it was in very bad shape. Our first question
naturally concerns which Latin translation of On the Sphere and the
Cylinder was contained in the Verona manuscript. The only way for us
to answer this question is to examine the Italian translation of this work
that Tartaglia presents as a product of his study of the Verona manu-
script. If the translation was made at the time of his discovery of the
codex in 1531, there were only three possible translations that could
have served as a base: (1) the translation of William of Moerbeke, (2)
the translation of Jacobus Cremonensis and (3) the translation of Antonius
de Albertis (see Appendix IV, Section 2). On closely comparing these
three translations of On the Sphere and the Cylinder with Tartaglia's
latinamente scritto, qual era andato quasi in strazzaria, et in mano di un salzizaro in Verona,
l'anno 1531. Delquallibro molte parti erano totalmente roUe, et annullate, onde accioche
una cosi degna sua opra non restasse del tutto morta, mi sono sforzato di redrizzarla,
et d'interpretar le parti, che mancavano talmente, che ogni commune ingegno potra gustar
dimostrativamente la sua gran dottrina in tal materia, anchor che nelle altre cinque sue
operine, gia fa gran tempo da noi date in luce, il medesimo si puo vedere, et giustare. Et
per procedere ordinatamente cominciaremo a distendere le sue suppositioni, et diffinitioni,
et dipoi seguiremo le sue propositioni, aggiongendovi in fine alcune praticali questioni sopra
della sphera, et delle sue parti." My only change in this passage was to change consonantal
"u" to "v" for the convenience of the reader. As I noted above, Curtius Troianus added
a title page to Part IV having the date of 1560. He also printed the privilege of publication
with the date of 29 July, 1559. However, Part IV was apparently printed earlier in 1557,
according to the colophon on folio 63v: "In Vinegia Per Comin da Tridino. MDLVII." For
the significance of this colophon, see Favaro, "Per la biografia," p. 350, n. 2, who indicates
that 150 copies of Part IV were mentioned as a part of Tartaglia's estate. It should be
remarked finally that Tartaglia's whole Italian translation of Book I of On the Sphere and the
Cylinder occupies folios 43v-6Ov of Part IV.
Italian translation, the inescapable conclusion seems to be that it was
the text of Moerbeke that served as Tartaglia's basic point of departure.
However, this comparison also reveals that Tartaglia saw the Cremonensis
translation and made a few changes and additions therefrom. I suspect
that he saw the Cremonensis translation only after he had decided to
publish his translation in the General trattato, i.e. in the 1550's. He prob-
ably saw it in the editio princeps of 1544, although it is not impossible
that he saw it in the Venetian codex mentioned below. It might be sug-
gested that he translated the basic Moerbeke text just before his pub-
lication of the General trattato rather than earlier, and that he did so
with an eye on the Cremonensis translation as published in 1544. If such
was the case, it would mean that he still had in his possession either
the original Verona manuscript or a copy thereof. And if this is so, why
did he not include it in his publication of the works of Archimedes in
1543? In fact, its absence in that latter publication suggests that he did not
have permanent possession of the Verona manuscript and that he made his
Italian translation of On the Sphere and the Cylinder in 1531 and retained
only that translation over the years until he published it (with corrections)
in his General trattato. Thus, if he only had his Italian translation of
On the Sphere and the Cylinder in 1543, he would no doubt have thought
it inappropriate to publish it with the Latin works of manuscript M. At
any rate, let me bulwark these conclusions about Tartaglia's Italian
translation with the results of my detailed analysis of it.
First, I shall list a few examples where words, phrases, or passages are
compared from Heiberg's Greek text (Gr), the translation of Moerbeke
(0 in my text of Volume Two), the translation of Cremonensis (V, MS
Venice, Bib!. Naz. Marc. f.a.327), the translation of Antonius de Albertis
(Ant., MS Vienna, Nationalbibl. 10701; see Appendix IV, Section 2), and
Tartaglia's translation in the General trattato, Part IV (T), with an occa-
sional reference to Regiomontanus' corrected version of the Cremonensis
translation (Reg., MS Nuremberg, Stadtbibl. Cent. V.15) and the edition
of this version with the editio princeps of Basel, 1544 (Ed) when they
differ from V:
(1.) Or I, 6, 2-3: KajLTTVAaL ypaJLJLa'i 1TE1TEpaUJLE:VaL
0, 23vH: curve linee finite
V, 64r, 2: curve linee finite
Reg. and Ed, 2, 2: curve linee terminate
Ant", IOr, 3:
T, 43v, 1 (of text): linee curve finite
Hence here T seems to follow either 0 or V but not Ant., Reg. or Ed.
(2.) Gr 1,6, 20: TOJLE:a
0, 23vK: Sectorem
V, 64r, 17: Frustum
Ant., IOv, 22: Sectorem
T, 43v, 14: Settore
Here T follows 0 or Ant.
(3.) Gr 1, 6, 22: Ej.L7TEptEXOj.LEVOV
0, 23vK: contentam
V, 64r, 19: comprehensam
Reg. and Ed, 2, 14: comprensam
Ant., 10v, 27: contenta
T, 43v, 16: contenuta
Here T is again following either 0 or Ant.
(4.) Gr 1, 6, 26: X V T ~
0, 23vK: habentes
V, 64r, 21: constantes
Ant., 10v, 29: habentes
T,43v, 17: havendo
T is closer to 0 or Ant.
(5.) Gr 1, 8, 14: V..aO"O"ova
0, 23vN: minorem
V, 64v, 11: minimam
Ant., l1r, 3: minorem
T, 43v, 27: la menore
T is closer to 0 or Ant.
(6.) Gr 1, 8, 18-19: Kat . . . E7TupaVEta
0, 23vN: et aut tota comprehenditur ab altera superficie
V, 64v, 14: et vel altera contineatur ab altera
Reg. and Ed, 2, 27-28: et vel altera tota contineatur ab altera, aut alteram
earum ab altera superficie
Ant., llr, 5-7: ac vel tota altera ipsarum ab altera superficie . . . con-
tenta sit
T, 43v, 29-30: over tutta una delle dette superficie sia compresa dall'altra
T seems closest to 0, at least in his use of "compresa."
(7.) Gr 1, 8, 25- 27: 0 a1JVn(}Ej.LEVOV . Aeyoj.LEvWV
0, 23vO-P: quod compositum ipsum sibi, ipsi possibile est excedere omne
prepositum eorum que ad invicem dicuntur
V, 64v, 19-20: quantum ipsum sibi ipsi totiens complicari potest ut excedat
omnem propositam sui generis quantitatem
Ant., llr, 9-11: qui ipse sibi ipsi coacervatus quodcunque eorum que
vicissim sunt comparata fuerit positum excedere potest
T, 44r, 2-3: che composto, over multiplicato in se stesso potra avanzar
ogniuna delle proposte quantita
Here T is not following the laconic and incorrect translation of V (repeated
without change by Reg. and Ed) but rather the correct but ambiguous
rendering of 0 (or conceivably that of Ant .). I am almost certain that T
is followingO because of his use of "composto" where 0 had "compositum,"
while Ant. employs a circumlocution. Incidentally, the correct intent of this
postulate is that the difference of two comparable magnitudes can by con-
tinually adding that difference to itself be made to exceed any magnitude
at all of the same kind as the original magnitudes compared. But V's version
erroneously says that the difference can be made to exceed any quantity
of the same kind as itself. But this would be nothing more than a tautological
repetition of Euclid's definition of a ratio, that is, of magnitudes of the
same kind. T's translation is somewhat ambiguous but I believe is on the
right track.
(8.) Or 1, 10, 1-2: 1TO'AiryWJJOJJ
0, 23vP: polygonium
V, 64v, 21: figura multiangula
Ant., llr, 12: poligonium
T, 44r, 6: figura multiangola
Here it looks like T is following V, but compare item 9.
(9.) Or 1, 10, 3: 1TO'AtryWJJOV
0, 23vP: polygonii
V, 64v, 22: figure
Ant., llr, 14: poligonii
T, 44r, 7-8: poligonio over figura multiangola
It seems that here T has his eye on either 0 or Ant. and V as well.
(10.) Or 1, 10, 8-21: 'EaJJ KUK'AOV
0, 23vQ-R: Si circa circulum polygonium circumscribatur, perimeter cir-
cumscripti polygonii est maior perimetro circuli. Circa circulum enim cir-
cumscribatur polygonium subpositum. Dico quod perimeter polygonii est
maior perimetro circuli. Quoniam enim simul utraque que BAL maior est
quam periferia BL propter eadem ultima habentem comprehendere peri-
feriam; similiter autem et simul utraque quidem que DG, GB quam DB,
et simul utraque que LK, KT quam LT, et simul utraque que ZHT quam
ZT, adhuc autem simul utraque que DE, EZ quam DZ; tota ergo
perimeter polygonii est maior periferia circuli.
V, 65r, 1-65v, 1: si circulo figura plurium angulorum circumscribatur linea
recta que ex omnibus figure circumscripte lateribus simul in directum
coniunctis efficitur ipsius circuli circumferentia longior esse probatur.
Circulo itaque cuicunque figura quevis pluribus angulis constituta circum-
scribatur. Dico lineas dictam figuram claudentes, si simul in directum
coniungantur, lineam unam rectam constituere circuli dicti circumferentia
longiorem. Esto igitur exempli gratia circulus cuius centrum m quem
circa sit aptata figura abcdefghkl cuius anguli sint ad puncta b, d, f, h, I
[Ed, 3, 11-12, following Reg. corrects this: a, c, e, g, k notati, contactus
vero laterum et circuli ad puncta b, d, f, h, I]. Quoniam itaque ab, ai,
cum arcum bl intra se coerceant, ipso longiores habentur; similiter cb,
cd suo arcu bd maiores, item ed, ef [Ed. adds maiores], item fg, gh
suo, demum kh, kl, queque due coniuncte suis arcubus maiores sint,
eisdem enim terminis cum suo queque due arcu prodeuntes ipsum in-
cludunt, erit, ut si una ex his omnibus recta linea iungatur, circuli
circumferentia sit longior que ex illis arcubus coIIigitur.
Ant., 11r, 21-11v, 1: Si poligonium circa circulum fuerit circumscriptum,
perimeter circumscripti poligonii maior est quam perimetro circuli. Cir-
cumscribatur circa bdfhk circulum acegi poligonium. Dico quod poligonii
huius perimeter maior est quam perimetro circuli. Nam cum ba et ak
simul maiores sint quam circumferentia bk. Eodem modo ki et ih
simul maiores quam circumferentia kh, parique pacto hg et gf
simul maiores quam circumferentia /if; itaque fe et ed simul
maiores quam circumferentiafd. Ac denique de et cb simul maiores
quam circumferentia db. Perspicue patet, quod totus quoque acegi
poligonii perimeter maior est quam bdjhk circuli circumferentia.
T, 44r, 10-15: Essempi gratia sia circonscritto un poligonio intomo al cerchio
m. Dico che '1 perimetro del poligonio e maggiore della circonferenza
del cerchio, percioche ambedue insieme bal sono maggiori dell'arco bl
conciosia che '1 detto havendo li medesimi estremi ecompreso dalle due;
similmente ambedue insierne de, eb del db, cosi anchora ambedue kl, kh del
lh, et ambedue fg, gh della jh, cosi anchora le de, ef del df; adunque
tuUo il perimetro del poligonio emaggiore di tutta la circonferenza del
cerchio.
This is a very instructive example. It shows with little doubt that T was
staying very close to a literal translation of the Greek and that in fact he
was following 0 quite closely. But one instance of his embroidery was his
designation of the circle as m. This designation was not in Greek manuscript
A, but was first added to the text by Cremonensis in manuscript V, although
he did not add it to the diagram. It was added to the diagram by Reg.
from which it passed. to Ed, both in the Latin and Greek texts. It was
retained in the diagram in Torelli's edition even though it is not in the text
and does not appear on Greek manuscript E that Torelli was following.
At any rate, its appearance in Tartaglia's Italian translation demonstrates
that although he was basically following the literal version of 0, he was
induced by observing V or Ed to include m in the text and on the
diagram. It is quite clear that T was following 0 and not Ant. for his basic,
literal text, for he retains the syncopated form bal (instead of "ba et bk" in
Ant. or the "ab, al" of V) which 0 had taken over literally from Greek
manuscript A. Similarly he retains from 0 the letters k and I for the final
points on his figure instead of using Ant.' s substituted letters i and k. It is
true of course that throughout the whole translation T makes an orderly
conversion of the Greek letters adopted by V to Latin letters: A = a,
B = b, r = e, d = d, E = e, Z = f, H = g, e = h, I = i, K = k, A = I, etc.
In general he is more scrupulous about this than Cremonensis was, as is
evident in number (14.) below.
(11.) Gr 1, 10, 27: AB, d, Kat (T'TW 'TO AB
0, 23vS: AB, D, et sit maior que AB
V, 65v, 6: ab maior, d minor
Ant., Ilv, 6-7: ab etd, sitque maiorab
T,44r, 16: ab, d et la maggior sia ab
Again T appears to be following O.
(12.) Gr 1, 12, 1-2: AEyw ... EVpELV
0, 23vS: Dico quod possibile est duas rectas inequales invenire
V, 65v, 6: dico duas invenire posse rectas lineas inequales
Ant., 11v, 7-9: Dieo quod fieri potest, ut inveniantur
T, 44r, 16- 17: dico che glie possibile trovar due linee rette inequali
The structure of the sentence and the use of "possibile" by T again links
his version with 0 rather than with the others.
(13.) Gr 1, 14, 1: Ta A, B
0, 23vW: A, B
V, 66r, 1: a. b
Ant., 11v, 28: a et b
T, 44r, 26: a, b et 10 a sia maggiore
Here T in its proper addition to the Greek text diverges from all of the
other versions.
(14.) Gr 1, 14, 4-5: al e, KA, wv f.LEt,WP E(TTW 1] e
0, 23vX: que T, KL, quarum maior sit que T
V, 66r, 3: quarum sit k maior, lm minor
Ant., Ilv, 30-31: h et kl, quarum maior sit h
T, 44r, 29: h, kl et sia maggior h
In this phrase, T is following 0 or Ant., except that in 0 we find the letter
T for the Greek e, while Tartaglia, as usual, renders it by h. Notice that
here Cremonensis has substituted different lettering.
(15.) Gr 1, 22, 10-11: 1TO'A'Aii> JJii'A'Aop . . . EXEL
0, 24rO: multo magis circumscriptum habet proportionem mlOorem ad
circulum
V, 67v, 24-25: erit circumscripte ad circulum minor
Ant., Bv, 21- 22: multo magis polygonium illi circumscriptum minorem
rationem habet ad circulum
T, 45r, 6: molto maggiormente 10 estrinseco al cerchio menor proportione
havera
T's reading is closest to O's here. He clearly cannot have used V at this
point since Vomits the important phrase "multo magis." While that phrase
is also inAnt., the latter's wording does not seem as close to T's as does O's.
(16.) Gr 1, 45, n.2: see Heiberg's suggested addition to the Greek text.
0, 25rJvar: terminum habet ipsius ABGD parallelogrammi planum, et altera
alteram comprehendit et ambe ad eadem concave sunt, maior igitur est
cylindralis superficies abscisa a rectis AG, BD et portiones plane que
AEB, GZD. Quoniam composita superficies ex parallelogrammis, quorum
bases quidem que AT, rE, EK, KB, altitudo autem eadem cum cylindro,
et rectilineis que sunt ATEKB, GLZMD
V, 72r, 16-18: cumque sint utreque in eandem concavitatis partem collocate
et kylindrica complectatur rectilineam, erit complectens maior complexa
T, 46v, 54-57: si finisse, et termina nel medesimo parallelogrammo acbd,
et l'una comprende l'altra, et sono curve verso le medesime parti,
adunque la cilindrica con le portioni circolari emaggiore della composta
delli detti parallelogrammi, et rettilinee poligonie figure
Although T does not follow the addition exactly, he does so closely enough
for us to conclude with some surety that the Verona manuscript included
at least part of the addition of 25rJvar. Notice that V also recognized that
there ought to be some addition but his suggested addition was less detailed
than that in 0 (and indeed in T). Notice also that Ant. follows the Greek
text and thus makes no addition here. This is one more evidence that Ant.
was not the literal text that lay at the base of Tartaglia's Italian translation.
There are other places where T has corrections that are similar to those
made to 0 by Coner, but many of these were also made by Cremonensis
and might not therefore have been made by T from Coner's corrections
(or they might have been made by T on the basis of mathematical sense).
An example occurs in the correction in 29vRvar where "portioni" has been
corrected to 'figurae. " A similar correction was made by both Cremonensis
and Tartaglia. There are occasions when Tartaglia does not follow m.2's or
Coner's corrections to 0 (e.g., 24vHvar where m.2 substituted "derelin-
quemus" for "sumemus" but Tartaglia has "siano"; cf. also 27rQvar for
Coner's important addition that is not included by Tartaglia).
With all of the above-noted examples considered, it is apparent that
Tartaglia followed a text that was more literal than Cremonensis' transla-
tion. Now both the translations of Moerbeke and Antonius de Albertis
constituted literal texts, but in a number of passages Tartaglia's choice
of Italian words seems to reflect the Latin terms of the Moerbeke transla-
tion rather than those of Antonius. Hence, I would conclude that
Tartaglia had not seen Antonius' translation. Indeed, we are very
uncertain as to whether the translation of Antonius had yet been made
in 1531.
4
Even if it had, it is doubtful whether Tartaglia's description of
the Verona manuscript as being "almost in shreds" would fit a recently
completed codex. It certainly does not fit as a description of Antonius'
autograph, the only known manuscript of his translation. All in all, I think
it can be safely concluded, as I have noted above, that Tartaglia had dis-
covered a copy of Moerbeke's translation in the Verona codex, and that
he was following this copy in his translation, with occasional attention to
Cremonensis' translation. In emphasizing the relationship of Tartaglia' s
version to previous texts I have perhaps obscured the fact that Tartaglia
at times expanded the proofs with his own comments. For example in
Proposition 3, he added one comment of a little more than five lines
(44r, lines 43-48) and another one of 17 lines (44v, lines 1-17).
If it is apparent that it was the Moerbeke translation that Tartaglia used
as the base for his Italian translation of On the Sphere and the Cylinder,
our next question is this: Which manuscript was it that Tartaglia saw at
Verona? Certainly not M, for M did not contain On the Sphere and the
Cylinder. Could it have been the Moerbeke manuscript O? This is not
impossible. For, although we know that 0 remained in the hands of
Coner until his death in 1527 (see Section I of this chapter), we have no
sure trace of it again until Cardinal Marcello Cervini (some time before
he became Pope Marcello II in 1555 and probably after he became Biblio-
thecarius Vaticanae in 1548) had the Moerbeke translations of Archi-
medes' On Floating Bodies and Ptolemy's De analemmate copied from
0, as I shall remark later (see Section IU below). Still, if 0 was the
manuscript seen by Tartaglia in Verona, one wonders why he did not
have the whole rich codex copied. Indeed, how could he have refrained
from extensive comment on such a treasure? Further, why would he later
4 For a further treatment of Antonius de Albertis, see Appendix IV, Section 2.
have used the inferior Madrid manuscript for the publication of his
Archimedean texts of 1543 rather than 0 (or his copy of O)? Each of these
questions could be answered if the possibility mentioned earlier were
true, namely that he had possession of the manuscript for a limited time
only and that he was therefore only able to translate On the Sphere
and the Cylinder. Another possibility is that Tartaglia found a manuscript
at Verona which had been executed from 0 but included only On the
Sphere and the Cylinder, a manuscript like Vat. Reg. lat. 1253 that in-
cluded only On Spiral Lines in the Moerbeke translation. It is possible,
but not probable, that Tartaglia had some direct knowledge of Eutocius'
Commentary on the Sphere and the Cylinder at the same time as the
Archimedean text itself, i.e. in 1531. The only evidence (other than a brief
reference to the problem of mean proportionals in the Quesiti, which I
shall examine below) is that Tartaglia includes a long section on that
problem in his General trattato that ultimately comes from Eutocius'
commentary.5 But this section, no doubt composed in the 1550's, was
based on the Cremonensis translation as presented in the edition of Basel,
1544 (see below, Part Ill, Chap. 6, Sect. Ill, n. 20). At any rate, it seems
improbable that the Verona manuscript included Eutocius' commentary,
or, if it did, that Tartaglia paid any attention to it until he was putting
his General trattato into final shape. Before concluding my discussion of
the Verona manuscript and Tartaglia's paragraph describing it, we should
note that he speaks of his publication of five operine of Archimedes a
long time ago. This is of course a reference to his edition of 1543. Though
there were only four different works in that edition, and not five, Tartaglia
is probably counting the two books of On the Equilibrium of Planes
separately.
One other brief glimpse of an early interest on Tartaglia's part in
Archimedean questions occurs in his Quesiti, Book IX, ques. XIX, which
includes an exchange with Giambattista Memmo (the translator of
Apollonius) dated 1534, "the year I came to live in Venice."6 Memmo
5 General trattato, Part V, Book I, 44r-50r.
6 Quesiti et inventioni (Venice, 1546), Bk. IX, Ques. 19, 103v-04r: "Quesito XIX. fatto
dal magnifico misser Zuanbattista Memo l'anno ch'io veni ad habitar in Venetia che fu
.1534. MAGNIFICO M. ZUANBAT. Haveti voi opinione chel sia possibile aritrovare la
quadratura del cerchio. NICOLO. El non si puo negare che quella cosa ch'e in esser
nelle cose naturale, chel non sia possibile anchora aritrovarla. MAG. M. ZUANBAT. Voi
seti in errore. Anchora che Aristotele affermi esser s[c]ibile, la causa e che fra e! diametro
del cerchio et la sua circonferentia non vi cade alcuna proportione, perche e! diametro non
eunivoco con la circonferentia perche il reUo el curvo non sono univoce, et pero non sono
comparabili et non essendo comparabili non si puo dire che fra loro ve sia alcuna specie
di proportione, et quello che non ein nelle cose di natura non epossibile apoterlo ritro-
vare. NICOLO. Eglie ben vero che la linea retta non e comparabile alla curva respetto a
quella qualita del retto, et curvo, ma respetto alIa quantita a me mi pare che siano com-
parabile perche il predicamento della quantita, e uno, et queUo della qualita eun altro, et
che! sia el vero che siano comparabili et che ve sia fra lor proportione facilmente el si puo
provare per la quinta diffinitione del quinto de Euclide. NeUa quale lui diffinisse che queUe
asks Tartaglia whether it is possible to square the circle. Tartaglia answers
that' 'it cannot be denied that something that exists among natural things
may yet be discovered," echoing the line of Aristotle and Pacioli and
many others. Memmo declares in his reply that even though Aristotle
says that quadrature is knowable, Tartaglia is in error:
The cause is that between the diameter of the circle and its circumference there
is no ratio, since the diameter is not univocal [i.e. not of the same kind] with the
diameter owing to the fact that a straight line and a curve are not univocal and
hence not comparable. Not being comparable, there exists no species of ratio be-
tween them. And that which does not exist among the things of nature is not
capable of being found.
This too echoes an argument given by Aristotle, this concerning the com-
parison of rectilinear and curvilinear motions (Physics, VII, 248a, 10-18;
249a, 8-20). Then follows Tartaglia's final reply:
It is true that a straight line is not comparable to a curved line in respect to the
quality of straightness and curvedness. But it appears to me that in respect to
quantity they are comparable because the predicament of quality is one thing and
that of quantity something else. And that they are comparable and that there is
ratio between them can be easily proved by the fifth definition of the fifth book
of Euclid. According to that definition those quantities are said to have a ratio
between them which are capable, when multiplied, of exceeding one another.
But it is clear that the quadruple of the diameter of a circle exceeds its cir-
cumference since the quadruple of the diameter of the said circle is equal to the
four sides of the square that circumscribes the same circle and the said four
sides are manifestly much greater than the circumference of the said circle. There-
fore since one can multiply the diameter of the circle to the point that it exceeds
the said circumference, it follows (by the said definition) that between the diam-
eter of a circle and its circumference there is some ratio, although which ratio
it may be is not known. This is what has been proposed.
The most interesting feature of this exchange is that there is no mention
at all of Archimedes. Indeed, Tartaglia seems to have still had little precise
knowledge of the Archimedean corpus (and particularly of the mechanical
works) in 1537, when he published the Nova scientia. For the only mention
there of Archimedes is an assertion that he (Tartaglia) "knew by Archi-
medean reasoning that the distance of the aforementioned [gun] shot ele-
vated at 45 degrees was about ten times the straight carriage of a shot
quantita se dicono haver proportione fra loro lequale moltiplicate si posso eccedere luna
elaltra, et perche eglie cosa chiara che il quadruplo del diarnetro del cerchio eccede la
circonferentia di quello, perche el quadruplo del [diarnetro del] detto cerchio e equale alli
quatro lati del quadro circonscritto al medesimo cerchio, et li detti quatro lati eglie mani-
festo esser molto piu della circonferentia del cerchio adunque potendosi multiplicare el
diametro del cerchio, talmente che ecceda la detta circonferentia seguita (per la detta dif-
finitione) che fra el diarnetro del cerchio, et la circonferentia di quello ve sia proportione,
anchor che tal proportione ne sia incognita, ch' eiI proposito."
made in the plane of the horizon."7 No known Archimedean work would
have helped him to know this and it is of interest that this expression
con ragion Archimedane was changed in later editions to con ragion
naturale.
8
Presumably the change arose as the result of his increased
knowledge of the works of Archimedes. But if the changed expression still
represented the intent of the original words, then I would suppose that
Tartaglia was originally appealing to the widely known stories (from
Plutarch and others) that Archimedes produced actual ballistic instru-
ments for the defense of Syracuse. In short, it was an appeal to the
senses.
9
Our next concern must be with the edition of Archimedean works that
Tartaglia published in 1543. I have already briefly noted that these texts
were based on manuscript M. Let me elaborate. It is my opinion that
Tartaglia acquired MS M or a faithful copy of it in about 1539. Following
Masotti's suggestion that it was Diego Hurtado de Mendoza, the am-
bassador of Charles V to Venice from 1539 to 1546, who brought manu-
script M to Spain where it passed later to the National Library, 10 Stillman
Drake has further proposed that Mendoza was already the owner of manu-
script M in 1539 and that he brought this manuscript to Tartaglia in the
autumn of that year, resulting in the effort of Tartaglia to explain the
medieval science of weights to Don Diego in Book VIII of the Quesiti
where Mendoza appears as the other interlocutorY Following this line
7 Nova scientia (Venice, 1537), sig. A recto-verso: "Da poi conobbi (Signor humanis-
simo) con ragion Archimedane qualmente la distantia dil sopra detto tiro ellevato alIi 45
gradi sopra al orizonte, era circa decupla al tramito retto dun tiro fatto per il piano del
orizonte." Cf. S. Drake and I. E. Drabkin, Mechanics in Sixteenth-Century Italy, (Madi-
son, Wise., 1%9), p. 66.
B Ibid., p. 66, n. 6. It is clear that it was Tartaglia who made the change himself. For
although Drake notes the change to "con ragion naturale" only for the posthumous editions,
I have found it in the edition of 1554, executed under Tartaglia's supervision (and perhaps
it was made in the second edition of 1550, which I have not seen).
9 In the Nova scientia, sig. G ii verso, he claims that we know that the optimum ele-
vation is 45 degrees, something that is verified to the senses as well as to the intellect. I
would suppose this to be the same contrast he is presenting in the preface. We can in-
cidentally remark that Tartaglia was at least familiar with the story of Archimedes' defense
of Syracuse by 1543 when he published the Moerbeke translations of Archimedes (see note
23 below). He also refers to that defense in his Italian translation of the Elements pub-
lished in that same year: Euclide Megarense (Venice, 1543), 3v: "E tanta ela utilita, oltra
la soavita dolcezza di studio che si trova nelle contemplationi mathematice, piene di certezza,
che Archimede siracusano per il studio di queUe con suoi mecanici ingegni diffese un tempo
la Citta di Siracusa contra l'impeto di Marco marcello Consule Romano, per il che acquisito
il nome della immortalita."
10 Masotti, Atti del Convegno, pp. 151-52.
11 Drake and Drabkin, Mechanics in Sixteenth-Century Italy, pp. 23, 104, n. 8. In the
reference on p. 104, Drake errs in asserting that the Madrid manuscript "contains two other
medieval treatises (traditionally but incorrectly attributed to Archimedes and Euclid) ...."
While manuscript M does include the Pseudo-Archimedes, De ponderibus, it does not con-
tain the Pseudo-Euclid, De ponderoso et levi.
f
t
,
r
,
;

of argument, we might further suppose that Don Diego left the manuscript
with Tartaglia after he left Venice, that the manuscript remained with
Tartaglia until his death at which time it passed to Curtius Troianus with
other papers and books from Tartaglia's estate.
12
This is deduced from
the fact that in 1565 Troianus published the full text of Archimedes'
De insidentibus aquae, as well as Jordanus' De ponderositate, with its
untitled De ponderibus of the Pseudo-Archimedes, all from manuscript M.
If this argument is correct, it must finally be supposed that Troianus
returned the manuscript to Mendoza some time after he used it in these
final publications. And indeed we do have evidence that Mendoza sought
the return of manuscripts he had loaned, although there is no specific
evidence concerning manuscript M. 13 There are some difficulties with this
theory. In the first place, there is no evidence that Mendoza did possess
manuscript M, although in many of his manuscripts there are indications
of ownership. There is a second difficulty. While Mendoza specifically
mentions that he had found the Pseudo-Aristotelian Quaestiones
mechanicae, in both Greek and Latin, he makes no such claim for the
texts of the medieval science of weights which Tartaglia was to use to
explain the errors in the Aristotelian work.
14
Furthermore, this argument
presumes that manuscript M was directly used in the publications of
1543 and 1565 (since in fact the Archimedean texts of 1543 are extremely
close to manuscript M, as we shall show below). But if this is the case,
why are there no marks on M made by Tartaglia to instruct the printer
in certain changes he wished to have made? The obvious way out of this
last difficulty would be to assume that Tartaglia made or had made a close
and faithful copy of those parts of manuscript M that interested him,
namely the Archimedean texts and the text of Jordanus cum Pseudo-
Archimedes. If this were the case, then his corrections (few as they were)
would have been indicated on the copy. If we assume a copy in the
possession of Tartaglia, we need no longer worry about when manuscript
M left Venice and appeared in Spain.
Whatever the truth of this matter is, we can take for granted that
Tartaglia was familiar with the Madrid manuscript by 1539 when he began
to discuss statics with Don Diego and, as we shall see, certainly by
12 Masotti, Atti del Convegno, Tav. XXXII, reproduces Tartaglia's will, which mentions
among other things left to Troianus "et tutti i sopradetti libri del mio studiare." Cf. also
note 65 below.
13 C. Graux, Essai sur les origines du londs grec de L' Escurial (Paris, 1880), p. 164.
14 Tartaglia, Quesiti et inventione, Book VII, Ques. 1, 76r, has Mendoza say that he has
found both the Greek and Latin versions of "Le questioni Mechanice di Aristotele." It is
then that Tartaglia says that some of Aristotle's physical arguments can be shown to be
false by mathematical arguments by means of the science of weights ("Et alcuni altri con
argomenti Mathematici mediante la scientia di pesi ... se possono reprobar per falsi. ").
Nowhere in the succeeding pages does Tartaglia suggest that Mendoza had any manu-
script or book containing the medieval science of weights, or indeed that Mendoza had
previously studied this subject.
1541. It was possibly this acquaintance that prompted a reference to Archi-
medes in Tartaglia's reply to a query of Cardano dated January 5, 1540,15
Tartaglia remarks that the proposition that a circle is the most capacious
of isoperimetric figures could be proved' 'by the things demonstrated by
Archimedes and also by [the] Cardinal of Cusa." He mentions the latter's
De transmutationibus geometricis (see Part Ill, Chapter 1 above). Of
course, the reference to Archimedes is not very revealing of Tartaglia's
Archimedean source, It obviously refers to using Proposition I of On the
Measurement of the Circle in the proof of the isoperimetric proposition.
But his knowledge of this tract of Archimedes need not have been drawn
from the Madrid manuscript. He could easily have known this proposi-
tion of Archimedes from what Cusa had said, from Gaurico's text (which
he was to republish in 1543), from the tract ofValla, from Pacioli'sSumma
or from any of the sundry manuscript versions of the medieval On the
Measurement of the Circle published in Volume One of this work, It
should also be remarked that the medieval translation of a Greek De iso-
perimetris (probably known to Cusa) contained this isoperimetric proposi-
tion with a proof specifically dependent on the treatise of Archimedes.
16
In view of all of this, we should be cautious in deciding which version
of Archimedes Tartaglia had in mind when he made this remark in 1540.
It is worth pointing out further that Tartaglia's response of 1540 also
contained a reference to the problem of two mean proportionals,17 Since
he makes no reference to Eutocius' commentary or to Valla's extracts
therefrom, this would seem to be support for the conclusion that he had
not yet read the Eutocian commentary. He would have found the solution
attributed by Eutocius to Plato in Nicholas of Cusa's work whose title
he had cited immediately above,
There are also two other references (both ambiguous as to the time
when they were written) that may bear on the question of when Tartaglia
studied manuscript M, They both occur in Book VIII of the Quesiti in the
course of the colloquy between Mendoza and Tartaglia on the lever law
as it appears in the medieval science of weights (Le., Proposition Rl.06
15 Ibid., Book IX, Ques. 40, 129r, where Tartaglia speaks of Cardano's reference to
Zuanne (Giovanni) ColIe: "Dapoi dice che lui ha la demostratione qualmente il cerchio
e di maggior contenuta de ogni altra figura, et li pare allui che questo sia troppo gran cosa,
la quale quantunque alcun autor non havesse mai parlato, se potria trovar di dimostrarla
in piu modi, cioe ch'eglie piu capace de ogni figura isoperimetra per le cose dimostrate da
Archimede, et anchora da Cardinal de Cusa: In quelIo de trasmutationibus (I) geometricis,
e per questo conosco che contien poco fugo."
16 See Volume I, pp. 630-31.
17 Quesiti et inventione, Book IX, Ques. 40, 129r: "Dapoi vedendo anchora che lui non sa
risolvere quelIa ultima questione geometrica ch'e una cosa facile, (perche la maggior dif-
ficulta che occorra nelIa risolution di quelIa e asaper ritrovar le due partiale linee ce et
af le quale son medie in continua proportionalita fra li dui lati del paralelIogramo ac delli
quali luno e 2 et laltro 3 dal presupposito et trovate queUe con facilita se ritrovara la
quantita de la linea de over df) 10 giudico di poco discorso." I have italicized the letters
indicating magnitudes and removed the periods with which they were set off by Tartaglia.
of the De ratione ponderis attributed to Jordanus). After the presentation
of his proposition, Mendoza says: 18
This is a very beautiful proposition, but it appears to me (if I remember correctly)
that Archimedes the Syracusan poses a similar one, although it seems to me that
he does not demonstrate it with your method. NICOLO. Your Excellency is
right. Indeed he makes two propositions out of this proposition, and these are
the fourth and fifth of that book in which he treats of the centers [of gravity]
of such heavy bodies; and in fact he demonstrates these two propositions
succinctly by means of the principles previously posited and demonstrated in his
work (da lui). And since his principles or arguments would not be suitable for
this treatise [of ours] by the fact that [their] subject matter is somewhat different
from that [of ours], it appeared best in this place to demonstrate such propositions
with other principles or arguments more appropriate here.
The reference to the Archimedean propositions as "the fourth and fifth"
is, of course, an indication that Tartaglia is referring to the Moerbeke trans-
lation of On the Equilibrium of Planes rather than to the translation of
Cremonensis where the propositions are numbered 6 and 7. Tartaglia's
citation, then, is no doubt to the Moerbeke text as it appears in manu-
script M. A succeeding reference to the work cites no proposition number
but must also be to the same text.
19
While there is little doubt that these
two references are to the Moerbeke text of manuscript M, there remains
the problem as to when they were composed. Is this account an accurate
description of an actual conversation that took place in about 1539 or was
it composed later (say, just before its publication in 1546) when, with
literary license, he reported the substance of his exchange with Mendoza
but not its very words? This is a perennial problem when a work in the
dialogue form must be examined for historical evidence, and there is no
surer answer here than there is in most such cases.
The first unambiguous reference to the Madrid manuscript and its future
18 Ibid., Book VIII, Ques. 35, 93r-v: "S. AMBASCIATOR. Questa e una assai bella
propositione, ma el me pare se ben me aricordo che Archimede Syracusano, ne ponga una
simile, ma el non mi pare che lui la dimostri per questo vostro modo. NICOLO. Vostra
Signoria dice la verita, anci di tal propositione lui ne fa due propositioni, et queste sono
la quarta et quinta di quellibro dove tratta delli centri delle cose grave, et in effetto tai due
propositioni lui le dimostra sucintamente per li suoi principii da lui per avanti posti, et
demostrati, et perche tai sui principi, over argomenti, non se convegnariano in questo
trattato, per eSSer materia alquanto diversa da quella, ne apparso in questo luoco de di-
mostrare tal propositioni con altri principii, over argomenti piu convenienti in questo luoco."
Cf. Drake and Drabkin, Mechanics in Sixteenth-Century Italy, p. 134.
19 Ibid., Book VIII, Ques. 36, 93v: "El primo di quali equesto ch'eglie manifesto per le
cose dimostrate da Archimede in quello del centro della gravita che tanto pesa il solidofe
in tal positione nella detta libra quanto che faria se quello fusse anchora lui appeso per-
pendicolarmente in ponto d, perche in tal ponto d vi sotto giace et centro della gravita de
tal solido...." Cf. Drake and Drabkin, Mechanics in Sixteenth-Century Italy, p. 135. I
say this citation must be to the text in M not only because the other citation was but also
because Tartaglia entitles the work in quellodel centra della gravita, which is similar to the
first part of the title as it appears in the text in M.
publication occurs, I believe, in Book IX of the Quesiti in Tartaglia's
answer to a query from his English student Richard Wentworth. The
query is dated 1541 and Tartaglia's answer indicates that he has decided
to compose a work on arithmetic, geometry, and a new algebra "as soon
as I have finished translating Euclid and correcting the figures and errors
made by the scribes and translators of Archimedes of Syracuse. "20 Since,
as we shall see in a moment, Tartaglia stressed his role of correcting
the text and figures in the preface to his Archimedean publication of 1543,
and this work was primarily done on the basis of manuscript M, it seems
likely that it was this Latin manuscript that he had in mind in his refer-
ence of 1541.
Tartaglia's edition of 1543 has stimulated some controversy as to
Tartaglia's role in the preparation of the texts presented, which comprised
four translations of Moerbeke: 1) On the Equilibrium of Planes, Books I
and II, 2) On the Quadrature of the Parabola, 3) On the Measurement
of the Circle, and 4) On Floating Bodies (Book I only; no direct mention
is made of the fact that this is only Book I). Works 2) and 3) he merely
republished from Gaurico with only an occasional correction, as the variant
readings to my texts of these works given in Volume Two demonstrate.
Works 1) and 4) were printed for the first time in any language from
Manuscript M (or a faithful copy of it). Before the discovery and identi-
fication of Moerbeke's translations by Valentin Rose in 1881 (who
published his findings in 1884)21 it was generally believed that Tartaglia
had made a Latin translation of the texts from a Greek manuscript, at
least for his texts of On the Equilibrium ofPlanes and On Floating Bodies
(e.g. see the title page of the English translation of On Floating Bodies
attributed to Thomas Salusbury and given in Section III of this
chapter; in fact this was still assumed in Heiberg's first edition of
the Opera of Archimedes published in Leipzig in 1880-81).22 Naturally,
after 1884 it became immediately evident, particularly with the discovery
of the Madrid manuscript by Heiberg, that Tartaglia had provided in his
publication the translations of William of Moerbeke rather than trans-
20 Ibid., Book IX, Ques. 42, 130r: "Ma perche ho deliberato; subito che habbia ispedito
di tradur Euclide, et di corregere le figure, et altri errori fatti da scrittori et traduttori sopra
Archimede Siracusano, di componere una opera in la practica di Arithmetica, et Geometria,
et insieme con quella una nova Algebra.
21 V. Rose, "Archimedes im Jahre 1269," Deutsche Litteraturzeitung, 5. Jahrgang (1884),
cc. 210-13.
22 However, before Rose's discovery, Heiberg suggested C"Archimedis 'TT'pt 0XOV/LEV(i)V
Liber I Graece restituit Johan Ludvig Heiberg," Melanges Graux [Paris, 1884], p. 691, whole
article pp. 690-709) that it was ambiguous as to whether Tartaglia himself made the transla-
tions or whether he found them already translated into Latin, the second alternative of which
Heiberg preferred to believe (" ... ambigitur, utrum Tartalea nostros quoque libros ipse
Latine verterit, an eos iam Latine versos invenerit, quod equidem potius crediderim ...' ').
The reaction to Rose's discovery of MS Ottob. lat. 1850 by Heiberg was reflected in his
"Neue Studien zu Archimedes," Abhandlungen zur Geschichte der Mathematik, 5. Heft
(1890), pp. 1-84.
lations of his own. The question, then, that immediately comes to mind
is this: how did it happen that virtually all writers before the late nine-
teenth century accepted these Archimedean translations as being by
Tartaglia? Although such a claim is not made in the title to the 1543
edition, one does get the impression from the title that a Greek exemplar
was used by Tartaglia. Here is that title in full: Opera Archimedis Syra-
cusani philosophi et mathematici ingeniossissimi per Nicolaum Tartaleam
Brixianum (mathematicarum sdentiarum cultorem) multis erroribus
emendata, expurgata, ac in luce posita, multisque necessariis additis,
quae plurimis lods intellectu difficillima erant, commentariolis sane
luculentis et eruditissimis aperta, explicata atque illustrata existunt,
Appositisque manu propria figuris quae graeco exemplari deformatae ac
depravatae erant, ad rectissimam Symetriam omnia instaurata reducta et
reformata elucent. The key expression in the title is ac in luce posita,
Le., "put into light," which ordinarily merely means' 'published." Hence,
if we had the title alone as evidence, we would only conclude that Tartaglia
had published the work and that he had corrected it and restored some
of the figures which were corrupted and distorted in a Greek exemplar.
However, when we read Tartaglia's preface, which to be sure is also
ambiguous, we are certainly left with the impression that Tartaglia has
translated the works from an old Greek manuscript which had come
into his hands:
23
Since by chance, most honored companion, there had come into my hands certain
fragmentary books which could scarcely be read and which were written in a
Greek hand [and composed by] the celebrated philosopher Archimedes (who, by
the acumen of his genius and by certain machines, for a while kept the city of
Syracuse secure and safe against the attack of Marcellus, Consul of the Romans),
23 N. Tartaglia, ed., Opera Archimedis (Venice, 1543), 2r: "Cum sorte quadam, Compater
honorandissime, ad manus meas pervenissent fracti et qui vix legi poterant quidam libri
manu graeca scripti illius celeberrimi Philosophi Arehimedis, qui cum ingenii acumine, tum
machinis quibusdam Syracusanam urbem contra Marcelli Romanorum consulis impetum diu
tutam et incolumen conservavit: cumque ego maxime cupidus essem perspiciendi an tanta
huius viri esset doctrina et scientia, quantam antiquorum monumentis ponderari: atque
aestimari perceperam, omnem operam meam, omne studium, et curam adhibui ut nostram
in linguam, quae partes eorum legi poterant: converterentur, quod sane difficile foil. Nam
et temporum vetustate, et eorum incuria, qui hosce libros detinuerant, errores non paucos
fuisse corrigendos, certe scias velim. Visis autem horum titulis librorum, et perlecto
universo opere, Philosophum hune, et magna et constanti fama clarissimum habitum, longe
maiorem: et clariorem etiam inventum fuisse mihi clarissime patuit. Ideo cupidus ego (ut
dixi) hosce libros perspexi, ordine procurri (! percurri), et omnia demum diligentissime
perpendi; verum cum locos multos depravatos: et figuras quasdam ineptas, et ad rem nihil
facientes offendissem, ab incepto desistere pene coactus sum. Sed desiderio incredibili id
opus inspiciendi accensus, magna ex parte erroribus purgatum, et propria manu figuris aptis,
et propriis oppositis, luce dignum censui, et maxime earn partem, quam et verbis et ex-
emplis, quantum in me fuit dilucidam reddidi: donec totum opus, quod (ut spero) brevi a
me fiet, omnino castigetur." I have altered the punctuation slightly and changed consonantal
H
U
" to ~ ~ v
and since I was very desirous of seeing whether the science and the learning of
this man was such that I should be able to perceive how the testimonies of
the ancient writers were to be weighed andjudged-[for these reasons] I devoted
all my labor, all my zeal and care, so that the parts of those [books] which
could be read might be turned into our language, which was a difficult enough
task. For I should certainly like you to know that, as the result of their age and
the neglect of those who had kept these books, there were many errors which
had to be corrected. After I had examined the titles of these books and read
through the whole work, it became very clear to me that this philosopher, already
considered as most famous with a great and abiding reputation, was actually even
greater and more famous [than the ancient writers had declared]. Therefore, being
desirous as I have said, I examined these books, put them in order and then
considered everything most diligently. Still, when I came up against the many
corrupt passages and certain inept figures making no sense, I was almost forced
to desist from the undertaking. But fired with an incredible desire for consulting
that work, I judged it worthy to be published when purged in great part of its
errors and after I had added figures in my own hand in their appropriate places,
and most particularly [I thought worthy of publishing] that part which I rendered
as clearly as I could by words and examples, until such time as the whole work
-which (I hope) may be finished shortly-may be completely corrected.
One is immediately struck by the similarity of his reaction to the dis-
covery and exploitation of the manuscript "in a Greek hand" here and
the Latin manuscript of Verona mentioned earlier. It is almost as if he
had adopted this kind of description as a heroic device that would magnify
his accomplishments in an academic area where one would not expect an
autodidact to excel. And of course it would be even more heroic if the
manuscript to be interpreted were Greek rather than Latin. There is no
evidence that Tartaglia knew Greek in spite of the fact that the inventory
made of his books after his death lists a Greek lexicon (Venice, Archivio
di stato, Sezione notarile aUi, not. Rocco dei Benedetti, filza 425, 358r).
On the contrary, in a Riposta published on 23 June, 1547, he frankly
asserted his incompetence in Greek (see below, note 42). Furthermore, it is
clear that his description in the preface to the edition of 1543 is really
of the Latin manuscript now in Madrid, as indeed the texts actually pub-
lished prove, and he did, as he suggests, make some corrections in the
figures and some corrections in the text as present in manuscript M. He
could have seen Greek manuscript E, i.e. Bessarion's copy, that was in
the San Marco library in Venice.
24
But we know for certain that Tartaglia
had seen no Greek manuscript of at least one of the works published
by Tartaglia, namely, On Floating Bodies. The unique text in Greek
24 Unfortunately, the extant registers of books loaned by the San Marco library cover
only the periods 1545-48 and 1552-59 (see the work cited in Sect. III below, note 8),
and hence if Tartaglia had borrowed either Bessarlon's copy of the Greek text (Greek
MS E) or his copy of the Cremonensis translation (MS Bibl. Naz. Marc. f.a.327) we would
have no record of it. Actually, I think it quite unlikely that he borrowed either manu-
script, for something more of their contents would have been reflected in one or another of
Tartaglia's works had he done so.
manuscript B had long since been missing and was not included in
Bessarion's copy made from Greek manuscript A. Furthermore, Tartaglia
strongly implies his ignorance of the Greek text of that work in the dedica-
tion to his Ragionamenti in the Regola generale of 1551. There he ad-
dresses Count Antonio Landriano and indicates that the Count had told
him he was desirous "of finding and seeing the original Greek [text]" of
On Floating Bodies, and of the works "put into light" by Tartaglia (see
text below at the end of this section). Tartaglia understands that this
request was inspired by the obscurity of expression "in the said transla-
tion. " Tartaglia concludes by saying that he has sought to save the Count
the difficult task "of seeking out such an original Greek [text] which
will perhaps be found to be more obscure and more incorrect than the
said Latin translation" by undertaking the Italian translation and com-
mentary presented here in the first ragionamento. These are surely the
words of a man who has not himself seen the Greek text and is not
claiming to have translated it.
To return to Tartaglia's preface to his Archimedean works of 1543,
we should note that Tartaglia's remark at the end of the passage con-
cerning the work yet unfinished or uncorrected merely is a veiled refer-
ence to the fact that he is publishing only the first book of the On Floating
Bodies (although he nowhere indicates that this is Book I only), while the
Madrid manuscript actually included both books of that tract. One can
imagine his reluctance to publish the second book as he examined the
rather corrupt version that Moerbeke had made from a quite corrupt
copy in Greek manuscript B. The remark may also refer to the fact that
Eutocius' Commentary on the Equilibrium of Planes (also present in the
Madrid manuscript) was not given in the 1543 edition nor was his copy
(or translation?) of On the Sphere and the Cylinder from the Verona
codex.
Not only did his ambiguous preface lead many to the false conclusion
that Tartaglia had made the translations but no doubt his occasional intro-
duction of a comment under the rubric interpres reinforced that conclu-
sion, although of course interpres may mean "expositor" as well as
"translator." But, in fact, the whole question of whether Tartaglia
is deliberately claiming more for himself than is justified in preparation
of the texts is, to me, not very interesting. The important points to
decide are: (1) What were Tartaglia's additions and corrections to the
Moerbeke texts? (2) What kind of influence did the texts have on six-
teenth-century mathematics and science? The largest number of addi-
tions made by Tartaglia occur in comments made to the petitiones of
Book I of On the Equilibrium of Planes and I give them here in toto
(cf. Volume Two above, 17rA-E, for the translation of William of
Moerbeke):25
25 Opera Archimedis (Venice, 1543), 2v-4v: "Diffinitio prima a Nicolao Tartalea Brixiano
interprete addita. Centrum gravitatis planae figurae dicitur punctus a quo suspensa manet
aequidistans orizonti. Exempli gratia sit triangulus abc [Fig. III.4.2.1(A)] et inter ipsum sit
aliquod punctum (!) ut d a quo suspensum maneat totaliter aequidistans orizonti, ut in
secunda figura apparet [Fig. III.4.2.1(B)], talis punctus centrum gravitatis nuncupabitur, et
sic oportet intelligere in aJiis figuris rectis lineis, aut curvis lineis.
"Diffinitio ii a N.T.B. interprete addita. Centrum gravitatis duarum aut plurium mag-
nitudinum dicitur punctus a quo suspensa libra est aequidistans orizonti. Ut puta existente
libra ab [Fig. III A.2.2(A)] et suspensis ex ipsa magnitudinibus a, b (aequales aut inaequaJes)
si libra suspensa a puncto c habeat partes aequaliter repentes manent aequidistantes ori-
zonti, et centrum gravitatis magnitudinum a, b erit ipsum c. et sic oportet intelligere
plurium magnitudinum ut in secunda figuratione apparet [Fig. IIIA.2.2(B)].
"Petitiones sunt sex. Petitio prima. Petimus aequaJes gravitates aequaJibus longitudinibus
aequaJiter inclinare. Interpres. Ut exempli gratia si gravitas a gravitati b [Fig. 11104.2.3]
aequalis fuerit, ac longitudo ac longitudini cb. suspensa autem libra a signo c, Auctor petit
in taJi casu quod sit ei concessum gravitates a et b aequaliter inclinare, quod non est
negandum.
"Petitio ii. AequaJes autem gravitates ab inaequaJibus longitudinibus non aequaliter in-
clinare sed inclinare ad gravitatem quae a maiori longitudine. Interpres. Ut si gravitas a
gravitati b [Fig. 111.4.204] aequaJis fuerit. longitudo autem ac maiorem (!) longitudine cb,
suspensa autem libram (I) a signo c, similiter petit in tali casu quod sit ei concessum
gravitates a et b non aequaJiter inclinare sed inclinare ad gravitatem quae a maiori longi-
tudine. scilicet a longitudine ac.
"Petitio iii. Si gravitatibus, aequaJiter inclinantibus, ab aliquibus longitudinibus, ad alteram
gravitatum apponatur, non aequaJiter inclinare sed inclinare ad gravitatem illam cui additum
est. Similiter autem et si ab aJtera gravitatum aufferatur aJiquid, non aequaliter in-
clinare sed repere ad gravitatem a qua non ablatum est. Interpres. Ut si duae gravitates
a et b aut aequaliter inclinantes a duabus longitudinibus aut brachiis
ac et be [Fig. IIIA.2.5(A)] ab, similiter petit in tali casu quod sit ei concessum quod
si ad alteram apponatur, ut puta ad gravitatema, gravitas d, non inclinare sed in-
clinare ad gravitatem a, scilicet illam cui additum est. Similiter autem si ab aJtera dictarum
gravitatum aufferatur aJiquid, ut pote a gravitate a, pars e [Fig. III.4.2.5(B), non
inclinare sed inclinare ad gravitatem b, scilicet illam a qua non ablatum est.
"Petitio iiii. Aequalium et similium figurarum planarum ad'aptatas [1 adaptatarum]
invicem et centra gravitatum adaptantur adinvicem. Interpres. Ut si duo triangula abc, de!
fuerint similia ac aequalia [Fig. IIIA.2.6], centrum autem gravitatis ipsius quidem abc sit
g, ipsius autem de!, h. adaptatas (!) invicem triangula abc, de!, auctor in tali casu petit
quod sit ei concessum quod et centra gravitatum adaptantur adinvicem, scilicet centrum
g super centrum h, et hoc opportet intelligere in omni specie aequalium et adsimilium
figurarum planarum.
"Petitio v. InaequaJium vero sed similium centra gravitatum similiter erunt posita.
Similiter autem dicimus signa poni ad similes figuras a quibus ad aequaJes angulos recte
ducte faciunt aequales angulos ad latera correspondentia. Interpres. Exempli gratia si fuerint
duo triangula inaequalia sed similia, ut puta abc et de! [Fig. IIIA.2.7], petit in taJi casu
quod si ei concessum, quod centra gravitatum ipsorum sint similiter posita, scilicet quod
recte ducte ab ipsis centris ad aequales angulos dictorum triangulorum faciant aequaJes
angulos ad latera correspondentia; verbi gratia in praedictis duobus triangulis, centra
gravitatum ipsius quidem abc sit g, ipsius autem de! sit h, et copulentur ga, gb, gc,
similiter hd, he, hi, et sit latus ab relativus sive correspondens ad de, et ae ad dj, et
be ad e!. et angulus a erit aequale (!) angulo d, et b ad e, et e ad!, vult quod sit con-
cessum quod due linee ga et hd faciant aequaJes angulos ad latera correspondentia sive
relativa. scilicet angulus gac aequale (I) angulo hd!, et gab, hde et sic de caeteris.
"Petitio vi. Omnis figurae cuius perimeter ad eandem partem cava fuerit centrum gravi-
tatis oportet esse intra figuram. Interpres. Antequam perveniamus ad declarationem istius
petitionis oportet diffinire quid sit figura cuius perimeter est cava ad eandem partem, et quae
ad diversas. Figura ergo cuius perimeter ad eandem partem cava fuerit est ut figura a
[Fig. 11104.2.8] et alie similes, scilicet portiones circulorum et figurarum parabolarum et
similes. Figura autem cuius perimeter ad partes diversas cava fuerit est ut figura b et
aJie similes. Auctor ergo petit quod similiter sit ei concessum quod omnis figurae ut a,
et similes, sit necesse centrum eius gravitatis esse intra figuram, in figura autem b et
aliis similis (!) hoc non est necessarium quia aliquando potest esse extra figuram, videlicet
The first definition added by the interpreter Niccolo Tartaglia of Brescia.
The center of gravity of a plane figure is said to be the point from which the
figure is suspended for it to remain parallel to the horizon.
For example, let there be a triangle abc [see Fig. 1II.4.2.1(A)] and let there
be in it some point like d from which it is suspended for it to remain completely
parallel to the horizon (as appears in the second figure [Fig. III.4.2.1(B)]). The
same thing must be understood in other rectilinear or curvilinear figures.
Definition ii added by the interpreter N. T. B.
The center of gravity of two or more magnitudes is said to be the point from
which a balance [on which the two magnitudes are placed] is suspended for it
to be parallel to the horizon.
For example, in the case of balance ab with magnitudes a and b (either equal
or unequal) suspended from it [see Fig. 1II.4.2.2(A)], when the balance is sus-
pended from point c so that it has parts that equally incline [Le. are in
equilibrium], they remain parallel to the horizon and the center of gravity of
magnitudes a and b will be this point c. And it is necessary to understand the
case of several magnitudes in the same way (as appears in the second figure
[Fig. III.4.2.2(B)]).
The postulates are six in number.
The first postulate.
We postulate that equal weights at equal distances incline equally [i.e. they
are in equilibrium].
Interpreter.
For example, if weight a is equal to weight b [see Fig. III.4.2.3] and length
ac is equal to length cb, while the balance is suspended from point c, the author
in such a case asks it be conceded to him that weights a and b equally incline
[i.e., are in equilibrium], which is not to be denied.
Postulate ii.
However, equal weights at unequal distances do not incline equally [i.e., are
not in equilibrium] but incline toward the weight which is at the greater distance.
Interpreter.
For example, if weight a is equal to weight b [see Fig. IIIA.2.4], while length
ac is greater than length cb, and the balance is suspended from point c, he
similarly asks in such a case it be conceded to him that weights a and b do not
incline equally but incline toward the weight which is at the greater distance,
Le. at length ac.
in concavitate c, quod oportebat declarare." Here, as in the preceding and succeeding
notes, I have italicized the letters indicating magnitudes and removed the periods within
which Tartaglia included them. I have also altered the punctuation somewhat. In a few
places, I have noted his errant grammar by the use of exclamation points. The original
paragraphing is maintained in my translation but not in this note. Finally, I have sub-
stituted "v" for "u" when the latter has the value of "v" and conversely "u" for "v"
when the latter has the value of "u". In the original text Tartaglia's comments on the
definitions are given in italic type, but I have given them in roman type.
Postulate iii.
If, when weights at certain distances incline equally [i.e., are in equilibrium],
something be added to one of the weights, they do not [then] incline equally but
incline toward the weight to which something has been added.
Similarly if something is taken away from one of the weights, they do not
incline equally but incline toward the weight from which nothing has been taken
away.
Interpreter.
For example, if two weights a and b (equal or unequal) which equally incline
at two lengths or arms ae and be of balance ab [see Fig. III.4.2.5(A)], he simi-
larly asks it be conceded to him that in such a case, if d is added to one [of
the weights], e.g., to weight a, they do not incline equally but incline toward
weight a, i.e., toward the weight to which [d] has been added.
In the same way, if something is taken away from one of the said weights, e.g.,
part e from weight a [see Fig. IIIA.2.5(B)], they do not incline equally but
incline toward weight b, i.e. toward the weight from which nothing has been taken
away.
Postulate iv.
When equal and similar plane figures coincide their centers of gravity coincide.
Interpreter.
For example, if two triangles abe, del are similar and equal, while the center
of gravity of abe is g and that of del is h, and the triangles abe and del coincide
[Fig. III.4.2.6], the author asks in such a case it be conceded to him that the
centers of gravity coincide, namely, g with h; and it would be necessary to
understand this in every species of equal and similar plane figures.
Postulate v.
In the case of unequal but similar [plane figures] the centers of gravity will
be similarly situated. Points are said to be similarly situated with respect to similar
figures if straight lines drawn from them to equal angles make equal angles
with the corresponding sides.
Interpreter.
For example, if there are two unequal but similar triangles, e.g., abe and del
[see Fig. III.4.2.7], he asks in such a case it be conceded to him that their centers
of gravity are similarly situated, namely, that the straight lines drawn from their
centers to equal angles make equal angles with the corresponding sides. For ex-
ample, in the aforesaid two triangles, the centers of gravity are g of abe and
h of del, and ga, gb, and ge are drawn and similarly hd, he and hi; and let
side ab be relative or corresponding to de, ae to dl and be to el, and angle a
will be equal to angle d, b to e and e to I. He asks it be conceded that the
two lines ga and hd make equal angles with the relative or corresponding sides,
i.e. that Lgae = Lhdf, Lgab = Lhde, and so on for the others.
Postulate vi.
In every figure whose perimeter is concave in the same direction the center of
gravity must be within the figure.
Interpreter.
Before we come to an explanation of this postulate, it is necessary to define
what constitutes a figure whose perimeter is concave in the same direction and
one concave in different directions.
Hence a figure whose perimeter is concave in the same direction is like figure
a [see Fig. III.4.2.8] and other similar figures, namely, segments of circles and
parabolic figures and other like figures.
But a figure whose perimeter is concave in different directions is like figure
b and other similar figures. Therefore, the author asks it be conceded to him
in the same way that every figure like a and other similar figures necessarily
has its center of gravity within the figure; while in figure b and other similar figures
this is not necessary, because sometimes it can be outside of the figure;
for example, it can be in hollow c, which was necessary to explain.
In my translation, I have rendered Tartaglia's designation of himself
as interpres by the equally ambiguous English word "interpreter," in
view of my earlier discussion of whether or not he was claiming to be
the translator. In connection with the definitions and postulates them-
selves, it should first be remarked that Tartaglia's own definitions, which
precede Archimedes' postulates, were in fact supplied to him by his
reading of Eutocius' Commentary on the Equilibrium of Planes in manu-
script M (see Volume Two, 53rA-M). In his first definition, Tartaglia,
perhaps under the influence of Eutocius' introductory remarks, has
changed Moerbeke's ropes to gravitatis and his manet to maneat; other-
wise he has taken the definition verbatim from the Moerbeke translation
of Eutocius. Tartaglia's example supporting the definition is also that of
Eutocius, although certain verbal changes have been made and Eutocius'
comment has been slightly expanded. The same situation prevails in
Tartaglia's second definition. The expression ropes vel gravitatis becomes
gravitatis, and planorum is changed to magnitudinum. In the explanation
of his second definition, Tartaglia has added to Moerbeke' s rendering of
Eutocius' magnitudinibus a, b the phrase (aequales aut inaequales) and
he has changed the phrase centrum suspensionis to centrum gravitatis.
Tartaglia's various explanations for the petitiones i-iii are original with
himand thus do not appear in Eutocius' commentary. They are all obvious.
In Tartaglia's comments to petitiones iv-vi, he has been influenced by
Eutocius' commentary but tends to express the ideas in his own way.
In the case of his petitio vi (he inadvertently omitted the petitio which
I have designated as number 6 in my text of the Moerbeke translation
in Volume Two, 17rD). Tartaglia does not attempt to define a figure ad
eandem partem cava but merely to give a diagram illustrating it, and
similarly for a figure ad partes diversas cava. In omitting definitions
and giving figures, he is doing the same thing that Eutocius did in his
commentary. However, Tartaglia's second figure is completely different
from that of Eutocius' (see Volume Two, Fig. Ee. 3). Furthermore,
Tartaglia has ignored Eutocius' comment (ibid., 53rK) that he has plainly
stated what figures "concave in the same directions" are in his com-
mentary on the Proemium of Archimedes' On the Sphere and the Cylinder
(ibid., 34rH-I). Indeed, it is rather surprising that Tartaglia did not refer to
the definition of lines concave in the same directions which Archimedes
gives in On the Sphere and the Cylinder, if I am correct in my earlier
suggestion that Tartaglia had already translated this work of Archimedes
into Italian. Perhaps he thought the figures would suffice.
To the remainder of On the Equilibrium of Planes, Tartaglia added
only three comments. The first precedes Proposition 1 (=Gr Prop. 3)
and is an attempt to differentiate theorem, problem, and porism:
26
For they call a "theorem" that which is proposed for the demonstration of
the very thing proposed, but a "problem" that which is enunciated for the con-
struction of the very thing proposed, and [finally] a "porism" that which is pro-
posed for the acquisition of the very thing proposed.
My rendering of this comment is excessively literal because of Tar-
taglia's somewhat ambiguous language. Still the intent of his definitions
of "theorem" and "problem" is, I believe, clear enough: a proposition is
designated as a "theorem" when its aim is the demonstration of the propo-
sition but it is designated as a "problem" when its aim is a con-
struction. This is the conventional distinction indicated by Proclus in his
Commentary on the First Book of Euclid's Elements (ed. G. Friedlein
[Leipzig, 1873], p. 201). But Tartaglia's statement concerning a porism is
more difficult. Proeius indicates two meanings of porism. In the first one,
it is a proposition whose establishment is an incidental result of another
proposition, i.e., a corollary; in the second, it is a proposition "whose
solution requires discovery, not merely construction or simple theory"
(ibid., p. 301). The second kind are the porisms that Euclid uses and in-
volve "independent propositions" intermediate between theorems and
problems (' 'requiring us not to bring a thing into existence but to find
26 Ibid., 5r: "Dixerunt enim Theorema esse quidem quod premittitur ad demonstrationem
ipsius quod premittitur: Problema autem quod preiacitur ad construstionem (!) ipsius quod
premittitur: Porisma autem quod premittitur ad acquisitionem ipsius quod premittitur." Cf.
TartagIia's remarks in his Euclide Megarense (Venice, 1543), 4v (erroneously given as "Fo.
Ill"): "Le propositioni adonque che ci conducono nella speculativa Grecamente si dicono
Theoreme: et queUe che ci guidano alIa operativa si dicono Probleme. Et da dette
Probleme si apprende il modo dela via di dissegnar, discrivere, in[s]crivere, circonscrivere,
divider, e formar non solamente ogni qualita di figura superficiale con tutte quelle ac-
cidental conditioni che occorrer possano in Pittura, Prospettiva, lchnographia, Corographia,
Scenographia, Geographia, et Cosmographia, ma anchora ogni varia qualita di corpo solido
con tutte quelIe sortil et accidental conditioni che occorrer possano non solamente neUa
Orthographia, Scultura, et Architettura ma in ogni altra ingeniosa operatione da queste de-
pendente, come procedendo manifestamente si potra vedere."
something we know to exist' ').27 I think it is the second meaning that
is intended by Tartaglia.
Indeed notice that Proclus was essentially distinguishing porism in his
second sense from a problem and theorem as was Tartaglia. No doubt
the distinctions of Proclus were at the base of Tartaglia's comment. The
Greek text of Proclus was published by Simon Grynee as an annex to
his editio princeps of the Greek text of Euclid in 1533. A Latin transla-
tion of Proclus was made by B. Zamberti, the Venetian who had made
a Latin translation from the Greek of the Elements (Venice, 1505). While
Zamberti's translation of Proclus was never printed, there is a manu-
script of it at Munich (Bay. Staatsbibl. 6) which is dated 1539.
28
I would
suppose that Zamberti showed this translation to Tartaglia in Venice. If
so, it would probably have been the source of Tartaglia's comment.
The second of Tartaglia's additional comments is to Proposition 5 of
Book II:29
It is to be noted that line rh is the diameter of segment atb (by [Proposition]
1.46 and the first definition of Apollonius of Perga). So also is line kz [the diameter]
of segment bkg.
27 Euclid, The Elements, transl. ofT. L. Heath, 2nd ed., Vol. I (Cambridge, 1926), p. 278.
28 This manuscript is described in the Catalogus codicum latinorum Bibliothecae Regiae
Monacensis, Vol. I, Part I, 2nd ed. (Munich, 1892), p. 3: "6 2. saec. XVI.459 fol.
Euclidis elementorum libri XV cum Prodi, Barlaami et Hypsiclis commentariis. f. 439
Euclidis specularia. f. 448 Eiusdem phaenomena, omnia Bartholomeo Zamberto Veneto
interprete. Subscriptioni libri quarti Prodi haec addita sunt fol. 154: Anno Salutis
MDXXXVIIII Mense septimo: anno interpretis VI et LX absoluto." The Proclus
commentary thus extends from folio Ir to 154v, where in the colophon the translator indicates
the date of A.D. 1539, speaking of it as his sixty-sixth year. The key passage describing
both usages of "porism" and distinguishing the second meaning from a simple "theorem"
or from a "problem" occurs on folio IOlr-v: "Corrolarium [i.e. porisma] ex geometricis
nominibus unum est. Hoc autem dupliciter accidit: corrolaria autem vocant etiam
quaecunque theoremata quae ex demonstrationibus aliorum simul praeparant tanquam
lucra quaedam existentia his qui quaerunt et quaecunque quaerunt inventione indegent
(!): neque sola generatione [sicut problemata] neque inspectione simplici [i.e. theoria, sicut
theoremata]. Namque in equicruriis triangulis anguli qui in basi resident sint aequales
inspectione opus est, et taIis cognitio earum est rerum quae extant. Angulum vero
bifariam secare, vel triangulum constituere, vel auferre vel addere, haec omnia structuram
alicuius edictant. Dati vero circuli centrum invenire, vel quaecunque taIia convenienter
modo quoddam (! quodam) inter problemata et theoremata resident, in his enim neque
sunt generationes quaesitorum sed inventiones neque tenuis inspectio [i.e. theoria]." I have
rendered Zamberti's as "ae." The bracketed words are my additions for the
reader's convenience. The difficulty with claiming that Tartaglia simply took his distinction
from the passage in Zamberti's translation is that Zamberti translates rrOpUIjLa as
corrolarium rather than as porisma, as it appears in Tartaglia's comment. Perh:tps Tartaglia
compared the Greek text of Grynee with Zamberti's translation. If so, he would have
immediately discovered the Greek term that Zamberti was translating. It is, of course,
possible that, since they both lived in Venice, Tartaglia and Zamberti discussed this and
other passages in Proclus' commentary.
29 Opera Archimedis (Venice, 1543), Bv: "Interpres. Notandum est quod linea th est
dyameter portionis atb (per 46 primi et diffinitionem primam) Apolloni[i] pergei ac linea
kz portionis bkg." The closing parenthesis is obviously in the wrong place and I have
restored it to its correct place in my translation.
The two lines here mentioned are designated as diameters of the (two
parabolic) segments by Eutocius in his commentary to this passage
(Volume Two, 53vU) but no mention is made by him of Apollonius.
The reference by Tartaglia to 1.46 of Apollonius is appropriate enough
since lines th and kz are parallel to the diameter of the whole parabola
and each bisects the base of the respective parabolic segments (and the
base of each segment would be parallel to the tangent mentioned in 1.46).
Thus they would bisect all the lines parallel to their respective bases. But
such a line that bisects the chords parallel to the base is by definition a
diameter of the segment. It might seem strange that Tartaglia says that
it is by the first definition of the Conics. However, in the Latin translation
that Tartaglia certainly used, namely that of his friend Giambattista
Memmo (Venice, 1537), the definitions at the front of Book 1 are not
individually numbered but all appear under the rubric Diffinitiones primae
(2v). The definition of the diameter actually appears as the first of the
second collection of definitions: "Omnis curvae lineae, quae est in uno
pIano, Diametrum voco lineam quae ducta a curva linea omnes ductas in
linea rectas lineas recte cuidam equidistantes in duas partes dividit."
Proposition 1.46 in Memmo's translation is erroneously presented but pre-
sumably would be clear enough to someone following the whole proposi-
tion and proof.
30
Finally, in connection with On the Equilibrium of Planes, Tartaglia has
added a lengthy comment to Proposition 10 of Book 11 that is taken
almost verbatim from Moerbeke's translation of Eutocius' commentary
(see Volume Two, 55rC-H) without acknowledgment, except that
Tartaglia has altered the lettering and added references to the Quadratura
parabolae, to Euclid's Elements and to the Conics of Apollonius.
31
Moving to Tartaglia's text of On the Quadrature ofthe Parabola, we can
30 ApoUonius, Opera (Venice, 1537), Bk. I, Prop. 46, 23r: "Propositio Quadragesimasexta.
Si parabolem linea tangens coincidat diametro, ducta per tactum equidistans Diametro ad
eadem sectioni, ductas in sectione ad tangentem [equidistantes] per medium secabit."
Memmo's text omits the crucial "equidistantes" which I have added in brackets.
31 Opera Archimedis (Venice, 1543), 18v-I9r: "Interpres. Quod autem cubum (f) qui
ab az ad cubum qui a dh sit ut portio abg ad portionem dbe sic patet. Quoniam enim
demonstratum est ab ipso (in ilIo quem [I] dicitur de quadratura parabolae) quod portio
abg est epytrica trigoni abg et portio dbe trigoni dbe, ergo ut portio abg ad trigonum abg
ita portio deb ad trigonum deb et permutatim ut portio ad portionem sic est trigonum ad
trigonum; quare et medietates ipsorum ut portio abg ad portionem deb ita trigonum azh
ad trigonum dhb. Quare et si descripsimus paralellogromma (I) dupla trigonorum erunt
aequiangula, quia dh et az sunt aequidistantes, quare et portionem habebunt compositam
ex proportione laterum, scilicet az ad dh et zb ad bh (per 25 sexti Euclydis), eadem
enim proportio est trigonorum et portionum. Portio ergo ad portionem habet proportionem
compositam ex proportione ipsius az ad dh et ex proportione zb ad bh, proportio enim
ipsius zb ad bh est eadem cum proportione tetragoni quod ab az ad tetragonum quod a
dh (per 20 propositionem primi Apolloni[i] pergei). Proportio ergo portionis ad portionem
componitur ex proportione tetragoni quod ab az ad tetragonum quod a dh et ex
proportione ipsius az ad dh. Componitur autem et proportio cubi qui ab az ad cubum
qui a dh ex eisdem (per 36 undecimi Euclydis). Est ergo ut portio ad portionem ita cubus
qui ab az ad cubum qui a dh, quod est propositum.' ,
note that he has added three references to Apollonius' Conics. To
Proposition 1 (cf. Volume Two, 20vL) he adds (20r): "Interpres. Ista
propositio demonstratur ab Apollonio pergeo in quinta propositione
secundi." This reference is incomplete. The first half is proved by
Apollonius' Proposition 1.46 (which we have already cited above), the
second half by his II.5. 32 Next, on folio 20v, Tartaglia has added to Propo-
sition 2 (cf. Volume Two, 2OvM): "Interpres. Ista propositio demon-
stratur ab Apollonio pergeo in trigesimam tertiam primi. "33 Then to
Proposition 3 (cf. Volume Two, 20vN) on folio 20v Tartaglia has added:
"Interpres. Scilicet in vigesima prima primi Apolloni(i] pergei." The
proper reference should be rather to Apollonius' 1.20.
34
In addition to
these three Apollonian references, Tartaglia adds an orginial comment
to Proposition 7 (cf. Volume Two, 21rB-D).35 Tartaglia has added no
comments to the two remaining texts: On the Measurement of the Circle
and On Floating Bodies.
Now in addition to the various comments added by Tartaglia to the
first two works, as noted above, Tartaglia made some textual changes.
In order to illustrate these changes, let us first turn to the text of On
the Quadrature of the Parabola. My references are to the variant
readings given in my text of the Moerbeke translation in Volume Two and
they will be indicated by the use of the folio number and the section
letter, followed by var if a single variant is referred to, or by vars if
two or more examples are being cited. I shall add after var the particular
word or phrase under which the variant reading is included when such
an addition is needed to make the example clear. My discussion here
assumes that M stands for the Madrid manuscript, Bibl. Nac. 9119; G for
the text in Gaurico's edition of 1503; T for Tartaglia's edition of 1543;
and 0, as usual, for Moerbeke's autograph, Vat. Ottob. lat. 1850.
32 Cf. Apollonius, Opera (Venice 1537), Bk. 11, Prop. 5, 32v: "Propositio Quinta. Si
paraboles vel hyperboles diameter lineam quandam secet in duo vel ad diametrum attingens
sectionem equidistans erit in duo secanti lineae." This translation leaves something to be
desired (the second "vel" ought to be "quae" and "secanti" ought to be "sectae") but
once more Tartaglia could have figured out its actual meaning by examining the proof.
33 Ibid., Bk. I, Prop. 33, 16v: "Propositio Trigesimatertia. Si Parabole relictum sit
quoddam punctum, et ab ipso ordinate ad diametrum applicetur, et receptae sub ipsa a
diametro ad sumitatem ponatur equalis in (?) linea a sumitate ipsius, quae a facto puncto ad
relictum punctum coniungitur, tanget sectionem." This is the converse of Archimedes'
theorem and Tartaglia would have done better to cite Proposition 1.35 directly (l7v): "Si
parabolem linea tangat coincidens diametro extra sectionem, ducta a tactu linea ordinate
ad diametrum, equalem recipiet a diametro ad sumitatem sectionis ei inter ipsam et
tangentem. . . ."
34 Ibid., Bk. I, Prop. 20, 11v: "Propositio Vigesima. Si in parabola a sectione ducantur
due lineae ad diametrum ordinate, erit ut quadrata, quae ab ipsis fiunt ad invicem, sic secate
sub ipsis a diametro ad sumitatem sectionis."
35 Opera Archimedis (Venice, 1543), 22r: "Interpres. Quia si totum zl ad totum bdg
(est per premissam) sicut ablatum I ad ablatum bgh et reliquum z ad reliquum hdg erit
sicut totum ad totum, hoc est subtriplum, quod est propositum per decimam nonam quinti
Euclidis. "
In the first place, it should be observed that, in a large number of
divergencies from 0, the texts in M, G, and T all agree, showing that
both G and T derive from M, as I have often noted. As examples,
see 20vFvars; 20vHvars; 20vIvars; etc. In the second place, G and T
agree against M in many places: 20vIvar "demonstrarunt"; 20vJvar
"scripserunt"; 20vKvar "qualiter"; 20vMvar "que
l
"; 20vPvar "DA";
20vWvar "aliud"; 20vYvar "que
l
"; 21rBvar "ambligonum"; 21rDvar
"GDE"; 21rFvar "GDE3"; 21rHvar "cum", "habenti", "habeat";
21rNvar "habeat"; 21rQvar "eadem"; 21rTvar; 21rYvar; 21vBvar;
21 vCvar "ita
2
"; 21vEvar "spati0
2
"; and many others. This can only mean
that, for the most part, Tartaglia did not correct G by reference to M, a rather
surprising fact since he used M to publish those texts not in G. This may mean
that Tartaglia had not copied those parts ofM available in G. It is true, how-
ever, that sometimes when G was patently wrong, and the error would
create a mathematical difficulty or a difficulty of understanding, Tartaglia
did correct G on his own initiative (e.g., see 20vFvar "mechanica";
20vkvar "mechanica"; 21rDvar "apprensum"; 21rXvar "CH"; 21vAvar;
and so on). In some cases the mistake was originally in M, and G merely
passed it on, so that T's correction becomes a correction of both
M and G (e.g., 20vFvar "mechanica"; 20vKvar "mechanica"; and
21rGvar). Occasionally Tartaglia added a whole phrase not in M or
G (e.g., 20vOvar and 21rGvar). I would suppose that all of this evidence
of Tartaglia' s correction of G is an indication that Tartaglia took a copy
of G, added the corrections (with little attention to M except perhaps
for the figures) and then passed it on to the printer after redrawing the
figures. It is particularly surprising that Tartaglia made almost no effort
to correct the many numerical errors in Proposition 3 of On the Meas-
urement of the Circle that were present in G (see 22vQvars, 23rDvars,
23rEvars, 23rGvars, 23rHvars, 23rIvars). In one case, (22vQvar), Tartaglia
supplied the correct number' '349450" missing inMand G but then allowed
the succeeding number to be altered from the correct reading of
"23409" to "13409."
We should not confine our discussion of Tartaglia's textual procedures
to those texts published from Gaurico's edition but should also discuss
the ones drawn directly from manuscript M. A brief look at his text of
On the Equilibrium of Planes will serve to illustrate my conclusions.
My first conclusion is that Tartaglia stayed remarkably close to M, even
to the point of leaving uncorrected the obviously absurd valde for vel de
in the title (see 17rAvar). He also concurs in the omission of a crucial
non (l7rFvar), thereby destroying the argument. Let me list a few other
examples of Tartaglia's fidelity to M: 17rFvar "repentium"; 17rHvar
"repentes"; 17rJvar; 17rKvar "connectentis"; 17rLvar "detento";
17rQvar "quia"; 17rRvar; 17rUvar "HK2"; 17rVvar "Z", "sit
2
";
17rWvar "earum"; 17rXvar "autem"; 17vBvar "quidem igitur".
Tartaglia also made some omissions in publishing the text of manuscript
M. I have already noted the omission of petitio 6 which was present
&
in M (see 17rD- Evar). In addition, he or the printer made some careless
errors in reading M. Thus in 17rEvar we see that suppositis has been
altered to suppositionis, which makes no sense; in 17rGvar, we note that
appositum est has been altered to read apponitur; in 17rKvar, centra
becomes centrum; in 17rLvar, repent becomes repentur; in 17rTvar GE
becomes gc; and so on as we proceed through the text. Occasionally,
Tartaglia makes a sound correction (e.g., 17rIvar "equales"; 17rWvar
"apponantur", Le. in both cases T returns to O's reading without, of
course, having seen 0). In On Floating Bodies, Tartaglia does not dis-
tinguish Proposition 8 from Proposition 9 (and one can hardly blame him
for this since the enunciations are run together in manuscript M and
may be considered two parts of a single proposition). But strangely,
Tartaglia runs the second part (i.e. Proposition 9) into the beginning of the
proof, which makes no sense.
This now brings us to our final considerations in comparing Tartaglia's
edition of 1543 and the Moerbeke texts of manuscript M. They concern
Tartaglia's treatment of the diagrams. His statement that he added the
figures in his own hand is unquestionably true. The most persistent cor-
rection that he makes is to represent the parabolas by parabolas rather
than by semicircles as they are given in manuscript M and the edition
of Gaurico. Further, Tartaglia always reorients the drawings that involve
balance beams so that the beams are horizontal. In the case of manu-
script M the scribe added them where there was room and hence often
had the beam in a vertical direction, with the understanding, I suppose,
that they be considered as ordinary beams. Of the almost 70 figures,
more than half are virtually unchanged (except for alterations in the pro-
portions of the parts of the figures or in the aforementioned shape of
parabolas). The most frequent changes are changes of letters, some of
which are minor and others of which are more crucial. 36 On occasion,
36 In order to support my succeeding remarks on the nature of Tartaglia's corrections,
I should like to present in order most of the evidence here in this footnote: (1) On the
Equilibrium of Planes, Book I: Figures for Props. i-iii, unchanged from MS M. Figure for
Prop. iv: Tartaglia reduces the length of line n; note that here T retains the numerical
designations for a, x, and b found in MS M, although there is no reference to such
numbers in the text; T places the number 2 under n, while MS M has 4 (none of these
numbers are in MS 0). Figure for Prop. v: T has eliminated a number 8 appearing on the
right side of the balance in MS M and correctly substituted for it a separate magnitude g;
he has also eliminated some numbers on block ab. Figs. for Props. vii-viii are unchanged
in 1's text. Figs. for ix- xiii: T has altered triangles to a scalene form in place ofthe isosceles
form in MS M. Fig. for Prop. x: has omitted the letter m appearing quite properly in MS M.
Fig. for Prop. xi: T has omitted the letter d in the first figure. Fig. for Prop. xii: T has added
the necessary letter t designating the center of gravity and missing in both MSS M and O.
Fig. for Prop. xiii, except for its form, is unchanged. (2) On the Equilibrium of Planes,
Book 11: Figs. for Props. i-iv are unchanged. Fig. for the first part of Prop. v: T has
interchanged letters hand e, but the text has also been accordingly changed. Fig. for the
second part of Prop. v: T has correctly added letter c missing in the figure in MS M. Fig. for
Prop. vi: T has correctly added the extension ofdb to h missing in MS M. Fig. for Prop. vii: T
has eliminated some unnecessary letters found in MS M. Fig. for Prop. viii is unchanged.
Tartaglia has changed isosceles triangles to scalene triangles to give the
proposition the generality it deserves (On the Equilibrium ofPlanes, Book
I, Figures for Props. ix- xiii). In at least one instance he has added a line
extension missing inM(ibid., Book 11, Figure for Prop. vi). But Tartaglia's
changes were not always for the better. He omitted one drawing entirely
(On the Quadrature of the Parabola, one of the figures for Prop. iv). In
another he omitted a line that is in manuscripts M, 0 and the Greek text
(ibid., Figure for Prop. v).
On the whole, our final conclusion must certainly be that Tartaglia' s
performance in the editing of these texts is uneven and verging on the
poor. He obviously did his work with haste and the texts he presented
suffer badly in comparison with the similar texts of Cremonensis included
in the editio princeps of 1544 and even more so with the translations made
Fig. for Prop. ix: T interchanges the positions of t and z. (3) On the Quadrature of the
Parabola: Figs. for Props. i-iii: unchanged. Fig. for Prop. iv: T adds line it missing in G
and MS M; the line is unnecessary for the text, but point t should be marked; T has
omitted one of the figures for this proposition (see the Moerbeke text in Vol. 2, Fig. Q.4),
although the figure is in MS M. Fig. for Prop. v: T has omitted the extra line ktil which is
in MSS M and 0 and the Greek text but which is missing in G; the lettering in G for this
figure is poor and is changed by T. Fig. for Prop. vi: T has omitted the unnecessary line
alt (see Vo!. 2, Fig. Q.6) which is in G and MSSM and O. Fig. for Prop. vii: unchanged from
MS M (in G the letter a is replaced bye). Fig. for Prop. viii: unchanged. Fig. for Prop. ix:
unchanged except that T makes ekd perpendicular to the beam, while in MS M it is
carelessly drawn at a different angle. Figs. for Props. x-xvi: essentially unchanged from
MS M except for a few letter changes that are for the most part reflected by consequent
changes in the text. First Fig. for Prop. xvii: two letters added by T to the drawing as found
in MS M (badly oriented in G and the letters are badly mixed up in G). Second Fig. for
Prop. xvii: unchanged except that the letter t looks like r in T's drawing and if so would be
incorrect (it is t in G and MS M). Note that T mislabels the enunciation of Prop. xviii as
the diffinitio secunda (there is no such label or in fact any proposition numbers in this
work in either G or MS M); but the figure is unchanged. Figs. for Prop. xviii- xix (=Greek
text, Props. 19-20): unchanged from G and MS M. Greek Prop. 21 is numbered as two
propositions (xx and xxi) by T. The enunciation is given by T as Prop. xx. Then the first
lines of the proof are given by T as a new enunciation for a Prop. xxi. The drawing is
unchanged, but T correctly adds the letter t missing in G and MSS M and O. The figures
for Props. xxii and xxiii are unchanged from G and MS M. Fig. for Prop. xxiv: T follows G
in changing z to r. (4) On the Measurement of the Circle: Fig. for Prop. i: T changes the
letter z of MS M (and second R of G) to k and follows MS M in correctly drawing the
tangent par (in G line PA meets AR at an angle). Fig. for Prop. ii: the letters are unchanged
from G and MS M, but T follows MS M rather than G in locating the letter e in closer
proximity to letter r. Figs. for Prop. iii: The letters for both figures are as in MS M and
G (except that T in accordance with the text corrects G's mistaken substitution of c for t on
the second figure). In none of the texts are the angles drawn in correct proportion to indicate
bisections, but at least T presents an initial angle in the second figure that more properly
represents the size of the angle specified in the text than do the drawings of G and MS M.
(5) On Floating Bodies: Bk. 1. The figures for all eight propositions are taken almost
unchanged from MS M. Thus even in the Fig. for Prop. iv, when MS M by mistake has
c for g (and the text clearly demands g), T also has c. In one of the Figs. for Prop. viii, T has
added two letters. It ought to be reiterated finally that in presenting these various
corrections I have not noted that many cases where T has slightly changed the proportions
of lines and figures or changed the semicircles into parabolas.
by Commandino later (i.e., the translations of Circuli dimensio and
Quadratura parabolae in Commandino's collection of 1558; the On the
Equilibrium of Planes was not included by Commandino, and his version
of On Floating Bodies appeared later, as we shall see). We can partially
excuse Tartaglia's poor efforts by pointing to the condition of the Madrid
manuscript. But this is not the entire explanation. Tartaglia was also at a
disadvantage in apparently not having consulted the Greek text (except
perhaps for the diagrams in Bessarion's copy?). But even if he had con-
sulted the Greek text, it is doubtful whether his knowledge of Greek would
have been sufficient to be of much assistance to him (see below, note 42).
If the additions and corrections of Tartaglia remain unimpressive, what
are we to say about the second basic point raised concerning the influence
of these four tracts in this edition on sixteenth-century mathematics and
mechanics? It is doubtful whether they exerted much influence on mathe-
matics, since the Greek text with a far more complete translation was
published only a year later in 1544. It was generally this later edition,
or sometimes the translation of Commandino, that was read and cited by
mathematicians of the sixteenth or seventeenth century.37 But Tartaglia' s
37 In looking over a whole host of mathematical works of the later sixteenth and early
seventeenth century (a few of which are referred to in Chapter 6 below), I do not recall
once seeing Tartaglia's edition of either of the two mathematical works (On the Quadrature
of the Parabola and On the Measurement of the Circle) unambiguously cited, while the
Basel edition with Cremonensis' translation and the Commandino translation are often
cited. For example, B. Cavalieri in his Geometria indivisibilibus continuorum nova
quadam ratione (Bologna, 1635) employed the translations of Commandino, without a
whisper appearing of the texts of Tartaglia. Cf. the Italian translation of L. Lombardo-
Radice: Geometria degli indivisibili (Turin, 1968), p. 47, n. 2. I single out Cavalieri, for he
more than anyone takes the Archimedean problems and initiates the method of indivisibles
that was to bear fruit. I have already given evidence of Joseph ToreUi's use and estimate
of Cremonensis and Commandino in the preface of his fundamental edition of the works
of Archimedes (see above, Part Ill, Chap. 2, Sect. I, n. 31). But he discusses Tartaglia's
edition only in connection with On Floating Bodies (Archimedis quae supersunt omnia
[Oxford, 1792], pp. xvii-xviii). A possible exception to the conclusion I have presented in
this footnote may be found in G. B. Benedetti's Demonstratio proportionum motuum
localium contra Aristotilem (l) et omnes philosophos (Venice, 1554) where, in addition to
earlier citations in 1553 from On the Equilibrium ofPlanes and On Floating Bodies in the Tartaglia
edition (see note 45 below), he may be citing the other two works of the same edition,
i.e. On the Measurement of the Circle and On the Quadrature of the Parabola (ed. cif.,
copy of Vatican Library), pp. 16-17: "Praeterea ubi etiam Arist. in 7. Physicorum loquitur
de comparatione motuum, dicens quod linea recta non est comparabilis lineae curvae,
propterea quod inveniretur aliqua recta linea aequalis circularis lineae, vel maior aut minor
(nam quoniam propter definitionem ab ipso datam in 6. Physicorum, celeritati et tarditati
motus, videtur ei, non posse fieri, ut motus circularis comparabilis sit motui recto), in quo
manifeste decipitur, et maxi me putans non posse inveniri lineam rectam aequalem, maiorem
aut minorem circulari lineae, cum Archimedes in prima propositione, suae geometriae,
contrarium demonstret, hoc etiam mathematica demonstratione et non aristotelica
garrulatione. Archimedes enim demonstrat ibi, quo pacto possumus lineam rectam
maiorem vel minorem aliqua circulari linea invenire, constituendo figuras rectilineas, extra
vel intra circulum...." p. 19: "postea vero, cum trigonusfeg triplus sit bhc trigono ut
superius demonstravi, sed etiam portionifng triplus est, per 17. Archimedis de quadratura
publication of 1543 may have exerted a somewhat more significant influ-
ence on mechanics, at least in the case of On Floating Bodies, which was
omitted from the Basel edition of 1544 and from Commandino's first
collection of translations in 1558. As we shall see below in more detail
when we discuss Tartaglia's Italian translation with commentary of Book I
of On Floating Bodies, Giovanni Battista Benedetti made Tartaglia's
edition and perhaps his Italian translation of this work the basis of his
hydrostatic treatment of falling bodies in the preface of his Resolutio
of 1553, and again in at least one of the two versions of his Demonstratio
proportionum motuum localium of 1554. And since Benedetti's initial
hydrostatic treatment had considerable influence, as we shall note below,
we can affirm at least the influence of Tartaglia' s edition of 1543 (if not his
commentary and Italian translation of 1551) on this interesting develop-
ment of mechanics. It is also possible that Galileo first encountered
On Floating Bodies in Tartaglia's edition of 1543 (see below, note 53).
But it is doubtful whether Tartaglia's text of On Floating Bodies had
any influence on the criticism of the Aristotelian view of falling bodies found
in Questione sull'Alchimia of the well-known historian Benedetto Varchi
(dedicated at Florence, 11 November, 1544), since hydrostatic considera-
tions play no part in that criticism:
38
And although the custom of modem philosophers is ever to believe rather than to
test everything which is found written in the good authors (and particularly in
Aristotle), would it not be both more certain and more pleasing to proceed other-
wise and to have recourse sometimes to experiment (sperienza) in some matters,
parabolae, quare portio fng aequalis erit trigono hbc. . . ." The same proposition is also
cited on p. 21. (Note: the page numbers are those I have assigned beginning with the
title page. I have altered the punctuation somewhat.) But actually there is nothing in either of
the citations just given from the Demonstratio to assure us that it is Tartaglia's edition that
is being referred to. In fact, it may be that the first citation is not to On the Measurement
ofthe Circle, Prop. 1, but rather to the first proposition (and preceding supposition) of Book I
of On the Sphere and the Cylinder. If this is so, then it cannot be the edition of Tartaglia
that is being cited since that edition does not contain On the Sphere and the Cylinder.
38 B. Varchi, Questione sull'Alchimia, ed. ofD. Moreni (Florence, 1827), p. 34: "Esebbene
iI costume dei filosofi moderni edi creder sempre, e non provar mai tutto quello, che si
trova scritto ne'buoni autori, e massimamente in Aristotile, non e pero, che non fusse
e piu sicuro, e piu dilettevole fare a1tramenti, e discendere qualche volta alia sperienza
in a1cune cose, come verbi gratia nel movimento delle cose gravi, nella qual cosa e
Aristotile, e tutti li altri Filosofi senza mai dubitarne hanno creduto, et affermato, che
quanto una cosa sia piu grave, tanto piu tosto discenda, il che la prova dimostra non esser
vero. E se io non temessi d'allontanarmi troppo dalla proposta materia, mi distenderei piu
lungamente in provare questa opinione, della quale ho trovati a1cuni a1tri, e massimamente
il Reverendo Padre, non men dotto Filosofo, che buon Teologo, Fra Francesco Beato
Metafisico di Pisa, e Mess. Luca Ghini Medico, e Semplicista singularissimo, oltra la
grande non solamente cognizione, ma practica dei Minerali tutti quanti, secondo che a me
parve quando gli udii da lui pubblicamente nello Studio di Bologna. " However it is interesting
that Varchi was studying in Padua in 1540 (see A. G. Palencia and E. Mete, Vida y obras
de Don Diego Hurtado de Mendoza, Vo!. 1 [Madrid, 1941], p. 206) where he knew
Mendoza. Did he also meet Tartaglia?
as, for example in the movement of heavy things. In this matter Aristotle and
all the philosophers, without ever doubting it, have believed and affirmed that
by the amount something is heavier so much sooner does it descend, which
trial (prova) shows not to be true. And if I did not fear to stray too far from
my subject matter, I would extend myself at greater length in proving this opinion,
in whose support I have found some others and particularly the Reverend Father
Fra Francesco Beato, metaphysician of Pisa (and no less a learned philosopher
than a good theologian), and Messer Luca Ghini, the Physician and a most re-
markable practicioner of medical simples, [possessing] in addition not only great
knowledge but also the practical experience of all the metals there are, according
as it seemed to me when I listened to him publicly at his place (da [ui) in the
University of Bologna.
But if Tartaglia's edition of Book I of On Floating Bodies had
some influence through its use by Benedetti, there is no discernible in-
fluence on mechanics of his edition of On the Equilibrium ofPlanes except
for its citation by Benedetti in 1553 (see below, note 45), its possible use
by Galileo and its certain use by an unknown correspondent of Galileo
(see below, note 53). Thus Commandino's references to this work in his
De centro gravitatis solidorum (Bologna, 1565) are to the Greek text in
manuscript or in the editio princeps of Basel, 1544. For example, on folio
2r, Commandino, in proving his first proposition, cites Propositions 13
and 10 of Book I of On the Equilibrium of Planes. These are the
numbers found in the Greek text and the Cremonensis translation in the
edition of 1544, while the same propositions are numbered 11 and 8 in
Tartaglia's edition of 1543. Similarly when Pierre Forcadel made his
French translation of On the Equilibrium of Planes, Book I, a work pub-
lished in 1565, he quite obviously used the Cremonensis translation as
his point of departure.
39
Nor was Tartaglia's text mentioned by Guido
Ubaldo del Monte in the pertinent part of his Liber mechanicorum of
1577 or in his paraphrase of On the Equilibrium ofPlanes in 1588, although
Tartaglia's summary of the medieval science of weights presented in the
39 Pierre Forcadel, Le Premier Livre d' Archimede des chases egallement pesantes (Paris,
1565). The reader will quickly note that Tartaglia's edition cannot be the source from
which this translation was made. In the first place, the sixth postulate which Tartaglia
omitted is included by Forcadel (p. 7-Forcadel's eighth postulate). In addition, Forcadel's
comments have nothing in common with Tartaglia's comments. But the clinching evidence
appears from a close comparison with the Latin translation of Jacobus Cremonensis.
From this comparison it is clear that Forcadel's text was done from the Cremonensis
translation, or at least that that translation played a crucial role in the wording of the French
translation. When Archimedes spoke in his last postulate of a perimeter being "concave
in the same direction," Moerbeke (and Tartaglia after him) quite properly used the word
cava to express "concave" while the Cremonensis translation uses the inappropriate
term convexus, which was mistakenly printed as connexus in the 1544 edition. Forcadel
(p. 7) clearly follows the latter reading by employing conioinct. Many other examples of
the closeness of Forcadel and Cremonensis could be given. Furthermore, Forcadel uses the
proposition numbers found in the Cremonensis translation rather than those in Tartaglia's
text.
Quesiti was the object of criticism in both works.
40
Moreover, Benedetti,
who had earlier cited the Tartaglia text exclusively, in all but one place
of his Diversarum speculationum . . . liber of 1585 refers to the law of
the lever as Proposition 6, Le. the numbering of the Greek text and the
Cremonensis translation in the editio princeps of 1544.
41
That one ex-
ceptional place in which Benedetti cites both the Tartaglia version (which
he calls Tartaglia's "translation") and that of the Basel edition occurs
in a letter that comments extensively on Archimedes' On the Equilibrium
of Planes, although even there it was the Basel edition that played the
primary role since there is considerable citation of Eutocius' com-
mentary not published by Tartaglia. Furthermore, the two manuscript
versions of Book I of On the Equilibrium ofPlanes contained in Florence,
BibI. Naz. MagI. XI.50 (2r-19v and 36r-51r) appear to be based on the
Cremonensis translation and at least one of them is later than the edition
of Tartaglia (see above, Part Ill, Chap. 2, Sect. I, in the list of manuscripts
of the Cremonensis translations). But it is possible that Galileo utilized the
Tartaglia edition of 1543 for its text of On the Quadrature of the Parabola,
as well as for those of Book I of On Floating Bodies and both books of
On the Equilibrium of Planes, although it is certain that he was familiar
with the Basel edition from an early period of his career (see below, note
53).
Before leaving our consideration of Tartaglia's edition of the works of
Archimedes we can allude to the fact that in one of his Riposte to Lodo-
vieo Ferrari, dated 21 April, 1547, he appends a problem in geometric
construction that arose from his study of On the Quadrature of the
Parabola, which was of course one of the works of Archimedes that he
published.
42
We can also make passing reference to the series of specific
40 Guido Ubaldo del Monte, Mechanicorum liber (Pisauri, 1577), 6v-8v; In duos
Archimedis aequeponderantium libros paraphrasis scholiis illustrata (Pisauri, 1588), pp.
18-19.
41 Giovanni Battista Benedetti, Diversarum speculationum mathematicarum et physicarum
liber (Turin, 1585), pp. 142, 143, 148, 150, 151 all cite the law ofthe lever as Proposition 6 of
Book 1. The letter on Archimedes' On the Equilibrium of Planes occupies pp. 380-97. In
its beginning (p. 380) we find the exceptional place in which Benedetti cites both the
Tartag1ia edition and that of Basel: "Quod tibi alias dixi verum est intellectum scilicet
non omnino quiescere circa illas duas Archimedis propositiones, quae in translatione
Tartaleae sunt sub numeris 4 et 5 et in impressione Basileae sub numeris 6 et 7 ubi tractat
de centris librae, seu staterae." The first part of this section on Archimedes has
been translated into English by 1. E. Drabkin, Mechanics in Sixteenth-Century Italy, pp.
235-37. (Incidentally the tract of Archimedes under discussion was inadvertently mis-
identified by Drabkin as On Floating Bodies although of course it is On the Equilibrium
of Planes.)
42 E. Giordani, ed., I sei cartelli di matematica disfido primamente intorno alia generale
risoluzione delle equazioni cubiche di Lodovico Ferrari coi sei contro-cartelli in riposta di
Niccolo Tartaglia. etc. (Milan, 1876), Quesiti attached to the second riposta of 21 April,
1547, p. 18: "14. Archimede Siracusano ne mostra il modo di quadrare quella conica
settione chiamata Parabola, ogni voIta che quella sia serrata, over terminata con una linea
retta. Ror ve adimando il modo, over regola de due date terminate ParaboIe inequale,
-
gravity determinations made by Tartaglia between 1541 and 1551 since
they reflect the continual use of the Principle of Archimedes throughout
the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. One example will suffice:
43
saper ritrovare la lor differentia senza alterar il Compasso di qual si voglia apertura proposta
et di tal differentia formarne un quadrato." Incidentally, in the same response (pp. 19-20)
he has found a way to investigate the volume of a semiregular polyhedron of 62 faces
(12 regular pentagons, 30 squares, and 20 equilateral triangles), which was no. 11 in
Pappus' list of Archimedean semiregular polyhedra (see above, Part Ill, Chap. 2, Sect. III,
note 40): "21. Nell'opra intitolata Divina Proportio vi se da el modo da investigare l'area
corporale de varie qualita de corpi, e per tanto io mi trovo un corpo de 62 base circon-
scrittibile da una sphera, delle qual 62 base, ne sono 12 Penthagone equilatere, et
equiangole, et 30 quadrate et 20 triangolare equilatere, et illato di cadauna di dette base e
4, adomando l'area corporal di questo corpo." If he knew how to generate this body,
it was presumably by double truncation from the dodecahedron. Incidentally, in the Terzia
riposta, published on 23 June, 1547, he states most clearly that he does not have the
Greek language (separate pagination, p. 4): "Tertio mai accettara de venire a disputare
sopra quanti Authori greci latini, che hanno scritto in tai faculta, per non haver lingua
greca, attento, che gli ho fatto intendere bellamente per mess. Ottaviano Scotto...." A
beautiful facsimile edition of the Cartelli under the guidance of A. Masotti has been recently
published (Brescia, 1974).
43 Published at the end of Jordanus, De ponderositate (Venice, 1565), 20r: "Esperienze
fatte da Nicolo Tartalea. 1541. A di xiiii. Aprile. Un balla di ferro che ha de diametro
quanto la linea ab pesa in aere oncie xix grosse, et in acqua oncie xvi, per ilche una
balla d'acqua di tal magnitudine verria a esser oncie iii; onde el ferro a l'acqua verria a esser
in ponderositil secondo la specie come xix a iii, che saria sexcupla sesquitertia. El ferro
all'acqua come xix a 3. Una balla di piombo di quella medema magnitudine pesava in
aere oncie xxx grosse, et in acqua oncie xxvii, per ilche se verifica, che tal magnitudine de
acqua e pur oncie Hi, come di sopra, et anchora se manifesta el piombo con l'acqua haver
proportion si come 30 a 3 (secondo la specie) cioe decupla. El piombo a l'acqua come
30 a 3. Similmente el piombo al ferro si manifesta haver proportione si come 30 a 19 (secondo
la specie) et questo si prova [per] proportionalita perche a l'acqua de luno e come 30 a 3,
et de l'acqua a l'aItro come de 3 a 19; adunque del piombo al ferro sara come di 30 a 19,
che epiu di sesquialtera come tengono Ii bombardieri." We do not know the details of his
experiments, i.e. how the balls were made the same size, how pure were the iron and lead,
etc. It is seen that Tartaglia's determination of the specific gravity ofiron is as compared to
a modem determination of 7.86, that of lead is 10 as compared to a modem figure of
11.3. In a later experiment (20v) Tartaglia makes a determination of a brass sample as 8.
He also makes determinations (20v) of a number of gold coins: a Venetian scudo as
a Turkish ducat as 51:3, a French gold piece (ora del scudo francese vecchio del Re
Lodovico) as and finally an old Hungarian gold piece as 51:3. Similarly he makes
two different determinations (21r) on the Venetian silver piece (the mocenigo), the one he
judges to be the better having a specific gravity of 31 In this last determination he
uses two different balances: the balancina piccola and the balanza nuova. A number of
succeeding experiments involve finer weights. Cf. Tartaglia's Ragionamenti ... sopra la
sua travagliata inventione (Venice, 1551), "Secondo Ragionamento," sign. [D iv recto]: "Da
poi pesai una balla di ferro et trovai che in aere pesava .19. grosse, et in acqua .16. per il
che una tal balla di acqua di tal grandezza, veneria a pesare onze .3. (onde il ferro all'acqua
in gravita haveria proportion sessupla sesquiterza, cioe come da once .19. a once .3. et
quasi il medesimo trovai esser il stagno). Da poi pesai bagatini .10. liquali in aere pesomo
carratti .65. et grani .1. et in acqua pesomo solamente caratti .55. grani .1. (cio men diece
caratti) onde la proportione del rame a l'acqua in gravita veneria a esser circa sessupla
sesquialtera doe come da caratti .65. grani .1. a caratti .10. Da poi pesai una balla di piombo
Experiments made by Niccolo Tartaglia, 1541, 24 April.
One ball of iron which has a diameter of magnitude ab, a weight in air of 19
gross ounces and in water of 16 ounces. Accordingly, a ball of water of the same
magnitude would come to be 3 ounces. Therefore, [the ratio] in specific weight of
the iron to the water will be as 19 to 3, i.e. ~ The iron to the water [is] as 19 to 3.
A ball of lead of the same magnitude weighed 30 gross ounces in air and 27
ounces in water. Accordingly it is verified that the same magnitude of water is still
3 ounces, as before, and further it is manifest that the ratio in specific weight of
the lead to the water is 30 to 3, i.e., 10. The lead to the water [is] as 30 to 3.
Similarly, the ratio in specific weight of the lead to the iron is 30 to 19. This is
proved by a proportion, since one is related to the water as 30 to 3 and the water
is related to the other as 3 to 19; therefore, the lead to the iron will be as 30 to 19,
which is more than 3 to 2, as the gunners hold.
After the publication of the edition of 1543, perhaps the most important
extension of the Moerbeke translations made by Tartaglia was his Italian
translation, with commentary, of Book I of On Floating Bodies, that
appeared in 1551 as the first Ragionamento to his Regola generale. ...
intitolata La travagliata inventione and again in 1554 as an addition to
the second edition of his Quesiti. Hence, I have included the full text of
this Ragionamento below in this section. I have also included in the next
section the English translation of it that goes under the name of Thomas
Salusbury and which was published in 1665 (although the separate title
page has 1662). In the title page of Salusbury's translation, he adds after
the title: "Translated from the Original Greek, First into Latine, and
afterwards into Italian, by Nicolo Tartaglia, and by him familiarly demon-
strated by way of Dialogue, with Richard Wentworth, a Noble English
Gentleman, and his Friend." This is the first of several indications that
Salusbury believed that Tartaglia had made the Latin translation. We
have already seen how this might have been concluded from the ambigu-
ous statements made by Tartaglia in the preface to the 1543 edition. As
the supplement to the title further indicates, Tartaglia framed his Italian
commentary in the form of a dialogue with Wentworth (although in a
posthumous edition [1562] of the Ragionamento, Curtius Troianus sub-
stituted his own name for that of Wentworth). Indeed it is in the mouth of
Wentworth in the introductory dialogue that Tartaglia puts his basic appli-
cation of hydrostatics to the velocity of descent of bodies in fluids. I
quala trovai in aere esser once .30. grosse et in acqua solamente once .27. onde una tal
balla di acqua veria a pesare once .3. et la proportione del piombo all'acqua in gravita
verria essere decupla doe come da once .30. a once .3. Similmente pesai .10. mocenighi
quali in aere pesomo once .2. caratti .25. et in acqua once .1. quarti .3. carratti .29.
onde la proportion del argento all'acqua in gravita ealquanto scarsa de decupla cioe saria
come caratti .313. a .32., cioe e alquanto meno del piombo. Simelmente pesai un ducato
turcho qual in aere pesava caratti .17. et in acqua caratti .16. Onde la proportion del oro
all'acqua in gravita saria come da caratti .17. a caratti .1. cioe .17. volte tanto il medesimo
sperimentai con un ducatto cechino et ritrovai it medesimo cioe che in aere peso caratti .17.
et in aqua caratti .16." I have left the inconsistency of spelling as it is (e.g., both carratti
and caratti, proportion and proportione, etc.).
give the passage in the English version of Salusbury (see text below
in Section Ill):
those Solid Bodies that are by nature more Grave than the Water, being put into
the Water, shall presently make the said Water give place; and, that they do not
only wholly enter or submerge into the same, but go continuously descending
until they arrive at the Bottom; and, that they sink to the Bottom so much
faster, by how much they are more Grave than Water.
The same point is made in the main text, i.e., La Travagliata inventione:
44
Before I come to explain the aforesaid method of recovering a cargo ship or
[any kind of] ship that has been sunk, it appears to me fitting, Most Serene
and Illustrious Prince, to explain first the real cause of the sinking of such ships.
I say, therefore, that it is impossible for water to receive or swallow up wholly
within itself any material body that is lighter than itself (as to species) but it will
always allow or cause one part of it to stand above the surfaces of said water
(i.e. to be uncovered by the water). And the whole body placed in water will
have the same ratio to the part that will be accepted or received by the water that
the specific gravity of the water will have to the specific gravity of the material
body. But those material bodies which are [specifically] heavier than the water,
when placed in the water, immediately make the water give way, and they not
only completely enter into the water but they go on continually descending to
the bottom, and they descend the more quickly by the amount that they are
[specifically] heavier than the water. And those bodies which perchance are of the
same [specific] gravity as the water, when placed in the water, are totally accepted
or received by the water but are kept on the surface of the said water, that is,
so that no part of them is left standing above the surface of the water; no less
does it permit them to descend to the bottom. And all of this Archimedes the
Syracusan demonstrates in that work On Floating Bodies (published by us).
44 La Travagliata inventione (Venice, 1551), unpaginated but pages 1-2 of the text: "Nanti
che si vegna alia dechiaratione del antedetto modo da recuperare ogni affondata Nave
carga, overo altro Naviglio, conveniente cosa mi pare, Serenissimo et Illustrissimo Principe,
adechiarire prima la causa propinqua del affondar de quelli. Dieo adunque esser impossibile,
che l'acqua riceva, overo ingiottisca totalmente dentro di se alcun material corpo che sta
piu leggero di essa acqua (in quanto ana specie) anci sempre lasciera over fara stare una
parte di queUo di sopra la superficie di detta acqua (cioe discoperto da quella), et tal
porportione qual havera tutto quel corpo in acqua posto, a quella sua parte, che sara
accettata, over receputa da lacqua, queUa medesima havera la gravita deU'acqua alla
gravita di quel tal corpo materiale (secondo la specie). Ma quelli corpi materiali che sonno
poi piu gravi dell'acqua posti che stano in acqua subito se fano dar loco alla detta acqua et
non solamente intrano totalmente in quella, ma vanno discendendo continuamente per fin
al fondo, et tanto piu velocemente vanno discendendo quanto che sonno piu gravi dell'acqua.
Et quelli poi, che per sorte sono di quella medesima gravita, che el'acqua necessariamente posti
in essa acqua, sono accettati, over receputi totalmente da quella, ma conservati pero nella
superficie di essa acqua, doe che la non li lassa in parte alcuna star di sopra la superficie di
essa acqua, ne manco gli consente di poter discendere al fondo, et tutto questo dimostra
Archimede Siracusano, in quello de insidentibus aquae (per noi dato in luce)." Cf. T.
Salusbury's English translation, "The Industrious or Troublesome Invention of Nicholas
Tartalea" in Mathematical Collections and Translations, The Second Tome (London, 1665;
reprinted 1967), pp. 483-84.
We have already seen that in this juncture of hydrostatics and dynamics
Alberti had essentially anticipated Tartaglia (see Part Ill, Chap. 1, Sect.
Il), as had Oresme (see Part I, Chap. 7). We shall see below in Chapter 6,
Sect. Il, Commentary to Proposition 5, that the Portuguese scholar,
Franciscus de Mello, may have also anticipated Tartaglia.
Earlier I referred to the influence of Tartaglia's edition (1543) and/or
his Italian translation with commentary (1551) of Book I of On Floating
Bodies on Benedetti's hydrostatic theory of the speed of falling bodies.
As first outlined in the preface to Benedetti's Resolutio omnium
Euclidis problematum (Venice, 1553), his theory embraced the following
important statements or propositions.
45
The first was that in the case of
45 G. B. Benedetti,Resolutio omnium Euclidis problematum aliorumque ad hoc necessario
inventorum una tantummodo circini data apertura (Venice, 1553), sig. ** ii verso-*** ii recto:
"[1] Scito igitur proportionem corporis ad corpus (dentur modo homogenea et uniformia)
ita se habere, sicuti se habet virtus ad virtutem. Sint exempli causa, duo corpora plumbea
et inaequalia a et e literis insignita [Fig. 111.4.2.9], quorum, corpus a notatum, triplici
quantitate, superet e; atque iam infero, massam a pondere triplici excessuram corpus e,.
notetur itaque pondus a litera b, et e signetur!; et mente concipiatur corpus a divisum esse in
treis (!) aequales parteis (!) c, d, g videlicet, quarum partium pondera h, i, k. lam mani-
festum est pro praesupposito singulas parteis (!) c, d, g aequalitate responsuras
corpori e ponderabitque per communem scientiam aequaliter f. Quod ni foret,
una quaeque partium a pro homogenea non reputaretur cum corpore e et ita pugnaret cum
praesupposito. Postquam igitur h, i, k insimul aequiparet b soli, per communem scientiam,
erit quoque, iuxta septima quinti EucIidis, proportio b adf sicut h, i, k [insimul] ad idem
f, sed pondus h, i, k ad f triplum est, erit igitur et pondus b triplum ad!, qua ratione
patet instititum. [2J Porro suppono proportionem motus corporum similium, sed diversae
homogeneitatis, in eodem media, atque aequali spatio esse, quae est inter excessum (in
ponderositate, inquam vel levitate) supra ilIud medium, dummodo formam aequalem illis
corporibus sortitUm fuerit. Et econverso, scilicet quod proportio existens inter excessus
supra medium, ut dictum est, eandem esse, quae inter motus ilIorum corporum. Atque,
hoc modo id patebit. Sit medium uniforme bfg [Fig. 111.4.2.10] puta aqua, in qua inteIIigantur
duo corpora diversae homogeneitatis, id est diversarum specierum. Verbi gratia, corpus
dec sit plumbeum, corpus vero aui ligneum, sed utrumque eorum gravius sit corpore aqueo
sibi aequali, dentur etiam corpora ilIa, sphaerica, atque aquea sint m et n, centrum mundi
imaginemur per s, terminus vero ad quem, sit in linea hoxk, [terminusJ a quo, autem, sit
in linea amd, quae aequidistet lineae hoxk, et ambae circulares supra centrum mundi s.
Tunc ductis so et sx usque ad lineam termini a quo, erunt lineae intersectae ab illis terminis
invicem aequales per tertiam conceptionem EucIidis (nam per definitionem eiusdem, omnes
lineae a centro alicuius circuli ad circumferentiam rectae protractae sunt invicem aequales).
Imaginemur etiam centrum corporis aui positum in puncto intersecationis lineae so
productae, cum linea amd, et corporis dec cum linea sx. Praeterea, corpus aqueum aequale
corpori aui sit m, reliquum vera aequale corpori dec sit n. Sit etiam corpus dec octuplum
in ponderositate corpori n, et corpus aui duplum corpori m. Nunc igitur dieo quod
proportio motus corporis dec ad motum corporis aui (manente hypothesi) eadem est,
quae inter exuberantia corporum dec et aui supra corpora n et m, id est, quod tempus
in quo corpus aui movebitur septuplum erit ad tempus in quo corpus dec. Nam manifestum
est per tertiam propositionem libri de insidentibus aquae Archimedis, quod si corpora
aui et dec essent aeque gravia corporibus m et n, unumquodque eorum suo aequali, nullo
modo moverentur, nec sursum nec deorsum, et per septimam eiusdem, quod corpora
graviora medio deorsum feruntur. Corpora igitur aui et ced deorsum ferentur. Resistentia
ergo humidi (hoc est aquae) ad corpus aui est proportionis subduplae (quod patet per
communem scientiam) ad corpus vero dec suboctuplae. Tempus igitur in quo centrum
corporis dec transibit datum spatium in septupla censebitur proportione (in longitudine)
ad tempus in quo centrum corporis aui supradictum mensurabit (motu naturali, dico, nam
per lineas breviores natura in omnibus agit, id est per lineas rectas, nisi quid impedierit),
quia ut ex praedicto Archimedis libro colligere est, proportionem motus ad motum non
habere respectum ad proportionem gravitatis, quae est interaui etdec, sed ad proportionem,
quae est inter gravitatem aui ad m, et dec ad n. Conversum autem huius suppositionis
satis patet, cum dicta dara sint. [3] Modo dico quod si fuerint duo corpora, eiusdem
formae, eiusdemque speciei, aequalia invicem, vel inaequalia, per aequale spacium, in
eodem medio, in aequali tempore ferentur. Haec propositio manifestissima est, quia si non
in aequali tempore moverentur, essent necessario diversarum specierum corpora iUa, per
conversum praemissae suppositionis, aut medium non daretur uniformae, vel spatia
essent inaequalia, quae omnia pugnarent cum hypothesi. Sed ostensive. Sint duo corpora
g et 0 similia (sphaerica) et homogenea [Fig. 111.4.2.11], medium vero uniforme bd!, lineae
terminorum aequidistantes circulares supra centro s, per terminum a quo transeat linea
piq, per terminum vero ad quem rmut. Nunc infero corpora g et 0 in aequali tempore
moveri per dictum spatium, motu naturae in praedicto medio. Sit exempli gratia corpus 0
quadruplum in quantitate ad g. Patet quoque per supradicta quod, quadruplum etiam erit
in ponderositate ad g (nam si esset ei aequale in utroque, tunc nulli dubium esset, quin
corpora ilia in aequali moverentur tempore). Dividam modo corpus 0 imaginatione in
quatuor aequales partes, suo toto similes (sphaericae figurae). Sint itaque h, k, I, n, quarum
centra ponam in linea pq ita quod distantia inter h et k eadem habeatur, quae inter I et n;
lineam item kl dividam per aequalia per vigesimamquintam primi huius, in puncto i, qui
quidem erit centrum gravitatis corporum h, k et I, n per communem scientiam, coadiuvante
tertia propositione libri de centris gravium Archimedis. Praeterea, manifestum est quod
unumquodque corporum h, k, I, n in aequali tempore movebitur apiq ad rmut ei in quo g
(nam unumquodque eorum aequale et aeque grave est corpori g per conceptionem
Euclidis). Per primam conceptionem ergo, corpora omnia, scilicet h, k, I, n, simul ab eodem
instanti demissa, aequaliter movebuntur, hoc est, in aequali tempore, et semper linea
transiens per eorum centra aequidistabit lineae rmut. Demum, si inteDigatur linea ducta per
centrum i et corporis 0 divisa per aequalia per supradictam vigesimamquintam primi
huius, tunc punctus ilIe divisionis erit centrum ponderis h, k, I, net 0 per supradicta. Nunc
vero, si linea illa intelligatur moveri vi corporum praedictorum, demissa a linea pq vel
ei aequidistans (quia tunc etiam esset aequidistans murt [! rmut] per communem scientiam,
semper erit aequidistans murt [! rmut]), corpus 0 in aequali tempore motu naturae
movebitur per datum spatium, ei, in quo corpora h, k, I, n movebuntur (nam resistentia
medii ad corpora h, k, I, n eadem est, quae ad corpus 0 per id quod supradictum est,
coadiuvante decimasexta quinti Eudidis, est enimidem pondus eademque species); sed idem
est, in quo g [movebitur] per communem scientiam quod est propositum. [4] Possum
quoque per hanc ostensionem, partem supradictae suppositionis demonstrare, hoc est, quod
si fuerint duo corpora, eiusdem figurae, sed diversae homogeneitatis, inaequalis etiam
corporeitatis, et utrunque eorum gravius medio per quod feruntur, sit etiam minus eorum
gravioris speciei quam maius, sed maius plus ponderet minori, tunc dico quod suppositio
supradicta vera est. Sint exempli gratia duo corpora m et n eiusdem figurae [Fig. 111.4.2.10],
at diversae homogeneitatis; sint etiam inaequalia (nam de aequalibus, nuDi dubium erit),
quorum maior sit m. Sed species corporis n gravior sit specie corporis m. Esto etiam
corpus m gravius corpore n, et utrunque eorum gravius corpore medio per quod feruntur.
Dico nunc, quod suppositio vera est. Intelligatur primum corpus aui aequalis similisque
figurae corpori m sed speciei corporis n. Tunc circa corpora aui et m suppositio darissima
est; sed, per praemissam ostensionem, corpus n in eodem tempore movetur in quo corpus
aui; quare constat propositum. Ex his liquet, motum magis velocem non causari ab excessu
vel gravitatis aut levitatis corporis velocioris collatione tardioris (datis corporibus similis
figurae), verum ex differentia speciei alterius corporis ad alterum gravitatis levitatisve
respectu, quae res non est ex mente Aristotelis, aut alicuius suorum commentatorum,
quos mihi quidem videre et legere contigit, aut etiam contulisse cum eiusdemprofessoribus. "
uniform and homogeneous bodies force (virtus) is proportional to volume
(cf. Pseudo-Euclid, De ponderoso et levi , Propositions 11 and Ill, as given
above, Part I, Chap. 7, note 17). The second, which was the first to con-
cern hydrostatics, supposed that the ratio of the speeds of bodies that are
of the same shape but of different materials is equal to the ratio of the
excesses of these bodies in [specific] weight over the medium. If we were
to rewrite this proposition as a general proportionality statement, it
would read: V ex: (S. W.body-S. W'mediunJ. The proof is based on Archi-
medes. Thus Benedetti notes that it is clear from Proposition 3 of [Book
I of] On Floating Bodies that if equal volumes of bodies were of equal
weight with the same volume of water they would not move at all; but if
they were [specifically] heavier than the medium, they would move down-
ward, according to Proposition 7 of the same work of Archimedes. There-
fore, the greater the excess of the specific weight of the body over that
of the medium [the greater the effective weight of the body over the
medium and thus] the greater the speed of fall. As I have said before in
discussing hydrostatic theories of fall, such theories add an assumption
beyond Archimedes, namely, that the greater force produces greater
speed, or putting it another way, greater force is defined by greater speed
(see Pseudo-Euclid, De ponderoso et levi, Proposition I). No such assump-
tion was expressed by Archimedes in On Floating Bodies. So far, in
connection with this main proposal of Benedetti, there is nothing essential
beyond what Tartaglia had already stated in his Italian commentary and
in La Travagliata inventione itself, except that with Benedetti we have a
formal proportionality statement connecting speeds with the excesses of
specific weight. But granting that Benedetti used On Floating Bodies in
the 1543 edition, can we say further that he got his idea about the rela-
tion of speed and excesses of specific weight from Tartaglia, with whom
he had studied the first four books of the Elements of Euclid?46 Or was
he familiar with the medieval tradition associated with Oresme and his
medieval successors or with the paragraph on the crown problem put forth
by Alberti, deriving therefrom the crucial hydrostatic assumption? While
I lean toward Tartaglia as the source of Benedetti' s theory in view of their
early relationship, I cannot be sure since in the accounts of all of his
predecessors the same basic Archimedean propositions played the key role
as they did with him, although to be sure only Oresme and Tartaglia
I have added the passage numbers [1], [2], [3] and [4], altered the punctuation and
capitalization somewhat, everywhere changed "K" to "k", italicized the letters indicating
magnitudes and removed the periods by which these letters were set off, and changed
consonantal "u" to "v". This whole passage has been excellently translated into English
and annotated by Drabkin in Mechanics in Sixteenth-Century Italy, pp. 147-53. It was
printed also in G. Libri, Histoire des sciences mathematiques en Italie, Vol. 3 (Paris,
1840), pp. 258-64, and more recently in C. Maccagni, Le Speculazioni giovanili "de motu"
di Giovanni Battista Benedetti (Pisa, 1%7), pp. 5-13.
46 So Benedetti tells us in the preface to his Resolutio, i.e. sig. ** [1] verso: "Nicolaus
Tartalea mihi quatuor primos libros solos Euclidis legit. . . ."
placed the theory in the context of Archimedes' treatise with the title
designated. In any case, Benedetti certainly delineated the dynamic
proposition arising from the use of hydrostatical considerations more
sharply than did any of his predecessors. I might also add that it is unlikely
that Benedetti fashioned his main proposition from the theory that velocity
of fall follows the arithmetical excess of force over resistance, which
had its origin (in a fashion) in Philoponus' Commentary on the Physics
of Aristotle, its restatement as the theory of Avempace by Averroes in
his commentary on the same work of Aristotle, and its more deliberate
quantification as V ex:: (F - R) in one of the theories rejected by Thomas
Bradwardine in 1328.
47
I say "unlikely" because, although the com-
mentary of Philoponus had been printed in Greek as early as 1535 and in
Latin by 1539 (and of course Averroes' commentary had been in print
since 1483 and was printed many times thereafter), there is no indication
at all in the expositions of this theory that either the force or the resistance
to be subtracted from the force were conceived in terms of specific weight.
Furthermore, Benedetti says at the end of the exposition in the Resolutio
that his theory of specific weight as the determinant in the speed of natural
motion "was not Aristotle's thought or the thought of any of his com-
mentators whose works I have chanced to read or discuss with profes-
sors" (see the end of note 45).
Benedetti's third proposal is that "if there are two bodies of the same
shape and the same material, whether equal [in size] to each other or un-
equal, they will in the same medium move over an equal distance in an
equal time." Although this is actually an immediate corollary of the pre-
ceding proposition, if resistance is limited to the buoyancy effect of the
medium (as Benedetti expressly wished in his preceding proposition), he
also presented a proof of sorts. He takes two spheres 0 and g of the same
material, with 0 four times as large as g (see Fig. III.4.2.11). Then he
imagines 0 to be divided into four equal spheres h, k, I and n. He places
their centers on arc pq so that the distances between land nand hand
k are equal. Arc kl is bisected at i. Then by "common knowledge" to-
gether with Archimedes' On the Equilibrium of Planes (which he calls
Liber de centris gravium Archimedis in conformity with the first part of the
title as it appears in the Moerbeke translation [De centris gravium vel
de (valde in T) planis equerepentibus] rather than with the title as it ap-
pears in the Cremonensis translation [Planorum equeponderantium
inventa vel centra gravitatis planorum]), Book I, Prop. 3 (as it is numbered
in the Moerbeke translation; it is Proposition 5 of the Cremonensis transla-
tion), the common center of gravity of h, k, land n will be in i [if we think
of the spheres connected by a rigid but weightless arcuate line). In addition,
if we let each of the spheres h, k, I and n fall simultaneously with g,
each will fall through the same space in the same time as g, from the pre-
47 Clagett, The Science of Mechanics, pp. 433-35,436, n. 26,438.
ceding proposition. As they fall the arc passing through their centers will
always be equidistant from arc rmut. Then the center of 0 is placed on arc
pq as indicated. Now the common center of gravity of 0 and the four small
spheres will be at the mid-point of the arc between i and the center of
sphere 0 [if again the arc is conceived as weightless but rigid]. If the arc
is then imagined as moved toward s under the forces indicated, being
always equidistant from pq, it will also always be equidistant from arc
rmut by "common knowledge" and body 0 will be moved in natural mo-
tion the same distance in the same time as the four spheres since the re-
sistance of the medium [i.e., its buoyant effect] is the same for 0 as for
the four spheres. And since the four spheres move through the same space
in the same time as their equal g, the proposition is demonstrated. This
is not a satisfactory proof since in the course of it the motion of the four
small spheres oscillates between being a single common movement aris-
ing from their being rigidly connected and four independent movements.
Furthermore, I hardly need say that Benedetti here ignores frictional re-
sistance which would be proportional to the surface rather than the volume
of a body falling through the medium. Since this is so, and he considers
as the only resistance the buoyancy of the medium which is proportional
to the volume of the body, the formula of the preceding proposition im-
mediately applies. That is, the factor (S. W. body-S. W. mediurrJ will be the
same regardless of the size of the body so long as the medium is of the
same specific weight. Hence the effective force and velocity of the bodies
will be the same, and so this pr.oof with its imagined rigid arcs is super-
fluous. Nevertheless, I have thought it worth including for its evident ef-
fort to use Archimedean considerations of center of gravity in the form of
the Moerbeke translation, no doubt as given in the edition of 1543.
The fourth and remaining proof in Benedetti's Resolutio (see note 45,
passage [4]) is an attempt to prove again the main proposal relating velocity
and excess in specific weight over the medium for the case of bodies that
differ in both material and size. This proof is based (1) on the assumption
that the proposal is clearly evident for the case where the two bodies of
different specific weight are of the same size, presumably because Bene-
detti felt that he had proved this (that is, in passage [2] of note 45), and
(2) on the immediately preceding proposition concerning the equality of
velocity of bodies of the same material but of different size (passage
[3] of note 45). So, in the course of his last proof Benedetti assumes
m and n of similar shape (see Fig. III.4.2.1Oin note 45), m being the heavier
and larger but less in specific weight. Each of them is of greater specific
weight than the medium through which they move. Then a third bodyaui
of the same shape is posited whose specific weight is the same as that of
n but whose volume is equal to that of m. Now the proposal is clearly true
for bodies aui and rn, i.e., aui's speed is greater than that of rn by the
amount its excess in specific weight over the medium is greater than rn's
excess in specific weight over the medium [because, as was proved in
the second proof by means of Proposition 7 of On Floating Bodies, a body
exerts a greater downward thrust by the amount that its excess in spe-
cific weight over the medium is greater; and the greater the downward
thrust the greater the speed]. But, by Benedetti's preceding proposition
(passage [3]), aui and n move with the same speed. [Hence the ratio of the
speed of aui to the speed of m is the same as the ratio of the speed of n
to that of m. But these equal ratios are precisely those of their excesses
in specific weight over the medium.] Hence the case is proved.
The account of Benedetti' s hydrostatic theory of falling bodies which I
have given here is repeated in substantially the same way in the first of the
two versions of his Demonstratio proportionum motuum localium contra
Aristotilem (! in the first version; Aristotelem in the second version) et
omnes philosophos (Venice, 1554),48 the version which Drabkin has desig-
48 See particularly pp. 5-13 of this first version of the Demonstratio (cf. Maccagni,
Le Speculazioni, pp. 22-38). It should be remarked that passages [2] and [4] of the
Resolutio coalesce as the third demonstration of the Demonstratio. The proof given in
passage [3] of the Resolutio becomes the second demonstration of the Demonstratio, while
passage [1] remains the first demonstration. I shall give only the Latin text of the third
demonstration of the Demonstratio (pp. 12-13; cf. Maccagni, pp. 37-38) so that it may
be compared with passages [2] and [4] in note 45: "Praeterea si fuerint duo corpora
eiusdem figurae, sed diversae homogeneitatis, inaequalis etiam corporeitatis, et utrunque
eorum (exempli gratia) gravius medio, per quod feruntur, sit etiam minus eorum gravioris
speciei quam maius sed maius plus ponderet minori, tunc dico quod minus velocius erit
in motu, eaque proportione erit temporis in quo minus ad tempus in quo maius, quae est
gravitatis speciei maioris ad speciem minoris, sublata tanta gravitate ab utroque quanta
est medii in unoquoque ipsorum. Sint exempli causa duo corpora m et n eiusdem figurae
[Fig. III.4.2.1O] at diversae homogeneitatis; sint etiam inaequalia (nam de aequalibus nuUi
est dubium), quorum maius sit m, sed species corporis n gravior sit specie corporis m.
Esto etiam corpus m gravius corpore n, et utrunque eorum gravius corpore medio per
quod feruntur. Tunc demonstrabo propositum. InteUigatur primum aui aequalis, similisque
figurae corpori m, sed speciei corporis n. Imaginemur etiam corpus m medium gravitate
excederein dupla proportione, aui autem in octupla praportione. Modo vera, motus corporis
aui erit in septupla proportione celerior motu corporis m, quia resistentia medii ad corpus
m est subdupla, ad corpus vera aui suboctupla per 7. Archimedis de insidentibus aquae.
Sed per praemissam ostensionem, corpus n in eodem tempore feretur in quo corpus aui. Quare per
primam animi conceptionem a Campano in Euclidem additam, patet propositum." We can
note in passing that in this first version of the Demonstratio Benedetti was much concerned
with establishing the priority of his discovery that velocity follows the excess in specific
weight over the medium. He notes (p. 5) that he discovered his proposition in September,
1552 and that he dedicated it to the Reverend Abbot de Guzman in 1553 (the Resolutio was
dedicated to de Guzman): "Cum enim propositum sit, loca superius dicta citare, in quibus
Arist. erravit, conveniens mihi visum est, propositionem quam anno salutis 1552 mense
Septembri inveni; postea vero 1553 Reverendis. Abbati de Guzman dicatam, hoc in loco brevibus
restringere. . . ." Somewhat later (p. 9) he attempts to distinguish his contribution from that of
Archimedes: "Propositionem enim propositam demonstrabo ostensive, ut lucidius pateat:
quoniam, cumArchimedes in suo opere de insidentibus aquae, nihilloquutus sit de proportione
motuum in elementis, manifeste patet ipsum nondum perscrutatum fuisse hanc propositionem,
nam ibi proprius erat huius rei locus (sed non uni datum est omnia scire) et propterea, multis,
satis difficile fuit, imaginari suppositionem, quam scripsi Reverendiss. Abbati de Guzman,
cum nihil aliud dicat vel demonstret Archimedes nisi, quod motus naturalis non causetur
ab alio quam ab excessu corporis in elemento supra ipsum elementum, vel e converso,
etc. "
nated as V.
49
We can simply point out that here Benedetti affirms the
relationship between velocity and excess of specific gravity and perhaps
even when the bodies move in a void, that is, when the specific gravity
of the medium is zero.
50
This latter conclusion certainly has no connec-
tion with the twelfth proposition of the first part of Chapter III of Brad-
wardine's Tractatus de proportionibus: "All mixed bodies of a similar
composition [of elements] will be moved equally fast in a void," since
this conclusion is based on a quite different concept of intrinsic resistance
and the determinant of velocity there is the ratio of a force to a resistance
rather than an arithmetical excess.
51
49 I. E. Drabkin, "G. B. Benedetti's Demonstratio proportionum motuum localium,"
Isis, Vo\. 54 (1963), p. 260, whole article pp. 259-62.
50 Drabkin in the article cited in the preceding note believes that Benedetti, in this first
version of the Demonstratio, held to his basic hydrostatic proposition even when the bodies
were falling in a void, and I suspect he is correct. Still this is by no means clear. Here is
the crucial passage (Demonstratio, pp. 15-16; cf. Maccagni, Le Speculazioni, pp. 41-42):
"Errat quoque Aristoteles in eodem cap. putans quod si daretur motus in vacuo eadem esset
ratio temporis ad tempus, quae inter corpora moventia, quod quidem est impossibile per
supra dicta, quoniam [secundum Aristotelem?] moverentur in tempore aequali, licet
diversarum fuissent specierumformarumque corpora illa atque magnitudinum. Ex quo etiam
loco facile colligere est, Aristotelem mentem habuisse, quod proportio motus ad motum
eadem sit quam magnitudines habent inter se secundum gravitatem aut levitatem
simpliciter. Sed ut etiam hoc clarius intelligatur, sint corpora n et m in vacuo, sitque corpus
n eiusdem ponderis cum aui (I m) sed diversae sint species, et per consequens magnitudines
diversae. Tunc cum nnllam (! nullam) habeant resistentiam corpora illa, nulli dubium erit
quin tempore aequali moveantur per aequale spatium [secundum Aristotelem?]. Accipiam
igitur corpus aui speciei corporis n sed quantitatis corporis m. Modo vero, methodo mediante
superioris demonstratae ostensionis, aui et n (delete?) in tempore aequali cum corpore
n per aequale spatium movebitur; quare per primam conceptionem [Euclidis] in eodem in
quo m; quare sequitur etc. [quod est impossibile quia est contra meam conclusionem
demonstratam?]." It will be noticed that I have suggested some possible additions in
brackets. The effect of them is to make the passage a description of Aristotle's opinion
that results in a contradiction of Benedetti' s conclusion. However, it should be noted that
in the second version of the Demonstratio there is a passage similar to this one (see note 57
below) where Benedetti has clearly adopted the view that all bodies regardless of specific
weight and size fall with equal speeds in a void, even though that conclusion is contradictive
of his general views of fall expressed in that second version. Hence, it may be that in the
passage I have given here Benedetti has already arrived at that conclusion even though it
appears contradictive of his main proposal relating velocity to excess specific weight.
51 Tractatus de proportionibus, ed. ofH. L. Crosby, Jr. (Madison, Wise., 1955), p. 116:
"Omnia mixta compositionis consimilis aequali velocitate in vacuo movebuntur. Nam in
omnibus talibus motores sunt proportionales suis resistentiis. Igitur (per primam huius)
omnia talia aequevelociter movebuntur." It is well known that Bradwardine modified the
so-called Peripatetic law of velocity by suggesting that velocity grows arithmetically as the
ratio of force to resistance grows geometrically. Even if E. Grant, "Bradwardine and
Galileo: Equality of Velocities in the Void," Archive for History of Exact Sciences, Vo!.
2 (1965), pp. 344-64, is correct in interpreting this case of the uniformity of unequal
bodies of mixed but similar composition in terms of the ratio of intensive force to intensive
resistance (e.g. in falling bodies, the ratio of specific heaviness of the predominating heavy
components to the specific lightness of the coextensive light elements constituting internal
resistance), this theory would still be fundamentally unlike the theory of Beneditti which
abandons the concept of the ratio of force to resistance as the determinant in velocity. For
him, resistance was to be subtracted from force.
Benedetti's hydrostatic theory of fall as given in the first version of the
Demonstratio was plagiarized by Jean Taisnier in his Opusculum
perpetua memoria dignissimum etc. (Cologne, 1562), which may have
been more widely read than the original text.
52
In England, Benedetti's
third proposition on the equality of fall of bodies of the same material
was joined to some of the propositions of Book I of On Floating Bodies
by John Dee in his mathematical preface to H. Billingsley's English
translation of the Elements: The Elements of Geometrie of the most
auncient Philosopher Euclide ofMegara (London, 1570), sig. b iiii verso-c
i recto:
1.
The Superficies of every Liquor, by itselfe consistying, and inquyet [i.e. not
in motion], is Sphaericall: the centre whereof, is the same, which is the centre of
the Earth.
2.
If Solide Magnitudes, being of the bignes, or quantltie, that any Liquor is, and
havyng also the same Waight: be let downe into the same Liquor, they will settle
downeward, so, that no parte of them, shall be above the Superficies of the
Liquor: and yet nevertheles, they will not sinke utterly downe, or drowne.
3.
Ifany Solide Magnitude beying Lighter then [1 than] a Liquor, be let downe into
the same Liquor, it will settle downe, so farre into the same Liquor, that so great a
quantitie of that Liquor, as is the parte ofthe Solid Magnitude, settled downe into
the same Liquor: is in Waight, aequalI, to the waight of the whole Solid
Magnitude.
4.
Any Solide Magnitude, Lighter then [1 than] a Liquor, forced downe into the
same Liquor, will move upward, with so great a power, by how much, the Liquor
havying aequall quantitie to the whole Magnitude, is heavyer then the same
Magnitude.
5.
Any Solide Magnitude, heavyer then [! than] a Liquor, beyng let downe into
the same Liquor, will sinke downe utterly: And wil be in that Liquor, Lighter
by so much, as is the waight of heavynes of the Liquor, having bygnes or
quantitie, aequall to the Solid Magnitude.
52 Drabkin, "G. B. Benedetti'sDemonstratio," p. 260. Incidentally, Taisnier's work was
translated by Richard Eden, A Very Necessary and Profitable Booke concerning
Navigation ete. (London, 1578). Maccagni, Le Speculazioni, has used the text of Taisnier
for variant readings to the first version of Benedetti's Demonstratio.
6.
If any Solide Magnitude, Lighter then [I than] a Liquor, be let downe into the
same Liquor, the waight of the same Magnitude, will be, to the Waight of the
Liquor. (Which is aequalI in quantitie to the whole Magnitude,) in that propor-
tion, that the parte, of the Magnitude settled downe, is to the whole Magnitude.
To this last proposition Dee adds the following marginal comment: "I.D.
The Cutting of a Sphere according to any proportion assigned, may by
this proposition be done Mechanically by tempering Liquor to a certayne
waight in respect of the waight of the Sphere therein Swymming."
By these verities, great Errors may be reformed, in Opinion of the Naturall
Motion of Thinges, Light and Heavy, Which errors, are in Naturall Philosophie
(almost) of all men allowed: to[o] much trusting to Authority: and false Sup-
positions. As, "Of any two bodyes, the heavyer, to move downward faster then
the lighter." This error, is not first by me, Noted: but by one Iohn Baptist de
Benedictis. The chief of his propositions, is this: which seemeth a Paradox. "If
there be two bodyes of one forme, and of one kynde, aequall in quantitie or
unaequall, they will move by aequall space, in aequall tyme: So that [i.e. so long
as] both theyr movynges be in ayre, or both in water: or in anyone Middle
[i.e. medium]."
I have retained the inconsistent spelling and punctuation of the original
text except that I have changed the consonantal "u" to "v" and the vocal
"v" to "u". I have also added quotation marks to the opinions on motion
quoted in the final paragraph. I tend to connect Dee's rendering of the
Archimedean propositions from On Floating Bodies with Tartaglia's edi-
tion rather than Commandino' s version of 1565 because the initials" N.T. "
appear in the margin just after the Archimedean propositions.
Finally, I can note without extensive analysis the well-known hydro-
static theory of fall of Galileo's De motu gravium, which agrees in its
essentials with Benedetti's theory although it differs in detaiJ.53 Archi-
53 Clagett, The Science of Mechanics, p. 667, n. 130. For the diferences between
Galileo's theory and that of Benedetti, see 1. E. Drabkin, "G. B. Benedetti and Galileo's
De Motu," Actes du Dixieme Congres International d' Histoire des Sciences, ed. H.
Guerlac, Vo!' 1(Paris, 1964), pp. 627-30. Other interesting accounts of Galileo's hydrostatic
theory of falling bodies are found in A. Koyre, "Le De motu Gravium de Galilee," Revue
d'histoire des sciences, Vo!. 13 (1960), pp. 197-245; M. Clavelin, La Philosophie naturelle
de Galih!e (Paris, 1968), pp. 130-48; E. Grant, "Bradwardine and Galileo," pp. 355-64.
It is not my intention in this volume to study in detail Galileo's use of the works of
Archimedes, since Galileo's activity lies beyond the chronological limits I have set for this
investigation. However, this is an appropriate place to remark that Galileo certainly knew
the Basel edition of the Cremonensis translations (1544) from an early period in his
mathematical studies and it seems likely that he also knew Tartaglia's version of the
Moerbeke translations of 1543. Let me examine the last part of this statement first.
Stillman Drake (Galileo Studies [Ann Arbor, Mich., 1970], p. 35), after noting that
Galileo's "first teacher of mathematics was ostilio Ricci, reputedly a pupil of the applied
mathematician Tartaglia," states that "Ricci put Galileo to the study of Euclid and
Archimedes, and probably to that of 10rdanus through Tartaglia's editions." Now in his
La Bilancetta of 1586, Galileo cites by title both On Floating Bodies and On the Equilibrium
of Planes (Galileo, Le Opere, ed. naz., Vol. I [Florence, 1890], p. 216: "e finalmente, dopo
aver con diligenza riveduto quello che Archimede dimostra nei suoi libri Delle cose che
stanno nell'aqqua ed in quelli Delle cose che pesano ugualmente, mi e venuto in mente
un modo che esquisitissimamente risolve il nostro quesito: il qual modo credero io esser
l'istesso che usasse Archimede, atteso che, oltre all'esser esattisimo, depende ancora da
dimostrazioni ritrovate dal medesimo Archimede"). The fact that Galileo says that he has
reviewed with diligence Archimedes' demonstrations in both On Floating Bodies and On
the Equilibrium of Planes makes it impossible that he simply used the Basel edition, for
On Floating Bodies was not included therein. But at least Book I of On Floating Bodies
and both books of On the Equilibrium of Planes were given in the Tartaglia edition of
1543. Still, Galileo uses the plurallibri for On Floating Bodies, which might imply that
he had examined Books I and n. If this is so, then he could not have read merely the
edition of 1543. Rather he would have had to have read the full text in the edition of Curtius
Troianus of 1565 prepared from the legacy of Tartaglia or in the edition of Commandino of
the same year. If we turn to Galileo's Theoremata circa centra gravitatis solidorum, which
is apparently among his early mathematical works and which reflects a general knowledge
of Archimedes' On the Equilibrium of Planes, we find that we cannot ascertain for sure
which version of On the Equilibrium of Planes Galileo had read, that of Tartaglia or
that of the Basel edition. In fact, he could have read either or both. The only hint that he
was following the Basel text rather than that of Tartaglia is found in his Lemma (Le opere,
ed. naz., Vol. I, p. 204), which is similar in form to Proposition 9 of Book I of Archimedes
On the Equilibrium of Planes. For there Galileo's terminology resembles that of the Basel
edition rather than that of the Tartaglia edition (e.g. both Galileo and the Basel edition use
fuerint in the first clause, while Tartaglia's edition has sint; similarly, Galileo and the
Basel edition consistently use superat where Tartaglia has excedit). However, he probably
knew Tartaglia's text (or at least, he was alerted to it), for an anonymous letter from
Bologna criticizing his work mentions Tartaglia's text (ibid., p. 184: "Et ben che questo
lemma non sia it medesimo con la nona d' Archimede, nel 2 trattato del Tartaglia . . .").
A note on the back of the folio in Galileo's hand tells us: "Giudizio sopra una mia
Prop. ne fatto in Bologna." Whatever the truth is concerning Galileo's reading in connection
with the above noted works, it is certain that by the time he composed his Postilli ai
Libri de sphaera et cylindro (which Favaro would also place among his early works),
he is following the Basel edition, as is evident from the citations included there (see Le
Opere, Vol. I, pp. 231-42). Similarly, there are citations in the De motu (from about 1590)
that indicate a knowledge of the Basel edition (e.g., one to On Spiral Lines: Le Opere, Vol.
I, p. 303: "Aristoteles temere dicit, Non datur recta aequalis circuli circumferentiae: quod
falsum esse demonstratur a divino Archimede in suis Lineis spiralibus, propositione ...
(! 18); ubi circumferentiae circuli circa spiralem primae revolutionis recta linea aequalis
invenitur"; and one to Eutocius' Commentary on the Sphere and the Cylinder, ibid., pp.
330-31: "Verum tales lineas [i.e. lineas, quae, in infinitum protractae, semper appropin-
quentur, nunquam tamen concurrant) dari, omnes norunt qui aut in asymptotos hyperboles
in Conicis Apollonii Pergaei, aut in primam linearn conchoidem Nicomedis, apud Eutocium
Ascalonitam in Commentariis super librum secundum inimitabilis Archimedis De sphaera
et cylindro, inciderint ..."). Neither of these works was in Tartaglia's edition. And
although Galileo may have read the first of them in Commandino's translation of 1558
and the second in Valla's De expetendis et fugiendis rebus of 1501, the most economical
conclusion is that he read them in the Basel edition of 1544. One other citation in the
De motu (ibid., p. 300) is not decisive since it is to Quadrature of the Parabola, which
appeared in both the Tartaglia and Basel editions. Galileo answers the objection to his
procedure of assuming that weights act perpendicularly to the balance beam instead of
toward the center of the earth (the objection that Benedetti had raised to Jordanus' pro-
cedure) by noting that Archimedes had also done so: "His responderem, me sub
suprahumani Archimedis (quem nunquam absque admiratione nomino) alis memet protegere.
Ipse enim hoc idem in sua Parabolae quadratura supposuit. . . ."
medean statics and hydrostatics play a crucial role. 54 Before leaving
Benedetti's theory of fall we should observe that Drabkin has shown that
Benedetti produced a second version of the Demonstratio of 1554, which
Drabkin labels P. 55 In this second version Benedetti seriously modifies
the conclusions of his theory, for he seems to imply that it is only in a
vacuum that bodies of unequal size but of the same material fall with
equal velocity. The apparent reason for this change is that in some cases
frictional resistance as well as buoyant resistance must be taken into ac-
count. But the former resistance is proportional to the surface area and
not the volume of the body falling in a medium. 56 However, hydrostatic
considerations still play an important part in his exposition and Archi-
medes is still quoted. 57 This second theory of Benedetti is developed more
fully in his later Diversarum speculationum . . . liber of 1585.
58
It should
54 This is universally accepted and I need not elaborate the evidence here, but I find
particularly interesting and provocative Grant's' 'hydrostatic" interpretation of Galileo's use
of impressed force to explain projectile motion and the subsequent acceleration of natural
motion (see "Bradwardine and Galileo," pp. 360-63). Grant claims that the impressed force
functions for Galileo as a kind of internal hydrostatic medium or "lightness" by which the
stone's heaviness is overcome. Grant also points out (p. 364) that Galileo conceived of
statics as well as hydrostatics as being important to his analysis of natural motion. In this
respect Galileo was the heir of Benedetti, as our quotation in note 45 reveals.
55 Drabkin, "G. B. Benedetti's Demonstratio," p. 260. Incidentally, Drabkin was
concerned because P carries the date of "Ides of February, 1554," that is to say early
in the year, although on rational grounds P ought to be later than V. He need not have
been concerned since P's date was no doubt given in the stile veneto in which the year
began on March I (A. Cappelli, Cronologia, cronografia e calendario perpetuo, 3rd ed.
[Milan, 1969], p. ll). Thus P was actually published on the Ides of February, 1555 (cf.
Maccagni, Le Speculazioni, p. XXXV, n. 41). Hence the chronological problem disappears.
56 Ibid., pp. 260-61. Drabkin has produced an English translation of Version P of the
Demonstratio with informative notes in Mechanics in Sixteenth-Century Italy, pp. 154-65.
For comments on frictional resistance, see particularly pp. 161, n. 29; 162, n. 32.
57 See Drabkin's translation, pp. 156, 159-60. I have pointed to a similar passage in the
earlier version of the Demonstratio (see above, note 50). For purposes of comparison of
the two passages, ,I give the Latin text of P's passage (Demonstratio [Venice, Ides of
February, 1554], p. 9; cf. Maccagni, Le Speculazioni, pp. 71-72): "Praeterea dico
quod si diversae etiam essent speciei, ponderisque diversi, eadem motus celeritate
moverentur corpora iUa, cuius quidem motus celeritas non esset in instanti, cum in eo
aliquid moveri fieri non possit; nam instans et prius et posterius haberet, et per consequens
divisibile, quare esset etiam tempus, non ergo esset terminus sive finis sed pars finiti
etc.; sed in tempore determinato moventur. Sed maioris intelligentiae gratia, sint tria corpora
in vacuo, puta, m, n et aui, corpus autem m eiusdem sit ponderis cum corpore n sed
diversae speciei atque quantitatis (quod erit per consequens). Tunc cum nullam habeant
resistentiam corpora illa, nulli dubium erit, quin tempore aequali moveantur per aequale
spatium. Imaginemur postea corpus aui speciei corporis n sed quantitatis corporis m.
Modo vero per praemissam, eadem erit celeritas motus corporis aui et n; quapropter per
primam conceptionem [Euciidis] motus corporum m et n eiusdem erit celeritatis, et erunt
motus in tempore aliquo atque definito, ut superius dixi." (Again I have altered the
punctuation somewhat.)
58 Drabkin, "G. B. Benedetti's Demonstratio," p. 261, and see his English translation
of the appropriate sections of the Diversarum speculationum . . . liber in Mechanics in
Sixteenth-Century Italy, pp. 196-214.
also be noted that Benedetti arrives at the conclusion that all bodies re-
gardless of weight and kind of material fall equally in avoid. 59 While
this happens to be correct, it does not follow from his other con-
clusions and his proof is not at all cogent.
In connection with the modified theory of Benedetti, it is worth re-
marking that G. B. Bellaso in a cryptographic book Il vero modo di
scrivere in cifra etc. (Brescia, 1564) presents the following as one of his
Propositions whose demonstrations are in cipher:
60
The reason why, when one lets fall from a height two balls, one of iron and the
other of wood, the wood falls to earth as quickly as the iron one.
If one of the unspecified conditions of this case of fall were that it take
place in a vacuum, then it would be like the above-noted conclusion of
Benedetti. But our conclusions concerning what reading or discussion
prompted Bellaso's statement must await the breaking of the cipher.
Now let us turn back to Tartaglia's Italian translation of Book I of
On Floating Bodies. In the same introductory dialogue in which Tartaglia's
dynamic addition to Archimedean statics appears, Tartaglia declares, in
reply to Wentworth's question on certain hydrostatic effects, that the cause
of these effects is presented in the On Floating Bodies "given into light
by me (per me datto in luce)," which Salusbury renders by "by me pub-
lished in Latine." In a note to the succeeding statement in the intro-
ductory dialogue, Salusbury refers to Tartaglia's earlier publication by
saying: "He speaks of but one Book, Tartaglia having translated no more. "
One other comment that bears on the question of Tartaglia's supposed
"translation" occurs at the end of the proof of Proposition viii, where
he says "in these second figures, the letter x is put in place of the letter c
in the first figures because it was thus in the figures taken from the Greek
exemplar." Again, this is an ambiguous reference and may merely mean
that Tartaglia was acknowledging manuscript M's source to be a Greek
exemplar. Such an explanation did not occur to Salusbury, who, under
the added rubric "Nic." (for Tartaglia), boldly and incorrectly translates
59 Drabkin's translation of the Demonstratio, pp. 158-59.
60 G. B. Bellaso, Il vero modo di scrivere in cifra etc. (Brescia, 1564), sig. B3 recto:
"La ragione perche lassando cadere da alto a basso due palle, una di ferro, e l'altra di
legno, cosi presto cada in terra quella di legno, como quella di ferro." Another proposition
of some interest to our study is also given (ibid.): "The reason why there is no certain
measure and ratio of the diameter to the circumference and of the circumferences to the
diameter, or no quadrature of the circle, although some people falsely say they have
found it." ("La ragione perche non vi sia certa misura, et proportione, dal diametro alIa
circonferentia, et dalla circonferentia allo diametro, ne vi sia la quadratura del circolo,
benche alcuni falsamente dicano haverla ritrovata. ") In this little book these ten propositions
whose explanation and demonstrations are contained in seven paragraphs are printed in cipher
with a remark to the effect that if these ciphers are not deciphered within a year he will
make their key words known to any prince who asks him. So far as I can tell, the propositions
encoded in this work of 1564 are not present in Bellaso's earlier tracts: La Cifra del sig.
Giovan Battista Belaso (Venice, 1553) and Novi et singolari modi di cl/rare (Brescia, 1555).
the comment "Truth is, that in some of the figures C is put for X, and
so it was in the Greek copy that I followed," once more implying that
Tartaglia had consulted a Greek copy. Similarly, in his last comment to
this proof, Tartaglia under the rubric' 'Nic." answers a query concerning
two corrections suggested by Wentworth by saying; "you are right, but
because they were thus in the Greek exemplar it did not appear to me
fit to alter them for the better." Anyone reading this statement might
well conclude that Tartaglia had consulted a Greek manuscript. But again
the reference is truly to manuscript M, for the errors of which he speaks
are errors of manuscript M. Thus the added comment may merely be
Tartaglia's shorthand way of saying that M was based on a Greek ex-
emplar (a conclusion that he might have reached from the various refer-
ences to a Greek exemplar included by Moerbeke in manuscript 0 and
repeated in manuscript M). We can note finally concerning Tartaglia's
introductory dialogue that Wentworth concludes with the statement that
he has seen the works of Archimedes. He lists them in the order in which
they appear in Tartaglia's edition of 1543. In doing so he says that he has
understood very well the two books where Archimedes treats of "the
center of gravity of plane figures and similarly those on the quadrature
of the parabola and of the circle," but that he finds the work on solids
which float or do not float on water so obscure that he does not under-
stand many things in it. Hence he welcomes the Italian exposition of it.
Now let us proceed to the substance and structure of Tartaglia's
Italian translation and commentary. It will be noticed, in the case of the
suppositions and the propositions, that Tartaglia first gives the enuncia-
tions in Latin from his edition of 1543. These are then followed by 1)
Italian translations of the enunciations, 2) Italian translations or para-
phrases of the Archimedean proofs as given in his edition of 1543 (inter-
spersed with occasional parenthetical references to Euclid and one or
another of the Archimedean propositions or with additional material to
make the proof clearer), and 3), on occasion, a commentary in dialogue
form. In connection with the first supposition, Tartaglia initially remarks
that in every science, art or discipline there are indemonstrable first
principles on the basis of which, when supposed, the science is proved,
maintained, or demonstrated. The principles are called petitioni, dignita,
or suppositioni. There are only two such suppositions for the science
of floating bodies (this first supposition and the one that precedes Proposi-
tion viii). In the extended commentary to the first supposition, Tartaglia
explains the basic principles of Archimedes' hydrostatics, perhaps imply-
ing but not stating the important distinction that the force on a sector is
somehow transmitted through the center of the world to the adjacent
sector.
61
The comment focuses on explaining 1) the expression "equally
lying" (rendered in the Salusbury translation as "equijacent") as parts
61 E. J. Dijksterhuis, Archimedes (Copenhagen, 1956), pp. 373-79.
lying next to one another on a circumference equidistant from the center
of the world and 2) how one part of the liquid is pressed on by the liquid
lying perpendicularly above it, lying "perpendicularly" being conceived
as lying on the same radius from the center of the world. Tartaglia also
explains why the text has humidum instead of aqua: either because water
is the principle of all wet things and hence the terms are essentially the
same, or because all of the propositions apply to bodies that are in any
liquid and humidium is a more general term for liquids than aqua.
Proposition i is translated without commentary. Similarly, Proposition ii
is translated without added commentary; but in the course of the transla-
tion Tartaglia, by simple Euclidian geometry, elaborates the single state-
ment of the Archimedean text that the part of the fluid pressing on op
is heavier than that pressing on ox (see Fig. 111.4.2.14 in the Italian text
below), showing that the sector segment beop is equal to the sector seg-
ment brxo. But since beop is filled with water while brxo is not, the former
is heavier. Even heavier, then, is blop, which is larger than beop. Hence
motion occurs and the fluid is not at rest as supposed. The proof of
Proposition iii is slightly elaborated but does not depart essentially from
the Archimedean proof. A brief comment by Tartaglia explains the ex-
pression "solid magnitudes" by equating it with bodies and three-di-
mensional figures. More pertinent would have been a comment on their
rigidity vis-a-vis fluids. Propositions iv and v follow the Archimedean
text quite closely with no additional commentary. To Proposition vi, which
also keeps close to the text, is added a comment by Wentworth that it
was from this proposition that Tartaglia was led to his "industrious in-
vention" (travagliata inventione) for lifting sunken ships. Proposition vii
is translated without comment. Following the seventh proposition, the
second supposition-to the effect that bodies that are borne upward in a
fluid are borne upward along the perpendicular produced through the
center of gravity of the bodies-receives a short comment from Tartaglia
in which he reminds Wentworth that the perpendicular is defined as the
line drawn by the imagination from the center of the world through the
center of gravity of a body. Furthermore, in replying to Wentworth's
question as to how the center of gravity of a body may be found, he says
that this is shown in De centris gravium valde aequerepentibus, i.e.
On the Equilibrium of Planes (the title being given as in Tartaglia's edi-
tion of 1543). He recommends that Wentworth have recourse to this work.
The latter agrees but hopes that they shall speak of it another time. This
may be an indication that Tartaglia hoped to do a translation with com-
mentary of that work as well. 1 can remark incidentally that, in fact,
On the Equilibrium ofPlanes concerns itself with the centers of gravity of
plane figures only. But presumably Tartaglia meant that one could start
with these considerations and proceed to the centers of gravity of solids,
as, of course, Leonardo da Vinci and Maurolico had already done and
Commandino was going to do.
It is now important to see what Tartaglia has done to Proposition viii
since its publication in 1543. In that publication, you will recall, the enun-
ciation of Proposition viii was followed by the enunciation of Proposition
ix as if the latter were the beginning of the proof of Proposition viii.
This confusion is now gone in the translation. Propositions viii and ix now
appear as two parts of Proposition viii, and indeed their similarity (and the
absence of a separate number for ix in the Moerbeke manuscripts) allows
them to be so conceived. He realizes perfectly well that the proof of the
first part of the proposition (Le. the proof of Proposition viii) is missing
in the Archimedean text. He starts off with the proof of the second half
of his proposition viii (Le. the proof of Proposition ix). But he expands it
considerably, since in the Moerbeke text only the case for a segment
greater than a hemisphere was given. Tartaglia adds a similar proof for
the case of a segment equal to a hemisphere and notes that the same kind
of proof can be given for the third case of a segment less than a hemisphere
(although he does not give the proof). He then returns to the first half of
the proposition (Le. Proposition viii, where no proof had been given in the
Moerbeke text) and says that the proofs for such segments whose bases
are turned upward outside of the liquid would be similar to those whose
bases are turned downward in the liquid and he indicates the direction
of such proofs. In the commentary, Wentworth confesses that he finds the
demonstration most difficult but he believes that this is because he cannot
keep in mind the propositions from De centris gravium. Furthermore,
Wentworth makes a perfectly just criticism of the figures as given in the
text and drawn from manuscript M (and in fact as they appear also in
manuscript 0). In each of the figures the axis of the segment is not
drawn to the middle of the arc enh and the segment is not shown as in-
clined. Indeed the one error has generated the other. For in order to make
zt distinct from the vertical when the segment is not inclined it has to be
incorrectly drawn. All six figures are correctly drawn in Commandino's
version of 1565 (see Sect. III below). All in all, Tartaglia made an im-
portant start toward the correct understanding and proof of Propositions
viii and ix. Furthermore, I think it quite likely that Commandino had
studied Tartaglia' s Italian translation when he prepared his new and im-
proved version on the basis of the better text of manuscript 0 (or
rather on the basis of a more careful copy of 0 than manuscript M), as
I shall show in the next section, note 27.
Since I am proceeding in a chronological way, I must remind the reader
at this point of the Archimedean sections of Tartaglia's last work, the
General trattato (in six parts, Venice, 1556-60), and recall that he included
there his Italian translation of Book I of On the Sphere and Cylinder, a
translation in all likelihood based on Moerbeke's Latin translation. We
have also noted that the General trattato included an Italian rendering of
the section in Eutocius' Commentary on the Sphere and the Cylinder that
described the various solutions of the problem of finding two mean pro-
portionals between two given lines, a translation based, I believe, on
Cremonensis' Latin translation (see below, Chap. 6, Sect. Ill, n. 20).
Furthermore, there is included in the General trattato a discussion of the
quadrature of the circle (and lunes) that is heavily dependent on Valla's
account but also refers to the efforts of Nicholas of Cusa and Regio-
montanus.
62
This same passage is followed by a refutation of the attempted
quadrature of Oronce Fine as well as the latter's solution of the problem
of mean proportionals. 63
We can also remark, without elaboration, that following his translation
of Book I of On the Sphere and the Cylinder, Tartaglia concludes Part
IV of his General trattato by adding on folios 60v-63v: "Di alcune
practical questioni sopra le misurationi della sphera, et delle sue portioni,
over parti." There he gives 18 problems concerned with spheres and their
segments. For the most part these problems go back through Pacioli's
Summa to the treatments of Leonardo Fibonacci and Piero della Fran-
cesca, although these authors are not mentioned by name. In problems
3 and 11 he refutes the solutions of Francesco Feliciano, and in problem
10 the solution of Giovan' Antonio Tagliente.
64
In the development of his
formulas there is continual reference to Book I of On the Sphere and the
Cylinder of Archimedes.
Tartaglia's last contribution to the spread of the Moerbekian transla-
tions was an indirect one. As we have already noted, he left the Madrid
manuscript (or a copy of it?) to Curtius Troianus and the latter published
the full text of On Floating Bodies in 1565 at Venice, expressing his
obligation to Tartaglia to present the latter's version.
65
This was eight
62 General trattato, Part IV, 17v-19r.
63 Ibid., 19r-21r.
64 Feliciano (Francesco Feliciano da Lazisio) was the author of a Libro de abaco (Venice,
1517, and many succeeding editions), and a Libro de arithmetica et geometria speculativa
et praticale (Venice, 1526, and numerous later editions). This latter work was also entitled
Scala grimaldelli, under which title it was cited by Tartaglia. Giovanni Antonio Tagliente
was the coauthor with Gerolamo Tagliente of a Libro de abaca (Venice, 1515, and many
succeeding editions).
65 This edition has two title pages, one before each book of the De insidentibus. Each
book also has its own pagination and the same dedication. Hence the acknowledgment
by Troianus of the accomplishments of Tartaglia appears on folio 2r of each book: "Cum
vero labores maximi illi quidem Nicolai Tartaleae quotidie magis, ac magis cognoscantur
profuisse literatis viris, non modica videbor ego dignus reprehensione, qui reliquias habui
eiusdem laborum et vigiliarum, ni iIlas quoque in medium proferam, et communi utilitati
consulam. Quare cum habeam adhuc apud me Archimedem de insidentibus aquae ab ipso
Nicolao in lucem revocatum, et quantum ab ipso fieri potuit, ab erroribus librarii
emendatum, et suis lucubrationibus iIlustratum; videor fraudare omnes literatos sua
possessione, ni omnia, quae huius ingeniosissimi viri apud me restant, in lucem emisero,
et omnibus ea communicavero." A similar but much shorter statement is given by
Troianus in the dedication to the edition of Jordanus, De ponderositate (Venice, 1565),
2v: " ... tibi [Francisco Labiae] optimae spei adolescenti dicare volui hunc Iordani
ingeniosi, et acuti hominis librum de ponderibus, quem mihi suis in fragmentis Nicolaus
Tartalea familiaris meus, vir quidem praeclaris omatus scientiis excudendum, reliquit."
years after the death of Tartaglia. As in the case of the 1543 publica-
tion of Book I, this new text including Book Il (it merely reproduces
the previously published text of Book I) depends closely on manuscript
M. One has to confess that the full text was rendered almost immediately
obsolete in the very year it was published by the publication of the bril-
liant reconstruction of On Floating Bodies by Federigo Commandino at
Bologna in 1565. This work will be the object of my attention in the next
section. One can also suggest that the publication in the same year by
Curtius Troianus of the copy left him by Tartaglia of Jordanus' De
ponderositate with its added text of the Pseudo-Archimedes, De ponder-
ibus contributed something to the spread of this indirect medieval tradi-
tion of Archimedes, as indeed had Tartaglia' s use of the medieval statical
and hydrostatical material in his Quesiti et inventioni ,66 and the truncated
version of Pseudo-Archimedes' De ponderibus which appeared in his
Ragionamenti ... sopra la sua travagliata inventione (Venice, 1551)
and which I have discussed and republished below in Chapter 6, Section
Il, Text C.
My investigation of Tartaglia's role in the spread of the medieval Archi-
medes can now be concluded by the publication of his Italian trans-
lation with commentary of Book I of Archimedes' On Floating Bodies.
The text is included in his Ragionamenti . . . sopra la sua travagliata
inventione (Venice, 1551), without pagination, but including the title,
dedication and first twenty-two pages. This text was published separately
and with the Regola generale da sulevare con ragione e misura non
solamente ogni affondata nave: ma una torre solida di mettallo, trovata
da Nicolo Tarraglia (I) delle discipline mathematicate amatore, intitolata
la sua travagliata inventione etc. (Venice, 1551). In presenting this text
I have capitalized the enunciations as an indication that they are in larger
type in the original edition. The proofs and comments have been set in
roman type, although they are in italic type in the original. In the case
of the letters representing magnitudes, I have removed the periods by
which they are set off in the original text (e.g., .. .ab. " becomes "ab").
I have changed the punctuation somewhat where it would confuse the
reader. The original text omits most conventional accent signs but oc-
casionally has them, as in "e" or "gravita." In this respect I have fol-
lowed the text without attempting to supply them. As I have said, there
is no pagination in the original edition but I have successively numbered
the pages beginning from the title page and these numbers appear in the
margins of my text.
66 Drake, Mechanics in Sixteenth-Century Italy, pp. 112-43, has identified which parts
of the medieval tracts are being cited by Tartaglia. For Tartaglia's use in the Quesiti of
the Pseudo-Euclid, De ponderoso et levi and the Pseudo-Archimedes, De ponderibus
(or De incidentibus in humidum, as it is also called), see particularly the notes on pp.
112-14. I have given the Italian text of the citations in the Quesiti from Pseudo-
Archimedes below in Section II of Chapter 6, n. 23.
Finally, I would once more alert the reader to the English translation
of the text attributed to Thomas Salusbury and given below in the next
section. It follows Tartaglia' s translation closely except in Proposition viii,
where the reconstructions of Commandino are mixed in with the material
from Tartaglia's text and the proposition is separated into two proposi-
tions.
Niccolo Tartaglia
Ragionamenti, Rag. I De insidentibus aquae
1 /Ragionamenti de Nicolo Tartaglia sopra La sua Travagliata inventione.
Nelli quali se dechiara volgarmente quellibro di Archimede Siracusano
intitolato De insidentibus aquae
2 / Al Magnifico et Generoso Signor Conte Antonio Landriano
Nicolo Tartaglia
Ragionandomi vostra Signoria questi giorni passati, Magnifico Signor
Conte, di l'opra di Archimede Siracusano, da me data in luce, et mas-
sime di quella parte, che eintitolata, De insidentibus aquae, quella me
notifico esser molto desiderosa di trovare, et di vedere l'original graeco
dove che tal parte era stata tradotta. Per la qual cosa compresi, che
vostra Signoria ricercava tal originale per la oscurita dil parlare, che
nella detta traduttion latina si pronontia. Onde per levar questa fatica a
vostra Signoria di star a ricercare tal original greco (qual forsi piu oscuro
et incorretto 10 ritrovaria della detta traduttion latina) ho dechiarita, et
minutamente dilucidata tal parte in questo mio primo ragionamento, il
qual ragionamento a quella offerisco, et dedico, alla bona gratia della quale
moho mi raccomando.
In Venetia alli .5. di mazzo. 1551.
3 / RAGIONAMENTO PRIMO DI
Nicolo Tartaglia con M. Ricardo Uentuorth (I) suo Compare,
sopra le cose dette nel principio della sua travagliata inventione,
nel quale se dechiara volgarmente quel libro di Archimede
Siracusano, detto, de insidentibus aquae, materia di non poca
speculatione, et intellettual delattatione.
RICARDO. Compar carissimo io ho scorsa tutta la vostra travagliata
inventione, nella quale certamente non vi ho dubbio alcuno, che la non
reusisca, ma eglie ben vera, che de molte vostre conclusioni non in-
tendo la causa, e pero non essendovi a molesto haveria a caro che me
la notificesti, perche in effetto, niuna cosa mi piace, se di quella la
causa non intendo. NICOLO. Tanto sono le obligationi che ho con uoi,
Compar honorando, che niuna vostra petitione mi debbe esser a molesto,
epero ditime quale sono quelle particularita di le quale ignorate la causa,
TARTAGLIA'S RAGIONAMENTI, I 593
perche mi sforzaro potendo, et sapendo di satisfare ogni vostro voler.
R I C. Nella prima dechiaratione del primo libro della detta vostra
travagliata inventione voi conchiudeti, esser impossibile che l'acqua riceva
totalmente dentro da se alcun material corpo solido che sia piu leggero
di essa acqua (in quanto alIa specie) anci dite che sempre ne lascera,
overo fara stare, una parte di quello di sopra la superficie di essa
acqua (cio e discoperto da quella) et che tal proportione qual havera
tuttto [! tutto] quel corpo solido in acqua posto a quella sua parte, che
sara accettata, over receputa, da l'acqua, quella medesina [! medesima]
havera la gravita de l' acqua alla gravita di quel tal corpo materiale
(secondo la specie). Et che quelli corpi solidi: che sono poi di natura piu
gravi di l' acqua posti che siano in acqua, subito se fanno dar loco alla
detta acqua, et che non solamente intrano totalmente in quella, ma
vanno discendendo continuamente per fin al fondo, et che tanto piu
velocemente vanno discendendo quanto che sono piu gravi dell'acqua. Et
che quelli poi che per sorte sono precisamente di quella medesima
gravita, che e l'acqua, necessariamente posti in essa acqua, sono ac-
cettati, over receputi, totalmente da quella, ma conservati pero nella
superficie di essa acqua, cioe che la non li lassa in parte alcuna star di
sopra la superficie di essa acqua, ne manco gli consente di poter dis-
cendere alfondo, e per tanto quantunque tutte queste cose alsenso et
a la esperientia siano quasi manifeste, nondimeno havria molto a caro se
possibil eche me demostrasti la causa propinqua di tali effetti. NICO.
La causa de tutti questi tali effetti se assegna di Archimede Siracusano
4 in quello de insidentibus aquae, per me datto in luce, et / a voi
dedicato, come che anchora ho detto nel principio della detta mia
travagliatainventione. R I C. 10 ho visto il detto Archimede, et di quello
ho inteso ottimamente quelli dui libri dove tratta del centro della gravita
nelle figure piane, et simelmente quelli della quadratura della parabola et
del cerchio, ma quello dove tratta di solidi che stano et non stanno
sopra l'acqua parla tanto scuro, che in effetto di quello molte partico-
larita non intendo, epero nanti che procedamo in altro havria d'accaro
che me 10 dechiarasti in la vostra lingua volgar Italiana, cominciando
dalla sua prima suppositione laquale in lingua latina dice precisamente
(come sapeti) in questo modo.
Suppositio prima
SUPPONATUR HUMIDUM HABENS TALEM NATURAM, UT
PARTIBUS IPSIUS EX AEQUO IACENTIBUS, ET EXISTENTIBUS
CONTINUIS, EXPELLATUR MINUS PULSA A MAGIS PULSA, ET
UNA QUAEQUE AUTEM PARTIUM IPSIUS PELLITUR HUMIDO
QUOD SUPRA IPSIUS EXISTENTE SECUNDUM PERPENDIC-
ULAREM SI HUMIDUM SIT DESCENDENS IN ALIQUO, ET AB
ALIO ALIQUO PRESSUM.
NICO. Ogni Scientia, Arte, overo Disciplina (come sapeti, Compar
honorando) ha li suoi primi principii indemostrabili, con liquali (con-..
cessi, over supposti che stano) se approva, sostenta, over dimostra quella
tal Scientia, et questi tali primi principii, alcuni gli dicono petitioni, et
altri gli chia mano DigniUl, over Suppositioni; dico adunque, che la sci-
entia, over Disciplina, de quelli materiani (!) Solidi, che stanno, et anchora
de quelli, che non stanno sopra l'acqua, ha solamente due dignim in-
demonstrabile, delle quale, una e la sopra allegata suppositione la quale
per satisfare alla vostra petitione qua sotto la registraro in la nostra lingua
volgare Italiana.
Suppositione prima
EL SE SUPPONE, L'HUMIDO HAVER TAL NATURA, CHE LA
PARTE MEN PREMUTA, OVER MEN URTATA, DI QUELLO SIA
SCACCIATA DALLA PIU PREMUTA, OVER URTATA, (STANTE
LE DETTE PARTI CONTINUI, ET EGUALMENTE GIACENTI),
ET CIASCADUNA DELLE PARTI DI QUELLO E PREMUTA,
URTATA, OVERO SCACCIATA, DAL HUMIDO, CHE STA SOPRA
DI QUELLA, SECONDO LA PERPENDICOLARE, (SE LO HUMIDO
SARA DISCENDENTE IN ALCUN LOCO, ET DA UNALTRO
PREMUTO, OVER URTADO.)
5 I RIC. Nanti che procedati piu oltra ditime prima, come se intende le
parti d'uno humido esser egualmente giacenti. NIC. Quando le sono
egualmente distante dal centro del mondo, over della terra (che equel
medesimo, anchor che alcuni tengano che il centro dil mondo et della
terra siano diversi.) RIC. 10 non ve intendo se non fati qual che figural
essempio. NIC. Per essempificare tal particolarita supponeremo una
quantita di humido (poniamo di acqua) sopra della terra, dappoi tagliaremo
con la immaginatione tutta la terra insieme con tal acqua in due parte
eguali talmente che il detto taglio passi per il centro della terra, et sup-
ponamo che una parte della superficie di tal taglio si de l' acqua, come
della terra, sia la superficie ab [Fig. III.4.2.12] et che il centro della terra
sia il ponto k; fatto questo descriveremo con la immaginatione un cerchio
sopra il detto centro k di tal grandezza che la circunferentia di quello
passe per la superficie del taglio dell'acqua hor sia tal circonferentia la
efg, et siano tirate molte linee dal ponto k alla detta circonferentia segando
quella direttamente, quale siano ke, kho, kfg [kfg'], kip, km; hor dieo che
tutte queste parti della detta acqua terminanti nella detta circonferentia
sono egualmente giacenti, per esser tutte egualmente distante dal ponto
k (centro del mondo), le quai parti sono gm, mi, lj,fh, he. RIC. Ve ho
inteso benissimo in quanto a questa parte. Ma ditime un poco, lui dice
che ciascuna delle parti del humido epremuta, overo urtata, dal humido,
che sta sopra di quella secondo la perpendicolare. 10 non so qual sta
humido che stia sopra una parte secondo la perpendicolare. NIC. Imag-
inando una linea che venga dal centro della terra penetrante, per qualche
acqua ciascaduna parte di acqua che sia in essa linea el se suppone che
quella sia premuta, over urtata, da l'acqua che gli sta sopra pur nella
medesima linea et che tal urtamento sia secondo quella instessa linea
(cio erettamente verso il centro dil mondo) laquallinea edetta perpendic-
olare, perche ogni linea retta che si parta di qual si voglia ponto, et
6 vada rettamente / verso il centro dil mondo, edetta perpendieolare; et,
accio che meglio me intendiati, immaginamo la linea kho, et immaginamo
in quella diverse parte poniamo rs, st, tu, uh, ho; dico che el se suppone
che la parte uh sia premuta dalla sopra posta ho secondo la linea ok
la qual ok (come di sopra e stato detto) e chiamata la perpendicolare
passante per le dette due parti; similmente dieo la parte tu esser urtata
dalla parte uh secondo la detta linea ok, et cosi la parte st esser premuta
dalla tu secondo la detta perpendicolare ok, et la rs dalla st, et questo
si debbe intendere in tutte le altre linee che fusseno protratte dal detto
ponto k penetrante la detta acqua, come sariano le kg, km, kl, kf, ke et
infinite altre simile. RIC. Certamente, Compar carissimo, con que sta vos-
tra ispositione me haveti molto satisfatto, perche a me mi pare che in
queste due particolarita, che mi haveti dechiarate, consista tutta la dif-
ficolta di tal suppositione. NIC. Cosi e perche havendo inteso, che le
parti eh, hf,fi, lm, et mg terminanti nella circunferentia del detto cerchio
sonno egualmente giacenti eglie mo [! mo'] cosa facile a intendere
ordinariamente la detta suppositione, qual dice, che el si suppone l'humido
haver tal natura, che la parte men premuta, over urtata di quello sia scaciata
dala piu premuta over urtata, come essempi gratia se la parte eh fusse per
sorte piu premuta, over urtata, da suso in gioso dal humido, over di
qualche altra materia che sopra vi fusse, di quello che fusse la parte hf
a quella continua, el si suppone che la detta parte hf (men premuta)
saria scacciata dalla detta parte eh et cosi si debbe intendere delle altre
parti egualmente giacenti domente che siano continue, et non separate.
Che ciascaduna delle parti di quello sia premuta, et scacciata, dal humido
che vi sta sopra secondo la perpendicolare, vien a esser manifesto per
quello che di sopra fu detto, cioe che la sara scacciata, domente che'l
detto humido sia discendente in alcun luoco et da unaltro premuto, over
scacciato. RIC. Questa suppositione la ho intesa benissimo, vero eche
a me mi pare che avanti di tal suppositione, l'autore doveva diffinire
quelle due particolarita, a me prima dechiarate, cioe come si debbia in-
tendere le parti del humido egualmente giacenti, et similmente la per-
pendicolare. NIC. Voi dite la verita. RIC. Unaltra particolarita vi ho da
dimandare, la qual e questa, perche cosi l'autore usa questo nome di
humido in luoco di acqua. NIC. Puo esser per una di queste due cause,
l'una eche essendo l'acqua la principale di tutte le cose humide, digando
adunque l'humido si debbe intendere per it primo humido, che el'acqua,
l'altra per che tutte le propositioni di questo suo libro non solamente se
verificano nell'acqua, ma anchora in ogni altro liquido liquore, cioe nel
vino, nel olio, et altri simili, epercio l'autore potria haver usato tal nome
di humido per esser nome piu generale di acqua. RIC. E ve ho inteso,
hor vegnamo alla prima propositione, la quale (come sapeti) dice latina-
mente in questa forma.
Theorema primum, Praepositio (!) prima
SI SUPERFICIES ALIQUA PLANO SECTA PER ALIQUOD SIG-
NUM, SEMPER IDEM SIGNUM SECTIONEM FACIENTEM CIR-
7 CULl PERIFERIAM CENTRUM HA/BENTEM SIGNUM PER QUOD
PLANO SECATUR SPHERAE ERIT SUPERFICIES.
NIC. Prima ve la registraro in la nostra lingua volgar ltaliana et doppoi
la delucidaro consequentemente.
Speculatione prima, Prepositione (!) prima
SE ALCUNA SUPERFICIE SARA SEGATA, OVER TAGLIATA,
DA UN PIANO PER ALCUN PONTO, ET CHE SEMPRE LA
DIVISIONE FATTA PER EL MEDESIMO PONTO FACCIA UNA
CIRCONFERENTIA DI CERCHIO, QUAL HABBIA PER CENTRO
QUEL MEDESIMO PONTO, PER ILQUALE VIEN SEGATA DAL
PIANO, TAL SUPERFICIE SARA SPHERICA, CIOE DI UNA
SPHERA.
Essempi gratia sia alcuna superficie qual segata dove si voglia da un
piano per it ponto k sempre facia nella divisione [Fig. 1II.4.2.13] una
circunferentia di cerchio, qual habbia per suo centro it ponto k, dico tal
superficie esser Sperica, cioe di una Sphera. Et se possibil e(per l' aver-
sario) che tal superficie non sia di una Sphera, adunque tutte le linee
tirate dal detto ponto k alIa detta superficie non sarano eguale; sia adonque
li dui ponti a et b nella detta superficie talmente che tirando le due
linee ka et kb siano (se possibil e) non eguale; hor per queste due linee
sia dutto un piano segante la detta superficie et faccia la divisione, nelIa
detta superficie, la linea dabg, la qual linea dabg dal nostro presuposito
eun cerchio et il centro di quello eil ponto k perche tale estata supposta
la detta superficie, adunque le due linee ka et kb non sono ineguale;
seguita adunque de necessita la detta superficie esser Spherica cioe
superficie di una Sphera.
8 / RIC. Ve ho inteso benissimo; hor vegniamo alIa seconda Propositione,
quala, come sapeti, latinamente dice in questo modo.
Theorema ii, Propositio ii
OMNIS HUMIDI CONSISTENTIS ITA UT MANEAT IN MOTUM
[! INMOTUM] SUPERFICIES HABEBIT FIGURAM SPHERAE
HABENT[lS] CENTRUM IDEM CUM TERRA.
NIC. Prima ve la descrivero volgarmente et consequentemente se
assignara la causa.
Speculatione ii, Prepositione (!) ii
LA SUPERFICIE DI OGNI HUMIDO CHE STIA FERMO, CIOE TAL-
MENTE CHE NON SI MOVA, HAVERA FIGURA DI SPHERA,
QUAL FIGURA HAVERA UN MEDESIMO CENTRO CON LA
TERRA.
Essempi gratia sia inteso un humido, che stia talmente chel non si
mova et che la superficie di quello sia segata da un piano per il centro
della terra, et sia il centro della terra il ponto k et la divisione della
superficie sia la linea abgd [Fig. 111.4.2.14]. Dico la linea abgd esser
circonferentia dun cerchio, et il centro di quello esser il ponto k. Et
se possibil e(per I'aversario) che la non sia circonferentia d'un cerchio,
le linee rette dutte dal ponto k alIa detta linea abgd non sarano eguale; e
per tanto sia tolto una linea retta la qual sia maggiore di aIcuna di quelle
dutte dal ponto k alIa detta linea abgd et di aIcuna menore; et sopra il
ponto k sia descritto un cerchio secondo la longezza di questa tal linea;
adunque la circunferentia di questo tal cerchio parte cadera fora della detta
linea abgd et parte di dentro (per esser sta supposto che la mitta del suo
9 diametro / sia maggiore di aIcuna di quelIe linee che ducer si possano dal
detto ponto k alla detta linea abgd et di aIcuna minore). Sia adunque la
circunferentia del descritto cerchio la rbgh et dal b al k sia dutta la linea
retta bk et sia anchora tirate le due linee kr et kef, che fazzano angoli
eguali in ponto k, et sia descritto sopra el centro k la circonferentia
xop nel piano et nel humido. Et per tanto le parti del humido le quale
sono secondo la circonferentia xop (per le ragioni adutte sopra la prima
suppositione) sonno egualmente poste, over giacenti, et continue insieme,
et l'una et l'altra di queste parti e premuta over urtata (per la seconda
parte della suppositione) dal humido che gli sta sopra, et perche li duoi
angoli ekb et bkr sono eguali dal presupposito, per la 26 del terzo di
Euclide) le due circonferentie, over archi be et br sarano eguali (stante che
la rbgh fusse cerchio per satisfation del aversario et k il suo centro) et
similmente tutto il triangolo bek saria eguale al triangolo brk et perche
anchora il triangolo opk per la medesima ragione saria eguale al triangolo
oxk; adunque (per comune [!] scientia) sotraendo li detti duoi triangoletti
opk et oxk dalli duoi bek et brk, (per commune scientia) li doi residui
sarano eguali, liquali residui l'uno saria il quadrangolo beop et l' altro brxo.
Et perche tutto el quadrangolo beop e tutto pieno di humido et del
quadrangolo brxo ne e pieno solamente la parte baxo el restante bra
e tutto vacuo di acqua, seguita adonque, che il quadrangolo beop sia
piu ponderoso del quadrangolo brxo, et se il detto quadrangolo beop e
piu grave del quadrangolo brxo molto piu grave sara 10 quadrangolo bfop
del detto quadrangolo brxo; per laqualcosa seguita che la parte op sia piu
premuta de la parte ox et la parte men premuta (per la prima parte delIa
suppositione) debbe esser scacciata dalla piu premuta; adunque la parte
ox doveria esser scaciata (!) dalIa parte op et il nostro presupposito e
che non si mova; perilche seguiria che la men premuta non fusse scacciata
dalla piu premuta. E pero seguita de necesita la linea abgd esser cir-
conferentia dun cerchio et che il centro di quello sia il ponto k. Et simil-
mente se dimostrara se la superficie del humido sara segata da un piano
per il centro della terra che la divisione sara la circonferentia d'un cerchio
et che il centro di quello sara quelIo medesimo ponto, che ecentro della
terra. Eglie adunque manifesto che la superficie dun humido che stia tal-
mente che non si mova ha figura di una Sphera, che ha un medesimo
centro con la terra, (per la prima propositione) per che la e tale, che
segata per il medesimo ponto fa la divisione, over segamento, la cir-
conferentia dun cerchio, qual ha per centro quel medesimo ponto, che
ecentro della terra, come che era il nostro proposito da dimostrare. RIC.
Queste vostre ragioni le ho intese benissimo et perche in queUe non vi ho
alcuna scintilla de dubitatione, voglio che procediamo nella sua terza pro-
positione quala dice (come sapeti) latinamente in questa forma.
THEOREMA iii, Propositio iii
SOLIDARUM MAGNITUDINUM QUAE AEQUALIS MOLlS, ET
AEQUALIS PONDERIS CUM HUMIDO, DIMISSE IN HUMIDUM
10 DEMERGENTUR ITA UT / SUPERFICIEM HUMIDI NON EX-
CEDANT NIHIL, ET NON ADHUC REFERENTUR (?) AD
INFERIUS.
NIC. Prima ve la traduro nella nostra lingua volgar Italiana et da poi
consequenternente ve isponero il sugetto di queUa.
Speculatione iii, Prepositione (I) iii
QUELLE GRANDEZZE (DELLE GRANDEZZE SOLIDE) CHE
CON L'HUMIDO DI EGUAL GRANDEZZA SONO DI EGUAL PESO,
POSTI NEL HUMIDO SE SUMERGENO TALMENTE IN QUELLO,
CHE NON ECCEDENO, OVERO STANNO NIENTE DI SOPRA
LA SUPERFICIE DIL HUMIDO, NE MANCO VANNO, OVER
DISCENDONO, AL FONDO.
In questa propositione se conchiude che queUe grandezze (delle grand-
ezze solide) lequale siano per sorte di egual gravita con l'humido (secondo
la specie) lassate libere nel detto humido, se sumergeno talmente in queUo,
che non stanno niente di fora, cioe di sopra la superficie di esso humido,
ne manco discendeno al fondo. Et se possibel (1) fusse (per l'aversario)
che un tal solido posto nel humido stesse in parte di fuora del hurnido,
cioe di sopra la superficie di quello (supponendo sempre che 10 detto
humido stia fermo), sia inteso alcun piano dutto per il centro della terra
et per l'humido et per quel corpo solido, et supponamo che la divisione
di l'humido sia la superficie abgd [Fig. IIIA.2.15] et del corpo solido che
gli sta dentro, la superficie ezht, et il centro della terra sia supposto il
ponto k, et sia la parte sumersa nel humido (del detto corpo solido) la
bght et queUa di sopra la bezg, et sia inteso 10 corpo solido star in una
piramide, qual habbia la basa paralellograrnma nella superficie superiore
del humido et la cima nel centro della terra, la qual pirarnide sia pur
intesa esser divisa dal medesimo piano nel quale e la circonferentia
abgd, et le divisioni di piani de detta piramide siano kl, km, et sia descritto
circa il centro knell' humido una superficie di unaltra sphera de sotto
de ezht quala sia la xop et questa sia segata dalla superficie del piano;
et sia tolto, over irnaginata, una altra piramide eguale et simile a quella
che comprende il detto corpo solido, et continua con quella medesima,
et la divisione delle superficie di quella siano la km, kn, et sia inteso
unaltro solido di humido tolto overo imaginato in detta piramide qual sia
rscy eguale et simile al partial solido bhgt qual eimerso in esso humido,
ma la parte del humido che nella prima piramide e sotto la superficie
xo et quella che nell altra piramide esotto la superficie op sono egual-
mente poste, over giacenti, et continue, ma non sono premute egualmente,
perche quella che e sotto la superficie xo epremuta dal solido thez et dal
humido che e contenuto delle due spherice superficie xo et lm et di
11 piani della piramide, et quella che procede secondo la po epremuta I dal
solido rscy et da humido contenuto da le superficie spherice: che pro-
cedono secondo la po et la mn et di piani della piramide, et la gravita
del humido che esecondo mnop sara menore de quello che e secondo
Imxo perche quello solido qual procede secondo rscy di humido e menore
del solido ezht (per esser sta sopposto di quantita eguale solamente alIa
parte hbgt di quello), et il detto solido ezht e stato supposto egualmente
grave con l'humido. Adunque la gravita del humido compreso fra le dette
due superficie spherice lm et xo et di lati Ix et mo della piramide,
insieme con tutto il solido ezht, sara piu grave del humido compreso fra
le altre due superficie spherice mn et op et di latti mo et np della
piramide insieme con el solido di humido rscy per tanto quanto sara la
gravita della parte ebzg (supposta star di sopra la superficie dil humido).
Et per ta[n]to eglie manifesto che la parte qual procede secondo la cir-
conferentia op sia urtata, spinta, et cacciata (per la suppositione) da quella
che procede secondo la circonferentia xo per laqual cosa tal humido non
staria fermo et quieto. Et il nostro presupposito eche stia quieto, cioe
talmente che non si mova. Seguita adunque che it detto solido non possa
eccedere con alcuna parte la superficie del humido. Et che sumerso nel
humido non puo discendere al fondo perche tutte le parti del humido
egualmente poste, over giacenti, sono premute egualmente, per che il
solido e egualmente grave con l'humido dal presuposito. RIC. E ve ho
inteso in quanto all'argumentatione ma io non intendo quel dire, "QueUe
grandezze (delle grandezze solide)." NIC. E ve diro. Questo nome
"Grandezza" e un nome generale qual si aspetta a ogni specie di quantita
continua, et le specie della quantita continua son tre, cioe Linea, Super-
ficie, et corpo, elqual corpo edetto anchora solido per haver in se long-
hezza, larghezza, et grossezza over profundita, e perho accioche non si
equivocasse over intendesse tal nome di grandezze in le Linee, over in
le superficie, ma solamente nelle grandezze solide, cioe corporee, 10
specifico con tal modo de dire: come che ha detto, vero eche lui potea
isprimere tal propositione, in questo modo: Quelli solidi (over corpi) che
con l'humido di egual grandezza sono di egual peso etc. Et tal proposi-
tione saria stata piu chiara et intellegibile, perche tanto significa a dire,
un solido, over un corpo, quanto che a dire una grandezza solida; pero
non ve maravigliarete se nel avenire usaro indifferentemente questi tre
=
12 specie de nomi. RIC. Me haveti satisfatto a sufficientia, et / per non
perder tempo voglio che procedamo nella quarta propositione, laquale
latinamente, come sapeti, dice in questo modo.
Theorema iiii, Propositio iiii
SOLIDARUM MAGNITUDINUM QUAECUNQUE LEVIOR
FUERIT HUMIDI DIMISSA IN HUMIDUM NON DEMERGETUR
TOTA, SED ERIT ALIQUID IPSIUS EXTRA SUPERFICIEM
HUMIDI.
NIC. Prima ve la isplicaro secondo il solito nella nostra lingua volgar
Italiana, et consequentemente dechiariro il sogetto di quella.
Speculatione iiii, Propositione iiii
CIASCADUNA GRANDEZZA (DELLE GRANDEZZE SOLIDE)
LA QUALE SIA PIU LEGGERA DEL HUMIDO, LASSATA NEL
HUMIDO, NON SE SUMERGERA TOTALMENTE IN QUELLO,
MA SARA, OVER STARA, ALCUNA PARTE DI QUELLA DI
FUORA (CIOE DI SOPRA) LA SUPERFICIE DEL HUMIDO.
In questa quarta propositione se determina che ogni corpo, over solido,
che sia piu legiero del humido (in quanto alIa specie) lassato nel humido
non se sumergera totalmente in quello, anci ne stara sempre alcuna sua
parte di fuora del humido, cioe di sopra la superficie di quello. Et se pos-
sibel fusse (per l'aversario) che un solido piu leggiero del humido lassato
nel humido, che in quelIo si sumerga totalmente, cioe che niente di quel-
10 stia fuora di detto humido (intendando pero sempre che l'humido stia
talmente ch'el non si mova), sia inteso anchora alcun piano dutto per il
centro delIa terra, et per l'humido, et per quel corpo solido. Et che da
questo piano, sia segata la superficie del humido secondo la circonfer-
entia abg [Fig. III.4.2.16] et 10 corpo solido secondo la figura r et el centro
della terra sia k. Et sia intesa una piramide che comprenda la figura r
(si come fu fatto nella precedente), la quale habbia la cima nel ponto k, et
sia segato la superficie di tal piramide dalla superficie del piano abg
secondo la ak et kb. Et sia intesa unaltra piramide eguale e simile a questa,
et sia segate le sue superficie dalla superficie abg secondo la kb et kg, et
sia descritto una superficie de unaltra sphera nel humido, sopra il centro
k, et di sotto dal solido r, et quella sia segata dal medesimo piano secondo
la xop. Et sia inteso un solido tolto dal humido in questa seconda piramide
(qual sia h) eguale al solido r ~ et le parti del humido, cioe quella laquale
e sotto alIa superficie spherica che procede secondo la superficie over
circonferentia xo (nella prima piramide) et quella che e sotto la super-
B ficie spherica che procede secondo la circonferen/tia op (nella seconda
piramide), sono egualmente poste et continue n s m ~ ma non sono pre-
mute egualmente, perche quella della prima piramide epremuta dal solido
r et dal humido, che contien quello, cioe da quello, che enelluoco della
piramide secondo abox, et quella parte poi, che nellaltra piramide epre-
muta dal solido h (supposto del medesimo humido) et dal humido che
contien quello, elquale e, over sta, nelluoco de la detta piramide secondo
pobg. Et la gravita del solido r e minore della gravita del solido h (di
humido supposto), perche questi dui solidi sono stati supposti eguali in
grandezza et il solido r estato supposto esser piu leggiero del humido.
Et le grandezze de le due piramide di humido che contiene li detti duoi
solidi r et h sono eguale dal presuposito. Adunque piu epremuta la parte
del humido che e sotto alIa superficie, che procede secondo la cir-
conferentia op, e pero spengera (per la suppositione) quella parte che e
men premuta; per il che tal humido non stara fermo. Et gia estato sup-
posto che stia fermo; adunque tal solido r non se sumergera tutto, anci
ne stara una parte di quello di fuora del humido, cioe di sopra la superficie
di quello, che e il proposito. RIC. E vi ho inteso benissimo, e pero voglio
che vegnamo alia quinta prepositione laquale (come sapeti) latinamente
parla in questa forma.
Theorema v, Propositio v
SOLIDARUM MAGNITUDINUM QUAECUNQUE FUERIT LE-
VIOR HUMIDI, DIMISSA IN HUMIDUM IN TANTO DEMERGETUR,
UT TANTA MOLES HUMIDI QUANTA EST MOLES DEMERSAE
HABEAT EQUALEM GRAVITATEM CUM TOTA MAGNITUDINE.
NIC. Tradurolla prima in la nostra lingua volgare et da poi consequente-
mente dilucidaro il senso suo.
Speculatione v, Prepositione (!) v
14 IQUALUNQUE GRANDEZZA (DELLE GRANDEZZE SOLIDE)
CHE SIA PIU LEGGERA DEL HUMIDO, LASCIATA NEL HUMIDO,
IN TANTO SE SUMERGERA, CHE TANTA GRANDEZZA DI
HUMIDO QUANTA E LA GRANDEZZA SUMERSA HABBIA
EQUALE GRAVITA CON TUTTA LA GRANDEZA.
Essendo sta dimostrato nella precedente, che ogni solido che sia piu
leggero del humido lasciato nel humido, che sempre una parte di quello
ne stara fuora del humido, cioe di sopra la superficie di quello. In questa
quinta propositione se conchiude che in tanta parte se sumergera, che
tanta grandezza di humido, quanto sara quella parte sumersa, havera
egual gravita con tutto it solido. Et per demostrar questo: Sia inteso tutte
le medesime figurationi delle passate, et sia medesimamente che tal
humido stia fermo, et sia it solido ezht piu legger del humido [Fig.
III.4.2.17]. Se adunque tal humido sta fermo, le parti egualmente poste
di questo sono egualmente premute. Adunque egualmente sara premuto
l'humido, qual e sotto alle superficie: lequale procedono secondo le cir-
conferentie xo et po, per la qual cosa la gravita che vien premuta eeguale.
Et la gravita del humido quale in la prima piramide senza el solido

bhtg e eguale alIa gravita del humido quale nelI'altra piramide senza
l'humido rscy. Adunque eglie manifesto che la gravita del solido ezht,
eequale alIa gravita del humido rscy. Adunque eglie manifesto, che tanta
grandezza di humido quanto, che ela grandezza delIa parte sumersa del
solido ha gravita eguale a tutta la solida grandezza.
RIC. Questa e stata una bella demonstratione, et perche l'ho ottima-
mente intesa per non perder tempo voglio che vegnamo alIa sesta pro-
positione, laqual, come sapeti, latinamente in questa forma parla, e dice.
Theorema vi, Propositio vi
SOLIDA LEVIORA HUMIDO VI PRESSA IN HUMIDUM SUR-
15 REXI FERUNTUR/ TANTA VI AD SUPERIUS QUANTO HUMIDUM
HABENS MOLE AEQUALE CUM MAGNITUDINE EST GRAVIUS
MAGNITUDINE.
NIC. Prima ve la traduro secondo il solito nella nostra volgar lingua
et da poi consequentemente dechiariro it suo sugetto.
Speculatione vi, Propositione vi
LI SOLIDI PIU LEGGERI DIL HUMIDO, PREMUTI PER
FORZA NEL HUMIDO, SONO REPORTATI, OVER RESPINTI,
ALLA PARTE DJ SOPRA CON TANTA FORZA QUANTO CHE
UN HUMIDO QUAL HABBIA GRANDEZZA EGUALE CON EL
SOLIDO E PIU GRAVE DEL SOLIDO.
Questa sesta propositione dice, che li solidi piu leggeri del humido
posti, et premuti over calcati per forza nel humido, sono reportati, over
respinti, con tanta forza di sopra quanto che una tanta quantita di hu-
mido (qual sara quel tal solido) sara piu grave del detto solido. Et per
delucidar questa propositione: Sia il solido a piu leggero del humido et
supponamo che la gravita del detto solido a sia b et la gravita dun hu-
mido di grandezza eguale al a sia la bg [Fig. IIIA.2.t8]. Dico che il solido
a premuto, over calcato, per forza nel detto humido sara reportato, over
spinto, di sopra con tanta forza quanto che e la gravitag. Et per dimostrare
questa propositione sia tolto it solido d qual habbia gravita eguale alIa
detta g. Adunque it solido composto di duoi solidi a et d vien a esser
piu leggiero del humido, perche la gravita del solido composto de l'uno et
de l'altro e la bg et la gravita de tanto humido, che sia di egual grandezza
con el solido a, e la detta gravita bg; adunque essendo lassato nel humido
el solido composto delli detti duoi solidi a et d se sumergera (per la pre-
cedente) con tanta parte che una ta[l] quantita di humido quanto sara la
16 detta parte sumersa habbia egual gravita con tutlto [! tutto] il detto so/lido
composto. Et per essempio di tal propositione sia la superficie di alcun
humido quella che procede secondo la circonferentia abgd. Perche adun-
que tanta grandezza over quantita di humido quanto che e la quantita a
ha egual gravita con tutto il composto solido ad. Eglie manifesto che la
TARTAGLIA' S RAGIONAMENTI ,I 603
parte sumersa di quello sara la quantita a et il rimanente (cioe la parte
d) sara di sopra cioe sopra la superficie del humido. Eglie adunque cosa
evidente che tanta virtu, over forza, ha la parte a per trasferirsi di sopra,
doe spingere de sotto in suso, quanta ne ha quello che eglie sopra (cioe
la parte d) a premerla di suso in giuso, perche ne l'una ne l'alt[r]a parte
vien scacciata dall'altra. Ma la d preme di suso in giuso con tanta
gravita quanta che e la g (perche eglie stato supposto la gravita di quella
parte d esser equale allag). Adunque eglie manifesto quello che bisognava
dimostrare. RIC. Questa e stata una bella demonstratione, et da que sta
comprendo che habbiate trovata la vostra travagliata inventione, et
massime quel la parte da voi adutta nel primo libro per recuperare una
nave affondata, vero e che sopra di quella vi ho da adimandar molte
cose ma non voglio che interompiamo questa materia principiata, and
voglio che seguitiamo nella settima propositione, la quale (come sapeti)
latinamente dice in questo modo.
Theorema vii, Propositio vii
GRAVIORA HUMIDO DIMISSA IN HUMIDUM FERRENTUR
DEORSUM DONEC DESCENDANT, ET ERUNT LEVIORA IN
HUMIDO TANTUM QUANTUM HABET GRAVITAS HUMIDI
HABENTIS TANTAM MOLE[M] QUANTA EST MOLES SOLIDAE
MAGNITUDINIS.
Prima ve la traduro secondo il solito nella nostra volgar lingua et con-
sequentemente isponero il suo senso con demostratione.
Speculatione vii, Propositione vii
LI SOLIDI PIU GRAVI DEL HUMIDO, LASSATI NEL HUMIDO,
SONO PORTATI IN GIOSO PER FIN CHE DISCENDONO, ET
SARANO PIU LEGGERI NEL HUMIDO TANTO QUANTO E LA
GRAVITA DUN HUMIDO DI TANTA GRANDEZZA QUANTA E LA
GRANDEZZA DELLA GRANDEZZA SOLIDA.
Questa settima propositione ha due parti da demostrare; la prima e che
tutti gli solidi piu gravi del humido, lassati nel humido liberi, sono portati
dalla sua gravita a basso per fin che discender possono, doe per fin al
17 fondo. La qual prima parte e manifesta / perche le parti dil humido che
sempre si trovano sotto di quel tal solido sono piu premute delle altre
egualmente giacenti, perche tal solido se suppone piu grave del humido.
Ma che quel tal solido sia mo piu leggero nel humido che fuora di quello,
come che nella seconda parte se dechiara. Se dimonstrara in questo modo
[Fig. 111.4.2.19]: Sia un solido (poniamo a) che sia piu grave del humido,
et la gravita dil detto solido a (poniamo che sia bg). Et dun humido che
habia tanta grandezza quanto che ha il detto a poniamo che la sua gravita
sia b; eglie da dimostrare che il solido a stante nel humido havera una
gravita eguale al g. Et per dimostrar questo sia imaginato un'altro solido
(poniamo d) piu leggero del humido, ma di tale qualita che la sua gravita
sia eguale alla b et di tal grandezza sia questo d che tanta grandezza di
humido habbia la sua gravita eguale alla gravita bg. Et composti questi
dui solidi di a et d insieme, tutto tal solido composto di questi duoi sara
egualmente grave con l'humido, perche la gravita di questi duoi solidi
insieme sara eguale a queste due gravita, cioe alla bg et alla b; la gravita
d'un humido che habbia la grandezza sua eguale a questi duoi solidi
a et d sara eguale a queste medesime gravita di bg et b. Lassate adunque
questi duoi solidi gettati nel humido, staranno nella superficie di tal humido
(cioe non sarano dutti over tirati ne in suso, ne manco in gioso, perche
sel solido a e piu grave del humido sara dutto over tirato dalla sua gra-
vita in gioso verso il fondo con tanta forza quanto che dal solida d sara
retirato in suso. Et per che el solido d e piu legger del humido 10 el-
levara in suso con tanta forza quanto che e la gravita g. Perche eglie
stato dimostrato (nella quinta propositione) che le grandezze solide piu
leggere del humido calcate nel humido con tanta forza sono respinte, over
rebutate, in suso quanto che un humido di egual grandezza con el solido
e piu grave dil detto solido. Et I'humido che habbia la sua grandezza
eguale al solido d epiu grave del detto solido d per la gravita g. Adunque
eglie manifesto che it solido a e premuto, over tirato, di sotto verso il
centro del mondo con tanta forza quanto che ela gravita g, come che era
it proposito di provare. RIC. Questa estata una bella demostratione et
perche la ho intesa benissimo per non perder tempo voglio che procedamo
nella seconda suppositione quala, come sapeti, latinamente dice in questa
forma.
18 /Suppositio ii
SUPPONATUR EORUM QUAE IN HUMIDO SURSUM FERUN-
TUR UNUMQUODQUE SURSUM FERI SECUNDUM PERPEN-
DICULAREM QUAE PER CENTRUM GRAVITATIS IPSORUM PRO-
DUCITUR.
NIC. Prima la isplicaro volgarmente secondo il solito, et da poi con-
sequentemente isponero it senso suo.
Suppositione ii
CIASCADUN (DE QUELLI SOLIDI CHE NEL HUMIDO SON
DUTTI, OVER PORTATI, DI SOPRA) EL SE SUPPONE QUELLI
ESSER PORTATI, OVER DUTTI, DI SOPRA SECONDO LA PER-
PENDICOLARE CHE PRODUTTA PER IL CENTRO DELLA
GRAVITA DE QUELLI.
Per intelligentia di questa seconda suppositione bisogna notare che ogni
solido che sia piu leggero del humido, sumerso per forza 0 per qualche
altra occasione nel humido lassando poi tal solido libero (per quello che
estato demostrato ne la sesta propositione), sara urtato et spinto di sopra
dal humido, et tal urtamento, over spengimento, se suppone che sia ret-
tamente secondo la perpendicolare produtta per el centro deUa gravita di
quel tal solido, laqual perpendicolare se ben ve aricordati e quella che
e protratta con 10 intelletto dal centro del mondo, over della terra, al
centro della gravita di quel tal corpo overo solido. RICAR. Come si
trova, overo conosce, il centro della gravita dun solido? NIC. Questo se
mostra in quello libro intitolato De centris gravium valde Planis aequere-
pentibus. E pero recorreti da quello, e sareti satisfatto, perche avoler-
velo dechiarire in questo loco causaria confusion grandissima. RIC. Ve
ho inteso; unaltra volta parlaremo di questo perche al presente voglio
che procedamo nella ultima propositione la ispositione della quale me par
molto confusa et a me pare che 10 autor in tal propositione non
mostri generalmente tutto il sogetto di tal propositione ma solamente una
parte, laqual propositione (come sapeti) in questa forma parla e dice.
Theorema viii, Propositio viii
SI ALIQUA SOLIDA MAGNITUDO HABENS FIGURAM POR-
TIONIS SPHERAE IN HUMIDUM DIMITTATUR ITA UT BASIS
PORTIONIS NON TANGAT HUMIDUM, FIGURA INSIDEBIT
19 RECTA ITA UT AXIS PORTIONIS SECUNDUM / PERPENDICU-
LAREM SIT. ET SI AB ALIQUO TRAHITUR FIGURA ITA UT
BASIS PORTIONIS TANGAT HUMIDUM, NON MANET DE-
CLINATA SECUNDUM DIMITTATUR SED RECTA RESTITUATUR.
ET IGITUR SI FIGURA LEVIOR EXISTENS HUMIDO DIMITTATUR
IN HUMIDUM ITA UT BASIS IPSIUS TOTA SIT IN HUMIDO,
FIGURA INSIDEBIT RECTA ITA UT AXIS IPSIUS SIT SECUNDUM
PERPENDJCULAREM.
NIC. Prima ve la isplicaro nella nostra lingua volgar Italiana, et dapoi
consequentemente ve dechiariro dimostrativamente il suo sugetto.
Speculatione viii, Prepositione (!) viii
SE ALCUNA SOLIDA GRANDEZZA QUAL HABBIA FIGURA DJ
UNA PORTION DJ SPHERA SARA LASSATA NEL HUMIDO
TALMENTE CHE LA BASA DJ ESSA PORTIONE NON TOC-
CHI L'HUMJDO, TAL FJGURA STARA TALMENTE RETTA CHE
LA ASSIS DI TAL PORTIONE SIA SECONDO LA PERPENDIC-
OLARE. ET SE DETTA FJGURA SARA TJRATA, OVER IN-
CLJNATA, DA ALCUNO TALMENTE CHE LA BASA DELLA
PORTJONE TOCCHJ L'HUMJDO, NON RIMANERA DECLINATA,
SECONDO CHE SERA LASSATA, MA SARA RESTITUITA RETIA.
ADUNQUE SE LA FIGURA SARA PIU LEGGERA DEL HUMIDO,
ET SIA LASCIATA NEL HUMJDO TALMENTE CHE LA BASA DJ
QUELLA SIA TUTTA NEL HUMIDO, ESSA FIGURA STARA
TALMENTE RETIA CHE LA ASSJS DJ QUELLA SJA SECONDO
LA PERPENDICOLARE.
-
Per dechiarire questa propositione sia inteso una solida grandezza, qual
habbia figura di una parte di spera (come che estato detto) lassata nel
humido, et sia ancora inteso un piano produtto per lassis della detta
portione et per il centro della terra, et la settione della superficie del
humido sia la circonferentia abgd [Fig. III.4.2.20] et della figura la cir-
conferentia ezh et la retta eh et lassis della portione supponemo che sia
lazt. Se adunque fusse possibile per satisfattion del Aversario, che la detta
assis zt non sia secondo la perpendicolare. Adunque eglie da demostrare
che la figura non stara in retto come che estatuida ma se restituera come
che stato detto, cioe che lassis zt sia secondo la perpendicolare. Eglie
cosa manifesta (per el corellario della prima del terzo di Euclide) che il
centro della sphera e nella linea zt (stante che quella sia lassis di tal
20 figura). Et per / che la parte di una sphera puo esser maggiore over menore
di una mezza sphera, et puo esser anchora una mezza sphera, hor sia il
centro della spera nella mezza sphera el ponto t [Fig. III.4.2.20(b)], et
nella menore il ponto p [Fig. III.4.2.20(c)], et nella maggiore il ponto k
[Fig. III.4.20(a)], et sia il centro de la terra il ponto I. Et parlando prima
di quella maggior portione [Fig. III.4.2.20(a)], che sta con tutta la basa
nel humido, sia dutto dal ponto k al ponto Ila linea kl. Et la figura partiale
de fuora del humido, cioe quella compresa di sopra la superficie del humido
(per le medesime ragioni delle precedente) havera lassis nella perpendic-
olare che transisse per il ponto k et il centro de la gravita di quella nella
linea nk; hor poniamo che sia il ponto r et il centro della gravita di tutta
la portione e nella zt fra il ponto k et il ponto z hor poniamo che sia il
ponto e; it restante adunque di tal figura (cioe quella parte che e nel
humido sumersa) haver il centro della sua gravita (per la sesta propositione
dellibro de centris gravium) nella linea er produtta over allongata in direto
dalla banda del e tolta, over presa, talmente, che la parte allongata alla
er habbi la medesima proportione che ha la gravita di quella parte de
figura che e di fuora dil humido alla gravita di quella parte che e nel
humido sumersa; hor poniamo che tal centro de detta figura sia il ponto
o et per il detto centro 0 sia protratta la perpendicolare 10. Adunque la
gravita della parte che e fuora del humido premera di suso in gioso secondo
la perpendicolare rl. Et la parte della figura che e sumersa nel humido
premera di sotto in suso (per la seconda suppositione) secondo la per-
pendicolare 10. Adunque tal figura non rimara secondo il proposito del
aversario, ma le parti della figura che sono verso h sarano portate over
tirate in gioso, et quelle che sono verso e sarano portate, over spinte,
in suso, et questo sara per fin a tanto che lassis zt sia fatta secondo la
perpendicolare. Et questa tal demostratione se verifica ancora nella meza
sphera che stia nel humido con tutta la basa [Fig. III.4.2.20(b)]. Il centro
della sphera e stato supposto esser il ponto t e pero sumendo it ponto t
in loco che nella superiore fu fatto del ponto k; nel restante similmente
argumentando se conchiudera che la parte della figura che e fuora dil
humido premera di suso in gioso secondo la perpendico[1a]re rtl et la parte
21 della figura che e summersa nel humido premera di sotto in suso I secondo
la perpendiculare la. E pero seguira come nell' altra, cioe che le parti
della total figura che sono verso h saranno portate, overo premute, in
gioso et quelle che sono verso e saranno portate, over spinte, in suso.
Et questo seguira per fin a tanto che l'assis zt sia fatta secondo la per-
pendiculare. 11 medesimo se verifica anchora nella portion menore della
mezza sphera che stia nel humido con tutta la basa. Con questi medesimi
argomenti si dimostra il medesimo quando che queste sopradette figure
siano lasciate nel humido talmente che le base di quelle stiano in suso,
cioe che niuna di quelle tocchi l'humido, conchiudendo quasi con parole
contrarie a quelle di sopra narrate, cioe che la parte della figura che e
fuora del humido premera di suso in gioso secondo la perpendieolare
lo [=ls in Fig. III.4.2.21(a), (b), (c)] (per la prima suppositione). Et la
parte della figura sumersa premera di sotto in suso secondo la perpendie-
olare lr (per la seconda suppositione); adunque tal figura (secondo
quest'altra positione) non stara secondo l'aversario, anci le parti de tutta
la figura che sono verso e saranno premute de suso in gioso, et quelle
che sono verso h saranno urtate et spinte di sotto in suso, et questo
perseverara per finD a tanto cho(! che) lassis zt sia fatta secondo la
perpendieolare; piu volte detta che e il proposito vero e che in queste
seconde figure [Fig. IIIA.2.21(a), (b), (c)] in luoco della lettera c delle
prime vi e posto la x per che cosi era nelle figure tolte dal essempio
greco. RIC. Questa argumentatione mi pare molto difficile, ma credo che
proceda per non haver alla memoria le propositione di quel libro intito-
lato de centris gravium. NIC. Cosi e. RIC. Di quello una'ltra volta con
piu comodita ne parlaremo. Ma ritornaremo a parlare di questa ultima
propositione. Et dieo che le figure adute in tal argumentatione meglio e
piu intelligibile a me mi pare sariano state tirando l'assis zt secondo il
suo debito stare, cioe nella mitta dellarco di tai figure, et per secondar
poi la oppositione del aversario poner che tai figure stessono alquanto
oblique accio che la detta assis zt (se possibel fusse) non stesse secondo
la perpendicolare, il che facendo per li medesimi modi se conchiuderia il
proposito, et tal modo saria piu naturale et chiaro. NIC. Vui dite la verita,
ma perche cosi erano nel essempio greco non me parso di contrafar queUe
anchor che fusse stato meglio.
22 / RIC. Compare, me haveti integralmente satisfatto di tutto che nel
principio del nostro ragionamento; ve adimandai, dimane a Iddio piacendo
ragionaremo di qualche altra beUa particolarita.
Fine del primo ragionamento.
Ill. Federigo Commandino' s Version of William of
Moerbeke's Translation of On Floating Bodies
In the preceding sections of this chapter I have examined the varying
uses of the Moerbeke translations of Archimedean works made by Gau-

rico, Coner, and Tartaglia. The culmination of such usage is found in the
new version of William of Moerbeke's translation of On Floating Bodies
produced by Federigo Commandino and published in Bologna in 1565.
It is a well-known fact that Commandino, after Francesco Maurolico
(see Chapter 5 below), became the leading student of Greek mathematics
in general and Archimedes in particular. He was born in Urbino in 1509.
1
He received some education from his father Battista, an architect, and then
was trained in Latin and Greek by Giacopo Torelli da Fano, Professor
of Humane Letters in Urbino. He learned mathematics from Giovanni
Pietro de Grassi, who came to Urbino with the Orsini family when they
fled the sack of Rome in 1527. When de Grassi later returned to Rome in
the service of Niccolo Cardinal Ridolfi, Commandino accompanied him. It
was through de Grassi's assistance that Commandino became private
secretary to Pope Clement VII. According to Mamiani, Commandino
read the works of Euclid and Archimedes to the pope.
2
After the pope's
death in 1534, Commandino went to Padua, where he spent about ten
years. He studied medicine with the physician Giovanni Battista Montano
and philosophy with Marco Antonio Genova. From there he moved to
Ferrara, where, in about 1546, he took his doctorate in medicine under il
Brasavola, for Baldi affirms that Commandino did not get his degree at
Padua.
3
He returned to Urbino and about this time gave up medicine for
mathematics, for, as Baldi says, he found the former one of "the most
fallacious arts."4 He was called into the service of the Duke of Urbino,
Guidobaldo II, who was also at this time a Capitano della Republica
of Venice. As the result of this last duty, the Duke and Commandino spent
some time together in Verona. There Federigo learned from the Duke mili-
tary map-making, the drawing of the plans of fortifications, planimetry,
1 Of the sundry literature on the life of Commandino, I have found the account of his
student and friend Bernardino Baldi the most useful: "Vita di Federico Commandino scritta
da Monsignor Bernardino Baldi, da Urbino, Abate di Gustalla," Giornale de' letterati
italiani, Vol. 19 (1714), pp. 140-85. But see also G. Mamiani, Elogi storici di Federico
Commandino, G. Ubaldo del Monte, Giulio Carlo Fagnani (Pesaro, 1828), pp. 1-42 and
S. Drake and I. E. Drabkin, Mechanics in Sixteenth-Century Italy (Madison, Wise., 1969),
pp. 41-44. P. L. Rose has found considerable additional material on Commandino and
we can expect a new and more detailed account in the near future. Meanwhile, see his
"Letters Illustrating the Career of Federico Commandino," Physis, Anno XV, fase. 4
(1973), pp. 401-10 and "Plusieurs manuscrits autographes de Federieo Commandino ala
Bibliotheque Nationale de Paris," Revue d' histoire des sciences et de leurs applications,
Vol. 24 (1971), pp. 299-307. (After I had written this note and sent the manuscript to
the publisher, I received a copy ofRose's newbook: The Italian Renaissance ofMathematics
[Geneva, 1975]. It is filled with interesting detail concerning the Italian mathematicians whom
I have treated in this volume. But unfortunately I can only refer the reader to Chapter 9
on Commandino.)
2 Marniani, Elogi, p. 6. I do not know on what evidence this assertion was made. It may
have arisen from a confusion of Clement with Marcellus, whose role in initiating Com-
mandino's serious study of Archimedes I shall describe below.
3 Baldi, "Vita di Federico Commandino," p. 147.
4 Ibid., pp. 147-48.
COMMANDINO AND MOERBEKE'S ARCHIMEDES 609
and altimetry. He also studied cosmography and geography. He even re-
sumed medicine when the Duke fell ill. As a part of his successful treatment
of the Duke, Commandino recommended convalescence in the "native
air" of Urbino, and so they returned home. There Commandino met
Ranuccio Cardinal Farnese, the brother of the Duchess, who was much
interested in studying the sciences and much impressed by Commandino.
The Duke allowed Commandino to join Farnese's household. According
to Baldi, he went to Rome with Farnese.
5
And not long after, he was
in Venice with himin 1553.
6
Famese' s circle contained a number of notable
savants, including Baltasar Torres Metinese, a Jesuit physician-philos-
opher-mathematician of the Collegio Romano, who persuaded Com-
mandino to make sense out of Ptolemy's PLanisphaerium, which existed
in a translation from the Arabic.
7
The resulting volume, published by the
Aldine Press at Venice in 1558, also included an edition of the PLani-
sphaerium of Jordanus de Nemore and Commandino's commentary on
Ptolemy's work. It is no surprise that the work was dedicated to Farnese.
Commandino was also occupied at this time with his translations of
Archimedes that were published in the same year by the same press:
Archimedis opera non nulla a Federico Commandino Urbinate nuper in
Latinum conversa, et commentariis iLLustrata (Venice, 1558). This volume
included translations of 1) On the Measurement of the Circle, 2) On
SpiraL Lines, 3) On the Quadrature of the ParaboLa, 4) On Conoids
and Spheroids, and 5) The Sandreckoner, together with Commandino's
perceptive commentaries on these works. 7a These translations and com-
.; Ibid., p. 150. This seems confirmed by the fact that Commandino later says that Mar-
cellus Cervinus had selected him to do versions of Ptolemy's De analemmate and Archi-
medes' On Floating Bodies "a few years before" he became Pope (see below, note 14).
Hence, I would suppose that Commandino visited Rome sometime before his appearance
in Venice in 1553.
6 See below, note 8.
7 Baldi, "Vita di Federico Commandino," p. 151. Cf. Ptolemaei Planisphaerium. Jordani
Planisphaerium. Federici Commandini Urbinatis in Ptolemaei Planisphaerium commen-
(arius (Venice, 1558); sign. A 2: "Sed cum Balthasar Turrius Metinensis, vir non solum
in philosophia, et medicina, verumetiam in mathematicis praestantissimus, quo cum mihi
summa necessitudo intercedit, me superiori anno magnopere rogasset, ut libellum [i.e.
Planisphaerium] perlegerem, daremque operam, ut, si fieri posset, inteIIigerem: amico
roganti defesse nefas esse arbitratus sum. Quamobrem accuratissime totum legi ... ," I
have made the usual changes of consonantal "u" and vocal "v" and have capitalized
the first words of sentences.
7a P. L. Rose has kindly called my attention to some fragments of Commandino's Archi-
medean translations and commentaries extant in Commandino's hand in MS Urbino, BibI.
Univ. Comune Busta 28 (120), which can be identified as follows: (I) 4Or-43v, containing
Propositions XXVI-XXVIII of Commandino's translation of De lineis spiralibus that begin
in line 3 of the enunciation of Prop. XXVI (see ed. of 1558, 16r) and end at the end
of the tract (ibid., 18r); (2) 44r-49v, containing two distinct parts of Commandino' s com-
mentary on the Circuli dimensio: the first, on 44r-45v, begins with Proposition II
(Commentarii, ed. of 1558, 5r) and ends in the midst of Prop. IV (ibid., 7r, line 3) and
the second, 46r-49v, begins with Prop. VIII (ibid., 8v) and finishes at the end of the
commentary (ibid., tOv); and (3) 93r-97v, containing the beginning of the commentary
on De arenae numero (ibid., 60r to 61r, line 6 from the bottom),
mentaries constituted by far the soundest work on Archimedes yet pub-
lished, being far superior to the Moerbeke translations published by
Tartaglia in 1543 or the Cremonensis translations published with the editio
princeps of the Greek text at Basel in 1544. For example, with Com-
mandino's work we have for the first time a published version of On the
Measurement of the Circle which has all the calculations in Proposition 3
correct (see Appendix IV, Sect. 3). Commandino based his translations
primarily on Greek manuscript E, that is Bessarion's copy, which Com-
mandino borrowed from the San Marco Library in Venice. In fact, the
register with the notices of Commandino' s borrowing and returning of this
manuscript in Farnese' s name is extant: 8
1552 (N.S. 1553), die 22 februarii.-R. mus D. Cardinalis Sancti Angeli [i.e.
Ranuccio Farnese] habitat ad S. Joannem a Templo, iuxta mandatum D. Re-
formatorum, habuit librum grecum, in pergameno, dictum Archimedem, quae
sunt diversa opera geometrica, et Eutocium Ascalonitam, sign. n.o 34 [i.e. Cod.
305], quem tulit D. Federicus Comandinus (I) familiaris Suae D. R.mae, qui
deposuit penes me duos platos argenteos ballatos.
1553, die 7 augusti. R.mus D. Card.
s
s. Angeli suprasscriptus restituit librum Archi-
medis et habuit, iuxta mandatum D. Reformatorum, librum Apollonis (1) Pergei
Conicorum, insertum Heliano de Proprietatibus animalium, et aliis auctoribus,
n 324 [i.e. Cod. 518], per D. Federicum, suum familiarem, relicto apud me
deposito duorum platorum argenteorum.
There is a further notice that the Apollonius volume was returned on
6 November, but not by Commandino,
9
perhaps an indication that' Com-
mandino had left Venice (for Rome?). I have categorically stated that the
Archimedean manuscript borrowed by Commandino was Manuscript E.
This we know for certain, since this was the only Greek manuscript of
Archimedes in Bessarion's collection, which constituted the core of the San
Marco Library. 10 The notices also reveal the interesting library practice
of leaving precious objects as a deposit. Further they illustrate the prac-
tice of having the borrower bring along an order (mandatum) from the
Reformatori of the University of Padua.
ll
Finally, the notices are of inter-
est for the biography of Commandino. For, in all probability, Com-
mandino, as afamiliaris of Farnese, would have lived with him in Venice
at San Giovanni al Monte, which belonged to the priorate of Malta of which
Cardinal Farnese was the titular Prior.
8 C. Castellani, . 'n Prestito dei eodiei manoseritti della Biblioteea di San Mareo in Venezia
ne' suoi primi tempi e le eonseguenti perdite de' eodici stessi," Atti del Reale Istituto
Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti, Ser. settima, Vol. 8 (1896-97), pp. 350-51 (40-41),
whole article, pp. 311-67.
9 Ibid.: "1553, 6 novembris. D. Mareus Antonius Bentivolus, familiaris R.mi D. Legati
Apostoliei, qui habuit a R.mo D. Cardinali supradicto librum ipsum, restituit eum mihi, et
ego ei restitui depositum, id est platos duos argenteos supraseriptos."
10 H. Omont, Inventaire des manuscrits grecs et latins donnes aSaint-Marc de Venise
par le Cardinal Bessarion en 1468 (Paris, 1894), p. 31, item no. 261.
11 Castellani , "n Prestito," p. 327 (17), n. 3.
One wonders, of course, whether Commandino was acquainted with
Tartaglia, either at this time or earlier when Commandino lived in Padua.
He certainly must have seen and known Tartaglia's edition of the Archi-
medean works of 1543, and probably also his Italian translation and com-
mentary on Book I of On Floating Bodies. It seems more than likely that
the unsatisfactory nature of Tartaglia's edition of 1543, as well as the un-
even character of the Cremonensis translation in the Basel edition of 1544,
were significant motivations for Commandino's undertaking. Above all,
Commandino wanted to remove obscurities in the texts, and certainly
obscurities were very much present in both of the earlier editions.
It might seem a little curious that Commandino did not include transla-
tions of On the Sphere and the Cylinder and On the Equilibrium ofPlanes.
Perhaps he thought the first one had been adequately translated by
Cremonensis. His failure to translate the second work might be connected
with the reluctance he later expressed to publish on centers of gravity
so long as he knew Maurolico had already done something on this subject,
a reluctance I shall discuss shortly. Even in the preface to this first effort
of Commandino to render Archimedes intelligible, he praises Maurolico
(and Regiomontanus) highly.12 Mention of this possible reluctance brings
us to the circumstances that provoked Commandino' s second Archi-
medean work, i.e., his edition of On Floating Bodies.
As I have noted above, before Commandino accompanied Farnese to
Venice (1553), he had apparently gone with the Cardinal to Rome. For
we know that Marcellus Cardinal Cervinus, the bibliothecarius of the
Vatican Library, had met Commandino and was much attracted by him.
In fact we are told that Cervinus wished to have him as a member of his
court and that this growing relationship was interrupted by Marcellus'
death on 30 April, 1555, only twenty-one days after he had been elected
as Pope Marcellus II. 13 Indeed before Marcellus became pope he had
selected Commandino to edit William of Moerbeke's translations of
Ptolemy's De analemmate and Archimedes' On Floating Bodies, both
of which were contained in manuscript 0 (then in Cervinus' possession)
and both of which were unavailable in Greek. Commandino himself tells
12 Archimedis opera non nulla a Federico Commandino Urbinate nuper in Latinum con-
versa, et commentariis illustrata (Venice, 1558), sign. [* 3 verso]: .. Archimedis pauca
quidem extant scripta, sed obscurissima, et quae maximo negocio vix intelligi possint.
Quorumcumnonnulla iamab Eutocio Ascalonita doctissime, planissimeque explicata essent,
superioribus temporibus Ioannes Regiomontanus, quem honoris caussa nomino, reliqua
interpretanda suscepit. Verum, nescio quo fato, lucubrationes illae a studiosis adhuc
desiderantur. Nostra vero memoria Franciscus Maurolicus Messanensis in hoc genere
literarum a primis temporibus aetatis suae versatus, ad eandem intepretationem aggressus
est. Qua in re (ut mea fert opinio) et officio suo, et expectationi hominum cumulate
satisfecisset, nisi postremo, scientiis mathematicis multa salute dicta, sacrarum literarum
in studia sese penitus abdidisset. " Here Commandino is puttingforth the story that Maurolico
has abandoned mathematics for the study of sacred letters. Perhaps Maurolico took this
amiss for he later spoke of Commandino with less than generosity. See below, note 17.
13 Baldi, "Vita di Federico Commandino," pp. 168-69.
us this (without, of course, mentioning William of Moerbeke's name) in
the preface to his edition of Ptolemy's De analemmate, which he pub-
lished in Rome in 1562: 14
Marcellus Cervinus, when he was still a cardinal-a few years before he would
obtain the highest grade in the Christian Republic-was concerned for the un-
ravelling of two little Latin books-one of Archimedes On Floating Bodies and
the other of Ptolemy De analemmate-from the long-time obscurity in which
they had lain hidden. And by his liberality he judged me, as some one who
uniquely admired and payed attention to such a man, worthy of this task.
As we shall see, he was not to complete and publish On Floating
Bodies until 1565. He was also during that same year to publish his Liber
de centro gravitatis solidorum (Bologna, 1565). In the preface to this latter
work, he once more mentioned Cervinus' role inpassing on to him a manu-
script containing On Floating Bodies:
15
14 Claudii Ptolemaei liber de analemmate, a Federico Commandino Urbinate instauratus.
et commentariis illustratus, qui nunc primum eius opera e tenebris in lucem prodit. Eiusdem
Federici Commandini liber de horologiorum descriptione (Rome, 1562), sign. * ii: "Mar-
cellus Cervinus adhuc Cardinalis, paucis ante annis, quam altissimum Reipublicae Chris-
tianae gradum obtineret, duos libellos, unum Archimedis de iis, quae in aqua vehuntur,
alterum Ptolemaei de analemmate, latine redditos, e diutuma obscuritate, in qua latuerant,
evolvendos curavit: meque, qui tantum virum unice diligebam, et observabam, eo munere
pro sua liberalitate dignum existimavit. "
15 Federigo Commandino, Liber de centro gravitatis solidorum (Bologna, 1565), pref.
2*r-3*v: "Archimedes quidem mathematicorum princeps in libello, cuius inscriptio est,
KEPTpa !3apwv 1Tt7TESWV, de centro planorum copiosissime, atque acutissime conscripsit:
et in eo explicando summam ingenii, et scientiae gloriam est consecutus. Sed de cognitione
centri gravitatis corporum solidorum nulla in eius libris litera invenitur. Non multos abhinc
annos MARCELLUS n. PONT. MAX. (2*v) cum adhuc Cardinalis esset, mihi, quae sua
erat humanitas, libros eiusdem Archimedis de iis, quae vehuntur in aqua, latine redditos
donot dedit. Hos cum ego, ut aliorum studia incitarem, emendandos, et commentariis
illustrandos suscepissem, animadverti dubitari non posse, quin Archimedes vel de hac materia
scripsisset, vel aliorum mathematicorum scripta perIegisset. Nam in iis turn alia nonnulla,
turn maxime illam propositionem, ut evidentem, et alias probatam assumit, Centrum
gravitatis in portionibus conoidis rectanguli axem ita dividere, ut pars, quae ad verticem
terminatur, alterius partis, quae ad basim dupla sit. Verum haec ad earn partem mathe-
maticarum disciplinarum praecipue refertur, in qua de centro gravitatis corporum solidorum
tractatur. Non est autem consentaneum Archimedem ilIum admirabilem virum hanc proposi-
tionem sibi argumentis confirmandam existimaturum non fuisse, nisi earn vel aliis in locis
probavisset, vel ab aliis probatam esse comperisset. Quamobrem nequid in iis libris intelli-
gendis desiderari posset, statui hanc etiam partem vel a veteribus praetermissam, vel
tractatam quidem sed in tenebris iacentem, non intactam relinquere; atque ex assidua mathe-
maticorum, praesertim Archimedis lectione, quae mihi in mentem venerunt, ea in medium
affere, ut centri gravitatis corporum solidorum, si non perfectam, at certe aIiquam noti-
(3*r)tiam haberemus. . . . Cum autem ad hoc scribendum aggressus essem, allatus est
ad me liber Francisci Maurolici Messanensis, in quo vir ille doctissimus, et in us disciplinis
exercitatissimus affirmabat se de centro gravitatis corporum solidorum conscripsisse. Cum
hoc intellexissem, sustinui me paulisper: tacitusque expectavi, dum opus da(3*v)rissimi
viri, quem semper honoris caussa nomino, in lucem proferretur: mihi enim exploratissimum erat:
Franciscum Maurolicum multo doctius, et exquisitius hoc disciplinarum genus scriptis suis
traditurum. Sed cum id tardius fieret, hoc est, ut ego interpretor, diligentius, mihi diutius
hac scriptione non supersedendum esse duxi, praesertim cum iam libri Archimedis de iis,
quae vehuntur in aqua, opera mea illustrati typis excudendi essent."
Archimedes, the Prince of Mathematicians, in the work entitled On the Centers
of Gravity of Planes [i.e., On the Equilibrium of Planes] wrote copiously and
acutely on the center of planes.... But concerning knowledge of the center of
gravity of solid bodies, no account is found among his books. Not many years
ago, Marcellus I1, Pontifex Maximus, when he was still a cardinal, as evidence
of his humanity, gave to me as a gift, the books of the same Archimedes On
Floating Bodies executed in Latin. When I had undertaken to emend them and
illuminate them with commentaries in order that I might stimulate the studies of
others, I realized that there could be no doubt that either Archimedes had written
on this subject [of the center of gravity of solids] or that he had read the writings
of other mathematicians [on this subject]. For in them [i.e., the books On Floating
Bodies], he assumes some things as evident and proved elsewhere, and partic-
ularly the proposition to the effect that in segments of paraboloids, the center
of gravity so divides the axis that the part [of the axis] terminated at the vertex is
double the part terminated at the base [cf. below, Commandino's text, Book 11,
Proposition 2, Comment Cl. Now this is especially referable to that part of mathe-
matics in which the center of gravity of solid bodies is treated. But it is not
fitting for this admirable man Archimedes to have accepted in his arguments this
proposition that [still] had to be confirmed unless he had proved it elsewhere or
had found it proved by others. Therefore, lest anything be wanting for under-
standing these books, I decided that this part [ofmathematics]-either passed over
by the ancients or treated but left lying in the shadows-ought not to be left un-
touched. [Hence, I decided] to apply those things which came to mind from an
assiduous reading of the mathematicians, and especially of Archimedes, in such
a way that we might have if not complete at least some knowledge of the center of
gravity of solid bodies.... But when I began to write this, a book of Francesco
Maurolico of Messina was reported to me, in which this very learned man and
expert in these disciplines affirmed that he had written on the center of gravity of
solid bodies. When I had heard this, I held back for a while and silently waited
for the work of this very famous man (whom I always name with honor) to be
published. For I was certain that Francesco Maurolico would treat in his book this
kind of subject more learnedly and more accurately [than I]. But since this [work
of Maurolico] would be produced more slowly, or, as I interpret it, more care-
fully, I [finally] decided that I should not avoid the writing [of such a work] any
longer, particularly since the books of Archimedes On Floating Bodies explicated
by my effort had to be printed.
This passage is noteworthy for several reasons. First, it reveals that the
Archimedean work opened the way for Commandino' s treatment of the
centers of gravity of solids. Secondly, it again indicates Commandino' s
admiration for Maurolico and his own scrupulous honesty in not claiming
priority in the matter of investigating the centers of gravity of solids.
Finally, it specifically says that the Latin version (i.e. William of o r ~
beke's translation) of On Floating Bodies was given to him by Marcellus.
Heiberg interprets this and the preceding passage from the preface to the
De analemmate to mean that Marcellus "communicated" the Moerbeke
autograph, Le. manuscript 0, to Commandino.
16
But it appears to me that
16 Archimedis opera omnia, ed. Heiberg, Vol. 3, p. LIX. I suggested earlier in my "Archi-
medes in the Later Middle Ages," Perspectives in the history of Science and Technology,
ed. D. H. D. Roller (Norman, Okla., 1971), p. 256, n. 21 (whole article pp. 239-59) that
,
!
i
,
,
I
I
this communication was not a direct one, as Heiberg implies, but rather
an indirect one. That is, I believe that Marcellus had a copy of each of
these works (Le. the works of Ptolemy and Archimedes) prepared for
Commandino from manuscript O. These copies are, I believe, the ones
extant in manuscript Vat. Barb. lat. 304, 124r-41v (De insidentibus) ,
150r-60r (De analemmate), 160v-62r (diagrams for both), a manuscript
of the 1550's which Heiberg had not known (see note 16). I believe that
this was the manuscript used by Commandino in preparing his version of
De insidentibus for two reasons. In the first place, the Barberini manu-
script contained just the two works from manuscript 0 that Commandino
worked on (and no others from 0) and in the second he accepted in his
version readings found in the Barberini manuscript but not in O. To take
only one of many persuasive examples of the latter point, I note that
where Moerbeke several times used quarundam in a passage from
Proposition 2 of Book I (Vo!. 2, 55vF-G), the Barberini manuscript
and Commandino' s text substituted quibusdam. While Commandino in all
probability used the Barberini manuscript in the preparation of his text, I
think it likely that Marcellus showed him manuscript 0 itself when Com-
mandino was in Rome. He may also have seen 0 later during the course
of the publication of his version of Ptolemy's De analemmate in Rome
in 1562.
The mention of Maurolico in the long citation given above has some
further minor interest. The book of Maurolico which contained the refer-
ence to his composition of a work on the centers of gravity of solids
was undoubtedly the omnibus collection, Theodosii sphaericorum ele-
Heiberg had not known MS Vat. Barb. lat. 304 when he came to this conclusion and
that in all likelihood the Barberini manuscript was the copy used by Commandino. P. L.
Rose, "Humanist Culture and Renaissance Mathematics: The Italian Libraries of the
Quattrocentro," Studies in the Renaissance, Vot. 20 (1973), p. 88 (whole article pp. 46-
105), is confident on good evidence that Vat. Barb. lat. 304 was put together by Com-
mandino's friend Baltasar Torres. I should further remark that part of the original codex
is now missing. The pagination is chaotic and begins with folio 122r (with an earlier 124
crossed out). It ends with a blank folio 293. The index that occupies folios 274r-91r has
many references to texts that were in the missing leaves. I have followed the pagination
as given in the codex since it is tied in with the Index. In addition to the Moerbeke trans-
lations of Archimedes' On Floating Bodies and Ptolemy'sDe analemmate mentioned below,
the codex once included at the (now missing) folio 91 a work entitled Archimedis locus
difficilis (see the Index, 274r), and a letter of Maurolico solving a problem posed by Com-
mandino (ibid., 284r, and see note 17 below). Torres' name is mentioned on 271r, the
Collegium Societatis Iesu on 207v, and "Messer Federico" (i.e., Commandino) appears
many times throughout the codex (e.g. 254v, 264r, 271r, 284r), as does Maurolico (e.g. 265r,
265v, 271v, 284r). It is impossible to decide when the Moerbeke translation of On Floating
Bodies was copied by Torres from manuscript 0 (and thus when it was first loaned to
Commandino, if, as I believe, it was). But I suspect that the leaves including the Moerbeke
translations were copied by Torres not long after coming to Rome in 1553, that Commandino
consulted them (perhaps copying them or producing from them a preliminary version of
his reconstruction of Archimedes' work), and that Commandino returned them to Torres to
become a part of the codex which Torres put together no earlier than 1558.
mentorum libri III etc. (Messina, 1558). This collection included the pre-
liminary version of Maurolico's Index lucubrationum that mentions his
treatment of the centers of gravity of solids (see 2*r and the text of the
Index in M. Clagett, "The Works of Francesco Maurolico," Physis,
Anno XVI, Fasc. 2 [1974], p. 182, lines 49-50). He also mentioned his treat-
ment of the centers of plane solids by means of the pyramid in his Com-
pendium mathematicae published in that same volume (see the next chap-
ter, Section 11, n. 22). Maurolico's full treatment of the centers of gravity
(including the last book on solids) was entitled Archimedis de momentis
aequalibus ex traditione Francisci Maurolyci. It was completed in 1548
but was not published until 1685 (see the next chapter, Section 11, n. 10).
It is worth noticing that Commandino was in correspondence with Mauro-
lico, as the former reveals in his comment to Proposition XIV of On
Conoids and Spheroids, and a part of one letter from Commandino to
Maurolico still remainsY Furthermore, Commandino was no doubt in-
17 Commentarii in opera non nulla Archimedis (Venice, 1558), 42v: "Franciscus Mauroli-
cus Messanensis vir omni doctrina, atque optimarum artium studiis eruditissimus, et in
Mathematicis ita exercitatus, ut his temporibus Archimedes alter iure optimo dici possit,
arbitratur corollarium quoddam esse, quanquam mutilum, ac depravatum. Is enim in
quibusdam ad me humanissimis, ac doctissimis literis ita scribit. ... Haec Maurolicus,
quae adeo quadrant ad hunc locum, ut non aliter ipse Archimedes scripsisse videri possit;
alioqui mancam quodammodo, atque impeIfectam eorum scientiam, tradidisset." I regret
to say that Maurolico was not so generous in a comment he made concerning Commandino's
Liber de horologiorum descriptione (included with the latter's Ptolemaei De analemmate,
Rome, 1562). Maurolico says in his De lineis horariis brevis tractatus (published in the
Opuscula mathematica, Venice, 1575), p. 80: "Sed loquamur de lineis horariis, haec enim
est compendii nostri materia. De his recentiores quidam scripsere. Sebastianus quidam
fabricam earum tradidit: sed speculationem neglexit. Federicus noster Urbinas, dum
theoriam nimis affectat, obscure locutus est." In connection with the correspondence be-
tween Commandino and Maurolico mentioned by Commandino in the passage given above,
we should note an extant letter from Commandino to Maurolico in MS Urbino, Bib\. Univ.
Comune Busta 28 (120), 185r-88v. I owe thanks to P. L. Rose for alerting me to this
letter and providing me with a xerox copy of it. The beginning and end of the
letter are missing, but, as my summary of it below indicates, there can be no doubt
that it was written by Commandino to Maurolico as a reply to a letter from Maurolico
that had discussed certain propositions of On Conoids and Spheroids. (1) The fragment
begins in the middle of things as follows (I85r): "parte 49
a
propositione primi conicorum
Apollonii, ut te fecisse scribis, videtur enim Apollonius idem ilIud longe a1io tramite
vexatus, quam quo antiquiores processerunt, quod ex iis quae hic ab Archimede, ilIic ab
Apollonio tradita sunt, manifeste apparere potest." The reference to 1.49 of the Conics
first suggested to me that Commandino was here discussing Maurolico' s proof of his own
Proposition 1.4 in his version of Archimedes' On Conaids and Spheroids (see the Archi-
medis monumenta omnia mathematici [palermo, 1685], p. 229): "Si ab extremo rectae
ordinatae in parabola perpendicularis ad diametrum ducatur, erit sicut quadratum ductae
ad quadratum, quod ex dimidio ordinatae, sic recta ad quam possum ordinatae ad axem, ad
rectam, ad quam possunt ordinatae ad diametrum" (concerning whose demonstration
Maurolico says, p. 230, "quae tamen demonstratio ab Archimede tanquam manifesta, et in
Conicis tradita, omissa est"), I was led to this conclusion because this was the only
proposition of Maurolico's version of On Conoids and Spheroids that cited Proposition
1.49 of the Conics. However, the conclusion does not appear to be a correct one since
Commandino's further remarks seem to imply that Maurolico had said that he had not yet
found the demonstration for this problem (l85r): "Illud vero satis (?) mirari non possum,
quod tibi in mentem venit suspicari ab Archimede, mathematicorum omnium qui sunt, qui
fuerunt, quique futuri sunt facile principe, quicquid scriptum esse, quod non sit verissimum.
Atque fortasse inquies, te demonstrationem eius diu, multumque perquisitam nondum
invenire potuisse. Quid? Circuli quadraturam nemo ex tot peritissimis ad haec usque
tempora perfecte commodeque invenit. Num idcirco inveniri posse negare audebimus?"
In fact, Maurolico's proof of this problem (if it was indeed Prop. lA) had appeared in
his version of On Conoids and Spheroids, completed by 1549, i.e., before the beginning
ofthe Commandino-Maurolicocorrespondence. (2) Commandino then states what is to be the main
subject of his letter, namely the demonstration of the first case of the second of the four proposi-
tions grouped together as Proposition XII of his version of Archimedes' On Conoids and
Spheroids (=Prop. 11 of Heiberg's text), the proposition that asserted that when a hyperboloid of
revolution is cut by a plane parallel to the axis, a hyperbolic section is produced similar
to the hyperbolic section describing the hyperboloid. Archimedes had merely stated that the
proofs of all of these propositions comprising Proposition XII are "manifest." Here are
Commandino's remarks (l85r): "Ego vero quamquam demonstratione nondum comperi, si
conoides hyperbolicum piano scindatur aequidistanter axi ducto, sectionem fieri hyperbolen
similem ei, quae figuram ipsam describit, tamen cum in hoc authorem habeam Archimedem,
dubitare non possum, quin ita sit; et in hac sententia tandiu permanebo, quoad mihi con-
trarium nox apparuerit, neque enim versimile est eum, si modo ab alio sumpserit, inde-
monstratum sumpsisse, quemadmodum et nos eorum quae ab Euclide conscripta sunt,
nisi et demonstra essent, nihil admitteremus. Accedit quod et ipse Archimedes se demon-
strationem eius novisse ad extremum testatus est. 'Horum, inquit, omnium demonstrationes
sunt manifestae.' " After further comment on Maurolico's view as to why Archimedes
did not include a proof, Commandino discusses at considerable length (185v-87r) the nature
and properties of similar segments of conic sections, described as those "in quibus si
ducantur utrunque aequidistantes basi numero aequales quae diametros in partes secant
proportionales, et bases et aequidistantes eandem inter se proportionem obtinebunt." This is
shown to be so in parabolic segments and elliptical segments and then it is noted (l87r)
that it can be shown in the same way in hyperbolic segments. With all of this accepted,
Commandino gives a succinct proof of the main proposition itself (l87r-88r), which is
similar to but not identical with the proof that Commandino was later to give in his
Commentarii, 39r-40v. Of course, Maurolico had already proved the substance of this
proposition in Propositions 1.20 and 1.21 of his version of On Conoids and Spheroids (ed.
of 1685, pp. 239-41): "Propositio XX. Si conoides hyperbolicum piano secetur axi parallelo,
vel per centrum hyperboles solidum describentis ducto: facta sectio erit hyperbole....
Propositio XXI. Cum his pariter demonstrandum est quod facta hyperbole FSR (in primo
casu) similis est ipsi ABC ..." (hyperbolic section ABC being that by which the hyper-
boloid of revolution is generated in Proposition 1.20). I do not know whether Maurolico
had communicated his proofs to Commandino, though it is of course possible. (3) After
completing his proof of the main proposition in his letter, Commandino (l88r) briefly praises
Maurolico's interpretation of a puzzling corollary that appeared at the end of Proposition
XIV (=Proposition 13 of Heiberg's text): "Corollarium quod 14
ae
propositioni additum
abitraris mihi adeo placuit, ut non dubitem ab Archimede ita scriptumfuisse, alioqui mancata
quodammodo, atque imperfectam eorum scientiam tradidisse videri possit." Maurolico's
interpretation, unspecified here, is given later in Commandino' s Commentarii, 42v, parts
of which I have cited at the beginning of this note. At this point I should observe that
in giving this interpretation Commandino gives essentially what is in Maurolico's scholium
to Proposition 1.24 of his version of On Conoids and Spheroids (ed. of 1685, p. 244).
But since Commandino does not appear to have seen a copy of Maurolico's version of
On Conoids and Spheroids (it having not been published), I would judge that Maurolico
described his interpretation of the corollary in the letter to which Commandino is here
replying. The verbal similarity between Commandino's brief statement in the letter and his
longer account in the Commentarii is conclusive evidence (if any is still needed) that the
letter was written by Commandino to Maurolico. (4) Commandino then mentions Maurolico's
books that he would like to see published and, in the course of doing so, he highly
formed of Maurolico's mathematical works by the Jesuit Baltasar Torres.
Torres had been a friend of Maurolico in Messina and had come to Rome
in 1553 (see the next chapter, Section I, notes 22, 23). I have already
mentioned the fact that Commandino knew Torres and was persuaded
by him to edit Ptolemy's Planisphaerium and that Torres almost certainly
compiled MS Barb. lat. 304, which Commandino appears to have used
praises Maurolico (188r-v): "De copia librorum, qui ate conscripti sunt tibi merito gratias
agere, et habere debent omnes nostrorum temporum mathematici, quibus facilem aditum
aperuisti ad explicanda, et intelligenda ea, quae multis obstructa difficultatibus in maxima
obscurititate innumerabilibus ante saeculis iacuerunt, quare noli committere, ut tot, tantisque
tuis laboribus diutius careamus, cupio enim quamprimum in lucem prodire omnia, praecipue
vero Archimedis libros duos, qui impressi non sunt: De isoperimetris figuris, et de speculis
comburentibus; praeterea libros ate lucubratos: De aequalibus momentis, De lumine, et
umbra, et De diaphanis." (5) The fragment of Commandino's letter ends with his men-
tioning another problem to be solved and he hopes that he and Maurolico will remain in
touch even though he is in Urbino and Maurolico is in Sicily (l88v): "Unum id, de quo
ante ad te scripsi, alterum problema est, non quidem Archimedis, sed quod ipse in aliud
quodpiam, ad Archimedis libellum de conoidibus et sphaeroidibus una cum aliis quibusdam
addendum censui, id autem tale est; Datam conoidis portionem piano basi aequidistanti ita
secare, ut partes proportionem habeant eandem datae proportioni, quod quidem quomodo
fieri possit in conoide parabolico explicavi, in hyperbolico vero non item, utque adeo dif-
ficilem, morosamque in omnibus mihi se praebuit haec hyperbole. Hoc (del. Comm, et
supra ser. id) tu si aliquando resolvendum, componendumque tibi proposuisti, quaeso ad
me mitte, et tandem utraque hoc (del. Comm. et ser. omni) molestia libera. Quod scribis
cupere te Urbini esse;'iiiifme'esse in Sicilia, ut alter alterius inventionibus vicissim
perfrui possit, amice quidem facis, quod alieno magis, quam tuo id commodo cupias, nostra
enim adeo angusta sunt, ita praeter amorem, ac singularem erga te observantiam, vix aliud
quicquid a me possis expectare, tuorum vero tactus, tanquam immensus est campus,
ut in eo cuique longe, lateque pervagari summa cumvoluptate, et utilitate liceat. Sed quoniam
eorum alterum, me scilicet in Sicilia esse, vix sperandum est, alterum te Urbini esse, ne
vix quidem, da operam, ut Urbini cum sim, tuis tamen possim perfrui inventis, vel ede vel
ad nos mitte, lulius enim Spartius (quae sua est humanitas) mihi curabit describi, si quo
dignus a te fuero existimatus (?). Quod si unquam asseques, superabo Crassum divitiis,
et omnium vicos et prata contemnam" (the letter breaks off here). (It appears that
Maurolico may have solved the additional problem posed by Commandino, for we have a
notice in MS Vat. Barb. lat. 304, 204r that mentions a letter by Maurolico on this problem:
"Mauroli a 8 de Otubre 1557 le scrissi con el P. Messer Ieronymo este problema de Messer
Federico, datam conoidis obtusianguli portionem piano basi equidistanti ita dividere ut
partes [pro]portionem habeant eandem datae portioni." This notice was included under
"M" in the index of the codex presumably prepared by Torres. The entry gives no page
reference; it was perhaps included in that part of the codex that is now missing. At least I
could not find it in the codex. Once more I must thank P. L. Rose for calling my attention to
this notice.) This last part of Commandino's letter reveals again his admiration for Maurolico.
Notice further that Commandino has suggested that an unknown lulius Spartius might
serve as an intermediary between the two scholars since it is unlikely that Commandino
would get to Sicily or Maurolico to Urbino, though should Maurolico ever come to Urbino
Commandino would "exceed Crassus in riches," It is perhaps relevant for the dating of this
letter that Maurolico's nephew indicates that his uncle received letters from Commandino
at his monastery (see below, Chap. 5, Sect. I, n. 18) and thus presumably in the period
1550-53 when Maurolico was regularly in residence there, The only other period when
Maurolico spent any extended time at the monastery was in 1560 (ibid., n. 28), long after
the period when this correspondence must have taken place since, as we have noted, it
was referred to by Commandino in his Commentarii of 1558. I note finally that in transcrib-
ing the various passages from Commandino's letter I have expanded his to "ae"
and have changed his punctuation slightly.
for his version of On Floating Bodies (see note 16). Incidentally both
Maurolico and Commandino are mentioned in other parts of that manu-
script (ibid.). Hence it seems very likely that Torres would have told Com-
mandino something of Maurolico's various works, including perhaps the
De momentis aequalibus.
The reason for the publication of On Floating Bodies and De centro
gravitatis solidorum in Bologna was that Commandino's patron Ranuccio
Farnese had been made Bishop of Bologna (1564) and Commandino had
accompanied him there.
18
The Archimedean volume was presented to
Ranuccio and the De centro gravitatis solidorum to his brother Alessandro
Farnese. One further result of Commandino's interest in the works of
Ptolemy and Archimedes was realized in Bologna with the publication
there in 1566 of Commandino's translation of the Conics of Apollonius
of Perga,19 based on a Greek manuscript which Commandino had con-
sulted in Venice in 1553, as we have seen. For an understanding of the
latter was useful, nay even necessary, for the fulfillment of his commission
to restore the texts of the De analemmate and On Floating Bodies.
The translation of Apollonius was dedicated to Duke Guidobaldo 11 and
was supplemented with a translation of Serenus, dedicated to the Duke's
son Francesco Maria 11.
Farnese died on 25 October, 1565, and shortly thereafter Commandino
returned to his native city where he spent the remainder of his life. Other
mathematical translations or reconstructions continued to flow from his
pen, but they are of no particular concern to my investigations.
20
We
should note, however, that John Dee visited him in Urbino, from which
resulted in 1570 a joint edition of the De superficierum divisionibus
of Bagdedinus (=Mul,1ammad al-Baghdadi) based on a Latin manuscript
in Dee' s possession,21 and that Guido Ubaldo del Monte studied with
18 Baldi, "Vita di Federico Commandino," pp. 158-59. See W. van Gulik, C. Eubel and
L. Schmitz-Kallenberg, Hierarchia catholica medii et recentioris aevi, Vo!. 3 (Regensberg,
1923), p. 137.
19 The full title of the translations of Apollonius and Serenus is: Apol/onii Pergaei Coni-
corum libri quattuor. Una cum Pappi Alexandrini lemmatibus et commentariis Eutocii
Ascalonitae. Sereni Antinsensis Philosophi libri duo nunc primum in lucem editi. Quae
omnia nuper Federicus Commandinus Urbinas mendis quamplurimis expurgata e Graeco
convertit, et commentariis ilIustravit (Bologna, 1566).
20 De superficierum divisionibus liber Machometo Bagdedino ascriptus nunc primum
Joannis Dee Londinensis, et Federici Comandini (1) Urbinatis opera in lucem editus.
Federici Commandini de eadem libel/us (Pesaro, 1570); Euclidis Elementorum libri XV.
Una cum Scholiis antiquis. A Federico Commandino Urbinate nuper in Latinum con-
versi, commentariisque quibusdam ilIustrati (Pesaro, 1572) [Italian translation: Urbino,
1575]; Aristarchi de magnitudinibus et distantiis solis, et lunae liber cum Pappi Alexandrini
explicationibus quibusdam. A Federico Commandino Urbinate in latinum conversus, ac
commentariis ilIustratus (Pesaro, 1572); Heronis Alexandrini spiritalium liber. A Federico
Commandino Urbinate, ex Graeco, nuper in Latinum conversus (Urbino, 1575); Pappi
Alexandrini mathematicae collectiones a Federico Commandino Urbinate in latinum
conversae et commentariis illustratae (Pesaro, 1588).
21 For full title, see preceding note. Also consult R. C. Archibald, Euclid's Book on
Divisions of Figures (Cambridge, 1915), pp. 1-9.
Commandino. Furthermore Bernardino Baldi became his student, associ-
ate and later his biographer. Commandino's tutorship of the young Prince
Francesco Maria is also worth mentioning since out of it came Com-
mandino's Latin and Italian translations of the Elements, the best versions
available at that time. He fell ill at the end of August, 1575, and died on
3 September. Baldi tells us that his body was carried with great pomp to
the Church of S. Francesco de' Minori Conventuali, where he was buried. 22
Giovanni Antonio Turnone of Urbino pronounced Ha beautiful funeral
oration." Commandino's most important unpublished work at the time of
his death was his translation of Pappus that did not appear until 1588.
23
Before examining Commandino' s version of On Floating Bodies in more
detail, we ought to note the subsequent history of manuscript 0 after
the preparation of the Barberini manuscript from it. Marcellus died in
1555 and left his codices to Guglielmo Sirleto.
24
Manuscript 0 is found in
Sirleto's library in 1585 with the following description:
25
Libellus de speculis comburentibus. Libellus de mensuris ponderum in liquido
non finitus et sine auctore. Archimedes de volucris, quas Graeci elices vocant.
Archimed. de planis aeque repentibus sive centris gravium. Eiusdem quadratura
parabola (I). Eiusdem circuli mensuratio. Eiusdem de sphera et cilindro libri duo.
Eustocii Ascalonitae comment. in Archimedis lib. de sphera et cilindro. Archi-
medis de conoidibus et sferoidibus. Eustocii Ascalonitae comment. in lib. Archi-
med. de planis aeque repentibus sive de centris gravium. Archimedis de in-
sidentibus aquae libri duo. Claudii Ptolomei specularia. Eiusdem de analemmate.
Jo. de Piva prospectiva.
After considerable dispute the codices of Sirleto were acquired by
Ascanius Cardinal Colonna in 1588. They were later bought by Joannes
Angelus, Duke of Altemps in 1611 (manuscript 0 has on its first folio:
"ex codd. Joannis Angeli ducis ab Altaemps"). They then passed to the
Ottoboni Library in 1689 and thence to the Vatican Library in 1740, where
they now reside. 0 remained unnoticed during this later history until
Valentin Rose described it and assigned the Archimedean translations to
William of Moerbeke in 1884, thus inaugurating the modern study of the
manuscript. 26
Now let us turn to Commandino' s version of William of Moerbeke' s
translation of On Floating Bodies. This version exhibits all of Com-
22 For Commandino's last days and his funeral, see Baldi, "Vita di Federico
Commandino," pp. 175-77.
23 For full title, see note 20. Baldi (" Vita di Federico Commandino," p. 179) tells us
the work was sent to Francesco Barozzi for publication in Venice. But he neglected it
so long that it was taken from his hands and given to Guido Ubaldo del Monte, who
published it at Pesaro in 1588.
24 I follow Heiberg's account of the fortunes of manuscript 0 (Archimedis opera omnia,
Vol. 3, p. LX).
25 Ibid.; cf. L. Dorez, "Recherches et documents sur la bibliotheque du Cardinal Sirleto"
in Ecole Franc;aise de Rome, Melanges d'archeologie et d'histoire, Xle annee (1891), p.
486, whole article, pp. 457-91.
26 V. Rose, "Archimedes im Jahre 1269," Deutsche Literaturzeitung, Funfter Jahrgang
(1884), cc. 210-13.
mandino's talents, and his considerable knowledge of the content and
techniques of Greek geometry coupled with a sound command of the Greek
language, an advantage even in correcting the Latin text of Moerbeke
as his commentary shows. The version everywhere reveals the clarity and
neatness of his thought. It shows his imaginative reconstruction of incor-
rect and defective passages and his ability to supply missing proofs and
to supplement the lean and terse Archimedean proofs. In the combina-
tion of all of these talents, Commandino surpassed any student of Archi-
medes that I have so far considered. To be sure, Maurolico, whose efforts
preceded those of Commandino and whose Archimedean studies I shall
study in the next chapter, had as fine a command of the whole of Archi-
medean mathematics but he lacked Commandino's concern with the estab-
lishment of the text and his scrupulosity in distinguishing his own cor-
rections and commentaries from the text of Archimedes. In brief, Com-
mandino took a difficult text that was quite corrupt and turned it into a
coherent and intelligible whole.
In the preface addressed to Farnese (see Text A below), Commandino
indicates something of the circumstances that were involved in the prep-
aration of the text. Mter recalling his promise to edit On Floating
Bodies, accompanied by emendations and commentary, made earlier when
he published Ptolemy's De analemmate (see above, n. 14), he then indi-
cates some of the difficulties he faced:
However, when I consider the difficulties of the task I have undertaken-
difficulties that are more manifold and arduous than those I faced in De analem-
mate, I fear that I have not accomplished what I hoped to from the beginning,
namely, that in this subject I might satisfy students of the mathematical dis-
ciplines. For the Greek codex of Archimedes' [On Floating Bodies] has not yet
come to light, and not only has he who translated it into Latin slipped up shame-
fully in many places but also the [Greek] codex itself, as the translator confesses,
was corrupt and defective as the result of its great age (and indeed two complete
apodexeis, which we call demonstrations, had been lost). Hence, I leave it to you,
who have expended so much effort and study on these matters, to recognize
how great a force this loss has been for upsetting that admirable order by which
mathematical undertakings are in a certain way made a connected whole.
Commandino then points to a further difficulty, the use by Archimedes
[without proof] of some things that were proved in works now lost. He
gives as an example of lost antique works the last four books of the
Conics of Apollonius of Perga, "which are still hidden in obscurity."
Also of interest are the words Commandino uses to indicate Archimedes'
importance to mathematics:
Since these things are so, I judged in the same way that I ought not evade any
labor by which an easier way would become evident for understanding the
abstruse and recondite observations of such a writer. Nor did I wish to deviate
from my earlier practice. For you know that many years ago [in 1558] I had
undertaken this same obligation of explaining several works of Archimedes. I
have been prompted to do this, not by arrogance or by the hope of empty glory;
rather the most honest desire to benefit studious men has impelled me to this
intention. For it has always been my opinion that a mathematician who has not
studied the works of Archimedes accurately ought scarcely to be called a mathe-
matician. For such a mathematician [who does not know Archimedes] would
be harassed by an ignorance of many things without which mathematical dis-
ciplines would have to be, in a certain way, imperfect and inchoate. Therefore,
I have striven, so far as it could be done, to bring some light to these books
of Archimedes.
Following these remarks, Commandino speaks of the genuineness of
these books On Floating Bodies. Two reasons persuade him of their
genumeness.
One is that even in such obscurity produced by the ignorance of the translator
and the great age [of the codex] some vestige remains impressed of the acute
and perspicacious genius by which Archimedes excelled. The second is that very
important Greek and Latin authors recognize these books as being by Archimedes.
For Strabo writes as follows in the first book [of his Geography, 1.3.11]:
"But he [i.e. Eratosthenes] is so simple that, although he is a mathematician,
he will not even confirm the doctrine of Archimedes, who, in his work On Floating
Bodies, says that the surface of every liquid at rest and in equilibrium is spherical,
the sphere having the same center as that of the earth-for everyone who has
studied mathematics at all accepts this doctrine." And Pappus in the eighth book of the
Mathematical Collections [VIII. Proem 2] has left this statement: "But the Ancients
also call mechanicians those who are wonder-workers, some of whom work art-
fully by means of winds, as Hero in the Pneumatica, while others are seen to
imitate the movements of animated beings by means of strings and cords, as
Hero in the Automata and the Equilibria, and still others proceed by means
of bodies floating in water, as Archimedes in On Floating Bodies." Vitruvius
also recalls these same books of Archimedes in the eighth book [of the
Architecture, VIII.v.3]: "Perhaps the student who reads the books of Archimedes
may say that true leveling cannot take place by means of water, for he holds
that water is not level but has the shape of a sphere which has the same center
as that of the earth." Thus there can be no doubt that these books are to be
read attentively and judged as being from the real Archimedes, particularly be-
cause they contain many things very worthy of understanding, things which are
concerned with both mathematical disciplines and the obscurity of nature. Accord-
ingly, so that students may no longer be deprived of such a fruitful treasure,
I have first, for the most part, emended the passages perverted by the error of
the translator and I have also, for the most part, restored to their pristine
integrity passages corrupted and destroyed as the result of the old age [of the
codex], supplying by my own exertion (mea Marte), as they say, much that was
needed. Then since Archimedes, as I have said above, posits some things as
evident which either he or earlier mathematicians had proved, I have been forced,
not without considerable trouble, to derive new proofs on the basis of those
principles of conic sections of Apollonius of Perga that are extant, so that nothing
might delay the diligent reader of this work. There remained for me to prove
irrefutably that theorem which cannot be known without a knowledge of the
center of gravity of solid bodies, namely, that the center of gravity of segments
of paraboloids so divides the axis that the part [of the axis] which is terminated
at the vertex is double the remaining part which [is terminated] at the base. But
I have also taken care of this matter, and I have written on the center of gravity
of solids separately from these books. Finally, I have omitted nothing which
would be pertinent to illuminating Archimedes' treatment of this subject.
Before pointing to the detailed contributions of Commandino in restor-
ing and rendering the text intelligible, I should remind the reader of the
main drift of Archimedes' On Floating Bodies as it appeared in Com-
mandino's revision of the translation of William of Moerbeke. Book I
has as its ultimate objective the proof of the stability of segments of
spheres placed base-up or base-down in a liquid of greater specific gravity
than the segments. Its basic assumption (Supposition I) is that in a liquid
whose parts lie evenly and are continuous the part which is less thrust
is driven along by the part which is more thrust and each of its parts is
thrust by the liquid which is perpendicularly above it. Since the liquid is
considered (in Book I) to have a spherical surface whose center is identi-
cal to that of the earth (Prop. 11), perpendiculars to its surface converge
at the center. Now if a solid of the same specific gravity as the liquid
is let down into the liquid, it will float and so lie that its upper surface
does not project above the surface of the liquid (Prop. Ill). If the solid
is lighter than the liquid, it will float and so lie that a part of it will be
projected above the surface of the liquid (Prop. IV), and it will be so far
immersed that the weight of the solid will be equal to the weight of
the liquid displaced (Prop. V). Further, if such a lighter solid is forcibly
immersed in the liquid, it will be driven upward by a force equal to the
difference between its weight and the weight of the liquid displaced (Prop.
VI). If the solid is forced upward in the liquid it will be forced upward
along the perpendicular to the surface which passes through its center of
gravity (Supposition 11). Now if the solid is specifically heavier than the
liquid, it will descend to the bottom and when weighed in the liquid it
will be lighter than its weight in air by the weight of the fluid dis-
placed (Prop. VII). With these propositions proved, Archimedes then
demonstrates in Proposition VIII (although the demonstration is missing
in the Moerbeke translation) that if a segment of a sphere (whether it
be a hemisphere or a segment greater or less than a hemisphere) is let
down into a specifically heavier liquid in an inclined position so that its
base is entirely above the surface of the liquid, the solid will right itself
so that its axis coincides with a vertical perpendicular to the surface of
the liquid. And if the solid is inclined so that its base touches the
liquid on either side in one point, it will not remain in that position but
will again right itself. Similarly, if such a segment is turned ovel with
its base entirely in the liquid (and its vertex outside of the liquid), it
will also right itself (Prop. IX).
Book 11 considers the same kind of stability problems for right segments
of right-angled conoids (i.e. paraboloids). Archimedes first proves an
auxiliary proposition that is used in the succeeding proofs, namely, that
the ratio of the specific gravity of any solid that floats to that of the liquid
in which it floats is as the volume of the immersed portion of the solid
to the volume of the whole solid (Prop. I). For the purposes of our ex-
position, let us call the ratio of the specific gravities of solid and liquid
s. The ratio s is one of the two basic considerations that establish the
conditions of stability of the paraboloidal segments considered in the
succeeding theorems. The other basic consideration is the ratio of the axis
of the paraboloid to the semiparameter of the parabolic section formed
by a plane that passes through the axis of the solid and is perpendicular
to the surface of the liquid. Let us call this ratio r. Two other important
general points should be made in connection with the demonstrations of
Book 11. First, in these demonstrations the surface of the liquid is sup-
posed to be flat. Hence the lines perpendicular to the surface of the liquid
through which the forces tend to act are parallel to one another rather
than converging at the center of the earth as they were considered to be in
Book I. The position ofa floating segment is thus unstable when the parallel
lines drawn perpendicular to the surface of the liquid through the centers
of gravity of the parts of the solid above and below the surface do not
coincide with the line drawn perpendicular to the surface through the
center of gravity of the solid and accordingly the opposing forces produce
rotation. On the other hand, the position is stable when the lines through
the centers of gravity of the parts of the solid coincide with the line
through the center of gravity of the whole solid and thus the opposing
forces (that attain equilibrium) are acting in the same line and so no tend-
ency to rotation exists. The second important conclusion that plays a
role in the demonstrations from Proposition IV onward is the assertion
that the ratio of the volume of a submerged portion of the paraboloidal
segment to that of the whole segment is equal to the ratio of the
squares of their respective axes. This had been proved by Archimedes
in Proposition 24 of On Conoids and Spheroids (=Moerbeke text, Prop.
25, see Vol. 2, 49vO-P).
In Propositions 11 and Ill, the ratio s is given no specification other
than that it is less than 1, while ratio r is assumed to be equal to or
less than %. With these conditions stated, Archimedes proves in Proposi-
tion 11 that if such a right paraboloidal segment is let down in a liquid
and so inclined that its base is completely above the surface of the liquid
(i.e., does not touch the surface of the liquid), then the solid will right
itself so that its axis is perpendicular to the surface of the liquid. Exactly
the same thing is proved in Proposition III when the same paraboloid is
placed base-downward in the liquid and so inclined that its base is com-
pletely within the liquid. In Proposition IV, the ratio r is assumed to be
greater than 3/2 and s > (NO - % semiparam.)2 / N02, where NO is the
length of the axis. Archimedes proves that such a paraboloid, when
placed base-up in the liquid and so inclined that its base does not touch
the surface of the liquid, will right itself so that its axis is perpendicular
to the surface of the liquid. In Proposition V, r is again specified as
greater than 312 but now s <: [N02 - (NO - % semiparam.)2] / N02.
There Archimedes proves that such a paraboloid, when placed base-down
in a liquid and so inclined that its base is completely submerged, will
right itself so that its axis is perpendicular to the surface of the liquid.
In Propositions VI and VII, S is any value less than 1, and
15
/4> r > 3f2.
Archimedes proves in Proposition VI that, when such a paraboloid is
placed base-up in a liquid and so inclined that its base touches the surface
of the liquid, it will never remain in such a position that it touches the
surface in one point only. In Proposition VII, the same thing is proved
when the same paraboloid is placed base-down in the liquid and sub-
merged entirely in the fluid, namely, that it will never rest in the position
where its base touches the surface of the liquid in one point only. In
Proposition VIII, the ratio r is again assumed as less than 1% and greater
than 3/2 and s is posited as less than the ratio (NO - 3f2 semiparam.)2 / N02.
In this proposition Archimedes proves that such a paraboloid, when placed
base-up in the liquid and so inclined that its base does not touch the
fluid, will not rotate so that its axis is erect and it will not remain in
any position except that in which its axis makes a certain angle with the
surface of the liquid (=angle Yin Fig. III.4.3B.33(b. In Proposition IX,
the ratio r is assumed to have the same limits as in Proposition VIII
and s > [N02 - (NO - % semiparam.)2] 1N02. When such a paraboloid
is placed base-down in the liquid, it will behave as described in Proposi-
tion VIII. The last proposition, i.e. Proposition X, is considerably more
complicated and represents the culmination of the tract, showing as it does
how a paraboloid of given shape assumes different positions of stability
as s is varied. It embraces five cases (actually six, since the third case
consists of two distinct parts). Let us imagine a right segment of a right-
angled conoid (i.e. paraboloid) whose parabolic section through the axis
perpendicular to the surface of the liquid is depicted in Fig. III.4.3B.37.
In this segment the ratio r is assumed to be greater than 1%. And in
each case the segment is placed in the liquid in an inclined position so
that its base AL is entirely above the liquid. Then for the various cases
the ratio s is varied. (1) If s :> BS2IBD2, the segment will rest when the
axis BD is perpendicular to the surface of the fluid. (2) If s < BS2/BD2 but
>X02/BD2, the segment will not rest with its base touching the surface
of the liquid in one point only but in such a position that its base
touches the surface in no point and its axis makes with the surface an
angle greater than X. (3a) If s =X02/BD2, the segment will rest in the
position in which the base touches the surface of the liquid in one point
only and its axis makes with the surface an angle equal to X. (3b) If
s = PF
2
IBD2, the segment will rest in a position in which the base touches
the surface of the liquid at one point only and its axis makes with
the surface an angle equal to cp. (4) If s > PF2/BD2 but <X02/BD
2
, the
segment will rest and remain in a position with its base more submerged.
Finally, (5), if s < PF2/BD2, the segment will rest in a position in which
its axis makes with the surface of the liquid an angle less than cp but in
which its base does not touch the surface at one point.
Now I must be more specific about Commandino's treatment of
Moerbeke's translation. His contributions were of four kinds: (1) con-
siderable paraphrasing to make Moerbeke' s Latin clearer and more clas-
sically correct, (2) the completion of lacunae found in Moerbeke' s text,
including the addition of the missing proofs of Book I, Proposition VIII,
and Book 11, Proposition 11, and the missing enunciations for Part IV of
Proposition X of Book II, (3) the correction of defective passages and
figures, and (4) the addition of proofs in the commentary for statements
left unproved by Archimedes. Only changes of the first category are found
in Commandino' s treatment of the first seven propositions of Book I. A
few of the numerous textual changes in these propositions were, I believe,
suggested by his reading of Tartaglia' s Italian translation of Book 1.
27
27 Before listing a few readings of Commandino that appear to have been framed with
Tartaglia's Italian translation in mind, I should note that, in my opinion, Commandino's
source for the figures of Book I was either Tartaglia's Italian translation or the latter's
Archimedean edition of 1543. I say this because the figures to that book were un-
available to Commandino in MS Barb. lat. 304, which, as I said before, he seems to
have used as a base for preparing his version. That manuscript contained only the figures
of the second book (160v-61v). Support for this view is specifically suggested in point
(6) below, where it is noted that Commandino in his figure for Proposition IV follows
Tartaglia in using the letter r in the place of Z employed in the texts of MSS 0, M and
Ba and in the diagrams of MSS 0 and M. In the succeeding examples of the
possible influence of Tartaglia's Italian translation, I give references to my text of the
Moerbeke translation in Volume Two. The reader will easily find the corresponding
places in Tartaglia's Italian translation given above (Section II of this chapter) and in
Commandino's version below (Text A): (1) In the beginning of Proposition 1 (55vC) ,
Moerbeke has no "dico" clause between "ipsius K" and "Si igitur." Tartaglia adds
such a clause: "dico tal superficie esser Sperica, cioe di una Sphera." Similarly Commandino
adds: "Dico eam sphaerae superficiem esse," thus reflecting the addition of Tartaglia. (2)
In the same proposition, 55vC, Moerbeke has "A, B, G, D, " which becomes simply "a et
b" and "a b" in Tartaglia and Commandino respectively. (3) In Proposition 2, 55vF,
Moerbeke has "hoc quidem extra lineam ABGD, hoc autem intra," which is rendered by
Tartaglia "parte ... fora della linea abgd et parte di dentro" and Commandino similarly
has "partim extra lineam abed, partim intra." (4) In Proposition 4, 55vR, 56rA, Moerbeke
has "aliquid ipsius" while Tartaglia has "a1cunaparte di quella" and Commandino "aliqua
pars ipsius." Neither point (3) nor (4) is as persuasive as points (1) and (2) since Commandino
might have rendered the expressions of the Moerbeke translation in the way that he did
without the prodding of the translation of Tartaglia. Still these points, when added to the
first two and the last three, may not be completely without supportive force. (5) In the same
proposition, 55vS, Moerbeke has "secundum superficiemABGD" (with "D" lightly deleted
by m. 3, although MSS M and Ba (both copied from 0) ignore the deletion and retain
the "D"). Tartaglia has "secondo la circonferentia abg" and Commandino similarly has
.. secundum circunferentiam abe," thus following Tartaglia both in the substitution of
"circunferentiam" for "superficiem" and in the deletion of "D". (6) In the same proposi-
tion, 55vT-56rA, the solid immersed in pyramid ARK is designated as Z. It is also z in
both manuscripts M andBa (the latter being the one used by Commandino). But in Tartaglia's
Latin text and Italian translation it becomes r, as it does also in Commandino' s version.
I suggest that Commandino made the change because he was following the Tartaglia trans-
......,
None of them seemed important enough to Commandino to call for com-
mentary. Similarly two lacunae left in the translation (Vol. 2, 56rA and
56rl) were not completed by Commandino, since apparently he thought
the argument in each case to be sufficient as it stood. Comman-
dino's first declared intrusion was by means of a comment to the
second supposition (placed before Proposition VIII). That supposition,
we recall, was that a body borne upward in a liquid ascends by the per-
pendicular through its center of gravity. Commandino adds that a body
borne downward [in a liquid] also descends by the perpendicular
through its center of gravity. The addition refers, of course, to solids
heavier than the liquid whose action was described in Proposition VII
and also to the lighter bodies as they enter the liquid and move down-
ward to the position of rest. Commandino suggests that Archimedes
omitted this addition as being known or easily deducible from what had
been said before. Furthermore, if we interpret "borne upward" and
"borne downward" as "tend to move upward" and "tend to move
downward," and "ascend" and "descend" as "begin to ascend" and
"begin to descend," we can readily understand why Archimedes' second
supposition (with Commandino's comment) should be placed before
Proposition VIII, for the terms understood in the manner suggested con-
stitute a justification for the assumption that is made in Propositions
VIII and IX of Book I and Propositions II-X in Book n. This assump-
tion holds that in all cases of unstable position the center of gravity of
one part of the floating solid tends to move downward along a perpendicu-
lar to the surface of the liquid through the center of gravity of that part,
while the center of gravity of the other part tends to move upward along
the perpendicular through that center of gravity. That Supposition II was
conceived by Archimedes to justify the above-noted assumption seems
probable from the fact that Archimedes employs the same term (cpepop.,ac,)
to express the tendency to motion along the perpendiculars in the insta-
bility problems as he does to express the actual motion along the per-
pendicular described in Supposition n. Needless to say, the actual motion
that results from an unstable position is one of rotation about the center
of gravity of the whole solid and thus the centers of gravity of the parts
above and below the surface of the liquid are continually changing, but
at every instant of instability the tendencies to motion of the centers of
the parts are along the perpendiculars through those centers.
Commandino's treatment of Propositions VIII and IX of Book I exhibits
all four kinds of contributions I have listed above. No doubt already
alerted by Tartaglia's Italian translation that these were two separate but
similar statements, one concerned with spherical segments put base-up
lation for the figures of Book I and, having committed himself to r from Tartaglia's figure,
he changed Ba's z to conform with the figure. (7) In Proposition 7, 56rJ, Moerbeke simply
has "Graviora humido" without any noun for the "Graviora" to modify. Tartaglia has
"Li solidi piu gravi del humido" and Commandino similarly has "Solidae magnitudines
humido graviores."
j
,
in the liquid and the other with the same segments placed base-down in
the liquid, and seeing the long lacuna in manuscript Ba where the proof
of the first statement ought to have been, he made the two statements
separate propositions, namely VIII and IX. That he was correct in this
decision, even though neither Moerbeke's manuscript 0 (from which Ba
was copied) nor Greek manuscript C gave a separate number to the
second statement (in fact manuscript C assigned no number to Proposi-
tion VIII as well and Moerbeke numbered none of the propositions of
the tract) seems likely on the model of the propositions of Book 11 where
the cases of paraboloidal segments with bases up and those with bases
down are treated in separate propositions. In approaching Proposition
VIII, we should first note that Commandino quite properly added the ex-
pression "levior humido" to describe the floating solid, a phrase omitted
by Moerbeke (see Vo!. 2, 56rQ). He no doubt saw that the phrase "levior
existens humido" was in Moerbeke's translation of Proposition IX. How-
ever, all he says in justification for the added phrase is that such are
the kinds of magnitudes being treated in this proposition (see Comment
A). The correctness of the addition is confirmed by its presence in Greek
manuscript C. Following this addition, Commandino responded to the long
lacuna after the enunciation of Proposition VIII in Ba by supplying a
proof. Commandino's reconstruction of the proof presented little diffi-
culty to him since the extant proof of Proposition IX provided him with
a model he could follow closely. Furthermore, Tartaglia had already sug-
gested the basic similarity of the two proofs if Commandino needed any
prompting. The proof is simple enough and turns on showing the follow-
ing. When the axis of the spherical segment is inclined to a perpendicular
to the surface of the liquid, the centers of gravity of the portions of the
solid above and below the liquid and the center of gravity of the whole
spherical segment lie on the same straight line. But that line does not co-
incide with a line that is perpendicular to the surface and thus passes
through the center of the earth. Hence in the case of any spherical seg-
ment so inclined that its base is either entirely out of the water or touches
the surface in one point only, the portion of the segment above the sur-
face tends to move downward on the "perpendicular" joining the center
of gravity with the center of the earth, and the center of gravity of the
submerged portion tends to move upward along the line connecting that
center of gravity with the center of the earth. Commandino ends his proof
by saying that the same demonstration holds for the other segments (i.e.,
for the hemisphere and the segment less than a hemisphere). Incidentally,
Salusbury in his translation adds a brief indication of how the proof may
be adapted to a hemisphere and concludes: "The like shall also hold true
in the Portion of the Sphaere less than an Hemisphere that lieth with
its whole base above the Liquid." Commandino ignores the second part
of the enunciation where the base is assumed to touch the surface in one
point (as indeed does the extant proof in Greek manuscript C), no doubt
because its proof would be the same as that just given. In the course
of adding the proof of Proposition VIII and presenting the corrected proof
of Proposition IX, Commandino corrects the diagrams that had accom-
panied the Moerbeke text in the manner suggested in Tartaglia's Italian
translation. That is, Commandino's diagrams show each segment in an
inclined position rather than erect, with the axis FT (Fig. IlI.4.3B.ll)
properly perpendiCular to the base of the segment rather than inclined
thereto as shown in the diagrams of the Moerbeke translation. Finally,
in connection with these last propositions of Book I, Commandino adds
several comments that either explain the enunciations or support indi-
vidual steps in the proofs. In these comments he cites his own commentary
on the Planisphaerium of Ptolemy (see below, Text A, Proposition VIII,
Comment C), Euclid's Elements (ibid.) and Archimedes' On the Equi-
librium of Planes (ibid., Comments C and E; Prop. IX, Comment A).
Coming to Book Il, we are first struck by Commandino's corrections of
the enunciations of Propositions II and Ill, corrections that are justified
but incomplete. In Moerbeke's translation the ratio r was specified as
"maiorem quam emiolium" (Vo!. 2, 56vL, 57rA). Commandino alters
this to "minorem quam sesquialterum" (cf. Commandino's Comment A
to Proposition II). A still better correction would have been to add "non"
before "maiorem" in the Moerbeke text, since the enunciations hold both
where r < 3/2 and where r = 3/2 .Torelli in his edition of Archimedes made
such a change (see Quae supersunt omnia, Oxford, 1792, pp. 339-40).
Discovery of Greek manuscript C later revealed the correctness of this
revision (cf. Heiberg, Archimedis opera omnia, Vo!. 2, pp. 348, line 11,
and 352, line 22). Obviously Greek manuscript B from which Moerbeke
translated the text had omitted IJ-T,. That Moerbeke failed to correct this
omission is an indication of how little he understood what was going on
in these propositions. In connection with the proof of Proposition ll, we
should further note that Commandino responded to its absence from
Moerbeke's text (and from Greek manuscript B) by supplying a cogent
proof. In producing this proof, he used the extant proof of Proposition
III as his model, since the proofs of the two propositions must of neces-
sity be virtually identical. The excellence of Commandino' s reconstruction
is amply demonstrated by comparing it with the proof in Greek manu-
script C. The proof rests on showing that when the paraboloidal segment
is in an inclined position, the centers of gravity of the parts above and
below the surface of a liquid lie on a straight line through the center of
gravity of the whole segment that does not coincide with the perpendicular
to the surface through the center of gravity of the whole segment. Thus
the perpendiculars to the surface through the centers of gravity of the
parts are distinct from but parallel to the perpendicular through the center
of gravity of the whole segment, and the segment accordingly rights itself.
To explicate the proof Commandino added a series of comments (B-F).
Two are especially noteworthy. The first is Comment C on Archimedes'
assumption that the center of gravity of the segment lies on the axis ON
at point R such that OR = 2 ON. In his comment Commandino reminds
J
the reader that he (Commandino) has proved this in hisDe centro gravitatis
solidorum, Proposition 29. The modern reader may know (although Com-
mandino did not) that Archimedes proved this in Proposition 5 of On the
Method (see Heiberg, Archimedis opera omnia, Vol. 2, pp. 458-64).
The second notable comment is F, where Commandino proves the pivotal
point of the proof, namely that LRPw is acute (see Fig. III.4.3B.16).
This proof depends on showing that RV is perpendicular to the tangent
Kw and thus T falls between P and w. That RTV is perpendicular to
Kw is given a neat proof on the basis of Apollonius' Conics and Euclid's
Elements. In other comments to Proposition 11, Commandino cites the
Conics of Apollonius (Comment B), Archimedes' On the Equilibrium of
Planes (Comment D) and On Conoids and Spheroids (Comment E), as well
as Euclid's Elements (ibid.). Commandino presents Proposition III much
as Moerbeke gave it, except for minor changes of style and the correction
of Moerbeke's erroneous designation of LROK as LRwK (see Vol. 2,
57rD).
Turning to Propositions IV and V, we should observe that Com-
mandino's correction of Moerbeke' s confused lettering of the magnitudes
is particularly noteworthy, since Greek manuscript C does not contain the
text of these propositions, and without some such correction Moerbeke' s
text would not be understandable. Based on the letters that appear in
Moerbeke's translation, two quite different sets of consistent letters may
be devised: Commandino's and the letters adopted by Heiberg (these two
sets are given above in Vol. 2, 57rJ-K, M-N, T- W). Both sets demand
changes in the diagrams, as my text of Moerbeke reveals. Incidentally,
the changes in diagrams suggested by Heiberg are somewhat inconsistent
with his textual changes and thus the diagrams given in Ver Eecke's
French translation ought to be used with Heiberg's reconstructed text.
Now as for the text, Commandino's set of textual readings for Proposition
IV is able to preserve eight of thirteen of Moerbeke' s readings that demand
a choice between the systems, while Heiberg's reconstructed set of letters
preserves only five of those thirteen. This gives a slight edge in textual
fidelity to Commandino's system. But in Proposition V each set of recon-
structed readings preserves four of eight readings that demand a decision,
giving no clear edge to either system. In the absence of the Greek text,
there is no sure way to decide which system of letters represents Archi-
medes' original text. Be that as it may, Commandino's reconstruction
produced coherent proofs and revealed the necessity of some such recon-
struction. I might add that Commandino bridges the two lacunae of 57rJ
by interpreting what is left as equivalent to the following statement:
"BecauseNM = %RH, hence [ON - MO = %RH = % semiparam.; and
so] MO = ON - % semiparam." This is a quite sound interpretation.
He also completes the lacuna of 57rL by adding to the phrase' 'the ratio
of the submerged portion to the whole segment is as the square" the
following, "of PF to the square of NO." The reference to On Conoids
and Spheroids in this place and the obvious need for this addition to
complete the argument both testify to the correctness of Commandino's
addition. I have already remarked on the importance of this basic propor-
tion (which he developed in On Conoids and Spheroids) for Archimedes'
proofs, and indeed Commandino gives the proper citation to Archimedes'
work in Comment D to Proposition IV. To the enunciation of Proposi-
tion VI of Moerbeke's translation (57vC), Commandino adds the phrase
"eius quae usque ad axem" after "emiolium" (which he changed to
"sesquialterum"). It is clear that this phrase was inadvertently dropped
by Moerbeke, since he did add the phrase in the same context in the
enunciations of Propositions VII, VIII and IX. The point is that the ratio
of the axis to the semiparameter of the section is greater than 31z and
less than 15/4 and this is obscured by Moerbeke's omission in Proposi-
tion VI. Moerbeke' s text of the proof of this proposition required little
change, though Commandino did change the incorrect JH in 57vG to JP,
the incorrect TR and FB in 57vI each to FR, and the absurd solida in
57vJ to secunda. Among his comments to this proposition, we should
single out his extensive proof in Comment C of the statement that
PI/PH > Nw/wO, a statement that Archimedes says "has already been
demonstrated," though we know not where.
28
Of some interest is Com-
mandino's effort in Comment E to justify his preference of "basis ipsius
nullo modo humidi superficiem continget" to Moerbeke's "basis ipsius
non tanget superficiem humidi secundum unum signum." But presum-
ably Moerbeke's intent was the same as that of Commandino. Be that
as it may, Commandino makes the same change in Proposition VII. He also
makes the various corrections in letters that I have noted in parentheses
in my text of this proposition in Volume Two. The same can be said
for his changes in letters in Proposition VIII. I call attention particularly
to the confused passage of 58rM, which Commandino neatly and accu-
rately straightens out. His subtle correction of Moerbeke' s que autem
CD ipsius KR" in 57vT (see Commandino's Comment A) was not borne
out by the discovery of the Greek text, where the equality CD = % KR
is presented as if posited rather than as something to be deduced (see
Heiberg, Archimedis opera omnia, Vo!. 2, p. 368, line 18). This was
Archimedes' shorthand way of presenting the second equality along with
the first, whether or not it has to be deduced therefrom. The remainder
of Commandino's comments (B-Q) briefly support various steps in the
proof. We can mention only Comment F, which cites Apollonius' Conics,
and Comment Q, which observes that he (Commandino) has added a
third diagram (Fig. III.4.3A.3l(b) or III.4.3B.33(b) for the case where
angle Y is made equal to angle B.
Commandino has made the same sort of letter changes in Proposition
IX as in Proposition VIII, but the text of Proposition IX in Greek manu-
script Bwas apparently better than that of Proposition VIII. Consequently
28 Cf. T. L. Heath, The Works of Archimedes (Cambridge, 1897; Dover reprint, New
York, 1950), p. 273n, where Heath gives a shortened proof.
the necessary changes were less numerous. His most important correction
consists in his straightening out of 58rT, where Moerbeke' s manuscript
(and indeed Greek manuscript C as well) left out half of the expression,
i.e., it had only "(BD2 - BC2)/BD2 <" instead of the full expression
"(BD2 - BC
2
)/BD2 < [BD2 - (F + Q)2]/BD2." For some reason, Com-
mandino did not mention his correction of this passage in his com-
mentary, though he does mention in Comment F his addition of "deorsum,
quae vero ex parte A" between "L" and "ad superiora" in 58vI. Com-
ments A-F give support to statements in the proof and Comment G
notes his addition of Figures III.4.3A.34(a) and (b) (=Figs. III.4.3B.36(a)
and (b.
His version of Proposition X reveals Commandino at his very best. It
will be apparent to the reader of Moerbeke' s translation in Volume Two
that the diagrams are in a deplorable state and that, in addition, there
are dozens of errors in the text. Yet Commandino has reconstructed the
figures with great care and supplied all of the necessary corrections in
the text. It is obvious that he far exceeded both the scribe of Greek
manuscript Band William of Moerbeke in his mastery of Archimedes'
intent and procedures. He completed and made sense out of the sundry
lacunae (e.g. those of 58vN,P,Q; 59rE,S; 59vB,H). He supplied the
enunciation of Part IV of the proposition (59rA), apparently missing in
both Greek manuscripts Band C. Furthermore, his extensive part-by-part
commentary is very illuminating. Particularly noteworthy is his proof in
Comment M to the preliminary part of the proposition, the proof that the
lines on their common diameters (or on their common "parallels to the
diameter," in Archimedean parlance) that fall between two similar para-
bolic sections similarly situated, i.e., whose bases share one extremity
and which lie on the same line, will be divided in the same ratio by a third
parabolic section similar to the first two and similarly situated between
them with its base sharing the commom extremity and lying on the same
line. That same ratio is equal to the product of two ratios: (1) the ratio
of the difference between the bases of the largest and the intermediary
sections to the whole base of the largest section, and (2) the ratio of the
base of the smallest section to the difference between the bases of the
intermediary and smallest sections. Thus he has proved the Archi-
medean assertion (see Fig. I1I.4.3A.35 or III.4.3B.37) that OG/GX
= (lL/LA)'(AD/Dl),29 an assertion necessary to Archimedes' conclusion in
the preliminary section that OG = 2 GX or similarly that PY = 2 YF. This
conclusion plays an important role in the proofs of Parts II- V of the
tenth proposition. Finally, I note that in his commentary to Proposition
X, Commandino has cited Euclid's Elements again and again (see the
marginalia which I have included in my text of Salusbury's translation but
which he took from Commandino's text), Apollonius' Conics (see the pre-
liminary section, Comments K and M-Lemma V), Archimedes' On Conoids
29 Ibid., p. 285n, where Heath gives a shortened proof.
and Spheroids (ibid., Comment M-Lemma Ill; Demonstration of Part Ill,
Comments A and B), and Archimedes' On the Quadrature o/the Parabola
(preliminary section, Comment M-Lemma V).
Such, then, is the character of Commandino's masterful version of
William of Moerbeke's translation of On Floating Bodies. As I have said
before, it was far more influential (at least until 1881) than the version of
On Floating Bodies taken from manuscript M by Tartaglia (Book I of
which was published under Tartaglia's direction in 1543 and republished
together with Book 11 by Curtius Troianus in 1565). Commandino' s version
was the basis of a series of texts and translations of this work: (1) David
Rivault, ed., Archimedis opera quae extant (Paris, 1615), pp. 487-532;
(2) the English version under Thomas Salusbury's name (see Text B
below); (3) J. Torelli, ed., Archimedis quae supersunt omnia (Oxford,
1792), pp. 333-54; and (4) F. Peyrard's French translation (from Torelli's
text), Oeuvres d'Archimede (Paris, 1807), pp. 368-425. It is true that in
his first edition of Archimedes' work: Archimedis opera omnia, Vol. 2
(Leipzig, 1881), pp. 359-426, Heiberg returned to Tartaglia's version as
the base, but in doing so he made many corrections under the influence
of Commandino's version. This is even true (but to a lesser extent) of
Heiberg's second edition: Vol. 2 (Leipzig, 1913), pp. 317-413, which
was based primarily on the then recently discovered Greek manuscript
C and on Moerbeke's autograph, manuscript O.
I can now complete this section by adding as Text A Commandino's
Archimedis de iis quae vehuntur in aqua libri duo (Bologna, 1565) and as
Text B the English translation that bears the name of Thomas Salusbury
(but was probably prepared by Lawrence Rooke),30Archimedes, His Tract
De incidentibus humido (dated at London, 1662, on its own title page, but
published as a part of Mathematical Collections and Translations, The
Second Tome: Two Parts. The First part, [London, 1665]). In the case
of Commandino' s text, I have left the punctuation largely unchanged in
spite of the fact that it is excessively (and sometimes confusedly) punc-
tuated for modern taste. But this is compensated for by my liberal changes
in the punctuation of Salusbury's English translation, changes which
should allow the reader to get over any difficulties presented by the punc-
tuation of the Latin text. However, I have made one change throughout:
I have capitalized the first word of new sentences in accordance with the
practice I have adopted in other texts of these volumes. Also, I have
dropped the accent marks on words such as "a", "eo", "quam", "quod",
30 See S. Drake's introduction to the reprint edition of the Mathematical Collections
and Translations (London, Los Angeles, 1967 [i.e., 1968]), p. 19, quoting a letter of John
Collins dated 4 December, 1666: "and Archimedes de insidentibus humido was translated
by Mr. [Lawrence] Rooke deceased." Drake suggests pp. 8-9 that this is only partially
correct, for he believes that the first book (translated largely from Tartaglia) was trans-
lated by Salusbury, and therefore the complete work shows evidence of both translators.
For the sake of convenience I simply refer to the whole translation as the Salusbury
translation.
etc. In addition I have attempted to reduce the multiplicity of type fonts
found in the edition of 1565. In that edition Commandino's comments,
however extensive, were given in italics. The passage commented on was
given in roman type and was separated from the following comment by
a closing square bracket "]". Furthermore, the enunciations of separate
lemmas given in the commentary were printed in a larger italic type. I
have instead left everything in roman type, separating the text and com-
mentary by placing the text within quotation marks. The only exceptions
are the letters designating magnitudes, which, in accordance with my
practice, I have left as italic letters and the enunciations of propositions
which I have given in capital roman letters to indicate their appearance
in a larger roman type in the earlier edition.
The early edition was accompanied by marginal citations, primarily to
Euclid's Elements. The large number of such citations in the second book
has been dropped from my edition of Commandino' s Latin text since I
have included them all as marginal citations to the Salusbury translation
where they also appeared and were keyed more exactly to the text. Those
few marginal citations in Commandino's text of the first book have been
noted in their proper places in the text rather than being dropped, since,
we ought to recall, Salusbury did not translate the first seven propositions
of that book from Commandino's text but rather from Tartaglia's Italian
translation, with only three places reflecting Commandino's text (see Text
B, Prop. I, n. 2, Prop. VI, n. 1, and Prop. VII, n. 1). Incidentally, the
fact that Salusbury translated Tartaglia's version of most of the first book
and Commandino's text of the second book explains why I have pre-
sented the Salusbury translation separately following Commandino's text
rather than conjointly with it as an accompanying translation. That is, I
was loath to break up the Salusbury text by including those parts trans-
lating Tartaglia in the preceding section and those translating Com-
mandino in this section.
The marginal folio numbers refer to the folios of the earlier edition.
The marginal capital letters refer to Commandino's commentary where
matching capital letters are found. This system of matching text and
comment was commonly followed by Commandino in various of his edi-
tions of Greek mathematical authors and indeed was a widely accepted
practice in early printed books.
The text itself I have left unchanged except to add in parentheses occa-
sional corrections of letters designating magnitudes. There are very few
such cases, a testimony to the care and accuracy of Commandino and
the printer.
Salusbury's English translation, though by no means a poor one, was
far less carefully edited and printed, as the rather large number of correc-
tions confirms. As I have indicated above, I have thought it advisable for
the reader's convenience to make a great many changes in punctuation,
removing commas (especially those that stand between subject and predi-
cate), changing colons to commas, semicolons, or periods as the passage
seemed to require. I have also 'made the changes in capitalization that
the punctuation changes dictated. However, I have left unchanged Salus-
bury's wholesale capitalization of nouns. I have also left undisturbed
some readings that are quaint to our eyes but were customary at his
time and do not hinder the reader's understanding of the text. For ex-
ample, I have not added apostrophes to indicate possession since the
possessive meaning is always clear though the apostrophe is missing before
an "s". Nor have I altered the inconsistent orthography except where
it might give the reader trouble. Thus I have retained such perfectly
understandable spellings as "fower" for "four", "bin" for "been",
"setled" for "settled", "dimerged" for "demerged", "thorow" for
"through", and so on. A few printing errors have been corrected with-
out indication like' 'Water" instead of the printer's occasional' 'VVater" .
The changes in type fonts parallel those made in Commandino' s Latin
text. Again I have retained roman type instead of italics in the trans-
lation of Commandino's commentary, leaving only the letters of magni-
tudes, titles, and words of emphasis in italics. In fact, titles and words
of emphasis were given in the original edition in roman type to make
them stand out from the italic context. Hence I have given them in italics
in a roman context. As before, passages commented upon have been
separated from the comments by placing them within quotation marks
instead of using the closed bracket, and the enunciations of propositions
have been put in capital letters to represent the larger type in which
they appear in the original edition. I have retained (as intermediary foot-
notes) all of the marginal references, i.e., those which were Salusbury's
own and those he took from Commandino. In Book I, most of these
marginalia were keyed to the text by asterisks, others by the use of small
letters. Some of these asterisks I have changed to daggers to avoid con-
fusion. In Book I1, small letters predominate; asterisks primarily apply
to the places in the text on which Commandino has commented and
thus refer to no asterisk footnotes below. In all such cases the marginal
capitals already used by Commandino are used, though sometimes Salusbury
used letters different from those used by Commandino where the order of
letters had been upset by Salusbury's conversion of one ofCommandino's
comments to a marginal reference appearing on the same page as the text.
A final word ought to be said about Salusbury's translation. Follow-
ing Claude Mydorge, Salusbury calls the line which we usually call the
latus rectum and which was designated by Moerbeke and Commandino
as "juxta quam possunt quae in sectione ordinatim ducuntur" the param-
eter and similarly he calls the line designated as "quae a vertice ad axem
ducitur" the semiparameter.
31
The latter is an acceptable term, for all
of the propositions in Archimedes' work are concerned with a parabolic
section of a "right segment of a right-angled conoid" (the section being
31 Heath, The Works of Archimedes, p. clxvii, where Heath discusses the Greek ter-
minology related to the parabola. See also Text B below, Bk. Il, Prop. 2, n. 13.
that produced by passing a plane through the axis of the segment, per-
pendicular to the base of the segment). In such a section the parameter
is double "the line-to-the-axis" and indeed Archimedes designated the
parameter as "that which is double the line-to-the-axis" and so "the
line-to-the-axis" is rightfully called the semiparameter.
As in my edition of Commandino' s Latin text, I have corrected a number
ofletters or words by placing the corrected reading in parentheses. Similar
corrections have been made in the diagrams, with the incorrect reading
always indicated. I have not composed a separate commentary to these
texts in view of the richness and completeness of Commandino's com-
mentary. I have, however, added a few notes to the English translation
that serve both texts. These notes constitute brief comments of my own
on the sources cited by Commandino or Salusbury or on the procedures
and terminology used by the authors. These are the numbered notes that
appear below Salusbury's marginal notes.
l'r
A.
The Emended Version of On Floating Bodies
by F. Commandino
/ ARCHIMEDES
De iis quae vehuntur
in aqua libri duo
A Federico Commandino
Urbinate in Pristinum
Nitorem Restituti, Et
Commentariis illustrati
Cum privilegio in Annos X.
Bononiae
Ex officina Alexandri Benacii
MDLXV
i
,
1
j
I
1
I
l
2'r / RANUTIO FARNESIO
Cardinali Amplissimo
et Optimo
Quod tibi superioribus diebus pollicitus sum, cum libellum Ptolemaei
de Analemmate in lucem proferrem, brevi fore, ut Archimedis etiam
libri de iis, quae in aqua vehuntur, et emendatiores, et fortasse opera
mea illustriores ederentur: mihi non committendum esse duxi, ut iure
optimo malum nomen, praesertim a te, cui tantopere debeo, existimari
possem. Quamvis cum mecum considero suscepti negocii difficultates,
quas multo plures, et multo graviores, quam in libello de Analemmate
deprehendi, vereor ne id plane non assecutus sim, quod ab initio spectavi,
ut mathematicarum disciplinarum studiosis hac in parte satisfacerem. Cum
enim graecus Archimedis codex nondum in lucem venerit, non solum is,
qui eum latinitate donavit, multis in locis foede lapsus est, verum etiam
codex ipse, ut etiam interpres fatetur, vetustate corruptus, et mancus est;
duaeque integrae Cx7ToSeigEI8, quas demonstrationes dicimus, deperierunt,
quae iactura quantam vim habeat ad perturbandum admirabilem illum
ordinem, quo inter se mathematicae disciplinae quodammodo connexae
2'v sunt, / tibi, qui iam in lis multam operam, multumque studium posuisti,
cogitandum relinquo. Nonnulla praeterea Archimedes ut perspicua in his
636
COMMANDINO'S DE IIS QUAE VEHUNTER 637
tractandis ponere non dubitavit, quae veteres mathematici, qui de conicis
conscripserunt, plurimis, et firmissimis argumentis probaverunt. Haec
autem idcirco a nobis omnino ignorantur; quod postremi quatuor libri
conicorum Apollonii Pergaei adhuc in tenebris delitescunt. Qua quidem
in re (ut mea fert opinio) singulari fato fuerunt mathematicae disciplinae,
cum tot scriptorum praeclara monumenta interierint, per quae non solum
in studiosos homines, verum etiam in humanum genus mirabiles utilitates
importatae fuissent. Nam cum mecum considero quam late pateant hae
nobilissimae scientiae, quantopere rebus publicis et privatis admirabili
quadam ratione, atque ordine gubemandis necessariae sint, dubitandum
non existimo, quin magna sit habenda gratia huius divini boni auctoribus,
et inventoribus: veterumque graecorum prudentiam satis admirari non
possum, qui pueros cum primum fari coepissent, his disciplinis imbuendos
curabant, ut a prima aetate multiplicis, ac subtilis scientiae contemplationi
assueti nihil paruum, aut humile cogitarent: sed vel se totos iis artibus
traderent, quarum ope civitatibus suis et praesidio, et ornamento esse
possent: vel humanis studiis multam salutem dicentes, divinam philoso-
phiam toto animo amplexarentur, cum ad earn per mathematicas dis-
3'r ciplinas fa/ciliorem sibi aditum comparassent. Quamobrem gravissirnum
damnum factum est in tot praestantissimis viris: quorum scripta si in
manus nostras pervenissent, profecto multo praec1arius cum rebus hu-
manis ageretur. Complures enim, qui nunc tot difficultatibus ab his
. studiis deterrentur, hac ratione privatis et publicis rationibus optime
consuluissent. Cum haec ita essent, tamen nullum mihi laborem subter-
fugiendum esse iudicavi, quo studiosis hominibus, qui in mathematicis
disciplinis toto animo incumbunt, facilior pateret aditus ad abstrusa, et
recondita sensa tanti scriptoris intelligenda: nee a vetere mea instituto
discedere volui; scis enim me multos abhinc annos hanc eandem pro-
vinciam, Archimedis quam plurima scripta illustrandi suscepisse. Quod
neque arrogantia, nee inanis gloriae spe adductus sum, ut facerem, sed
me vehementer in hanc mentem impulit honestissima cupiditas de studi-
osis hominibus benemerendi: etenim semper mea fuit sententia, mathe-
rnaticum, qui libros Archimedis accuratissime non evolverit, vix mathe-
maticum appellari debere: cum eum necesse sit in multarum rerum ig-
noratione versari, sine quibus mathematicae disciplinae imperfectae
quodammodo, atque inchoatae sunt habendae. Dedi igitur operam, ut his
etiam Archimedis libris, quoad eius fieri posset, per me aliqua lux af-
ferretur. Quos ut Archimedis esse non dubitarem, duae non contem-
nendae caussae fuerunt. Una quod in tanta obscuritate ab interpretis
3'v inscitia, / et a vetustate profecta, nescio quod vestigium illius acuti, et
perspicacis ingenii, quo Archimedes excelluit, impressum apparet: altera
quod turn graeci, turn latini scriptores gravissimi hos ut Archimedis
libros recognoscunt. Strabo enim in primo libro haec ad verbum scribit.
o (TTtV, WU'Te Kat JLT] WV TTjv,
f3ef3awi OTt <{)r,U'LV V 1TepL TWV OXOVJLEVWV,
trypov Kat TTJV E1TtcpaVtav CTcpatptKTJV lvm,
TaVTO KEVTpOV EXOVO'YJS' T"iJ y"iJ. TaV7TW yap rY,V S6gav a7ToSExoVTaL
7TaVTS' ol p.a(J'YJp.aTWV 7TWS' &t/Jap.vot. Et Pappus Alexandrinus in octavo
mathematicarum collectionum libro haec scripta reliquit, KaAovCTL SE
p.'YJxaVtKovS' oi 7TaAawt, Kat TOVS' (Javp.aCTwvpyoVS' , i1Jv oi P.EV SLa
7TVvp.aTWV cpLAoTXVOVCTW, WS' "Hpwv 7Tvvp.aTtKoI8, Ot SE SLa vvpiwv
Kat CT7Tap7WV ep.t/JVxwv KLVfJCTEtS' OOKOVCTL P.Lp.(,CT(JaL, wS' "Hpwv OOn-OP.fx.TOLS',
Kat 'vyiOLS' , aAAoL SE SLa TWV ecp'vSaToS' oxovp.evwv, 'ApXLP.f]S'YJS'
Vitruvius etiam in octavo libro de his eisdem Archimedis libris
meminit. Fortasse, inquit, qui Archimedis libros legit, dicet non posse fieri
veram ex aqua librationem: sed ei placet aquam non esse libratam, sed sphae-
roides habere schema: et ibi habere centrum, quo loci habet orbis terrarum. Ut
nemini dubium esse possit, quin et genere scriptionis, et tantorum virorum
auctoritate, ut germani Archimedis libri attente legendi, et perpendendi
sint: praesertim cum in iis multa contineantur cognitione dignissima,
quae non tarn ad mathematicas disciplinas, quam ad naturae obscuritatem
spectant. Quamobrem ego ne tanto, et tarn fructuoso thesauro diutius
4'r studiosi carerent, primum loca par/tim interpretis errore depravata
emendavi; partim vetustate corrupta et consumpta in pristinam integrita-
tern redegi, compluribus, quae desiderabantur, meo, ut aiunt, marte
suppletis. Deinde quoniam Archimedes, quemadmodum supra dixi, non
nulla ponit, ut perspicua, et quae vel ipse, vel superiores mathematici
a7ToSigCTt confirmaverunt, coactus sum non sine maximo negotio ex iis
principiis conicae disciplinae Apollonii Pergaei, quae in manus nostras
pervenerunt, novas probationes adhibere, nequid esset, quod diligentem
lectorem in hac parte remorari posset. Restabat, ut theorema illud,
quod sine cognitione centri gravitatis corporum solidorum percipi non
potest, videlicet, Centrum gravitatis in portionibus conoidis rectanguli
axem ita dividere, ut pars, quae ad verticem terminatur, reliquae partis,
quae ad basim sit dupla, certissimis rationibus comprobarem. Sed huic
quoque rei provisum est a me: seorsumque ad his libris de centro gravitatis
solidorum uberrime conscripsi. Denique nihil praetermisi, quod ad Archi-
medem in hac materia illustrandum attineret. Quod si, ut spero, assecutus
sum, satis magnum fructum mihi cepisse videbor laborum, et vigiliarum
mearum: sin secus acciderit, hoc me tamen consolabor, quod omnes in-
telligent, honestissimo meo consilio, non tarn ingenii mei imbecillitatem,
quam rei obscuritatem, et temporum iniurias obstitisse. Hoc loco super-
vacaneum esse arbitror pluribus verbis exponere, cur tibi amplissime
4'v / Cardinalis, has lucubrationes meas dicare constituerim. Tantis enim
beneficiis ate atIectus, quanta semper et meminero, et praedicabo; tanta
liberalitate complexus, quantam ne optare quidem unquam ausus essem.
Cupio memorem, et erga te gratum animum qua ratione possum,
ostendere. Quamvis si de te nihil aliud praeter auditum haberem, si
amplitudini tuae tantopere devinctus non essem; tua in omni genere
disciplinarum excellentia, tua gravitas, atque innocentia me magnopere
hortata esset, ut te potissimum deligerem, sub cuius clarissimi nominis
splendore hi Archimedis libri ab oblivione hominum, atque a silentio
vindicarentur. Verecundius de te in praesentia dicerem, ne viderer
assentationi potius, quam veritati servire; nisi omnibus persuasissimum
esset, divinas et inauditas virtutes tuas cum singulari eruditione coniunctas
in illo sanctissimo Reip. Christianae consilio tanquam lumen aliquod
elucere. Quamobrem ea, qua soles, benignitate, fidelissimi clientis tui
munus accipies; quod tibi, qui et mathematicis disciplinis, et phisiologiae
studiis tantopere delectaris, non iniucundum fore confido. Vale.
Federicus Commandinus
lr / ARCHIMEDIS DE lIS
Quae Vehuntur in Aqua
Liber Primus
Cum Commentariis Federici
Commandini Urbinatis
Positio.
PONATUR HUMIDI EAM ESSE NATURAM, UT PARTIBUS
IPSIUS AEQUALITER IACENTIBUS, ET CONTINUATIS INTER SE
SE, MINUS PRESSA A MAGIS PRESSA EXPELLATUR. UNA-
QUAEQUE AUTEM PARS EIUS PREMITUR HUMIDO SUPRA
IPSAM EXISTENTE AD PERPENDICULUM, SI HUMIDUM SIT
DESCENDENS IN ALIQUO, AUT AB ALIO ALIQUO PRESSUM.
Propositio I.
SI SUPERFICIES ALIQUA PLANO SECETUR PERIDEMSEMPER
PUNCTUM; SITQUE SECTIO CIRCULI CIRCUNFERENTIA, CEN-
TRUMHABENS PUNCTUMILLUD, PER QUOD PLANO SECATUR:
SPHAERAE SUPERFICIES ERIT.
Iv / Secetur superficies aliqua pIano per k punctum ducto [Fig. IIIA.3A.1]:
et sic sectio semper circuli circunferentia, centrum habens punctum k.
Dico earn sphaerae superficiem esse. Si enim non est sphaerae superficies;
rectae lineae, quae a puncto k ad circunferentiam ducuntur non omnes
aequales erunt. Itaque sint a b puncta in superficie; et inaequales lineae
a k k b: per ipsas autem a k k b planum ducatur, quod sectionem faciat
in superficie lineam dab c. Ergo dab c circuli circunferentia est, cuius
centrum k; quoniam superficies eiusmodi ponebatur: et idcirco aequales
inter se sunt a k k b, sed et inaequales; quod fieri non potest. Constat
igitur superficiem earn esse sphaerae superficiem.
:ue
Propositio n.
OMNIS HUMIDI CONSISTENTIS, ATQUE MANENTIS SUPER-
FICIES SPHAERICA EST; CUIUS SPHAERAE CENTRUM EST
IDEM, QUOD CENTRUM TERRAE.
Intelligatur humidum consistens, manensque: et secetur ipsius
superficies pIano per centrum terrae ducto. Sit autem terrae centrum k
[Fig. III.4.3A.2]: et superficiei sectio, linea a bed. Dico lineam a bed
circuli circunferentiam esse, cuius centrum k. Si enim non est, rectae
lineae a puncto k ad lineam a bed ductae non erunt aequales. Sumatur
recta linea quibusdam quidem a puncto k ad ipsam a bed ductis maior;
2r quibusdam vero minor: et ex centro k, intervallloque lineae sumptae
circulus describatur. Cadet ergo ipsius circunferentia partim extra lineam
a bed, partim intra; quoniam ea, quae ex centro quibusdam quidem a
puncto k ad ipsam ductis est maior; et quibusdam minor. Itaque sit
circuli descripti circunferentiaf b h: et ex b ad k ducta linea, iungantur
f k, k he, quae angulos aequales faciant. Describatur autem et ex centro
k circunferentia quaedam x 0 p in pIano, et in humido. Ergo partes
humidi, quae sunt ad circunferentiam x 0 p aequaliter iacent, ac con-
tinuatae inter se se: et premuntur quidem partes, quae ad x 0 circun-
ferentiam, humido, quod loco a b continetur: quae vero ad circunferentiam
o p premuntur humido, quod continetur be. Inaequaliter igitur premuntur
partes humidi ad circunferentiam x 0, et ad 0 p. Quare minus pressae a
magis pressis expellentur. Non ergo consistet humidum. Atqui ponebatur
consistens, et manens. Necessarium est igitur lineam a bed esse
circuli circunferentiam, cuius centrum k. Similiter autem demonstrabitur,
et si quomodocunque aliter superficies humidi pIano secta fuerit per
centrum terrae; sectionem circuli circunferentiam esse: et centrum ipsius
esse, quod et terrae centrum. Ex quibus constat superficiem humidi
consistentis, atque manentis sphaericam esse [mg. Prima huius]: et eius
sphaerae centrum idem, quod centrum terrae: quoniam eiusmodi est,
ut secta per idem semper punctumsectionemfaciat circuli circunferentiam,
centrum habentis punctum illud, per quod ipsa pIano secatur.
2v / Propositio Ill.
SOLIDARUM MAGNITUDINUM, QUAE AEQUALEM MOLEM
HABENTES AEQUE GRAVES SUNT, ATQUE HUMIDUM; IN
HUMIDUM DEMISSAE DEMERGENTUR ITA, UT EX HUMIDI
SUPERFICIE NIHIL EXTET: NON TAMEN AD HUe DEORSUM
FERENTUR.
Sit magnitudo aliqua aeque gravis, atque humidum: et si fieri potest,
in humidum demissa extet ex superficie ipsius: consistat autem humidum,
maneatque: et intelligatur aliquod planum ductum per centrum terrae,
et humidi, ac per solidam magnitudinem, ut sit superficiei quidem
humidi sectioa bed [Fig. III.4.3A.3]; solidae vero magnitudinis insidentis
e h t f; et terrae centrum k: sitque solidae magnitudinis pars, quae in
humido est, b h t c; et quae extra humidum b e f c. Intelligatur etiam
solida figura comprehensa pyramide, basim quidem habente parallelo-
grammum, quod est in superficie humidi; verticem autem centrum terrae:
sitque sectio plani, in quo est a b c d circunferentia, et planorum
pyramidis k I, km: et describatur quaedam alterius sphaerae superficies
x 0 p circa centrum k, in humido sub e f ht, ut sit ipsa x 0 p sectio facta
a superficie plani. Sumatur praeterea alia quaedam pyramis aequalis, et
3r similis comprehendenti solidam figuram, ipsi con/iuncta, et continuata:
sitque sectio planorum ipsius Km Kn (I) : et in humido intelligatur quaedam
magnitudo r s q y ex ipso humido constans, aequalis, et similis solidae
b h t c, quae quidem pars est solidae magnitudinis in humido demersa.
Partes igitur humidi, quae scilicet in prima pyramide superficie x 0
continetur, et quae in altera continetur po, aequaliter sunt positae, et
continuatae; sed non similiter premuntur. Nam contenta quidem x 0,
premitur solido e h t f, et humido interiecto inter superficies x 0, I m,
et plana pyramidis; contenta vero p 0 premitur solido r s q y, et humido
inter superficies, 0 p, m n, et pyramidis plana interiecto. Minor autem est
gravitas humidi, quod est inter m n, 0 p, quam eius, quod inter I m,
x o. Solidum enim r s q y est minus solido e h t f: cum sit aequale ipsi
b h t c; quia magnitudine aequale, et aeque grave ponitur solidum, atque
humidum: reliquum autem reliquo inaequale est. Constat igitur partem
contentam superficie 0 p, expelli ab ea, quae ipsa x 0 continetur: et non
consistere humidum. Ponebatur autem consistens, et manens: non ergo
ex superficie humidi extat aliquid solidae magnitudinis. Sed neque
demersum solidum ad inferiora feretur. Similiter enim prementur omnes
partes humidi aequaliter positae, cum solidum sit aeque grave, atque
humidum.
Propositio 1111.
SOLIDARUM MAGNITUDINUM, QUAECUNQUE LEVIOR HU-
MIDO FUERIT, DEMISSA IN HUMIDUM NON DEMERGETUR
TOTA, SED ALIQUA PARS IPSIUS EX HUMIDI SUPERFICIE
EXTABIT.
Sit magnitudo solida humido levior; et demissa in humidum demergatur
3v tota, si fieri potest, ut nulla pars ipsius / extet ex humidi superficie.
Consistat autem humidum, maneatque: et intelligatur aliquod planum
ductum per centrum terrae, per humidum, et per magnitudinem solidam:
a quo superficies quidem humidi secetur secundum circunferentiam
a b c [Fig. III.4.3A.4]; solida autem magnitudo secundum figuram, in
qua r: et centrum terrae sit K. Intelligatur etiam quaedam pyramis
comprehendens figuramr, sicuti prius, quae punctumK pro vertice habeat:
secenturque ipsius plana a superficie plani a b c secundum aK Kb: et
sumatur pyramis alia aequalis, et similis superiori, cuius plana secentur
a pIano a bc, secundum bK Kc: deinde alterius sphaerae superficies
quaedam describatur in humido circa centrum K, sub solida magnitudine:
et secetur ab eodem pIano secundum x 0 p: postremo intelligatur alia
magnitudo h in posteriori pyramide, quae ex humido constet, et solidae
magnitudini r sit aequalis. Partes igitur humidi, et quae in prima pyramide
continetur superficie x 0; et quae in secunda superficie 0 p continetur,
aequaliter iacent, et continuatae inter se se; non tamen similiter premuntur:
nam quae est in prima pyramide premitur magnitudine solida r, et
humido continente ipsam, quod est in loco pyramidis a box: quae vero
in altera pyramide premitur solida magnitudine h, et humido ipsam
continente in loco pyramidis p 0 be. At gravitas solidae magnitudinis
r, minor est gravitate humidi, in quo h: quoniam magnitudo solida mole
quidem aequalis, et humido levior ponitur: gravitas autem humidi
continentis magnitudines r hest aequalis; cum pyramides aequales sint.
4r Magis ergo / premitur pars humidi, quae est sub superficie 0 p. Quare
expellet partem minus pressam, et non manebit humidum. Ponebatur
autem manens. Non igitur demergetur tota, sed aliqua pars ipsius ex
humidi superficie extabit.
Propositio V.
SOLIDARUM MAGNITUDINUM QUAECUNQUE LEVIOR RU-
MIDO FUERIT, DEMISSA IN HUMIDUM USQUE EO DEMER-
GETUR, UT TANTA MOLES HUMIDI, QUANTA EST PARTIS
DEMERSAE, EANDEM, QUAMTOTAMAGNITUDO, GRAVITATEM
HABEAT.
Disponantur eadem, quae supra: sitque humidum manens: et magnitudo
e h t f humido levior [Fig. III.4.3A.5]. Si igitur humidum manet, similiter
prementur eius partes, quae aequaliter iacent. Similiter ergo premetur
humidum sub superficibus xo op. Quare aequalis est gravitas, qua
premuntur. Est autem et gravitas humidi, quod in prima pyramide
absque solido b h t c, aequalis gravitati humidi, quod in altera pyramide
absque r s q y humido. Perspicuum est igitur gravitatem magnitudinis
e h t f gravitati humidi r s q y aequalem esse. Ex quibus constat, tantam
humidi molem, quanta est pars demersa solidae magnitudinis, eandem,
quam tota magnitudo habere gravitatem.
4v / Propositio VI.
SOLIDAE MAGNITUDINES HUMIDO LEVIORES, IN HUMIDUM
IMPULSAE SURSUM FERUNTUR TANTA VI, QUANTO RU-
MIDUMMOLEMHABENS MAGNITUDINI AEQUALEM, GRAVIUS
EST IPSA MAGNITUDINE.
Sit enim magnitudo a levior humido [Fig. III.4.3A.6]: et sit magnitudinis
quidema gravitas b: humidi vero molem habentis aequalemipsi a, gravitas
sit be: demonstrandum est magnitudinem a in humidum impulsam
tanta vi sursum fem, quanta est gravitas c. Accipiatur enim quaedam
COMMANDINO'S DE /IS QUAE VEHUNTER 643
magnitudo, in qua d habens gravitatem ipsi c aequalem. Itaque mag-
.nitudo ex utrisque magnitudinibus constans, in quibus ad, levior est
humido nam magnitudinis quidem quae ex utrisque constat gravitas est
be; humidi vero habentis molem ipsis aequalem gravitas maior est,
quam be: quoniam b c gravitas est humidi molem habentis aequalem
ipsi a. Si ergo demittatur in humidum magnitudo ex utrisque a d constans;
usque eo demergetur, ut tanta moles humidi, quanta est pars magnitudinis
demersa eandem, quam tota magnitudo gravitatem habeat. Hoc enim iam
demonstratum est. Sit autem superficies humidi alicuius a bed
circunferentia. Quoniam igitur tanta moles humidi, quanta est magnitudo
a gravitatem habet eandem, quam magnitudines a d: perspicuum est
partem ipsius demersam esse magnitudinem a; reliquam vero d totam
5r ex hu/midi superficie extare. Quare constat magnitudinem a tanta vi
sursum ferri, quanta deorsum premitur ab eo, quod est supra; videlicet
ad, cum neutra ab altera expellatur, sed d fertur deorsum tanta gravitate,
quanta est c ponebatur enim gravitas eius, in quo d ipsi c aequalis. Patet
igitur illud quod demonstrare oportebat.
Propositio VII.
SOLIDAE MAGNITUDINES HUMIDO GRAVIORES DEMISSAE
IN HUMIDUM FERENTUR DEORSUM, DONEC DESCENDANT:
ET ERUNT IN HUMIDO TANTO LEVIORES, QUANTA EST
GRAVITAS HUMIDI MOLEM HABENTIS SOLIDAE MAGNITUDINI
AEQUALEM.
Solidas magnitudines humido graviores, in humidum demissas deorsum
quidam ferri, donec descendant, manifestum est: partes enim humidi,
quae sub eis sunt, premunter magis, quam partes aequaliter ipsis
adiacentes; quoniam magnitudo solida humido gravior ponitur: leviores
autem esse uti dictum est, demonstrabitur hoc modo. Sit enim aliqua
magnitudo a gravior humido: et fit magnitudinis quidem Q gravitas b c
[Fig. IIIA.3A.7]: humidi vero molem habentis aequalem ipsi Q gravitas
sit b. Demonstrandum 'est magnitudinem a in humido existentem habere
gravitatem aequalem ipsi c. Accipiatur enim alia aliqua magnitudo,
5v in qua d, levior humido; / cuius gravitas sit ipsi b aequalis: humidi vero
molem habentis aequalem magnitudini d, sit gravitas aequalis be. Itaque
compositis magnitudinibus Q d, magnitudo ex utrisque constans aeque
gravis erit, atque ipsum humidum: gravitas enim utrarumque mag-
nitudinum est aequalis utrisque gravitatibus, videlicet bc, et b: gravitas
autem humidi habentis molem aequalem utrisque magnitudinibus, est
eisdem gravitatibus aequalis. Demissis igitur magnitudinibus, et in
humidum proiectis aeque graves erunt, atque humidum: neque sursum,
neque deorsum ferentur: quoniam magnitudo quidem a gravior humido
feretur deorsum; et eadem vi a magnitudine d sursum retrahetur:
magnitudo autem d humido levior feretur sursum tanta vi, quanta est
gravitas c: demonstratum enim est [mg. 6 huius] magnitudines solidas
:;>
humido leviores, impulsas in humidum tanta vi retrahi sursum, quanto
humidum habens molem magnitudini aequalem gravius est ipsa mag-
nitudine. At humidum molem habens aequalem d, gravius est, quam d,
ipsa c gravitate. Constat igitur magnitudinem a deorsum fem tanta
gravitate, quanta est c. Quod demonstrare oportebat.
Positio H.
PONATUR EORUM, QUAE IN HUMIDO SURSUM FERUNTUR,
UNUMQUODQUE SURSUM FERRI SECUNDUM PERPENDICU-
LAREM, QUAE PER CENTRUM GRAVITATIS IPSORUM
DUCITUR.
6r I Commentarius.
At vero ea, quae feruntur deorsum, secundum perpendicularem, quae
per centrum gravitatis ipsorum ducitur, similiter ferri, vel tanquam notum,
vel ut ab aliis positum praetermisit.
Propositio VIII.
SI ALIQUA MAGNITUDO SOLIDA LEVIOR HUMIDO, QUAE A
FIGURAM PORTIONIS SPHAERAE HABEAT, IN HUMIDUM B
DEMITTATUR, ITA UT BASIS PORTIONIS NON TANGAT HU-
MIDIUM: FIGURA INSIDEBIT RECTA, ITA UT AXIS PORTIONIS
SIT SECUNDUM PERPENDICULAREM. ET SI AB ALIQUO
INCLINETUR FIGURA, UT BASIS PORTIONIS HUMIDUM CON-
TINGAT; NON MANEBIT INCLINATA SI DEMITTATUR, SED
RECTA RESTITUETUR.
[(Mg. Suppleta a Federico Comm.) Intelligatur quaedam magnitudo,
qualis dicta est, in humidum demissa: et ducatur planum per axem
portionis, et per terrae centrum, ut sit superficiei humidi sectio
circunferentia a bed [Fig. III.4.3A.8]: et figurae sectio e f h circun-
ferentia: sit autem e h recta linea; etf taxis portionis. Si igitur inclinetur
figura, ita ut axis portionis f t non sit secundum perpendicularem.
Demonstrandum est, non manere ipsam figuram; sed in rectum restitui.
6v Itaque centrum sphaerae est I in linea ft. Nam sit primum figura
maior dimidia sphaere: sitque in dimidia sphaera sphaerae centrum t
[Fig. (b)]; in minori portione sit centrum p [Fig. (c)]; et in maiori k
[Fig. (a)]: per k vera, et terrae centruml ducatur k l secans circunferentiam
e f h in puncto n. Quoniam igitur unaqueque sphaerae portio axem c
habet in linea, quae a centra sphaerae ad eius basim perpendicularis
ducitur: habetque in axe gravitatis centrum: portionis in humido
demersae, quae ex duabus sphaerae portionibus constat, axis erit in
perpendiculari per k ducta. Et idcirco centrum gravitatis ipsius erit in
linea n k, quod sit r. Sed totius portionis gravitatis centrum est in linea D
f t inter k, etf, quod fit x . Reliquae ergo figurae, quae est extra humidum, E
7r
COMMANDINO'S DE /IS QUAE VEHUNTER 645
centrum erit in linea r x producta ad partes x; et assumpta ex ea, linea
quadam, quae adr x eandemproportionemhabeat, quamgravitas portionis
in humido demersae habet ad gravitatem figurae, quae est extra humidum.
Sit autem s centrum dictae figurae: et per s ducatur perpendicularis l s.
Feretur ergo gravitas figurae quidem, quae extra humidum per rectam F
s l deorsum; portionis autem, quae in humido, sursum per rectam r l.
Quare non manebit figura: sed partes eius, quae sunt ad e, deorsum; et
quae ad h sursum ferentur idque continenter fiet, quoad! t sit secundum
perpendicularem. Eodem modo in aliis portionibus idem demonstrabitur.)
/ Commentarius.
Huius propositionis demonstratio iniuria temporum desideratur, quam
nos ita restituimus, ut ex figuris, 'quae remanserunt Archimedem
scripsisse colligi potuit: neque enim eas immutare visum est, quae vero
ad declarationem, explicationemque addenda fuerant, in commentariis
supplevimus , id quod etiam praestitimus in secunda propositione
secundi libri.
"Si aliqua magnitudo solida levior humido." Ea verba, levior humido, A
nos addidimus, quae in translatione non erant; quoniam de eiusmodi
magnitudinibus in hac propositione agitur.
"In humidum demittatur, ita ut basis portionis non tangat humidum." B
Hoc est in humidum ita demittatur, ut basis sursum spectet; vertex autem
deorsum. Quod quidem opponitur ei, quod in sequenti dixit. "In
humidum demittatur, ita ut basis tota sit in humido." His enim verbis
significat portionem opposito modo in humidum demitti, ut scilicet
vertex sursum; basis autem deorsum vergat. Eodem dicendi modo
frequenter usus est in secundo libro; in quo de portionibus conoidis
rectanguli tractatur.
"Quoniam igitur unaquaeque sphaerae portio axem habet in linea, C
quae a centro sphaerae ad eius basim perpendicularis ducitur."
Iungatur enim b c [Fig. IIIA.3A.9) et k l secet circunferentiam a bed
in puncto g; lineam vero rectam b c in m. Et quonam duo circuli
a bed, e f h secant sese in punctis b c; recta linea, quae ipsorum centra
coniungit, videlicet k I lineam b c bifariam, et ad angulos rectos secat:
ut in commentariis in Ptolemaei planisphaerium ostendimus. Quare
portionis circuli b n c diameter est m n; et portionis b g c diameter m g:
nam rectae linea, quae ipsi b c aequidistantes ex utraque parte ducuntur,
cum linea n g rectos angulos faciunt [mg. 29.primi); et idcirco ab ipsa
bifariam secantur [mg. 3. tertii). Portionis igitur sphaerae b n c axis est
n m; et portionis b g c axis m g. Ex quo sequitur, portionis in humido
demersae axem esse in linea k l; ipsam scilicet n g. Et cum gravitatis
7v centrum cuiuslibet sphaerae portionis sit in axe; quod nos in libro / de
centro gravitatis solidorum demonstravimus: erit magnitudinis ex utrisque
portionibus b ne, b g c constantis; hoc est portionis in humido demersae
gravitatis centrum in linea n g, quae ipsarum sphaerae portionum centra
ga
gravitatis coniungit. Si enim fieri potest, sit extra lineam n g, ut in q:
sitque portionis b n c centrum gravitatis u; et ducatur u q. Quoniam
igitur a portione in humido demersa aufertur spharae portio b ne, non
habens idem centrum gravitatis: erit ex octava primi libri Archimedis
de centro gravitatis planorum, reliqae portionis b g c centrum in linea
u q producta. Quod fieri non potest; est enim in axe ipsius m g. Sequitur
ergo ut portionis in humido demersae centrum gravitatis sit in linea n k,
quod ostendendum proposuimus.
"Sed totius portionis gravitatis centrum est in linea ft, inter k et f, D
quod sit x." Compleatur sphaera, ut sit portionis additae axis t y; et
centrum gravitatis z. Itaque quoniam a tota sphaera, cuius gravitatis
centrum est k, ut etiam in eodem libro demonstravimus [mg. 8. primi
Archimedis], aufertur portio e y h centrum gravitatis habens z: erit
reliquae portionis ef h centrum in linea z k producta. Quare inter k et f
necessario cadet.
"Reliquae ergo figurae, quae est extra humidum, centrum erit in linea E
r x producta." Ex eadem octava primi libri Archimedis de centro
gravitatis planorum.
"Feretur ergo gravitas, figurae quidem quae extra humidum per rectam F
s l deorsum; portionis autem, quae in humido sursum per rectam r l."
Ex antecedenti positione. Magnitudo enim, quae in humido demersa est,
tanta vi per lineam r l sursum fertur, quanta quae extra humidum per
lineam s l, deorsum: id quod ex propositione sexta huius libri constare
8r potest. Et quoniam feruntur per alias, atque alias li/neas; neutra alteri
obsistit, quo minus moveatur; idque continenter fiat, dum portio in rectum
fuerit constituta: tunc enim utrarumque magnitudinum gravitatis centra in
unam eandemque perpendicularum conveniunt, videlicet in axem
portionis: et quanto conatu, impetuve ea, quae in humido est sursum,
tanto quae extra humidum deorsum per eandem lineam contendit. Quare
cum altera alteram non superet, non amplius movebitur portio; sed con-
sistet, manebitque in eodem semper situ; nisi forte aliqua caussa
extrinsecus accesserit.
Propositio IX.
QUOD SI FIGURA HUMIDO LEVIOR IN HUMIDUM DEMIT-
TATUR, ITA UT BASIS TOTA SIT IN HUMIDO; INSIDEBIT RECTA,
ITA UT AXIS IPSIUS SECUNDUM PERPENDICULAREM CON-
STITUATUR.
Intelligatur enim magnitudo aliqua, qualis dicta est, in humidum
demissa: et intelligatur planum per axem portionis, et per centrum terrae
ductum: sitque superficiei quidem humidi sectio a bed circunferentia
[Fig. III.4.3A.I0]; figurae autem sectio circunferentiae f h: et site h recta
linea: et axis portionis ft. Si igitur fieri potest, non sit f t secundum
perpendicularem. Demonstrandum est non manere figuram; sed in rectum
restitui. Est autem centrum sphaerae: in lineaf t: rursus enim sit figura
primo maior dimidia sphaera: et sphaerae centrum in dimidia sphaera sit
punctumt [Fig. (b)], in minore portionep [Fig. (c)]; in maiori vero sitk [Fig.
8v (a)]; et per k, et terrae centrumI ducatur k I. Itaque figura quae est I extra A
humidi superficiem, axem habet in perpendieulari per k: et propter ea, quae
superius dicta sunt, centrum gravitatis ipsius est in linea n k, quod sit r;
totius autem portionis centrum gravitatis est in lineaf t, inter k etf, quod sit
x. Reliquae ergo figurae, eius scilicet, quae est in humido, centrum erit in
recta linea r x producta ad partes x; et assumpta ex ea linea quadam, quae
ad x r eandem habeat proportionem, quam gravitas pQrtionis, quae est
extra humidum, ad gravitatem figurae, quae in humido. Sit autem 0
centrum dictae figurae: et per 0 perpendieularis ducatur 1o. Feretur ergo
gravitas portionis quidem, quae est extra humidum, per rectam r 1
deorsum; figurae autem, quae in humido, per rectam 0 I sursum. Non
manet igitur figura; sed partes eius, quae sunt ad h, deorsum ferentur; et
quae ad e sursum. Atque hoc semper erit, donee f t secundum
perpendicularem fiat.
Commentarius.
"Itaque figura, quae est extra humidi superficiem, axem habet in A
perpendiculari per k. "
Ducatur enim b c [Fig. III.4.3A.11], quae secet lineam n k in m: ipsa
vero n k circumferentiam a bed secet in g. Eodem modo, quo supra,
9r de/monstrabimus portionis sphaerae b n c axem esse ipsam n m: et
portionis b g c axemgm. Quare centrum gravitatis utriusque, erit in linea
n m. Et quoniam a portione b n c aufertur portio b gc, non habens idem
gravitatis centrum: reliquae magnitudinis, quae est extra humidi super-
ficiem, centrum gravitatis erit in linea n k; quae scilicet earum portionum
centra gravitatis coniungit: ex eadem octava Archimedis.
9v / Archimedis de lis
Quae Vehuntur in Aqua
Liber Secundus.
Cum Commentariis Federici
Commandini Urbinatis.
Propositio I.
SI MAGNITUDO ALIQUA HUMIDO LEVIOR DEMITTATUR IN
HUMIDUM, EAM IN GRAVITATE PROPORTIONEM HABEBIT AD
HUMIDUM AEQUALIS MOLlS, QUAM PARS MAGNITUDINIS
DEMERSA HABET AD TOTAM MAGNITUDINEM.
Demittatur enim in humidum aliqua magnitudo solida, quae sitf a [Fig.
lIIA.3A.12] levior humido: et pars quidemipsius demersa sita; quae autem
extra humidum f. Demonstrandum est, magnitudinemf a ad humidum
.....
aequalis molis earn in gravitate proportionem habere, quam habet a adf a.
tOr Accipiatur enim aliqua humidi magnitudo n i / aequalis magnitudini fa;
sitque ipsif aequalis n: et ipsi a aequalis i. Magnitudinis autemf a gravitas
sitb: et magnitudinisn i gravitas 0 r; et ipsius i sitr. Magnitudo igiturf a ad
n i earn proportionem habet, quam gravitas b ad gravitatem 0 r. Sed
quoniam magnitudo f a in humidum demissa levior est humido; patet
tantam humidi molem, quanta est pars magnitudinis demersa, eandem
quam magnitudof a habere gravitatem. Hoc enim superius demonstratum
est. At ipsia respondet humidumi, cuius quidemgravitas estr; et ipsiusf a
gravitas b. Ergo b gravitas eius, quod habet molem aequalem toti
magnitudinif a, aequalis erit gravitati humidi i, videlicet ipsi r. Et quoniam
ut magnitudof a ad humidumn i sibi respondens, ita est b ad 0 r: est autemb
aequalis ipsi r: et ut r ad 0 r, ita i ad n i; et a ad! a. Sequitur utf a ad
humidum aequalis molis earn in gravitate proportionem habeat, quam
magnitudo a habet adf a. Quod demonstrare oportebat.
Propositio II.
RECTA PORTIO CONOIDIS RECTANGULI, QUANDO AXEM A
HABUERIT MINOREM, QUAM SESQUIALTERUM EIUS, QUAE
USQUE AD AXEM, QUAMCUNQUE PROPORTIONEM HABENS
AD HUMIDUM IN GRAVITATE; DEMISSA IN HUMIDUM, ITA
UT BASIS IPSIUS HUMIDUM NON CONTINGAT; ET POSITA
INCLINATA, NON MANEBIT INCLINATA; SED RECTA R S T T U ~
ETUR. RECTAM DICO CONSISTERE TALEM PORTIONEM,
QUANDO PLANUMQUOD IPSAM SECUIT, SUPERFICIEI HUMIDI
FUERIT AEQUIDISTANS.
lOv Sit portio rectanguli conoidis, qualis dicta est; et ia/ceat inc1inata.
Demonstrandum est non manere ipsam; sed rectam restitui. Itaque secta
ipsa pIano per axem, recto ad planum, quod est in superficie humidi,
portionis sectio sit a p 0 I rectanguli coni sectio [Fig. III.4.3A.13]: axis
portionis, et sectionis diameter no: superficiei autem humidi sectio sit
is. Si igitur portio non est recta; non utique erit a I ipsi i s aequidistans.
Quare n 0 cum i s non faciet angulos rectos. Ducatur ergo k w contingens
sectionem coni in p [(mg. Suppleta a Federico Comm.) quae ipsi i s
aequidistet: et a punctop ad i s ducatur p f aequidistans ipsi 0 n, quae erit B
sectionis i p 0 s diameter, et axis portionis in humido demersae. Sumantur
deinde centra gravitatum: sitque solidae magnitudinis a p 0 I gravitatis C
centrum r; ipsius vero i p 0 s centrum sit b: et iuncta b r producatur ad D
g, quod sit centrum gravitatis reliquae figurae i s 1a. Quoniam igitur n 0
ipsius quidem r 0 sesquialtera est; eius autem, quae usque ad axem
minor, quam sesquialtera; erit r 0 minor, quam quae usque ad axem. E
Quare angulus r p w acutus erit: cum enim linea, quae usque ad axem F
maior sit ipsa r 0; quae a puncto r ad k w perpendicularis ducitur,
videlicet r t, cum linea!p extra sectionem conveniet: et propterea inter
p et w puncta cadat necesse est. Itaque si per b g ducantur lineae ipsi
r t aequidistantes; angulos rectos cum superficie humidi continebunt: et G
quod in humido est sursum feretur secundum perpendicularem, quae per
llr b ducta est, ipsi r t aequidistans: quod vera est extra humidum se/cundum
earn, quae per g, deorsum feretur; et non ita manebit soliduma p 0 I: nam
quod est ad a feretur sursum; et quod ad b deorsum, donec n 0 secundum
perpendicularem constituatur.]
Commentarius.
Desideratur propositionis huius demonstratio, quam nos etiam ad
Archimedis figuram apposite restituimus, commentariisque illustravimus.
"Recta portio conoidis rectanguli, quando axem habuerit minorem, A
quam sesquialterum eius, quae usque ad axem." In translatione mendose
legebatur. Maiorem quam sesquialterum: et ita legebatur in sequenti
prapositione. Est autem recta portio conoidis, quae pIano ad axem recto
abscinditur: eamque rectam tunc consistere dicimus, quando planum
abscindens, videlicet basis planum, superficiei humidi aequidistans fuerit.
"Quae erit sectionis i p 0 s diameter, et axis portionis in humido B
demersae" ex 46 primi conicorum Apollonii: vel ex corollario 51
eiusdem.
"Sitque solidae magnitudinis a p 0 I gravitatis centrum r, ipsius vero c
i p 0 S centrum sit b." Portionis enim conoidis rectanguli centrum gravitatis
est in axe, quem ita dividit, ut pars eius, quae ad verticem terminatur,
reliquae partis, quae ad basim, sit dupla: quod nos in libro de
centra gravitatis solidorum propositione 29 demonstravimus. Cum igitur
portionis a p 0 I centrum gravitatis sit r, erit 0 r dupla r n: et prapterea
n 0 ipsius 0 r sesquialtera. Eadem ratione b centrum gravitatis portionis
i p 0 s est in axe p f, ita ut p b dupla sit b f.
"Et iuncta b r producatur ad g, quod sit centrum gravitatis reliquae D
figurae i s I a." Si enim linea b r in g producta, habeat g r ad r b
proportionern earn, quam conoidis portio i p 0 s ad reliquam figurarn,
quae ex humidi superficie extat: erit punctum g ipsius gravitatis centrum,
ex octava Archimedis.
llv /"Erit r 0 minor, quam, quae usque ad axem." Ex decima propositione E
quinti libri elementorum. Linea, quae usque ad axem apud Archimedem,
est dirnidia eius, iuxta quam possunt, quae a sectione ducuntur; ut ex
quarta propositione libri de conoidibus et sphaeroidibus apparel. Cur
vera ita appellata sit, nos in commentariis in earn editis tradidimus.
"Quare angulus r p (J) acutus erit" producatur linea n 0 ad h, ut sit F
rh aequalis ei, quae usque ad axem [Fig. III.4.3A.14]. Si igitur a puncto
h ducatur linea ad rectos angulos ipsi n h, conveniet cum f p extra
sectionem: ducta enim per 0 ipsi a I aequidistans, extra sectionem cadit
ex decima septima primi libri conicorurn. Itaque conveniat in u. Et
quoniarn f pest aequidistans diarnetro; h u vera ad diametrum
perpendicularis; et r h aequalis ei, quae usque ad axem, linea a puncto r
ad u ducta angulos rectos faciet cum ea, quae sectionern in puncto p
contingit, hoc est cumk w, ut mox demonstrabitur. Quare perpendicularis
r t inter p et w cadet; eritque r p w angulus acutus.
Sit rectanguli coni sectio, seu parabole a b c [Fig. lII.4.3A.15], cuius
diameter b d: atque ipsam contingat linea e fin puncto g: sumatur autem
in diametro b d linea h k aequalis ei, quae usque ad axem: et per g ducta
g I, diametro aequidistante, a puncto k ad rectos angulos ipsi b d ducatur
12r km, secans g I in m. Dico lineam ab h ad I m productam perpendicularem
esse ad ipsam e f, quam quidem secet in n.
Ducatur enim a puncto g linea goad rectos angulos ipsi ef, diametrum
in 0 secans: Et rursus ab eodem puncto ducatur g p ad diametrum
perpendicularis: secet autem ipsa diameter producta lineam e f in q.
Erit p b ipsi b q aequalis, ex trigesimaquinta primi conicorum: et g p
proportionalis inter q p, po; quare quadratumg p rectangulo 0 p q aequale
erit: sed etiam aequale est rectangulo contento ipsa p b, et linea, iuxta
quam possunt, quae a sectione ad diametrum ordinatim ducuntur, ex
undecima primi conicorum. Ergo quae est proportio q p ad p b eadem
est lineae, iuxta quam possunt, quae a sectione ducuntur ad ipsam po:
est autem q p dupla p b: cum sint p b, b q aequales, ut dictum est. Linea
igitur iuxta quam possunt, quae a sectione ducuntur ipsius p 0 dupla erit:
et propterea p 0 aequalis ei, quae usque ad axem, videlicet ipsi k h:
sed est p g aequalis km; et angulus 0 p g angulo h km; quod uterque
rectus. Quare et 0 g ipsi h m est aequalis: et angulusp 0 g angulo k h m.
12v Aequidistantes igitur sunt 0 g, h n: / angulus h n f aequalis angulo 0 g f;
quod cum sit g 0 perpendicularis ad e f, et h n ad eandem perpendicularis
erit. Quod demonstrare oportebat.
"Et quod in humido est sursum feretur secundum perpendicularem, G
quae per b ducta est ipsi r t aequidistans." Cur hoc quidem sursum, illud
vero deorsum per lineam perpendicularem feratur, diximus supra in
octavam primi libri huius. Quare neque in hac, neque in aliis, quae
sequuntur, eadem iterare necessarium existimavimus.
Propositio Ill.
RECTA PORTIO CONOIDIS RECTANGULI QUANDO AXEM
HABUERIT MINOREM, QUAM SESQUIALTERUM EIUS, QUAE
USQUE AD AXEM, QUAMCUNQUE PROPORTIONEM HABENS
AD HUMIDUM IN GRAVITATE; DEMISSA IN HUMIDUM, ITA
UT BASIS IPSIUS TOTA SIT IN HUMIDO; ET POSITA INCLINATA,
NON MANEBIT INCLINATA, SED ITA RESTITUETUR, UT AXIS
IPSIUS SECUNDUM PERPENDICULAREM FIAT.
Demittatur enim aliqua portio in humidum, qualis dicta est: sitque
ipsius basis in humido: et secta ipsa pIano per axem, recto ad superficiem
humidi, sit sectio a p 0 I rectanguli coni sectio [Fig. IlIA.3A.16]: axis
portionis, et sectionis diameter p f: superficiei autem humidi section sit
is. Quod si inclinata iaceat portio, non erit axis secundum perpen-
dicularem. Ergo p f cum i s angulos rectos non faciet. Itaque ducatur
linea quaedam k w aequidistans ipsi is; contingensque sectionem a p 0 I
in 0: et solidae quidem magnitudinis a p 0 l sit r gravitatis centrum, ipsius
13r autem i p 0 s centrum sit / b: iunctaque b r producatur: et sit g centrum
gravitatis reliquae figurae i s la. Similiter demonstrabitur angulum r 0 k
acutum esse: et perpendicularem ab r ad k w ductam cadere inter k et 0,
quae sit r t. Si autem a punctis g b ducantur ipsi r t aequidistantes; pars
quidem solidae magnitudinis, quae in humido est, sursum feretur
secundum perpendicularem per g ductam: quae autem extra humidum
secundumperpendicularemper b deorsumferetur: et non manebit solidum
a p 0 I sic habens in humido: sed quod quidem est ad a feretur sursum:
quod autem ad l deorsum; donec p f fiat secundum perpendicularem.
Propositio nn.
RECTA PORTIO CONOIDIS RECTANGULI, QUANDO FUERIT
HUMIDO LEVIOR, ET AXEM HABUERIT MAIOREM, QUAM
SESQUIALTERUM EIUS, QUAE USQUE AD AXEM: SI IN
GRAVITATE AD HUMIDUM AEQUALIS MOLlS NON MINOREM
PROPORTIONEM HABEAT EA, QUAM QUADRATUM, QUOD
FIT AB EXCESSU, QUO AXIS MAIOR EST, QUAM SESQUIALTER
EIUS, QUAE USQUE AD AXEM, HABET AD QUADRATUM,
13v QUOD AB AXE; DEMISSA IN HUMIDUM, ITA / UT BASIS IPSIUS
HUMIDUM NON CONTINGAT; ET POSITA INCLINATA, NON
MANEBIT INCLINATA, SED RECTA RESTITUETUR.
Sit portio conoidis rectanguli, qualis dicta est: et demissa in humidum,
si fieri potest, non sit recta; sed inclinata: secta autem ipsa pIano per
axem, recto ad superficiem humidi, portionis quidem sectio sit rectanguli
coni sectio a p 0 l [Fig. III.4.3A.17], axis portionis, et sectionis diameter
no; et superficiei humidi sectio sit is. Si igitur portio non est recta,
non faciet n 0 cumi s angulos aequales. Ducatur k w contingens rectanguli
coni sectionem in p; aequidistansque ipsi is: et a puncto p ipsi 0 n
aequidistans ducatur p f. Itaque sumantur centra gravitatum: et solidi
quidem a p 0 l centrum sit r; eius autem, quod intra humidum, centrum
b: iunctaque b r producatur ad g, ut g sit centrum gravitatis solidi, quod
extra humidum. Quoniam igitur n 0 ipsius quidem r 0 sesquialtera est;
eius autem, quae usque ad axem maior, quam sesquialtera: patet r 0
maiorem esse, quam quae usque ad axem. Sit ei, quae usque ad axem A
aequalis rh: et 0 h dupla ipsius h m. Quod cum n 0 ipsius r 0 sesquialtera B
sit; itemque m 0 ipsius 0 h: et reliqua n m reliquae r h sesquialtera erit.
14r Ergo axis tanto maior est, quam / sesquialter eius, quae usque ad
axem, quanta est linea m o. Ponebatur autem portio ad humidum
aequalis molis non minorem in gravitate proportionem habere, quam
quadratum, quod fit ab excessu, quo axis est maior, quam sesquialter eius,
quae usque ad axem, ad quadratum, quod ab axe. Quare constat portionem
ad humidum in gravitate non minorem proportionem habere, quam
quadratum lineae m 0 ad quadratum ipsius no. Sed quam proportionem
14v
habet portio ad humidum in gravitate, eandem portio ipsius demersa habet
ad totam portionem: hoc enim supra demonstratum est: et quam propor- C, D
tionem habet demersa portio ad totam, eam quadratum p f habet ad n 0
quadratum: cum demonstratum sit in iis, quae de conoidibus, et sphaeroid-
ibus, si a rectangulo conoide duae portiones planis quomodocunque
ductis abscindantur, portiones inter se eandem habere proportionem,
quam quadrata, quae ab ipsorum axibus constituuntur. Non minorem
ergo proportionem habet quadratum p f ad quadratum no, quam
quadratum m 0 ad idem n 0 quadratum. Quare p f non est minor ipsa E
m 0; nee b p item minor h o. Si igitur ab h ducatur linea ad rectos angulos F, G
ipsi no, coibit cum bp, atque inter b, et p cadet. Coeat in t.
Et quoniamp f quidem aequidistans est diametro, h t autem ad diametrum H
perpendieularis; et r h aequalis ei, quae usque ad axem: ducta linea ab
r ad t et producta angulos rectos faciet cum linea sectionem in puncto
p contingente. Quare et cum is, et cum humidi superficie, quae per i s
transit. Itaque si per b g puncta lineae ipsi r t aequidistantes ducantur,
angulos rectos facient cum superficie humidi: et quod quidem in humido
est solidum conoidis feretur sursum secundum eam, quae per b ducta
fuerit ipsi r t aequidistans: quod autem extra humidum, secundum eam,
u ~ per g deorsum feretur. Atque hoc tandiu fiet, quoad conoides rectum
constituatur.
/ Commentarius.
"Sit ei, quae usque ad axem aequalis rh." Ita legendum est, non r m, A
ut translatio habet, quod ex iis, quae sequuntur, manifeste constare potest.
"Et 0 h dupla ipsius h m." In translatione mendose legebatur, 0 n dupla B
IPSlUS r m.
"Hoc enim supra demonstratum est." In prima huius. C
"Et quam proportionem habet demersa portio ad totam, earn quadratum D
p f habet ad n 0 quadratum." Hoc loco in translatione non nulla
desiderabantur, quae nos restituimus. Illud autem ab Archimede
demonstratum est in libro de conoidibus et sphaeroidibus propositione 26.
"Quare p f non est minor ipsa m 0." Nam ex decima quinti sequitur, E
quadratump f non esse minus quadrato m o. Quare neque linea p f minor
ent linea m 0 ex 22 sexti.
"Nee bp item minor h 0." Est enim ut p fad p b, ita m 0, ad h 0: F
et permutando, utp fad m 0, itab p, adh o. Sedp fnon est minor m 0, ut
ostensum est. Ergo neque b p ipsa h 0 minor erit.
"Si igitur ab h ducatur linea ad rectos angulos ipsi no, coibit cum G
bp, atque inter b et p cadet." Corruptus erat hie locus in translatione.
Illud vero ita demonstrabitur [Fig. III.4.3A.18]. Quoniam p f non est
minor 0 m, nee p b ipsa ho, si ponatur p f aequalis 0 m; et p b, ipsi h 0
ISr aequalis ent; / quare per 0 ducta ipsi a I aequidistans cadet extra
sectionem ex 17 primi conicorum: et cum b p producta coibit infra p.
Ergo et perpendicularis ducta per h cum eadem infra b coibit, atque inter
b et p necessario cadet. Multo autem magis ilIud idem sequetur, si
ponamus p f ipsa 0 m maiorem esse.
"Et quoniam p f quidem aequidistans est diametro, h t autem ad H
diametrum perpendicularis; et rh aequalis ei, quae usque ad axem, ducta
linea ab r ad e, et producta angulos rectos facere cum linea sectionem
in p contingente." Hoc superius a nobis demonstratum est in secundam
huius.
Propositio V.
RECTA PORTIO CONOIDIS RECTANGULI, QUANDO LEVIOR
HUMIDO AXEM HABUERIT MAIOREM, QUAM SESQUIALTERUM
EIUS, QUAE USQUE AD AXEM; SI AD HUMIDUM IN GRAVITATE
NON MAIOREM PROPORTIONEM HABEAT, QUAM EXCESSUS,
QUO QUADRATUM QUOD FIT AB AXE MAlUS EST QUADRATO,
QUOD AB EXCESSU, QUO AXIS MAIOR EST, QUAM SES-
QUIALTER EIUS, QUAE USQUE AD AXEM, AD QUADRATUM,
QUOD AB AXE: DEMISSA IN HUMIDUM, ITA UT BASIS IPSIUS
TOTA SIT IN HUMIDO; ET POSITA INCLINATA NON MANEBIT
INCLINATA, SEDRESTITUETURITA, UT AXIS IPSIUS SECUNDUM
PERPENDICULAREM FIAT.
Demittatur enim in humidum portio aliqua, qualis dicta est: et sit basis
ipsius tota in humido. Secta autem ipsa pIano per axem, recto ad super-
ficiem humidi, erit sectio rectanguli coni sectlO, quae sit a p 0 l [Fig.
lSv III.4.3A.19]: axis portionis, / et sectionis diameter n 0: superficiei autem
humidi sectio sit is. Quoniam igitur axis non est secundum perpen-
dicularem; ipsa n 0 cum i s non faciet angulos aequales. Ducatur k w
contingens sectionem a p 0 l inp; atque ipsi i s aequidistans: per p autem
ducatur p f aequidistans ipsi no: et sumantur gravitatum centra: sitque
ipsius a p 0 l solidi centrum r; eius quod extra humidum sit b: et iuncta
b r producatur ad g, quod sit centrum gravitatis solidi in humido demersi:
sumatur praeterea r h aequalis ei, quae usque ad axem: 0 h autem dupla
ipsius h m; et alia fiant, sicuti superius dictum est. Itaque cum portio
ad humidum in gravitate non maiorem proportionem habere ponatur,
quam excessus, quo quadratum n 0 excedit quadratum mo, ad ipsum
n 0 quadratum: et quam proportionem in gravitate portio habet ad
humidum aequalis molis, eandem habeat magnitudo portionis demersa
ad totam portionem, quod demonstratum est in prima propositione:
magnitudo demersa non maiorem proportionem habebit ad totam
portionem, quam sit dicta ilIa proportio. Quare non maiorem proportionem A
habet tota portio ad earn quae est extra humidum, quam quadratum
n 0 ad quadratum m o. Habet autem tota portio ad earn, quae extra B
16r humidum proportionem eandem, quam qualdratum n 0 ad quadratump f.
Quadratum igitur n 0 ad quadratump f non maiorem proportionem habet,
quam ad quadratum m o. Ex quo efficitur, ut p f non sit minor ipsa c
om; neque p b ipsa 0 h. Quae ergo ab h ducitur ad rectos angulos ipsi D
t_
no, coibit cum b p inter p et b. Coeat in t. Et quoniam in rectanguli coni
sectione p f est aequidistans diametro n 0; h t autem ad diametrum
perpendicularis: et rh aequalis ei, quae usque ad axem: constat r t
productam facere angulos rectos cum ipsa k pen. Quare et cum is.
Ergo r t perpendicularis est ad superficiem humidi. Et si per b g puncta
ducantur aequidistantes ipsi r t, ad superficiem humidi perpendiculares
erunt. Portio igitur, quae est extra humidum, deorsum in humidum feretur
secundum perpendicularem per b ductam; quae vero intra humidum
secundum perpendicularem per g sursum feretur: et non manebit solida
portio a p 0 1, sed intra humidum movebitur, donec utique ipsa n 0
secundum perpendicularem fiat.
Commentarius.
"Quare non maiorem proportionem habet tota portio ad earn, quae est A
extra humidum, quam quadratum n 0 ad quadratum m 0." Cum enim
magnitudo portionis in humidum demersa ad totam portionem non
maiorem proportionem habeat, quam excessus, quo quadratum n 0
excedit quadratum mo, ad ipsum n 0 quadratum: convertendo per
vigesimamsextam quinti elementorum ex traditione Campani, tota portio
ad magnitudinem demersam non minorem proportionem habebit, quam
quadratum n 0 ad excessum, quo ipsum quadratum n 0 excedit
quadratum m o. Intelligatur portio, quae extra humidum, magnitudo
prima: quae in humido demersa est, secunda: tertia autem magnitudo
sit quadratum m 0: et excessus, quo quadratum n 0 excedit quadratum
m 0 sit quarta. Ex his igitur magnitudinibus, primae et secundae ad
16v secun/dam non minor est proportio, quam tertiae et quartae ad quartam;
est enim quadratum m 0 una cum excessu, quo quadratum n 0 excedit
quadratum m 0 aequale ipsi n 0 quadrato. Quare per conversionem
rationis ex 30 eiusdem, primae et secundae ad primam non maior pro-
portio erit, quam tertiae et quartae ad tertiam: et idcirco tota portio ad
portionem earn, quae est extra humidum non maiorem proportionem habebit,
quam quadratum n 0 ad quadratum m o. Quod demonstrandum pro-
ponebatur.
"Habet autem tota portio ad earn, quae extra humidum proportionem B
eandem, quam quadratum n 0 ad quadratum p f. " Ex vigesimasexta libri
de conoidibus, et sphaeroidibus.
"Ex quo efficitur, ut p f non sit minor ipsa 0 m; neque p b ipsa 0 h." C
Sequitur illud ex decima et decimaquarta quinti, et ex vigesimasecunda
sexti elementorum, ut superius dictum est.
"Quae ergo ab h ducitur ad rectos angulos ipsi n 0 coibit cum p b D
inter p et b." Cur hoc ita contingat, nos proxime explicavimus.
Propositio VI.
HUMIDO AXEM HABUERIT MAIOREM QUIDEM QUAM SES-
QUIALTERUM EIUS, QUAE USQUE AD AXEM, MINOREM NERO
(! VERO), QUAM UT AD EAM, QUAE USQUE AD AXEM
PROPORTIONEM HABEAT, QUAM QUINDECIM AD QUATUOR;
IN HUMIDUM DEMISSA ADEO, UT BASIS IPSIUS CONTINGAT
HUMIDUM, NUNQUAM CONSISTET INCLINATA ITA, UT BASIS
IN UNO PUNCTO HUMIDUM CONTINGAT.
17r / Sit portio, qualis dicta est, et in humidum demittatur, sicuti diximus,
adeo ut basis eius in uno puncto contingat humidum. Demonstrandum A
est non manere ipsam portionem, sed revolvi ita, ut basis nullo modo
humidi superficiem contingat. Secta enim ipsa per axem, pIano ad
superficiem humidi recto, sit sectio superficiei portionis a p 0 l rectanguli
coni sectio [Fig. III.4.3A.20]: superficiei humidi sectio sit as: axis
autem portionis, ac sectionis diameter no: et secetur in f quidem ita,
ut 0 f sit dupla ipsius f n, ':1 w vero, ut n 0 ad f w eandem habeat propor-
tionem, quam quindecim ad quatuor: et ipsi n 0 ad rectos angulos ducatur
wk. Itaque quoniam n 0 adf w maiorem habet proportionem, quam ad B
eam, quae usque ad axem; sit ei, quae usque ad axem aequalis f b: et
ducatur p c quidem ipsi a s aequidistans, contingensque sectionem a p 0 l
in p; p i vero aequidistans ipsi no: et primum secet p i ipsam k w in h.
Quoniam ergo in portione a p 0 l, quae continetur recta linea, et rectanguli C
coni sectione, k w quidem aequidistans est ipsi a I; p i vero diametro
aequidistat: secaturque ab ipsa k w in h: et a s aequidistat contingenti
in p: necessarium est ipsam p i ad p h vel eandem proportionem habere,
quam habet n w ad wo, vel maiorem: hoc enim iam demonstratum
est. At vero n w sesquialtera est ipsius wo. Et P i igitur vel sesquialtera
est ipsius hp; vel maior, quam sesquialtera. Quare p h ipsius h i aut D
17v du/pIa est, aut minor, quam dupla. Sit autem p t dupla t i. Erit centrum
gravitatis eius, quod est in humido, punctum t. Itaque iuncta t f
producatur; sitque eius, quod extra humidum gravitatis centrum g: et
a puncto b ad rectos angulos ipsi n 0 ducatur b r. Quod cum p i quidem
sit aequidistans diametro no: b r autem ad diametrum perpendicularis.
Et f b aequalis ei, quae usque ad axem: perspicuum est f r productam
aequaIes facere angulos cum ea, quae sectionem a p 0 l in puncto p
contingit. Quare et cum as: et cum superficie humidi. Lineae autem
ductae per t, g aequidistantes ipsi f r, erunt et ad humidi superficiem
perpendiculares: et solidi a p 0 l magnitudo, quae est intra humidum
sursum feretur secundum perpendicularem per t ductam; quae vero extra
humidum secundum earn, quae per g deorsum feretur. Revolvetur ergo E
solidum a p 0 l: et basis ipsius nullo modo humidi superficiem continget.
At si p i lineam k w non secet, ut in secunda figura [Fig. III.4.3A.21];
manifestum est punctumt , quod est centrumgravitatis demersae portionis,
cadere inter p et i: et reliqua similiter demonstrabuntur.
Commentarius.
"Demonstrandum est non manere ipsam portionem, sed revolvi ita, A
ut basis nullo modo superficiem humidi contingat." Haec nos addidimus
tanquam ab interprete omissa.
18r / "Itaque quoniam n 0 adf w maiorem habet proportionem, quam ad B
earn, quae usque ad axem." Habet enim diameter portionis n 0 ad f w
proportionem eandem, quam quindecim ad quatuor; ad earn vero, quae
usque ad axem minorem proportionem habere ponitur, quam quindecim
ad quatuor. Quare n 0 ad f w maiorem habebit proportionem, quam
ad earn, quae usque ad axem: et propterea quae usque ad axem ipsa
f w maior erit.
"Quoniam ergo in portione a p 0 I, quae continetur recta linea, et c
rectanguli coni sectione, k w quidem aequidistans est ipsi a I; p i vero
diametro aequidistat; secaturque ab ipsak w inh: eta c (! a s) aequidistat
contingenti in p: necessarium est ipsam p i ad p h vel eandem propor-
tionem habere, quam habet n w ad wo, vel maiorem. Hoc enim iam
demonstratum est." Ubi hoc demonstratum sit vel ab ipso Archimede,
vel ab alio, numdum apparet, quocirca nos demonstrationem afferemus,
posteaquam non nulla, quae ad earn pertinent explicaverimus.
Lemma I.
Sint lineae ab, a c angulum b a c continentes [Fig. III.4.3A.22]: et a
puncto d, quod in linea a c sumptum sit, ducantur de, d f utcunque ad
ipsam ab. Sumptis vero in eadem linea quotlibet punctis g 1, ducantur
g h, 1m ipsi d e aequidistantes; et g k, 1n aequidistantes f d. Deinde a
punctis, d, g usque ad lineam m 1ducantur, d 0 p quidem secans g h in 0;
et g q, quae aequidistent ipsi b a. Dico lineas, quae inter aequidistantes
ipsi f d ad eas, quae inter aequidistantes d e interiiciuntur, videlicet
k n adg q, vel ad 0 p;f k ad do; etf n ad d p eandem inter sese propor-
tionem habere: nempe earn, quam habet a f ad a e.
18" / Quoniam enim triangula a f d, a kg, ani similia sunt; itemque similia
e f d, h kg, m n 1: erit ut a f ad f d, ita a k ad kg; ut autemf d ad fe,
ita k g ad k h. Quare ex aequali ut a f adf e, ita a k ad k h: et per conver-
sionem rationis ut a f ad a e, ita a k ad a h. Eodem modo ostendetur,
ut a f ad a e, ita a n ad a m. Cum igitur a n ad a m sit, ut a k ad a h;
erit reliqua k n ad reliquamh m, hoc est ad g q, velo p, ut a n ad a m; hoc
est uta fada e. Rursus a k ada h est, uta fada e. Ergo reliquaf k ad e h
reliquam, videlicet ad do, ut a f ad a e. Similiter demonstrabimus ita
esse f n ad d p. Quod quidem demonstrare oportebat.
Lemma 11.
Sint in eadem linea a b puncta duo r, s ita disposita [Fig. III.4.3A.23], ut
a s ad a r eandem proportionem habeat, quam a f ad a e: et per r ducatur
r t ipsi e d aequidistans; per s vero ducatur s t aequidistansf d, ita ut cum
r t in t puncto conveniat. Dieo punctum t cadere in lineam a c.
Si enim fieri potest, cadat citra: et producatur r t usque ad ipsam a c
in u. Deinde per u ducatur u x ipsif d aequidistans. Itaque ex iis, quae
19r proxime demonstravimus a x ad a r / earn proportionem habebit, quam
a I ad a e. Sed et eandem habet a s ad a r. Quare a s ipsi a x est aequalis,
pars toti, quod fieri non potest. Idem absurdum sequetur, si ponamus
punctum t cadere ultra lineam a c. Necessarium igitur est, ut in ipsam
a c cadat. Quod demonstrandum proposuimus.
Lemma Ill.
Sit parabole, cuius diameter a b (I y b) [Fig. III.4.3A.24]: atque earn
contingentes rectae lineae a c, b d; a c quidem in puncto c, b d vero in
b: et per c ductis duabus lineis; quarum altera c e diametro aequidistet,
altera cl aequidistet ipsi b d: sumatur quod vis punctum g in diametro:
fiatque utI b, ad b g, ita b g ad b h: et per g h ducantur g k I, hem,
aequidistantes b d: per m vero ducatur m n 0 ipsi a c aequidistans, quae
diametrum secet in 0: et per n ducta n p usque ad diametrum, ipsi b d
aequidistet. Dieo h 0 ipsius g b duplam esse.
Vel igitur linea m n 0 secat diametrum in g, vel in aliis punctis: et si
quidem secat in g, unum atque idem punctum duabus literis g 0 notabitur.
Itaque quoniamI c ,p n, hemsibi ipsis aequidistant: et ipsia c aequidistat
m no: fient triangula ale, 0 p n, 0 h m inter se similia. Quare erit
o h ad h m, ut a I ad le: et permutando 0 h ad a f, ut h m ad f c. Est
autem quadratum h m ad quadratum g I, ut linea h b ad lineam b g, ex
vigesima primi libri conicorum: et quadratum g I ad quadratum fe, ut
linea g b ad ipsam b I: suntque h b, b g, b I lineae deinceps proportionales.
Ergo et quadrata h m, g I, fe, et ipsorum latera proportionalia erunt.
19v Atque idcirco ut quadratumh m ad quadratumg I, ita li/nea h m ad lineam
le. At vero ut h m adI c, itao h ad a I: et ut quadratum h m ad quadratum
g I, ita linea h b ad b g; hoc est b g ad b f. Ex quibus sequitur 0 h ad a I
ita esse, ut b g ad b I: et permutando 0 h ad b g, ut a I ad lb. Sed est
a f dupIa ipsius f b: sunt enim ab, b I aequaIes ex 35 primi libri
conicorum. Ergo et h 0 ipsius g best dupIa. Quod demonstrare oportebat.
Lemma IIII.
Iisdem manentibus, et a puncto m ducta m q usque ad diametrum
[Fig. IIIA.3A.25], quae sectionem in puncto m contingat; Dieo h q ad q 0
eandem proportionem habere, quam habet g h ad en.
Fiat enim h r aequalis g f. Et cum triangula a le, 0 p n similia sint,
et p n sit aequalis le; eodem modo demonstrabimus po, I a inter se
aequales esse. Quare p 0 ipsius I b dupIa erit. Sed est h 0 dupIa g b.
20r Ergo et reliqua p h reliquae I g; videlicet ipsius r h est du/pIa. Ex quo
fit ut pr, rh, I g inter se sint aequaIes; itemque aequales r g, p I. Est
enim pg utrique rp, g f communis. Quoniam igitur h b ad b g est, ut
g b ad b f; per conversionem rationis erit b h ad h g, ut b g ad g f. Est
autem q h ad h b, ut h 0 ad g b. Nam ex 35 primi libri conicorum, cum
linea q m contingat sectionem in puncto m; ernnt h b, b q aequaIes; et
g h (I q h) ipsius h b dupla. Ergo ex aequali q h ad h g, ut h 0 ad g I; hoc
est ad h r: et permutando q h ad ho, ut g h ad hr. Rursus per conver-
sionem rationis h q ad q 0, ut h g ad g r; hoc est p f: et propterea ad
ipsam en, quod demonstrandum fuerat.
His igitur explicatis, iam ad id, quod propositum fuerat, accedamus.
Itaque dico primum n c ad c k eandem proportionem habere, quam
h g ad g b [Fig. IIIA.3A.26].
Quoniam enim h q ad q 0 est, ut h g ad c n, hoc est ad a 0 ipsi c n
aequalem; erit reliqua g q ad reliquam q a, ut h q ad q 0: et ob earn
caussam lineae a c, g l productae ex iis, quae supra demonstravimus in
20v linea q m conveniunt. Rursus g q ad q a est, ut h q ad / q 0; videlicet
ut h g adf p: quod proxime demonstratum est. At vero ipsi g q aequales
sunt duae lineae simul sumptae q b, hoc est h b, et b g: atque ipsi q a
aequalis esth f. Si enim ab aequalibus h b, b q, aequaliaf b, b a demantur,
remanentia aequalia erunt. Ergo dempta h g ex duabus lineis h b, b g,
relinquitur dupla ipsius b g; hoc est 0 h: et demptap f exf h, reliqua est
hp. Quare 0 h ad hp, est ut g q ad q a. Sed ut g q ad q a, ita h q ad
q 0; hoc est h g ad n c: et ut 0 h ad hp, ita g b ad c k. Est enim
o h dupla gb, et h p item dupla g f; hoc est c k. Eandem igitur propor-
tionem habet h g ad ne, quam g b ad c k: et permutando n c ad c k
eandem habet, quam h g ad g b.
Sumatur deinde aliud quod vis punctum in sectione, quod sit s: et per
s duae lineae ducantur: s t quidem aequidistans ipsi db, diametrumque
in puncto t secans; s u vero aequidistans a c, et secans c e in u. Dico
u c ad c k maiorem proportionem habere, quam t g ad g b.
21r / Producatur enim u s ad lineam q m in x: et a puncto x ducatur ad
diametrum x y ipsi b d aequidistans. Erit g t minor quam g y, quoniam
u s minor est quam u x: et ex primo lemmate y g ad u c erit, ut h g ad ne;
videlicet ut g b ad c k, quod proxime demonstravimus: et permutando
y g ad g b, ut u c ad c k. Sed t g cum sit ipsa y g minor, habet ad
g b proportionem minorem, quam y g ad eandem. Ergo u c ad c k
maiorem proportionem habet, quam t g ad g b. Quod demonstrasse
oportuit. Itaque positione datag k unumduntaxat erit in sectione punctum,
videlicet m, a quo ductis duabus lineis m eh, m no, habeat n c ad c k
proportionem eandem, quam h g ad g b. Nam si ab aliis omnibus
ducantur, semper ea, quae inter a c, et lineam ipsi aequidistantem
interiicitur, ad c k proportionem maiorem habebit, quam quae inter g k
atque ei aequidistantem, ad ipsam g b. Constat igitur id, quod ab
Archimede dictum est; nempe lineamp i adp h vel eandem, quam n wad
wo, vel maiorem habere proportionem.
"Quare p h ipsius h i aut dupla est, aut minor quam dupla." Si D
quidem minor, quam dupla, sit p t dupla t i [Fig. IIIA.3A.27]. Erit
centrum gravitatis eius, quod in humido est, punctum t. Si vero p h sit
ipsius h i dupla, erit h gravitatis centrum: ductaque h f, et producta ad
centrum eius, quod est extra humidum, videlicet ad g, alia similiter
demonstrabuntur. Atque idem est in propositione, quae
sequitur.
2lv "Revolvetur ergo solidum a p 0 1, et basis ipsius nullo / modo humidi E
superficiem continget. " In translatione legebatur ut basis ipsius non tangat
superficiem humidi secundum unum signum. Nos autem ita vertere
maluimus, et hic et in iis, quae sequuntur quoniam graeci ov8e
ov8e V pro ov8elS et ov8ev frequenter utuntur. Ut ov8' e<TTW ov8ls,
nullus est: ov8' a nullo et alia eiusmodi.
Propositio VII.
HUMIDO AXEM HABUERIT MAIOREM QUIDEM QUAM SES-
QUIALTERUM EIUS, QUAE USQUE AD AXEM; MINOREM VERO,
QUAM UT AD EAM, QUAE USQUE AD AXEM PROPORTIONEM
HABEAT, QUAM QUINDECIM AD QUATUOR: IN HUMIDUM
DEMISSA, ADEO UT BASIS IPSIUS TOTA SIT IN HUMIDO;
NUNQUAM CONSISTET ITA, UT BASIS CONTINGAT HUMIDI
SUPERFICIEM: SED UT TOTA IN RUMIDO SIT, ET NULLO
MODO EIUS SUPERFICIEM CONTINGAT.
Sit portio qualis dicta est: et demittatur in humidum, ut diximus,
adeo ut basis ipsius in uno puncto contingat humidi superficiem.
Demonstrandum est non manere ipsam: sed revolvi ita ut basis super-
ficiem humidi nullo modo contingat. Secta enim ipsa pIano per axem,
recto ad superficiem humidi, sectio sit a p 0 1 rectanguli coni sectio
[Fig. III.4.3A.28]: superficiei humidi sectio sit s I: axis portionis, et
sectionis diameter p f: seceturque p f in r quidem ita ut r p sit dupla
ipsius r f; in w autem ut p f ad r w proportionem habeat, quam quindecim
ad quatuor: et w k ipsi p f ad rectos angulos ducatur erit r w minor, quam
quae usque ad axem. Itaque accipiatur ei, quae usque ad axem aequalis
22r rh: / et C 0 quidem ducatur contingens sectionem in 0, quae ipsi s 1
aequidistet; n 0 autem aequidistet p f: et primum ipsam k w secet, atque
in puncto i similiter ut in superioribus demonstrabitur no, vel sesquialtera
ipsius 0 i, vel maior, quam sesquialtera. Sit autem 0 i minor, quam dupla
ipsius in: sitque 0 b dupla b n: et disponantur eadem, quae supra.
Similiter demonstrabimus, si ducatur linea r t, facere earn angulos rectos
cum linea co, et cum superficie humidi. Quare a punctis b, g lineae ductae
ipsi r t aequidistantes, etiam ad humidi superficiem perpendiculares erunt.
Portio igitur quae est extra humidum deorsum feretur secundum earn
perpendicularem, quae per b transit; quae vero intra humidum secundum
earn, quae per g sursum feretuf. Ex quibus constat revolvi solidum, ita
ut basis ipsius nullo modo humidi superficiem contingat: quoniam nunc
22v in uno puncto contingens deorsum fer/tur ex parte I. Quod si n 0 non
secuerit ipsam w k, eadem nihilominus demonstrabuntur [Fig. III.4.3A.29].
-
Propositio VIII.
RECTA PORTIO CONOIDIS RECTANGULI, QUANDO AXEM
HABUERIT MAIOREM QUIDEM, QUAM SESQUIALTERUM EIUS,
QUAE USQUE AD AXEM; MINOREM VERO, QUAM UT AD EAM,
QUAE USQUE AD AXEM PROPORTIONEM HABEAT, QUAM
QUINDECIM AD QUATUOR: SI IN GRAVITATE AD HUMIDUM
HABEAT PROPORTIONEM MINOREM EA, QUAM QUADRATUM,
QUOD FIT AB EXCESSU, QUO AXIS MAIOR EST, QUAM
SESQUIALTER EIUS, QUAE USQUE AD AXEM, HABET AD
QUADRATUM, QUOD AB AXE: DEMISSA IN HUMIDUM, ITA
UT BASIS IPSIUS HUMIDUM NON CONTINGAT; NEQUE IN
RECTUM RESTITUETUR, NEQUE MANEBIT INCLINATA, NISI
QUANDO AXIS CUM SUPERFICIE HUMIDI ANGULUM FECERIT
AEQUALEM El, DE QUO INFRA DICETUR.
Sit portio qualis dicta est; sitque b d aequalis axi [Fig. III,4.3A.30]: et
b k quidem dupla ipsius k d: r k vero aequalis ei, quae usque ad axem:
et sit c b sesquialtera b r. Erit et c d ipsius k r sesquialtera. Quam vero A
portionem habet portio ad humidum in gravitate, habeat quadratum! q
ad quadratum db: et sit! dupla ipsius q. Perspicuum igitur est! q ad d b
proportionem minorem habere ea, quam habet c b ad b d. Est enim c b
excessus, quo axis maior est, quam sesquialter eius, quae usque ad axem:
23r quaref q minor est / ipsa b c: et idcirco! minor ipsa b r. Sit ipsi! aequalis B, C
r l/J: ducaturque ad b d perpendicularis l/J e, quae possit dimidium eius,
quod lineis k r, l/J b continetur: et iungatur b c (I be). Demonstrandum
est portionem in humidum demissam, sicuti dictum est, consistere
inclinatam ita, ut axis cum superficie humidi angulum faciat angulo e b l/J
aequalem. Demittatur enim aliqua portio in humidum, ut basis ipsius
humidi superficiem non contingat: et si fieri potest, axis cum superficie
humidi non faciat angulum aequalem angulo e b l/J; sed primo maiorem.
Secta autem portione plana per axem, recto ad superficiem humidi, sit
sectio a p 0 1 rectanguli coni sectio: superficiei humidi sectio x s:
sitque axis portionis, et sectionis diameter n 0: et ducatur p y quidem
ipsi x s aequidistans, quae sectionem a p 0 1 contingat in p: p m vero
aequidistans ipsi n 0: et p i ad n 0 perpendicularis. Sit praeterea b r
aequalis 0 w. Itemque r k ipsi t w: et w h perpendicularis ad axem. Itaque D
quoniam ponitut (I ponitur) axis portionis cum superficie humidi facere
angulum maiorem angulo b: erit angulus p y i angulo b maior. Maiorem E
ergo proportionemhabet quadratump i ad quadratumy i, quamquadratum
e l/J ad l/J b quadratum. Sed quam proportionem habet quadratum p i ad F
23v quadratumi y, eandem linea k r habet ad lineami y: / et quam proportionem G
habet quadratum e l/J ad quadratum l/J b, eandem habet dimidium lineae
k r ad lineam l/J b. Quare maiorem habet proportionem k r ad i y, quam
dimidium k r ad l/J b: et idcirca i y minor est, quam dupla l/J b. Est autem H
ipsius 0 i dupla. Ergo 0 i minor est, quam l/J b: et i w maior, quam l/J r. K
Sed t/J rest aequalis ipsif. Maior igitur est i w, quamf. Et quoniam portio
ad humidum in gravitate earn ponitur habere proportionem, quam
quadratumf q ad quadratum b d: quam vero proportionem habet portio
ad humidum in gravitate, earn habet pars ipsius demersa ad totam
portionem: et quam pars ipsius demersa habet ad totam, eandem habet
quadratump m ad quadratum 0 n: sequitur quadratump m ad quadratum
o n earn proportionem habere, quam quadratum f q ad b d quadratum.
A1que ideof q aequalis est ipsi pm. Demonstrata est autem p h maior, L, M
quam f. Constat igitur p m minorem esse, quam sesquialteram ipsius
ph: et idcirco p h maiorem, quam duplam h m. Sit p z ipsius z m dupla.
Erit t quidem centrum gravitatis totius solidi: centrum eius partis, quae
intra humidum, punctum z: reliquae vero partis centrum ent in linea z t
producta usque ad g. Eodem modo demonstrabitur linea t h perpendicu- N
laris ad superficiem humidi. Et portio demersa in humido feretur
24r extra / humidum secundum perpendicularem, quae per z ad humidi
superficiem ducta fuerit: quae autem est extra humidum secundum earn,
quae per g intra humidum feretur. Non ergo manebit portio sic inclinata,
ut ponitur: sed neque restituetur recta: quoniam perpendicularium per
z, g ductarum, quae quidem per z ducitur ad eas partes cadit, in quibus
est I; et quae per g ad eas, in quibus est a. Quare sequitur centrum z
sursum ferri: et g deorsum. Ergo partes totius solidi, quae sunt ad a
deorsum, quae vero ad I sursum ferentur. Rursus alia eadem ponantur:
axis autem portionis cum superficie humidi angulum faciat minorem eo,
qui est ad b [Fig. IIIA.3A.31a]. Minorem igitur proportionem habet 0
quadratum p i ad quadratum i y, quam quadratum e t/J ad t/J b quadratum:
quare k r ad i y minorem proportionem habet, quam dimidium k r ad t/J b:
et propterea i y maior est, quam dupla t/J b. Est autem ipsius 0 i dupla.
Ergo 0 i ipsa t/J b maior erit. Sed tota 0 west aequalis ipsi r b: et reliqua
w i minor quam t/J r. Quare et p h minor erit, quamf. Quod cum m p ipsi
f q sit aequalis, constat p m maiorem esse, quam sesquialteram ipsius
ph: et p h minorem, quam duplam h m. Sit p z ipsius z m dupla. Rursus
totius quidem solidi centrum gravitatis ent punctum t; eius vero partis,
24v quae intra humidum z: et iuncta z t invenialtur centrum gravitatis eius,
quae extra humidum in protracta, quod sit g. Itaque per z g ductis per- P
pendicularibus ad humidi superficiem, quae ipsi t h aequidistent; sequitur
portionem ipsam non manere, sed revolvi adeo, ut axis cum superficie
humidi angulum faciat maiorem eo, quem nunc facit.
Et quoniam cum antea posuissemus facere angulum maiorem angulo b,
portio neque tunc consistebat; perspicuum est ipsam consistere, si
angulum fecerit angulo b aequalem [Fig. III.4.3A.31b]. Sic enim erit i 0 Q
aequalis t/J b: itemque w i aequalis t/J r: et p h ipsi f. Erit igitur m p
sesquialtera ph; et p h dupla h m. Quare cumh sit centrum gravitatis eius
partis, quae est in humido, per eandemperpendicularem, et ipsa sursum, et
quae extra est feretur deorsum. Manebit igitur portio; quoniam altera pars
ab altera non repelletur.
Commentarius.
"Et sit c b sesquialtera b r. Erit et c d ipsius k r sesquialtera." In A
translatione ita legebatur. Sit autem et c b quidem hemiolia ipsius b r: c d
autem ipsius k r. Sed nos quod postremo loco legitur, idcirco corrigendum
duximus, quoniam illud non ponitur ita esse, sed ex iis, quae posita sunt,
25r necessario colligitur. Si enim/ b t/J (! b k) dupla sit t/J d, (! k d), erit d b ipsius
b t/J (! b k) sesquialtera. Et quoniame b (! cb) sesquialtera est br, sequitur
reliquam c d ipsius t/J r (! k r), hoc est eius, quae usque ad axein
sesquialteram esse. Quare b c erit excessus, quo axis maior est, quam
sesquialter eius, quae usque ad axem.
"Quare f q minor est ipsa be." Nam cum portio ad humidum in B
gravitate proportionem habeat eandem, quam quadratumf q ad quadratum
db: habeatque minorem proportionem, quam quadratum factum ab
excessu, quo axis maior est, quam sesquialter eius, quae usque ad axem, ad
quadratum ab axe; hoc est minorem, quam quadratum c b ad quadratum
b d: ponitur enim linea b d aequalis axi: quadratumf q ad quadratum d b
proportionem minorem habebit, quam quadratum cb ad idem b d
quadratum. Ergo quadratum f q minus erit quadratocb: et propterea linea
f q ipsa b c minor.
"Et idcircof minor ipsa b r." Quoniam enim c b sesquialtera est br, et c
f q ipsius f sesquialtera: estque f q minor be; et f ipsa b r minor erit.
"Itaque quoniam ponitur axis portionis cum superficie humidi facere D
angulum maiorem angulo b: erit angulus p y i angulo b maior." Nam cum
linea p y superficiei humidi aequidistet; videlicet ipsi x s: angulus p y i
aequalis erit angulo, qui diametro portionis no, et linea x s continetur.
Quare et angulo b maior erit.
"Maiorem igitur proportionem habet quadratum p i ad quadratum i y, E
quam quadratum e t/J ad t/J b quadratum. " Describantur seorsum triangula
p i y, e t/J b [Fig. 1I1.4.3A.32]. Et cum angulus p y i maior sit angulo e b t/J,
ad lineam i y, atque ad punctum y in ea datum fiat angulus u y i aequalis
angulo e b t/J. Est autem angulus ad i rectus aequalis recto ad t/J. Reliquus
igitur y u i reliquo b c t/J est aequalis. Quare linea u i ad lineam i y eandem
proportionem habet, quam linea e t/J ad t/J b. Sed linea pi, quae maior est
ipsa u i ad lineam i n maiorem habet proportionem quam u i ad eandem.
Ergo p i ad i y maiorem proportionem habebit, quam e t/J ad t/J b: et
propterea quadratum p i ad quadratum i y maiorem habebit, quam
25v / quadratum e t/J ad quadratum t/J b.
, 'Sed quam proportionem habet quadratum p i ad quadratum i y, F
eandem linea k r habet ad lineam i y." Est enim ex undecima primi
conicorum quadratum p i aequale rectangulo contento linea i 0, et ea,
iuxta quam possunt quae a sectione ad diametrum ducuntur, videlicet
dupla ipsius k r. Atque est i y dupla i 0, ex trigesimatertia eiusdem:
quare ex decimasexta sexti elementorum, rectangulum, quod fit ex k r,
et i y aequale est rectangulo contento linea i 0 et ea, iuxta quam possunt:
hoc est quadrato pi. Sed ut rectangulum ex k r, et i y ad quadratum
COMMANDINO'S DE lIS QUAE VEHUNTER 663
i y, ita linea k, ad ipsam i y. Ergo linea k, ad i y eandem propor-
tionem habebit, quam rectangulum ex k r et i y, hoc est quadratum p i
ad quadratum i y.
"Et quam proportionem habet quadratum e l/J ad quadratum l/J b, G
eandem habet dimidium lineae k , ad lineam l/J b. "
Nam cum quadratume t/J positum sit aequale dimidi 0 rectanguli contenti
linea k " et l/J b; hoc est ei, quod dimidia ipsius k r et linea t/J b continetur:
et ut rectangulum ex dimidia k " et t/J b ad quadratum t/J b, ita sit dimidia
k, ad lineam t/J b: habebit dimidia k, ad t/J b proportionem eandem,
quam quadratum e l/J ad quadratum t/J b.
"Et idcirco i y minor est, quam dupla t/J b." Quam enim proportionem H
habet dimidum k , ad t/J b, habeat k , ad aliam lineam. Erit ea maior,
quam i y; nempe ad quam k , minorem proportionem habet: atque erit
dupla t/J b. Ergo i y minor est, quam dupla t/J b.
"Et i w maior, quam t/J ,." Cum enim 0 w posita sit aequalis b , si ex K
b , dematur t/J b, et ex 0 w dematur 0 i, quae minor est t/J b: erit reliqua
i w maior reliqua t/J '
"Atque ideo f q aequalis est ipsi pm." Ex decimaquarta quinti L
elementorum, nam linea 0 n ipsi b d est aequalis.
"Demonstrata est autem p h maior, quamf." Etenim demonstrata est M
i w maior, quamf; atque estp h aequalis ipsi i w.
26r "Eodem modo demonstrabitur t h perpendicularis ad I humidi N
superficiem. " Est enim t w aequalis k " hoc est ei, quae usque ad axem.
Quare ex iis, quae superius demonstrata sunt, linea t h ducta erit ad
humidi superficiem perpendicularis.
"Minorem igitur proportionem habet quadratum p i ad quadratum i y, 0
quam quadratum e t/J ad I/J b quadratum." Haec et alia, quae sequuntur,
turn in hac, turn in sequenti propositione non alio, quam quo supra modo
demonstrabimus.
"ltaque per z g ductis perpendicularibus ad humidi superficiem, quae P
ipsi t h aequidistent; sequitur portionem ipsam non manere, sed revolvi
adeo, ut axis cum superficie humidi angulum faciat maiorem eo, quem
nunc facit." Nam cum perpendicularis, quae per g, ducitur ad eas
partes cadat, in quibus est I; quae autem per z ad eas in quibus a:
necessarium est centrumg deorsum ferri, etz sursum. Quare partes solidi,
quae sunt ad I deorsum; quae vero ad a sursum ferentur, ut axis cum
superficie humidi maiorem angulum contineat.
"Sic enim eriti 0 aequalis t/J b, itemque w i aequalis t/J " et p h ipsij." Q
Hoc in tertia figura [Fig. III.4.3A.31(b)], quam nos addidimus, perspicue
apparel.
Propositio IX.
RECTA PORTIO CONOIDIS RECTANGULI, QUANDO AXEM
HABUERIT MAIOREM QUIDEM, QUAM SESQUIALTERUM EIUS,
QUAE USQUE AD AXEM; MINOREM VERO, QUAM UT AD EAM,
QUINDECIM AD QUATUOR; ET IN GRAVITATE AD HUMIDUM
PROPORTIONEM HABEAT MAIOREM, QUAM EXCESSUS, QUO
QUADRATUM, QUOD FIT AB AXE MAlUS EST QUADRATO,
QUOD AB EXCESSU, QUO AXIS EST MAlaR, QUAM SES-
QUIALTER EIUS, QUAE USQUE AD AXEM, HABET AD QUAD-
26v RATUM, QUOD AB AXE: IN HU/MIDUM DEMISSA ADEO, UT
BASIS IPSIUS TOTA SIT IN HUMIDO, ET POSITA INCLINATA,
NEC CONVERTETUR ITA, UT AXIS IPSIUS SECUNDUM PER-
PENDICULAREM SIT, NEC MANEBIT INCLINATA, NISI QUANDO
AXIS CUM SUPERFICIE HUMIDI ANGULUM FECERIT AEQUA-
LEM ANGULO SIMILITER UT PRIUS, ASSUMPTO.
Sit portio, qualis dicta est [Fig. III.4.3A.33]: ponaturque d b aequalis
axi portionis: et b k quidem sit dupla ipsius k d; k r autem aequalis ei,
quae usque ad axem: et c b sesquialtera b r. Quam vero proportionem
habet portio ad humidum in gravitate, earn habeat excessus, quo
quadratum b d excedit quadratum Iq, ad ipsum b d quadratum: et sit
I ipsius q dupla. Constat igitur excessum, quo quadratum b d excedit
quadratum bead quadratum bd, minorem habere proportionem, quam
excessus, quo quadratum b d excedit quadratumI q ad b d quadratum.
Est enim b c excessus quo axis portionis maior est, quam sesquialter eius,
quae usque ad axem. Quare quadratum b d magis excedit quadratum A
Iq, quamb c quadratum: et idcirco lineal q minor est, quambe: itemque
27r I minor, quam b r. Sit ipsi I / aequalis r 1/1: et ducatur ljJ r (/ 1/1 e) per-
pendicularis ad bd, quae possit dimidium eius, quod ipsis k r, 1/1 b,
continetur. Dico portionem in humidum demissam adeo, ut basis ipsius
tota sit in humido, ita consistere, ut axis cum superficie humidi faciat
angulum angulo b aequalem. Demittatur enim portio in humidum, sicuti
dictum est; et axis cum humidi superficie non faciat angulum aequalem
ipsi b, sed primo maiorem: secta autem ipsa pIano per axem, recto ad
superficiem humidi, sectio portionis sit a p 0 I rectanguli coni sectio;
superficiei humidi sectio c i; sitque axis portionis, et sectionis diameter
n 0, quae secetur in punctis w t, ut prius: et ducantur y p quidem ipsi
c i aequidistans, contingensque sectionem in p; m p vero aequidistans
n 0: et p s ad axem perpendicularis. Quoniam igitur axis portionis cum
superficie humidi facit angulum maiorem angulo b; erit et angulus s y p
angulo b maior. Quare quadratum p s ad quadratum s y maiorem habet
proportionem, quam quadratum ljJ e ad quadratum 1/1 b: et propterea B
k r ad s y maiorem habet, quam dimidium ipsius k r ad 1/1 b. Ergo
s y minor est, quam dupla 1/1 b; et s 0 minor, quam !/J b. Quare s w maior, c
quam r 1/1; et p h maior, quamI. Itaque quoniam portio ad humidum in D
gravitate earn habet proportionem, quam excessus, quo quadratum b d
excedit quadratumf q ad quadratum b d: quam vero proportionem habet
portio ad humidum in gravitate, eandem pars ipsius demersa habet ad
totam portionem: sequitur partem demersam ad totam portionem, earn
proportionem habere, quam excessus, quo quadratum b d excedit
quadratuml q, ad quadratum b d. Habebit ergo tota portio ad earn, quae E
27v
28r
(Ed: 22)
est extra humidum proportionem eandem, quam quadratum b d ad
quadratumf q. Sed quam proportionem habet tota portio ad earn, quae
est extra humidum, eandem habet quadratum n 0 ad quadratum p m.
Ergo p m ipsif q aequalis erit. Demonstrata est autem p h maior, quam
f: quare m h minor erit, / quam q; et p h maior, quam dupla h m. Sit igitur
p z dupla ipsius z m: et iuncta z t producatur ad g. Erit totius quidem
portionis gravitatis centrum t: eius, quae est extra humidum z: reliquae
vero partis, quae in humido, centrum erit in linea z t producta; quod sit
g. Demonstrabitur similiter, ut prius, t h perpendicularis ad superficiem
humidi: et quae per z, g ducuntur aequidistantes ipsi t h, ad eandem
perpendiculares. Ergo portio, quae est extra humidum deorsum feretur
secundum earn quae per z transit; quae vero intra secun/dum earn, quae
per g sursum elevabitur. Non igitur manebit portio sic inclinata, nec
convertetur ita, ut axis ad superficiem humidi sit perpendicularis: quoniam
quae ex parte I deorsum; quae vero ex parte a sursum ferentur, ut ex
iam demonstratis apparere potest. Quod si axis cum superficie humidi
fecerit angulum minorem angulo b [Fig. III.4.3A.34(a)], similiter demon-
strabitur, non manere portionem, sed inclinari, donec utique axis cum
superficie humidi faciat angulum angulo b aequalem [Fig. III.4.3A.34(b)].
Commentarius.
F
G
"Quare quadratum b d magis excedit quadratum f q, quam b c A
quadratum: et idcirco linea f q minor est, quam be: itemque f minor
quam b r." Quoniam excessus, quo quadratum b d excedit quadratum
bead quadratum b d minorem proportionem habet, quam excessus, quo
quadratum b d excedit quadratumf q, ad idem quadratum: erit ex octava
quinti excessus, quo quadratum b d excedit quadratum bc, minor quam
excessus, quo excedit quadratum f q. Ergo quadratum f q minus est
quadrato be: et propterea linea f q minor linea be. Sed f q ad f
eandem proportionem habet, quam bead b r; utraque enim utriusque
sesquialtera est. Cum igitur f q sit minor bc, etf ipsa b r minor erit.
"Et propterea k r ad s y maiorem habet, quam dimidium ipsius B
k r ad ljJ b." Est enim k r ad s y, ut quadratum p s ad quadratum s y: et
dimidium lineae k r ad lineam ljJ b, ut quadratum e ljJ ad quadratum ljJ b.
"Et S 0 minor quam ljJ b." Est enim s y dupla ipsius so. c
"Etp h maior, quamf." Namp hest aequalis S lV, et r ljJ ipsi s. D
"Habebit ergo tota portio ad earn, quae est extra humidum proportionem E
eandem, quam quadratum b d ad quadratumf q." Cum pars demersa ad
totam portionem ita sit, ut excessus, quo quadratum b d excedit
28v quadratumf q ad b d quadratum: / erit convertendo tota portio ad partem
ipsius demersam, ut quadratum b d ad excessum, quo quadratum f q
excedit. Quare per conversionem rationis tota portio ad earn, quae extra
humidum est ut quadratum b d ad quadratumf q: nam quadratum b d
tanto maius est excessu, quo excedit quadratumf q, quantum est ipsum
f q quadratum.
"Quoniam quae ex parte l deorsum, quae vero ex parte a sursum F
ferentuf." Haec nos ita correximus, nam in translatione mendose, ut
opinor, legebatur, quoniam quae ex parte l ad superioria ferentur,
perpendicularis enim quae transit per z ad partes l, et quae per g ad
partes a cadit. Quare centrum z una cum partibus iis, quae sunt ad
l deorsum feretur, centrum vero g una cum partibus quae ad a sursum.
"Similiter demonstrabitur non manere portionem, sed inclinari, donec G
utique axis cum superficie humidi faciat angulum angulo b aequalem."
Illud vero turn ex iis, quae in antecedenti dicta sunt, turn ex figuris
[Fig. III.4.3A.34(a-b)], quas apposuimus, facile demonstrari potest.
Propositio X.
HUMIDO AXEM HABUERIT MAIOREM, QUAM UT AD EAM,
QUINDECIM AD QUATUOR: IN HUMIDUM DEMISSA, ITA UT
BASIS IPSIUS NON CONTINGAT HUMIDUM: NON NUNQUAM A
QUIDEM RECTA CONSISTET; NON NUNQUAM INCLINATA:
ET INTERDUM ADEO INCLINATA, UT BASIS IPSIUS IN UNO B
PUNCTO CONTINGAT SUPERFICIEM HUMIDI: IDQUE IN
29r DUABUS DISPOSITIONIBUS: / INTERDUM QUIDEM ITA, UT c
BASIS IN HUMIDUM MAGIS DEMERGATUR: INTERDUM VERO D
ITA, UT SUPERFICIEM HUMIDI NULLO MODO CONTINGAT;
SECUNDUM PROPORTIONEM, QUAM HABET AD HUMIDUM E
INGRAVITATE.EORUMQUAEDICTASUNT,SINGULAINFERIUS
DEMONSTRABUNTUR.
Sit portio qualis dicta est [Fig. III.4.3A.35]: et secta ipsa pIano per
axem, recto ad superficiem humidi, sectio sit a p 0 l rectanguli coni
sectio: axis portionis, et sectionis diameter b d: seceturque b d in
puncto quidem k ita, ut b k dupla sit ipsius k d: in c vero ita, ut b dad k c
proportionem habeat eandem, quam quindecim ad quatuor. Constat F
igitur k c maiorem esse, quam quae usque ad axem. Sit ei usque ad axem G
aequalis k r: et ipsius k r sesquialtera d s. Est autem et s b sesquialtera H
ipsius b r. Itaque iungatur ab; et per c ducatur c e perpendicularis ad
bd, quae lineam a b in puncto e secet: et per e ducatur e z aequidistans
b d. Rursus ipsaa b bifariamint divisa, ducaturt h eidemb d aequidistans:
29v et intelligantur rectanguli coni sectiones descriptae a e i qui/dem circa
e z diametrum; a t d vero circa diametrum t h; quae similes sint portioni K
a b l. Transibit igitur a e i coni sectio per k: et quae ab r ducta est L
perpendicularis ad bd, ipsam a e i secabit. Secet in punctis y g: et per
y, g ducantur ipsi b d aequidistantes p y q, 0 g n, quae secent a t d in
f, x. Ducantur postremo, et p X(! P cp), 0 cp (! 0 X) contingentes sectionem
a p 0 l in punctis p, o. Cum ergo tres portiones sint a p 0 l, a e i, a t d, M
contentae rectis lineis, et rectangulorum conorum sectionibus; rectaeque
similes, et inaequales, quae contingunt sese super unamquanque
basim: a puncto autem n sursum ducta sit n x go; et a q ipsa q f y p:
habebit 0 g ad g x proportionem compositam ex proportione, quam
habet i I ad I a; et ex proportione, quam a d habet ad d i. Sed i I ad I a
habet eandem, quam duo ad quinque. Etenim c b ad b d est, ut sex ad N
quindecim; hoc est ut duo ad quinque: et ut c b ad bd, ita e b ad b a: et 0
d z ad d a. Harum autem d z, d a duplae sunt ipsae I i, I a: et a d ad dip, Q
earn proportionem habet, quam quinque ad unum. Sed proportio composita
ex proportione, quam habet duo ad quinque; et ex proportione, quam
quinque ad unum; est eadem, quam habent duo ad unum: duo autem ad
unum duplam proportionem habent. Dupla est igitur g b (! go) ipsius
30r g x: et / eadem ratione ostendetur p y ipsius y f dupla. Itaque quoniam
d s sesquialtera est ipsius k erit b s excessus, quo axis est maior, quam
sesquialter eius, quae usque ad axem. Si igitur portio ad humidum in
gravitate earn habet proportionem, quam quadratum, quod fit a linea b s
ad quadratum, quod a bd, aut maiorem; in humidum demissa, ita ut
basis ipsius non contingat humidum, recta consistet. Demonstratum est R
enim superius, portionem, cuius axis est maior, quam sesquialter eius,
quae usque ad axem, si ad humidum in gravitate non minorem
proportionem habeat, quam quadratum, quod fit ab excessu, quo axis
maior est, quam sesquialter eius, quae usque ad axem, ad quadratum,
quod ab axe; demissam in humidum, ita ut dictum est, rectam consistere.
Commentarius.
Quae hac decima propositione continentur, Archimedes in quinque
partes dissecuit, et singulas seorsum demonstravit.
"Non nunquam quidem recta consistat." Haec est prima pars, cuius A
demonstrationem statim subiungit.
"Et interdum adeo inclinata, ut basis ipsius in uno puncto contingat B
superficiem humidi; idque in duabus dispositionibus." Demonstratum est
illud in tertia parte.
"Interdum ita, ut basis in humidum magis demergatur." Pertinet id c
ad quartam partem.
"Interdum vero ita, ut superficiem humidi nullo modo contingat." D
Hoc duobus item modis fit, quorum unus in secunda, alter in quarta
(! quinta) parte explicatur.
"Secundum proportionem, quam habet ad humidum in gravitate." In E
translatione ita legebatur, quam autem proportionem habet (! habente)
ad humidum in gravitate.
"Constat igitur k c maiorem esse, quam quae usque ad axem." Nam F
30v cum b d ad k c eandem habeat proportionem, quam / quindecim ad
quatuor; et ad earn, quae usque ad axem maiorem proportionem habeat:
erit quae usque ad axem minor ipsa k c.
"Sit ei, quae usque ad axem aequalis k r." Hac nos addidimus, quae G
in translatione non erant.
"Est autem et s b sesquialtera ipsius b r." Ponitur enim d b sesquial- H
tera ipsius b k; itemque d s sesquialtera k r. Quare ut tota d b ad totam
b k, ita pars d s ad partem k r. Ergo et reliqua s b ad reliquum br,
ut d b ad b k.
"Quae similes sint portioni a b 1." Similes portiones coni sectionum K
Apollonius ita diffinivit in sexto libro conicorum, ut scribit Eutocius,
EV ax(JEI.CToW EV KaCTTqJ 7Tapa'A'A.ry'Awv TiJ {3aUEI., iCTWV TO
al 7Tapa'A'AT/'Aol. Kat al TaS a1TO TWV
8I.a/-tTpWV EV iUt Kat
al (x7TOTE/-tvOJLEVal. TaS (x7TOTE/-tvo/-tEvac;; hoc est, in quibus si ducantur
lineae aequidistantes basi numero aequales: aequidistantes atque bases
ad partes diametrorum, quae ab ipsis ad verticem abscinduntur, eandem
proportionem habent: itemque partes abscissae ad abscissas. Ducuntur
autem lineae basi aequidistantes: ut opinor, descripta in singulis plane
rectilinea figura, quae lateribus numero aequalibus contineatur. Itaque
portiones similes a similibus coni sectionibus abscinduntur: et earum
diametri sive ad bases rectae, sive cum basibus aequales angulos
facientes, ad ipsas bases eandem habent proportionem.
"Transibit igitur a e i coni sectio per k." Si enim fieri potest non L
transeat per k, sed per aliud punctum lineae db, ut per u. Quoniam igitur
in rectanguli coni sectione a e i, cuius diameter e z, ducta est a e, et
producta: et d b diametro aequidistans utrasque a e, a i secat; a e quidem
in b, a i vero in d: habebit d b ad b u proportionem eandem, quam a z,
ad z d, ex quarta propositione libri Archimedis de quadratura parabolae.
Sed a z sesquialtera est ipsius z d: est enim ut tria ad duo, quod mox
demonstrabimus. Ergo d b sesquialtera est ipsius b u. Est autem d b et
ipsius b k sesquialtera. Quare lineae b u, b k inter se aequales sunt; quod fieri
non potest. Rectanguli igitur coni sectio a e i per punctum k transibit.
Quod demonstrare volebamus.
31r /" Cum ergo tres portiones sint a p 0 l, a e i, a t d, contentae rectis M
lineis, et rectangulorum conorum sectionibus; rectaeque, similes, et
inaequales, quae contingunt sese super unam quamque basim." Post ea
verba, super unamquanque basim, in translatione aliqua desiderari
videntur. Ad horum autem demonstrationem non nulla praemittere
oportet, quae etiam ad alia, quae sequuntur, necessaria erunt.
Lemma I.
Sit recta linea a b [Fig. IIIA.3A.36], quam secent duae lineae inter
sese aequidistantes a c, de, ita ut quam proportionem habet a b ad bd,
eandem habeat a c ad de. Dico lineam, quae c b puncta coniungit, etiam
per ipsum e transire.
Si enim fieri potest, non transeat per e, sed vel supra, vel infra.
Transeat primum infra, ut per f. Erunt triangula a bc, d b f inter se
similia. Quare ut a b ad bd, ita a c ad d f. Sed ut a b ad bd, ita 'erat
a c ad de. Ergo d f ipsi d e aequalis erit, videlicet pars toti, quod est
absurdum. Idem absurdum sequetur, si linea c b supra e punctum transire
ponatur. Quare c b etiam per e necessario transibit. Quod oportebat
demonstrare.
3lv I Lemma 11.
Sint duae portiones similes [Fig. III.4.3A.37], contentae rectis lineis,
et rectangulorum conorum sectionibus; a b c quidem maior, cuius
diameter b d; e I c vero minor, cuius diameterl g: aptenturque inter sese,
ita ut maior minorem includat et sint earum bases a c, e c in eadem
recta linea, ut idem punctum c sit utriusque terminus: sumatur deinde
in sectione a b c quodlibet punctum b: et iungatur he. Dico lineam h c
ad partem sui ipsius, quae inter c, et sectionem e I c interiicitur, earn
proportionem habere, quam habet a c ad c e.
Ducatur bc, quae transibit perI. Quoniam enim portiones similes sunt,
diametri cum basibus aequales continent angulos. Quare aequidistant inter
sese b d,1 g: estque b d ad a c, utI g ad e c: et permutando b d adl g,
ut a c ad c e: hoc est ut earum dimidae dead c g. Ergo ex antecedenti
lemmate sequitur lineam b c per punctuml transire. Ducatur praeterea a
puncto h ad diametrum b d linea h k, aequidistans basi a c: et iuncta kc,
32r quae diametrumf g secet in I; per I ducatur I ad sectionem e I g ex parte
e linea I m, eidem a c basi aequidistans. Sit autem sectionis a bc, linea
b n iuxta quam possunt, quae a sectione ducuntur: et sectionis e I c sit
ipsal o. Quoniam igitur triangula c db, cl g similia sunt, erit ut beadc I,
ita dead c g; et b d ad f g. Rursus quoniam triangula c k b, ell etiam
inter se sunt similia, ut bead c I, hoc est ut b d adl g, ita erit k cad c l; et
b k ad I 1. Quare k c ad cl, et b k ad I I sunt ut dead c g: hoc est ut
earum duplae a c ad c e. Sed ut b d adl g , ita dead c g; hoc est a d ad e g:
et permutando ut b d ad ad, ital g ad e g. Quadratum autem a d aequale
est rectangulo d b n ex undecima primi conicorum. Ergo tres lineae bd,
ad, b n inter se sunt proportionales. Eadem quoque ratione cum
quadratum e g aequale sit rectangulo g I 0, tres aliae lineaeI g, e g, I 0,
deinceps proportionales erunt. Et ut b d ad ad, ita f g ad e g. Quare
uta d adb n, itae g adl o. Ex aequali igitur, utd b adb n, itag ladl 0: et
permutando ut d b ad g I, ita b n adl o. Ut autem d b ad g f, ita b k adl t.
Ergo b k adf l, ut b n adf 0: et permutando, ut b k ad b n, ital I adlo.
Rursus quoniam quadratumh k aequale est rectangulo k b n: et quadratum
m l rectangulo If 0 aequale: erunt tres lineae b k, k h, b n proportionales:
itemque proportionales inter sel l, I m,1 o. Quare ut linea b k ad lineam
b n, ita quadratum b k ad quadratum h k: et ut linea f l ad ipsam f 0,
ita quadratumI I ad quadratum I m. Itaque quoniam, ut b k ad b n, ita
est I l ad f 0; erit ut quadratum b k ad quadratum k h, ita quadratum
f I ad I m quadratum. Ergo ut linea b k ad lineam k h, ita linea f l ad
ipsam l m: et permutando ut b k ad I l, ita k h ad l m. Sed b k ad f l
erat ut k c ad c I. Ergo k h ad I m, ut k c ad c l. Quare ex eodem lemmate
patet lineam he, et per m punctum transire. Ut igitur k c ad c I: hoc est
ut a c ad c e, ita head cm; hoc est ad earn ipsius partem, quae inter
;:s
c, et e g c (! e f c) sectionem interiicitur. Similiter demonstrabimus idem
contingere in aliis lineis, quae a puncta c ad a b c sectionem perducuntur.
At vero bead e f (! c f) eandem proportionem habere, liquido apparet;
nam bead c f, est ut dead c g; videlicet ut earum duplae, a c ad c e.
32v I Ex quibus perspicuum est lineas omnes sic ductas ab ipsis sectionibus
in eandem proportionem secari. Est enim dividendo, convertendoque
c m ad m h, et c fadf b, ut c e ad ea.
Lemma Ill.
33r
(Ed: 25)
Sed et illud constare potest; lineas, quae in portionibus eiusmodi
similibus ita ducuntur, ut cum basibus aequales angulos contineant, ab
ipsis similes quoque portiones abscindere: hoc est, ut in proposita figura,
portiones h bc, m f c [Fig. 1I1.4.3A.38], quas lineae ch, c m abscindunt,
etiam inter se similes esse.
Dividantur enim ch, c m bifariam in punctis p q: et per ipsa ducantur
lineae r ps, t q u diametris aequidistantes. Erit portionis h s c diameter
ps, et portionis m u c diameter q u. Itaque fiat ut quadratum c r ad
quadratum c p, ita linea b n ad aliam lineam, quae sit S x: et ut quadratum
c t ad quadratum c q, ita fiatf 0 ad u y, iam ex iis quae demonstravimus
in commentariis in quartam propositionem Archimedis de conoidibus ,
et sphaeroidibus, patet quadratum c p aequale esse rectangulo p s x:
/ itemque quadratum c q aequale rectangulo q u y, hoc est sectionum
h se, m u c lineas s x, u y, eas esse, iuxta quas possunt, quae a sectione
ad diametrum ducuntur. Sed cum triangula c pr, c q t similia sint,
habebit c r ad c p eandem proportionem, quam c t ad c q: et idcirco
quadratum c r ad quadratum c p eandem habebit, quam quadratum c t
ad quadratum c q. Ergo et linea b n ad lineam s x ita erit, ut linea f 0
ad ipsam u y. Erat autem head cm, ut a c ad c e. Quare et earum
dimidiae c p ad c q, ut a d ad e g: et permutando c p ad ad, ut c q ad e g.
Sed ostensum est a d ad b n ita esse, ut e g ad f 0: et b n ad s x, ut
f 0 ad u y. Ergo ex aequali c p ad s x erit, ut c q ad u y. Quod cum
quadratum c p aequale sit rectangulo p s x et quadratum c q rectangulo
q u y, erunt tres lineae s p ,p c, s x proportionales; itemque proportionales
ipsae u q, qc, u y. Quare et s p ad pc, ut u q ad q c: et ut p c ad ch,
ita q c ad cm. Ex aequali igitur ut portionis h s c diameter s p ad eius
basimch, ita portionis m u s diameter u q ad basim cm. Et anguli, quos
diametri cum basibus continent, sunt aequales, quod linea s p,
u q sibi ipsis aequidistent. Ergo et portiones h se, m u c inter se similes
erunt. Id quod demonstrandum proponebatur.
Lemma IlIl.
Sint duae lineae ab, c d [Fig. IIl.4.3A.39], quae secentur in punctis e f,
ita ut quam proportionem habet a e ad e b, habeat c f ad f d: rursus
secentur in aliis duobus punctis g h; et habeat chad h d eandem propor-
tionem, quam a g ad g b. Dico c f adf h ita esse, ut a e ad e g.
Quoniam enim ut a e ad e b, ita e f ad f d, erit componendo ut
a b ad e b, ita c d adf d. Rursus cum sit ut a g ad g b, ita chad h d;
componendo, convertendoque ut g b ad a b, ita erit h dad e d. Ergo ex
33v aequali, convertendoque ut e b ad gb, itaf dad h d: / et per conversionem
rationis ut e b ad e g, itaf d adf h. Est autem ut a e ad e b, ita e f adf d.
Ex aequali igitur ut a e ad e g, ita e f adf h.
Aliter. Aptentur lineae ab, c d inter sese, ita ut ad partes a e angulum
faciant; et sint a e in uno atque eodem puncto: deinde iungantur db,
h g J e. Cum igitur sit ut a e ad e b, ita c f, hoc est a f adf d; aequidistabit
f e ipsi db: et similiter h g eidem d b aequidistabit: quoniam a h ad h d
est, ut a g ad g b. Ergof e (! f e), h g inter sese aequidistant: et idcirco
ut a e ad e g, ita a f, hoc est e f, ad f h. Quod demonstrare oportebat.
Lemma V.
Sint rursus duae portiones similes, contentae rectis lineis, et rectangu-
lorum conorum sectionibus, ut in superiori figura a b c [Fig. III.4.3A.40],
cuius diameter b d: et e fe, cuius diameter f g: ducaturque a puncta
e linea eh, diametris bd, f g aequidistans, quae sectionem a b e in k
secet: et a puncto e ducatur e h contingens sectionem a b c in e: con-
veniensque cum linea e h in h, quae sectionem quoque e f e in eodem
c puncto continget, ut demonstrabitur. Dico lineam ductam ab ipsa e h
usque ad sectionem e fe, ita ut lineae e h aequidistet, in eandem
34r proportionem dividi a sectione a b e; in quam linea c a a / sectione e f c
dividitur: pars vero lineae ca, quae est inter duas sectiones proportione
respondebit parti lineae ductae, quae itidem inter easdem sectiones
interiicitur; hoc est ut in proposita figura, si producatur d b usque ad
chin I, ut sectioni e f e in puncto m occurrat; linearn I b ad b m eandern
proportionem habere, quam e e ad ea.
Producatur enim q f (! g f) ad eandern linearn chin n, secans a b e
sectionem in 0: et iuncta bc, quae transibit per f, ut ostensum est, erunt
triangula e g f, e d b similia: itemque similia inter se, e f n, cbi. Quare
utg fadd b, itaerite fade b: et ute fade b, itaf n adb l. Ergog fadd b,
utf n ad b I: et permutando g fadfn, ut db ad b I. Est autem db aequalis
ipsi b I ex trigesirnaquinta primi libri conicorurn. Ergo et g f ipsi p i
(! f n) aequalis erit: et ex trigesimatertia eiusdem linea c h sectionem
34v e f c in eodem pun/cto continget. Itaque iuncta e m producatur ad
sectionem a b e in p: et a p ad a e ducatur p q, quae ipsi b d aequidistet.
Quoniam igitur linea e h contingit sectionem e f e in e puncto; habebit
1m ad m d proportionem eandem, quam e d ad de, ex quinta propositione
Archimedis in libro de quadratura parabolae. Et propter triangulorum
e md, e p q similitudinem, ut e m ad cd, ita erit e p ad e q: permu-
tandoque ute made p, itae dad e q. Ut autem e m ad e p, sic e e ad ca:
quod proxirne demonstravimus. Quare ut e e ad ca, sic e d ad e q: hoc
est ut totum ad totum, sic pars ad partern, reliquum igitur dead
reliquum q a est ut e e ad ca; videlicet ut e d ad e q: et permutando
e d ad de, ut e q ad q a. Estque I m ad md, ut e d ad de. Ergo I m ad
md, ut e q ad q a. Sed I b ad b d ex quinta Archimedis, quam diximus; est
ut c d ad d a. Constat igitur ex antecedenti lemmate c d ad d q ita esse,
ut I b ad b m. Ut autem e d ad d q, ita e m ad m p. Ergo I b ad b m, ut
e m ad m p. Quod cum demonstratum fuerit, c m ad mp, ut c e ad ea:
35r habebit I b ad b m eandem / proportionem, quam e e ad ea. Similiter
demonstrabitur eandem habere n 0 ad 0 f: et reliquas eiusmodi. At vero
h k ad k e earn habere proportionem, quam habet e e ad ea, ex eadem
quinta Archimedis perspicue apparel. Atque illud est, quod demonstrandum
proposmmus.
Lemma VI.
Itaque maneant eadem, quae supra [Fig. III.4.3A.40]: et itidem
describatur alia portio similis contenta recta linea et rectanguli coni
sectione d r e; cuius diameter r s, ut secet lineamf g in t: producaturque
s r ad lineam e h in u; cui sectio a b e occurrat in x, et e f e in y. Dico
b m ad m d proportionem habere compositam ex proportione, quam
habet e a ad a e; et ex ea, quam c d habet ad de.
Similiter enim ut supra, demonstrabimus lineam e h contingere
sectionem d rein c puncto: et I m ad md, itemque n fad! t; et u y ad y r
ita esse, ut e d ad de. Quoniam igitur I b ad b m est, ut e e ad ea;
ent componendo, convertendoque b m ad I m, ut e a ad a e: et ut
I m ad md, ita e d ad de. Proportio autem b m ad m d composita est
ex proportione, quam habet b m ad I m, et ex proportione, quam I m
habet ad m d. Ergo proportio b m ad m d etiam composita erit ex
proportione, quam habet ea, ad a c; et ex ea, quam c d habet ad de.
Eadem ratione demonstrabitur 0 f adf t; itemque x y ad y r proportionem
habere ex eisdem proportionibus compositam: et ita in aliis. Quod
demonstrare oportebat.
Ex quibus apparet lineas sic ductas, quae inter sectiones a bc, d r c
interiiciuntur a sectione e f e in eandem proportionem dividi.
35v /"Etenim e b ad b d est ut sex ad quindecim." Posuimus enim b k N
duplam esse ipsius k d. Quare componendo b d ad k d erit, ut tria ad
unum; hoc est ut quindecim ad quinque. Sed b d ad k e erat ut quindecim
ad quatuor. Ergo b d ad de, ut quindecim ad novem: et per conversionem
rationis, convertendoque e b ad b d, ut sex ad quindecim.
"Et ut cb ad b d, ita e b ad b a, et d z ad d a." Nam cum triangula 0
e be, d b a sint similia [Fig. III.4.3A.41], erit ute b ad be, itad b, ad b a
et permutando, ut e b ad b d; ita e b ad b a. Rursus ut bead e e, ita
b d ad d a: permutandoque ut e b ad bd, ita e e, hoc est d z ei aequalis
add a.
"Harum autem d z, d a duplae sunt ipsae I i, I a." Lineam quidem P
I a duplam esse ipsius d a, cum b d sit portionis diameter, manifeste
constat. At vero I i ipsius d z dupla hoc pacto demonstrabitur.
Quoniam enim z d ad d a est, ut duo ad quinque; ent convertendo,
dividendoque a z, hoc est i z ad z d, ut tria ad duo: et rursus dividendo
id add z, ut unum ad duo. Erat autemz d add a, hoc est add l, ut duo ad
quinque. Ergo ex aequali, convertendoque l dad d i, ut quinque ad unum:
et per conversionem rationis d l ad l i, ut quinque ad quatuor. Sed
d z ad d l erat, ut duo ad quinque. Ergo rursus ex aequali d z ad l i, ut
duo ad quatuor. Dupla est igitur l i ipsius d z. Quod demonstrandum
fuerat.
36r "Et a d ad d i earn proportionem habet, quam quinque / ad unum." Q
Hoc nos proxime demonstravimus.
"Demonstratumest enim superius portionem cuius axis est maior, quam R
sesquialter eius, quae usque ad axem, si ad humidum in gravitate non
minorem proportionem habeat etc." Illud vero demonstravit in quarta
propositione huius libri.
1I.
SI PORTIO AD HUMIDUM IN GRAVITATE MINOREM QUIDEM A
PROPORTIONEM HABEAT, QUAM QUADRATUM s b AD QUAD-
RATUM b d; MAIOREM VERO, QUAM QUADRATUM x 0 AD
QUADRATUM b d; DEMISSA IN HUMIDUM, ADEO INCLINATA,
UT BASIS IPSIUS NON CONTINGAT HUMIDUM, INCLINATA
CONSISTET; ITA UT BASIS SUPERFICIEM HUMIDI NULLO
MODO CONTINGAT; ET AXIS CUM HUMIDI SUPERFICIE
ANGULUM FACIAT MAIOREM ANGULO X.
Ill.
SI PORTIO AD HUMIDUM IN GRAVITATE, EAM HABEAT
PROPORTIONEM, QUAM QUADRATUM x 0 AD QUADRATUM b d;
DEMISSA IN HUMIDUM INCLINATA ADEO, UT BASIS IPSIUS
NON CONTINGAT HUMIDUM; CONSISTET, ET MANEBIT ITA,
UT BASIS IN UNO PUNCTO HUMIDI SUPERFICIEM CONTINGAT:
ET AXIS CUM SUPERFICIE HUMIDI ANGULUM FACIAT ANGULO
X AEQUALEM. QUOD SI PORTIO AD HUMIDUM IN GRAVITATE
EAM PROPORTIONEM HABEAT, QUAM QUADRATUM pf AD
36v / QUADRATUM b d; IN HUMIDUM DEMISSA, ET POSITA
INCLINATA ADEO, UT BASIS IPSIUS NON CONTINGAT HUMI-
DUM; CONSISTET INCLINATA, ITA UT BASIS IN UNO PUNCTa
HUMIDI SUPERFICIEM CONTINGAT: ET AXIS CUM EA FACIAT
ANGULUM ANGULO cp AEQUALEM.
lIIl.
SI PORTIO AD HUMIDUM IN GRAVITATE MAIOREM QUIDEM B
PROPORTIONEM HABEAT, QUAM QUADRATUMjp AD QUAD-
RATUM b d; MINOREM VERO, QUAM QUADRATUM x 0 AD
b d QUADRATUM; IN HUMIDUM DEMISSA, ET INCLINATA
-
ADEO, UT BASIS IPSIUS NON CONTINGAT HUMIDUM CON-
SISTET, ET MANEBIT ITA, UT BASIS IN HUMIDUM MAGIS
DEMERGATUR.
V.
SI PORTIO AD HUMIDUM IN GRAVITATE PROPORTIONEM
HABEAT MINOREM, QUAM QUADRATUMfp AD QUADRATUM
b d: DEMISSA IN HUMIDUM, ET POSITA INCLINATA ADEO UT
BASIS IPSIUS NON CONTINGAT HUMIDUM: CONSISTET IN-
CLINATA, ITA UT AXIS IPSIUS CUM HUMIDI SUPERFICIE
ANGULUM FACIAT MINOREM ANGULO cp: ET BASIS NULLO
MODO SUPERFICIEM HUMIDI CONTINGAT. HAEC AUTEM
OMNIA DEINCEPS DEMONSTRABUNTUR.
37r / Demonstratio Secundae Partis.
Itaque primum habeat portio ad humidum in gravitate proportionem
quidem maiorem, quam quadratumx 0 ad quadratumb d [Fig. III.4.3A.35];
minorem vero, quam quadratum, quod fit ab excessu, quo axis est
maior, quam sesquialter eius, quae usque ad axem, ad quadratum b d:
et quam proportionem habet portio ad humidum in gravitate, earn
habeat quadratum, quod fit a linea 1/J ad quadratum b d: erit 1/J maior C
quidem, quam x 0, minor vero, quam excessus, quo axis est maior, quam
sesquialter eius, quae usque ad axem. Aptetur quaedam recta linea m n
conicis sectionibus a m q l, a x d interiecta ac media [Fig. III.4.3A.42],
quae lineae 1/J sit aequalis; secetque reliquam coni sectionem in puncto
h; et rectam lineam r g in u. Demonstrabitur m h dupla ipsius h n, D
sicuti demonstratum est 0 g ipsius g x duplam esse. A puncto autem m
ducatur m y contingens sectionem a m q 1in m: et m c ad b d perpendicu-
laris. Postea ducta an, et producta ad q lineae an, n q inter se aequales
emnt. Quoniam enim in similibus portionibus a m q l, a x d ductae sunt E
a basibus ad portiones lineae a q, an, quae aequales angulos continent
cum ipsis basibus, eandem proportionem habebit q a ad an, quam
37v 1a ad a d. Aequalis est ergo a n ipsi n q; et a q / ipsi m y aequidistans. F, G
Demonstrandum est portionem in humidum demissam, inclinatamque
adeo, ut basis ipsius non contingat humidum, inclinatam consistere ita,
ut basis superficiem humidi nullo modo contingat: et axis cum ea
faciat angulum angulo X maiorem. Demittatur enim in humidum,
consistatque ita, ut basis ipsius in uno puncto contingat humidi super-
ficiem: et secta ipsa portione per axem, pIano ad humidi superficiem
recto; superficiei quidem portionis sectio sit a p 0 1rectanguli coni sectio
[Fig. III.4.3A.43]: superficiei humidi sectio sit a 0: axis autem portionis,
et sectionis diameter b d: et secetur b d in punctis k r, ut dictum est: H
ducatur etiam p g aequidistans ipsi a 0, quae sectionem a p 0 1
contingat in p: atque ab eo puncto ducatur p t aequidistans ipsi b d; et
p s ad b d perpendicularis. Itaque quoniam portio ad humidum in gravitate
earn proportionemhabet, quam quadratum, quod fit a linea ljJ ad quadratum
b d; quam vero proportionem habet portio ad humidum, eandem pars
ipsius demersa habet ad totam portionem: et quam pars demersa ad totam,
eandem habet quadratum t p ad b d quadratum: erit linea ljJ aequalis ipsi
t p. Quare et lineae m n, pt; itemque portiones a m q, a pointer se
38r sunt aequales. Quod cum in portionibus / aequalibus, et similibus, a p 0 i, K
a m q i ab extremitatibus basium ductae sint a 0, a q ita, ut portiones
ablatae faciant cum diametris angulos aequales; et anguli, qui ad y g: et
lineae y b, gb, et bc, b s inter se aequales erunt. Quare et ipsae er,
s r: et mu, p z: et un, Z t. Quoniam igitur m u minor est, quam dupla L
un; constat p z ipsius z t minorem esse, quam duplam. Sit p w dupla
ipsius w t: et iuncta w k ad e producatur. Ergo totius quidem portionis
centrum gravitatis erit puntum (I) k; partis eius, quae in humido est,
centrum w; eius vero, quae extra humidum in linea k e, quod sit e. Sed
linea k z perpendicularis erit ad superficiem humidi. Quare et lineae quae
per puncta e, w, aequidistantesipsik z ducuntur. Nonergomanebitportio, M
sed revolvetur ita, ut basis ipsius superficiem humidi nullo modo
contingat: quoniam nunc in uno puncto contingens, sursum fertur ex parte
a. Perspicuum est igitur portionem consistere ita, ut axis cum superficie N
humidi faciat angulum maiorem angulo X.
Commentarius.
"Si portio ad humidumin gravitate minoremproportionemhabeat, quam A
quadratum s b ad quadratum b d; maiorem vero, quam quadratum x 0
ad b d quadratum." Haec est secunda pars propositionis, quam aliae
deinceps, postea ipsarum demonstrationes eodem ordine sequuntur.
"Si portio ad humidum in gravitate maiorem quidem proportionem B
habeat, quam quadratumf p ad quadratum b d." Hanc quartam partem
nos restituimus, quae in translatione desiderabatur.
"Erit ljJ maior quidem, quam x 0, minor vero, quam excessus, quo c
axis est maior, quam sesquialter eius, quae usque ad axem." Sequitur
illud ex decima quinti libri elementorum.
"Demonstrabitur m h dupla ipsius h n, sicuti demonstratum est 0 g D
ipsius g x duplam esse." Ut in prima parte huius, et ex iis, quae nos
p
proxlme 10 Ipsam conscnpslmus.
"Quoniam enim in similibus portionibus a p 0 i (I a m q i), a x d, E
38v / ductae sunt a basibus ad portiones lineae an, a q, quae angulos aequales
continent cum ipsis basibus, eandem proportionem habebit q a ad an,
quam i a ad a d." Hoc nos supra demonstravimus.
"Aequalis est ergo a n ipsin q." Cum enimq a ada n sit, uti a ada d; F
dividendo, convertendoque erit a n ad n q, ut a d ad d l. Est autem a d
aequalis ipsi d i, quoniam d b ponitur diameter portionis. Ergo et a n
ipsi n q est aequalis.
=
"Et a q ipsi my aequidistans." Ex quinta secundi libri comcorum G
Apollonii.
"Et secetur b d in punctis k r, ut dictum est." In prima parte huius H
propositionis. Secetur autem in k ita, ut b k sit dupla ipsius k d; et in
r, ut k r sit aequalis ei, quae usque ad axem.
"Quod cum in portionibus aequalibus, et similibus, a p 0 I, a m q I ab K
extremitatibus basium ductae sint a 0, a q, ita ut portiones ablatae faciant
cum diametris angulos aequales: et anguli, qui ad y g: et lineae y b, g b
inter se aequales erunt." Secet linea a q diametrum d b in 8, et a 0 secet
in H [Fig. 1II.4.3AA2-43]. Itaque quoniam in portionibus aequalibus,
et similibus a p 0 I, a m q I ab extremitatibus basium ducuntur a 0, a q,
quae aequales angulos continent cum ipsis basibus: et anguli ad d utrique
sunt recti: erunt et reliqui a H d, a () d inter se aequales. Linea autem
pg aequidistat lineae a 0: itemque m y ipsi a q: et ps, m c ipsis ad.
Triangula igitur p g s, m y c triangulis a H d, a 8 d, atque inter se sunt
39r similia: et ut a d ad a H, ita a d ad a (): et permutando. Li/neae autem a d
inter se aequales sunt. Ergo et ipsae a H, a (). Sed sunt aequales a 0,
a q: et earum dimidiae at, an. Ergo et reliquae t H, n (); hoc est pg,
my. Ut autemp g adg h (! g s) itam yady c; et permutando, utp g adm y,
ita g s ad ye. Quare g s, y c aequales sunt: et ipsarum dimidiae b s,
be: ex quibus sequitur ut et reliquae s r, er: et idcircop Z, m u et un, z t
inter se sunt aequales.
"Quoniam igitur m u minor est, quam dupla u n." Est enim m h ipsius L
h n dupla, et m u minor ipsa m h. Ergo m u minor est, quam dupla h n;
et multo minor, quam dupla ipsius un.
"Non ergo manebit portio, sed revolvetur, ita ut basis ipsius humidi M
superficiem nullo modo contingat. Quoniam nunc in uno puncto con-
tingens sursum fertur in ex parte a." Translatio sic habet. Non ergo
manet portio sed inclinabitur, ut basis ipsius nec secundum unum
tangat superficiem humidi, quoniam nunc secundum unum tacta ipsa
reclinatur. Quae nos ex aliis Archimedis locis, et perspicuitatis caussa
in eum modum corrigenda duximus. In sexta propositione huius ita
scribit, ut habetur in translatione. Revolvetur ergo solidum a p 0 l, et
basis ipsius non tanget superficiem humidi secundum unum signum.
Rursus in septima propositione. Manifestum igitur, quod revolvetur
solidum ita ut basis ipsius nec secundum unum signum contingat super-
ficiem humidi, quoniam nunc secundum unum tangens deorsum fertur
ex parte I. At vero portionem sursum ferri ex parte a manifeste constat.
Nam cum perpendicularis ad superficiem humidi, quae transit per w ad
partes a cadat, et quae per e ad partes l, necesse est ut centrum w sursum,
e vero deorsum feratur.
"Perspicuum est igitur portionem consistere ita, ut axis cum superficie N
humidi faciat angulum maiorem angulo X." Iuncta enim a x producatur,
ut diametrum b d secet in A, et ab 0 puncto ipsi aequidistans ducatur
o X [Fig. IIIA.3A.44]. Continget ea sectionem in 0, ut in prima figura:
atque erit angulus ad X angulo ad A. aequalis. Sed angulus ad y aequalis
est angulo ad (): et angulus a () d maior angulo a A. d; quod extra ipsum
39v cadat. Ergo angulus ad y eo, qui ad X maior erit. / Quoniam igitur
portio convertitur, ita ut basis humidum non contingat, axis cum
superficie eius faciet angulum maiorem angulo g; hoc est angulo y: et
propterea multo maiorem angulo X.
Demonstratio Tertiae Partis.
Habeat deinde portio ad humidum earn in gravitate proportionem, quam
quadratum x 0 habet ad quadratum b d [Fig. III.4.3A.45(a)]: et in
humidum demittatur adeo inclinata, ut basis ipsius non contingat
humidum. Secta autem ipsa per axem pIano ad humidi superficiem
recto, solidi sectio sit rectanguli coni sectio a p m I [Fig. (b)]: superficiei
humidi sectio sit i m: axis portionis, et sectionis diameter b d: seceturque
40r b d sicuti prius et ducatur p n quidem / ipsi i m aequidistans, et contingens
sectionem in p; p t vero aequidistans bd, et p s ad ipsam b d perpendic-
ularis. Demonstrandum est, portionem non consistere ita, sed inclinari,
donec basis in uno puncto superficiem humidi contingat. Maneant enim
eadem, quae in superiori figura [Fig. Cb)] ducaturque 0 C ad b d per-
pendicularis [Fig. (a)]: et iuncta a x ad q producatur. Erit a x aequalis
ipsi x q. Deinde ducatur 0 X ipsi a q aequidistans. Quoniam igitur
portio ad humidum earn in gravitate proportionem habere ponitur, quam
quadratum x 0 ad quadratum b d: et eandem proportionem habet pars
ipsius demersa ad totam; hoc est quadratum t p ad quadratum b d: [A]
aequalis utique erit t p ipsi x 0: cumque portionum i pm, a 0 q diametri
sint aequales, et portiones ipsae aequales erunt. Rursus quoniam in B, C
portionibus aequalibus , et similibus a 0 q I, a p m I, ductae sunt lineae
a q, i m, quae aequales portiones auferunt; ilIa quidem ab extremitate
basis, haec autem non ab extremitate: constat earn, quae ab extremitate
basis ducta est, minorem facere angulum acutum cum diametro totius
portionis. Et quoniam angulus, qui ad X minor est angulo, qui ad n; D
maior erit bc, quam b s: c r autem, quam s r minor. Quare et 0 g minor,
quam p z: et g x maior, quam z t. Ergo p z maior est, quam dupla z t;
40v / quia 0 g ipsius g x est dupla. Sit p h dupla h t: et iuncta h k ad w
producatur. Erit totius quidem portionis centrum gravitatis k; partis eius,
quae intra humidumh; eius vero, quae extra humidumin lineak w, quod sit
w. Itaque demonstrabitur similiter et k z ad humidi superficiemperpendicu-
laris, et quae per puncta h w aequidistantes ipsi k z ducuntur. Quare
non manebit portio, sed inclinabitur, donec basis ipsius in uno puncto
contingat superficiem humidi: atque ita consistet. Nam in portionibus
aequalibus a 0 q I, a p m I, ductae erunt ab extremitatibus basium a q, ,
a m, quae aequales portiones abscindunt: etenim a 0 q ipsi a pm, ut in
superioribus aequalis demonstrabitur. Ergo aequales faciunt acutos E
angulos a q, a m cum diametris basium: quod anguli ad X et n aequales
sint. Quare si ducta h k ad w producatur [Fig. III.4.3A.46], erit totius
-
portionis gravitatis centrum k; partis eius, quae in humido h; at eius,
quae extra humidum in linea h k; quod sit cv: et h k ad humidi superficiem
perpendieularis. Per easdem igitur rectas lineas, quod quidem in humido
est, sursum, et quod extra humidum deorsum feretur. Quare manebit
portio, cuius basis humidi superficiem in uno puncto continget: et axis
41r cum ipsa angulum faciet aequalem angulo X. Similiter demonlstrabitur F
portionem, quae ad humidum in gravitate eandem proportionem habeat,
quam quadratum Pf ad quadratum b d in humidum demissam, ita ut
basis ipsius non contingat humidum, inclinatam consistere adeo, ut basis
in uno puncto humidi superficiem contingat. Et axis cum ipsa faciat
angulum angulo lp aequalem.
Commentarius.
"Hoc est quadratum t p ad quadratum b d." Ex vigesimasexta libri A
Archimedis de conoidibus, et sphaeroidibus. Ergo ex nona quinti erit qua-
dratum t p aequale quadrato x 0: et propterea linea t p lineae x 0 aequalis.
"Et portiones ipsae aequales erunt." Ex vigesimaquinta eiusdem libri. B
"Rursus quoniam in portionibus aequalibus, et similibus a 0 q I, a p m I." c
In portione enim a p m 1 [Fig. III.4.3A.47] describatur portio a 0 q
aequalis portioni i pm, cadet punctum q infra m alioqui totum parti esset
4lv aequale. Ducatur deinde i u aequidistans a q, / quae diametrum secet in
t/J; secet autem i m eandem in (j: et a q in v. Dieo angulum a v d
angulo i (j d minorem esse. Angulus enim i t/J d aequalis est angulo a vd.
Sed angulus interior i t/J d minor est exteriore i (j d. Ergo et a v d ipso
i (j d minor erit.
"Et quoniarn angulus, qui ad X minor est angulo, qui ad n." Ducantur D
per 0 duae lineae, 0 c quidem ad diametrum b d perpendicularis: et
o X in puncto 0 sectionem contingens, quae diametrum secet in X.
Aequidistabit 0 X ipsi a q: atque erit angulus ad X aequalis ei, qui ad v.
Ergo angulus ad X angulo ad (j, videlicet eo, qui ad n minor erit: et
propterea X infra n cadet. Linea igitur X b maior est, quam n b. Sed
cum b c sit aequalis X b, et b s ipsi n b: ent b c ipsa b s maior.
"Ergo aequales faciunt angulos a q, a m cum diametris portionum. " Hoc E
demonstrabimus ut in commentariis in secundam partem.
"Similiter demonstrabitur, portionem, quae ad humidum in gravitate F
eandem proportionem habeat, quam quadratum p f ad quadratum b d
[Fig. III.4.3A.48]; in humidum demissam, ita ut basis ipsius non contingat
humidum, inclinatam consistere adeo, ut basis in uno puncto humidi super-
ficiem contingat: et axis cum ipsa faciat angulum angulo I{J aequalem."
Habeat portio ad humidum in gravitate proportionem eam, quamp f qua-
dratum ad quadratum b d [Fig. III.4.3A.48]: et demissa in humidum adeo
42r inlclinata, ut basis humidum non contingat, secetur pIano per axem, recto
ad superficiem humidi, ut sectio sit a m 0 I rectanguli coni sectio [Fig.
III.4.3A.49(a)]: superficiei humidi sectio sit i 0: axis portionis, et sectionis
diameter b d; quae in easdem, quas diximus, partes secetur: ducaturque
m n quidem ipsi i 0 aequidistans, ut in puncto m sectionem contingat:
m t vero aequidistans ipsi b d: et m s ad eandem perpendicularis. De-
monstrandum est non manere portionem, sed inclinari ita, ut in uno puncto
contingat superficiem humidi. Ducatur enim p c ad ipsam b d perpendic-
ularis: et iuncta a f usque ad sectionem producatur in q: et per p ducatur
p cp ipsi a q aequidistans. Erunt iam ex iis, quae demonstravimus
a f, f q inter sese aequales. Et cum portio ad humidum earn in gravitate
proportionem habeat, quam quadratum p f ad b d quadratum: atque
eandem habeat portio ipsius demersa ad totam portionem; hoc est qua-
dratum m t ad quadratum b d: erit quadratum m t quadrato p f aequale:
et idcirco linea m t aequalis lineae p f. Itaque quoniam in portionibus
aequalibus, et similibus a p q I, a m 0 I ductae sunt lineae a q, i 0, quae
aequales portiones abscindunt; ilIa quidem ab extremitate basis; haec vero
non ab extremitate: sequitur ut a q, quae ab extremitate ducitur, minorem
acutum angulum contineat cum diametro portionis, quam ipsa i o. Sed
linea p cp lineae a q aequidistat, et m n ipsi i o. Angulus igitur ad cp
42v angulo ad n / minor erit: linea vero b c maior, quam b s: et s r, hoc est
m x maior, quam er, hoc est, quam p y: et propterea x t minor, quam
y f. Quod cum p y sit dupla y f, erit m x maior, quam dupla y f; et
multo maior, quam dupla x t. Fiat m h dupla ipsius h t: et copulata h k
producatur. lam gravitatis centrum totius portionis erit punctum k: eius,
quae in humido est, h: at reliquae partis, quae extra humidum in linea
h k producta; quod sit w. Eodem modo demonstrabitur, et lineam k h, et
quae per h, w puncta ipsi k h aequidistantes ducuntur, ad humidi super-
ficiem perpendiculares esse. Non igitur manebit portio, sed cum usque eo
inclinata fuerit, ut in uno puncto contingat superficiem humidi, tunc con-
sistet. Angulus enim ad n angulo [Fig. (b)] ad cp [Fig. III.4A.48] aequalis
erit; lineaque b s lineae be; et s r ipsi cr. Quare et m h ipsi p y est
aequalis. Itaque ducta h k producatur. Erit totius portionis gravitatis cen-
trum k; eius, quae in humido est h; et reliquae partis centrum in linea
producta; sit autem w. Per eandem igitur rectam lineam k h, quae est
ad humidi superficiem perpendicularis, id quod in humido est sursum; et
quod extra humidum deorsum feretur. Atque ob hanc caussam portio non
amplius movebitur; sed consistet, manebitque ita, ut eius basis super-
ficiem humidi in uno puncto contingat; et axis, cum ipsa angulum faciat
aequalem angulo cp. Atque illud est, quod demonstrare oportebat.
43r / Demonstratio Quartae Partis.
Habeat rursum portio ad humidum in gravitate proportionem quidem
maiorem, quam quadratum f p ad quadratum b d [Fig. III.4.3A.50];
minorem vero, quam quadratum x 0 ad b d quadratum: et quam pro-
portionem habet portio ad humidum in gravitate, eandem habeat qua-
dratum, quod fit a linea t/J ad quadratum b d. Erit t/J maior, quam fp,
et minor, quam x o. Aptetur ergo quaedam recta linea i u inter portiones
a u q I, a x d interiecta, quae sit aequalis t/J, et ipsi b d aequidistans:
----- -------------------
-
occurratque reliquae sectioni in y. Rursus u y dupla ipsius y i demon-
strabitur, sicuti demonstrata est 0 g ipsius g x dupla. Ducatur autem ab
u linea u w, quae sectionem a u q 1 in u contingat: et iuncta a i ad q
producatur. Eodem modo ostendemus lineam a i ipsi i q aequalem esse:
et a q ipsi u w aequidistantem. Demonstrandum est portionem in humidum
demissam, inclinatamque adeo, ut basis ipsius non contingat humidum, ita
consistere, ut basis in humidum magis demergatur quam ut in uno puncto
eius superficiem contingat. Demittatur enim in humidum, ut dictum est;
et iaceat primo sic inclinata, ut basis nullo modo contingat superficiem
43v humidi. Secta autem ipsa pIano per axem ad humidi / superficiem recto, sit
portionis sectio a n Z g [Fig. III.4.3A.51]; superficiei humidi e z: axis
portionis, et sectionis diameter b d: seceturque b d in punctis k r, sicuti
prius; et ducatur nl quidem ipsi e z aequidistans; quae contingat sec-
tionen a n z g in n; et n t aequidistans ipsi b d; n s vero ad b d per-
pendicularis. Itaque quoniam portio ad humidum in gravitate earn pro-
portionem habet, quam quadratum, quod fit a linea l/J ad quadratum b d:
erit l/J ipsi n t aequalis: quod similiter demonstrabitur, ut superius. Quare
et n test aequalis ipsi u i. Portiones igitur a u q, e n z inter se sunt
aequales. Et cum in aequalibus, et similibus portionibus a u q l, a n z g
ductae sint a q, e z, quae aequales portiones auferunt; illa quidem ab ex-
tremitate basis; haec autem non ab extremitate: minorem faciet acutum
angulum cum portionis diametro, quae ab extremitate basis ducitur. At
triangulorum n 1s, u w c angulus ad l angulo ad w maior est. Ergo b s
minor erit, quam b c: et s r maior, quam c r: ideoque n x maior, quam
u h; et x t minor, quam hi. Quoniam igitur u y dupla est ipsins y i;
constat n x maiorem esse, quam duplam x t. Sit n m dupla ipsius m t.
Perspicuum est ex iis, quae dicta sunt, non manere portionem; sed in-
clinari, donec eius basis contingat superficiem humidi: contingat autem in
44r puncto uno, ut patet in fi/gura et alia eadem disponantur demonstrabimus
rursum n t aequalem esse ipsi u i: et portiones a u q, a n z inter sese
aequales. Itaque quoniam in portionibus aequalibus, et similibus a u q 1,
a n z g ductae sunt a q, a z, portiones aequales auferentes; cum diametris
portionum aequales angulos continebunt. Ergo triangulorum n 1s, u w c
anguli, qui consistunt ad 1w puncta, aequales sunt: et b s recta linea
aequalis ipsi be: s r ipsi er, n x ipsi u h: et x t ipsi hi. Quod cum u y
dupla sit ipsius y i, erit n x maior, quam dupla x t. Sit igitur n m ipsius
m t dupla. Rursus ex his manifestum est, non manere ipsam portionem;
sed inclinari ex parte a: ponebatur autem portio humidi superficiem in
uno puncto contingere. Ergo necesse est, ut eius basis in humidum magis
demergatur.
Demonstratio Quintae Partis.
Habeat denique portio ad humidum in gravitate minorem proportionem,
quam quadratumfp adquadratum b d [Fig. III.4.3A.52]: et quam pro-
portionem habet portio ad humidumin gravitate, eandem quadratum, quod
fit a linea l/J habeat ad quadratum b d. Erit l/J minor ipsa p f. Rursus
44v
4Sr
(Ed: 43)
4Sv
COMMANDINO'S DE IlS QUAE VEHUNTER 681
aptetur / quaedam recta linea g i, sectionibus a g q l, a x d interiecta,
et ipsi b d aequidistans; quae mediam coni sectionem in puncto h, et
rectam lineam r y in y secet. Demonstrabitur g h dupla hi, quemadmodum
demonstrata est 0 g I ipsius g I x dupla. Ducatur postea g w contingens
a g q I sectionem in g: et g c ad b d perpendicularis: iunctaque a i pro-
ducatur ad q. Erit ergo a i aequalis i q: et a q ipsi g w aequidistans.
Demonstrandum est portionem in humidum demissam, inclinatamque
adeo, ut basis ipsius non contingat humidum, consistere inclinatam ita,
ut axis cum superficie humidi angulum faciat minorem angulo cp: et basis
humidi superficiem nullo modo contingat. Demittatur enim in humidum;
et consistat ita, ut basis ipsius in uno puncto contingat superficiem
humidi. Secta autem portione per axem, pIano ad humidi superficiem
recto, sit portionis sectio a n Z I rectanguli coni sectio [Fig. III A. 3A.53(a)] :
superficiei humidi a z: axis autem portionis, et sectionis diameter b d:
seceturque b d in punctis k r, ut superius dictum est: et ducatur n f qui-
dem ipsi a z aequidistans, et contingens coni sectionem in puncto n; n t
vero aequidistans ipsi b d: et n s ad eandem perpendicularis. Quoniam
igitur portio ad humidum in gravitate, earn habet proportionem, quam
quadratum, quo fit a ljJ / ad quadratum b d: et quam habet portio ad
humidum in gravitate, eandem quadratum n t habet ad b d quadratum,
ex iis, quae dicta sunt: constat n t lineae ljJ aequalem esse. Quare et
portiones a n z, a g q sunt aequales. Et quoniam in portionibus
aequalibus, et similibus a g q 1, a n z l, ab extremitatibus basium ductae
sunt a q, a z, quae aequales portiones abscindunt: perspicuum est angulos
facere aequales cum portionum diametris: et triangulorum n f s, g wc,
angulos, qui ad f w aequales esse: itemque aequales inter se, s b, cb;
et s r, c r, quare et n x, g y aequales: et x t, y i. Cumque g h dupla sit
ipsius hi, erit n x minor, quam dupla ipsius x t. Sit igitur n m ipsius
m t dupla: et iuncta m k protrahatur ad e. Itaque centrum gravitatis
totius erit punctum k: partis eius, quae est in humido, punctum m: eius
autem, quae extra humidumin linea protracta, quod sit e. Ergo ex proxime
demonstratis patet, non manere portionem, sed inclinari adeo, ut basis
nullo modo superficiem humidi contingat. At vero portionem consistere
ita, ut axis cum superficie humidi faciat angulum angulo cp minorem,
sic demonstrabitur. Consistat enim, si fieri potest, ut non faciat angulum
minorem angulo cp: et alia eadem disponantur; ut in subiecta figura
[Fig. (b)]. Eodem modo demonstra/bimus n t aequalem esse $, et
propterea ipsi g i. Et quoniam triangulorum p cp c, n f s angulusf non est
minor angulo cp, non erit b f maior, quam be. Ergo neque s r minor,
quam c r: neque n x minor, quam p y. Sed cum p f sit maior, quam n t:
sitque p f sesquialterap y: erit n t minor, quam sesquialtera n x: et idcirco
n x maior, quam dupla x t. Sit autem n m dupla m t: et iuncta m k
producatur. Constat igitur ex iam dictis non manere portionem; sed revolvi
ita, ut axis cum superficie humidi faciat angulum angulo cp minorem.
Finis Librorum Archimedis De
lis, Quae in Aqua Vehuntur.
B
The Translation of On Floating Bodies Attributed
to ihomas Salusbury
ARCHIMEDES
His Tract
De Incidentibus Humido,
or of the
Natation of Bodies Upon,
or Submersion in,
the
WATER
or Other Liquids
In Two Books.
Translated from the Original Greek,
First into Latine, and afterwards into Italian, by NICOLO
TARTAGLIA , and by him familiarly demon-
strated by way of Dialogue, with Richard Wentworth,
a Noble English Gentleman, and his Friend.
Together with the Learned Commentaries of Federico
Commandino, who hath Restored such of the Demonstrations
as, thorow the Injury of Time, were obliterated.
Now compared with the ORIGINAL, and Englished
By THOMAS SALUSBURY, Esq.
LONDON, Printed by W. Leybourn, 1662
682
333
(Ed: 335)
/ ARCHIMEDES
His Tract
De
Incidentibus Humido,
or
Of the Natation of Bodies upon, or Submersion in,
the Water, or other Liquids.
BOOK I.
Ricardo.
Dear Companion, I have perused your Industrious Invention, in which
I find not any thing that will not certainly hold true; but, truth is, there are
many of your Conclusions of which I understand not the Cause, and there-
fore, if it be not a trouble to you, I would desire you to declare them to me,
for, indeed, nothing pleaseth me if the Cause thereof be hid from me.
NICOLO. My obligations unto you are so many and great, Honoured
Companion, that no request of yours ought to be troublesome to me, and
therefore tell me what those Perticulars are of which you know not the
Cause, for I shall endeavour with the utmost of my power and understand-
ing to satisfie you in all your demands.
Ric. In the first Direction of the first Book of that your Industrious
Invention you conclude that it is impossible that the Water should wholly
receive into it any material Solid Body that is lighter than itself (as to
speciae).l Nay, you say that there will alwaies apart of the Body stay or
remain above the Waters (I) Surface (that is uncovered by it); and that as
the whole Solid Body put into the Water is in proportion
2
to that part of
it that shall be immerged, or received, into the Water, so shall the Gravity
of the Water be to the Gravity (in speciae) of that same material Body;
and that those Solid Bodies that are by nature more Grave than the Water,
being put into the Water, shall presently make the said Water give place;
and that they do not only wholly enter or submerge in the same, but contin-
ually descending untill they arrive at the Bottom; and that they sink to the Bot-
tom so much faster by how much they are more Grave than the Water.
And, again, that those which are precisely of the same Gravity with the
Water, being put into the same, are of necessity wholly received into,
or immerged by it, but yet retained in the Surface of the said Water, [so
1 See above, Section II of this chapter, n. 44, for the text of the passage from his La
Travagliata inventione. In that section I explained the possible significance of Tartaglia's
comments to the history of the hydrostatic description of the speed of falling bodies.
2 Salusbury here and everywhere uses' 'proportion" where modern usage prefers' 'ratio. "
683
that there is no part of them standing above the surface of the Water],3
and much less will the Water consent that it do descend to the Bottom;
and, now, albeit that all these things are manifest to Sense and Experience,
yet nevertheless would I be very glad, if it be possible, that you would
demonstrate to me the most apt and proper Cause of these Effects.
334 I Nic. The cause of all these Effects is assigned by Archimedes, the
Siracusan, in that Book De Incidentibus (*) Aquae, by me published in
Latine,
4
and dedicated to yourself, as I also said in the beginning of that
my Industrious Invention.
Ric. I have seen that same Archimedes, and have very well under-
stood those two Books in which he treateth De Centro Gravitatis Aeque-
repentibus,5 or of the Center of Gravity in Figures plain, or parallel to the
Horizon; and likewise those De Quadratura Parabolae or, of Squaring the
Parabola [and De quadratura circuli, or Squaring the Circle];6 but t that
in which he treateth of Solids that Swim upon or sink in Liquids is so
obscure, that, to speak the truth, there are many things in it which I do
not understand, and therefore before we proceed any farther, I should take
it for a favour if you would declare it to me in your Vulgar Tongue,
1
beginning with his first Supposition, which speaketh in this manner.
SUPPOSITION I.
IT IS SUPPOSED THAT THE LIQUID IS OF SUCH A NATURE,
THAT ITS PARTS BEING EQUI-JACENT AND CONTIGUOUS, THE
LESS PRESSED ARE REPULSED BY THE MORE PRESSED. AND
THAT EACH OF ITS PARTS IS PRESSED OR REPULSED BY THE
* Aquae, translated by me Humido, as the more comprehensive word, for his Doctrine
holds true in all Liquids as well as in Water, sdI, in Wine, Oyl, Milk, etc.
t He speaks of but one Book, Tartaglia having translated no more.
3 I have added the bracketed phrase since it is in the Italian text but Salusbury has
omitted it.
4 I have already noted in Section II some of the various remarks of Salusbury that indicate
his belief that Tartaglia was the translator as well as the editor of the De insidentibus
aquae (for other references, see below, Book 11: Prop. 11, n. 4; Prop. IV, ns. 2,5; Prop. VI,
n. 7; Prop. X, ns. 2,3, 15). I also call the reader's attention to the title page, where he flatly
says "Translated from the Original Greek, First into Latine, and afterwards into Italian,
by Nicolo Tartaglia."
5 Needless to say, this form of the title has no precedent. It should rather have read
De centro gravitatis vel de aequerepentibus. By this listing of the titles of Archimedes'
works, Ricardo is indicating that he saw this work, the De quadratura parabolae, the
De quadratura circuli and Book I of De insidentibus aquae in Tartaglia's edition of
1543, for these were just the works included in that edition.
6 Salusbury omitted this reference to De quadratura circuli included in the Italian text,
which has "quelli della quadratura della parabola et del cerchio." To keep the form of
Salusbury's translation intact, I have in my added phrase repeated the term quadratura,
though it appears only once in the Italian text.
7 The Italian phrase is "vostra lingua volgare Italiana."
SALUSBURY'S THE NATATION OF BODIES 685
LIQUOR THAT LYETH OVER IT PERPENDICULARLY, IF THE
LIQUID BE DESCENDING INTO ANY PLACE, OR PRESSED ANY
WHITHER BY ANOTHER.l
Nic. Every Science, Art, or Doctrine (as you know, Honoured Com-
panion) hath its first undemonstrable Principles, by which (they being
granted or supposed) the said Science is proved, maintained, or demon-
strated.
2
And of these Principles, some are called Petitions, and others
Demands, or Suppositions. I say, therefore, that the Science or Doctrine
of those Material Solids that Swim or Sink in Liquids hath only two
undemonstrable Suppositions, one of which is that above alledged, the
which in compliance with your desire I have set down in our Vulgar
Tongue.
Ric. Before you proceed any farther, tell me how we are to understand
the parts of a liquid to be Equijacent.
Nic. When they are equidistant from the Center of the World or of the
Earth (which is the same, although * some hold that the Centers of the
Earth and World are different).3
Ric. I understand you not unless you give me some Example thereof
in Figure.
Nic. To exemplifie this particular, let us suppose a quantity of Liquor
(as for instance of Water) to be upon the Earth; then let us with the
Imagination cut the whole Earth together with that Water into two equal
parts in such a manner as that the said Section may pass t by the Center of
the Earth. And let us suppose that one part of the Superficies of that
Section, as well of the Water as of the Earth, be the Superficies AB, and
that the Center of the Earth be the point K [Fig. III.4.3B.l]. This
being done, let us in our Imagination describe a Circle upon the said
Center K of such a bigness as that the Circumference may pass by the
Superficies of the Section of the Water. Now let this Circumference be
EFG; and let many Lines be drawn from the point K to the said Circum-
ference, cutting the same, as KE, KHO, KFG', KLP, KM. Now I say that
all these parts of the said Water, terminated in that Circumference, are
335 Equijacent, as being alII equidistant from the point K, the Center of the
World, which parts are GM, ML, LF, FH, HE.
Ric. I understand you very well as to this particular. But tell me a little;
* The Copernicans.
t Or through.
1 It will be recalled that Tartaglia included the Latin text as well as the Italian translation
of the suppositions and enunciations of propositions. While Salusbury favored the Italian
rendering of the suppositions and propositions in presenting his English translation of Book
I, he kept his eye on the Latin as well. For example in this supposition, Tartaglia rendered
the Latin pulsa by premuta over urtata but Salusbury merely had pressed.
2 I have commented on this preliminary material in Section II of this chapter, where I
have also discussed Tartaglia's Italian translation proposition-by-proposition.
3 The marginal reference to "The Copernicans" is Salusbury's, not Tartaglia's.
......"
he saith that each of the parts of the Liquid is pressed or repulsed by the
Liquid that is above it according to the Perpendicular. I know not what that
Liquid is that lieth upon a part of another Perpendicularly.
Nic. Imagining a Line that cometh from the Center of the Earth pene-
trating thorow some Water, each part of the Water that is in that Line he
supposeth to be pressed or repulsed by the Water that lieth above it in that
same Line, and that that repulse is made according to the same Line
(that is, directly towards the Center of the World), which Line is called
a Perpendicular because every Right-Line that departeth from any point
and goeth directly towards the Worlds (l) Center is called a Perpendicular.
And that you may the better understand me, let us imagine the Line KHO,
and in that let us imagine several parts, as suppose RS, ST, TV, VH, HO.
I say that he supposeth that the part VH is pressed by that placed above it,
HO, according to the Line OK; the which OK, as hath been said above,
is called the Perpendicular passing thorow those two parts. In like manner,
I say that the part TV is expulsed by the part VH according to the said
Line OK; and so the part ST to be pressed by TV according to the said
Perpendicular OK, and RS by ST. And this you are to understand in all
the other Lines that were protracted from the said Point K, penetrating
the said Water, as for Example, in KG, KM, KL, KF, KE, and infinite
others of the like kind.
Ric. Indeed, Dear Companion, this your Explanation hath given me
great satisfaction; for, in my judgment, it seemeth that all the difficulty of
this Supposition consists in these two particulars which you have declared
to me.
Nic. It doth so; for having understood that the parts EH, HF, FL, LM,
andMG determining in the Circumference of the said Circle are equijacent,
it is an easie matter to understand the foresaid Supposition in Order,
which saith, That it is supposed that the Liquid is ofsuch a nature that the
part thereof less pressed or thrust is repulsed by the more thrust or
pressed. As for example, ifthe part EH were by chance more thrust, crowded,
or pressed from above downwards by the Liquid, or some other matter that
was over it, than the part HF, contiguous to it, it is supposed that the said
part HF, less pressed, would be repulsed by the said part EH. And thus
we ought to understand of the other parts equijacent, in case that they be
contiguous, and not severed. That each of the parts thereof is pressed
and repulsed by the Liquid that lieth over it Perpendicularly is manifest
by that which was said above, to wit, that it should be repulsed in case the
Liquid be descending into any place, and thrust, or driven, any whither
by another.
Ric. I understand this Supposition very well, but yet me thinks that
before the Supposition, the Author ought to have defined those two
particulars, which you first declared to me, that is, how we are to under-
stand the parts of the Liquid equijacent, and likewise the Perpendicular.
336 / Nic. You say truth.
Ric. I have another question to aske you, which is this, Why the Author
useth the word Liquid, or Humid,4 instead of Water.
Nic. It may be for two (! one) of these two Causes; the one is, that Water
being the principal of all Liquids, therefore saying Humidum he is to be
understood to mean the chief Liquid, that is Water. The other, because
that all the Propositions of this Book of his do not only hold true in Water
but also in every other Liquid, as in Wine, Oyl, and the like; and therefore
the Author might have used the word Humidum as being a word more
general than Aqua.
Ric. This I understand; therefore let us come to the first Proposition,
which as you know, in the Original speaks in this manner.
Prop. 1. Theor. 1.
IF ANY SUPERFICIES SHALL BE CUT BY A PLANE THOR-
OUGH ANY POINT, AND THE SECTION BE ALWAlES THE CIR-
CUMFERENCE OF A CIRCLE WHOSE CENTER IS THE SAID
POINT: THAT SUPERFICIES SHALL BE SPHERICAL.
Let any Superficies be cut at pleasure by a Plane thorow the Point
K [Fig. III.4.3B.2], and let the Section alwaies describe the Circumference
of a Circle that hath for its Center the Point K. I say, that that same Super-
ficies is Sphaerical. For were it possible
l
that the said Superficies were
not Sphaerical, then all the Lines drawn through the said Point K unto that
Superficies would not be equal. Let therefore A and B be two Points in
the said Superficies, so that drawing the two Lines KA and KB, let them,
if possible, be unequal. Then by [i.e. through] these two Lines let a Plane be
drawn cutting the said Superficies, and let the Section in the Superficies
make the Line DABG. Now this Line DABG is, by our pre-supposal,
a Circle, and the Center thereof is the Point K , for such the said Superficies
was supposed to be. Therefore the two Lines KA and KB are equal.
But they were also supposed to be unequal, which is impossible.
2
It
followeth therefore, of necessity, that the said Superficies be Sphaerical,
that is, the Superficies of a Sphaere.
Ric. I understand you very well; now let us proceed to the second
Proposition, which, you know, runs thus.
4 "Liquid, or Humid" translates the single Italian word humido.
Proposition I
1 Note the omission here of the Italian phrase "(per I'aversario)."
2 The statement "But ... impossible" implied in the argument is not in the Italian text. It
perhaps reflects the "sed et inaequales; quod fieri non potest" in Commandino's version.
337 / Prop. n. Theor. 1I.
THE SUPERFICIES OF EVERY LIQUID THAT IS CONSISTANTl
AND SETLED (!) SHALL BE OF A SPHAERICAL FIGURE, WHICH
FIGURE SHALL HAVE THE SAME CENTER WITH THE EARTH.
Let us suppose a Liquid that is of such a consistance as that it is not
moved, and that its Superficies be cut by a Plane along by the Center of
the Earth, and let the Center of the Earth be the Point K [Fig. III.4.3B.3]
and let the Section of the Superficies by the Line ABGD. I say that the
Line ABGD is the Circumference of a Circle, and that the Center thereof
is the Point K. And if it be possible that it may not be the Circumference
of a Circle, the Right-Lines drawn * by the Point K to the said line ABGD
shall not be equal. Therefore let a Right-Line be taken greater than some
of those produced from the Point K unto the said Line ABGD, and lesser
than some other; and upon the PointK let a Circle be described at the length
of that Line. Now the Circumference of this Circle shall fall part without
the said Line ABGD, and part within: it having been presupposed that its
Semidiameter is greater than some of those Lines that may be drawn from
the said Point K unto the said Line ABGD, and lesser than some other.
Let the Circumference of the described Circle be RBGH, and from B to K
draw the Right-LineBK; and drawn also the two Lines KR and KEL, which
make a Right-Angle in the Point K; and upon the Center K describe the
Circumference XOP in the Plane and in the Liquid. The parts, therefore,
of the Liquid that are t according to the Circumference XOP, for the
reasons alledged upon the first Supposition , are equijacent, or equiposited,
and contiguous to each other; and both these parts are prest or thrust,
according to the second part of the Supposition, by the Liquor which is
above them. And because the two Angles EKB and BKR are supposed
equal
2
, [by the 26. of3. of Euclid] the two Circumferences or Arches [i.e.,
arcs] BE and BR shall be equal (forasmuch as RBGH was a Circle de-
scribed for satisfaction of the Oponent, and Kits Center). And in like
manner the whole TriangleBEK shall be equal to the whole TriangleBRK.
338 And because also the Triangle OPK for the same reason / shall be equal to
the Triangle OXK, therefore (by common Notion) substracting those two
small Triangles OPK and OXK from the two othersBEK andBRK, the two
Remainders shall be equal: one of which Remainders shall be the Quad-
rangle BEOP, and the ther BRXO. And because the whole Quadrangle
BEOP is full of Liquor, and of the QuadrangleBRXO, the partBAXO only
is full, and the residueBRA is wholly void of Water: it followeth, therefore,
* Or through.
t i.e. Parallel.
1 This is a mistranslation, or at least an ambiguous translation, of the Latin consistentis,
which merely means here "being in the state." Hence the purport of the enunciation is that
the surface of the liquid exists in an immobile or static state.
2 I have added this comma and omitted one after "Euclid" in Salusbury's text.
that the Quadrangle BEOP is more ponderous than the Quadrangle
BRXO. And if the said Quadrangle BEOP be more Grave than the
Quadrangle BRXO, much more shall the Quadrangle BLOP exceed in
Gravity the said Quadrangle BRXO; whence it followeth that the part OP
is more pressed than the part OX. But, by the first part of the Supposition,
the part less pressed should be repulsed by the part more pressed. There-
fore the part OX must be repulsed by the part OP. But it was presupposed
that the Liquid did not move. Wherefore it would follow that the less
pressed would not be repulsed by the more pressed. And therefore it
followeth of necessity that the Line ABGD is the Circumference of a
Circle, and that the Center of it is the point K. And in like manner shall
it be demonstrated, if the Surface of the Liquid be cut by a Plane thorow
the Center of the Earth, that the Section shall be the Circumference of a
Circle, and that the Center of the same shall be that very Point which is
Center of the Earth. It is therefore manifest that the Superficies of a
Liquid that is consistant and setled shall have the Figure of a Sphaere,
the Center of which shall be the same with that of the Earth, by the
first Proposition; for it is such that being ever cut thorow the same Point,
the Section or Division describes the Circumference of a Circle which
hath for Center the self-same Point that is Center of the Earth, which was
to be demonstrated.
Ric. I do thorowly understand these your Reasons; and since there is in
them no umbrage of Doubting, let us proceed to his third Proposition.
Prop. Ill. Theor. Ill.
SOLIDMAGNITUDES THAT BEING OF EQUAL MASSl WITH
THE LIQUID ARE ALSO EQUAL TO IT IN GRAVITY, BEING
DEMITTED T O ~ THE [* SETLED]2 LIQUID, DO SO SUBMERGE
IN THE SAME AS THAT THEY LIE OR APPEAR NOT AT ALL
ABOVE THE S"NRFACE OF THE LIQUID, NORYET DO THEY SINK
TO THE BOTTOM.
339 / Nic. In this Proposition it is affirmed that those Solid Magnitudes that
happen to be equal in specifical Gravity with the Liquid being left at
liberty in the said Liquid do so submerge in the same as that they lie or
appear not at all above the Surface of the Liquid, nor yet do they go or sink
to the Bottom.
For supposing, on the contrary, that it were possible for one of those
Solids, being placed in the Liquid, to lie in part without the Liquid, that is
* I add the word setled, as necessary in making the Experiment.
1 The Latin was molis. Tartaglia's Italian word was grandezza. Thus by Mass Salusbury
means size or volume.
2 This is a marginal addition of Salusbury and is reflective of a proviso added below in the
proof.
....,
above its Surface (alwaies provided that the said Liquid be setled and
undisturbed), let us imagine any Plane produced thorow the Center of the
Earth, thorow the Liquid, and thorow that Solid Body, and let us imagine
that the Section of the Liquid is the Superficies ABGD [Fig. III.4.3B.4],
and the Section of the Solid Body that is within it the Superficies EZHT;
and let us suppose that Center of the Earth to be the Point K; and let the
part of the said Solid submerged in the Liquid beBGHT, and let that above
be BEZG; and let the Solid Body be supposed to be comprized in a
Pyramid that hath its Parallelogram Base in the upper Surface of the
Liquid and its Summity or Vertex in the Center of the Earth, which Pyra-
mid let us also suppose to be cut or divided by the same Plane in which is
the Circumference ABGD; and let the Sections of the Planes of the said
Pyramid be KL and KM; and in the Liquid about the Center K let there be
described a Superficies of another Sphaere below EZHT, which let be
XOP; and let this be cut by the Superficies of the Plane. And let there be
another Pyramid taken or supposed equal and like to that which compriseth
the said Solid Body, and contiguous and conjunct with the same; and let
the Sections of its Superficies be KM and KN; and let us suppose another
Solid to be taken or imagined, of Liquor, contained in that same Pyramid,
which let be RSCY, equal and like to the partial Solid BHGT, which is
immerged in the said Liquid. But the part of the Liquid which in the first
Pyramid is under the Superficies XO and that which in the other Pyramid
is under the Superficies OP are equijacent or equiposited and contiguous,
but are not pressed equally; for that which is under the Superficies XO
is pressed by the Solid THEZ and by the Liquor that is contained between
the two Spherical Superficies XO and LM and the Planes of the Pyramid,
but that which proceeds according to PO is pressed by the Solid RSCY
340 and by the Liquid I contained between the Sphaerical Superficies that
proceed according to PO and MN and the Planes of the Pyramid; and the
Gravity of the Liquid which is according to MNOP shall be lesser than
that which is according to LMX0; because that Solid of Liquor which
proceeds according to RSCY is less than the Solid EZHT (having been
supposed to be equal in quantity to only the part HBGT of that). And the
said Solid EZHT hath been supposed to be equally grave with the Liquid.
Therefore the Gravity of the Liquid comprised betwixt the two Sphaerical
SuperficiesLM andXO and betwixt the sides LX and MO of the Pyramid,
together with the whole Solid EZHT, shall exceed the Gravity of the
Liquid comprised betwixt the other two Sphaerical Superficies MN and OP
and the Sides MO and NP of the Pyramid, together with the Solid of
Liquor RSCY, by the quantity of the Gravity of the part EBZG supposed
to remain above the Surface of the Liquid. And therefore it is manifest that
the part which proceedeth according to the Circumference OP is pressed,
driven, and repulsed, according to the Supposition , by that which proceeds
according to the CircumferenceXO, by which means the Liquid would not
be setled and still. But we did presuppose that it was setled, namely so as
to be without motion. It followeth, therefore, that the said Solid cannot
in any part of it exceed or lie above the Superficies of the Liquid. And
also that being dimerged in the Liquid it cannot descend to the Bottom,
for that all the parts of the Liquid equijacent, or disposed equally, are
equally pressed, because the Solid is equally grave with the Liquid, by
what we presupposed.
Ric. I do understand your Argumentation, but I understand not that
Phrase Solid Magnitudes.
Nic. I will declare this Termunto you. Magnitude
3
is a general Word that
respecteth all the Species of Continual Quantity; and the Species of Con-
tinual Quantity are three, that is, the Line, the Superficies, and the Body;
which Body is also called a Solid, as having in itself Length, Breadth, and
Thickness, or Depth; and therefore that none might equivocate or take
that Term Magnitudes to be meant of Lines, or Superficies, but only of
Solid Magnitudes, that is, Bodies, he did specifie it by that manner of
expression, as was said. The truth is, that he might have exprest that
Proposition in this manner: Solids (or Bodies) which being of equal
Gravity with an equal Mass of the Liquid, etc. And this Proposition
would have been more cleer and intelligible, for it is as significant to say
a Solid, or, a Body, as to say a Solid Magnitude; therefore wonder not if
for the future I use these three kinds of words indifferently.
Ric. You have sufficiently satisfied me; wherefore that we may lose no
time let us go forwards to the fourth Proposition.
341 I Prop. IV. Theor. IV.
SOLID MAGNITUDES THAT ARE LIGHTER THANTHE LIQUID,
BEING DEMITTED INTO THE SETLEDl LIQUID, WILL NOT
TOTALLY SUBMERGE IN THE SAME, BUT SOME PART
THEREOF WILL LIE OR STAY ABOVE THE SURFACE OF THE
LIQUID.
Nic. In this fourth Proposition it is concluded that every Body or Solid
that is lighter (as to Specifical Gravity) than the Liquid, being put into the
Liquid, will not totally submerge in the same, but that some part of it will
stay and appear without the Liquid, that is above its Surface.
For supposing, on the contrary, that it were possible for a Solid more
light than the Liquid, being demitted in the Liquid to submerge totally in
the same, that is, so as that no part thereof remaineth above, or without,
the said Liquid (evermore supposing that the Liquid be so constituted as
that it be not moved), let us imagine any Plane produced thorow the Center
of the Earth, thorow the Liquid, and thorow that Solid Body, and that the
3 The word appearing in Moerbeke's translation (and Tartaglia's edition of it) is magnitudo.
In Tartaglia's Italian translation it is grandezza.
Proposition IV
1 Salusbury has again added "setled", i.e. immobile, but this time without calling atten-
tion to his addition.
Surface of the Liquid is cut by this Plane according to the Circumference
AG [Fig. III.4.3B.5], and the Solid Body according to the FigureR; and let
the Center of the Earth be K. And let there be imagined a Pyramid that
compriseth the Figure R, as was done in the precedent, that hath its Vertex
in the Point K, and let the Superficies of that Pyramid be cut by the
Superficies of the Plane ABG according to AK and KB . And let us imagine
another Pyramid equal and like to this, and let its Superficies be cut by
the Superficies ABG according to KB and KG; and let the Superficies
of another Sphaere be described in the Liquid upon the Center K and
beneath the Solid R; and let that be cut by the same Plane according to
XOP. And, lastly, let us suppose another Solid taken * from the Liquid
in this second Pyramid, which let be H, equal to the Solid R. Now the parts
of the Liquid, namely, that which is under the Spherical Superficies that
proceeds according to the Superficies or Circumference X0, in the first
Pyramid, and that which is under the Spherical Superficies that proceeds
according to the Circumference OP, in the second Pyramid, are equijacent,
342 and contiguous, but are not pressed equally; for / that of the first Pyramid
is pressed by the Solid R and by the Liquid which that containeth, that is,
that which is in the place of the Pyramid according to ABOX: but that
part which, in the other Pyramid, is pressed by the Solid H, supposed to
be of the same Liquid, and by the Liquid which that containeth, that is,
that which is in the place of the said Pyramid according to POBG; and
the Gravity of the Solid R is less than the Gravity of the Liquid H, for
that these two Magnitudes were supposed to be equal in Mass
2
, and
the Solid R was supposed to be lighter than the Liquid; and the Masses of
the two Pyramids of Liquor that containeth these two Solids Rand Hare
equal t by what was presupposed. Therefore the part of the Liquid that is
under the Superficies that proceeds according to the Circumference OP
is more pressed; and, therefore, by the Supposition, it shall repulse that
part which is less pressed; whereby the said Liquid will not be setled. But
it was before supposed that it was setled. Therefore that Solid R shall not
totally submerge, but some part thereof will remain without the Liquid,
that is, above its Surface, which was the Proposition.
Ric. I have very well understood you; therefore let us come to the fifth
Proposition which, as you know, doth thus speak.
Prop. V. Theor. V.
SOLIDMAGNITUDES THAT ARE LIGHTERTHAN THE LIQUID,
BEING DEMITTED IN THE (SETLED)l LIQUID, WILL SO FAR
SUBMERGE TILL THAT A MASS OF LIQUOR EQUAL TO THE
* That is a Mass of the Liquid.
t For that the Pyramids were supposed equal.
2 Here Salusbury renders grandezza by Mass. As before, it means size or volume.
Proposition V
1 Salusbury has added "setled" as in the two preceding propositions.
PART SUBMERGED DOTH IN GRAVITY EQUALIZE THE WHOLE
MAGNITUDE.
Nic. It having, in the precedent, been demonstrated that Solids lighter
than the Liquid, being demitted in the Liquid, alwaies a part of them
remains without the Liquid, that is above its Surface, in this fifthProposi-
tion it is asserted that so much of such a Solid shall submerge as that
a Mass of the Liquid equal to the part submerged shall have equal Gravity
with the whole Solid.
And to demonstrate this, let us assume all the same Schemes [Le.
figures] as before in Proposition 3, and likewise let the Liquid
be setled, and let the Solid EZHT be lighter than the Liquid. Now if the
said Liquid be setled, the parts of it that are equijacent are equally pressed.
343 Therefore the Liquid that is beneath / the Superficies that proceed
according to the Circumferences XV and PO are [i.e., is] equally pressed
[Fig. III.4.3B.6]; whereby the Gravity pressed is equal. But the Gravity
of the Liquid which is in the first Pyramid * without the Solid BHTG is
equal to the Gravity of the Liquid which is in the other Pyramid without
the Liquid RSCY. It is manifest, therefore, that the Gravity of the Solid
EZHT is equal to the Gravity of the Liquid RSCY. Therefore it is manifest
that a Mass of Liquor equal in Mass to the part of the Solid submerged
is equal in Gravity to the whole Solid.
Ric. This was a pretty Demonstration; and because I very well
understand it, let us lose no time, but proceed to the sixth Proposition,
speaking thus.
Prop. VI. Theor. VI.
SOLID MAGNITUDES LIGHTER THAN THE LIQUID, BEING
THRUST INTO THE LIQUID, ARE REPULSED UPWARDS WITH
A FORCE AS GREAT AS IS THE EXCESS OF THE GRAVITY OF
A MASS OF LIQUOR EQUAL TO THE MAGNITUDE ABOVE THE
GRAVITY OF THE SAID MAGNITUDE.
Nic. This sixth Proposition saith that the Solids lighter than the Liquid
demitted, thrust, or trodden by Force underneath the Liquids Surface,
are returned or driven upwards with so much Force by how much a
quantity of the liquid equal to the Solid shall exceed the said Solid in
Gravity.
And to delucidate this Proposition, let the Solid A [Fig. III.4.3B.7]
be lighter than the liquid, and let us suppose that the Gravity of the
said Solid A is B; and let the Gravity of a Liquid, equal in Mass to A,
be BG. I say that the Solid A, depressed or demitted with Force into
the said Liquid, shall be returned and repulsed upwards with a Force
equal to the Gravity G. And to demonstrate this Proposition, take the
Solid D, equal in Gravity to the said G. Now the Solid compounded of
the two Solids A and D will be lighter than the Liquid, for the Gravity
* without, i.e. that being deducted.
of the Solid compounded of them both is BG, and the Gravity of as
much Liquor as equalleth in greatness the Solid A is greater than the
344 said Gravity BG, / for that BG is the Gravity of the Liquid equal
in Mass unto it. 1 Therefore the Solid compounded of those two Solids
A and D, being dimerged, it shall, by the precedent, so much of it sub-
merge as that a quantity of the Liquid equal to the said submerged part
shall have equal Gravity with the said compounded Solid. And for an
example of that Proposition let the Superficies of any Liquid be that
which proceedeth according to the CircumferenceABGD. Because now a
Mass or quantity of Liquor as big as the Mass A hath equal Gravity
with the whole compounded Solid AD, it is manifest that the submerged
part thereof shall be the Mass A; and the remainder, namely, the part
D, shall be wholly atop, that is, above the Surface of the Liquid. It is
therefore evident that the part A hath so much virtue or Force to return
upwards, that is, to rise from below above the Liquid, as that which is
upon it, to wit, the part D, hath to press it downwards, for that [i.e.,
because] neither part is repulsed by the other. But D presseth downwards
with a Gravity equal to G, it having been supposed that the Gravity of
that part D was equal to G. Therefore that is manifest which was to be
demonstrated.
Ric. This was a fine Demonstration, and from this I perceive that you
collected your Industrious Invention, and especially that part of it which
you insert in the first Book for the recovering of a Ship sunk; and, indeed,
I have many Questions to ask you about that, but I will not now interrupt
the Discourse in hand, but desire that we may go on to the seventh
Proposition, the purport whereof is this.
Prop. VII. Theor. VII.
SOLID MAGNITUDES HEAVIER THAN THE LIQUID, BEING
DEMITTED INTO THE [SETLED] LIQUID, ARE BOREN (I)
DOWNWARDS AS FAR AS THEY CAN DESCEND, AND SHALL
BE LIGHTER IN THE LIQUID BY THE GRAVITY OF A LIQUID
MASS OF THE SAME BIGNESS WITH THE SOLID MAGNITUDE.
Nic. This seventh Proposition hath two parts to be demonstrated.
The first is that all Solids heavier than the Liquid, being demitted into
the Liquid, are boren (I) by their Gravities downwards as far as they
can descend, that is untill they arrive at the Bottom. Which first part
is manifest, because the Parts of the Liquid which still lie under that
Solid are more pressed than the others equijacent, because that that Solid
345 is supposed more grave than the Liquid. / But now that that Solid is
lighter in the Liquid than out of it, as is affirmed in the second part,
Proposition VI
1 Salusbury has corrected the rather truncated sentence of Tartaglia (q.v.) on the basis
of Commandino's text (q.v.).
shall be demonstrated in this manner. Take a Solid, as suppose A [Fig.
11I.4.3B.8], that is more grave than the Liquid, and suppose the Gravity
of that same SolidA to beBG. And of a Mass of Liquor of the same bigness
with the Solid A, suppose the Gravity to be B. It is to be demonstrated
that the Solid A, immerged in the Liquid, shall have a Gravity equal to G.
And to demonstrate this, let us imagine another Solid, as suppose D,
more light than the Liquid, but of such a quality as that its Gravity is
equal to B, and let this D be of such a Magnitude that a Mass of Liquor
equal to it hath its Gravity equal to the Gravity BG. Now these two
Solids D and A being compounded together, all that Solid compounded
of these two shall be equally Grave with the Water: because the Gravity
of these two Solids together shall be equal to these two Gravities, that is,
to BG, and to B, and the Gravity of a Liquid that hath its Mass equal
to these two Solids A and D, shall be equal to these two Gravities BG
and B. Let these two Solids, therefore, be put in the Liquid, and they shall
* remain in the Surface of that Liquid,
l
(that is, they shall not be drawn
or driven upwards, nor yet downwards). For if the Solid A be more grave
than the Liquid, it shall be drawn or born by its Gravity downwards
towards the Bottom with as much Force as by the Solid D it is thrust
upwards. And because the Solid D is lighter than the Liquid, it shall
raise it upward with a Force as great as the Gravity G, because it hath
been demonstrated, in the sixthProposition , that Solid Magnitudes that are
lighter than the Water, being demitted in the same, are repulsed or driven
upwards with a Force so much the greater by how much a Liquid of equal
Mass with the Solid is more Grave than the said Solid. But the Liquid
which is equal in Mass with the Solid D is more grave than the said
Solid D by the Gravity G. Therefore it is manifest that the Solid A is
pressed or born downwards towards the Centre of the World with a
Force as great as the Gravity G, which was to be demonstrated.
Ric. This hath been an ingenuous (I) Demonstration; and in regard I
do sufficiently understand it, that we may lose no time, we will proceed
to the second Supposition, which, as I need not tell you, speaks thus.
346 /SUPPOSITION 11.
IT IS SUPPOSED THAT THOSE SOLIDS WHICH ARE MOVED
UPWARDS DO ALL ASCEND ACCORDING TO THE PERPEN-
DICULAR WHICH IS PRODUCED THOROW THEIR CENTRE OF
GRAVITY.
* Or, according to Commandine, shall be equall in Gravity to the Liquid neither moving
upwards or downwards.
1 This reflects Tartaglia's addition to Moerbeke's text, which is more accurately expressed
in Commandino' s text. Salusbury has translated the latter in his marginal note.
Commandine.
And those which are moved downwards descend likewise according
to the Perpendicular that is produced thorow their Centre of Gravity,
which he pretermitted either as known or as to be collected [i.e. inferred]
from what went before.
1
[Tartaglia. ]
Nic. For understanding of this second Supposition, it is requisite to take
notice that every Solid that is lighter than the Liquid, being by violence,
or by some other occasion, submerged in the Liquid, and then left at
liberty, it shall, by that which hath been proved in the sixth Proposition,
be thrust or born (!) upwards by the Liquid, and that impulse or thrusting
is supposed to be directly according to the Perpendicular that is produced
thorow the Centre of Gravity of that Solid; which Perpendicular, if you
well remember, is that which is drawn in the Imagination from the Centre
of the World, or of the Earth, unto the Centre of Gravity of that Body or
Solid.
Ric. How may one find the Centre of Gravity of a Solid?
Nic. This he sheweth in that Book intituled(!) De Centris Gravium,
vel de Aequiponderantibus; and therefore repair thither and you shall
be satisfied, for to declare it to you in this place would cause very great
confusion.
Ric. I understand you; some other time we will talk of this, because I
have amind at present to proceed to the last Proposition, the Exposition
of which seemeth to me very confused, and, as I conceive, the Author
hath not therein shewn all the Subject of that Proposition in general,
but only a part: which Proposition speaketh, as you know, in this form.
Prop. VIII. Theor. VIII.
IF ANY SOLID MAGNITUDE, LIGHTER THAN THE LIQUID, A
THAT HATH THE FIGURE OF A PORTION OF A SPHAERE SHALL B
BE DEMITTED INTO THE LIQUID IN SUCH A MANNER AS THAT
THE BASE OF THE PORTION TOUCH NOT THE LIQUID, THE
FIGURE SHALL STAND ERECTLY SO AS THAT THE AXIS OF
THE SAID PORTION SHALL BE ACCORDING TO THE PERPEN-
DICULAR. AND IF THE FIGURE SHALL BE INCLINED TO
ANY SIDE SO AS THAT THE BASE OF THE PORTION TOUCH
THE LIQUID, IT SHALL NOT CONTINUE SO INCLINED AS IT
WAS DEMITTED, BUT SHALL RETURN TO ITS UPRIGHTNESS.l
Supposition II
1 I have discussed the importance of Commandino's comment in my general remarks on
his contributions preceding Text A.
Proposition VIII
1 Salusbury follows Commandino in separating this proposition from the ninth. I have
discussed this above in my general description ofCommandino's contributions. For the first
time Salusbury has here added the marginal capital letters referring to Commandino's com-
347 IFor the declaration of this Proposition, let a Solid Magnitude that
hath the Figure of a portion of a Sphaere, as hath been said, be imagined
to be demitted into the Liquid; and also let a Plain be supposed to be
produced thorow the Axis of that portion, and thorow the Center of the
Earth; and let the Section of the Surface of the Liquid be the Circum-
ference ABCD [Fig. III.4.3B.9], and of the Figure, the Circumference
EFH, and let EH be a right line, and FT the Axis of the Portion. If now it
were possible, for satisfaction of the Adversary, let it be supposed that
the said Axis were not according to the (a) Perpendicular; we are then
to demonstrate, that the Figure will not continue as it was constituted
by the Adversary, but that it will return, as hath been said, unto its
former position, that is, that the Axis FT shall be according to the Per-
pendicular. It is manifest, by the.Corollary of the 1. of 3. Euclide ,2 that
the Center of the Sphaere is in the Line FT, forasmuch as that is the
Axis of that Figure. And in regard that the Portion of a Sphaere may be
greater or lesser than an Hemisphaere, and may also be an Hemisphaere,
let the Centre of the Sphaere in the Hemisphaere be the Point T [Fig.
III.4.3B.9(b)], and in the lesser Portion the Point P [Fig. (c)], and in the
greater, the Point K [Fig. (a)], and let the Centre of the Earth be the
Point L. And speaking first of that greater Portion which hath its Base out
of, or above, the Liquid,3 thorow the Points K and L draw the Line
KL cutting the Circumference EFH in the Point N. Now, because every c
Portion of a Sphaere hath its Axis in the Line that from the Centre of
the Sphaere is drawn perpendicular unto its Base, and hath its Centre of
Gravity in the Axis, therefore that Portion of the Figure which is within
348 the Liquid, which is compounded of two Por/tions of a Sphaere, shall
have its Axis in the Perpendicular that is drawn through the point K;
and its Centre of Gravity, for the same reason, shall be in the Line NK; let
us suppose it to be the Point R. But the Centre of Gravity of the whole D
Portion is in the Line FT betwixt the Point R (I K) and the Point F; let
us suppose it to be the Point X. The remainder, therefore, of that Figure E
elivated (I) above the Surface of the Liquid hath its Centre of Gravity in
(a) Perpendicular is taken here, as in all other places by this Author for the Line KL
drawn thorow the Centre and Circumference of the Earth.
mentary, which Salusbury also includes for this and the succeeding proposition. Notice
that, while Salusbury has included Commandino's reconstructed proof of Proposition VIII
missing in the Moerbeke translation, he has also taken over in this place Tartaglia's rather
general remarks with which the latter introduced his discussion of the proof of the second
part (i.e. Proposition IX). So these statements of Tartaglia are allowed to stand before the
reconstructed proof of Commandino.
2 This reference to Euclid was added by Tartaglia and of course specifically pertains to
the center of a circle rather than to that of a sphere. We should also note that Salusbury's
marginal comment (a) above calls attention to the use of the term' 'perpendicular" to stand
for any line that passes through a center of gravity and is perpendicular to the circum-
ference of the earth. I have stressed in the general discussion above that Archimedes
considered the surface of a liquid to be spherical in Book I (with its center the center of
the earth) and flat in Book 11.
a It is at this point that Salusbury diverges from Tartaglia's account toward Commandino's
reconstructed proof.
the Line RX produced or continued right out in the Part towards X, taken
so that the part prolonged may have the same proportion to XR that the
Gravity of that Portion that is demerged in the Liquid hath to the Gravity
of that Figure which is above the Liquid; let us suppose that *that Centre
of the said Figure be the Point S; and thorow that same Centre S draw
the Perpendicular LS. Now the Gravity of the Figure that is above the F
Liquid shall presse from above downwards according to the Perpendicular
SL; and the Gravity of the Portion that is submerged in the Liquid shall
presse from below upwards according to the Perpendicular RL. There-
fore that Figure will not continue according to our Adversaries Pro-
posall (I), but those parts of the said Figure which are towards E shall
be born or drawn downwards, & those which are towards H shall be born
or driven upwards, and this shall be so long untill that the Axis FT comes
to be according to the Perpendicular.
And this same Demonstration is in the same manner verified in the
other Portions.
4
As, first, in the Haemisphere that lieth with its whole
Base above or without the Liquid, the Centre of the Sphaere hath been
supposed to be the Point T [Fig. Cb)]; and therefore, imagining T to be in
the place in which, in the other above mentioned, the Point R (! K) was,
arguing in all things else as you did in that, you shall find that the
Figure which is above the Liquid shall press from above downwards
according to the Perpendicular SL; and the Portion that is submerged in
the Liquid shall press from below upwards according to the Perpendicular
RL. And therefore it shall follow, as in the other, namely, that the parts
of the whole Figure which are towards E shall be born or pressed down-
wards, and those that are towards H shall be born or driven upwards;
and this shall be so long untill that the Axis FT come to stand tPerpen-
349 dicular/ly. The like shall also hold true in the Portion of the Sphaere
less than an Hemisphere that lieth with its whole Base above the Liquid
[Fig. Cc)].
Commandine.
The Demonstration of this Proposition is defaced by the Injury of Time,
which we have restored so far as by the Figures that remain one may
collect the Meaning of Archimedes, for we thought it not good to alter
them; and what was wanting to their declaration and explanation we have
supplyed in our Commentaries, as we have also determined to do in the
second Proposition of the second Book.
,'If any Solid Magnitude lighter than the Liquid. " These words, "lighter A
than the Liquid," are added by us, and are not to be found in the
* Le. the Center of gravity.
t Or according to the perpendicular.
4 Here ends Commandino's reconstructed proof. The remainder of the proof added by
Salusbury merely repeats the end of the principal demonstration, adapting it to the case
where the floating segment is a hemisphere.
Translation: for of these kind of Magnitudes doth Archimedes speak
5
in this Proposition.
"Shall be demitted into the Liquid in such a manner as that the Base B
of the Portion touch not the Liquid." That is, shall be so demitted into
the Liquid as that the Base shall be upwards and the Vertex downwards,
which he opposeth to that which he saith in the Proposition following;
"Be demitted into the Liquid so as that its Base be wholly within the
Liquid" for these words signifie the Portion demitted the contrary way,
as namely, with the Vertex upwards and the Base downwards. The same
manner of speech is frequently used in the Second Book, which treateth of
the Portions of Rectangle Conoids.
"Now because every Portion of a Sphaere hath its Axis in the Line that c
from the Center of the Sphaere is drawn perpendicular to its Base."
For draw a Line from B to C [Fig. III.4.3B.1O], and let KL cut the
Circumference ABCD in the Point G and the Right Line BC in M; and
because the two Circles ABCD and EFH do cut one another in the Points
Band C, the Right Line that conjoyneth their Centers, namely KL, doth
cut the Line BC in two equall parts, and at Right Angles, as in our
Commentaries upon Ptalomeys Planisphaere we do prove.
6
But of the
Portion of the Circle BNC the Diameter is MN; and of the Portion BGC
the Diameter is MG; for the (a) Right Lines which are drawn on both
sides parallel to BC do make Right Angles with NG; and (b) for that
cause are thereby cut in two equall parts. Therefore the Axis of the
Portion of the Sphaere BNC is NM; and the Axis of the Portion BGC
is MG; from whence it followeth that the Axis of the Portion demerged
in the Liquid is in the Line KL, namely NG. And since the Center of
Gravity of any Portion of a Sphaere is in the Axis, as we have demon-
strated in our Book De Centro Gravitatis Solidorum,7 the Centre of
Gravity of the Magnitude compounded of both the PortionsBNC andBGC,
that is, of the Portion demerged in the Water, is in the Line NG that
doth conjoyn the Centers of Gravity of those Portions of Sphaeres. For
suppose, if possible, that it be out of the Line NG, as in Q, and let the
Center of the Gravity of the Portion BNC be V, and draw VQ. Because
therefore from the Portion demerged in the Liquid the Portion of the
Sphaere BNC, not having the same Center of Gravity, is cut off, the
Center of Gravity of the Remainder of the Portion BGC shall, by the 8
350 of the first Book of Archimedes, De Centra Gravitatis / Planarum,
8
be
in the Line VQ prolonged. But that is impossible; for it is in the Axis
(a) By 29. of the first of Eucl.
(b) By 3. of the third.
5 Salusbury changes the passive "agitur" to the active "doth Archimedes speak."
6 Ptolemaei planisphaerium (Venice, 1558), "Federici Commandini ... Commen-
tarius," 23v.
7 (Bologna, 1565), 21r: "Theorema XI. Propositio XV."
8 See above, VoI. 2, 17vE-F.

MG; it followeth, therefore, that the Center of Gravity of the Portion de-
merged in the Liquid be in the Line NK, which we propounded to be
proved.
"But the Centre of Gravity of the whole Portion is in the Line FT D
betwixt the PointR (! K) and the PointF; let us suppose it to be the Point
X. " Let the Sphere be compleated, so as that there be added of that Portion
the Axis TY and the Center of Gravity Z [see again Fig. 1II.4.3B.1O].
And because that from the whole sphaere, whose Centre of Gravity is
K, as we have also demonstrated in the (c) Book before named, there is
cut off the Portion EYH, having the Centre of Gravity Z, the Centre of
the remainder of the Portion EFH shall be in the Line ZK prolonged.
And therefore it must of necessity fall betwixt K and F.
"The remainder, therefore, of the Figure elevated above the Surface E
of the Liquid hath its Center of Gravity in the Line RX prolonged." By
the same 8 of the first Book ofArchimedes ,de Centro Gravitatis Planorum.
"Now the Gravity of the Figure that is above the Liquid shall press F
from above downwards according to SL; and the Gravity of the Portion
that is submerged in the Liquid shall press from below upwards accord-
ing to the Perpendicular RL." By the second Supposition of this. For
the Magnitude that is demerged in the Liquid is moved upwards with as
much Force along RL as that which is above the Liquid is moved down-
wards along SL, as may be shewn by Proposition 6. of this. And because
they are moved along severall other Lines, neither causeth the others
being less moved; the which it continually doth when the Portion is set
according to the Perpendicular, for then the Centers of Gravity of both
the Magnitudes do concur in one and the same Perpendicular, namely,
in the Axis of the Portion, and look with what force or Impetus that
which is in the Liquid tendeth upwards, and with the like doth that which
is above or without the Liquid tend downwards along the same Line. And
therefore, in regard that the one doth not *exceed the other, the Por-
tion shall no longer move, but shall stay and rest allwayes in one and
the same Position unless some extrinsick Cause chance to intervene.
Prop. IX. Theor. IX.
tBUT IF THE FIGURE, LIGHTER THAN THE LIQUID, BE DE-
MITTED INTO THE LIQUID SO AS THAT ITS BASE BE WHOLLY
WITHIN THE SAID LIQUID, IT SHALL CONTINUE IN SUCH
MANNER ERECT AS THAT ITS AXIS SHALL STAND ACCORDING
TO THE PERPENDICULAR.
1
(c) By 8. of the first of Archimedes.
* Or overcome.
t In some Greek copies this is no distinct Proposition, but all Commentators do divide it
from the Precedent, as having a distinct demonstration in the Originall.
Proposition IX
1 As I have indicated above, Salisbury follows Commandino in separating the enuncia-
tions of Propositions VIII and IX, though they were considered two parts of the same
For suppose such a Magnitude as that aforenamed to be demitted into
the Liquid; and imagine a Plane to be produced thorow the Axis of the
Portion, and thorow the Center of the Earth. And let the Section of the
Surface of the Liquid be the Circumference ABeD [Fig. III.4.3B.ll],
and of the Figure the Circumference EFH. And let EH be a Right Line,
and FT the Axis of the Portion. If now it were possible, for satisfaction
of the Adversary,
2
let it be supposed that the said Axis were not according
to the Perpendicular; we are now to demonstrate that the Figure will not
351 so conti/nue [to be inclined] but will return to be according to the Per-
pendicular. It is manifest that the Centre of the Sphaere is in the Line
FT. And again, forasmuch as the Portion of a Sphaere may be greater
or lesser than an Hemisphaere, and may also be an Hemisphaere, let
the Centre of the Sphaere in the Hemisphaere be the Point T [Fig. (b)],
and in the lesser Portion the PointP [Fig. (c)] and in the Greater the Point
R [1 KP [Fig. (a)]. And speaking first of that greater Portion which hath its
Base within the Liquid, thorow R (! K) and L, the Earths Centre, draw
the line RL (! KL). The Portion that is above the Liquid hath its Axis in A
the Perpendicular passing thorow R (! K); and by what hath been said
before, its Centre of Gravity shall be in the Line NR (! NK); let it be the
Point R. But the Centre of Gravity of the whole Portion is in the line
FT betwixt R (! K) and F; let it be X. The remainder therefore of that
Figure, which is within the Liquid shall have its Centre in the Right
Line RX prolonged in the part towards X, taken so that the part prolonged
proposition by Tartaglia in his Italian translation. Salusbury's marginal comment has an
element of plausibility, for in neither manuscript 0 (and its copies, manuscripts M and
Ba) nor in Greek manuscript C is a separate proposition number given for Proposition IX.
This, coupled with the absence of a proof for Proposition VIII, might well suggest that the
Greek manuscript on which Moerbeke based his translation did not (as did the Commen-
tators) "divide it from the Precedent." However, it should be stressed that there were in
the Renaissance no extant Greek manuscripts including this work but only fragments of
enunciations from the first book that appear to have been turned back into Greek from
Moerbeke's Latin translation (see the fragments edited by Angelus Maius and republished
by Heiberg in the first edition of his Archimedis opera omnia, Vol. 2 [Leipzig, 1881], pp.
356-58). The oldest manuscript of this collection is Vat. Gr. 1316 of the sixteenth century
(see Heiberg, "Archimedis 7TEpt 0XOVjLEVWV liber I," Melanges Graux [Paris, 1884], p.
690). But Salusbury could hardly have been referring to this collection since it does not con-
tain the enunciation of the ninth proposition. Another collection of reconstructed
Greek enunciations appears in David Rivault's edition: Archimedis opera quae extant
(Paris, 1615), pp. 491-501, where, however, the separation into distinct propositions is
made. Hence, Salusbury's reference to "some Greek copies" can only be an inference
resting ultimately on the state of Moerbeke's exemplar (Greek manuscript B) as reflected
in Tartaglia's Latin text and Italian translation. I suppose that when Salusbury refers to
"all Commentators" in his marginal note, he in fact intends only Commandino and
Ri vault.
2 This phrase was not in Commandino's text but was added by Salusbury in imitation
of Tartaglia's practice.
3 This is the first of a series of errors of Salusbury where he has incorrectly sub-
stituted the letter R for the letter K. He had omitted the letter K from Fig. III.4.3B.ll(a)
but had placed R correctly. The mistakes are so obvious as to suggest that they were
made by the printer rather than by Salusbury.
may have the same Proportion to XR that the Gravity of the Portion
that is above the Liquid hath to the Gravity of the Figure that is within
the Liquid. Let a be the Centre of that same Figure, and thorow a draw
the Perpendicular La. Now the Gravity of the Portion that is above the
Liquid shall press according to the Right Line RL downwards, and the
Gravity of the Figure that is in the Liquid according to the Right Line
OL upwards. There the Figure shall not continue [to be inclined], but the
parts of it towards H shall move downwards, and those towards E upwards,
and this shall ever be, so long as [Le. until] FT is according to the
Perpendicular.
Commandine.
"The Portion that is above the Liquid hath its Axis in the Perpendicular A
passing thorowK." For draw BC cutting the Line NK in M [Fig. III.4.3B.12];
and let NK cut the Circumference ABCD in G. In the same manner as
352 before we will demonstrate that the Axis / of the Portion of the Sphaere
[BNC] is NM; and of the Portion BGC the Axis is GM. Wherefore the
Centre of Gravity of them both shall be in the Line NM. And because
that from the Portion BNC the Portion BGC, not having the same Centre
of Gravity, is cut off, the Centre of Gravity of the remainder of the
Magnitude that is above the Surface of the Liquid shall be in the Line NK,
namely, in the Line which conjoyneth the Centres of Gravity of the said
Portions, by the foresaid 8 of Archimedis de Centro Gravitatis Planorum.
[Tartaglia. ]
Nic. Truth is, that in some of these Figures C is put for X, and so it
was in the Greek Copy that I followed.
4
Ric. This Demonstration is very difficult, to my thinking; but I believe
that it is because I have not in memory the Propositions of that Book
entituled De Centris Gravium.
Nic. It is so.
Ric. We will take a more convenient time to discourse of that, and now
return to speak of the two last Propositions. And I say that the Figures A'
incerted (I) in the demonstration would, in my opinion, have been
better and more intelligible unto me, drawing the Axis [FT] according to
its proper Position; that is in the half Arch [Le. midpoint of the arcs] of
these Figures, and then, to second [Le. to represent] the Objection of the
4 See Figs. III.4.2.20(a,b,c) in the preceding section. Salusbury reverses Tartaglia's state-
ment which pointed out that "In these second figures [Figs. IIIA.2.21(a,b,c)) the letter
X is put in place of C [marked] in the first figures." I have already pointed out in the
preceding section that Tartaglia did not say' 'in the Greek copy that I followed," as Salus-
bury has him saying but rather simply "'in the Greek exemplar," thus leaving ambiguous
the identity of the person who had seen the Greek exemplar. Salusbury's statement re-
flects his inference that Tartaglia had translated the work from the Greek.
Adversary, to suppose that the said Figures stood somewhat Obliquely
to the end that the said Axis, if it were possible, did not stand according
to the Perpendicular so often mentioned, which doing, the Proposition
would be proved in the same manner as before; and this way would be
more naturall and clear.
Nic. You are in the right; but because thus they were in the Greek 8'
Copy, I thought not fit to alter them, although unto the better.
Ric. Companion, you have thorowly satisfied me in all that in the
beginning of our Discourse I asked of you; tomorrow, God permitting,
we will treat of some other ingenious Novelties.
The Translator.
"I say that the Figures, etc. would have been more intelligible to me, A'
drawing the Axis ZT according to its proper Position, that is in the
half Arch of these Figures." And in this consideration I have followed
the Schemes of Commandine, who, being the Restorer of the Demonstra-
tions of these two last Propositions, hath well considered what Ricardo
here proposeth, and therefore hath drawn the said Axis (which in the
Manuscripts that he had by him is lettered FT, and not as in that of
Tartaylia (1) ZT)5 according to that its proper Position.
"But because thus they were in the Greek Copy, I thought not fit to 8'
alter them although unto the better." The Schemes of those Manuscripts
that Tartaylia had seen were more imperfect then those in Commandines
Copies; but for variety sake, take here one of Tartaylia [Fig. III.4.3B.13],
it being that of the Portion of a Sphaere equall to an Hemisphaere with
its Axis oblique, and its Base dimitted into the Liquid, and Lettered as in
this Edition.
Now Courteous Readers, I hope that you may, amidst the great Obscu-
rity of the Originall in the Demonstrations of these two last Propositions,
be able from the joynt light of these two Famous Commentators of our
more famous Author to discern the truth of the Doctrine affirmed, namely,
that Solids of the Figure of Portions of Sphaeres demitted into the
Liquid with their Bases upwards shall stand erectly, that is, with their
Axis according to the Perpendicular drawn from the Centre of the Earth
unto its Circumference; and that if the said Portions be demitted with their
Bases oblique and touching the Liquid in one Point, they shall not rest
in that Obliquity, but shall return to Rectitude; and that lastly, if these
Portions be demitted with their Bases downwards, they shall continue
erect with their Axis according to the Perpendicular aforesaid; so that no
more remains to be done but that we set before you the 2 Books [i.e.
the 2nd book] of this our Admirable Author.
:; This statement is true, except that Commandino's copy certainly did not have FT as
Salusbury suggests. Commandino's use of FT instead of ZT is only one example of his
practice of changing Moerbeke's letters to the Latin order of letters.
353 / ARCHIMEDES,
His Tract
De
Insidentibus Humido,
Or
Of the Natation of Bodies Upon, or
Submersion in the Water, or Other Liquids.
BOOK H.
Prop. I. Theor. I.
IF ANY MAGNITUDE LIGHTER THAN THE LIQUID BE DE-
MITTED INTO THE SAID LIQUID, IT SHALL HAVE THE SAME
PROPORTION IN GRAVITY TO A LIQUID OF EQUAL MASSE,
l
THAT THE PART OF THE MAGNITUDE DEMERGED HATH
UNTO THE WHOLE MAGNITUDE.
For let any Solid Magnitude, as for instance FA [Fig. HI.4.3B.14],
lighter than the Liquid, be demerged in the Liquid, which let be FA.
2
And let the part thereof immerged be A, and the part above the Liquid
F. It is to be demonstrated that the Magnitude FA hath the same propor-
tion in Gravity to a Liquid of Equall Masse that A hath to FA. Take
any Liquid Magnitude, as suppose NI, of equall Masse with FA; and let
F be equall to N, and A to I; and let the Gravity of the whole Magnitude
FA be B, and let that of the Magnitude NI be 0 (! OR), and let that of
I be R. Now the Magnitude FA hath the same proportion unto NI that
the Gravity B hath to the Gravity OR. But for as much as the Magnitude
FA demitted into the Liquid is lighter than the said Liquid, it is manifest
that a Masse of the Liquid, I, equall to the part of the Magnitude
demerged, A, hath equall Gravity with the whole Magnitude, FA, for this
was (a) above demonstrated. But B is the Gravity of the Magnitude
354 FA, and R of I. / Therefore Band Rare equall. And because that of the
Magnitude FA the Gravity is B, therefore of the Liquid Body NI the
Gravity is OR. As FA is to NI, so is B to OR, or, so is R to OR. But
asR is to OR, so isI toNI, and A toFA. Therefore I is to NI as FA to NI.
And asI to NI so is (b) A to FA . Therefore FA is to NI asA is toFA, which
was to be demonstrated.
(a) By 5. of the first of this.
(b) By 11. of the fifth of Euclid.
1 i.e., size or volume. See above, Bk. I, Prop. Ill, n. 1.
2 The phrase "which let be FA" is redundant with "as for instance FA" and so one or
the other ought to be eliminated. The phrase appears only once in Commandino's text.
Prop. H. Theor. H.
* THE RIGHT PORTION OF A RIGHT ANGLED CONOIDE, A
WHEN IT SHALL HAVE ITS AXIS LESSE THAN SESQUIALTER
EJUS QUAE AD AXEM (OR OF ITS SEMI-PARAMETER) HAVING
ANY WHATEVER PROPORTION [LESS THAN ONE] TO THE
LIQUID IN GRAVITY, 1 BEING DEMITTED INTO THE LIQUID
SO AS THAT ITS BASE TOUCH NOT THE SAID LIQUID, AND
BEING SET STOOPING, IT SHALL NOT REMAIN STOOPING,
BUT SHALL BE RESTORED TO UPRIGHTNESSE. I SAY THAT
THE SAID PORTION SHALL STAND UPRIGHT WHEN THE
PLANE THAT CUTS IT SHALL BE PARALLEL UNTO THE
SURFACE OF THE LIQUID.
Let there be a Portion of a Rightangled Conoid, as hath been said;
and let it lye stooping or inclining. It is to be demonstrated that it will
not so continue but shall be restored to rectitude. For let it be cut through
the Axis by a plane erect upon the Surface of the Liquid, and let the Sec-
tion of the Portion be APOL [Fig. HI.4.3B.15], the Section of a Right-
angled Cone; and let the Axis of the Portion and Diameter of the Section
be NO. And let the Section of the Surface of the Liquid be IS. If now the
Portion be not erect, then neither shall AL be Parallel to IS. Wherefore
NO will not be at Right Angles with IS. Draw therefore Kw, touching
the Section of the Cone I in the Point P t [that is parallel to IS; and
from the Point P unto IS draw PF parallel unto ON, * which shall be the B
Diameter of the SectionIPOS and the Axis of the Portion demerged in the
Liquid. In the next place take the Centres of Gravity; * and of the Solid c
Magnitude APOL let the Centre of Gravity beR ; and ofIPOS let the Centre
be B; * and draw a Line from B to R prolonged unto G, which let be the D
355 Centre of Gravity of the I remaining Figure ISLA . Because now that NO is
Sesquialter of RO, but less than Sesquialter ejus quae usque ad Axem (or
of its Semi-parameter), * RO shall be lesse than quae usque ad Axem (or E
than the Semi-parameter); * whereupon the Angle RPw shall be acute. F
For since the Line quae usque ad Axem (or Semi-parameter) is greater
than RO, that Line which is drawn from the Point R and perpendicular
to Kw, namely RT, meeteth with the line FP without the Section, and
for that cause must of necessity fall between the PointsP and w. Therefore
if Lines be drawn through Band G parallel unto RT, they shall contain
Right Angles with the Surface of the Liquid; * and the part that is within G
the Liquid shall move upwards according to the Perpendicular that is
drawn thorow B parallel to RT,2 and the part that is above the Liquid
t Supplied by Federico Commandino.
1 The identification of the "line-to-the-axis" as the semiparameter is Salusbury's and
depends on Mydorge's use of the word parameter. See below, note 13. I have added the
bracketed phrase "less than one" since Archimedes clearly intended this and all of the
succeeding propositions to concern floating bodies.
2 The perpendiculars through Band G here and the similar ones in the remaining proposi-
shall move downwards according to that which is drawn thorow G; and
the Solid APOL shall not abide in this Position, for that the parts towards
A will move upwards and those towards B downwards. Wherefore NO
shall be constituted according to the Perpendicular.]
Commandine.
The Demonstration of this proposition hath been much desired; which
we have (in like manner as the 8 Prop. of the first Book) restored according
to Archimedes his own Schemes,3 and illustrated it with Commentaries.
"The Right Portion of a Rightangled Conoid, when- it shall have its A
Axis lesse thanSesquialter ejus quae usque adAxem (or of its Semi-param-
eter." In the Translation of Nicolo Tartaglia it is falsly read greater
4
then Sesquialter, and so its rendered in the following Proposition; but
it is the Right Portion of a Conoid cut by a Plane at Right Angles, or erect,
unto the Axis, and we say that Conoids are then constituted erect when
the cutting Plane, that is to say, the Plane of the Base, shall be Parallel
to the Surface of the Liquid.
"Which shall be the Diameter of the Section IPOS and the Axis of the B
Portion demerged in the Liquid." By the 46 of the first of the Conicks
of Apollonious, or by the Corollary of the 51 of the same.
5
"And of the Solid Magnitude APOL let the Centre of Gravity be R; C
and of IPOS let the Centre be B." For the Centre of Gravity of the Portion
of a Rightangled Conoid is in its Axis, which it so divideth as that the
part thereof terminating in the vertex be double to the other part terminat-
ing in the Base, as in our Book De Centro Gravitatis Solidorum Propo.
29. we have demonstrated.
6
And since the Centre of Gravity of the Por-
tion APOL is R, OR shall be double to RN and therefore NO shall be
Sesquialter of OR. And for the same reason, B the Centre of Gravity of
the PortionIPOS is in the AxisPF, so dividing it as thatPB is double toBF.
"And draw a Line fromB to R prolonged unto G, which let be the Centre D
tions of Book 11 are of course perpendiculars to a flat surface of the liquid rather than to a
spherical surface as in Book I.
3 I have discussed Commandino's reconstruction of the missing proof of this proposition
in my general treatment of Commandino above. The phrase "(in like manner as the 8 Prop.
of the first book)" is Salusbury's addition. Commandino makes the point that he has done the
reconstruction in accordance with Archimedes' figures (" Schemes," as Salusbury calls
them). Commandino's reconstructed section is of course that part of the proof included
within brackets, whose beginning is flagged by the marginal phrase "Supplied by Federico
Commandino.' ,
4 Moerbeke's text (Vol. 2, 56vL) did indeed have maiorem. I have commemed on the in-
completeness of Commandino's correction to minorem in my general discussion of Com-
mandino's contributions above. Note that once more Salusbury has identified the trans-
lator as Tartaglia. Commandino's text at this point simply read "in translatione" without
specifying the translator.
5 See Commandino' s translation: Apollonii . . . conicorum libri quattuor (Bologna,
1566), 33v, 36v. Hereafter this work will be cited as Apollonius, Conica (Bologna, 1566).
6 (Bologna, 1565), 4Iv-45r.
356 of Gravity of the remaining Figure ISLA." I For if, the Line BR being
prolonged unto G, GR hath the same proportion to RB as the Portion of
the ConoidIPOS hath to the remaining Figure that lyeth above the Surface
of the Liquid, the Point G shall be its Centre of Gravity, by the 8 of the
second (! first) of Archimedes de Centro Gravitatis Planorum, vel de
Aequiponderantibus .7
"RO shall be less than quae usque ad Axem (or than the Semi-param- E
eter)." By the 10 Proposition of Euclids fifth Book of Elements. The Line
quae usque ad Axem (or the Semi-parameter), according to Archimedes,
is the half of that juxta quam possunt, quae a Sectione ducuntur (or of
the Parameter), as appeareth by the 4 Proposit. of his BookDe Conoidibus
et Sphaeroidibus;8 and for what reason it is so called, we have declared
in the Commentaries upon him by us published.
"Whereupon the Angle RPw shall be acute." Let the Line NO be con- F
tinued out to H, that so RH may be equall to the Semi-parameter [see
Fig. III.4.3B.16]. If now from the PointH a line be drawn at Right Angles
to NH, it shall meet with FP without the Section; for being drawn thorow
o parallel to AL, it shall fall without the Section, by the 17 of our first
Book of Conicks. 9 Therefore let it meet in V; and because FP is parallel
to the Diameter, and HV perpendicular to the same Diameter, and RH
equall to the Semi-parameter, the Line drawn from the Point R to V shall
make Right Angles with that Line which the Section toucheth in the
Point P, that is with Kw, as shall anon be demonstrated. Wherefore the
Perpendicular RT falleth betwixt A (! P) and w; and the Angle RPw shall
be an Acute Angle.
Let ABC be the Section of a Rightangled Cone, or a Parabola [Fig.
III.4.3B.17], and its Diameter BD; and let the Line EF touch the same
in the Point G; and in the Diameter BD take the Line HK equall to the
Semi-parameter; and thorow G, GL being drawn parallel to the Diameter,
draw KM from the Point K at Right Angles to BD cutting GL in M. I say
that the Line prolonged thorow H and M is perpendicular to Er, which
it cutteth in N. 10
But from the Point G draw the Line GO at Right Angles to EF cutting the
Diameter in 0; and again from the same Point draw GP perpendicular to
the Diameter; and let the said Diameter prolonged cut the Line EF in Q.
PB shall be equall to BQ, by the 35 of our first Book of Conick Sections, 11
7 See Vol. 2, 17vE- F. Salusbury has erred in specifying the proposition as 11.8. It is
obviously 1.8. Commandino merely had "ex octava Archimedis."
8/bid., 46rF. This is now considered as the second part of Proposition 3 of the De
Conoidibus.
9 Apollonius, Conica (Bologna, 1566), 18r.
10 This paragraph is the enunciation of the proposition supporting his earlier statement that
"the Line drawn from the Point R to V shall make Right Angles with that Line which the
Section toucheth in the Point P, that is with Kw, as shall anon be demonstrated."
11 Apollonius, Conica (Bologna, 1566), 26r. The marginal references to Euclid, i.e., (a)
to (g), were also given in Commandino's text but I have included them only in the translation.
(a) and GP a Mean-proportionall betwixt QP and PO; (b) and therefore the
Square of GP shall be equall to the Rectangle of OPQ. But it is also equall
to the Rectangle comprehended under PB and the Linejuxta quam pos-
sunt, or the Parameter, by the 11 of our first Book of Conicks .12 (c)
Therefore, look what proportion QP hath to PB, and the same hath the
Parameter unto PO. But QP is double unto PB, for that PB and BQ are
equall, as hath been said. And therefore the Parameter shall be double to
the said PO; and by the same Reason PO is equall to that which we call
the Semi-parameter, that is, to KH. But (d) PG is equall to KM, and (e)
the Angle OPG to the Angle HKM, for they are both Right Angles. And
357 therefore OG also is equall to HM, and the Angle POG unto the / Angle
KHM. Therefore (f) OG and HN are parallel, and the (g) Angle HNF
equall to the Angle OGF; for that GO being Perpendicular to EF, HN
shall also be perpendicular to the same, which was to be demonstrated.
"And the part which is within the Liquid doth move upwards according G
to the Perpendicular that is drawn thorow B parallel to RT." The
reason why this moveth upwards and that other downwards along the
Perpendicular Line hath been shewn above in the 8 of the first Book of
this; so that we have judged it needlesse to repeat it either in this or in
the rest that follow.
The Translator.
In the Ancient Parabola (namely that assumed in a Right angled Cone)
the Linejuxta quam Possunt quae in Sectione ordinatim ducuntur (which
I, following Mydorgius, do call the Parameter) is (a) double to that quae
ducta est a Vertice Sectionis usque ad Axem, or in Archimedes phrase,
p,EXPL TOV which I for that cause, and for want of a better
word, name the Semiparameter; but in Modern Parabola's (1) it is greater
or lesser than double.
13
Now that throughout this Book Archimedes
(a) By Cor. of 8. of 6. of Euclide.
(b) By 17. of the 6.
(c) By 14. of the 6.
(d) By 33. of the 1.
(e) By 4. of the 1.
(f) By 28. of the 1.
(g) By 29. of the 1.
(a) Rivalt. in Archimed. de Conoid et Sphaeroid. Prop. 3. Lem. 1.
12Ibid.,13v-14r.
13 For Rivaulfs Lemma, see his Archimedis opera quae extant, p. 255: H AHMMA A.
In antiqua parabola linea iuxta quam possunt, quae in sectione ordinatim ducuntur, dupla
est illius quae est a vertice sectionis usque ad axem Coni: in recentibus vero maior esse
potest aut minor quam dupla. YIlOE)E. Sit rectangulus conus ABC [Fig. III.4.3B.17A]
7Tapa{3oALKw<; sectus in D ut fiat parabole DFG. Diameter coni sit AB. Fiat autem ut DI
linea sit ad DA sicuti est quadratum BC ad rectangulum sub BA, AC; nempe ut sit DI iuxta
quam possunt, quae in sectione ordinatim ducuntur, cuiusmodi sit KL. IYMIlEPAIMA.
Dico ID duplam esse lineae DA . KATAI. Dividatur conus ABC per axem, et fiat triangulus
ABC isosceles et rectangulus. AIlOaEISII. Etenim cum trianguli BAC rectanguli rectus
speaketh of the Parabola in a Rectangled Cone is manifest both by the
first words of each Proposition and by this that no Parabola hath its
Parameter double to the Line quae est a Sectione ad Axem save that
which is taken in a Rightangled Cone. And in any other Parabola, for
the Line 7 X ~ J.l"EXpt TOV &gOVOf) or quae usque ad Axem to usurpe the
Word Semiparameter would be neither proper nor true; but in this case it
may pass.
Prop. Ill. Theor. Ill.
THE RIGHT PORTION OF A RIGHTANGLED CONOID, WHEN
IT SHALL HAVE ITS AXIS LESSEl THAN SESQUIALTER OF
THE SEMI-PARAMETER, THE AXIS (! PORTION)2 HAVING ANY
WHAT EVER PROPORTION [LESS THAN ONE]3 TO THE LIQUID
IN GRAVITY, BEING DEMITTED INTO THE LIQUID SO AS THAT
ITS BASE BE WHOLLY WITHIN THE SAID LIQUID, AND BEING
SET INCLINING, IT SHALL NOT REMAIN INCLINED, BUT
SHALL BE SO RESTORED, AS THAT ITS AXIS DO STAND UP-
RIGHT OR ACCORDING TO THE PERPENDICULAR.
Let any Portion be demitted into the Liquid, as was said; and let its Base
be in the Liquid; and let it be cut thorow the Axis by a Plain erect upon
the Surface of the Liquid, and let the Section be APOL [Fig. III.4.3B.18],
the Section of a Right angled Cone; and let the Axis of the Portion and
sit angulus A, quadratum ex BC aequale est duobus quadratis ex BA, AC, et proinde duplum
unius ipsorum, hoc est rectanguli sub BA et AC. Atqui ut quadratum BC ad rectangulum
sub BA, AC sic est ID ad DA. Ergo ID dupla est lineae DA. Si vero conus fuerit ambly-
gonius, et angulus A maior recto, quadratum BC maius erit duplo rectanguli sub BA, AC;
ideoque ID similiter maior erit quam dupla lineae DA. Demum si conus fuerit acutiangulus,
et angulus A acutus, erit quadratum BC minus duplo rectanguli sub BA et AC. Et ideo
tandem ID minor quam dupla DA, quod fuit probandum. . . . (p. 256). . . . Interim
distinguemus ex Archimede, lineam a sectione ordinatim ductam a linea ducta a sectione
usque ad axem, Ta,> JLEXpt TOV &govo,> inquit: Nam prima illa est veluti KL, haec vero
secunda est sicuti DA, quod notasse alibi utile fuerit, potissimum in libris de insidentibus
humido." I have altered the punctuation slightly and have italicized the letters designating
magnitudes (e.g., "ABC" instead of"A.B.C. "). I have omitted Rivault's marginal citations.
For the use of the term parameter, see Claude Mydorge, Prodromi catoptricorum et
dioptricorum sive conicorum operis ad abdita radii reflexi et refracti mysteria praevii et
facem praeferentis, libri quatuor priores (Paris, 1639), sign. [A ii recto], Def. XIX: "Para-
metrum coni sectionis dicimus, rectam lineam a cujuslibet coni sectionis, aut portionis,
vertice eductam ordinatim ad contiguam diametrum applicatis aequidistantem: cui com-
parantur, et secundum quam aestimantur, et possunt omnes quaecunque a coni sectione, aut
portione, ad eandem diametrum ordinatim applicantur. Quare et recta iuxta quam possunt
ad diametrum a coni sectione, aut portione, ordinatim ductae dicetur. Quae, si ab axis
termino sit educta, recta parameter: sin autem, parameter simpliciter dicetur."
Proposition III
1 Again Commandino has changed Moerbeke's maiorem to minorem. See Prop. 11, n. 4.
2 I have corrected Salusbury's obvious error.
3 As in the preceding proposition, a floating body is intended, that is, one whose density
is less than that of the liquid.
358 Diameter of the / Section be PP, and the Section of the Surface of the
Liquid IS. Now if the Portion lye inclined or stooping, its Axis shall not
be according to the Perpendicular. Wherefore PP shall not be at Right
angles with IS. Draw Kw parallel unto IS touching the Section APOL
in 0; and of the Solid Magnitude APOL let the Center of Gravity be R;
and of the Solid IPOS let the Centre be B; and draw a Line from B to R
prolonging it to G, that so G may be the Centre of Gravity of the remaining
FigureISLA. It shall be demonstrated that the Angle under ROK is acute,
and that the Perpendicular continued out from R unto wK shall fall be-
twixt 0 and K; let it be RT. And if from the Points G and B Parallels
be drawn to RT, that part of the Solid Magnitude which is within the
Liquid shall move upwards according to the Perpendicular drawn thorow
G; and that part which is without, or above, the Liquid downwards ac-
cording to the Perpendicular drawn thorow B; and the Solid APOL shall
not remain or continue in that Position in the Liquid, but the part towards
A shall move upwards, and the parts towards L downwards. And there-
fore PF shall stand according to the Perpendicular.
359
(Ed: 356)
Prop. IV. Theor. IV.
THE RIGHT PORTION OF A RIGHT ANGLED CONOID LIGHTER
THAN THE LIQUID, WHEN IT SHALL HAVE ITS AXIS GREATER
THAN SESQUIALTER OF THE SEMI-PARAMETER, IF IT HAVE
NOT LESSER PROPORTION IN GRAVITY TO THE LIQUID OF
EQUALL MASSE THAN THE SQUARE MADE OF THE EXCESSE
BY WHICH THE AXIS IS GREATER THAN SESQUIALTER OF THE
SEMI-PARAMETER HATH TO THE SQUARE MADE OF THE AXIS,
BEING DEMITIED INTO THE LIQUID SO AS THAT ITS BASE
TOUCH NOT THE LIQUID, AND BEING SET INCLINING, IT
SHALL NOT CONTINUE INCLINED, BUT SHALL RETURN TO
UPRIGHTNESSE OR PERPENDICULARITY.
Let there be a Portion of a Rightangled Conoid, as was said; and
being demitted into the Liquid, if it be possible, let it not be erect, but
inclining; and let it be cut thorow the Axis by a Plane erect upon the
Surface of the Liquid, and let the / Section of the Portion be APOL
[Fig. III.4.3B.19], the Section of a Rightangled Cone; and let the Axis of
the Portion and Diameter of the Section be NO, and the Section of the
Surface of the Liquid IS. If now the Portion be not erect, then NO shall
not be at equall Angles with IS. Draw Rw (! Pw) touching the Section
of the Rightangled Conoid in P, and parallel to IS; and from the Point P
and parall[el] to ON draw PP; and take the Centers of Gravity; and of
the Solid APOL let the Centre be R; and of that which lyeth within the
Liquid let the Centre be B; and draw a Line from B to R prolonging it to
G, that G may be the Centre of Gravity of the Solid that is above the
Liquid. And becauseN0 is sesquialter ofRO and is greater than sesquialter
of the Semi-Parameter, it is manifest that (a) RO is greater than the Semi-
parameter. * Let therefore RH be equall to the Semi-Parameter, * and A, B
OH double to HM. Forasmuch therefore as NO is sesquialter of RO,
and MO of OH, (b) the Remainder NM shall be sesquialter of the Re-
mainder RH. Therefore the Axis is greater than sesquialter of the Semi
parameter by the quantity of the Line MO. And let it be supposed that the
Portion hath not lesse proportion in Gravity unto the Liquid of equall
Masse than the Square that is made of the Excesse by which the Axis is
greater than sesquialter of the Semi-parameter hath to the Square made
of the Axis. It is therefore manifest that the Portion hath not lesse pro-
portion in Gravity to the Liquid than the Square of the Line MO hath
to the Square of NO. But look what proportion the Portion hath to the
Liquid in Gravity, the same hath the Portion submerged to the whole
Solid; for this hath been demonstrated (c) above. * And look what pro- c
portion the submerged Portion hath to the whole Portion, the same hath
the Square of PF unto the Square of NO. For it hath been demonstrated
in (d) Lib. de Conoidibus
1
that if from a Rightangled Conoid two Portions
be cut by Planes in any fashion produced, these Portions shall have the
same Proportion to each other as the Squares of their Axes. The
Square of PF, therefore, hath not lesse proportion to the Square of NO
than the Square of MO hath to the Square of NO. * Wherefore PF is not D
lesse than MO, * nor BP than HO. * If, therefore, a Right Line be drawn E, F
from H at Right Angles unto NO, it shall meet with BP, and shall fall
betwixt Band P; let it fall in T. (e) And because PF is parallel to the
Diameter, and HT is perpendicular unto the same Diameter, and RH
equall to the Semi-parameter, a Line drawn from R to T and prolonged
360 maketh Right Angles with the Line / contingent unto the Section in the
Point P. Wherefore it also maketh Right Angles with the Surface of the
Liquid; and that part of the Conoidall Solid which is within the Liquid
shall move upwards according to the Perpendicular drawn thorow B
parallel to RT; and that part which is above the Liquid shall move
downwards according to that drawn thorowG parallel to the said RT. And
(a) By 10. of the fifth.
(b) By 19. of the fifth.
(c) By 1. of this Second Book.
(d) By [2]6. (=Gr. 24) De Conoidibus et Sphaeroidibus of Archimedes.
(e) By 2. of this second Book.
1 Salusbury's marginal reference to Archimedes' On Conoids and Spheroids is erroneous.
The reference should be to Prop. 24 (=Prop. 25 in the Moerbeke text; see Vo!. 2, 49vO-P).
It is numbered Prop. 26 in Commandino's version of On Conoids and Spheriods. Here in
the marginal reference, the printer has evidently dropped a "2" before the "6". The
proposition holds that, if two segments are cut off from a paraboloid of revolution by planes
drawn in any manner, the segments will be to each other as the squares of their axes.
It is also important for the proofs of the succeeding propositions.
thus it shall continue to do so long untill that the Conoid be restored to
uprightnesse, or to stand according to the Perpendicular.
Commandine.
"Let therefore RH be equall to the Semi-parameter." So it is to be read, A
and not RM, as Tartaglia's Translation hath it;2 which may be made
appear from that which followeth.
"And OH double to HM." In the Translation aforenamed it is falsly B
rendered, ON double to RM.
3
"And look what proportion the Submerged Portion hath to the whole c
Portion, the same hath the Square of PF unto the Square of NO." This
place we have restored in our Translation at the request of some friends.
But it is demonstrated by Archimedes in Libro de Conoidibus et
Sphaeroidibus, Propo. 26.
4
"Wherefore PF is not lesse than MO." For by 10 of the fifth it followeth D
that the Square of PF is not lesse than the Square of MO; and therefore
neither shall the Line PF be lesse than the Line MO, by 22 of the sixth.
"Nor BP than HO." For as PF is to PB, so is MO to HO; and, by E
Permutation, asPF is toMO, so isBP toHO. ButPF is not lesse than MO
as hath bin proved. (a) Therefore neither shall BP be lesse than HO.
"If therefore a Right Line be drawn from H at Right Angles unto NO, F
it shall meet with BP, and shall fall betwixt Band P." This Place
was corrupt in the Translation of Tartaglia. 5 But it is thus demonstrated.
In regard that PF is not lesse than OM [Fig. III.4.3B.20], nor PB than
OH, if we suppose PF equall to OM, PB shall be likewise equall to
OH. Wherefore the Line drawn thorow 0 parallel toAL shall fall without
the Section, by 17 of the first of our Treatise ofConicks.
6
And in regard
that BP prolonged doth meet it beneath P, therefore the Perpendicular
drawn thorow H doth also meet with the same beneath B, and it doth of
necessity fall betwixt Band P. But the same is much more to follow if we
suppose PF to be greater than OM.
361 / Prop. V. Theor. V.
THE RIGHT PORTION OF A RIGHT-ANGLED CONOID LIGHTER
(a) By 14. of the sixth.
2 Again notice that Commandino's text does not refer to Tartaglia by nante but merely
says "ut translatio habet." The reference is of course to Moerbeke's translation (Vot.
2, 57rJ).
3 Vot. 2, ibid.
4 See above, n. 1.
5 Vol. 2, 57rM-N. Again Salusbury has gratuitously added Tartaglia's name to Comman-
dino's comment.
6 See above, Bk. 11, Prop. n, n. 9.
THAN SESQUIALTER OF THE SEMI-PARAMETER, IF IT HAVE
NOT GREATER PROPORTION IN GRAVITY TO THE LIQUID [OF
EQUAL MASS] THAN THE EXCESSE BY WHICH THE SQUARE
MADE OF THE AXIS IS GREATER THAN THE SQUARE MADE OF
THE EXCESSE BY WHICH THE AXIS IS GREATER THAN
SESQUIALTER OF THE SEMI-PARAMETER HATH TO THE
SQUARE MADE OF THE AXIS, BEING DEMITTED INTO THE
LIQUID SO AS THAT ITS BASE BE WHOLLY WITHIN THE
LIQUID, AND BEING SET INCLINING, IT SHALL NOT REMAIN
SO INCLINED, BUT SHALL TURN ABOUT TILL THAT ITS AXIS
SHALL BE ACCORDING TO THE PERPENDICULAR.
For let any Portion be demitted into the Liquid, as hath been said;
and let its Base be wholly within the Liquid. And being cut thorow its
Axis by a Plain erect upon the Surface of the Liquid, its Section shall be
the Section of a Rightangled Cone. Let it be APOL [Fig. III.4.3B.21],
and let the Axis of the Portion and Diameter of the Section be NO, and
the Section of the Surface of the Liquid IS. And because the Axis is not
according to the Perpendicular, NO will not be at equall angles with
IS. Draw Kw touching the Section APOL in P, and parallel unto IS; and
thorow P draw PF parallel unto NO; and take the Centres of Gravity;
and of the Solid APOL let the Centre be R; and of that which lyeth
above the Liquid let the Centre be B; and draw a Line from B to R,
prolonging it to G; which let be the Centre of Gravity of the Solid
demerged within the Liquid; and, moreover, take RH equall to the Semi-
parameter, and let OH be double to HM; and do in the rest as hath been
said (a) above. Now forasmuch as it was supposed that the Portion hath
not greater proportion in Gravity to the Liquid than the Excesse by which
the Square NO is greater than the Square MO hath to the said Square
362 NO, and in regard that whatever proportion in Gravity / the Portion
hath to the Liquid of equall Masse the same hath the Magnitude of the
Portion submerged unto the whole Portion, as hath been demonstrated in
the first Proposition, the Magnitude submerged, therefore, shall not have
greater proportion to the whole (b) Portion than that which hath been
mentioned. * And therefore the whole Portion hath not greater proportion A
unto that which is above the Liquid than the Square NO hath to the
Square MO. But the (c) whole Portion hath the same proportion unto that
which is above the Liquid that the Square NO hath to the Square PF.
Therefore the Square NO hath not greater Proportion unto the Square PF
than it hath unto the Square MO. * And hence it followeth that PF is B
not lesse than OM, nor PB than OH. * A Line, therefore, drawn from c
H at Right Angles unto NO shall meet with BP betwixt P and B. Let it
be in T. And because that in the Section of the Rectangled Cone PF is
(a) In 4. Prop. of this.
(b) [Ed: a] By 11. of the fifth.
(c) [Ed: b] By 26. of the Book De Conoid. et Sphaeroid.
parallel unto the Diameter NO, and HT perpendicular unto the said
Diameter, and RH equall to the Semi-parameter, it is manifest that RT
prolonged doth make Right Angles with KPw. And therefore doth also
make Right Angles with IS. Therefore RT is perpendicular unto the
Surface of the Liquid. And if thorow the Points Band G Lines be drawn
parallel unto RT, they shall be perpendicular unto the Liquids Surface.
The Portion, therefore, which is above the Liquid shall move downwards
in the Liquid according to the Perpendicular drawn thorow B; and that
part which is within the Liquid shall move upwards according to the
Perpendicular drawn thorow G; and the Solid Portion APOL shall not
continue so inclined [as it was at its demers;on], but shall move within
the Liquid untill such time that NO do stand according to the Perpendic-
ular.
Commandine.
"And therefore the whole Portion hath not greater proportion unto that A
which is above the Liquid than the Square NO hath to the Square MO."
For in regard that the Magnitude of the Portion demerged within the
Liquid hath not greater proportion unto the Whole Portion than the
Excesse by which the Square NO is greater than the Square MO hath
to the said Square NO, converting of the Proportion by the 26. of the
fifth of Euclid of Campanus
1
his Translation, the whole Portion shall not
have lesser proportion unto the Magnitude submerged than the Square
NO hath unto the Excesse by which NO is greater than the Square MO.
Let a Portion be taken; and let that part of it which is above the Liquid
be the first Magnitude, the part of it which is submerged the second; and
let the third Magnitude be the Square MO; and let the Excesse by which
the Square NO is greater than the Square MO be the fourth. Now of
these Magnitudes, the proportion of the first and second unto the second
is not lesse than that of the third and fourth unto the fourth. For the Square
MO together with the Excesse by which the Square NO exceedeth the
Square MO is equall unto the said Square NO. Wherefore, by Conversion
of Proportion by 30 of the said fifth Book, the proportion of the first and
second unto the first shall not be greater than that of the third and fourth
363 unto the third. And, for the same cause, / the proportion of the whole
Portion unto that part thereof which is above the Liquid shall not be
greater than that of the Square NO unto the Square MO, which was to be
demonstrated.
"And hence it followeth that PF is not lesse than OM, nor PB than B
1 This is the first reference by Commandino to the version of Campanus. Note that Com-
mandino merely says "ex traditione Campani," which Salusbury translates "of Campanus,
his Translation," thus reflecting the common but erroneous view that Campanus' version
was a translation of the Elements.
OH." This followeth by the 10 and 14 of the fifth, and by the 22 of the
sixth of Euclid, as hath been said above.
"A Line, therefore, drawn from H at Right Angles unto NO shall meet c
with PB betwixt P and B ." Why this so falleth out, we will shew in the
next.
2
Prop. VI. Theor. VI.
THE RIGHT PORTION OF A RIGHTANGLED CONOID LIGHTER
THAN SESQUIALTER OF THE SEMI-PARAMETER, BUT LESSE
THAN TO BE UNTO THE SEMI-PARAMETER IN PROPORTION
AS FIFTEEN TO FOWER, BEING DEMITTED INTO THE LIQUID
SO AS THAT ITS BASE DO TOUCH THE LIQUID, IT SHALL
NEVER STAND SO ENCLINED AS THAT ITS BASE TOUCHETH
THE LIQUID IN ONE POINT ONLY.
Let there be a Portion, as was said; and demit it into the Liquid in
such fashion as that its Base do touch the Liquid in one only Point. It A
is to be demonstrated that the said Portion shall not continue so, but shall
turn about in such manner as that its Base do in no wise touch the Surface
of the Liquid. For let it be cut thorow its Axis by a Plane erect upon the
Liquids Surface; and let the Section of the Superficies of the Portion be
APOL [Fig. III.4.3B.22], the Section of a Rightangled Cone; and the
Section of the Surface of the Liquid be AS; and the Axis of the Portion
and Diameter of the Section NO; and let it be cut in F, so as that OF be
double toFN; and in w, so as that NO may be toFw in the same proportion
as fifteen to four; and at Right Angles to NO draw wK. Now because B
NO hath greater proportion unto Fw than unto the Semi-parameter, let
the Semi-parameter be equall to FB; and draw PC parallel unto AS, and
touching the Section APOL in P; and PI parallel unto NO; and first let
PI cut Kw inH. Forasmuch, therefore, as in the Portion APOL, contained c
betwixt the Right Line and the Section of the Rightangled Cone, Kw is
364 parallel to AL, and PI parallel unto the Diameter, and cut by the / said
Kw inH, andAS is parallel unto the Line that toucheth inP, it is necessary
that PI hath unto PH either the same proportion that Nw hath to wO,
or greater; for this hath already been demonstrated.
1
But Nw is sesquialter
of wO; and PI, therefore, is either Sesquialter of HP or more than
sesquialter. Wherefore PH is to HI either double or lesse than double. D
2 Salusbury has mistranslated Commandino's "nos proxime explicavimus." The transla-
tion should read' 'we have just shown [in the preceding proposition]," for indeed this was
proved in his commentary to Proposition IV (see Comment G in the Latin text and
Comment F in this translation).
Proposition VI
1 We do not know where this was demonstrated. Its demonstration is the object of
Commandino's long Comment C.
Let PT be double to TI; the Centre of Gravity of the part which is within
the Liquid shall be the Point T. Therefore draw a Line from T to F pro-
longing it; and let the Centre of Gravity of the part which is above the
Liquid be G; and from the Point B at Right Angles unto NO draw BR.
And seeing that PI is parallel unto the Diameter NO, and BR perpendicular
unto the said Diameter, andFB equall to the Semi-parameter, it is manifest
that the Line drawn thorow the Points F and R, being prolonged, maketh
equall Angles with that which toucheth the Section APOL in the PointP;
and therefore doth also make Right Angles with AS and with the
Smface of the Liquid; and the Lines drawn thorow T and G parallel
unto FR shall be also perpendicular to the Surface of the Liquid; and of
the Solid Magnitude APOL, the part which is within the Liquid moveth
upwards according to the Perpendicular drawn thorow T; and the part
which is above the Liquid moveth downwards according to that drawn
thorow G. The Solid APOL, therefore, shall turn about, and its Base shall E
not in the least touch the Surface of the Liquid. And if PI do not cut the
Line Kw as in the second Figure [Fig. III.4.3B.23], it is manifest that the
Point T, which is the Centre of Gravity of the submerged Portion, falleth
betwixt P and I: And for the other particulars remaining, they are demon-
strated like as before.
Commandine.
"It is to be demonstrated that the said Portion shall not continue so, A
but shall turn about in such manner as that its Base do in no wise touch
the Surface of the Liquid." These words are added by us, as having been
omitted by Tartaglia.
2
"Now because NO hath greater proportion to Fw than unto the Semi- B
parameter." For the Diameter of the Portion NO hath unto Fw the same
proportion as fifteen to fower. But it was supposed to have lesse proportion
unto the Semi-parameter than fifteen to fower; wherefore NO hath greater
proportion unto Fw than unto the Semi-parameter. And therefore (a) the
Semi-parameter shall be greater than the said Fw.
"Forasmuch, therefore, as in the Portion APOL, contained betwixt the C
Right Line and the Section of the Rightangled Cone, Kw is parallel to
365 AL, and PI parallel unto the Diameter, and cut by / the said Kw in H, and
AS is parallel unto the Line that toucheth in P, it is necessary that PI
hath unto PH either the same proportion that Nw hath to wO, or greater;
for this hath already been demonstrated." Where this is demonstrated
either by Archimedes himself, or by any other, doth not appear; touching
which we will here insert a Demonstration, after that we have explained
some things that pertaine thereto.
2 Commandino merely said "ab interprete."
Lemma I.
Let the Lines AB and AC contain the Angle BAC [Fig. III.4.3B.24];
and from the point D, taken in the Line AC, drawDE and DF at pleasure
unto AE; and in the same Line any Points G and L being taken, draw
GH & LM parallel to DE, & GK and LN parallel unto FD. Then from
the Points D & G as farre as to the Line ML drawDOP, cutting GH in 0,
and GQ parallel unto BA. I say that the Lines that lye betwixt the Parallels
unto FD have unto those that lye betwixt the Parallels unto DE (namely
KN to GQ or to OP, FK to DO, and FN to DP) the same mutuall propor-
tion, that is to say, the same thatAF hath toAE.
For in regard that the Triangles AFD, AFG, and ANL are alike, and EFD,
HKG, and MNL are also alike, therefore, (a) as AF is to FD, so shall
AK be to KG; and as FD is to FE, so shall KG be to KH. Wherefore,
ex equali, as AF is to FE, so shall AK be to KH. And, by Conversion of
proportion, as AF is to AE, so shall AK be to KH (! AH). It is in the
same manner proved that as AF is to AE, so shall AN be to AM. Now
AN being toAM asAK is toAH, the (b) Remainder KN shall be unto the
Remainder HM, that is unto GQ, or unto OP, as AN is to AM, that is,
as AF is to AE. Again, AK is to AH as AF is to AE. Therefore the
Remainder FK shall be to the Remainder EH, namely to DO, as AF is to
AE. We might in like manner demonstrate that so is FN to DP, which is
that that was required to be demonstrated.
Lemma 11.
In the same LineAE let there be two PointsR and S [Fig. III.4.3B.25], so
disposed that AS may have the same Proportion toAR thatAF hath toAE;
and thorow R draw RT parallel to ED, and thorow S draw ST parallel
toFD, so as that it may meet withRT in the Point T. I say that the Point T
falleth in the Line AC.
366 / For if it be possible, let it fall short of it, and let RT be prolonged as
farre as to AC in V, and then thorow V draw VX parallel to FD. Now,
by the things we have last demonstrated, AX shall have the same propor-
tion unto AR as AF hath to AE. But AS hath also the same proportion to
AR. Wherefore (a) AS is equall to AX, the part to the whole, which is
impossible. The same absurdity will follow if we suppose the Point T to
fall beyond the Line AC. It is therefore necessary that it do fall in the said
AC, which we propounded to be demonstrated.
3
3 Commandino ~ "19. quinti.'
Lemma Ill.
Let there be a Parabola, whose Diameter let be AB (! YB) [Fig.
1I1.4.3B.26]; and let the Right Lines AC and BD be t contingent to it,
AC in the Point C, and BD in B. And two Lines being drawn thorow C,
the one CE parallel unto the Diameter, the other CF parallel to BD, take
any Point in the Diameter, as G; and as FB is to BG, so let BG be to BH;
and thorow G and H draw GKL and HEM parallel unto BD; and thorow
M draw MNO parallel to AC, and cutting the Diameter in 0; and the
Line NP being drawn thorow N unto the Diameter, let it be parallel to
BD. I say that HO is double to GB.
For the Line MNO cutteth the Diameter either in G, or in other Points;
and if it do cut it in G, one and the same Point shall be noted by the two
letters G and O. Therefore FC, PN, and HEM being Parallels, and AC
being Parallels (!) to MN0, they shall make the Triangle AFC, OPNand
OHM like to each other. Wherefore (a) OH shall be to HM as AF to FC;
and, * Permutando, OH shall be to AF as HM to FC. But the Square
HM is to the Square GL as the Line HB is to the Line BG, by 20. of our
first Book of Conicks;4 and the Square GL is unto the Square FC as the
Line GB is to the Line BF; and the Lines HB, BG and BF are thereupon
Proportionals. Therefore the (b) Squares HM, GL and FC and there (I)
Sides shall also be Proportionals. And, therefore, as the (c) Square HM is
to the Square GL, so is the Line HM to the Line FC. But as HM is
to FC, so is OH toAF; and as the Square BM is to the Square GL, so
is the Line HB to BG, that is, BG to BF. From whence it followeth that
OH is toAF asBG toBF. And,Permutando, OH is toBG asAF toFB.
But AF is double to FB. Therefore AB and BF are equall, by 35. of our
first Book of Conicks. 5 And therefore NO is double to GB; which was to
be demonstrated.
.....".,",
367 I Lemma IV.
The same things assumed again, and MQ being drawn from the Point
M [Fig. 1I1.4.3B.27] unto the Diameter, let it touch the Section in the
Point M. I say that HQ hath to QO the same proportion that GH hath to
CN.
For make HR equall to GF; and seeing that the Triangles AFC and
OPN are alike, and PN equall to FC, we might in like manner demon-
strate PO and FA to be equall to each other. Wherefore PO shall be
t Or touch it.
* Or permitting.
(b) By 22. of the sixth.
(c) By Cor. of 20. of the sixth.
5 Ibid., 26r.
double to FB. But HO is double to GB. Therefore the Remainder PH is
also double to the Remainder FG, that is, toRH. And therefore it followeth
that PR, RH and FG are equall to one another; as also that RG and PFare
equall, for PG is common to both RP and GF. Since therefore, that HB
is to BG as GB is to BF, by Conversion of Proportion, BH shall be to
HG asBG is to GF. But QH is toHB, as HO toBG. For by 35. of our first
Book of Conicks ,6 in regard that QM toucheth the Section in the Point
M, HB and BQ shall be equall, and QH double to HB. Therefore, ex
aequali, QH shall be toHG as HO toGF, that is, toHR; and,Permutando,
QH shall be to HO as HG to HR; again, by Conversion, HQ shall be to
QO asHG to GR, that is, toPF; and, by the same reason, to CN, which
These things therefore being explained, we come now to that which was
propounded. I say, therefore, first that NC hath to CK the same propor-
tion that HG hath to GB [Fig. 11I.4.3B.28].
For since that HQ is to QO as HG to CN, that is, to AO, equall to the
said CN, the Remainder GQ shall be to the Remainder QA, as HQ to QO;
and, for the same cause, the Lines AC and GL prolonged, by the things
that wee (I) have above demonstrated, shall intersect or meet in the Line
QM. Again, GQ is to QA as HQ to QO, that is, asHG to FP ,as (a) was but
now demonstrated. But unto (b) GQ two Lines taken together, QB, that is
HB, and BG are equall; and to QA, HF is equall; for if from the equall
Magnitudes HB and BQ there be taken the equall Magnitudes FB and
BA, the Remainder[s] shall be equall. Therefore taking HG from the two
Lines HB and BG, there shall remain a Magnitude double to BG, that is,
OH; and PF taken from FH, the Remainder is HP. Wherefore Cc) OH is
368 to HP as GQ to QA. But as GQ is to QA, so is HQ to QO, / that is,
HG to NC; and as (d) OH is to HP, so is GB to CK; for OH is double to
GB, and HP also double to GF, that is, to CK. Therefore HG hath the
same proportion to NC that GB hath to CK. And, Permutando, NC hath
to CK the same proportion that HG hath to GB.
Then take some other Point at pleasure in the Section, which let be S;
and thorow S draw two Lines, the one ST parallel to DB and cutting
the Diameter in the PointT, the otherSVparallel toAC and cutting CE in V.
1 say that VC hath greater proportion to CK than TG hath to GB.
For prolong VS unto the Line QM in X; and from the Point X draw
XT unto the Diameter parallel toBD; GT shall be lesse thanGY, in regard
that VS is less than VX. And, by the first Lemma, YG shall be to VC as
HG to NC, that is, as GB to CK, which was demonstrated but now.
And, Permutando, YG shall be to GB as VC to CK. But TG, for that it is
(a) By 2. Lemma.
(b) By 4. Lemma.
(c) By 19. of the fifth.
(d) By 15. of the fifth.
6 Ibid.
lesse than YG, hath lesse proportion to GB than YG hath to the same.
Therefore VC hath greater proportion to CK than TG hath to GB, which
was to be demonstrated. Therefore a Postion given GK, there shall be in
the Section one only Point, to wit M, from which two Lines MEH and
MNO being drawn, NC shall have the same proportion to CK that HG
hath to GB. For if they be drawn from any other, that which falleth
betwixt AC and the Line parallel unto it shall alwayes have greater pro-
portion to CK than that which falleth betwixt GK and the Line parallel unto
it hath to GB. That, therefore, is manifest which was affirmed by Archi-
medes, to wit, that the Line PI hath unto PH either the same proportion
that Nw hath to wO, or greater.
"Wherefore PH is to HI either double, or lesse than double." If lesse D
than double, let PT be double to TI [Fig. III.4.3B.29]. The Centre of
Gravity of that part of the Portion that is within the Liquid shall be the
Point T. But if PH be double to HI, H shall be the Centre of Gravity. And
draw HF, and prolong it unto the Centre of that part of the Portion which
is above the Liquid, namely, unto G, and the rest is demonstrated as
before. And the same is to be understood in the Proposition that followeth.
"The Solid APOL, therefore, shall turn about, and its Base shall not in E
the least touch the Surface of the Liquid." In Tartaglia's Translation
7
it is rendered ut Basis ipsius non tangent (! tangat) superficiem humidi
secundum unum signum; but we have chosen to read ut Basis ipsius nullo
modo humidi superficiem contingent (! continget), both here and in the
following Propositions, because the Greekes frequently use ov8 l ~
ov8e EV pro ov8etli' & ov8iv, so that oil8' U"TtV ov8etli' nullus est, ov8'
vC{)' EVOli' a nullo, and so of others of the like nature.
369 I Prop. VII. Theor. VII.
THE RIGHT PORTION OF A RIGHTANGLED CONOID LIGHTER
THAN SESQUIALTER OF THE SEMI-PARAMETER, BUT LESSE
THAN TO BE UNTO THE SAID SEMI-PARAMETER IN PROPOR-
TION AS FIFTEEN TO FOWER, BEING DEMITTED INTO THE
LIQUID SO AS THAT ITS BASE BE WHOLLY WITHIN THE
LIQUID, IT SHALL NEVER STAND SO AS THAT ITS BASE
DO TOUCH THE SURFACE OF THE LIQUID, BUT SO THAT IT BE
WHOLLY WITHIN THE LIQUID, AND SHALL NOT IN THE LEAST
TOUCH ITS SURFACE.
Let there be a Portion as hath been said; and let it be demitted into the
Liquid, as we have supposed, so as that its Base do touch the Surface
in one Point only. It is to be demonstrated that the same shall not so con-
7 Again Salusbury has added Tartaglia's name, which was not in Commandino's com-
ment. For the passage in question, see Vol. 2, 57vJ, where Moerbeke has "et" instead of
Hut" .
tinue, but shall turn about in such manner as that its Base do in no wise
touch the Surface of the Liquid. For let it be cut thorow its Axis by a
Plane erect upon the Liquids Surface, and let the Section be APOL [Fig.
III.4.3B.30], the Section of a Rightangled Cone; the Section of the Liquids
Surface SL; and the Axis of the Portion and Diameter of the Section
PF; and let PF be cut in R so as that RP may be double to RF, and in
w so as that PF may be to Rw as fifteen to fower; and draw wK at Right
Angles to PF; (a) Rw shall be lesse than the Semi-parameter. Therefore
let RH be supposed equall to the Semi-parameter; and draw CO touching
the Section in 0 and parallel unto SL; and let NO be parallel unto PF;
and first let NO cut Kw in the Point I, as in the former Schemes. It shall be
demonstrated that NO is to 01 either sesquialter, or greater than
sesquialter. Let OJ be lesse tpan double to IN; and let OB be double to
BN; and let them be disposed like as before. We might likewise demon-
strate that if a Line be drawn thorow Rand T it will make Right Angles
with the Line CO and with the Surface of the Liquid. Wherefore Lines
being drawn from the Points Band G parallels unto RT, they also shall
be Perpendiculars to the Surface of the Liquid. The Portion therefore
370 which is above the Liquid shall move down/wards according to that same
Perpendicular which passeth thorow B; and the Portion which is within
the Liquid shall move upwards acording (!) to that passing thorow G.
From whence it is manifest that the Solid shall turn about in such manner
as that its Base shall in no wise touch the Surface of the Liquid; for that
now when it toucheth but in one Point only, it moveth downwards on the
part towards L. And though NO should not cut wK, yet shall the same
hold true [Fig. III.4.3B.31].
Prop. VIII. Theor. VIII.
IT SHALL HAVE ITS AXIS GREATER THAN SESQUIALTER OF
THE SEMI-PARAMETER, BUT LESSE THAN TO BE UNTO THE
SAID SEMI-PARAMETER IN PROPORTION AS FIFTEEN TO
FOWER, IF IT HAVE A LESSER PROPORTION IN GRAVITY TO
THE LIQUID THAN THE SQUARE MADE OF THE EXCESSE BY
WHICH THE AXIS IS GREATER THAN SESQUIALTER OF THE
SEMI-PARAMETER HATH TO THE SQUARE MADE OF THE AXIS,
BEING DEMITTED INTO THE LIQUID SO AS THAT ITS BASE
TOUCH NOT THE LIQUID, IT SHALL NEITHER RETURN TO
PERPENDICULARITY, NOR CONTINUE INCLINED, SAVE ONLY
WHEN THE AXIS MAKES AN ANGLE WITH THE SURFACE
OF THE LIQUID EQUALL TO THAT WHICH WE SHALL PRES-
ENTLY SPEAK OF.
Let there be a Portion as hath been said; and let BD be equall to the
Axis [Fig. IIIA.3B.32]; and let BK be double to KD; and RK equall to
the Semi-parameter; and let CB be Sesquialter of BR; CD shall be also A
Sesquialter of KR. And as the Portion is to the Liquid in Gravity, so let
the Square FQ be to the Square DB; and let F be double to Q. It is
manifest, therefore, that FQ hath to DB less proportion than CB hath to
BD; for CB is the Excess by which the Axis is greater than Sesquialter
of the Semi-parameter. And, therefore, FQ is less than BC; and, for the 8, C
same reason, F is less than BR. Let Rl/J be equall to F; and draw l/JE
perpendicular to BD; which let be in power or contence the half of that
which the lines KR and l/JB containeth; and draw a Line fromB to E. It is
371 to be demonstrated that the / Portion demitted into the Liquid, like as
hath been said, shall stand enclined so as that its Axis do make an Angle
with the Surface of the Liquid equall unto the Angle EBl/J. For demit
any Portion into the Liquid so as that its Base touch not the Liquids
Surface; and, if it can be done, let the Axis not make an Angle with the
Liquids Surface equall to the Angle EBl/J; but first let it be greater; and
the Portion being cut thorow the Axis by a Plane erect unto [or upon] the
Surface of the Liquid, let the Section be APOL the Section of a Right-
angled Cone, the Section of the Surface of the Liquid XS; and let the
Axis of the Portion and Diameter of the Section be NO; and draw PY
parallel to XS, and touching the Section APOL in P; and PM parallel to
NO; and PI perpendicular to NO; and moreover, let BR be equall to
Ow, and RK to Tw; and let wH be perpendicular to the Axis. Now be- D
cause it hath been supposed that the Axis of the Portion doth make an
Angle with the Surface of the Liquid greater than the Angle B, the Angle
PYI shall be greater than the Angle B. Therefore the Square PI hath E
greater proportion to the Square YI than the Square El/J hath to the Square
l/JB. But as the Square PI is to the Square YI, so is the Line KR unto F
the Line IY; and as the Square El/J is to the Square l/JB, so is half of the G
Line KR unto the Line t/JB. Wherefore (a) KR hath greater proportion to
IY than the half of KR hath to l/JB. And, consequently, IY is lesse than H
the double of l/JB, and is the double of 01. Therefore 01 is lesse than l/JB,
and I w greater than l/JR; but l/JR is equall to F. Therefore I w is greater K
than F. And because that the Portion is supposed to be in Gravity unto
the Liquid as the Square FQ is to the Square BD, and since that as the
Portion is to the Liquid in Gravity so is the part thereof submerged unto
the whole Portion, and in regard that as the part thereof submerged is
to the whole so is the Square PM to the Square ON, it followeth that
the Square PM is to the Square NO as the Square FQ is to the Square
BD. And therefore FQ is equall to PM. But it hath been demonstrated L, M
that PH is greater than F. It is manifest, therefore, that PM is lesse than
sesquialter of PH, and consequently that PH is greater than the double
of HM. Let PZ be double to ZM; T shall be the Centre of Gravity of
the whole Solid; the Centre of that part of it which is within the Liquid,
the Point Z; and of the remaining part the Centre shall be in the Line ZT
372 prolonged unto G. In / the same manner we might demonstrate the Line N
TH to be perpendicular unto the Surface of the Liquid, and that the
Portion demerged within the Liquid moveth or ascendeth out of the Liquid
according to the Perpendicular that shall be drawn thorow Z unto the
Surface of the Liquid, and that the part that is above the Liquid de-
scendeth into the Liquid according to that drawn thorow G; therefore the
Portion will not continue so inclined as was supposed. But neither shall
it return to Rectitude or Perpendicularity. For that of the Perpendiculars
drawn thorow Z and G, that passing thorow Z doth fall on those parts
which are towards L, and that that passeth thorow G on those towards
A. Wherefore it followeth that the Centre Z do move upwards and G
downwards. Therefore the parts of the whole Solid which are towards A
shall move downwards and those towards L upwards.
Again let the Proposition run in other termes; and let the Axis of the
Portion make an Angle with the Surface of the Liquid lesse than that which
is atB [Fig. III.4.3B.33(a)]. Therefore the Square PI hath lesser Proportion 0
unto the Square I Y than the Square EljJ hath to the Square ljJB. Where-
fore KR hath lesser proportion to IY than the half of KR hath to ljJB.
And, for the same reason, IY is greater than double of ljJB; but it is double
of0/. Therefore 0/ shall be greater than ljJB. But the Totall Ow is equall to
RB, and the Remainder wl lesse than ljJR. Wherefore PH shall also be
lesse than F. And, in regard that MP is equall to FQ, it is manifest that
PM is greater than sesquialter of PH, and that PH is lesse than double of
HM. Let PZ be double to ZM. The Centre of Gravity of the whole Solid
shall again be T; that of the part which is within the LiquidZ; and drawing
a Line from Z to T, the Centre of Gravity of that which is above the
Liquid shall be found in that Line protracted, that is in G. Therefore, P
Perpendiculars being drawn thorowZ and G unto the Surface of the Liquid
that are parallel to TH, it followeth that the said Portion shall not stay, but
shall turn about till that its Axis do make an Angle with the Waters
Surface greater than that which it now maketh. And because that when
373 before we / did suppose that it made an Angle greater than the Angle B,
the Portion did not rest then neither, it is manifest that it shall stay or
rest when it shall make an Angle equall to B [Fig. III.4.3B.33(b)]. For Q
so shall ID be equall to ljJB; and wl equall to ljJR; and PH equall to F.
Therefore MP shall be sesquialter of PH, and PH double of HM. And
therefore since H is the Centre of Gravity of that part of it which is within
the Liquid, it shall move upwards along the same Perpendicular according
to which the whole Portion moveth; and along the same also shall the part
which is above move downwards. The Portion therefore shall rest, foras-
much as the parts are not repulsed by each other.
I
f
!
!
I
I
I
I
I
f

Commandine.
"And let CB be sesquialter of BR; CD shall also be sesquialter of A
KR." In the Translation it is read thus: Sit autem & CB quidem hemeolia
ipsius BR: CD autem ipsius KR.1 But we at the reading of this passage
have thought fit thus to correct it; for it is not supposed so to be, but from
the things supposed is proved to be so. For if Bt/l (! BK) be double of t/lD
(! KD), DB shall be sesquialter of Bt/l (! BK). And because EB (! CB)
is sesquialter of BR, it followeth that the (a) Remainder CD is sesquialter
of t/lR (! KR); that is, of the Semi-parameter. Wherefore BC shall be the
Excesse by which the Axis is greater than sesquialter of the Semiparam-
eter.
"And therefore FQ is lesse than BC." For in regard that the Portion B
hath the same proportion in Gravity unto the Liquid as the Square FQ
hath to the Square DB, and hath lesser proportion than the Square made
of the Excesse by which the Axis is greater than Sesquialter of the
Semi-parameter hath to the Square made of the Axis, that is, lesser than
the Square CB hath to the Square BD, for the Line BD was supposed to
be equall unto the Axis, therefore the Square FQ shall have to the Square
DB lesser proportion than the Square CB to the same Square BD. And
therefore the Square (b) FQ shall be lesse than the Square CB. And,
for that reason, the Line FQ shall be lesse than BC.
"And, for the same reason, F is lesse thanBR." For CB being sesquialter c
of BR, and FQ sesquialter of F, (c) FQ shall be likewise lesse than BC,
and F lesse than BR.
"Now because it hath been supposed that the Axis of the Portion doth D
make an Angle with the Surface of the Liquid greater than the Angle B,
the Angle PYI shall be greater than the Angle B." For the Line PY being
parallel to the Surface of the Liquid, that is, to XS, (d) the Angle PYI
shall be equall to the Angle contained betwixt the Diameter of the
Portion NO and the LineXS, and therefore shall be greater than the Angle
B.
"Therefore the Square PI hath greater proportion to the Square YI E
than the Square Et/l hath to the Square t/lB." Let the Triangles PlY and
Et/lB be described apart [Fig. III.4.3B.34]. And seeing that the Angle PYI
(d) By 29. of the first.
1 See Vo!. 2, 57vT. Though the point is well taken, the appearance of Greek manuscript C
showed Moerbeke to have been correct in his translation (see my general comments on
Commandino's contributions above). Incidentally, Commandino's text has a series of in-
correct substitutions of 'l' for K and a mistaken use of E for C, as I have indicated in
parentheses. Hence the argument ought to run: "If BK = 2 KD, then DB = 3/2 BK.
Further if CB = 3/2 BR, then by subtracting the latter equation from the former, DB - CB
= 3/2 (BK - BR), i.e. CD = % KR."
is greater than the AngleEBl/J, unto the LineIY, and at the Point Yassigned
in the same, make the Angle VYI equall to the Angle EBl/J. But the Right
374 Angle at I is equall unto the Right Angle at l/J; therefore the / Remaining
Angle YVI is equall to the Remaining Angle BEl/J. And therefore the (e)
Line VI hath to the Line IY the same proportion that the Line El/J hath
to l/JB. But the (f) Line PI, which is greater than VI, hath unto I Y greater
proportion than VI hath unto the same. Therefore (g) PI shall have
greater proportion unto IY than El/J hath to l/JB. And, by the same reason,
the Square PI shall have greater proportion to the Square IY than the
Square El/J hath to the Square l/JB.
"But as the Square PI is to the Square YI, so is the Line KR unto the F
Line IY." For by 11. of the first of our Conicks ,2 the Square PI is equall
to the Rectangle contained under the Line 10 and under the Parameter,
which we supposed to be equall to [double] the Semi-parameter, that is,
the double of KR. But IY is double of 10, by 33 of the same.
3
And,
therefore, the (h) Rectangle made of KR and IY is equall to the Rectangle
contained under the Line 10 and under the Parameter, that is, to the
Square PI. But as the (i) Rectangle compounded of KR and IY is to the
Square IY, so is the Line KR unto the Line IY. Therefore the Line KR
shall have unto IY, the same proportion that the Rectangle compounded
of KR and IY, that is, the Square PI, hath to the Square IY.
"And as the Square El/J is to the Square l/JB, so is palf of the Line KR G
unto the Line l/JB." For the Square El/J having been supposed equall to
half the Rectangle contained under the Line KR and l/JB, that is, to that
contained under the half of KR and the Line l/JB, and seeing that as the (k)
Rectangle made of half KR and of Bl/J is to the Square l/JB, so is half KR
unto the Line l/JB, the half of KR shall have the same proportion to l/JB as
the Square El/J hath to the Square ljJB.
"And, consequently, IY is lesse than the double of l/JB ." For, as half H
KR is to l/JB, so is KR to another Line: it shall be (I) greater than IY,
that is, than that to whichKR hath lesser proportion; and it shall be double
of l/JB. Therefore IY is lesse than the double of l/JB.
"And Iw greater than l/JR." For O[w] having been supposed equall to K
BR, if from BR, l/JB be taken, and from Ow, 01, which is lesser than
[l/J]B, be taken, the Remainder Iw shall be greater than the Remainder l/JR.
"And, therefore, FQ is equall to PM." By the fourteenth of the fifth L
of Euclids Elements; for the Line ON is equall to BD.
(e) By 4. of the sixth.
(f) By 8. of the fifth.
(g) By 13. of the fifth.
(h) By 26. of the sixth.
(i) By Lem. 22. of the tenth.
(k) By Lem. 22. of the tenth.
(I) By 10. of the fifth.
2 Apollonius, Conica (Bologna, 1566), 13v-14r.
3/bid., 24v.
"But it hath been demonstrated that PH is greater than P." For it was M
demonstrated that I w is greater than P, and PH is equall to I w.
"In the same manner we might demonstrate the Line TH to be Per- N
pendicular unto the Surface of the Liquid." For Tw is equall to KR, that
is, to the Semi-parameter. And, therefore, by the things above demon-
strated, the Line TH shall be drawn Perpendicular unto the Liquids
Surface.
"Therefore, the Square PI hath lesser proportion unto the Square IY, 0
than the Square E1/I hath to the Square l/JB." These, and other partic-
ulars of the like nature that follow both in this and the following Proposi-
tions, shall be demonstrated by us no otherwise than we have done above.
"Therefore Perpendiculars being drawn thorow Z and G unto the P
Surface of the Liquid that are parallel to TH, it followeth that the said
Portion shall not stay, but shall turn about till that its Axis do make an
Angle with the Waters Surface greater than that which it now maketh."
For in that the Line drawn thorow G doth fall perpendicularly towards
those parts which are next to L, but that thorow Z towards those next
to A, it is necessary that the Centre G do move downwards andZ upwards;
and, therefore, the parts of the Solid next to L shall move downwards,
and those towards A upwards, that the Axis may make a greater Angle
with the Surface of the Liquid.
"For so shall 10 be equall to $B; and wI equall to IR (! l/JR); and PH Q
equall toP." This plainly appeareth in the third Figure [Fig. III.4.3B.33(b)],
which is added by us.
4
375 / Prop. IX. Theor. IX.
IT SHALL HAVE ITS AXIS GREATER THAN SESQUIALTER
OF THE SEMI-PARAMETER, BUT LESSER THAN TO BE UNTO
THE SAID SEMI-PARAMETER IN PROPORTION AS FIFTEEN TO
FOUR, AND HATH GREATER PROPORTION IN GRAVITY TO THE
LIQUID THAN THE EXCESS BY WHICH THE SQUARE MADE
OF THE AXIS IS GREATER THAN THE SQUARE MADE OF THE
EXCESS BY WHICHTHEAXIS IS GREATERTHAN SESQUIALTER
OF THE SEMI-PARAMETER HATH TO THE SQUARE MADE OF
THE AXIS, BEING DEMITTED INTO THE LIQUID SO AS THAT
ITS BASE BE WHOLLY WITHIN THE LIQUID, AND BEING
SET INCLINING, IT SHALL NEITHER TURN ABOUT SO AS THAT
ITS AXIS STAND ACCORDING TO THE PERPENDICULAR, NOR
REMAIN INCLINED, SAVE ONLY WHEN THE AXIS MAKES AN
ANGLE WITH THE SURFACE OF THE LIQUID EQUALL TO THAT
ASSIGNED AS BEFORE.
Let there be a Portion as was said; and suppose DB equall to the Axis
of the Portion [Fig. 1II.4.3B.35]; and let BK be double to KD; and KR
4 I.e., by Commandino.
equall to the Semi-parameter; and CB Sesquialter of BR. And as the
Portion is to the Liquid in Gravity, so let the Excesse by which the Square
BD exceeds the Square FQ be to the Square BD; and let F be double to
Q. It is manifest, therefore, that the Excesse by which the Square BD is
greater than the Square BC hath lesser proportion to the Square BD than
the Excess by which the Square BD is greater than the Square FQ hath
to the Square BD; for BC is the Excess by which the Axis of the Portion
is greater than Sesquialter of the Semi-parameter. And, therefore, the A
Square BD doth more exceed the Square FQ than doth the Square BC.
376 And, consequently, the Line FQ is less than BC; / and F less than BR.
Let RtfJ be equall to F; and draw tfJE perpendicular to BD; which let be in
power the half of that which the Lines KR and tfJB containeth; and draw
a Line from B to E. 1 I say that the Portion demitted into the Liquid so as
that its Base be wholly within the Liquid shall so stand as that its Axis
do make an Angle with the Liquids Surface equall to the Angle B. For
let the Portion be demitted into the Liquid, as hath been said; and let
the Axis not make an Angle with the Liquids Surface equall to B, but
first a greater; and the same being cut thorow the Axis by a Plane erect
unto the Surface of the Liquid, let the Section of the Portion be APOL,
the Section of a Rightangled Cone; the Section of the Surface of the
Liquid rl (! Cl); and the Axis of the Portion and Diameter of the Section
NO; which let be cut in the Points wand T, as before; and draw YP
parallel to rI (! Cl), and touching the Section in P, and MP parallel to
NO, and PS perpendicular to the Axis. And because now that the Axis of
the Portion maketh an Angle with the Liquids Surface greater than the
Angle B, the Angle SYP shall also be greater than the Angle B. And,
therefore, the Square PS hath greater proportion to the Square SY than
the Square I/JE hath to the Square tfJB. And, for that cause, KR hath greater B
proportion to SY than the half of KR hath to I/JB. Therefore, SY is less
than the double ofl/JB; and SO less than I/JB. And, therefore, Sw is greater C
than RI/J, and PH greater than F. And, because that the Portion hath the D
same proportion in Gravity unto the Liquid that the Excess by which the
Square BD is greater than the Square FQ hath unto the Square BD, and
that as the Portion is in proportion to the Liquid in Gravity so is the part
thereof submerged unto the whole Portion, it followeth that the part sub-
merged hath the same proportion to the whole Portion that the Excess by
which the Square BD is greater than the Square FQ hath unto the Square
BD. And, therefore, the whole Portion shall have the same proportion E
to that part which is above the Liquid that the Square BD hath to the
Square FQ. But as the whole Portion is to that part which is above the
I This last phrase was inadvertently omitted from the Greek text (see Heiberg, Archimedis
opera omnia, Vol. 2, p. 381, line 12), from Moerbeke's translation (Vol. 2, 58vA) and from
Commandino's text. It is present in the appropriate place in Proposition VIII. Hence
Salusbury has added it here.
Liquid, so is the Square NO unto the Square PM. Therefore, PM shall
be equall to FQ. But it hath been demonstrated that PH is greater than
F. And, therefore, MH shall be less than Q, and PH greater than double
377 of HM. Let therefore, PZ be double to ZM; / and drawing a Line from
Z to T, prolong it unto G. The Centre of Gravity of the whole Portion
shall be T; of that part which is above the Liquid Z; and of the Remainder
which is within the Liquid, the Centre shall be in the Line ZT prolonged;
let it be in G. It shall be demonstrated, as before, that TH is perpendic-
ular to the Surface of the Liquid, and that the Lines drawn thorow Z and
G parallel to the said TH are also perpendiculars unto the same. Therefore,
the Part which is above the Liquid shall move downwards along that which
passeth thorow Z; and that which is within it shall move upwards along
that which passeth thorowG. And, therefore, the Portion shall not remain
so inclined, nor shall so turn about as that its Axis be perpendicular
unto the Surface of the Liquid; for the parts towards L shall move F
downwards and those towards A upwards, as may appear by the things
already demonstrated. And, if the Axis should make an Angle with the
Surface of the Liquid less than the Angle B [Fig. III.4.3B.36(a)], it shall G
in like manner be demonstrated that the Portion will not rest, but incline
untill that its Axis do make an Angle with the Surface of the Liquid equall
to the Angle B [Fig. III.4.3B.36(b)].
Commandine.
"And, therefore, the Square BD doth more exceed the Square FQ A
than doth the Square BC. And, consequently, the Line FQ is less than
BC; and F less than BR. " Because the Excess by which the Square BD
exceedeth the Square BC,having less proportion unto the Square BD than
the Excess by which the Square BD exceedeth the Square FQ hath to the
said Square, (a) the Excess by which the Square BD exceedeth the Square
BC shall be less than the Excess by which it exceedeth the Square FQ.
Therefore, the Square FQ is less than the Square BC, and, consequently,
the Line FQ less than the Line BC. But FQ hath the same proportion to
F that BC hath to BR, for the Antecedents are each Sesquialter of their
consequents. And (b)FQ being less thanBC, F shall also be less than BR.
"And, for that cause, KR hath greater proportion to SY than the half B
of KR hath to t/lB." For KR is to SY as the Square PS is to the
Square SY, and the half of the Line KR is to the Line t/lB as the Square
Et/l is to the Square t/lB.
"And SO less than t/lB." For SY is double of SO. C
,,And PH greater than F ." For PH is equall to Sw, and Rt/l equall to F. D
"And, therefore, the whole Portion shall have the same proportion to E
that part which is above the Liquid that the Square BD hath to the Square
FQ. " Because that the part submerged, being to the whole Portion as the
Excess by which the Square BD is greater than the Square FQ is to the
Square BD, the whole Portion, Converting, shall be to the part thereof
378 submerged as the Square BD is to / the Excess by which it exceedeth
the Square FQ. And, therefore, by Conversion of Proportion the whole
Portion is to the part thereof above the Liquid as the Square BD is to the
Square FQ, for the Square BD is so much greater than the Excess by which
it exceedeth the Square FQ as is the said Square FQ.
"For the parts towards L shall move downwards and those towards F
A upwards." We thus correct these words, for in Tartaglia's Translation
it is falsly, as I conceive, read Quoniam quae ex parte L ad superiora
ferentur,
2
because the Line that passeth thorow Z falls perpendicularly
on the parts towards L, and that thorow G falleth perpendicularly on the
parts towards A. Whereupon the Centre Z, together with those parts
which are towards L shall move downwards; and the Centre G, together
with the parts which are towards A, upwards.
"It shall in like manner be demonstrated that the Portion shall not rest, G
but incline untill that its Axis do make an Angle with the Surface of the
Liquid equall to the Angle B." This may be easily demonstrated, as well
from what hath been said in the precedent Proposition, as also from the
two latter Figures [Figs. III.4.3B.36(a-b)], by us inserted.
Prop. X Theor. X.
THE RIGHT PORTION OF A RIGHTANGLED CONOID, LIGHTER
THAN TO BE UNTO THE SEMI-PARAMETER IN PROPORTION
AS FIFTEEN TO FOUR, BEING DEMITTED INTO THE LIQUID SO
AS THAT ITS BASE TOUCH NOT THE SAME, IT SHALL SOME- A
TIMES STAND PERPENDICULAR, SOMETIMES INCLINED, AND B
SOMETIMES SO INCLINED AS THAT ITS BASE TOUCH THE
SURFACE OF THE LIQUID IN ONE POINT ONLY, AND THAT
IN TWO POSITIONS, SOMETIMES SO THAT ITS BASE BE MORE c
SUBMERGED IN THE LIQUID, AND SOMETIMES SO AS THAT IT D
DOTH NOT IN THE LEAST TOUCH THE SURFACE OF THE
LIQUID, [EACH POSITION BEING] ACCORDING TO THE PRO- E
PORTION THAT IT HATH TO THE LIQUID IN GRAVITY. EVERY
ONE OF WHICH CASES SHALL BE ANON DEMONSTRATED.
Let there be a Portion, as hath been said; and it being cut thorow
its Axis by a Plane erect unto the Superficies of the Liquid, let the Sec-
tion be APOL [Fig. III.4.3B.37], the Section of a Rightangled Cone; and
the Axis of the Portion and Diameter of the Section BD; and let BD be
2 See Vol. 2, 58vI. This is a proper correction. Apparently there was something wrong
in Greek manuscript B, which Moerbeke used. The whole phrase is omitted from Greek
manuscript C (see Heiberg, Archimedis opera omnia, Vol. 2, p. 384, lines 12-13).
",
cut in the Point K so as that BK be double of KD; and in C so as that
BD may have the same proportion to KC as fifteen to four. It is manifest, F
therefore, that KC is greater than the Semi-parameter. Let the Semi- G
379 Iparameter be equall to KR; and let DS be Sesquialter of KR; but SB is H
also Sesquialter of BR. Therefore, draw a Line from A to B; and thorow
C draw CE Perpendicular to BD, cutting the Line AB in the Point E; and
thorow E draw EZ parallel unto BD. Again, AB being divided into two
equall parts in T, draw TH parallel to the same BD; and let Sections of
Rightangled Cones be described, AEI about the Diameter EZ, and ATD
about the Diameter TH; and let them be like to the Portion ABL. Now K, L
the Section of the Cone AEI shall pass thorow K; and the Line drawn
from R perpendicular unto BD shall cut the said AEI; let it cut it in the
Points Y, G, and thorow Y and G draw PYQ and OGN parallels unto
BD, and cutting ATD in the Points F and X, lastly, draw Pep and Ox
touching the Section APOL in the Points P and O. In regard, therefore, M
that the three Portions APOL, AEI, and ATD are contained betwixt Right
Lines and the Sections of Rightangled Cones, and are right alike and un-
equall, touching one another upon one and the same Base, and NXGO
being drawn from the Point N upwards, and QFYP from Q: OG shall
have to GX a proportion compounded of the proportion that IL hath to
LA and of the proportion that AD hath to DI. But IL is to LA as two to
five. And CB is to BD as six to fifteen, that is, as two to five. And as N,O
CB is toBD, so is EB toBA, and DZ to DA. And of DZ and DA, LI and P
LA are double; and AD is to DI as five to one. But the proportion com- Q
pounded of the proportion of two to five and of the proportion of five to
one is the same with that of two to one; and two is to one, in double
proportion. Therefore, OG is double of GX; and, in the same manner is
PY proved to be double of YF. Therefore, since that DS is Sesquialter
of KR, BS shall be the Excess by which the Axis is greater than
Sesquialter of the Semi-parameter. If therefore, the Portion have the same
proportion in Gravity unto the Liquid as the Square made of the Line
BS hath to the Square made of BD, or greater, being demitted into the
Liquid so as that its Base touch not the Liquid, it shall stand erect, or
perpendicular;
1
for it hath been demonstrated above that the Portion whose R
Axis is greater than Sesquialter of the Semi-parameter, if it have not lesser
380 proportion in Gravity unto the Liquid than the Square I made of the Excess
by which the Axis is greater than Sesquialter of the Semi-parameter hath
to the Square made of the Axis, being demitted into the Liquid, so as
hath been said, it shall stand erect, or Perpendicular.
Commandine.
The particulars contained in this Tenth Proposition are divided by
Archimedes into five Parts and Conclusions, each of which he proveth by
a distinct Demonstration.
1 This is the first case or part declared in the enunciation. As noted in Comment R, it
has already been demonstrated in Proposition IV.
"It shall sometimes stand perpendicular." This is the first Conclusion, A
the Demonstration of which he hath subjoyned to the Proposition.
, 'And sometimes so inclined as that its Base touch the Surface of the B
Liquid in one Point only." This is demonstrated in the third Conclusion.
"Sometimes so that its Base be most submerged in the Liquid." This c
pertaineth unto the fourth Conclusion.
"And sometimes so as that it doth not in the least touch the Surface D
of the Liquid." This it doth hold true two wayes, one of which is
explained in the second, and the other in the fifth Conclusion.
"According to the proportion that it hath to the Liquid in Gravity. Every E
one of which Cases shall be anon demonstrated." In Tartaglia's Version
it is rendered, to the confusion of the sence (!), Quam autemproportionem
habeant (! habente) ad humidum in Gravitate singula horum demon-
strabuntur.
2
"It is manifest, therefore, that KC is greater than the Semi-parameter." F
For, since BD hath to KC the same proportion as fifteen to four, and hath
unto the Semi-parameter greater proportion, (a) the Semi-parameter shall
be less than KC.
"Let the Semi-parameter be equall to KR." We have added these G
words, which are not to be found in Tartaglia.
3
"But SB is also Sesquialter of BR." For, DB is supposed Sesquialter H
of BK; and DS also is Sesquialter of KR. Wherefore as (b) the whole DB
is to the whole BK, so is the part DS to the part KR. Therefore, the
Remainder SB is also to the Remainder BR as DB is to BK.
"And let them be like to the Portion ABL." Apollonius thus defineth K
like Portions of the Sections of a Cone, in Lib. 6. Conicorum, as Eutocius
writeth* "EV ax8Ef,awv EV Kaa[T]cp 1TapaAAT]AWV T1J {3aaH, rawv
TO 7T at 1TapaAATJAOf, KaL al TaS
a1TO TWV Sf,aJ.LETpWV EV ElaL
Kat al a7TOTEJ.LVOJ.LEVaf, 7Tpoa TaS that is, In both of which
anequall number of Lines being drawn parallel to the Base, the paralle1[s]
and the Bases have to the parts of the Diameters cut off from the Vertex
the same proportion as also the parts cut off, to the parts cut off." Now
the Lines parallel to the Bases are drawn, as I suppose, by making a
* Upon prop. 3 lib. 2 Archim. Aequipond.
2 See Vo!' 2, 58vL. The confusion comes with the reading habente in Moerbeke's text
(both in manuscripts 0 and Ba). Manuscript M had habentem. Curtius Troianus' edition
had habeant. At any rate, Commandino changes it to habet and adds secundum propor-
tionem before the phrase in the Moerbeke text. Unfortunately Greek manuscript C is no help
(since the crucial phrase is missing); nor indeed is Heiberg's reconstruction, which I find
difficult to construe. Also notice in this passage that Salusbury once more has identified
Tartaglia as the translator.
3 See Vo!' 2, 58vN. Again Salusbury has added Tartaglia's name.
4 See Heiberg,Archimedis opera omnia, Vo!' 3, pp. 284-86. The marginal citation identify-
ing the book and proposition number is Salusbury's.
Rectilineall Figure (called) Signally inscribedt [(cr}xiip.a y v w p p w ~
eyypacp6p.Evov]5 in both portions having an equall number of Sides in both.
Therefore, like Portions are cut off from like Sections of a Cone; and their
Diameters, whether they be perpendicular to their Bases or making equall
Angles with their Bases, have the same proportion unto their Bases.
"Now the Section of the Cone AEI shall pass thorow K." For, if it L
be possible, let it not pass thorow K but thorow some other Point of the
Line DB, as thorow V. In regard, therefore, that in the Section of the
Right-angled Cone AEI, whose Diameter is EZ, AE is drawn and pro-
longed; and DB parallel unto the Diameter cutteth both AE and AI:
381 AE in B and AI in D, DB shall have to BV the same proportion / that
AZ hath to ZD, by the fourth Proposition of Archimedes , De quadratura
Parabolae.
6
But AZ is Sesquialter of ZD, for it is as three to two, as we
shall anon demonstrate. Therefore DB is Sesquialter of BV; but DB and
BK are Sesquialter. And, therefore, the Lines (c) BV and BK are equall,
which is impossible. Therefore the Section of the Right-angled Cone AEI
shall pass thorow the Point K, which we would demonstrate.
"In regard, therefore, that the three Portions APOL, AEI and ATD are M
contained betwixt Right Lines and the Sections of Right-angled Cones,
and are Right, alike and unequall, touching one another upon one and
the same Base." After these words "upon one and the same Base," we
may see that something is obliterated, that is to be desired [in the transla-
tion];7 and for the Demonstration of these particulars, it is requisite in
this place to premise some things, which will also be necessary unto the
things that follow.
Lemma. 1.
Let there be a Right Line AB {Fig. III.4.3B.38]; and let it be cut by two
Lines parallel to one another,AC and DE, so that as AB is to BD, soAC
may be to DE. I say that the Line that conjoyneth the Points C and B
shall likewise pass by E.
For, if possible, let it not pass by E, but either above or below it. Let
it first pass below it, as by F. The Triangles ABC and DBF shall be alike.
And, therefore, as (a) AB is to BD, so is AC to DF. But as AB is to BD,
so was AC to DE. Therefore (b) DF shall be equall to DE, that is, the part
to the whole, which is absurd. The same absurditie will follow if the Line
t Vide Archim. ante prop. 2. lib. 2. Aequipond.
5 The full Greek phrase was added by Salusbury (see the Greek text, ibid., Vol. 2, p.
168, lines 8-9; cf. Moerbeke's translation, Vol. 2, 18vF-G). Heath translates yvwpi}.UlJ';
as "in the recognized manner."
6 See above, Vol. 2,2OvO-P.
7 Ibid., 58vP. There is indeed a lacuna here in manuscripts 0 and Ba.
CB be supposed to pass above the Point E. And, therefore, CB must of
necessity pass thorow E, which was required to be demonstrated.
Lemma. 11.
Let there be two like Portions contained betwixt Right Lines and the
Sections of Right-angled Cones [Fig.III.4.3B.39];ABC the greater, whose
Diameter let be BD; and EFC the lesser, whose Diameter let be FG; and
let them be so applyed to one another that the greater include the lesser;
and let their Bases AC and EC be in the same Right Line, that the same
Point C may be the term or bound of them both. And then in the Section
ARC take any Point, as H; and draw a Line from H to C. I say that the Line
HC hath to that part of itself that lyeth betwixt C and the Section EFC the
same proportion that AC hath to CE.
Draw BC, which shall pass thorow F. For, in regard that the Portions
are alike, the Diameters with the Bases contain equall Angles. And,
therefore, BD and FG are parallel to one another; and BD is to AC as FG
is to EC; and, Permutando, BD is to FG as AC is to CE, that is, (a) as
their halfes, [namely] DC to CG; therefore, it followeth, by the preceding
Lemma, that the Line BC shall pass by the Point F. Moreover, from the
Point H unto the Diameter BD draw the Line HK parallel to the Base AC,
382 and draw a Line / from K to C, cutting the Diameter FG in L; and thorow
L unto the Section EFG [! EFC], on the part E [F], draw the Line LM
parallel unto the same Base AC. And, of the Section ARC, let the Line
BN be the Parameter; and, of the Section EFC, let FO be the Parameter.
And, because the Triangles CBD and CFG are alike; (b) therefore, as
BC is to CF, so shall DC be to CG, and BD to FG. Again, because the
Triangles CKB and CLF are also alike to one another, therefore, as BC
is to CF, that is, as BD is to FG, so shall KC be to CL, and BK to FL.
Wherefore, KC to CL and BK to FL are as DC to CG, that is (c) as their
duplicates AC and CE. But as BD is to FG, so is DC to CG, that is,
AD to EG. And, Permutando, as BD is to AD, so is FG to EG. But the
Square AD is equall to the Rectangle DBN, by the 11 of our first of
Conicks.
8
Therefore, the (d) three Lines BD, AD and BN are Propor-
tionalls. By the same reason, likewise, the Square EG, being equall to the
Rectangle GFO, the three other Lines FG, EG and FO shall be also
Proportionals. And, as BD is to AD, so is FG to EG. And, therefore,
as AD is to BN, so is EG to FO. Ex equali, therefore, as DB is to BN, so
is GF to FO. And, Permutando, as DB is to GF, so is BN to FO. But as
DB is toGF, so isBK toFL. Therefore,BK is toFL asBN is toFO. And.
Permutando, as BK is to BN, so is FL to FO. Again, because the (e)
(d) By 17. of the sixth.
(e) By 11. of our first of Conicks.
8 See above, Prop. VIII, n. 2.
Square HK is equall to the Rectangle BN (! KBN) and the Square ML
equall to the Rectangle LFO, therefore the three Lines BK, KH and BN
shall be Proportionals, and FL, LM, and FO shall also be Proportionals.
And, therefore, (f) as the Line BK is to the Line BN, so shall the Square
BK be to the Square HK. And, as the Line FL is to the Line FO, so shall
the Square FL be to the Square LM. Therefore, because that as BK is
to BN so is FL to FO, as the Square BK is to the Square KH so shall the
Square FL be to the Square LM. Therefore, (g) as the Line BK is to the
Line KH, so is the Line FL to LM. And, Permutando, as BK is to FL,
so is KH to LM. But BK was to FL as KC to CL. Therefore, KH is to
LM as KC to CL. And, therefore, by the preceding Lemma, it is mani-
fest that the Line HC also shall pass thorow the Point M. As KC, there-
fore, is to CL, that is, as AC to CE, so is HC to CM, that is, to the same
part of itself that lyeth betwixt C and the Section EFC. And in like manner
might we demonstrate that the same happeneth in other Lines that are
produced from the Point C and (! to) the Sections EBC (! Section ARC).
And that BC hath the same proportion to CF plainly appeareth, for BC
is to CF as DC to CG, that is, as their Duplicates ACto CE.
From whence it is manifest that all Lines so drawn shall be cut by the
said Section in the same proportion. For, by Division and Conversion,
CM is to MH, and CF to FB, as CE to EA.
Lemma. Ill.
And, hence it may also be proved that the Lines which are drawn in
like Portions so as that with the Bases they contain equall Angles shall
also cut off like Portions; that is, as in the foregoing Figure, the Portions
HBC and MFC [Fig. III.4.3B.40], which the Lines CH and CM do cut off,
are also alike to each other.
For let CH and CM be divided in the midst in the Points P and Q; and
thorow those Points draw the Lines RPS and TQV parallel to the Diam-
eters. Of the Portion HSC the Diameter shall be PS, and of the Portion
383 MVC the Diameter shall be / QV. And suppose that as the Square CR
is to the Square CP, so is the Line BN unto another Line, which let be
SX. And, as the Square CT is to the Square CQ, so letFO be to VY. Now it
is manifest, by the things which we have demonstrated in our Commen-
taries upon the fourth Proposition of Archimedes, De Conoidibus &
Spheaeroidibus (!),
9
that the Square CP is equall to the Rectangle PSX;
and also, that the Square CQ is equall to the Rectangle QVY; that is,
the Lines SX and VY, are the Parameters of the Sections HSC and
MVC. But since the Triangles CPR and CQT are alike, CR shall have to
CP the same Proportion that CT hath to CQ. And, therefore, the (a) Square
(f) By Cor. of 20. of the Sixth.
(g) By 22. of the sixth.
9 Commentarii in opera non nulla Archimedis (Venice, 1558), 30r-v.
384
CR shall have to the Square CP, the same proportion that the Square
CT hath to the Square CQ. Therefore, also, the Line BN shall be to the
Line SX as the Line FO is to VY. But HC was to CM as AC to
CE. And, therefore, also, their halves CP and CQ are also to one another
as AD and EG. And, Permutando, CP is to AD as CQ is to EG. But it
hath been proved that AD is to BN as EG to FO, and BN to SX as
FO to VY. Therefore, ex aequali, CP shall be to SX as CQ is to VY. And,
since the Square CP is equall to the Rectangle PSX, and the Square CQ
to the Rectangle QVY, the three Lines SP, PC and SX shall be propor-
tionalls, and VQ, QC and VY shal (!) be Proportionalls also. And there-
fore also SP shall be to PC as VQ to QC. And as PC is to CH, so
shall QC be to CM. Therefore, ex aequali, as SP the Diameter of the
Portion HSC is to its Base CH, so is VQ the Diameter of the Portion
MVS [to] the Base CM; and the Angles which the Diameter with
the Bases do contain are equall; and the Lines SP and VQ are parallel.
Therefore the Portions, also, HSC and MVC shall be alike, which was
proposed to be demonstrated.
Lemma. IV.
Let there be two Lines AB and CD [Fig. III.4.3B.41]; and let them be
cut in the Points E and F, so that as AE is to EB, CF may be to FD; and
let them be cut again in two other Points G and H; and let CH be to HD
as AG is to GB. I say that CF shall be to FH as AE is EG.
For in regard that as AE is to EB so is CF to FD, it followeth that,
by Compounding, as AB is to EB, so shall CD be to FD. Again, since that
as AG is to GB so is CH to BD, it followeth that, by Compounding
and Converting, as GB is to AB, so shall HD be [to] CD. Therefore, ex
aequali and Converting, as EB is to GB, so shall FD be to HD. And, by
Conversion of Proposition (! proportion), as EB is to EG, so shall FD be
to FH. But as AE is to EB, so is CF to FD. Ex aequali, therefore, as
AE is to EG, so shall CF be to FH. Again, another way. Let the Lines
AB and CD be applyed to one another so as that they doe make an Angle
at the parts A and C; and let A and C be in one and the same Point;
then draw Lines from D to B, from H to G, and from F to E. And since
that as AE is to EB, so is CF, that is AF to FD, therefore FE shall be
parallel toDB; Ca) and likewiseHG shall be parallel to DB, for thatAH is
to HD as AG to GB. Cb) Therefore FE and HG are parallel to each other.
And consequently, as AE is to EG, so is AH, that is CF, to FH, which
/ Lemma. V.
Again, let there be two like Portions contained betwixt Right Lines
and the Sections of Right-angled Cones, as in the foregoing figure, ABC,
(b) By 30. of the first.

i
!
f
l
whose DiameterisBD [Fig. IIIA.3B.42], and EFC, whose Diameter isFG;
and from the Point E draw the Line EH parallel to the Diameters BD and
FG; and let it cut the Section ABC in K; and from the Point C draw CH
touching the SectionABC in C, and meeting with the Line EH in H, which
also toucheth the Section EFC in the same Point C, as shall be demon-
strated. I say that the Line drawn from CH unto the Section EFC so as
that it be parallel to the Line EH shall be divided in the same proportion
by the SectionABC [as that] in which the Line CA is divided by the Section
EFC; and the part of the Line CA which is betwixt the two Sections
shall answer in proportion to the part of the Line drawn, which also
falleth betwixt the same Sections; that is, as in the foregoing Figure, if DB
be produced untill it meet with CH in L, that it may intersect the Section
EFC in the Point M, the Line LB shall have to BM the same proportion
that CE hath to EA.
For let GF be prolonged untill it meet the same Line CH in N, cutting
the Section ABC in 0; and drawing a Line from B to C, which shall passe
by F, as hath been shewn, the Triangles CGF and CDB shall be alike; as
also the Triangles CFN and CBL. Wherefore (a) as GF is to DB, so shall
CF be to CB. And as (b) CF is to CB, so shall FN be to BL. Therefore
GF shall be to DB as FN to BL. And, Permutando, GF shall be to FN as
DB to BL. But DB is equall to BL, by 35 of our First Book of Conicks .10
Therefore (c) GF also shall be equall to FN. And by 33 of the same,ll
the Line CH toucheth the SectionEFC in the same Point. Therefore, draw-
ing a Line from C to M, prolong it untill it meet with the Section ABC in
P; and from P unto AC draw PQ parallel to BD. Because, now, that the
Line CH toucheth the Section EFC in the Point C, LM shall have the
same proportion to MD that CD hath to DE, by the Fifth Proposition of
Archimedes in his BookDe Quadratura Parabolae .12 And by reason of the
Similitude of the Triangles CMD and CPQ, as CM is to CD, so shall CP
be to CQ. And, Permutando, as CM is to CP, so shall CD be to CQ. But
as CM is to CP, so is CE to CA, as we have but even now demonstrated.
And, therefore, as CE is to CA, so is CD to CQ; that is as the whole is to
the whole, so is the part to the part. The remainder, therefore, DE is to
the Remainder QA as CE is to CA, that is, as CD is to CQ. And,
Permutando, CD is to DE as CQ is to QA. And LM is also to MD as
385 CD to DE. Therefore LM is / to MD as CQ to QA. But LB is to BD, by 5 of
Archimedes, before recited, as CD to DA. It is manifest therefore, by the
precedent Lemma, that CD is to DQ as LB is to BM. But as CD is to
* By 2. of the sixth.
11 Ibid., 24v.
12 See Vol. 2, 20vR-S.
DQ, so is CM to MP. *Therefore LB is to BM as CM to MP. And it
haveing been demonstrated that CM is to MP as CE to EA, LB shall be
to BM as CE to EA. And in like manner it shall be demonstrated that
so is NO to OF, as also the Remainders. And that also HK is to KE as
CE to EA doth plainly appeare by the same 5. of Archimedes, which is
that that we propounded to be demonstrated.
Lemma. VI.
And, therefore, let the things stand as above [Fig. III.4.3B.42]; and
describe yet another like Portion contained betwixt a Right Line and the
Section of the Rightangled Cone DRC, whose Diameter is RS , that it may
cut the Line FG in T; and prolong SR unto the Line CH in V, which
meeteth the Section ABC in X, and EFC in Y. I say that BM hath to MD
a proportion compounded of the proportion that EA hath to AC and of
that which CD hath to DE.
For we shall first demonstrate that the Line CH toucheth the Section
DRC in the Point C; and that LM is to MD as also NF to FT, and VY to
YR as CD is to ED. And, because now that LB is to BM as CE is to EA ,
therefore, Compounding and Converting, BM shall be toLM as EA toAC.
And, as LM is to MD, so shall CD be to DE. The proportion, therefore,
of BM to MD is compounded of the proportion that BM hath to LM and
of the proportion that LM hath to MD. Therefore, the proportion of
BM to MD shall also be compounded of the proportion that EA hath to
AC and of that which CD hath to DE. In the same manner it shal (I) be
demonstrated that OF hath to FT, and also XY to YR, a proportion com-
pounded of those same proportions; and so in the rest, which was to be
demonstrated.
By which it appeareth that the Lines so drawn, which fall betwixt the
Sections ARC and DRC, shall be divided by the Section EFC in the same
Proportion.
"And CB is to BD as six to fifteen." For we have supposed that BK N
is double of KD. Wherefore, by Composition, BD shall be to KD as three
to one, that is, as fifteen to five. But BD was to KC as fifteen to four.
Therefore BD is to DC as fifteen to nine. And, by Conversion of propor-
tion and Converting, CB is to BD as six to fifteen.
"And as CB is to BD, so is EB to BA, and DZ to DA. " For the Triangles 0
CBE and DBA being alike [Fig. III.4.3B.43], as CB is to BE, so shall
DB be to BA. And, Permutando, as CB is to BD, so shall EB be to BA.
Againe, asBC is toCE, so shall BD be toDA. And,Permutando, as CB is
to BD, so shall CE, that is, DZ equall to it, be to DA.
"And ofDZ andDA,LI and LA are double." That the Line LA is double P
of DA is manifest, for that BD is the Diameter of the Portion. And that
LI is double to DZ shall be thus demonstrated. Forasmuch as ZD is to DA
as two to five, therefore, Converting and Dividing, AZ, that is, IZ, shall
386 be to ZD as three to two. / Again, by dividing, ID shall be to DZ as one
J
I
'1
,.

to two. But ZD was to DA, that is, to DL, as two to five. Therefore,
ex equali, and Converting, LD is to DJ as five to one; and, by Conversion
of Proportion, DL is to DJ as five to four. But DZ was to DL as two to
five. Therefore, again, ex equali, DZ is to LI as two to four. Therefore
LJ is double of DZ, which was to be demonstrated.
"And AD is to DJ as five to one." This we have but just now demon- Q
strated.
"For it hath been demonstrated above that the Portion whose Axis is R
greater than Sesquialter of the Semi-parameter, if it have not lesser pro-
portion in Gravity to the Liquid, etc." He hath demonstrated this in the
fourth Proposition of this Book.
CONCLUSION 11.
IF THE PORTION HAVE LESSER PROPORTION IN GRAVITY TO A
THE LIQUID THAN THE SQUARESB HATH TO THE SQUAREBD,
BUT GREATER THAN THE SQUAREXO HATH TO THE SQUARE
BD, BEING DEMITTED INTO THE LIQUID SO INCLINED AS
THAT ITS BASE TOUCH NOT THE LIQUID, IT SHALL CONTINUE
INCLINED SO AS THAT ITS BASE SHALL NOT IN THE LEAST
TOUCH THE SURFACE OF THE LIQUID, AND ITS AXIS SHALL
MAKE AN ANGLE WITH THE LIQUIDS SURFACE GREATER
THAN THE ANGLE XY
Therefore repeating the first figure, let the Portion have unto the Liquid
in Gravitie a proportion greater than the Square XO hath to the square
BD [Fig. III.4.3B.37], but lesser than the Square made of the Excesse by
which the Axis is greater than Sesquialter of the Semi-parameter, that
is, of SB, hath to the Square BD; and as the Portion is to the Liquid
in Gravity, so let the Square made of the Line I/J be to the Square BD;
I/J shall be greater thanXO, but lesser than the Excesse by which the Axis B
is greater than SesquiaIter of the Semi-parameter, that is, than SB. Let a
Right Line MN be applyed to fall between the Conick-Sections AMQL
and AXD [see Fig. IIIA.3BA4], [parallel to BD falling betwixt OX and
BD,] and equall to the Line I/J; and let it cut the remaining Conick Section
AHI in the point H, and the Right Line RG in V. It shall be demonstrated c
that MH is double to HN, like as it was demonstrated that OG is double
387 to GX. I And from the Point M draw MY touching the Section AMQL in
M; and MC perpendicular to BD; and lastly having drawn AN and pro-
longed it to Q, the Lines AN and NQ shall be equall to each other. For D
in regard that in the Like Portions AMQL and AXD the Lines AQ and
AN are drawn from the Bases unto the Portions, which Lines contain
equall Angles with the said Bases, QA shall have the same proportion
13 Notice that instead of grouping the enunciations of this and the remaining parts to-
gether in one place, with the proofs grouped together after the enunciations, as had
Moerbeke and Commandino, Salusbury follows each enunciation by its proof.
to AM (! AN) that LA hath to AD. Therefore AN is equall to NQ, and E, F
AQ parallel toMY. It is to be demonstrated that the Portion being demitted
into the Liquid, and so inclined as that its Base touch not the Liquid, it
shall continue inclined so as that its Base shall not in the least touch the
Surface of the Liquid, and its Axis shall make an Angle with the Liquids
Surface greater than the Angle X. Let it be demitted into the Liquid, and
let it stand so as that its Base do touch the Surface of the Liquid in one
Point only; and let the Portion be cut thorow the Axis by a Plane erect
unto the Surface of the Liquid, and let the Section of the Superficies of
the Portion beAPOL [Fig. III.4.3B.45], the Section ofa Rightangled Cone,
and let the Section of the Liquids Surface be AO; and let the Axis of the
Portion and Diameter of the Section be BD; and let BD be cut in the Points G
K and R, as hath been said; also draw PG Parallel to AO and touching
the Section APOL in P; and from that Point draw PT Parallel to BD,
and PS perpendicular to the same BD. Now, forasmuch as the Portion is
unto the Liquid in Gravity as the Square made of the Line IjJ is to the
Square BD, and since that as the portion is unto the Liquid in Gravitie
so is the part thereof submerged unto the whole Portion, and that as
the part submerged is to the whole so is the Square TP to the Square
BD, it followeth that the Line IjJ shall be equall to TP. And therefore the
Lines MN and PT, as also the Portions AMQ and APO, shall likewise be
equall to each other. And seeing that in the Equall and Like Portions H
APOL and AMQL the Lines AO and AQ are drawn from the extremites
(!) of their Bases so as that the Portions cut off do make Equall Angles
388 with their Diameters, as also the / Angles at Y and G being equall, there-
fore the Lines YB and GB, and BC and BS, shall also be equall. And
therefore CR and SR, and MV and PZ, and VN and ZT, shall be equall
likewise. Since therefore MV is Lesser than double of VN, it is manifest K
that PZ is lesser than double of ZT. Let Pw be double of wT; and drawing
a Line from w to K, prolong it to E. Now the Centre of Gravity of the
whole Portion shall be the point K; and the Centre of that part which is in
the Liquid shall be w, and of that which is above the Liquid shall be in the
Line KE, which let be E. But the Line KZ shall be perpendicular unto
the Surface of the Liquid. And therefore also the Lines drawn thorow the
Points E and w parallell unto KZ shall be perpendiculars unto the same.
Therefore the Portion shall not abide, but shall turn about so as that its L
Base do not in the least touch the Surface of the Liquid; in regard that
now when it toucheth in but one Point only, it moveth upwards, on the
part towards A, it is therefore perspicuous that the Portion shall consist M
so as that its Axis shall make an Angle with the Liquids Surface greater
than the Angle X.
Commandine.
"If the Portion have lesser proportion in Gravity to the Liquid than the A
Square SB hath to the Square BD, but greater than the Square XO hath
to the Square BD." This is the second Part of the Tenth proposition,
and the other parts with their Demonstrations shall hereafter follow in
the same Order.
"$ shall be greater than XO, but lesser than the Excess by which the B
Axis is greater than Sesquialter of the Semi-parameter, that is, than
SB." This followeth from the 10 of the fifth Book of Euclids Elements.
"It shall be demonstrated that MH is double to HN, like as it was c
demonstrated that OG is double to GX." As in the first Conclusion of
this Proposition, and from what we have but even now written, there-
upon appeareth.
"For in regard that in the like Portions AMQL and AXD the Lines AQ D
and AN are drawn from the Bases unto the Portions, which Lines contain
equall Angles with the said Bases, QA shall have the same proportion to
AN that LA hath to AD." This we have demonstrated above.
"Therefore AN is equall to NQ." For since that QA is to AN as LA E
to AD, Dividing and Converting, AN shall be to NQ as AD to DL. But
AD is equall to DL, for that DB is supposed to be the Diameter of the
Portion. Therefore also (a) AN is equall to NQ.
"And AQ parallel to MY." By the fifth of the second Book of Apol- F
lonius his Conicks .14
"And let BD be cut in the Points K and R as hath been said." In the G
first Conclusion of this Proposition. And let it be cut in K so as that BK
be double to KD, and in R so as that KR may be equall to the Semi-
parameter.
"And seeing that in the Equall and Like Portions APOL and AMQL H
the Lines AD and AQ are drawn from the Extremities of their Bases so
389 as that the Portions cut off do make equall Angles / with their Diameters,
as also the Angles at Y and G being equall, therefore the Lines YB and
GB, and BC and BS, shall also be equal!." Let the Line AQ cut the
Diameter DB in y (! 0) [see Fig. III.4.3B.44] and let it cut AO in
8 [! "it ... 8" should read let AO cut DB in H; Fig. III.4.3B.45]. Now
because that in the equall and like Portions APOL and AMQL, from the
Extremities of their Bases, AO and AQ are drawn, that contain equall
Angles with those Bases, and since the Angles at D are both Right, there-
fore, the Remaining Angles A8D (! AHD) and AyD (! AOD) shall be
equall to one another. But the Line PG is parallel unto the Line AO; also
MY is parallel to AQ; and PS and MC to AD. Therefore the Triangles
PGS and MYC, as also the Triangles A8D (! AHD) and AyD (1 AOD),
are all alike to each other. (b) And as AD is to A8 (1 AH), so is AD to
Ay (! AO); and, Permutando, the Lines AD and AD are equall to each
other. Therefore, A8 (! AH) and Ay (! AO) are also equal!. But AD and
AQ are equall to each other; as also their halves AT and AN. Therefore
14 Apollonius, Conica (Bologna, 1566), 45v.
the Remainders TS (! TH) and Ny (! NO), that is, TG (! PG) and MY, are
also equal!. And, as (c) PG is to GS, so is MY to YC; and, Permutando,
as PG is to MY, so is GS to YC. And, therefore, GS and YC are equall,
as also their halves BS and BC, From whence it followeth that the Re-
mainders SR and CR are also equall, and, consequently, that PZ and MV,
and VN and ZT, are likewise equall to one another,
"Since, therefore, that NV (! MV) is lesser than double of VN," For K
MH is double of HN, and MV is lesser than MH. Therefore, MV is lesser
than double of HN, and much lesser than double of VN,
"Therefore, the Portion shall not abide, but shall turn about so as that L
its Base do not in the least touch the Surface of the Liquid; in regard that
now when it toucheth in but one Point only, it moveth upwards on the
part towards A. " Tartaglia' s his Translation hath it thus, Non ergo manet
Portio sed inclinabitur ut Basis ipsius, nec secundum unum tangat Super-
fidem Humidi, quoniam nunc secundum unum tacta ipsa reclinatur .15
Which we have thought fit in this manner to correct, from other Places of
Archimedes, that the sense might be the more perspicuous. For in the sixth
Proposition of this, he thus writeth (as we also have it in the Translation,)
"The Solid APOL, therefore, shall turn about, and its Base shall not in
the least touch the Surface of the Liquid." Again, in the seventh Proposi-
tion, "From whence it is manifest that its Base shall turn about in such
manner as that its Base doth in no wise touch the Surface of the Liquid;
for that now when it toucheth but in one Point only, it moveth downwards
on the part towards L. " And that the Portion moveth upwards on the part
towards A doth plainly appear, for since that the Perpendiculars unto the
Surface of the Liquid that pass thorow w do fall on the part towards A,
and those that pass thorow E on the part towards L, it is necessary that
the Centre w do move upwards, and the Centre E downwards.
"It is therefore perspicuous that the Portion shall consist so as that its [M]
Axis shall make an Angle with the Liquids Surface greater than the
Angle X." For drawing a Line from A to X prolong it untill it do cut the
390 Diameter I BD in A; and from the Point 0, and parallel to AX, draw
Ox [Fig. III.4.3B.46], and let it touch the Section in 0, as in the first
Figure. And the (d) Angle at X shall be equall also to the Angle A. But
the angle at Y is equall to the Angle at X (! 0); and the (e) Angle ArD
(! AOD) greater than the AngleAAD, which falleth without it, Therefore
the Angle at Y shall be greater than that at X. And because now the Portion
tumeth about so as that the Base doth not touch the Liquid, the Axis shall
make an Angle with its Surface greater than the Angle G, that is, than the
Angle Y, and, for that reason, much greater than the Angle X.
(c) By 34. of the first.
(d) By 29. of the first.
(e) By 16. of the first.
15 See Vol. 2, 59rL-M. Once more Salusbury has added Tartaglia's name.

L
Conclusion Ill.
IF THE PORTION HAVE THE SAME PROPORTION IN GRAVITY
TO THE LIQUID THAT THE SQUAREXO HATH TO THE SQUARE
BD, BEING DEMITTED INTO THE LIQUID SO INCLINED AS THAT
ITS BASE TOUCH NOT THE LIQUID, IT SHALL STAND AND
CONTINUE INCLINED SO AS THAT ITS BASE TOUCH THE
SURFACE OF THE LIQUID IN ONE POINT ONLY, AND ITS
AXIS SHALL MAKE AN ANGLE WITH THE LIQUIDS SURFACE
EQUALL TO THE ANGLE X. AND IF THE PORTION HAVE THE
SAME PROPORTION IN GRAVITY TO THE LIQUID THAT THE
SQUAREPF HATH TO THE SQUAREBD, BEING DEMITTED INTO
THE LIQUID, AND SET SO INCLINED AS THAT ITS BASE TOUCH
NOT THE LIQUID, IT SHALL STAND INCLINED SO AS THAT ITS
BASE TOUCH THE SURFACE OF THE LIQUID IN ONE POINT
ONLY, AND ITS AXIS SHALL MAKE AN ANGLE WITH IT,
EQUALL TO THE ANGLE cp.
Let the Portion have the same proportion in Gravity to the Liquid
that the Square XO hath to the Square BD [Fig. III.4.3B.47(a)]; and let
it be demitted into the Liquid so inclined as that its Base touch not the
Liquid. And cutting it by a Plane thorow the Axis erect unto the Surrace
of the Liquid, let the Section of the Solid be the Section of a Right-
angled Cone, APML [Fig. Cb)]; let the Section of the Surrace of the Liquid
be IM, and the Axis of the Portion and Diameter of the Section BD;
391 and letBD be divided as before; and drawPN parallel toIMI and touching
the Section in P, and TP parallel to BD, and PS perpendicular unto BD.
It is to be demonstrated that the Portion shall not stand so, but shall
encline until that the Base touch the Surrace of the Liquid in one Point
only; for let the superior figure stand as it was; and draw OC Perpendicular
to BD; and drawing a Line from A to X, prolong it to Q. AX shall be
equall to XQ. Then draw Ox parallel to AQ. And because the Portion is
supposed to have the same proportion in Gravity to the Liquid that the
square X 0 hath to the Square BD, the part thereof submerged shall also
have the same proportion to the whole, that is, the Square TP to the A
Square BD; and so TP shall be equal toXO. And since that of the Portions
IPM and AOQ the Diameters are equall, the portions shall also be equall. B
Again, because that in the Equall and Like Portions AOQL andAPML the c
Lines AQ and IM, which cut off equall Portions, are drawn, that [AQ]
from the Extremity of the Base, and this [IM] not from the Extremity, it
appeareth that that which is drawn from the end or Extremity of the Base
shall make the Acute Angle with the Diameter of the whole Portion lesser.
And the Angle at X being lesse than the Angle at N, BC shall be greater D
than BS; and CR lesser than SR. And, therefore OG shall be lesser than
PZ, and GX greater than ZT. Therefore PZ is greater than double of
ZT, being that OG is double ofGX. Let PH be double toHT; and drawing
a Line from H to K, prolong it to w. The Center of Gravity of the whole
Portion shall be K; the Center of the part which is within the Liquid H,
and that of the part which is above the Liquid in the Line Kw, which
[is] supposed to be w. Therefore it shall be demonstrated, both, that KH
(! KZ) is perpendicular to the Surface of the Liquid, and those Lines
also that are drawn thorow the Points Hand w parallel to KH (! KZ).
And therefore the Portion shall not rest, but shall encline untill that its
Base do touch the Surface of the Liquid in one Point; and so it shall
continue [Le., stand]. For in the Equall Portions AOQL and APML, the
Lines AQ and AM, that cut off equall Portions, shall be drawn from the
Ends or Terms of the Bases; and AOQ and APM shall be demonstrated,
as in the former, to be equall. Therfore AQ and AM do make equall E
392 Acute Angles with the Diameters of the Portions; and I the Angles at
X and N are equall. And, therefore, if drawing HK, it be prolonged to
w [Fig. III.4.3B.48], the Centre of Gravity of the whole Portion shall
be K; of the part which is within the Liquid H; and of the part which
is above the Liquid in Kw (! KH), as suppose in w; and HK perpendicular
to the Surface of the Liquid. Therefore along the same Right Lines
(! line) shall the part which is within the Liquid move upwards and the
part above it downwards. And therfore the Portion shall rest with one of
its Points touching the Surface of the Liquid, and its Axis shall make with
the same an Angle equall to X. It is to be demonstrated in the F
same manner that the Portion that hath the same proportion in Gravity
to the Liquid that the Square PF hath to the Square BD, being demitted
into the Liquid so as that its Base touch not the Liquid, it shall stand
inclined so as that its Base touch the Surface of the Liquid in one Point
only; and its Axis shall make therwith an Angle equall to the Angle cp.
Commandine.
"That is the Square TP to the Square BD." By the twenty sixth of the A
Book of Archimedes, De Conoidibus & Sphaeroidibus. 16 Therefore, (a)
the Square TP shall be equall to the Square XO. And for that reason, the
Line TP equall to the Line XO.
"The Portions shall also be equall." By the twenty fifth of the same B
Book.
17
"Again, because that in the Equall and Like Portions AOQL and c
APML." For, in the Portion APML [Fig. III.4.3B.49] describe the
Portion AOQ equall to the Portion IPM. The Point Q falleth beneath
M; for otherwise, the Whole would be equall to the Part. Then draw IV
parallel to AQ, and cutting the Diameter in t!J; and let IM cut the same
[in] a; and AQ is in a (! v). I say that the Angle AvD is lesser than the
16 See Vol. 2, 49vO-P. See above, Bk. n, Prop. IV, n. 1.
17 Ibid., 49vF. This proposition is numbered as the 25th in Commandino's translation,
as the 24th in Moerbeke's translation, and as the 23rd in Heiberg's text.
393
(Ed: 397)
Angle laD. For the Angle IljJD is equal to the Angle AvD. (b) But the
interiour Angle IljJD is lesser than the Exteriour ]crD. Therefore, (c)
AvD shall also be lesser than IcrD.
,And the Angle at X being lesse than the Angle at N." Thorow 0 D
draw two Lines, OC perpendicular to the Diameter BD, and Ox touching
the Section in the Point 0, and cutting the Diameter in x, (d) Ox shall
be parallel to AQ, and the (e) Angle at X shall be equall to that at v.
Therefore the (f) Angle at X shall be lesser than the Angle at cr, that is, to
that at N. And, consequently, X shall fall beneath N. Therefore, the Line
XB is greater than NB. And, since BC is equall to XB, and BS equall to
NB, BC shall be greater than BS.
I"Therefore, AQ and AM do make equall Acute Angles with the E
Diameters of the Portions." We demonstrate this as in the Commentaries
upon the Second Conclusion.
"It is to be demonstrated in the same manner that the Portion that F
hath the same proportion in Gravity to the Liquid that the Square PF
hath to the Square BD, being demitted into the Liquid so as that its Base
touch not the Liquid, it shall stand inclined so as that its Base touch the
Surface of the Liquid in one point only; and its Axis shall make therewith
an angle equall to the Angle 'P." Let the Portion be to the Liquid in
Gravity as the Square PF to the Square BD [Fig. III.4.3B.50], and being
demitted into the Liquid so inclinedas that its Base touch not the Liquid,
let it be cut thorow the Axis by a Plane erect to the Surface of the Liquid,
that that (I) the Section may be AMOL [Fig. III.4.3B.51(a)], the Section
of a Rightangled Cone; and let the Section of the Liquids Surface be 10,
and the Axis of the Por[t]ion and Diameter of the Section BD, which
let be cut into the same parts as we said before; and draw MN parallel
to 10, that it may touch the Section in the Point M, and MT parallel to
BD, and PMS (I MS) perpendicular to the same. It is to be demonstrated
that the Portion shall not rest, but shall incline so as that it touch the
Liquids Surface in one Point of its Base only. For drawPC perpendicular
to BD; and drawing a Line from A to F, prolong it till it meet with the
Section in Q; and thorow P draw P'P parallel toAQ. Now, by the things
already demonstrated by us, AF and FQ shall be equall to one another.
And being that the Portion hath the same proportion in Gravity unto the
Liquid that the Square PF hath to the Square BD, and seeing that the part
submerged hath the same proportion to the whole Portion, that is, the
Square MT to the Square BD, (g) the Square MT shall be equall to the
Square PF; and, by the same reason, the Line MT equall to the Line PF.
So that there being drawn in the equall and like Portions APQL and
(b) By 29. of the first.
(c) By 16. of the first.
(d) By 5. of our second of Conicks.
(e) By 29. of the first.
(f) By 39. of our first of Conicks.
(g) By 9. of the fifth.
394
(Ed: 398)
AMOL the Lines AQ and ID which cut off equall Portions, the first from
the Extreme term of the Base, the last not from the Extremity, it
followeth that AQ drawn from the Extremity containeth a lesser Acute
Angle with the Diameter of the Portion than ID. But the Line Pep is
parallel to the Line AQ, and MN to 10. Therefore, the Angle at cp shall
be lesser than the Angle at N; but the Line BC greater than BS; and
SR, that is, MX, greater than CR, that is, than PY; and, by the same
reason, XT lesser than YF. And, since PY is double to YF, MX shall
be greater than double to YF, and much greater than double of XT. Let
MH be double to HT, and draw a Line from H to K, prolonging it.
Now the Centre of Gravity of the whole Portion shall be the Point K; of
the part within the Liquid H; and of the Remaining part above the Liquid
in the Line HK produced, as suppose in w. It shall be demonstrated in
the same manner, as before, that both the Line KH and those that are
drawn thorow the Points Hand w parallel to the said KH are perpendicular
to the Surface of the Liquid. The Portion, therefore, shall not rest; but
when it shall be enclined so far as to touch the Surface of the Liquid in
one Point and no more, then it shall stay. For the Angle at N (Fig. (b)]
I shall be equall to the Angle at cp [Fig. III.4.3B.50]; and the LineBS equall
to the Line BC; and SR to CR. Wherefore, MH shall be likewise equall
to PY. Therefore, having drawn HK and prolonged it, the Centre of
Gravity of the whole Portion shall be K; of that which is in the Liquid H;
and of that which is above it, the Centre shall be in the Line prolonged;
let it be in w. Therefore, along that same Line KH, which is perpendicular
to the Surface of the Liquid, shall the part which is within the Liquid
move upwards and that which is above the Liquid downwards. And, for
this cause, the Portion, shall be no longer moved, but shall stay and rest
so as that its Base do touch the Liquids Surface in but one Point; and its
Axis maketh an Angle therewith equall to the Angle cp. And this is that
which we were to demonstrate.
Conclusion IV.
IF THE PORTION HAVE GREATER PROPORTION IN GRAVITY
TO THE LIQUID THAN THE SQUARE FP TO THE SQUARE BD,
BUT LESSER THAN THAT OF THE SQUAREXO TO THE SQUARE
BD, BEING DEMITTED INTO THE LIQUID AND INCLINED SO AS
THAT ITS BASE TOUCH NOT THE LIQUID, IT SHALL STAND
AND REST SO AS THAT ITS BASE SHALL BE MORE SUBMERGED
IN THE LIQUID.I8
Again, let the Portion have greater proportion in Gravity to the Liquid
than the Square FP to the Square BD [Fig. III.4.3B.52], but lesser than
18 As I have indicated in my general discussion of Commandino's contributions, this
enunciation was added by him. It is absent from Moerbeke's text (and from Greek
manuscript C).
395
(Ed: 399)
396
(Ed: 400)
that of the SquareXO to the Square BD; and as the Portion is in Gravity to
the Liquid, so let the Square made of the Line t/J be to the Square BD.
t/J shall be greater than FP, and lesser than XO. Apply, therefore, the
right Line IV to fall betwixt the Portions AVQL and AXD; and let it be
equall to t/J, and parallel to BD; and let it meet the Remaining Section
in Y. VY shall also be proved double to YI, like as it hath been demon-
strated that OG is double off (!) GX. And draw from V the Line Vw touching
the Section AVQL in V; and drawing a Line from A to I, prolong it unto
Q. We prove in the same manner that the Line AI is equall to IQ, and
that AQ is parallel to Vw. It is to be demonstrated that the Portion being
demitted into the Liquid, and so inclined as that its Base touch not the
Liquid, shall stand so that its Base shall be more submerged in the Liquid
than to touch it[s] Surface in / but one Point only. For let it be demitted
into the Liquid, as hath been said; and let it first be so inclined as that
its Base do not in the least touch the Surface of the Liquid. And then it
being cut thorow the Axis by a Plane erect unto the Surface of the Liquid,
let the Section of the Portion be ANZG [Fig. III.4.3B.53(a)]; that of the
Liquids Surface EZ; the Axis of the Portion and Diameter of the Section
BD; and let BD be cut in the Points K and R, as before; and draw NL
parallel to EZ, and touching the Section ANZG in N, [and NT parallel
to BD] and NS perpendicular to BD. Now, seeing that the Portion is in
Gravity unto the Liquid as the Square made of the Line [t/J] is to the
SquareBD, t/J shall be equall toNT, which is to be demonstrated as above.
And, therefore, NT is also equall to VI. The Portions, therefore, AVQ and
ENZ are equall to one another. And, since that in the Equall and like
Portions AVQL and ANZG there are drawn AQ and EZ cutting off equall
Portions, that from the Extremity of the Base, this not from the Extreme,
that which is drawn from the Extremity of the Base shall make the Acute
Angle with the Diameter of the Portion lesser; and in the Triangles NLS
and VwC the Angle at L is greater than the Angle at w. Therefore, BS
shall be lesser than BC, and SR lesser than CR, and, consequently, NX
greater than VH, and XT lesser than HI. Seeing, therefore, that VY is
double to YI, it is manifest that NX is greater than double to XT. Let NM
be double toMT. It is manifest, from what hath been said, that the Portion
shall not rest, but will incline untill that its Base do touch the Surface of
the Liquid and it toucheth it in one Point only, as appeareth in the Figure
[Fig. (b)]. And other things / standing as before, we will again demonstrate
that NT is equall to VI, and that the Portions AVQ and ANZ are equall
to each other. Therefore, in regard that in the Equall and Like Portions
AVQL andANZG there are drawnAQ andAZ cutting off equall Portions,
they shall with the Diameters of the Portions contain equall Angles. There-
fore, in the Triangles NLS and VwC the Angles at the Points Land ware
equall; and the Right Line BS equall to BC, SR to CR, NX to VH, and
XT to HI. And, since VY is double to YI, NX shall be greater than double
of XT. Let, therefore, NM be double to MT. It is hence again manifest
that the Portion will not remain, but shall incline on the part towards A.
397
(Ed: 401)
But it was supposed that the said Portion did touch the Surface of the
Liquid in one sole Point. Therefore, its Base must of necessity submerge
farther into the Liquid.
Conclusion V.
IF THE PORTION HAVE LESSER PROPORTION IN GRAVITY
TO THE LIQUID THAN THE SQUARE FP TO THE SQUARE BD,
BEING DEMITTED INTO THE LIQUID AND INCLINED SO AS
THAT ITS BASE TOUCH NOT THE LIQUID, IT SHALL STAND
SO INCLINED AS THAT ITS AXIS SHALL MAKE AN ANGLE
WITH THE SURFACE OF THE LIQUID LESSE THAN THE ANGLE
<p; AND ITS BASE SHALL NOT IN THE LEAST TOUCH THE
LIQUIDS SURFACE.
Finally, let the Portion have lesser proportion to the Liquid in Gravity
than the Square FP hath to the Square BD [Fig. III.4.3B.54]; and as the
Portion is in Gravity to the Liquid, so let the Square made of the Line t/J
be to the Square BD. t/J shall be lesser than PF. Again, apply any Right
Line, as GI, falling betwixt the Sections AGQL and AXD, and parallel
to BD; and let it cut the Middle Conick Section in the Point H, and / the
Right Line RY in Y. We shall demonstrate GH to be double to HI as it
hath been demonstrated that OG' is double to G'X.
19
Then draw Gw
touching the Section AGQL in G; and GC perpendicular to BD; and
drawing a Line from A to I, prolong it to Q. Now AI shall be equall
to IQ; and AQ parallel to Gw. It is to be demonstrated that the Portion
being demitted into the Liquid and inclined so as that its Base touch the
Liquid, it shall stand so inclined as that its Axis shall make an Angle
with the Surface of the Liquid lesse than the Angle <p; and its Base shall
not in the least touch the Liquids Surface. For let it be demitted into the
Liquid, and let it stand so as that its Base do touch the Surface of the
Liquid in one Point only; and the Portion being cut thorow the Axis by a
Plane erect unto the Surface of the Liquid, let the Section of the Portion
be ANZL [Fig. III.4.3B.55(a)], the Section of a Rightangled Cone; that of
the Surface of the Liquid AZ; and the Axis of the Portion and Diameter
of the Section BD; and let BD be cut in the Points K and R as hath
been said above; and draw NF parallel to AZ, and touching the Section
of the Cone in the Point N; and NT parallel to BD; and NS perpendicular
to the same. Because, now, that the Portion is in Gravity to the Liquid
as the Square made of t/J is to the Square BD, and since that as the Portion
is to the Liquid in Gravity so is the Square NT to the Square BD, by the
things that have been said, it is plain that NT is equall to the Line t/J. And,
19 As in the preceding sections. In Fig. III.4.3B.54 point G appears in a different position
than in the previous drawings; it now marks the point from which a tangent is drawn to
sectionAGQL rather than a point in lineXO (as in Fig. III.4.3B.37). I have here marked the
latter point as G'.
398
(Ed: 402)
therefore, also, the Portions ANZ and AGQ are equall. And, seeing that
in the Equall and Like Portions AGQL and ANZL there are drawn from
the Extremities of their Bases AQ and AZ which cut off equall Portions,
it is obvious that with the Diameters of the Portions they / make equall
Angles; and that in the Triangles NFS and GwC the Angles at F and ware
equall; as also, that SB and BC, and SR and CR are equall to one another.
And, therefore, NX and GY are also equall; and XT and YI. And since
GH is double to HI, NX shall be lesser than double of XT. Let NM
therefore be double to MT; and drawing a Line from M to K, prolong it
unto E. Now the Centre of Gravity of the whole shall be the Point K; of
the part which is in the Liquid the Point M; and that of the part which is
above the Liquid in the Line prolonged, as suppose in E. Therefore, by
what was even now demonstrated, it is manifest that the Portion shall not
stay thus, but shall incline so as that its Base do in no wise touch the
Surface of the Liquid. And that the Portion will stand so as to make an
Angle with the Surface of the Liquid lesser than the Angle cp shall thus
be demonstrated. Let it, if possible, stand so as that it do not make an
Angle lesser than the Angle cp; and dispose all things else in the same
manner as before, as is done in the present Figure' [Fig. (b)]. We are
to demonstrate in the same method that NT is equall to ljJ, and, by the
same reason, equall also to GI. And since that in the Triangles PcpC and
NFS the Angle F is not lesser than the Angle cp, BF shall not be greater
than BC. And, therefore, neither shall SR be lesser than CR, nor NX
than PY. But since PF is greater than NT, let PF be Sesquialter of
PY; NT shall be lesser than Sesquialter of NX. And, therefore, NX shall
be greater than double of XT. Let NM be double of MT; and drawing a
Line from M to K, prolong it. It is manifest, now, by what hath been
said, that the Portion shall not continue in this position, but shall turn about
so as that its Axis do make an Angle with the Surface of the Liquid lesser
than the Angle cp.
FIN I S.
CHAPTER 5
Francesco Maurolico and the
Medieval Archimedes
I. Life and Principal Works of Francesco Maurolico
My concern in the preceding chapter was with the influence of William
of Moerbeke' s translations on the mathematics of the sixteenth century,
Le., the influence of the only direct medieval translations from the Greek
of the genuine works of Archimedes. It quite properly concentrated on
Coner, Tartaglia, and Commandino. But there was also a clear-cut in-
fluence of other medieval Archimedean currents on the mathematics of
this period. These were currents described in detail in Volume One. The
chief receptor in this line of influence was Francesco Maurolico of
Messina, although to a minor extent he was also influenced by the trans-
lations of William of Moerbeke. I have previously noted that he ranked
with Commandino as a first-rate student of Archimedes, and indeed these
two Italians (or rather one Italian and one Greco-Italian) were the out-
standing interpreters of Archimedes in the first three-quarters of the
century. However, Maurolico's interest, unlike Commandino's, was not
in establishing a philologically sound version or translation of the Archi-
medean texts that survived but in presenting mathematically coherent texts
that achieved Archimedes' objectives. This will become particularly clear
when we examine below those texts in which Maurolico skillfully grafted
medieval material onto the traditional Archimedean texts.
Initially, we should observe that Francesco Maurolico (or Maruli or
Maroli) was born in Messina on 16 September, 1494, ofa Greek family which
had fled Constantinople after its fall to the Turks in 1453 and settled in
Messina.
1
The names of his father and mother, Antonio and Penuccia,
I Perhaps the most convenient and complete bibliography on Maurolico is that found in
Catalogus translationum et commentariorum, ed. P. O. Kristeller, Vo\. 1 (Washington,
1960), pp. 167-68. Cf. the recent article of A. Masotti, "Maurolico, Francesco," Dictionary
of Scientific Biography. Vol. 9, New York, 1974, pp. 190-94. The most useful items are
the biography by his nephew Francesco Baron della Foresta, Vita del/'Abbate del Parto
D. Francesco Maurolyco (Messina, 1613); D. Scina', Elogio di Francesco Maurolico
(Palermo, 1808); F. Napoli, "Intomo alia vita ed ai lavori di Francesco Maurolico,"
Bullettino di bibliograjia e di storia delle scienze matematiche e jisiche, Vol. 9 (1876),
749
pp. 1-121 (pp. 23-121 are separately entitled "Scritti inediti di Francesco Maurolico" and
will be so cited below); G. Rossi. Francesco Maurolico e il risorgimento filosofico e
scientifico in Italia nel secolo XVI (Messina, 1888); F. Guardione, "Francesco Maurolico
nel secolo XVI," Archivio storico siciliano, Anno 20 (1895), pp. 3-57; G. Macri, Francesco
Maurolico nella vita e negli scritti (R. Accademia Peloritana, Commemorazione del IV
centenario di Franeeseo Maurolieo MDCCCXCIV, Messina, 1896; 2nd ed., 1901); M.
Scaduto, "11 Matematico Francesco Maurolico e i Gesuiti." Archivum historieum Societatis
Jesu, Vo!. 18 (1949), pp. 126-41; and the various articles of E. Rosen, "The Date of
Maurolico's Death," Scripta mathematica, Vo!. 22 (1956), pp. 285-86; "Maurolico was an
Abbot," Archives internationales d' histoire des sciences, Vol. 9 (1956), pp. 349-50; "The
Title of Maurolico's Photismi, " American Journal of Physics, Vol. 25 (1957), pp. 226-28;
"De Morgan's Incorrect Description of Maurolico's Books," The Papers of the Biblio-
graphical Society of America, Vol. 51 (1957). pp. 111-18; "Maurolico's Attitude Toward
Copernicus," Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, Vol. 101 (1957), pp.
177-94; "Was Maurolico's Essay on the Nova of 1572 Printed?," Isis. Vo!. 48 (1957),
pp. 171-75; "The Editions of Maurolico's Mathematical Works," Scripta mathematica.
VOl. 24 (1959), pp. 59-76. In addition, consult my "The Works of Francesco Maurolico,"
Physis, Anno XVI, Fasc. 2 (1974), pp. 149-98, which is often cited in the chapter below
by the abbreviated title "Works of F. M."
The most informative of the earlier works are those of his nephew the Baron della
Foresta. Scina', and the second edition of Macri's study. Other books and articles will
be mentioned in the course of this chapter. Three portraits of Maurolico are known. The
first was painted by Polidoro da Caravaggio (who lived in Messina from about 1530 until his death in
1543). It was reproduced by Scina' in his Elogio as a frontispiece. A second is found in
the Baron della Foresta's Vita, p. 42, and the third was that reproduced in the second
edition of Maurolico's Sicanicarum rerum compendium (Messina. 1716). Scina' speaks
at length of the probable relationship between Maurolico and Caravaggio (in preparing for
the festive reception of Charles V on his return to Messina in 1535) and of his (i.e.
Scina's) preference for the first portrait (Elogio. pp. 209-12). Cf. Macri, Francesco
Maurolico, 2nd ed., p. 55. Incidentally, Macri, on page 27, n. 1, quotes from the AnnaJi
of Cola Giacomo d' Alibrando concerning the joint venture of Maurolico and Caravaggio
in the erection of a triumphal arch to Charles V: "Questo arco di sopra descritto, e
questa porta e di maestro Polidoro di Caravaggio, pittor famosissimo e maraviglioso; gli
versi e prose fe prete Francisco Maurolyco, nostro cittatino studiosissimo e dotto della
matematica." I should also mention the fine portrait bust executed sometime after 1575 by
Rinaldo Bonanno (ca. 1545/6-90). It formerly occupied the niche above the tomb of
Maurolico in the church of San Giovanni di Malta in Messina but now is in the Museo
Nazionale of that city. See note 41 below, and also S. Bottari, "Nota sui busto di F.
Maurolico e su Rinaldo Bonanno," Archivio storieo messinese, n. s., Vo!. 1 (1934), pp.
125-30. Finally, the reader should note that I have given the great mathematician's surname
as Maurolico (Marun or Maron). The family name by the time of his generation and after
was certainly Marun (or less frequently Maroli) , as is evident from the usage of his
nephews. Now Francesco in his earlier works Latinized his name to Maurolycius. It was
so spelled in his Grammaticorum rudimentorum libelli sex of 1528 (see the title page, lv,
3r. 24v etc.) and in a number of his early autograph notebooks. as for in example in that
including his Libellus de impletione loci of9 December. 1529(see Rome, Bib!. Vitt. Emanuele
Cod. San Pant. 117/34, 20v), and in the copy of his version of the Arithmetica of Jordanus,
dated 20 September, 1532 (see "Works of F. M.," n. 1, item 16. pp. 150-51). He con-
tinued to use this form at least through 19 August, 1534 (see MS Paris. BN lat. 7465.
29v: "Maurolycii tetragonismus"). However in his Cosmographia, completed in 1535 but
not published until 1543, the form is changed to Maurolycus. The same form is used
in his letter to Bembo of 1536 (MS Vat. Barb. lat. 2158, 146v), which is signed "Fran-
ciscus Maurolycus Messanensis." He continued to use that form, or its Italian equivalent
Maurolieo, for the rest of his life. See the similar remarks of Macri, Franeesco Maurolico,
2nd ed., pp. 6-7.
LIFE AND WORKS OF MAUROLICO 751
are recorded by his nephew the Baron della Foresta (Vita, p. 1). Mauro-
lico's instruction in the Greek language and in astrology (i.e. astronomy?
and presumably elementary mathematics) came from his father, who had
himself studied with the well-known Greek refugee Constantine Lascaris.
Lascaris had come to Messina in 1466 and spent some thirty-five years
there. Maurolico' s instruction in the Latin language and literature was
nourished by Francesco Faraone and Giacomo Notese.
2
Maurolico spent
his early years and indeed much of his life in Messina. The only event
recorded of his boyhood was the pestilence of 1500 which caused the
Maruli family to flee Messina for a nearby villa. Rossi believed that it
was this pestilence that killed Maurolico' s mother and five brothers, leav-
ing only his father, a younger brother Giacomo and a sister Laura.
3
How-
2 For the little known facts about Maurolico's two tutors, see Scina', Elogio, pp. 103-04
and Macri, Francesco Maurolico, 2nd. ed., p. 11; Appendix, pp. XLIII, XLV. In the last
reference we find a statement by Maurolico describing Faraone as praeceptor noster.
3 Rossi, Francesco Maurolico, pp. 14-15. As Rossi points out, Maurolico in his
Cosmographia (Venice, 1543), 24v, which he was writing and completing in 1535, notes
that he was visiting a family home outside of the city of Messina where his family had
fled the pest thirty-five years before: "NICO. Flectamus gressum ad hanc semitam frondosis
communitam sepibus. Haec ad dextram est domus quam anno ab hinc quinto ac tricesimo
cum parentibus ac fratibus puer incolui, dum urbe abessemus, pestis contagia vitantes.
ANTI. Immortales Dii, quam cito dilabuntur fugaces anni." Maurolico speaks briefly of
this pestilence in his Sicanicarum rerum compendium (Messina, 1562), 190v: "Anno Salutis
1500 ... ac pestis Messanam vexavit." Now Maurolico's nephew confirms that most of
the members of the family were wiped out when they had left Messina because of a
pestilence, Vita, pp. 2-3: "Ma serpendo tuttavia la pestilente contagge, diffusase per la
citta in maniera, che senza evidentissimo rischio di morte, et infettione, non poteasi in
lei oltra dimorare: d'indi co' fratelli, e famiglia uscinne, ad habbitar fuori nella paterna
villa, non piu che due miglia dalla citta discosta presso il rio dell' Annonciata, in quella
contrada c'ha nome Santo Alessio. Quivi, anchorche nella foresta in disparte, e lungi dal
pestilente commercio, la maggior parte ne fu estinta. Peroche cessatante la peste, di
trentare che n'andarano, tredeci solamente salvi, e vivi ne ritornarono a casa: cioe it padre,
duo fratelli, lor sorella, con altri pochi servi, e serve." This passage does not specify the
year of the pest. But Rossi argues that it must have been the pest of 1500 by which
the family was decimated inasmuch as one would suppose that it was this trip to the
parental home that would stick in Maurolico's mind as memorable when visiting it again
in 1535. However, the Baron della Foresta recounts this destruction of the family between
his statement that Maurolico took holy orders in 1521 and his first trip to Rome in 1525,
and it is a fact that the pest hit Messina very badly in 1523 as well as 1500, for Maurolico
mentions such a pest in his Sicanicarum rerum compendium, 2oor: "[1523] lam enim pestis
contagio quasdam domos Messanae infecerat, quae deinde 17 circiter hominum millia
absumpsit . . . (2oov) . . . Decembris nono Messanae obiit Strategus Salimbenius
Marchisius Scalletae baro quo tempore Messanam pestis truculentissima vexabat." Hence
I am inclined to agree with Macri, Francesco Maurolico, 2nd. ed., pp. 16-18 that it
was the pest of 1523 that so devastated Maurolico' s family. Macri further claims that another
brother as well as Giacomo survived the pest but I think his argument is dubious (see note
41 below). Another early incident might be associated with Maurolico. One of his notebooks
(MS Paris, BN lat. 7472, 39r) has a comment from which it is inferred that it was in the
possession of the writer (Maurolico?) as early as 1508: "data Messanae anno incar. domini
(?) M.C.VIII. mense Januario." If the hand is Maurolico's (and I believe it is), then this
note seems to indicate that he began his life-long habit of composing things in notebooks
at thirteen years of age.
ever, Maurolico' s nephew, who should certainly have known, implies that
the pestilence which decimated the family took place after his uncle had
received holy orders in 1521 from the Archbishop of Messina, D. Antonio
da Ligname (see the preceding note and the Vita, pp. 2-3), and hence
it was in all likelihood the pest of 1523 that produced the family tragedy.
Maurolico visited Rome for the first time in the Jubilee year of 1525
(ibid.). After his return to Messina, his father died (ibid., p. 3). Though
he immediately assumed his father's domestic duties, he soon turned them
over to his younger brother Giacomo, returning to his studies (ibid.). But
shortly thereafter (ca. 1526?) he suffered an attack of the vertigo which
was later to trouble him. He complied with the advice of his doctors
and spent a year of quiet withdrawal (1526-27?). Cured, he once more
vigorously pursued mathematics (ibid., p. 4), although his first published
work was a Grammaticorum rudimentorum libelli sex (Messina, 1528).
In the latter work he claims that he had mastered the content of the
major Greek mathematicians without an instructor (see below, Sect. 11,
n. 1), and his plan at that time for composing works on mathematics and
astronomy was an extensive one (cf. my "The Works of Francesco
Maurolico," p. 171, n. 1). He had already completed his Photismi de
lumine et umbra on 19 October, 1521, and his first version of the Dia-
phaneon sive transparentium libellus on 3 January, 1522, but unfortu-
nately these works were not published until 1611 (see my Chronology in
"Works of F. M.," p. 152). He did not assume a regular public teach-
ing position during these early years, though we know that he lec-
tured publicly on the Sphere of Sacrobosco and the Elements of Euclid
and that this took place in the Carmelite convent (near or next to his
home); and since the stradigo or governor of Messina, Giovanni Marullo,
was present (having requested the public reading), and since he was
stradigo in 1528, it is apparent that the public lectures occurred about
that time.
4
Shortly thereafter Maurolico dedicated the first book of his
4 Baron della Foresta, Vita, p. 5: ,. Attendendo dunque con esatta diligenza a si
lodevol'essercitio, arichiesta di Don Giovanni MaruIlo Conte di Condeianni, e Stradige in
quello stagione di Messina (supremo carico dope quel del Vicere in Regno) et astretto ancora
dal Senato, lesse nel publico la Sfera, e i principii d'Euclide...." In his dedicatory letter
to Bembo in the Cosmographia, sign. [a iiii verso], he says: "Tertium in Carmelitano
coenobio, dum sphaerica elementa publice ac Mamertino magistratu praesente legerem."
For MarulIo's assumption of the office of Stradigo in 1528, see Maurolico, Sicanicarum
rerum compendium, 202v. Scaduto, "1\ Matematico," p. 130, n. 10 indicates that MarulIo
was also stradigo in 1534, but I suppose that the lectures took place during the earlier
term (1528-29), since the Baron deIla Foresta (Vita, p. 6) refers to his uncle's instruction
of Barresi after his account of the lectures. Now Maurolico's instruction of Barresi can be
dated before 9 July, 1532 (see the next note), and thus before Marullo's later term
(1534-35). Incidentally MaruBo was still the stradigo in September, 1535, when Charles V
made his entrance into Messina, as Maurolico notes in his Sicanicarum rerum compendium
(MS Paris, BN lat. 6177, 206v). In Book I of his Arithmetica (Venice, 1575), p. 82, Maurolico
notes that he finished that book on 18 April, 1557, at Messina "in aedibus ipsius Authoris
iuxta Caenobium Carmelitanorum," thus indicating the proximity of his home to the
monastery.
De fineis horariis libri III to Francesco Santapacio, who was stradigo in
1531-32 (see my Chronology for those years). We know further that
Maurolico also instructed still another stradigo of Messina, Girolamo
Barres!, in the first twelve books of the Elements in 1532, as Maurolico
tells us in the dedication to Barresi of his compendium of Books XIII- XV
of the Elements that bears the date 9 July, 1532.
5
Worth noticing among the varied activities of Maurolico in the 1530's
which I have chronicled in my article "Works ofF. M.," pp. 152-53, and
also described in more detail below in this chapter were his first efforts to
present complete versions of some of Archimedes' works in 1534. Also
important was the preparation of his Cosmographia, which he completed
in 1535 but did not publish until 1543 in Venice. Incidentally that work
reflected his interest in Emperor Charles V's appearance in Messina in
1535, for in its colophon (l03r) Maurolico claims that it was completed at
Messina on 21 October, 1535, "quo die Carolus V Caesar ab africana
expeditione reversus Messinam venit." His nephew tells us that Maurolico
took part in preparing the fittings and triumphal arch erected for Charles'
return from the successful African campaign.
6
He was apparently associ-
ated in this activity with the painter Polidoro da Caravaggio, who lived in
Messina from about 1530 until 1543 and who produced a portrait of
Maurolico (see the end of note 1). Shortly after completing the Cosmo-
graphia, Maurolico wrote Pietro Bembo a letter of4 May, 1536, in which he
reminds Bembo that when the latter came to Messina (i.e. 1492-94) to
study with Constantine Lascaris he met Maurolico's father Antonio;
Maurolico also tells Bembo that he just missed himin Rome by a few days.7
Bembo had come to Rome in 1524 and left there in April, 1525.
8
In his letter
Maurolico confesses his passion for mathematics, describing the poor state
of mathematics and his efforts to do something about it. He also gives a
description of an eruption of Mount Etna that took place on 1March, 1536.
Finally, he says that he will send Bembo his Cosmographia. Bembo
5 Maurolico, Opuscula mathematica (Venice, 1575), pp. 105-06: "Ad illustrissimum
Dominum D. Hieronymum Barresium, Maurolyci Epistola. . .. Namque hoc anno, dum
Messanae cum iIIustri socero tuo, urbis stratego commoratus es; cum alia multa, turn Euclidis
elementorum libros duodecim, me legente, intellexisti .... Messanae ex aedibus nostris, 9
Julii, M.C.XXXII." Cr. Baron della Foresta, Vita, p. 6: "Ne tardo molto che D. Girolamo
Barresi Marchese di Pietra Pretia affettionatissimo, quanto altro mai, alle scienze
Matematiche, giunto in Messina, fermossi per ispatio di due anni continovi con esso lui ....".
6 Baron della Foresta, Vita, p. 5. For Charles' entry into Messina, see also Sicanicarum
rerum compendium, 204v-05r. Onfolio 204v Maurolico reminds the reader of a liturgy that he
composed for the occasion: . 'Memini liturgiam a me compositamet ab episcopo probatam, in
maiori templo celebratam fuisse. "
7 MS Vat. Barb. lat. 2158, 143r-46v. Published by G. Spezi, Lettere inedite del Cardinale
PietroBembo (Rome, 1862), pp. 79-84, and by F. Guardione, "Francesco Maurolico," pp.
36-39. An extract from the reply of Bembo to Maurolico's letter has been printed by the
Baron della Foresta(Vita, p. 26): "Tua opera, mi Francisce, sunt tanti ponderis, ut non solum
nomen tuum in omne aevum proferent, sed et eorum ad quos scribis."
8 Dizionario biograjico degli Italiani, Vo\. 8 (Rome, 1966), pp. 141-42.
obviously accepted the dedication of the work to him, for Maurolico
composed a dedicatory epistle to Bembo in 1540 that finally saw light in the
published work of 1543.
9
That dedication once more mentioned the poor
state of mathematics and gave a longer and more complete list of the works
in mathematics and astronomy that he had studied, reworked, and
composed. This was the first of the two main lists of his works that
9 Some of the highlights of the dedicatory letter can be noted here (Cosmographia, sign. a i
verso-a ii verso): "Hispanorum militum a capto Castello Novo redeuntium insolentia,
hyemem nobis praeteritam solito reddidit asperiorem: ut ne barbari quidem talem nobis
incusserint solicitudinem; inter quos tumultus, egomet quoque (quis non rideat?) canone
circinoque relictis, coactus sum interdum arma capessere. Nam, ne in tali periculo, lineis
circulisque describendis incumberem, monebat me Archimedis mei exemplum. . . . Sed
illud mihi molestum est, huiusmodi [i.e. mathematicas] egregias disciplinas hac nostra
tempestate ita neglectas ac prostratas iacere, ut paucissimos aut nullos capiat earum
desyderium; quo fit, ut praeclara veterum mathematicorum opera iampridem a gymnasiis
exularint; ac siquid ex illis apparet, turn scriptorum turn tralatorum culpa, tot mendis
infaecatum est, ut vix ab authore ipso, si revivisceret, purgari possit. In promptu sunt
exempla. Euclides noster mathematicorumprinceps, non geometris tantum, verum dialecticis
etiam ipsis alicubi necessarius, adeo perperam ad nos tralatus est, ut nunc immutatus, nunc
mutilatus, nunc novis nugis involutus legatur. Sed quid quod ipsa quoque graeca exemplaria
mendis non carent? adeo numerorumcharacteres ac geometrica lineamenta erroribus obnoxia
sunt. Quid quod praestantissimi graeceque doctissimi tralatores mendas non animadvertere?
adeo rara sunt ingenia, quae calleant hanc philosophiae partem. Scio et Barptolemaeum
Zambertum in elementorum tralatione, et 10. Baptistam Memmium in Conicorum Apollonii
dudum emissa interpretatione, materiae ignoratione deceptos graecorum exemplarium
mendas non uno in loco pertransisse. Sed non est instituti nostri ea nunc discutere, quae
peculiari commentario, ac longiore disputatione indigerent. Ego, quantum ingenii mei vires
potuere, quantum literatorum penuria, aut librorum inopia passa est, conatus sum in hac
disciplina restituere, quaecunque potui, paratus interim melioribus (si quando dabitur)
acquiescere. Coactus sum enim quaedam quasi phaethontei curms fragmenta hinc inde
collecta instaurare: ut qui corrupta passim exemplaria viderim, quin et aliquot meas
lucubratiunculas, praeter hos dialogos, habeo. Sed nihil in lucem, nisi te favente, prodibit:
satis autem faveris, si prodire iusseris." The list of his works and reconstructions follows
almost immediately. Incidentally, concerning the statement in the beginning about the
ravaging Spanish soldiers, see also Sicanicarum rerum compendium, 207r- v. Much earlier in
that compendium (65v, 67v), Maurolico had described the capture of Syracuse by Marcellus
and Archimedes' death. Maurolico's public service in connection with the planning and
building of fortifications in Messina is described by the Baron della Foresta, Vita, p. 6:
, ,Fortificandosi in tanto Messina d' ordine di Cesare, funne parimente destinato alle misure di
tutre (! tutte) le piante, e Fortezze, et a piantarne i forti, i torrioni, et i belvardi, con le cortine
rivolte al Merige, di concerto pero co'l Ferramolino Ingegniero Regio.... Accade in quel
mentre, che Giacomo suo fratello, gia maestro di zecca s'infermasse a morte, onde gli
convenne troncare con eccessivo ramarico it pregiato filo de suoi dolei studi, et attendere oltre
le noiose cure di casa, in vece di lui all'ufficio, per fin tanto, che da lunga, e pericolosa
infermita rihavutosi, asua instanza it rinuncio ala Regia Corte...." In connection with
Maurolico's temporary assumption of the office of Master of the Mint at Messina, we ought to
realize that Maurolico' s father Antonio had held that office and on his death the position had
passed to Giacomo, Maurolico's only surviving brother, Maurolico having abandoned secular
duties when he became a priest in 1521. It is not clear when Maurolico took over the mint
temporarily, but apparently it was before 1535 since his nephew writes that after Maurolico
persuaded his brother to renounce the mastership of the mint he (Maurolico) returned to his
Cosmographia, which we know to have been completed in 1535.
Maurolico fashioned (see "Works ofF. M.," pp. 171-78, for a discussion
of these lists). In his first of many unsuccessful efforts to get complete
support for his works, Maurolico tells Bembo that nothing will be published
without his approval. (Not long after, in a letter to Francesco Cardinal
Quignonio of 22 September, 1539, he claims that the latter has offered him
his patronage; but so far as we know nothing came of this offer-see my
Chronology under this date in "Works of F. M.," p. 154.) Of some interest
in the dedicatory epistle to Bembo is Maurolico's claim that when Spanish
soldiers (having taken Castelnuovo, near Catania) remained a long time
without pay and hence ravaged Sicilian cities (in 1539), he, Maurolico, put
aside his rule and compass and took up arms, the example of Archimedes
warning him not to be devoting himself to describing lines and circles at the
time of such danger. He performed public service by assisting in the
designing and building of further fortifications in Messina. He had some
years earlier (about 1534) temporarily taken over the mastership ofthe mint
in Messina from his ailing brother Giacomo, before persuading the latter to
cede the office to the Royal Court.
Several events of the 1540's should also be briefly mentioned. The
completion in 1541 and the publication in 1546 of Maurolico's short
Quadrati fabrica et usus (Venice, 1546) are significant because its dedication
to Giovanni Ventimiglia, the Marchese di Geraci, who had come to
Messina as its stradigo in 1540, gives the earliest expression of the
intimacy that developed between the two men and continued until
Ventimiglia's unfortunate death in a flash flood in 1553.
10
In fact, Maurolico
lived with Ventimiglia-off and on-in the latter's capital city Castel-
10 The Baron della Foresta, Vita, p. 7, speaks of the relations between Ventimiglia and
Maurolico as follows: "Non eda passar con silentio, come giuntone Stradigo it Messina Don
Giovanni Ventimiglia Marchese di Girace, per la molta affettione, che portava alle scienze
Mathematiche, ritirossi it se il Maruli, e mentre persevero poi nell'uffitio biennale, si
trattenne seco quasi sempre in conversatione letteraria, havendo trascorsa buona parte
d'Euclide, delle tavole d' Alfonso, e d'altre opere toccanti alia Mathematica. A cui dediconne
Francesco l'opera della Fabrica, ed uso del'Instrumento detto Horario da lui composto, et
un'altra operetta nella volgar favella della vita del Signor, dell'Apostoli, ed altri Santi." In
fact, the first work that Maurolico dedicated to Ventimiglia was the work entitled Quadrati
fabrica et usus (Messina, 1546). Giovanni became stradigo of Messina in February, 1540
(Sicanicarum rerum compendium, 209r): "Mensis febr. 2 [1540] Ioannes Vigintimillius
hieraciensium Marchionis filius strategus a prorege declaratus in urbem venit." His
inheritance from his father Simeone of the Marquisate of Geraci (in Sicily) in 1544 was also
mentioned by Maurolico in Sicanicarum rerum compendium, 212r: "Eodem mense [Aug.
1544] Simeon Vigintimillius hieraciensium Marchio ... dum in Calabriam traiicit filiasque
visitat ... itineris labore aestuque fatigatus, febre correptus, in huius castello defunctus
est. Cui sllcessit (!) Joannes filius, qui quarto ante anno Strategus fuerat." Later in the
compendium (215r) Giovanni's death is also described: "Octob. 15 [1553] Ioannes
Vigintimillius Sacerdos, dum Messanam versus Simeonem filium agrotantem visurus
proficiscitur, iuxta Taurominium in torrente quodam imbribus aucto mersus periit. " As I have
indicated in note 12 below, Giovanni's son, also named Simeone and whom Giovanni was
attempting to visit at the time of his death, had assumed his father's duties as Marchese when
the latter gave them up only four years after his own father's death.
i
t
L
buono (about 24 km. by road east and south of Cefalu) and in nearby
Pollina in the period 1547-50,11 except for sojourns in Palermo in 1547,
1548 (see my Chronology in "Works of F. M.," pp. 157-58), a trip they
took to Naples and Rome in 1548
12
and a brief period (perhaps only the first
11 See the various places and dates of the completion of Maurolico's works during the
period of 1547-50 that are included in my detailed Chronology in "Works of F. M.," pp.
157-58; and see the comments of his nephew quoted in the next footnote.
12 Maurolico's nephew speaks of how Ventimiglia gave up his wordly goods and his
position to his eldest son Simeone in 1548 and took the clerical habit. apparently under
Maurolico's persuasion, and stayed in Maurolico's house in Messina during Lent (1548);
the Baron della Fores-ta goes on to describe their trip to Naples and Rome, their return
to Messina and then their settling at Castelbuono and Pollina, where an observatory was
established (Vi/a, p. 7): "Ritomatone doppo il Marchese di Gerace dal pellegrinaggio di
Palestina , . . menossello it viva forza per habitar seco in Castel Buono, capo di quel
gran Marchesato, attendendo di concerto con immenso studio et ugal diletto alIa specula-
tione delle scienze Mathematiche, tramezzate pero con qualche breve sogiomo, per
disporto et honesta ricreatione, in Palermo, tra le delitie di quella solazzevole e felice
Citta e tra le visite ed accoglienze di quella amorevole nobilita, per finD all'anno 1548,
nel quale il sudetto Signore it persuasione (corn'':: da credesi) del MamB, fatta la
rinnuntia delli stati in persona di D. Simeone suo primogenito, e preso l'habito Chericale
(!), venne a Messina stanzando una Quaresima intiera con esso lui nella casa Maurolica,
e celebrate di gia felicemente le feste Pascali, imbarcatisi su le galee Siciliane, passarono
a Napoli, e furono in arrivando banchettati e corteggiati da tutti i letterati di quella
sontuosa citta, e d'indi partiti giunsero aRoma, visitati parimente da assaissimi Prelati,
et amatori dell'arti liberali. Dove, fra gli altri Alessandro Cardinale Famese per Don
Bartolomeo Spatafora fece intendere al MamB, che sel recarebbe a gran favore, se
volesse od in suo palazzo, od in quello d'Ottavio suo fratello fermarsene, e mandolli
d'avantaggio per arra dell'affettione che gli portava una poliza bancale di scudi 500 d'oro:
harebbo al sicuro compiaciuto il Mamli, soprafatto da cotanta amorevolezza di quell'lllus-
trissimo; se non era di lasciar la persona del suo Marchese. . . . e ritorgli il suo carD
maestro, di'incotanente dipartissi per Napoli, e d'indi passo a Messina, e dopo breve
indugio ritornarono insieme all'antica lor magione in Castelbuono; e quinci a Pollina
(terra deIlo stato) dove quel Signore nel paterna ed avito castello, in alto poggio ed
iscoscesa rope non lungi il lido con maravigliosa prospettiva situato, fecevi a cotal
fine edificar stanze molto commode, erte, e patenti al cielo, e da tutti i lati sgombre, e
libere, per poterne piu agevolmente ad aIta notte in un bel sereno osservare il corso de'
Pianeti, e delle Stelle...." If the account is to be interpreted exactly, it indicates that
Maurolico was in Naples and Rome sometime after the Easter celebrations of 1548. This
series of events is briefly confirmed by Maurolico in an entry for 1548 in his Sicanicarum
rerum compendium, 213v (misprinted as 216): "Nam Ioannes Marchio Hieracii ubi sororem
comitatus a Panormo rediit Castellum bonum, 16 Martii [1548] Marchionatum cum dignitate
et oppidorom domino concessit Simeoni filio adolescenti. Ipse Roman profectus, sacrisque
initiatus sacerdotis habitum sumpsit: ac reversus, posthabitis caeteris religiosissime
vixit." Of considerable interest is Cardinal Alessandro Farnese's offer through Bartolomeo
Spataforta (who was originally from Messina) to have ,Maurolico join his (Alessandro's)
or his brother Ottaviano's household, an offer that involved 500 scudi. But Maurolico
rejected the offer because of his desire to stay with the marchese. I would suppose that
Maurolico also saw in Rome Cardinal Cervini, who, we recall, was later to become Pope
Marcellus 11 so briefly in 1555, for the Baron della Foresta earlier indicates that Maurolico
had been in correspondence with him and that on the latter's death Maurolico was deprived
of a patron and protector (Vita, pp. 6-7): "Lettreggiossi parimente col Cardinal di S.
Croce in somma domestichezza; colui che creato poco appresso Sommo Pontefice, nomossi
Marcello, e visse nel Ponteficato non piu che 22 giomi . . . privando la Chiesa d'un
few months of 1550) when Maurolico tutored Alvaro, the son ofthe Spanish
Viceroy Juan de Vega, at Termini-Imerese (Thermae)Y It was during the
ottimo Pastore et il Maruli d'un amorevol Padrone e Protettore." If indeed Maurolico did
see Cervini in Rome, one wonders whether the Cardinal told Maurolico anything about
William of Moerbeke's autograph manuscript of the Archimedean translations or of his
interest in having revised texts of those translations in the manuscript for which there were
no extant Greek texts, Archimedes' De insidentibus aquae and Ptolemy's De analemmate,
texts he later assigned to Commandino for reworking. I suspect that the answer is in the
negative, since Maurolico never gives any indication that he knew of Archimedes' On Float-
ing Bodies. A fanciful account of Maurolico's ability to predict and his visit to Rome
(presumably his trip of 1548) appears in a four-volume, manuscript collection in the Museo
Communale of Messina (No. 87). It was written by an unknown Jesuit of the eighteenth
century. This account (Vo!. 1, pp. 201-07) was published by L. Perroni-Grande, "F.
Maurolico Professore dell'Universita Messinese e Dantista," R. Accademia Peloritana,
CCCL Anniversario della Universita di Messina (Messina, 1900), pp. 38-41. The return to
Sicily (departing from Naples 13 June and arriving at Messina 27 June) appears documented
by an account given by Maurolico in the MS VilIacanense (see "Works of F. M.," p. 151,
n. 1, item 22). Cr. Macri, Francesco Maurolico, 2nd. ed., p. 38. The latter account was
apparently a summary of a longer description of the voyage. Incidentally, in connection
with Maurolico's sojourns with Ventimiglia in Castelbuono and Pollina, I should report that
I spent a delightful morning in the Ventimiglia castle at Castelbuono, which is now being
converted into a museum. I want to thank the hospitality of Sign. Nicolo Di Garbo for
taking me through the castle and the patience of my wife for photographing some of the
details. Also impressive were the remains of the Ventimiglia castle at Pollina. Its spec-
tacular location upon the very top of the mountain provided Maurolico with an excellent
view of the stars and a no less breathtaking view of the sea below.
13 Baron della Foresta, Vita, p. 9, speaks of the request from Juan de Vega to come to
Palermo to instruct the Viceroy's son Alvaro (misnamed by the baron as Hernando, but
given correctly by Maurolico as Alvaro, as we shall see later in the note). And indeed
my Chronology ("Works of F. M.," pp. 157-58) indicates that Maurolico was in Palermo
in January and in October of 1548. But the baron further indicates that the son awaited
Maurolico at Termini for instruction in geometry and astronomy and Maurolico appears
in Termini only in early 1550. The baron also mentions that the instruction was terminated
because the Viceroy and his son left on a naval expedition to Africa. To get a more exact
idea of the chronology involved, we should note from my Chronology (ibid., p. 158) that
Maurolico was at Castelbuono on 17 December, 1549, and at Termini (Thermae) on 13
February, 1550. So presumably, if he did not instruct Alvaro at Palermo in 1548 (which
he might have), he took up his tutorial duties sometime between these dates of 17
December, 1549, and 13 February, 1550. But by 13 August he was back at Pollina (see
my Chronology, ibid., p. 158). In fact, Maurolico himself notes in his Sicanicarum rerum
compendium, 213v (mistakenly printed as 216) that de Vega left for Africa in the month
of May [1550]: "Mense Maio Vega prorex cum c1asse triremium Caesaris, Pontificis, ac
Magni rhodiorum militum Magistri, traiecit in Africam. . .." Hence we can conclude that
the tutoring occupied the first months of 1550. Maurolico mentions the tutoring of Alvaro
by name in a fragment edited by Baluzius and added to the later edition of the Sicanicarum
rerum compendium (Messina, 1716), p. 248 (cf. MS Paris, BN lat. 6177, 220v): "Postridie
[i.e. on 6 or 7 January, 1552] ego quoque Vegam in aedibus, tunc Vincentii Gravinae
[Le. Catanae] commorantem compellavi, qui litteris me antea acciverat, ut filius eius Alvarus,
qui ante Africanam expeditionem Thermitanis praeerat, opera mea erudiendus uteretur.
Octavo mensis Catana discessimus, et decimo Messanam appulimus." On the other hand,
when Maurolico once more joined Juan de Vega's household at Catania in 1553, we learn
from Maurolico himself that he tutored another son Fernando (see my Chronology, ibid.,
p. 161, for the date 24(?) December, 1553). Both sons Fernando and Alvaro (plus a dead
older brother) are mentioned in an entry for 1553 in the Sicanicarum rerum compendium
L
time he was living with Ventimiglia that Maurolico completed his version of
the Conics of Apollonius including his interesting reconstruction ofthe fifth
and sixth books (see my Chronology in "Works ofF. M.," p. 157) and also
his version of the works of Archimedes (which I shall discuss shortly), both
of which were not published until the seventeenth century. 14 Something of
Maurolico's scientific versatility is shown by the completion of an
epistolary work on Sicilian fish sent to Petrus Gillius on 1March, 1543 (see
my Chronology, "Works of F. M.," p. 156). Maurolico disclaims,
however, any special competence in this branch of philosophy, having
devoted his attention primarily to mathematics (ibid.). He also, about this
time, prepared a map of Sicily for Giacomo Gastaldo (ibid., p. 155, entry
for 1541).
The close ties with the Ventimiglia family proved beneficial to Maurolico
when on 16 September, 1550-Maurolico's birthday-Simeone, the
eldest son of Giovanni to whom Giovanni had ceded the offices and
estates of the marquisate in 1548, appointed Maurolico abbot of S. Maria
del Parto, part of the patrimony of the marquisate of Geraci and
located about 4 km. to the southwest of Castelbuono.
15
This monastery
(ed., 1562, 215r; MS Paris, BN lat. 6177, 222r): "Per idem tempus [1553] ... Ferrandus
(1) proregis filius, qui maioris fratris defuncti nomen cum successione receperat, per Vallis
Notensis oppida militiam recensebat. Assverus (MS; Anssverus, ed.) minor frater Syracusiis
praeerat." Femando's trip is the trip mentioned in my Chronology (ibid., pp. 159-62:
1553, 8, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 24, 24(?), 25 December). As the diary of the trip, which
I have edited in the entry for 8 December, 1553, indicates, Femando and Maurolico sepa-
rated on 26 December, going their respective ways. As an incidental bit of bibliographical
information it should be noted that the additions edited by Stephanus Baluzius in 1679
and added to the 1716 edition of the Sicanicarum rerum compendium were made from
passages crossed out by Maurolico (or someone else?) in Maurolico's autograph manuscript
of the work, Paris, BN lat. 6177 (see "Works of F. M.," p. 151, n. 2). I have checked
all the references to the work in both manuscript and printed editions, which agree quite
exactly, but I have only cited the manuscript where the additions of Baluzius are noted
here and below, and where the proper names vary. Where the date of the edition is not
mentioned, the edition of 1562 is intended.
14 Emendatio et restitutio Conicorum Apollonii Pergaei, (Messina, 1654). The title and
place and date of publication of Maurolico's various versions of the works of Archimedes
are noted below in Section III of this chapter.
15 Sicanicarum rerum compendium, 214v: "Anno 1551, mense Novembri, Simeon Viginti-
millius Marchio a prorege Vega Strategus declaratur: qui Messanam veniens magno populi
totius occursu exceptus officii sceptrum accepit; qui me ante praeteritum annum abbatem
S. Mariae a partu, quod coenobium sub Gemellis collibus Maronis montis situm est, de-
claraverat." In the dedication of his Martyro[ogium to Cardinal Amulio on XlIII Kalend.
December, 1564, Maurolico mentions, among the martyrologies he has collated, one from
his own monastery (sign.... iii verso): "unum quoque ex mea Coenobio S. Mariae a partu,
quod sub Marone monte, gemellisque collibus positum est. . . ." In his letter to Juan de
Vega of 8 August, 1556, Maurolico mentions Simeone's conferral of the monastery on him
and indicates that its care was one of the burdens that encumbered him and slowed up
the preparation of his works which he had always undertaken for the pleasure of speculation
and the love of truth rather than for gain or honor (Napoli, "Scritti inediti," p. 39): "Haec
itaque sunt, ilIustrissime Prorex, in quibus versatum sum et in quibus ingenium meum
exercui. Hoc tamen testari et secura fronte affirmare possum, quod ad haec me studia
was a Benedictine foundation. 16 One supposes that Maurolico would have
had to take Benedictine vows to serve as its abbot (as his nephew implies),
although he does not seem to have spent much time living at the mon-
astery.17 Still we are told that it was at the monastery that he received
non spes aliqua lucri, non ulla famae vel honoris aut pecuniae cupiditas, non inanis super-
stitio unquam traxit. Sola speculationis iucunditate, ac veritatis amore cujus scopus nullo
certiori telo quam his studiis attingitur, allectus huc veni. Verum cum multum, in his,
temporis contrivissem, atque interdum curiosior fortasse, quam deceret, forem, pleneque
mihi satisfecissem; iam quiescere ceperam, cum alioqui maturior aetas aliud postularet:
et monasterii, cui me Simeonis Vigintimilli marchionis, nunc Messeniorum strategi, muni-
ficentia praefecerat, onus et cura nobis incumberent." The monastery is now called the
Santuario di S. Guglielmo and is about 4 km. from Castelbuono. It is in a sad state of
disrepair, though its location beneath the twin peaks mentioned by Maurolico still gives
some sense of the reason for Maurolico's enthusiasm, and the view of Castelbuono
below is most impressive, as I can attest from my recent visit to it. Baron della Foresta,
Vita, p. 9, indicates that the abbacy fell vacant with the death of Girolamo Ventimiglia. See
also note 17 below.
16 For a bibliography concerning this monastery, see L. H. Cottineau, Repertoire topo-
bibliographique des abbayes et prieures, Vol. 1 (Macon, 1939), c. 618; Vol. 2, c. 2783.
17 He lived there awhile after his appointment, as his nephew notes in describing his
assumption of the office and his accomplishments there (Vita, pp. 10-11): "e percio presene
l'habito di S. Benedetto, e si rinchiuse dentro iI Monastero ad habitar in commune con quei
devoti monaci sotto regolar osservanza, ristorovvi le mura di gia distrutte e smantellate,
vi fabrico sagrestia, camere, corritorii, volte, et officine domestiche.... Disponendo la
Divina Providenza, che la di lui promotione a quella Prelatura occorresse appunto i1 di
medesmo, che 10 produsse al mondo, cioe il sestodecimo di Settembre. Siede l'Abbatia del
Parto in un bel piano presso le falde del monte Madonia (nominato da Plinio monte Marone),
circondata d' ognintorno, e quasi che ghirlandata d'un folto bosco d'alte e noderose castagne,
bagnato da piu correnti ruscelli di gelidissime acque, ha l'aria molto salubre, la prospettiva
assai amena, quinci l'Aquilone, indi rimira iI Levante, di sotto, non piu che d'un miglio
distante, giacene Castelbuono.... Quivi dimorava iI buon Pastore con la sua diletta
greggia, salmeggiando con essi loro in choro, et attendendo in camera alia speculatione
Mathematica. . . . In quel mentre fu dalla Maeista Catholica eletto per Stradigo il suo
Marchese di Giraci, onde vennero insieme a Messina; e quivi nella Chiesa Arcivescovale di S.
Nicolo fu dall' Arcivescovo di Reggio Gonzaga con l'assistenza di duo Abbati benedetto e
consecrate della degnita Abbatiale." Although his nephew here describes a rather full
program of renovation, Maurolico seems to have stayed at the monastery for only about a
year's time before accompanying the marchese (i.e. Simeone) to Messina on the latter's
appointment as stradigo (which as we have seen in note 15 above occurred in November of
1551). The baron's statement was no doubt based on Maurolico's own account of his trip to
Messina with the marchese now preserved in a fragment added to the 1716 edition of the
Sicanicarum rerum compendium, p. 248, where the date of Maurolico's ceremony of
benediction is given as 11 September, 1551 (cf. MS Paris BN lat. 6177, 221r-v; the cross
reference given by G. Longo in the edition should be to page 233, column I-not 2-line 3 of
the preceding text; cf. its location in the manuscript where it is included with the entries for
1551; this error led Macrl, Francesco Maurolico, 2nd. ed., p. 40 to misdate the affair):
"Septembris undecimo, cum ego una cum Simeone Stratego degerem in Archiepiscopali
Palatio, in ipsa D. Nicolai aede, ab Augustino Consaga Archiepiscopo Rhegyno, qui (MS; om.
ed.) tunc post Urbis suae calamitatem in sepulchri coenobio morabatur, bendictionis munus
accepi. Adfuere ceremoniis Philaretus Spathaforus S. Basilii Trajanensis, et Hieronymus
Zafaranus S. Salvatoris a Placa, ut moris est, Abbates." Whether he returned to his
monastery at this time, I donotknow. However, he was at the monastery on 19July, 1553, for
he completed his De lineis horariis tres libri there on that day (see my Chronology, "Works of
letters of inquiry from Commandino,18 who as we have already seen held
Maurolico in the greatest of respect. Then in 1551 Maurolico accompanied
Simeone Ventimiglia to Messina where the latter became stradigo of
Messina and the former received the dignities of his monastic office in
the archiepiscopal palace (see note 17). Then a few months later (6
January, 1552), the Spanish Viceroy Juan de Vega once more asked
Maurolico to instruct his son in Maurolico' s mathematical works and
Maurolico went briefly to Catania (see note 13). We ought to note in
illustration of the variety of Maurolico's interests the publication in
1552 at Messina of some vernacular religious poetry: Rime del Maurolico.
His presence is once more recorded at Castelbuono (9 July) and at his
monastery (19 July) during the year 1553 where he completed respec-
tively Books II and III of his De lineis horariis libri Ill, a most
important work in which Maurolico' s knowledge of conic sections is
skillfully used. This work was not published until 1575 when it appeared
as one of the tracts in the Opuscula mathematica (see my Chronology
in "Works of F. M.," p. 159). In 1552 (14 October) Juan de Vega, on
leaving Messina, had urged Maurolico to publish the mathematical works
he had composed during the past years.
19
And indeed on 7 November,
1553, with the consent of the Viceroy, the stradigo and the senators of
the city of Messina, Maurolico was given an annual salary of 100 gold
pieces to complete and to display completed (Le. to publish?) his
mathematical works and his compendium of Sicilian history within a two-
year period.
20
There is a persistent but aI?parently unfounded view, based
on his nephew's possibly false memory, that this grant was supplemented
by another 100 pieces to teach mathematics at the recently created Uni-
versity of Messina.
21
F. M.," p. 159) but only after coming from Castelbuono. He was also at the monastery for a
few days at the end of December, 1553 (ibid., p. 159,8 December, 1553). Note, however, that
not a single other work for the rest of his life was dated at the monastery. Still, his nephewtells
us that he spent the winter of 1560 there (see below, note 28).
18 The Baron della Foresta (Vita, p. 10) claims that the correspondence concerned
propositions from the De isoperimetris of Archimedes: "Quivi riceve le lettere del
Comandino (l) chiedente la risolutione d'alcuni nodi intomo acerte propositioni depravate, e
poco intelligibili dell' Isoperimetri d' Archimede, quale in quel punto s'aft'aticava di tradurre
del Greco. . . ." I wonder whether the baron's memory is correct aboutthis. Though the one
extant letter from Commandino to Maurolico refers in passing to theLiber de isoperimetris , its
central concern is with On Conoids and Spheroids (see above, Part Ill, Chapter 4, Section Ill,
note 17).
19 See the 1716 edition ofthe Sicanicarum rerum compendium, p. 248 (cf. MS Paris, BN lat.
6177, 221v): "Octobris 14 [1552]. Joannes Vega Prorex Messana discessit, atque in ipso
discessu me hortatus est, ut opera mathematica, quae praeteritis annis composueram,
ederem."
20 Ibid. (MS cit., 221v): "Septimo Novembris [1553], Proregis, Strategi, atque Juratorum
Urbis consensu pari annum salarium aureorum centum mihi concessum est, de proventibus
vectigalium quotanis solvendum, ut opera mathematica, et isthoc chronicorum compendium
intra biennium absolverem, et absoluta exhiberem."
21 Baron della Foresta, Vita, p. 11: "et il Senato, per compensare con qualche segno di
gratitudine la virtu e merto del suo compatrioto, l'assegno cento scudi annui d'entrata
The year 1553 marks an interesting relationship between Maurolico and
the doctor Baltasar Torres, who was Juan de Vega's physician. Torres
joined the Jesuit order in the early months of 1553 and during the summer
of that year left for Rome, where he was admitted to the priesthood on
28 August, 1553; he was assigned to teach the third course in philosophy
and was the medical doctor for the community.22 Torres was much
interested in mathematics and astronomy and before he left for Rome
Maurolico gave him "a globe of three palms in diameter constructed
with great mastery," a globe that remained in the Collegio Romano at the
time of his nephew's biography.23 I have already mentioned Com-
mandino's acquaintance with Torres and the possibility that Torres told
him something of Maurolico's works. At least, Torres apparently made
known Maurolico's mathematical works among his fellow Jesuits.
24
Maurolico once more acceded to a request of Juan de Vega to join his
household at Catania as early as 6 November, 1553, for we find a whole
series of mathematical works dated at Catania between 6 November, 1553,
and 29 March, 1555 (see my Chronology, "Works ofF. M.," pp. 159-63).
A preface to an arithmetical tract of 24(?) December, 1553, indicates that
Maurolico was engaged at Cataniain teaching another son of Juan de Vega,
Fernando (ibid., p. 161, for the date 24(?) December, 1553). Maurolico
vitalizia, e non molto dopo altri cento per leggervi una kttione di Mathematica nell'
Universita di gift eretta." Scaduto, "Il Matematico," p. 128, n. 3, refutes such a university
appointment at least partially on the basis that although the university had been projected it
had not yet been activated.
22 Scaduto, "Il Matematico," p. 129, n. 7.
23 Baron della Foresta, Vita, p. 16. Scaduto, "Il Matematico," p. 129, n. 6, suggests that
one of the two globes in the Biblioteca Vittorio Emanuele which once belonged to the Jesuits
may have been the globe that Maurolico gave Torres. In the above-noted passage, the Baron
della Foresta also mentions that Maurolico presented to Pedro Velasquez, conservator del
Regno, a quadrato horario in piastra di rame, and made for him a sphere having cerchi di
metallo. My brief account cannot detail the numerous friends and acquaintances but I can list
some of them here: the Royal engineer Ferramolino with whom Maurolico built fortifications
for Messina (Vita, p. 6), the Spanish viceroy following Juan de la Cerda, namely, Garcia de
Toledo (ibid., p. 16), the Viceroy's nephew, Adriano Acquaviva, who studied with Maurolico
(ibid.), the Grand Prior of England, who visited Maurolico (ibid., pp. 16-17) and Giovan
Pietro Villadicani, the wealthy patron who oversaw the publication of theRime del Maurolico
in 1552 (Macri, Francesco Maurolico, 2nd. ed., p. 44).
24 Scaduto, "Il Matematico," pp. 131-32. Scaduto quotes a letter dated 9 January, 1558,
from the rector ofPerugia, Giovanni Nicolo de Notariis, to the effect that when he requested
of Torres something good to read in mathematics Torres replied with Maurolico's name.
The letter goes on to say that the book (it is never named) is not in Perugia and he would
appreciate it if it could be sent from Rome.' Scaduto suggests that the book in question was
theArithmeticorum libri duo, completed 24 July, 1557 (not printed until 1575). But he is clearly
wrong in supposing this to have been the only mathematical work completed by Maurolico
up to this time, as my Chronology in "Works of F. M." clearly indicates. For example,
we can point to the Apollonian and Archimedean works already mentioned. However,
since the Arithmetica was published in 1575 from a manuscript that had been sent north,
and since Maurolico writes in 1568 that eleven years before a copy of the Arithmetica had
been produced (presumably for transmission to Rome), Scaduto's assumption that the
work sought by De Notariis was the Arithmetica seems to be a good one.
accompanied Fernando on a tour of a number of Sicilian cities lasting from
8 December, 1553, to 9 January, 1554 (ibid., pp. 159-61: 8, 18, and 24(?)
December, 1553). In fact, Maurolico has dated several works from cities on
that tour, including Modica, Vizzini, Caltagirone, Enna, and Sperlinga
(ibid., pp. 160-62: 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 24(?) and 25 December, 1553; 5
January, 1554). Among the most interesting of the works composed during
Maurolico's long stay at Catania are his Prologi sive sermones quidam de
divisione artium, de quantitate et de proportione and his Geometriearum
quaestionum libri duo, works printed only within the last hundred years.
25
He also became interested in logic and philosophy at Catania and
completed there a Dialeetiea on 17 May, 1554 (see "Works of F. M.," p.
162: 1554,17 May), an interest he maintained over the next decade (ibid.,
pp. 162-65: 1554,27 May; 1556,30January, 15 February and 3 November;
1557, 1May; 1561, 14 September and 8 October; 1562, 10 June). Then by 13
June, 1555 Maurolico was probably back in Messina, and no succeeding
work for nearly twenty years was dated at any place but Messina (see my
Chronology, "Works of F. M.," pp. 163-69). Of the other works
completed in the 1550' s, we can single out a general account of
mathematics addressed to Juan de Vega on 8 August, 1556, which was
apparently intended to serve as a kind of dedicatory letter (which,
however, it never did) to the omnibus edition ofvarious tracts onSphaeriea
that he was readying for the press and which were published in 1558. In
1555 he published a religious poem De gestis apostolorum with Matteo
Caldo'sDe vita Christi, which he had reworked, his own poemhaving been
composed at Messina in 1540 (see "Works ofF. M.," pp. 155, 163, entries
for 1540 and 1555). I have already remarked (note 24) that Maurolico
completed his Arithmetiea on 24 July, 1557, a work not published until
1575. However, theArithmetiea appears to have existed in some form prior
to 1553 (see my Chronology, ibid., p. 159,6 November, 1553) and perhaps
as early as 1539(ibid., pp. 154-55,28 September, 1539). August, 1558, saw
the publication at Messina of his Theodosii sphaerieorum elementorum
libri III ete. This work included Maurolico's versions of Theodosius'
Sphaeriea, Menelaus' Sphaeriea, his own Sphaeriea, Autolycus' De
sphaera quae movetur, Theodosius' De habitationibus, Euclid's
Phaenomena, some trigonometric tables (including sines, tangents and
secants) and a table of declinations and ascensions along with some canons
for these tables, and finally a brief Compendium mathematieae. This
volume had been in press for over two years by the time it was published.
26
It was addressed to the new Viceroy Juan de la Cerda (Juan de Vega having
25 Maurolyci Abbatis Prologi sive sermones quidam de divisione artium, de quantitate,
de proportione, ed. G. Bellifemine (Melphicti, 1968) and Maurolyci Siculi Geometricarum
quaestionum libri duo, ed. of Napoli in "Scritti inediti," pp. 50-113.
26 61r: "Ex quo sphaericorum nostrorum volumen Octavi Generose vir, Messanae excudi
caeperat fluxit iam annus tertius. . . ." The manuscript sent by Maurolico to the printer
seems to be extant: MS Madrid, Academia de la Historia, Bibl., Cortes 2787 (formerly 675).
died) and included a letter by Maurolico to Charles V written in July, 1556,
as well as the beginning of Maurolico's second major list of his works, the
so-called Index lucubrationum (see "Works of F. M.," pp. 163, 165).
Then in 1559 it seemed that history was about to repeat itself. Simeone
Ventimiglia, after returning from a trip to Germany and other parts of
Europe where he had sought out top-notch masters, asked Maurolico to
come live with him at Castelbuono (and presumably nearby Pollina) as
Maurolico had with Simeone's father Giovanni.
27
It was Simeone's plan
to set up a printing press to print all of the unpublished works of
Maurolico, a not inconsiderable number, as my Chronology in "Works
of F. M." testifies. Unfortunately, the plan never came to fruition, since
on 14 September, 1560 Simeone died in his thirty-first year. Maurolico
was much upset and retired to his monastery. 28 But because of his ad-
vancing years and the uncustomary cold of the winter he suffered an
aggravated attack of the vertigo that had plagued him before. Hence,
he returned to Messina to the family house to recover; from that time to
the end of his days he lived in Messina with his nephew Francesco the
Baron della Foresta.
Maurolico's poor health did not prevent his considerable activity of the
1560's. For example, in 1562 he published at Messina the Sicanicarum
rerum compendium, which I have so often quoted in this account of
Maurolico's life. This volume contained a supplementary letter addressed
to the prelates and legates at the Council of Trent which is dated 1October,
1562. Though he composed his epitome of Books XI-XII of Euclid's
Elements in 1563 (see" Works of F. M." p. 165), his next major work was
his Martyrology, with a dedication to Cardinal Amulio dated 18 November,
1564 (some editions have the dedication date as July 14).29 The work was
published twice in 1568, and many times thereafter. It was about this time
that Amulio asked Maurolico to send him a copy of his version of
27 Baron della Foresta, Vita, pp. 13-14: "Ma nell'anno 1559, dopo I'havere scorsa tutta
l'Alemagna, e varcati assaissimipaesi, e Regni d'Europa, spinto solo dal desio di vedere
et udire de' eccelenti Maestri . . . tomando a Sicilia il Marchese di Giraci si vide piu che mai
bramoso ed ardente di riattaccare I'antica prattica col Maruli, e venne talmente acceso
di lui, che di subbito seco traffelo, senza volerlo per l'avvenire lasciar gia mai partire dal
suo lato ... 11 [i.e. Simeone] perche propose condume a Castelbuono la stampa per
imprimergli tutte l'opere, di gia sepolte per difalta di cbi le mandasse in luce. Ma la Divina
providenza . . . si compiacque di richiamar a se quell'inclito Heroe, cotanto bene merito
delle scienze Astronomiche, et amator de'letterati; onde nell'anno del Sig. 1560, trigesimo
primo dell'eta sua, a14 di Settembre, tocco da un leggierissimo parosismo di febre, rese
con somma quiete ed espressi segni di Christiana pieta 10 spirito al Creatore. "
28 Ibid., p. 14: "Stordito da si fiera percossa Francesco, e trafitto nell'animo da eccessivo
dolore si ritiro nella sua Abbadia, e quivi soprafatto da g1i anni, e dall'asprezza delluogo,
cagionata dalla vehemenza de freddi nel cuore dell'invemata piu crudele del solito, fU
dall'antica sua vertigine aggravato in maniera, cbe nel costrinse a far ritomo a Mes-
sina.... Ricoverossi nelle pateme stanze, e dimoro d'indi in poi sempremai meco per
fino all'ultimo fiato."
29 See Rosen, "Maurolico's Attitude," p. 189, n. 71.
Aristotle'sProblemata mechanica,30 although that work was not dedicated
to Amulio until 4 May, 1569 (see my Chronology, "Works of F. M.," p.
167). Other mathematical odds and ends were completed between 1564 and
1569, including various pieces on Euclid's Elements, the determination of
the center of gravity of a paraboloid, Boethian music, the Sphere of
Sacrobosco, the Almagest of Ptolemy, the Ecclesiaticus computus, etc.
The details of dates and places are noted in my Chronology in' 'Works ofF.
M.," pp. 165-67. It should also be pointed out that on about 20 April, 1568,
he appears to have completed his Index lucubrationum, at least in the form
it had when published with his Opuscula mathematica and Arithmetica in
1575, although he made a few additions to it later, as I have indicated in my
text of the Index in "Works ofF. M.," Sect. 2. It was about this time, too,
that Maurolico completed his De fineis horariis brevis tractatus (see my
Chronology, ibid., p. 167, 1569, 17 February) and sent a work to Rome to be
published (presumably it was the Opuscula mathematica, which, as I have
noted, was not published until 1575 at Venice), for we find him on 16 April,
1569, addressing an inquiry to Francesco Borgia, the General of the Jesuit
order, about the work he had previously sent for publication.
31
On 20 April
of that year he outlined the contents of four volumes of sacred and profane
poetry, most of which seems to have been of his own composition (see
ibid., Sect. 2[4], pp. 190-92). On 9 November, 1569, Maurolico was
appointed to what seems to have been his first University position at the
Jesuit College of the University of Messina.
32
The terms of his contract
30 Baron della Foresta, Vita, p. 15: "Dal Cardinal sudetto fu egli altresi richiesto ad
inviargli i Problemi Mechanici d' Aristotele, da lui gift mostri ed espressi."
31 Scaduto, "I} Matematico," pp. 134-37. By a printer's error the letter is there misdated
MDLXXX instead of MDLXIX. Scaduto also prints Borgia's reply of 8 July, 1569, and a
further letter concerning the matter. Scaduto concludes, correctly I think, that it was the
Opuscula mathematica that had been sent off. Needless to say, the work was not published
until 1575, shortly after Maurolico's death.
32 L. Perroni-Grande, "F. Maurolico Professore, "pp. 15-41, and for the contract between
the Senate and Maurolico, see pp. 16-22, of which I note here only brief pertinent state-
ments: "(p. 17) Fuerunt nobis exibita et reverenter presentata quedam capitula contractus
facti inter nobilem Civitatem Messane et Reverendum dominum Franciscum Maurolicum
tenoris sequentis videlicet. Die vnn mensis novembris xm
e
Indict. 1569.... et ad
presens deficit lectio mathematice quae est valde necessaria in studiis publicis istius
civitatis Messane et inter alios reperitur et etiam inter mathematicos egregios Reverendus
dominus Franciscus Maurolicus abbas Sancte Marie a partu terre Castriboni huius regni
Sicilie qui . . . (p. 18) . . . tamquam alter Archimedes huius nostre etatis et in scienciis
mathematicis in tota Europa celeberrimus contentus est. . . . Et propterea hodie pretitulato
die prefati spectabiles domini Nicolaus de Calcis don Antonius de Vigintimiliis Joannes
Antonius Stagno et Johannes Jacobus Donatus Jurati huius nobilis civitatis Messanae
praesentes . . . conduxerunt et conducunt prefatum Reverendum dominum Franciscum
Maurolicum . . . ut constat per annum unum continuum et completum cursurum et
numerandum ab hodie in anthea ad effectum pro dicto anno uno legendi in publicis studiis
videlicet in auditorio aliquo comodo (1) (p. 19) Reverendorum Patruum Societatis Jesu
Messanae videlicet quartim in ebdogmoda die lune martis iovis et veneris omnibus studenti-
bus et aliis auditoribus ediscere volentibus exceptis diebus vacantiarum a lectoribus
philosophie eorundem Patruum Societatis Jesu fieri solitis. . . . Qui Reverendus dominus
include lectures four times a week on the general subject of mathematics,
comprising geometry, arithmetic, speculative astrology, speculative
music, perspective, and all ofthe instruments pertaining to and required for
mathematics. The appointment was for one year from the day of the
contract with a salary of 40 ounces of Sicilian money for each trimester.
The contract contained the assurance that if Maurolico so desired the
position would continue on the same terms in succeeding years. There also
exists a letter of August, 1570, to the Jesuit General Borgia from a young
Jesuit Juan Marquez at the University of Messina, who was anxious to
succeed Maurolico in teaching mathematics. 33 It indicates that Maurolico
is at that time teaching mathematics in the Jesuit college, though sick, and
that he will apparently have to give up the course.
It is not surprising that by this time-Maurolico was then seventy-
five-his literary productivity slowed considerably. He completed some
Euclidian notes in 1570 and completed a short tract entitled Sphaericorum
epitome on 27 September, 1571, with some further additions to it on 28
September and 1 and 2 October (see my Chronology, ibid., p. 168).
Meanwhile, on 24 August, 1571, he made a successful weather prediction
for Don Juan of Austria before the latter set out for the battle of Lepanto. 34
In the next year, he made one of the earliest observations of the new star
Franciscus Maurolicus . . . se obbligavit (!) et obligat . . . ut constat per dictum unum
annum cursurUJ;n . . . legere in predictis studiis publicis . . . predictam lectionem mathe-
matice geometrie arithmetice speculativa[e] astrologia[e] musica[e] speculativa[e]
prospectiva[e] et omnium aliarum rerum instrumentorum quae ad hanc scienciam mathe-
maticam spectant et requiruntur, habita prius et obtenta licentia et dispensacione ...
domini Proregis ... (p. 20) ... cum hoc tamen pacto et condicione inter eos adiecto
ut constat quod elapso predicto anno uno ut supra et ipse prefatus Reverendus dominus
Franciscus Maurolicus.. . voluerit ex inde amplius legere predictam lectionem
mathematice, quod prefati domini Jurati juratoriis nominibus predictis teneantur et debeant
solvere et pagare salarium infrascriptum pro illo tempore quo legerit ex pacto inter eos
adiecto. . . . Qui quidem spectabiles domini jurati . . . se constituerunt et sollemniter se
obligaverunt et obligant per stipulacionem solemnem . . . dare solvere et pagare predicto
Reverendo domino Francisco Mauroli ibidem presenti etiam cognito pro dicto anno uno ut
supra et ex inde ad eius beneplacitum in aliis temporibus et annis si legere voluerit predictam
lectionem . . . ad rationem unciarum quatraginta pecuniarum monete istius regni insulae
Sicilie de tercio in tercium et in principio cuiuslibet tercii et sic successive pro dicto
tempore...." Incidentally, Maurolico's two nephews Francesco and Silvestro were
present at the signing. The contract was confirmed at Palermo, 17 January, 1570.
33 Scaduto, "'n Matematico," p. 137. The letter says in part: "En esta ciudad esta Mauroli,
aquel gran mathematico, el qual lee una lection en nuestro colegio por la qual la ciudad le
paga cien ducados; a estado estos dias enfermo, es viejo de mas de 80 afios, y parece que
dexara la dicha lection." Since the young Jesuit wanted the position very strongly, perhaps
he exaggerated Maurolico's poor health. At any rate, he did exaggerate his age somewhat,
since Maurolico was at that time not quite 76 rather than "'more than 80 years."
34 Baron della Foresta, Vita, p. 17. Cf. Guardione, "'Francesco Maurolico," p. 13-14 and
Macri, Francesco Maurolico, 2nd. ed., p. 51, n. I, and above all pp. 79-85, where Macri
attempts to evaluate Maurolico's astrological views and to estimate whether Maurolico's
prediction is a legend without truth. He concludes that Maurolico did believe in natural
astrology but was critical of superstition.
that appeared near Cassiopeia and composed a short tract on it dated 6
November, 1572, which has only recently been printed.
35
This tract was
quoted by the Jesuit mathematician and astronomer Christophorus
Clavius, who had corresponded with Maurolico.
36
This correspondence
culminated in Clavius' visit to Messina, which lasted from April through
the middle of September, 1574.
37
(Incidentally, Maurolico was still busy
reading and commenting on scholarly works, for he completed a
compendium of Abrahamus Ortelius' Theatrum orbis terrarum on 18
October, 1574, and in the same month a De insulis totius orbis per
Bordonem et Procaccium collectis, as I have noted in my Chronology,
ibid., p. 169). Maurolico gave Clavius a copy of his Photismi de lumine et
umbra and Diaphana to take back to Rome for publication and no doubt he
also asked Clavius to check on the publication of the Opuscula
mathematica and Arithmetica. At any rate, after Clavius returned to
Rome, the Jesuit General Mercurian wrote the Provincial at Venice,
asking him to find out from Giovanni Comisino what had happened
"concerning the printing of the books of the abbot Maurolico. "38 The Pro-
vincial replied on 13 November, 1574, saying that the works were in press.
But in fact several months were required to complete the printing, so that
the volume comprising the two works did not appear until August, 1575.
39
Meanwhile, a month earlier, on 21 or 22 July, 1575, Maurolico had died,
having, like his family almost seventy-five years earlier, left Messina
35 C. D. Hellman, "Maurolico's 'Lost' Essay on the New Star of 1572," lsis, Vol. 51
(1960), pp. 322-36.
36 Ibid., pp. 322-23; cf. Baron della Foresta, Vita, pp. 17,27-29. However, as Scaduto,
"ll Matematico," p. 133, n. 22, remarks, no actual letter has survived. In addition to the
quotation of Maurolico's essay on the New Star in Clavius' In sphaeram Joannis de Sacro
Bosco commentarius, 3rd. ed. (Venice, 1591), pp. 191, 194, Clavius also described
Maurolico's De lineis horariis, "which he [Maurolico] wrote out in his own hand at Messina
and sent to me in Rome," in his (i.e., Clavius') Gnomonices libri octo (Rome, 1581), p. 58:
"POITO Franciscus Maurolycus Abbas Messanensis primus est, quod ego sciam, inventor
harum intersectionum, quas inter se faciunt mutuo lineae horariae ab ortu, vel occasu, et a
meridie, vel media nocte. Primum enim eas observavi in ipsius libello de lineis horariis
describendis, quem ipse Messana propria manu conscriptum Romam ad me misit; nondum
enim in lucem eum ediderat. Et quoniam consideratio haec intersectionum et iucundissima
est, et ad lineas horarias ab ortu vel occasu describendas utilissima, faciendum mihi
omnino putavi, ut ad communem studiosorum utilitatem demonstrationibus Geometricis
(quod quidem in praecedentibus propositionibus praestitimus) earn confirmarem. Nam sine
demonstrationibus huiusmodi sectiones linearum horariarum allatae mihi fuerunt, ex Sicilia,
neque earum demonstrationem apud ullum potui comperire."
37 Scaduto, "11 Matematico," pp. 138-39.
38 Ibid., pp. 139-40.
39 The Opuscula mathematica included the following works: De sphaera liber unus,
Computus ecclesiasticus in summam collectus, Brevis tractatus instrumentorum
astronomicorum, [Brevis] tractatus de lineis horariis, Euclidis propositiones Elementorum
libri tredecimi solidorum tertii regularium corporum primi, Musicae traditiones, De lineis
horariis libri tres. Then is added Arithmeticorum libri duo with its own title page. Both
title pages bear the same place, publisher, and date, i.e. Venetiis, apud Franciscum
Franciscium Senensem, 1575.
because of the pestilence and gone to the family home in the villa of S.
Alessio.
40
His body was placed in a convenient sepulchre in the Convent of
San Francesco di Paolo, a short distance from the city. 41 Then later, when
40 Rosen, "The Date of Maurolico's Death," p. 285. The date of July 21 is deduced from
the account by the Baron della Foresta of Maurolico's last days (Vita, p. 20) and from his
epitaph there published (p. 22) and given in the next footnote. The baron indicates that on
the night of Sunday, 18 July, Maurolico suffered an attack that affected him so severely
that he could hardly speak on Monday. His condition deteriorated on Wednesday, 21 July,
and he could no longer be successfully treated; thereupon he died. The account implies
but does not state that the death occurred on Wednesday. This is borne out by one part
of the epitaph which says that Maurolico lived eighty years, ten months, and five days;
and since he was born on 16 September, 1494, the death date indeed would work out to be
21 July, 1575. However, as Rosen points out, the epitaph is inconsistent with itself, for it also
says that Maurolico died on XI Kal. Augusti 1575. This is equivalent rather to 22 July, 1575.
41 Baron della Foresta, Vita, p. 2I. I had the good fortune to visit the church of
S. Giovanni di Malta recently and to examine the Capella Maurolyca under the guidance
of Monsignor Pantaleone Minutoli. Accordingly, I am able to present the texts of the
inscriptions found there. The first in point of time is the inscription composed by the Baron
della Foresta for the family tomb in 1574. As the inscription indicates, the tomb was to
include his father Giacomo and grandfather Antonio (i.e. Francesco Maurolico's father),
unnamed uncles, all of whom were dead, himself, his brothers Antonio and Silvestro, who
were living, and other descendents:
D.O.M.
VIATOR SCITO FRACISCY MAVROLYCVM
IACOBI F. ANT. NEP. PATRIC. MES. EX CLA
RA GRAECORY PROGENIE ORTY MAGNe
FORESTe BARONE. SEDE HANC SIBI
AVO ET PATRI. PATRVIS<l DEFYCTIS.
ANTONIO ET SYLVESTRO FRATRIB'
VIVENTIB1 NEC NO ET POSTERIS
PARASSE. NE HOC BREVI VITe CV
RRICVLO EXACTO IMPARATI DECE
DERET. TU INTER!' NE ILLIS MOLE
ST' SIS TIBI COSVLE SOLI ENIM vb
LVNT ESSE ANO SALVTIS. M. D. LXXIIII.
VIVITE. QUI LEGITIS. CeLESTIA QUeRITE. NOSTRA HeC
INCINERES TANDEM GLORIA TOTA REDIT
("Deo Optimo Maximo. Viator scito Franciscum Maurolycum, Jacobi filium, Antonii
nepotem, patricios messanenses, ex c1ara Graecorum progenie ortum, magnae Forestae
baronem, sedem hanc sibi, avo et patri patruisque defunctis, Antonio et Sylvestro fratribus
viventibus, necnon et posteris, parasse, ne hoc brevi vitae curriculo exacto imparati
decederent. Tu interius, ne iIlis molestus sis, tibi consule, soli enim volunt esse. Anno
Salutis M. D. LXXIIII. Vivete, qui legitis, caelestia quaerite. Nostra haec incineres tandem
gloria tota redit. ")
Three points are of interest concerning this inscription. (1) The Baron della Foresta has
here adopted as his family name the form "Maurolycus." So far as I know, nowhere else
has he done this without intending his uncle, who had, we know, adopted this form for himself
(see above, note 1). The baron elsewhere uses the form "Marul'i" (=Marulus, in Latin)
when referring to himself and other members of the family (e .g., note the references in the
inscription on his uncle's tomb given below). (2) It is evident that the family tomb and
its inscription were prepared in 1574, when his uncle was still alive. Hence it seems that he
and his brother Silvestro at that time intended a separate tomb for his uncle, as indeed it
turned out. (3) This inscription composed by the baron compels me to discuss Macrl's view
that two brothers, in addition to Francesco, survived the pest of 1523, namely Giacomo
and Geronimo (see Macrl, Francesco Maurolico, 2nd. ed., p. 17). Macrl had reasoned
that although the baron had explicitly stated in one place (Vita, p. 3) that the father, two
brothers (i.e. Francesco and Giacomo), and the sister survived, he must have erred, for in
another place (p. 12) he mentions that Francesco was present at the death of Giacomo,
"come etiandio alla morte dell'altro nomato Giacomo, versando per ambidoi insieme con
le dirotte lagrime, lamentevoli Trenodie e metri lugubri." Macrl claimed that this meant that
another brother died "a brevi distanza" (! in time or space?) and that the name "Giacomo"
also assigned to this second brother was a printer's error for "Geronimo" (Girolamo).
However, had another brother survived into the same period as Giacomo, then it
seems likely that the baron would have included his name in the inscription on the family
tomb rather than linking him with the other brothers who died in the pest by the general
term' 'patruisque." But such was not the case. Furthermore, it seems probable that, if another
brother survived (whether Girolamo, Giovan Salvo, Silvestro, Matteo, or Giovan Pietro is
of no concern), that brother would have been older than Giacomo, who is listed as the
youngest of the boys by the baron (Vita, p. 1), and hence would have inherited the
domestic responsibilities and the mastership of the mint that Giacomo in fact inherited
when his father died in about 1525 or 1526. If we reject Macrl's suggestion that the baron's
reference in the Vita, p. 12, is to a misnamed surviving brother of Francesco, we must
explain the baron's statement in some other fashion. The obvious suggestion is to take the
phrase in its most literal fashion to mean that Francesco was present' 'at the death of the other
one named Giacomo." The expression "the other one named Giacomo" might then refer to
some one else close to him who bore that name. Rossi, (see Macrl, Francesco Maurolico,
2nd ed., p. 17) has suggested a beloved nephew of that name but he has done so without
any sure evidence. Finally, it should be noted that the poetic laments for the deceased
Giacomos are not extant. But in the second volume of Maurolico's poetry described in a list
attached to the Index lucubrationum (see "Works of F. M.," Sect. 2[4], p. 191), we find two
titles that seem to represent these poetic lamentations: "In fratris Jacobi obitum Egloga.
Pro fratrum ac nepotum obitu Sylva." Thus it could be that, after composing the poem for
Giacomo's death, Maurolico was moved to write a similar piece or pieces on the earlier
deaths of his other brothers and nephews. Be that as it may, none of the brothers or
nephews is singled out by name in the second title. Hence, this title alone offers no evidence
as to the identity of the mysterious "other one named Giacomo."
The second inscription, that on the tomb of Francesco Maurolico, is in four parts: a
proper obit, two poems (one in fragmentary form) and a fragmentary and incomplete state-
ment including the name of Archimedes:
D.O.M.
D. FRANC: MAVROLYCO PATRICIO MESSANEN. EX CLARISS. MARVLORV
FAMILIA. ABBATI D. MARIAE
A PARTV VIRO CHRISTIANAE PIETATIS ZELO ET RERVM OCCVLTARV
SCIENTIA VETERIBVS PATR
IBVS ET PHILOSOPHIS COMPARANDO MATHEMATICORV OMNIVM DOCTORVM
CONSENSU FA
CILE PRINCIPI. QUI EA STVDIA PENE EXTINCTA IN LUCEM REVOCAVIT
SCRIPTORUM SVORV
MVLTITVDINE ILLUSTAVIT. AVXIT PROPOGAVIT INNOCENTIA
EXORNAVIT.
ADEO VT EIVS TANq ORACVLI VISENDI STVDIO
ETIAM
A REMOTISSIMIS MVNDI PARTIBVS CONFLVERETVR.
D. FRANC' FORESTAE ET S. GEORGII BARO ET D. SYLVESTER D. THEOLOG.
ABBAS ROCCAE
AMATORIS MARVLI FRATRES PATRVO BENEMERENTISS. SEPVL. PRO
TEMPORE ANGVSTV
P. OONEC ALIVD AVGVSTIVS DIGNVM VIRTVTE ET MERITIS ElVS ERGIGATVR.
VIX. ANN. LXXX. MENS. X. D. V. OBIIT XI KAL. AVG. M.D.LXXV.
TE QUOCl ZANCLA TVLIT MAVROLYCE NE SIT IN VNO
CLARA SIRACOSIO SICELIS ORA SENE.
TE PIETAS TE RELLIGIO [rE DIA MATHESIS]
EXTINCT\! SOPHIAE [rE QUOCl FLEVIT AMOR]
PARNASSI ET DIVAE DE[SERTIS FONTIBVS VDIS]
HIC OCVLIS SCISSIS [HIC GEMVERE COMIS].
ARCHIMEDES DIXIT CENTRUM IN TRIGONO [GRAVITATIS IN AXE ESSE]
RELINQVERE AD BASIM DE FASTIGIO [AXIS AD MEDIVM BASIS DVCTI]
TRIENTEM
("Deo Optimo Maximo. D. Francisco Maurolyco, patricio Messanensi, ex clarissima
Marulorum familia, abbati divae Mariae a Partu, viro christianae pietatis zelo, et rerum
occultarum scientia, veteribus patribus et philosophis comparando, mathematicorum
omnium, doctorum consensu, facile principi; qui ea studia pene extincta in lucem revocavit,
scriptorum suorum multitudine, ilIust[r]avit, auxit, propagavit, vitaeque innocentia
exomavit; adeo ut eius tanquam oraculi visendi consulendique studio, undique etiam a remotis-
simis mundi partibus, conflueretur. D. Franciscus Forestae et S. Georgii baro et D. Sylvester
doctor theologiae, abbas Roccaeamatoris, Maruli fratres, patruo benemerentissimo, sepul-
chrum pro tempore angustum posuerunt, donec aliud augustius dignum virtute et meritis
eius erigatur. Vixit annos LXXX, menses X, dies V. Obiit XI Kal. Augusti M.D.LXXV.
Te quoque Zancla tulit, Maurolyce, ne sit in uno
Clara siracosio sicelis ora sene.
Te pietas, te relligio (1), [te dia mathesis]
Extinctum, Sophiae [te quoque ftevit amor].
Parnassi et Diviae, de[sertis fontibus, udis]
Hic oculis, scissis [hie gemuere comis].
Archimedes dixit centrum in trigono [gravitatis in axe esse], relinquere ad basim de fastigio
[axis ad medium basis ducti] trientem. . . .")
There are several comments to be made concerning this inscription. (1) The Baron della
Foresta in giving the text ofthe first part of the inscription has the reading in line 7 "'regioni-
bus" instead of "mundi partibus." Macri (Francesco Maurolico, 2nd. ed., p. 53, n. 1) repeats
the baron's divergent reading. Does this mean that the baron's original text which he turned
over to the stone mason had "'regionibus"? (2) The first poem ("Te quoque Zancla") below
the main obit suggests that Zancla (i.e. Messina) has brought forth Maurolico so that the
fame of Sicily would not rest only on Archimedes. (3) The next poem ("Te pietas") is now
only half extant, the parts in brackets being given from the Baron della Foresta's account
(p. 22). Concerning this, we are told by Macrl (p. 53, n. 1), "Sui pHnto dell'avello erano i
seguenti versi, dei quali rimangono appena frammenti, perche il marmo venne roUo non
si sa quando...." (with the verses given in full from the baron's text). Just when the
marble broke in half is not known, but that which remains has been carefully and sym-
metrically placed in position. (4) The final fragment ("Archimedes dixit") is most interest-
ing and has not, so far as I know, been commented on. Like the poem "Te pietas," a major
part of it has disappeared, the marble having broken otT in some fashion. I have suggested
a reconstruction of the beginning three lines (all that remains) on the basis of a similar state-
ment of Maurolico's concerning Archimedes' determination of the center of gravity of a
triangle in his Compendium mathematicae under the rubric Archimedis aequalia momenta
(see below, Sect. Il, n. 22). I suspect that the inscription, like the passage in the Com-
-
the plague had passed, the body was transferred to the Basilica di San
Giovanni Battista (now known as the Chiesa di San Giovanni di Malta) in
Messina where it was placed in the Capella Maurolyca and still remains.
As the reader examines the chronological list of Maurolico's mathe-
matical works which I have compiled in "Works of F. M.," Section 1, and
reads Maurolico's own Index lucubrationum in Section 2, it will be evident
to him that many of Maurolico' s works remained unprinted at the time of
his death. His repeated attempts to find a patron who would ensure their
publication (among which we can recall the various letters to Bembo, Juan
de Vega, Cardinal Amulio, Juan de la Cerda, and of course, his constant
relations with the Ventimiglias) proved only partly successful. After his
death, his nephews Francesco (the Baron della Foresta) and Silvestro (the
Abbot of Roccamatore) continued to try to find support but without
success.
42
In 1582 Silvestro made a trip to Madrid where he hoped to secure
the financial assistance of the King of Spain, but the trip was unsuccessful.
Then later Silvestro wrote the Jesuit General Acquaviva to seek the aid of
Clavius or some other Jesuits in the editing of his uncle's unedited works.
While that letter is missing, the reply with its refusal is extant. The nephews
were able to see the publication of Maurolico's Photismi de lumine et
umbra with the Diaphana, in Naples, 1611, thanks to the assistance of
Giovanni Battista Airoldo.
43
Silvestro also arranged the publication of (and
wrote the dedication to) Maurolico's Problemata mechanica (Messina,
1613), which appeared as a companion piece to (and on occasion in the
same volume as) the Baron della Foresta's Vita, the writing of which
Silvestro had urged upon his brother. They were printed by Pietro Brea. I
have already indicated the publication later in the century of Maurolico's
version ofthe Conics of Apollonius (1654) and his version of the works of
Archimedes (1685). Mention has also been made, in their appropriate
places, of the trickle of editions of Maurolico' s works in the last century.
While nothing of great significance remains unpublished, still publication of
all the various pieces from the manuscripts at Rome and Paris would be
useful for a just evaluation of Maurolico's total contributions.
44
pendium, went on to say in some fashion that, while Archimedes determined the center of
gravity of a triangle (thus leading to the determination of centers of gravity of rectilinear
figures), Maurolico discovered the center of gravity of a pyramid, thereby leading to
the centers of gravity of polyhedra (and above all to the center of gravity of a paraboloid,
Maurolico's crowning achievement). I suspect that some such statement was added
to the tomb in imitation of Archimedes' tomb, where according to Cicero's account in
the Tusculan disputations (see Appendix Ill, n. 20) a sphere and a cylinder were inscribed,
thus celebrating Archimedes' proudest discovery. (5) Finally, I should note that the niche
above Maurolico's tomb, now empty, once contained a very fine portrait bust of
Maurolico executed by Rinaldo Bonanno (see above, n. I). The bust is now in the Museo
Nazionale at Messina. A rather poor bust of the nineteenth century is also found in the Villa
Mazzini across the street from the Church of S. Giovanni di Malta. For later honors paid
to Maurolico, see Macrl, pp. 53-54.
42 Scaduto, "11 Matematico," pp. 140-41.
43 Ibid., p. 141.
44 The manuscripts are listed in "Works of F. M.," Section 1, and used there to indicate
completion dates of the works they contain.
11. Some General Aspects of Maurolico' s Concern
with Archimedes
Now we are prepared to turn to Maurolico's interest in Archimedes.
This interest began early, but apparently Maurolico did not see a manu-
script-either Greek or Latin-of the whole corpus of Archimedes'
works during the first stages of his study of geometry. In his first printed
work, Grammaticorum rudimentorum libelli sex (Messina, 1528), after
indicating what mathematical works he has been studying and intends to
study, he speaks of Archimedes: "For whatever Archimedes the Syra-
cusan has treated concerning the measurement of the circle, the sphere
and the cylinder and equal moments, I too have clearly demonstrated;
'demonstrated' I say, before I had seen the works of Archimedes."l
The reference is obviously to Archimedes' On the Measurement of the
Circle, On the Sphere and the Cylinder and On the Equilibrium ofPlanes.
The statement that Maurolico demonstrated the conclusions of Archi-
medes before he had seen the works of Archimedes is puzzling, if true.
The substance of the first two works he could have derived from medieval
manuscript sources. As I have shown in Volume One, there were a great
many versions of On the Measurement of the Circle that circulated in
the Middle Ages, and as I shall show below some were embroidered
with the same kind of additions that Maurolico added to the pristine
Archimedean text when he later (in 1534) compiled his version ofthe tract.
So it is likely that he saw one of these considerably altered versions
before he saw the actual treatise of Archimedes. As for Maurolico's
having seen something that allowed him to develop the principal conclu-
sions of On the Sphere and the Cylinder before seeing that work, we know
that by 1534, when he prepared his version of the Archimedean work, he
had seen and extensively used the medieval De curvis superficiebus of
Johannes de Tinemue, and indeed, as we shall see in the next section,
Maurolico's treatment depends primarily on the De curvis superjiciebus.
With this fact in mind, I can suggest the following possible stages in
Maurolico's increasing knowledge of On the Sphere and the Cylinder that
would explain the statement of 1528. Let us initially suppose that Mauro-
lieo's first familiarity with the major conclusions of On the Sphere and the
1 7r-v: "Namuniversa Elementorum Euclidis volumina, et eiusdem Optica et Catoptrica,
necnon Phaenomena et geometrica Data; tamque Iordani quam Boethi[i] arithmetica et
musica Elementa; itemque Theodosii Sphaerica, et quod omnium maximum est, magnam
Ptolomaei constructionem, nullo praeeunte praeceptore per memetipsum intellexi. Quod si
quis non credat, periculum faciat in quocunque voluerit theoremate vel problemate:
cognoscet me non mentitum. Quid si maiora his dixero? Vereor ne mendax absque dubio
existimer. Dicam tamen, utcunque futurum sit. Quidquid enim Syracusius Archimedes de
circuli dimensione, de sphaera et cylindro, deque momentis aequali bus disseruit, ego quoque
apertissime' demonstravi: demonstravi inquam prius quam ipsius Archimedis opera
vidissem. Omnes Menelai de Sphaericis conclusiones ostendi; necdum Menelai Sphaerica
vidi. Verum nullam ex hoc quaero laudem: quid enim feci nisi quod antea factum erat?"
771
Cylinder came from the brief statements found in Giorgio Valla's De
expetendis et fugiendis rebus (Venice, 1501), statements I have given in
Part Ill, Chapter 2, ~ t i o n V, note 6. Certainly Maurolico was familiar
with Valla's work by 1533 (see below, Chapter 6, Section Ill) and an earlier
acquaintance is likely in view of the publication date of Valla's work.
Another possible alternative or additional source was theDe isoperimetris ,
a work which Maurolico often mentioned later (see below, notes 2, 5,7,
20,22 and "Works of F. M.," pp. 152, under the date January, 1508; 172,
n. 2; 175, n. 9; 179; 188; 189), for in that work the Archimedean conclusions
on the sphere were mentioned in somewhat greater detail (see Volume
One, page 631). Furthermore, as I note below in Section III of this chapter,
Maurolico may also by 1534 (and so perhaps earlier) have seen the Archi-
medean conclusions in one or more of the following works: the Verba
filiorum of the BanG Miisa, Leonardo Fibonacci's Practica geometrie,
Johannes de Muris' De arte mensurandi and Pacioli's Summa. Now,
taking the statement of 1528 as true, I would suggest that Maurolico
provided demonstrations for the unproved propositions appearing in one
or more of the above-mentioned works, as he so often did in his later
Archimedean reconstructions (e.g., see below, note 14). I would further
suggest that Maurolico subsequently discovered the Liber de curvis super-
ficiebus with its formal proofs of the principal conclusions of On the
Sphere and the Cylinder. And since in 1534 Maurolico did elaborate the
medieval tract and present this elaboration as Archimedes' work without
any qualifying comment, it would seemreasonable to conclude that he then
believed the medieval tract to represent Archimedes' work faithfully. I
suppose finally (and this much more tentatively) that he believed this
because he had not yet seen in 1534 the genuine text of Archimedes
and that he did not realize the profound differences between the medieval
tract and the genuine work until the appearance of the latter in 1544.
This reconstruction is by no means certain but I present it as a useful
hypothesis, leaving its further, more detailed consideration to the next
section.
The reference to On Equal Moments, the last of the works mentioned
in the passage of 1528, is somewhat more puzzling than the others. What
works would have led him to Archimedean conclusions before examining
On the Equilibrium of Planes? No doubt he read and developed the few
considerations we find in the brief section that Valla translated from
Eutocius' Commentary on the Equilibrium of Planes and included in his
De expetendis (see above, Part Ill, Chapter 2, Section V). However, this
fragment would have hardly led him to the major conclusions found in the
Archimedean work, though it may have given him the title by which he
knew the work, for Valla says: "Archimedes autem in libro qui aequalium
momentorum ascribatur" (ibid.). More substantial conclusions he could
have developed from the corpus of the medieval science of weights,
as he was an avid reader of medieval manuscripts. Still the only conclusion
of that corpus that is identical with the Archimedean work is the law of the
MAUROLICO AND ARCHIMEDES 773
lever itself, although some of the Archimedean postulates and techniques
are present in the medieval corpus. The only author before Maurolico to
develop the sundry propositions concerning centers of gravity that are the
heart of Book I of Archimedes' work was Leonardo da Vinci and I fail to
find any evidence of Maurolico' s having seen the notebooks of the master
painter. Perhaps the solution of this puzzle would be forthcoming if we
could find notes on or a preliminary version of On Equal Moments that
Maurolico must have composed on this subject at this early time (see below
Text B, Commentary to Maurolyci Tetragonismus). Unfortunately, the
extraordinary work in four books that Maurolico later completed on this
subject and which occupies a part of his Archimedean corpus was not
prepared until 1547-48 and thus some three years after the publication of
the Greek text and Cremonensis' translation in 1544.
Whatever the circumstances were of Maurolico's early knowledge of
Archimedes, we do know that Maurolico began serious treatment of
Archimedean problems in 1533 and 1534. In 1553, as I shall showin the next
chapter (Section Ill), he composed a series of notes on the problem of
finding two mean proportionals between two given lines, the problem that
is treated at such great length in Eutocius' Commentary on the Sphere and
the Cylinder. I shall also show that with little doubt the source of Mauro-
lico's notes was the work of Valla as was the case when he composed
his versions of two works of Autolycus in 1534 (ibid., n. 8). Now in the
months of July, August, and September of 1534, Maurolico completed
versions of three of Archimedes' works: On the Quadrature of the
Parabola, On the Measurement of the Circle, and On the Sphere and the
Cylinder. All depend on medieval sources in one way or another; they will
be described in detail below in Section III of this chapter and the texts
will be appended to this chapter. I shall show that the first of these works
is based on William of Moerbeke' s translation, no doubt as given in the
edition of Luca Gaurico (1503). The second is an elaboration of the original
text (as seen in the Moerbeke translation) in the manner of one or another
of the medieval versions of the text, and the third is an expanded version
of the medieval De curvis superficiebus, which may not have been
directly influenced by the Archimedean text itself. In view of these con-
clusions, which I shall present more fully below, it seems quite unlikely
that he saw at this early period either a Greek manuscript with the complete
Archimedean corpus in the manner of Greek manuscript A and its deriva-
tives or the full texts of either the Cremonensis or Moerbeke translations.
Thus I strongly suspect that he did not see the full Archimedean corpus
before the publication of the editio princeps of 1544, as indeed a statement
by his nephew seems to imply (see below, Section Ill, note 11). This would
explain why only these three works were treated in 1534 and it would ex-
plain why, except for On Equal Moments, none of the other Archimedean
works are mentioned when he lists the works of Archimedes in 1536 and
again in 1540.
Let us look first at the list of 1536, which occurs in his first letter to
Pietro Bembo. To the works mentioned in 1528 and paraphrased in 1534,
Maurolico added two more.
2
But these were not from the basic corpus; they
were rather two short tracts falsely attributed to Archimedes: On Iso-
perimeters and On Burning Mirrors. The first, then, is probably the
Latin work that we have mentioned before and which exists in numerous
manuscripts.
3
Its Greek text is also extant,4 and possibly Maurolico saw it
in this form. It is not impossible that later he knew of the relation of this
work to the disputation of Zenodorus on the subject which Theon of
Alexandria preserved in his Commentary on the Almagest and Pappus in
Book V of his Collectio.
5
The second work was no doubt the tract of
Alhazen that circulated widely without the author's name, although in the
case of at least one manuscript it bore the name of Archimedes.
6
That
Maurolico prepared versions of both of these works seems likely, for not
only do these works appear in this and later lists but Commandino ex-
presses his desire to see Maurolico's versions of them published. He
does this in a letter to the Sicilian mathematician (see above, Part Ill,
Chapter 4, Section Ill, n. 17), and presumably he would not have said
this unless Maurolico had told him in an earlier letter of their existence.
Be that as it may, I have not found a copy of them.
The list of 1540 that appears in Maurolico' s dedicatory epistle to
2 Guardione, "Francesco Maurolico," p. 37: "Nam Theodosii et Menelai Sphaerica,
Apollonii Conica, Archimedis opera de circuli dimensione, de Sphaera et Cylindro, de
Isoperimetris, de momentis aequalibus, de Quadratura parabolae, de Speculis ignificis nus-
quam apparent."
3 See Volume I, p. 630 and cf. above, Part Ill, Chap. 2, Sec. 11, n. 8. Note that on folio 39r
of MS Paris, BN lat. 7472, Maurolico may have started to write out the tract and then de-
cided that there was not enough space on this, the last folio of the codex, to complete the
treatise. At any rate, he wrote"Archimedes de isoper." (see my Chronology in "Works
of F. M.," p. 152, January, 1508).
4 See F. Hultsch, ed., Pappi Alex. Collectio, Vo!. 3 (reprint of 1878 ed., Amsterdam,
1965), pp. 1139-65.
5 Ibid., pp. 1189-1211. Cf. A Rome, ed., Commentaires de Pappus et de Theon sur
l' Almagest, Vo!. 2 (Louvain, 1931), pp. 335 et seq. Later, in the preface to his Praeparatio,
Maurolico was to mention that some people thought the author of the tract On Isoperimeters
to be Theon (see below, Text A).
6 The medieval Latin text was edited by J. L. Heiberg and E. Wiedemann, "Ibn al Haitams
Schrift iiber parabolische Hohlspiegel," Bibliotheca mathematica, 3. Folge, Vo!. 10
(1909-10), pp. 201-37. They note (p. 231, variant reading) that MS Erfurt, Stadtbibl.
Amplon. Q.387, 59v has "Explicit liber Archimenidis de speculis comburentibus." How-
ever, a doubt would certainly be in the reader's mind regarding Archimedes' supposed
authorship from a statement in the proemium of the tract (p. 219, line 10) that names
Archimedes as a celebrated inventor of these mirrors: "et illi, qui invenerunt specula ista,
famosi fuerunt, sicut Archimedes et Anthimus. . . ." Maurolico was later in the preface to
his Praeparatio (see Text A below) to suggest that some thought the work to be by Archi-
medes and some by Ptolemy. By the time he composed his Index lucubrationum (see
"Works of F. M.," Sect. 2), Maurolico hadsetded for Ptolemy as the author. The identifica-
tion of the work with Ptolemy may have rested on the fact that A. Gogava published an
anonymous, truncated version of the treatise along with Ptolemy's Quadripartitum in
Louvain, 1548. (Cf. Heiberg and Weidemann, "Ibn al Haitams Schrift," p. 231.)
Bembo includes the same Archimedean works as the list of 1536, except
in more detail: 7
Archimedes the Syracusan, The Book on the Measurement of the Circle, with
our closer calculation of the measure of the circumference.
By the same author, On the Sphere and the Cylinder, in the tradition of Eutocius
of Ascalon.
By the same author, On Isoperimetric Figures, both plane and solid, where it is
concluded that the circle is the maximum of isoperimetric plane figures and the
sphere of isoperimetric solid figures.
The Finding of Two Mean Proportionals, in the tradition of the outstanding
authors Plato, Archytas, Menechmus, Hero, Philo of Byzantium, and Pappus.
Method of Cutting a Given Sphere in a Given Ratio from Dionysodorus These
[two] items, although translated by Giorgio Valla, still can be scarcely under-
stood, both because they were obscurely-if not badly-translated and because, in
order to explain what is in Menechmus and Dionysodorus, there was need of
certain passages of Apollonius and Archimedes....
Archimedes, The Book on Burning Mirrors, in which he teaches and shows that
the form to be given to a mirror in order that it be most efficacious for burning
is that of a parabola, which is one of the conic sections. Therefore, a person
wishing to understand a matter of this kind needs a knowledge of conical
elements....
Archimedes, The Book on Equal Moments, or On Things That Weigh Equally,
in the tradition of Eutocius of Ascalon.
By the same author, The Book on the Quadrature of the Parabola, most
acute. A person wishing to understand this needs knowledge of conics and equal
moments....
The Squaring or Quadrature of the Circle of Hippocrates, Archimedes and
others.
Though this list mentions the same works of Archimedes as that of 1536,
it does include the additional reference to the problems of finding two mean
proportionals and cutting a sphere in a given ratio that appear in Eutocius'
Commentary on the Sphere and the Cylinder. It is of interest that in con-
7 Cosmographia, sign. a ii verso-a iii verso: .. Archimedis Syracusani de circuli dimensione
libellus cum calculo nostro ad mensuramperipheriae propius accedente. Eiusdem de sphaera
et cylindro ex traditione Eutotii Ascalonitae. Eiusdem, de isoperimetris figuris tarn planis
quam solidis: ubi planarum circulus, solidarum vera figurarum isoperimetrarum sphaera
concluditur esse maxima . . . Inventio duarum mediarum proportionalium ex traditione
praestantissimorum authorum Platonis, Architae, Menaechmi, Heronis, Philonis Byzantii,
et Pappi. Modus secandi datam sphaeram ad datam rationem ex Dyonysodoro. Quae
quamvis a Georgio Valla tralata sint: tamen vix intelligi poterant: turn quod fuerant obscure,
ne dicam male, tradita: turn quod ad ea perpendenda opus erat in Menechmo et Dionysodoro
quibusdam Apollonii et Archimedis locis.... Archimedis libellus de speculis com-
burentibus: in quo docetac ostendit, speculo, ut sit ad comburendum efficacissimum, formam
dandam esse a parabola, quae est una ex conicis sectionibus; quare negocium huiusmodi
intelligere volenti opus esse notitia conicorum elementorum.... Archimedis de momentis
aequalibus, sive de aequiponderantibus libellus ex traditione Eutotii Ascalonitae. Eiusdem
libellus de quadratura parabolae acutissimus: quem intelligere volenti opus est conicorum et
momentorum aequalium notitia ... Tetragonismus, sive quadratura circuli, Hippocratis,
Archimedis et aliorum."
-
nection with these problems he mentions only the translation of Valla.
This suggests once more that no other version was available to him, that is,
that he did not yet have access to Cremonensis' text. Incidentally, both of
the problems occupied his attention at an earlier time.
8
Another point of
interest in regard to the list is that he speaks there of On the Sphere and the
Cylinder and On Equal Moments as being of the tradition of Eutocius of
Ascalon. In each case I believe this to have been a deduction of Maurolico
based on Valla's extracts from Eutocius' commentaries on these two
works. Finally, it should be pointed out that the last item I have given from
the list is partially repetitious of the first, except that Maurolico wants to
emphasize that Hippocrates and others treated quadrature as well as Archi-
medes. Indeed this last item reflects Maurolico' s own collection of quad-
ratures that I have edited as Text B below, where, in addition to his ex-
panded version of Archimedes' treatise, Maurolico also added a
Tetragonismus of his own, one of Hippocrates and still another. The first
and the second were completed on 19 August, 1534.
Following the listing of Archimedes' works in 1540, Maurolico again
picked up his Archimedean studies in 1547, and he did this shortly after
he completed his version of the Conics of Apollonius with its reconstruc-
tion of Books V and VI. I mention the Apollonius version because of
Maurolico's expressed contention in the 1540 letter that Apollonius was
important for understanding some parts of the Archimedean corpus and
because he so often uses Apollonius in his reconstructions of Archimedes'
works.
9
At any rate, with Apollonius behind him, he prepared his brilliant
De momentis aequalibus in the last months of 1547 and the first month of
1548. The most remarkable feature of the work was that in the fourth
book Maurolico took up the problems of the centers of gravity of solids,
8 I describe in the next chapter, Section Ill, Maurolico's notes on the problem of the mean
proportionals, notes that are dated 1533 and 1535. These are notes contained in MS Rome,
Bib!. Vitt. Eman. S. Pant. 115/32, 44r-v, 47r-v. On 52v we find an extract from Dionysodorus'
solution of the second problem that is undated. However the solution of Dionysodorus was
given in an alternate to Proposition XXXII of Maurolico's version ofDe sphaera et cylindro
and that work was completed at Messinaon 10 September, 1534 (see the end ofText C below).
9 For example, see his use of Apollonius' Conics in De sphaera et cylindro, Proposition
XXXII-Aliter (Text C below), in Quadratura parabolae, Props. I-IV and colophon (Text
D below), in De momentis aequalibus, Bk. Ill, pref. (Archimedis . . . . Monumenta omnia
mathematica quae extant ex traditione ... D. Francisci Maurolici, Pa1ermo, 1685, p. 133
[misprinted 233]: "Itaque absolutis quibusdam super mensulae, cuius duo tantum latera
aequidistant centro, reliqua opportuna ex conicis elementis assumpta citantes ad inven-
tionem centri parabo1es veniemus." (Cr. pp. 144-45, 151, 153, 176), and extensively in De
conoidibus et sphaeroidibus (ibid., pp. 230, 234, 236-45, 247, 249-50, 254, 256, 263, and
266). I should add that Maurolico's knowledge of conics, when applied to the problems of
gnomonics, led him in 1553 to compose a short tract on conics, which is Book III of his
De lineis horariis libri tres and occupies pages 263-85 of his Opuscula mathematica (Venice,
1575). In that tract he pointed a new direction in conics for the rapid construction of conics
independently of cones. See F. Amodeo, "Il Trattato delle coniche di Francesco Maurolico,"
Bibliotheca mathematica, 3. Fo1ge, Vo!. 9 (1908-09), pp. 123-38.
problems missing from Archimedes' On the Equilibrium ofPlanes. Let us
listen to his preface to the fourth book: 10
It remains now to treat of the finding of the center of gravity of solids, for this is an
area of the subject which, to my no little astonishment, was omitted by Archi-
medes. Although the discovery of the center [of a solid] is easy for a sphere and for
solids which are commonly called regular, and the center of every prism is the
center of that rectilinear figure which lies midway between and is parallel to the
bases, still the center of a pyramid can be investigated with no less-if I may not
say more-industry than the center of a plane triangle. And so since in the first
book we treat the universal doctrine of weights, in the second the center of planes
and in the third the center of the conic section called the parabola in order that we
may understand more clearly those things which Archimedes wrote, so now in this
fourth book we investigate the matter of solids.
The highlight of this fourth book was the determination in Proposition
XXIII of the center of gravity of a paraboloid.
ll
I have already declared
in the preceding chapter, Section Ill, that Commandino was led to his
treatment of the centers of gravity of solids by his study of On Floating
Bodies, Book 11, Prop. 2, where Archimedes assumes as proved the loca-
tion of the center of gravity of a paraboloid. Now here many years earlier
and apparently without the stimulus of On Floating Bodies, which Mauro-
lico never mentions, the Sicilian mathematician comes to the same con-
siderations, and indeed to the same basic propositions, by what we may
call the necessary symmetry of the subject. It is also appropriate to remark
at this point that Maurolico returned to the center of gravity of a paraboloid
in a separate treatise completed on 5 May, 1565,12 Le., in the same year
that Commandino's work on the center of gravity of solids was published.
All in all, Maurolico's treatment of centers of gravity of solids demon-
strates with great clarity his mastery of Archimedean geometry.
About two years after completing his tract On Equal Moments,
Maurolico finished his version of Archimedes' On Spiral Lines on 18
October, 1549.
13
It was less divergent in form and content than most of his
10 Archimedis . . . Monumenta, p. 156: "Superest nunc agere de centri gravitatis
inventione in solidis: hic enim erat eius speculationis locus, quem ab Archimede omissum
non parum admiror. Nam quamvis memorati centri inventio facilis sit in sphaera, facilis in
solidis quae vulgo regularia dicuntur, et centrum omnis prismatis sit centrum ipsum rectilinei,
quod basibus medium, et parallelum interiacet: tamen centrum pyramidis non minori indus-
tria quam centrum plani trianguli, ne dicam maiori exquiri poterat. Itaque cum in primo
Iibello doctrinam gravium universalem tradiderimus, in secundo centra planorum, in tertio
conicae sectionis quae parabola dicitur, ad ea distinctius intelIigenda quae scripsit Archi-
medes. Nunc in hoc quarto solidorum negotium exequemur."
It/bid., pp. 177-78. Incidentally the colophon at the end of the fourth book runs as
follows (p. 180): "Finis libri quarti, et uItimi de Momentis Aequalibus. Panormi, XXIII
Ianuarii MDXVIII (t MDXLVIII}." For Archimedes' treatment of the centers of gravity
of solids in his On the Method, which was unavailable in the Renaissance, see Part Ill, Chap.
3, n. 58.
12 Napoli, "Scritti inediti," pp. 114-21.
13 Archimedis ... Monumenta, pp. 196-225. For Maurolico's proof of Archimedes'
Proposition 10 (his own Prop. VIII), see pp. 200-02. The proof has been remarked on by
versions of Archimedes' works. But even here there are original features,
including a scholium converting to numbers Archimedes' Proposition 10
(Maurolico's Proposition VIII) that concerns the summation of the squares
of lines whose lengths are in arithmetical progression (see the end of note
13). Then two months later, on 17 December, Maurolico completed his
version of On Conoids and Spheroids, which he expanded considerably
into two books and which he made considerable use of the Conics of
Apollonius and presented simplified proofs based on his version of On the
Sphere and the Cylinder. 14 Finally, he capped his Archimedean work with
a Praeparatio ad Archimedis opera. This he completed on 13 February,
1550. In it he demonstrated the basic propositions that he thought to be
useful for the procedures he used in his radically different treatment of
On the Sphere and the Cylinder. I have given the text of the Praeparatio
below (see Text A). All of these Archimedean works, together with the
early versions of 1534, were not published until 1685, thus depriving
Maurolico of an influential role in the spread of Archimedean studies in
the sixteenth century. The interesting circumstances surrounding the
publication of Maurolico' s Archimedean corpus will be described in some
detail below in Section III of this chapter. One last observation concern-
ing the works prepared between 1547 and 1550 ought to be made. I
suspect that the chief stimulus to their preparation was the appearance
of the editio princeps of the Greek text with Regiomontanus' corrected
version of the translation of Cremonensis at Basel in 1544. But how
different were Maurolico's finished products from the translations of
Cremonensis. He added propositions and lemmas, suppressed material he
thought unnecessary, rearranged propositions, and adopted new methods
where he thought clarity and coherence would be improved. As a geometer
he far surpassed any Western student of Archimedes before his time.
P. Cossali, Origini, trasporto in Italia, e primi progressi in essa delta algebra, Vol. 1
(Parma, 1797), p. 159. This same proposition, but cast in the form of the figure numbers of
antique and medieval arithmetic was again given by Maurolico in MS Paris, BN lat. 7473,
53r-55v. 61 v, where he includes Archimedes' proof and two of his own. Here it is part of an
arithmetical tract apparently begun at Catania at least as early as 6 November, 1553 (62v). The
first two proofs of it lie within the section of the tract completed by 1 December, 1553 (58r).
14 Archimedis . . . Monumenta, pp. 226-75. This work was extensively augmented by
Maurolico. Archimedes' one book becomes two. Maurolico particularly emphasizes his own
contributions to it on p. 275: "Quae quidem speculationes, ut scitu iocundae, ita omittendae
minimae videbantur, itaque ea quae Archimedes demonstrare neglexerat demonstravimus,
et complurium quae ilie omiserat demonstrationes adiecimus; caetera curiosiores requirent.'
Among his contributions was his use of an earlier method of proof based on his version of
On the Sphere and the Cylinder. He calls attention to this use on pages 269 and 274. See also
his earlier comment concerning Book I, Props. X-XIII (p. 236): "Notandum quod
praemissae quatuor propositiones, quae ab Archymede obscurissimo ac difficili processu
traduntur, hic multo apertius demonstrantur; atque id auxilio conicorum ac cylindricorum
eiementorum, quae ab Apollonio et Sereno post Archimedem copiosius tradita sunt."
Incidentally, I should point out that Maurolico produced a version of Serenus' Cylindrica,
completing it on 16 August, 1534 (MS Paris, BN lat. 7465, lr-20r), only three days before
he completed his version of De circuli dimensione.
Though by this time Maurolico had completed his original Archimedean
studies (except for the above-noted 1565 tract on the center of gravity
of a paraboloid and for a brief note on the Philonian method of finding the
cube root of a continuous magnitude), 15 he continued over the next decade
or so to mention Archimedean works on every occasion in which he sum-
marized the most significant concepts of treatises on geometry. In his
Prologi sive sermones of 1554, he makes a few passing references which
embrace concepts from On Equal Moments, On the Sphere and the
Cylinder, On Spiral Lines, and On the Quadrature of the Parabola. 16 But
the most interesting passage in that work mentions Archimedes in the con-
text of a description of the basic powers and forces that exist: 17
15 See MS, Paris, BNlat. 7467, 16v: "Datae magnitudinis dabitur cubica radix. Sit proposita
magnitudo ab, data vero be [Fig. IlI.5 .1]. Compleatur rectangulumahee , cui circumscribatur
circulus ahee (mg: cuius centrum k), et inter ba, he in infinitum productas protrahatur recta
fdeg secans periferiam in punctis d, e, hac scilicet conditione, utfd, eg sint aequales (sive
utfg, kg sint aequales). Aio itaque quod lineae ab, eg, af, be sunt continue proportionales,
atque ideo per diffinitionem eg erit ipsius be datae magnitudinis cubica radix, ut ostendit
Apollonius et Philon Byzantius, Sic habes, lector, optime tarn quadratae quam cubice
radicis in continuis inventionem, 17 Aprilis 1554." Cf. below, Text A, Prop. XXVII.
16 Prologi, ed. Bellifemine, p. 19: "aut motus ad centrum, et hoc traditur in libro Archi-
menidis aequalium momentorum.... (p. 20) .... Contra (! Centra) vero gravitatis et in
planis figuris et in solidis inquiri possunt; quamvis Archimedes solida, quod vaIde miror,
praetermisit. ... (p. 35).... Recta linea est brevissima earum quae terminos habent
eosdem, ut Archimedes [in libro de sphaera et cylindro dicit] (p. 36).... Sunt
et aliae periferiarum species, ut quae in conicis sectionibus Sunt et spirae quae
circumvolutae dilatantur: de quibus Archimedes [in libro de lineis spiralibus traditl . . .
Plana superficies est . . . brevissima eosdem limites habentium, si Archimedem sequimur
[in libro de sphaera et cylindro].... (p. 40).... De circuli atque sphaerae dimensione
acutissime ratiocinatur Archimedes. Et quamvis sphaericam superficiem ad suum maximum
circulum quadruplam esse demonstret, periferiae tamen ad diametrum non nisi prope verum
determinat rationem, paulo seu tripla sesquiseptima minorem. Ego autem frustra semper
super hoc laborasse et semper laboraturos mathematicos existimo: eamque rationem non
solum inter rationales sed ne inter cognitas quidem existere certis argumentis coniicio.
Quod si quis parabolae quadraturam ab Archimede elaboratam obiiciat: satis sit in circulo ex
semidiametro in dimidium periferiae aream perduci, sicut fit in polygoniis rectilineis: quam
praerogativam parabola non habet."
17 Ibid., pp. 46-47: "Pondus quoque ac levitas, cum respectivae qualitates sint, quemad-
modum gravitas et acumen haud aliter ad quantitatem redigi possunt. Qualitas enim talis
respectiva est: cum idem corpus alio respectu leve sit, alio autem grave: veluti pumex
respectu aquae levis: gravisque respectu aeris. Similiter vox eadem, respectu vocis acutioris
gravis est: respectu autem gravioris acuta. Sicut igitur voces inter se proportione, ita et
pondera comparantur. Pondus autem est gravis ponderis potentia, qua rectilineo motu
movetur versus universale centrum. Unde gravius corpus maiori potentia feretur. Corporum
autem eiusdem materiei, quod maius est, graviumque esse oportet. (In margine: Et aequalia
aeque gravia). Sed corpora diversarum materierum, ut plurimum differunt pondere
quamvis aequalia, et aeque gravia, discrepabunt magnitudine. Unum (I Unde?) palam
est, pondus aliam esse quantitatis speciem quam corpus. Rursus aequalia pondera a diversis
spaciis non aequaliter: et inaequalia aequaliter ponderant: nam pondus a longiori spacio
appensum ponderosius est: ut patet in statera. Erit ergo tertia quaedam potentia, sive tertia
magnitudinis differentia, diversa a corpore, diversa a pondere, quam momentum vocant.
Corpus igitur acquirit pondus a quantitate et qualitate: pondus autem momentum suscipit a
spacio, ad quod appenditur. Unde quando spacia sunt ponderibus reciproca; momenta sunt
Weight and lightness, since they are respective [i.e. relational] qualities, like base
and treble, can be reduced to quantity in no other way [but as relations]. For
such a quality is respective since one and the same body is light in respect to one
thing and heavy in respect to another-like pumice, which is light in respect to
water but heavy in respect to air. Similarly the same voice is deep in respect to a
shriller voice but shrill in respect to a deeper voice. Just as sounds are compared by
ratios, so too are weights. Now weight is the power of a heavy body by means of
which it is moved in a straight line toward the universal center. Whence a body
that is heavier is borne along by a greater power. In the case of bodies of the same
material, that which is larger is necessarily heavier [mg. and that which is equal in
size is equally heavy]. But bodies of different materials are such that although
equal in size they differ greatly in weight, or equal in weight they differ in size.
Whence it is clear that weight is a different species of quantity than body. Again,
equal weights at unequal distances do not weigh equally, but unequal weights
[at these unequal distances may] weigh equally. For a weight suspended at a
greater distance is heavier, as is obvious in a balance. Therefore, there exists a
certain third kind of power or third difference of magnitude- one that differs from
both body and weight-and this they call moment. Therefore, a body acquires
weight from both quaptity and quality, but a weight receives its moment from the
distance at which it is suspended. Therefore, when distances are reciprocally pro-
portional to weights, the moments [of the weights] are equal, as Archimedes
demonstrated in The Book on Equal Moments. Therefore, weights or [rather]
moments like other continuous quantities, are joined at some common terminus,
that is, at something common to both of them like the center of weight, or at a
point of equilibrium. Now the center of gravity in any weight is that point which,
no matter how often or whenever the body is suspended, always inclines per-
pendicularly toward the universal center. In addition to body, weight, and moment,
there is a certain fourth power, which can be called impetus or force. Aristotle
investigates it in On Mechanical Questions, and it is completely different from
three aforesaid [powers or magnitudes]. For what someone produces by the
impetus or force of the striking hammer or the pressing axe, that is by pounding
or cutting, can be produced without great weight or moment. Of this kind is also
the force of the bow that has impelled its missile [i.e., its arrow] and the force of
the cannon that hurls its ball with impetus. These forces are proportionally
related to the other magnitudes; that is, they are completely related to the
machines or the means by which the impetus is produced. For longer bows or larger
aequalia: ut Archimedes in libro aequalium momentorum demonstravit. Pondera igitur seu
momenta, sicut et aliae continuae quantitates copulantur ad aliquem communem terminum
utpote ad commune utriusque tamquam unius ponderis centrum, sive ad aequilibrii
punctum: centrum autem gravitate (1 gravitatis) in quovis pondere est punctum illud, quod,
quotiescumque et undecumque appendatur corpus, semper versus universale centrum
perpendiculariter pendet. Est et ultra corpus, pondus, momentum, quarta quaedam po-
tentia, quae impetus aut vis appellari potest: a tribus praedictis omnino diversa: de qua
quaerit Aristoteles in mechanicis quaestionibus. Quod enim quis impetu aut vi incussi mallei,
aut securis impactae, sive cudendo sive secando facit: nullo quamvis magno pondere aut
momento fieri potest: Talis est etiam vis illa sive excussi arcus telum, sive bombardae ignis
erumpentis impetu pilulam eiaculantis, quae vires etiam inter se, sicut coeterae magnitudines
proportionaliter conferuntur, suntque machinis ipsis, mediove impetum facienti pene pro-
portionales. Namque maiores arcus, seu bombardae longius eiaculantur: Et rursum, arcus
intentiores, aut bombardae nitro confectiores, maiore impetu et longius eiaculantur."
cannons shoot farther. Further, bows under greater tension or cannons more
packed with gunpowder (nitro) shoot farther and with greater impetus.
This passage is of interest because it integrates the Archimedean concept
of moment into a general scheme of mechanical concepts. Also of interest
is the prominence given to the concept of percussive force, which
Maurolico labels impetus or vis; this prominence is reminiscent of the
treatment of percussion by Leonardo da Vinci.
18
During the next year, 1555, Maurolico returned to Archimedes once
more in his Geometricae quaestiones, which includes a section entitled
"Circa Archimedis inventa. " This consists of brief statements concerning
Archimedes' mathematical discoveries. 19 Then in his letter to Juan de Vega
18 See my article on Leonardo da Vinci's mechanics in The Dictionary of Scientific
Biography. Also see note 25 below for Maurolico's use of the medieval impetus theory.
19 Napoli, "Scritti inediti," pp. 105-06: "Circa Archimedis inventa. 36. Quomodo
centrum gravitatis reperitur? Tarn in triangulo quam in pyramide est in axe, relinquens in
triangulo ad basim tertiam partem axis: in pyramide quartam. Axis autem ducitur ab
angulo trianguli ad medium punctum basis: in pyramide autem ab angulo ad centrum basis.
Sed in axe parabolae centrum gravitatis relinquit ad basis duas quintas axis. Et
momentorum ratio componitur ex ponderum et spatiorum rationibus. Et pondera aeque
pendentia esse spaciis reciproca. Quae late demonstrantur in libello momentorum aequalium
Archimedis. 37. Quae ratio est parab01ae ad suum triangulum? Sesquitertia: ut Archimedes
ostendit. In circulo autem portio ad suum triangulum semper maior est quam sesquitertia, ut
nos ostendimus. Solidum autem paraboles ad suum conum semper est sesquialterum: in
sphaera vero portio sphaeralis ad suum conum semper maior est quam sesquialtera: ut
ex demonstratis Archimedis constat. 38. Quomodo procedunt spirae in circulo? Circulorum
semidiametri per singulas spirarum revolutiones crescunt per aequa spacia secundum
naturalem seriem numerorum: Ipsi autem circuli secundum seriem et proportionem quadra-
torum numerorum spirae autem secundum seriem et proportionem hexagonorum aequian-
gulorum: Ita ut spira primae revolutionis sit tertia pars sui circuli. Partiale vero spirae spacium
ad sectorem circuli in quo includitur est sicut quod fit ex rectis a centro ad spiralis spacii
terminos ductis, cum tertia parte quadrati differentiae earum simul sumptum ad quadratum
maioris earum. 39. Quomodo parabola perspecte distinguitur? Ita ut axis segmenta secundum
impares numeros seriatim distinguatur ab unitate apud verticem initio sumpto: et per
limites divisionum ordinatae ducantur. Sic enim ordinatae crescunt secundum crementum
supremae per naturalem numerorum seriem. Axes autem portionum secundum propor-
tionem quadratorum. Portiones vero ipsae secundum proportionem cuborum; differentiae
tandem portionum secundum proportionem hexagonorum aequiangulorum. 40. Quomodo
conferuntur conicae sectiones? Ellipsium inter se sive ad circulos comparatarum ratio
componitur ex diametrorum rationibus: unde cum una diameter unius coni diametro
alterius par est: sunt ad invicem sicut reliquae. Et cum reciproca est ratio diametrorum,
figurae sunt aequales. Solidum hyperboles ad suum conum est sicut linea constans ex axe
solidi et ex triplo semidiametri transversae ad Iineam constantem ex eodem axe et ex
duplo dictae semidiametri. Item sphaeram et sphaeroidem sive sphaeroides inter se
eiusdem crassitudinis esse sicut axes; eorundem vero axium esse sicut crassitudinum
quadrata. Item sphaeroidem, cylindrum et conum eiusdem crassitudinis et eiusdem axis con-
ferri, eo penitus modo, quo sphaera, cylindrus et conus: neque aliter sphaeroidis
segmentum ad suum conum quam sphaeralem portionem ad suum. Lege libellos de sphaera
et cylindro: ac de sphaeroidibus Archimedis. 41. Dnde sumitur forma specuIi comburentis?
Ex concavo parabolici solidi. Nam radii axi paraboles paralleli in concavam huiusmodi solidi
superficiem cadentes refracti omnes in illud punctum axis concurrent, quod ex axe ad verticem
relinquit quadrantem basis. Est enim hinc basis recta diameter sectionis. Lege libellum de
ustorio speculo." I have altered the punctuation slightly.
of 1556, Maurolico lists and orders the works of Archimedes,20 as he does
also in the first version of his Index lucubrationum, published in 1558.
21
This latter listing, with respect to its Archimedean items, is almost identical
with that found in the later form of his Index lucubrationum (see "Works
of F. M.," Section 2). In that same edition of 1558, a brief account is given
of the main theorems of Archimedes' works in the little tract entitled
Compendium mathematicae. 22 And since, as we have seen, Maurolico was
20 Ibid., p. 209: "Postulat ordo hie Archimedis opera, quorum primum ego facio illud
quod de circuli dimensione inscribitur. Proximum quod de isoperimetris figuris: ubi circulus
inter planas et sphaera inter solidas isoperimetras figuras capacissima convincitur.
Tertium de spiralibus lineis acutissimum. Quartum de momentis aequalibus. Quintum de
quadratura parabolae quod innititur quarti demonstrationibus. (Mg.: Libellus de sphaera et
cylindro ponatur secundus.) Sextum de sphaera et cylindro: quandoquidem plana solidis
praeponenda sunt. Septimum de sphaeroidibus et conoidibus.. Octavum de speculis com-
burentibus. Ultimum de harenae numero, quod mea iudicio negligendum est. Ex his duo quae
de isoperimetris et de speculis comburentibus non extant in his quae impressa circumferentur:
tamen Archimedi ascribuntur. Quintum autem opus, septimum et octavum, indigent
conicorum doctrina. Sextum de sphaera scilicet et cylindro faciliori processu tradidimus;
in septimo multa ab authore omissa non sine magno labore ac vigiliis demonstravimus.
Adiecimus ex Eutocii expositione sumptum modum inveniendi duas medias proportionales,
ut tradidere Heron, Architas, Menechmus, Pappus, Eratosthenes ac Plato. Item
Dionysiodori (1) doctrinam secandi sphaeram ad datam rationem. Again, I have altered the
punctuation somewhat and changed the spelling "Menectimus."
21 Theodosii sphaericorum elementorum libri III etc. (Messina, 1558), sign. *2r.
22 Ibid., 70v-72r. The description ofthe Archimedean treatises in this little Compendium
is very much like that found in the Geometricae quaestiones, although somewhat fuller:
"Archimedis de dimensione circuli. Omnis circuli sive polygonii area aequalis est triangulo,
cuius altitudo semidiametro, basis autem periferiae aequalis est. Circuli periferia ad dia-
metrum minor est quam tripla sesquiseptima: maior vero quam tripla superpartiens
decemseptuagesimas primas. Quadratum circulo contento superpartitur tres undecimas, et
quod minus. De isoperimetris. Inter isoperimetra rectilinea eiusdem numeri laterum,
semper aequilaterum et aequiangulum est maximum. Inter aequilatera et aequiangula,
semper maius est quod plurium laterum. Unde isoperimetrorum circulus est maximus. Item
figurarum aequilaterarum intra aequales circulos descriptarum, quae plurium est laterum
ea et (! est) maior. Contra, earum quae circulis aequalibus circumscribuntur, illa quae
plurimum est laterum semper est minor. Cum vero tam inscripta figura, quam circumscripta
quantacunque in infinitum pluralitate laterum, semper propius circulo accedens nunquam
ipsum adaequare possit; propterea circulus nullum cum eis cognitae proportionis com-
mercium habens, iam et per numerarios terminos nos erit quadrabilis. Praeterea sicut ex
quinque solidis regularibus intra unam sphaeram descriptis illud est maius quod minus
latus habet. Ita et eorundem circa sphaeras aequales descriptorum, illud quod plures
bases habet minus erit. Sphaera vero est isoperimetrorum solidorum capacissima. De
sphaera et cylindro. Cylindrica superficies ei quod ex altitudine in periferiam basis fit
aequalis est. Conica superficies ei quod ex latere in dimidium periferiae basis. Coni
coluri superficies ei quod ex latere in dimidium periferiae intermediae. Solidi tomatilis
superficies ei quod ex diametro ad latera solidi perpendiculari in periferiam circuli
continentis polygonium a quo solidum describitur. Sphaerica superficies ei quod ex diametro
in periferiam sui circuli maximi: unde ad talem circulum quadrupla est, cylindricae autem
superficiei circumscriptae aequalis. Et plana basibus cylindricis parallela intercipiunt
de cylindrica et sphaerica superficie zonas aequales. Et sphaeralis segmenti superficies
aequalis est circulo cuius semidiameter est recta quae a vertice segmenti ad periferiam
basis segmenti. Coni, sphaerae, solidi tomatilis corpulentia producitur, coni quidem ex tertia
parte axis in basim, sphaerae ex triente semidiametri in suam superficiem, et tomatilis [ex
triente] suae perpendicularis in suam superficiem, cylindri vero ex altitudine in basim. Unde
si cylindrus et conus pro fastigio diametrum sphaeralem et pro basi circulum habeant,
cylindrus ad sphaeram sesquialter, et sphaera ad conum erit dupla. Segmentum sphaerale ad
suum conum est sicut linea constans ex semidiametro sphaerae et ex axe reliqui segmenti
ad axem dicti coni. ... (71v). . .. Archimedis aequalia momenta. Aeque pendentium
ponderum momenta sunt aequalia. Pondera aeque pendentia sunt spaciis a quibus pendent
reciproca. Momentorum ratio componitur ex ponderum et spaciorum rationibus. Centrum
gravitatis est in axe tarn trianguli, quam parabolae, quam etiarn pyramidis, reliquens ad
basim in triangulo quidem tertiam, in pyramide quartam, in parabola duas quintas axis
ad medium basis ducti. Et in pyramide tale medium est centrum gravitatis basis. Unde
in triangulo tres axes et in pyramide trilatera quatuor axes se invicem in uno puncto, quod
centrum gravitatis est, intersecant. Hinc per triangulum notescunt rectilineorum centra,
sicut demonstravit Archimedes. Per pyramidem vero solidorum planorum centra comperi-
untur, quod demonstravit Maurolycus. Circuli, spherae, et omnis regularis tarn planae quam
solidae figurae idem est magnitudinis et gravitatis centrum. Quadratura parabolae.
Omnis portio parabolae ad triangulum rectilineum eiusdem basis ac verticis est sesquitertia.
Item triangulum ipsum octuplum est ad utriuslibet relictarum portionum triangulum. Unde
duae portiones semper sunt suis triangulis proportionales. Hoc Archimedes demonstrat
dupliciter, per aequalia momenta et geometrice. De lineis spiralibus. Dum semidiameter
circuli a quali motu semel aut bis, aut ter, aut quotiesvis circuit ambitum, punctum a centro
ad periferiam delatum in semidiametro describit spiram unius, duarum, trium, aut quotvis
totidem revolutionum. Recta a centro circuli perpendiculariter excitata ad semidiametrum
quae incipit et terminat spiram et educta usque ad concursum rectae tangentis spiram
apud reliquum semidiametri extremum aequalis est periferiae circuli, si spira primae fuerit
revolutionis, aut est totupla ad periferiam quot fuerint spire revolutiones. Circulorum
semidiametri per singulas spirarum revolutiones crescunt per aequa spacia, hoc est secundum
naturalem seriem numerorum. Et ipsi circuli secundum seriem et proportionem quadratorum
ex semidiametris. Zonae autem a primo circulo, secundum seriemet proportionem imparium.
Spirae vero procedunt secundum seriem et proportionem numerorum hexagonorum
aequiangulorum. Prima spira est pars tertia sui circuli. Spirale spacium ad sectorem
sui circuli in quo includitur est sicut quod fit a rectis a centro ad spiralis spacii terminos
ductarum una cum tertia parte quadrati differentiae earundem, sumptum ad quadratum
maioris earum, quae semidiameter est circuli. Hic notandum quod processus et proportio
dictorum numerorum invenitur in Parabola perspecte divisa, hoc est diametris basim
bifariam semel atque iterum secantibus. De conoidibus et sphaeroidibus. Parabola sive
hyperbola circa suum axem circumducta describit conoidem, et ellipsis circa suum axem
sphaeroidem figuram. Si conoidem paraboles secet planum axi parallelum, sectio parabola
est. Si conoidem hyperboles secet planum per centrum hyperboles solidum describentis
ductum, sectio nova erit hyperbole. Si sphaeroidem secet planum axi parallelum, sectio
ellipsis erit similis ellipsi describenti solidum. Si conoidem paraboles vel hyperboles
secet planum oblique secans axem undique abscindens, sectio facta ellipsis erit. Solidum
paraboles ad conum eiusdem basis et altitudinis est sesquialterum. Solidum hyperboles ad
suum conum est sicut linea constans ex axe solidi et triplo semidiametri transversae ad
lineam constantem ex eodem axe et ex duplo dictae semidiametri. (72r) Circulus et
ellipsis sunt ad invicem sicut rectangula tetragona quibus inscribuntur. Sphaera et sphaeroides
sese in circuli periferia tangentes sunt ad invicem sicut axes. Communem vero axem
habentes sunt proportionales quadratis reliquorum axium. Et eadem de duabus sphaeroidibus
pronuncia. Item quae collatio coni et cylindri ad sphaeram, eadem ad sphaeroidem est. Et
quae collatio sphaeralium segmentorum ad suos conos, eadem et segmentorum
sphaeroidis ad suos. De speculo comburente. Conoidis solidi, ut dictum est, a parabola
formati concava superficies facit, si perfecte poliatur, speculum ad comburendum
efficacissimum. Nam radii ad aequidistantiam axis in talem superficiem cadentes reflexi
concurrunt omnes ad unumpunctumaxis, quod scilicet ex axe ad verticemrecipit quadrantem
rectae diametri paraboles, quod tunc fit cum axis abscisa (I) portio fuerit quadrans
still able to produce an original, Archimedean-like treatment of the center
of gravity of a paraboloid as late as 1565, it is evident that he retained his
active interest in the great Syracusan mathematician almost to the end of
his life. Finally, we can note that Maurolico made use of Archimedes in
composing his Problemata mechanica, which he dedicated to Cardinal
Amulio in 1569, but which was no doubt written earlier. There he gave a
brief description of mechanics in the introduction which resembles some-
what his remarks from thePrologi sive sermones of 1554 (see note 17).23 In
subiectae basis sive ordinatae per talem punctum, hoc est cum basis aequalis fuerit rectae
diametro sectionis. Sed hie libellus creditur fuisse Ptolemaei, cum in eo citetur Apollonius,
qui vixit posterior Archimede. Ex praedictis constat magna et admirabilis parabolae
inter geometricas figuras excellentia." In quoting this passage, I have freely changed the
punctuation and reduced excessive capitalization. Furthermore, as in all the passages quoted
from the works of Maurolico, I have rendered ..~ by "ae". The titles of the various works
of Archimedes I have changed from majuscule letters to italics.
23 The full title of Maurolico's work is D. Francisci Maurolyci Abbatis Messanen.
Problemata Mechanica cum appendice, et ad Magnetem, et ad Pixidem Nauticam pertinen-
tia (Messina, 1613). The edition contains four parts: 1) an introduction De Philosophiae
divisione et Quaestionibus Mechanicis (pp. 7-10), 2) the Aristotelian problems (pp. 11-27),
3) an appendix with some questions raised by Maurolieo (pp. 29-48) and 4) some problems
concerning the magnet, the mariner's compass and the rainbow (pp. 4 9 ~ 5 5 . For comparison
with the passage in note 17, I give here the whole introduction (pp. 7-10): "De Philosophiae
divisione, et Quaest. Mechanicis. Philosophia secatur in partes duas, scilicet, in artem
disserendi, sive modum sciendi, et in scientiam ipsam realem. IlIa terminos et voces
rerum significatrices, haec res ipsas a vocibus significatas pertractat. Ars porro disserendi
dividitur in partes suas iuxta subiecti divisionem, agens scilicet de termino, de propositione,
de syllogismo. Realis autem Philosophiae pars dividitur in operativam et contemplatricem,
hoc est in activam, sive practicam, et in theoricam, sive speculativam. Rursum operativae
partes duae sunt: activa et factiva. Sub activa continetur omnis moralis doctrina, quae ad
morum et animi compositionem rerum privatarum, publicarumque administrationem
pertinet. Sub factiva ordinantur omnes illae artes quas Graeci l3a.v(Xl)U"LKas dicunt: nos
sellularias nuncupare possumus. Speculativae autem partes tres esse, scilicet, Physicam,
Mathematicam, et Methaphysicam, nemo ignorat. Physica considerat simplicium et
mixtorum corporum principia, et motum scrutatur, et secatur in tot partes quot subiectum
ipsius. Mathematica versatur circa quantitatem, et formam a materia separatam. Atque si
quantitas sit continua, ea erit Geometrica. Si discreta, erit Arithmetica. Metaphysicae pars
una naturas ab omni materia separatas, ut sunt Deus et Intelligentiae, considerat. Altera in
communissimis versatur, in quibus et Dialectica. Arithmetica deinde atque Geometria
materiae alicui applicatae generant alias scientias, quae mediae quodammodo sunt inter
Mathematicas et naturales. Quales sunt Musica, Astronomia, Perspectiva, Scientia
ponderum, Stereometria, Cosmographia, Geographia, Architectura, Pictura, Sculptura et
omnis ratio Mechanica. Quae quoniam a Mathematica speculatione derivantur, quamquam
particularibus rebus applicatae, Mathematicae potius quam naturales appellari solent et
debent. Mechanicam igitur scientiam nemini dubium est sub mathematica, philosophiae
parte, collocandam esse. Haec circa varia machinamenta versatur, et in ea maxime
excelluit Archimedes, quem recentiores imitati, speculationi continuum frequentemque
usum adhibentes, muIta tum utilia, tum mirabilia commenti sunt. Sed et Aristoteles
Archimede antiquior in libello mechanicarum quaestionum multa in hac parte accutissime
pertractavit. Sed liber ille, seu vitio interpretum, seu propter menda exemplarium, tantam
in plerisque locis praesefert (I) obscuritatem, ut nulli quamvis perspicaci ignenio satis
pervius existat, licet complures in eo transferendo et explanando (in quorum numero sunt
Leonicus et Picolomineus) laboraverint. Sed hi multo minus fortasse laborassent, si id quod
apprime necessarium negotio fuerat tenuissent. Nam cum quaestiones illae, ut plurimum,
versentur in ratione vectis, Iibrae, centri gravitatis et similium, quae dependent a doctrina
aequalium momentorum, consulendus erat in primis Archimedes, qui huiusmodi negotium
in duobus libellis perspicacissime tradidit. Neque tarn hie circuli proprietas ac conditiones
indagandae sunt, quam momenti ratio. Quamobrem libellus Archimedis de aequiponderanti-
bus praeponendus erat huic mechanicarum quaestionum tractatui, tanquam aptissimum
praeambulum, et rei de qua agitur, introductorium, vel saltem termini ac postulata inde
sumpta, harum quaestionum in fronte, quasi capitis ornamentum, applicanda fuerant. In
hoc igitur peccant expositores dictarum quaestionum, quod non solum hoc non faciunt,
sed ne ipsius quidem Archimedis meminere. Neque solum in hoc, sed quod plerumque a
necessaria speculatione alieni, nimis innituntur materialibus, ac sensilibus (I) instrumentis,
et experimentis, quod puri mechanici, utpote omnis theoriae expertes, facere consueverunt.
Quo factum est, ut ignorantibus ea quae posuit Archimedes principia, obscurus videatur in
hoc libello Aristotelis sermo. Haec igitur praelibanda sunt. Unumquodque grave naturali
rectoque motu petere centrum. Centrum autem gravitatis id punctum esse in corpore gravi
quod (corpore undecunque suspenso) semper deorsum, hoc est directe versus centrum
universi pendent. Iugum esse spatium illud a quo pondus suspenditur, unde lances
geminae in libra suspenduntur ab aequalibus iugis seu brachiis. Trutinam esse illud
appendiculum a cuius foramine, clavo traiecto, brachia sive iuga cum lancibus pendent.
Foramen illud u7Taawv (I u7Tapriov) a Graecis dicitur. Vectem esse instrumentum, sive
ligneum sive ferreum, quo pondera moventur et elevantur. Superponitur enim vectis
sustentaculo, sive fulcro solido, quod v7Top.iJXALOV vocatur, itaut Cuspis vectis subiecta sit
saxo, sive oneri movendi, longius autem manubrium sit ad manum moventis. Vel e contrario
Cuspis alicui stramento valido innitatur, ut per longius manubrium moles aliqua moveri
et elevari possit. mpaivwp,a (I mpaipwp,a) esse appendiculum staterae, quod vulgo
Romanum dicitur: cuius accessu et a recessu per longius iugum staterae merces ponderantur.
Aequalia pondera ab aequalibus spatiis aeque pendere; aequalium ponderum, quod a
longiori iugo suspensum est esse maioris momenti; inaequalium ponderum ab aequalibus
iugis pendentium, maius maioris esse momenti; in omni aequilibrio pondera esse iugis a
quibus pendent reciproca; in negotio ponderum tres magnitudinum species considerari:
scilicet Corpus, Pondus, et Momentum. Quod enim sint diversae quantitatum species,
patet, quoniam sunt quaedam corpora aequalia ponderum inaequalium, et e contrario
inaequalia corpora ponderum aequalium. Rursum quandoque aequalium ponderum
inaequalia sunt momenta, eius enim quod a longiori iugo pendet maius est momentum, ut
dictum est. Et interdum inaequalium ponderum aequalia esse momenta, ut patet in
statera in qua parvum ropalum contra pendet immenso ponderi. Item esse quandam
quartam magnitudinis speciem, quam quidem vim sive impetum appellari licet, quo sit
aliquid quod pondere vel momento fieri nequit. Vis enim illa sive impetus quo lapis vel telum
seu sagitta iacitur sive quo lignum secatur aut scinditur, neque pondus est neque momentum
neque corpus, unde pondus sit et momentum, sed quarta quaedam potentia. Demum
vim animalem interdum aequivalere ponderi, ut scilicet sicut parvum pondus a longiori iugo
contrapendent oneri ingenti par momentum faciens, ita parva vis a longiori manubrio molem
aliquam levare possit quae aliter moveri nequeat. Quae omnia e doctrina ponderum
derivantur, et per earn demonstrantur. Unde frustra laborare mihi videntur qui locos huius
libelli plerosque ibi demonstratos sensilibus (I) experimentis explanare conantur. Id enim
fieri poterat antequam aequiponderantium doctrina innotuisset. Neque obijciat mihi
quisquam Archimedem in eo tractatu Aristotelis vestigia secutum, satis enim erat
praestantissimo Geometrae suamet ipsius speculatio, sicut in caeteris admirabilibus com-
mentis. Quamquam respondere possim, id in laudem verti Archimedis, si isthunc Aris-
totelis libellum vidisset, quandoquidem praelibatis terminis, diffitionibus, postulatis omnia
in demonstrationem ordinatissimam, Geometrarum more, redegisset. Quibus omissis nemo
negotium istud, nisi illotis (ut aiunt) manibus aggredi poterit. Ut si quis quaestionem pro-
positam super aliquo regularium solidorum haud quaquam sibi absolvere ac demonstrare,
neglecta elementorum Euclidis doctrina, posse confidat. His itaque praemissis percurremus
quaestiones ipsas, singulis breves appendices adiecturi. Unde paucis demonstratio constet."
addition he utilized the doctrine of On the Equilibrium ofPlanes to explain
some of the problems raised in the Aristotelian Mechanica,24 while
I have altered the punctuation, and have added the Greek words (missing in the text) from
the end of the text where they are separately listed. I have corrected two of these Greek
words in parentheses on the basis of the Greek text of the Mechanica, quest. 20. Maurolico
elsewhere makes similar observations concerning the difficulty the pioneer has in his proofs
before the standard work has been composed, citing the example of the labored proofs of
Euclid's Phaenomena before the full development of spherics and also lemmas demon-
strated with some difficulty in Archimedes' On the Quadrature of the Parabola and On
Conoids and Spheroids before the composition of Apollonius' Conica (see" Works of F. M.,"
p. 162, under the date of 16 April, 1554).
24 In the introduction given in the preceding footnote, Maurolico stressed at considerable
length the importance of Archimedes' doctrine of equal moments for the solution of the
Aristotelian problems. We can give here one example in which he applies the doctrine
and notes its application to other problems (p. 12): "Quaestio Ill. Tertio dein[de] loco
dubitatur, cur nam exigua vi auxilio vectis magna moventur pondera? Siquidem sicut in
praeambulis praediximus, quemadmodum parvum pondus a longiori iugo elevat multo maius
onus a breviori parte appensum, ita parva vis a longiori manubrio saxum ingens movere
ac levare potest. Estque ratio haec tota sumpta ex scientia aequiponderantium, ubi ostensum
est, quod ponderum aequependentium momenta reciproca sunt spatiis a quibus pendent.
Quae ratio non solum huic quaestioni sed aliis etiam multis inseruit absolvendis in hoc
libello, ut quartae sequenti de remigibus, quintae de gubernaculo, seXtae de antenna, 13
de CoUopibus, 14 de ligni super genu vel sub pede fractione, 16 de imbecillitate longioris
ligni, 20 de statera, 21 de forcipe vellente quidpiam, 22 de forcipe frangente nucem, 26
de gestantibus seu succollantibus onus per lignum humeris impositum. . . ." Incidentally,
we can note that in the seventh of his added questions he mentions the Vitruvian account
of Archimedes' solution of the crown problem (p. 33): "Quaestio VII. Quaeritur quot modis
aurum probari possit? Tres invenio modos. Per 19nem, qui omnia metalla consumit praeter
aurum. Per Aquam ex alumine et nitro eliquatam, quae similiter omnia metalla excepto
auro corrodit. Per corpulentiam aequalium ponderum, sive per pondus aequalium corporum.
Nam inter aequalia pondera aurum est minus corpulentum, et inter aequalia corpora aurum
est ponderosissimum. Hoc modo Archimedes coronam auream ab Hierone Diis dicatam
fraudatam comperit, ut scribit Vitruvius. Immersit enim aquae primum auri puri, dein[de]
argenti massam, demum coronam ipsam (pares pondere), ut ex incremento aquae cor-
pulentiam discerneret, et ex corpulentia certior fieret, ex auro ne esset, an ex argento,
an ex utroque mixta corona. Dabitur et alius modus aurum tentandi per corpulentiam.
Capiatur auri tentandi portiuncula, et aliae duae portiones, una auri obrizi et purissimi et
altera argenti, singulae eiusdem ponderis, quae in tenue filum per idem traiectae foramen
extenuentur, ut in 4. quaest. lam quoniam aurum minus argento corpulentum, auri
filum erit illo argenti brevius; hisdem conferendum est filum auri tentandi, quod si filo auri
puri longius, mixturam habebit. Vel sic. Summantur ex auro tentando, ex auro puro et ex
argento singula fila per idem traiecta foramen, et longitudine paria, siquidem ex iis filum
auri puri gravius erit filo argenti, atque si filum auri tentandi pondere par erit filo
auri puri, aurum purum erit; sin levius, mixturam habebit. Proportio autem mixturae quanti-
tatem gradumque indicare poterit." Furthermore, in his 35th question he associates the
burning mirror with Archimedes (p. 43): "Tradidit Archimedes modum fabricandi speculum
ustorium, cui formam praescribit a parabola, quae una est conicarum sectionum. In quo
porro speculo icti radii conglobatim unicum in punctum coeunt, et perinde speculum ad
comburendum validissimum esse reor, sed ex omni cavo speculo (quamvis figurae ab
Archimede traditae non sint) repercussi radii, si non ad idem punctum praecise, attamem
in unam eandemque loci angustiam ita simul conspirant et conglobantur, ut locus ille
employing the medieval impetus theory to explain others.
25
His application
of Archimedean statics to the Aristotelian Mechanica may be the earliest
conscious application by a formal commentator on the Aristotelian work.
I stress this union of the two traditions, for it represents the culmination of
the interplay between the two that reaches back to late antiquity and is
so plainly evident in the medieval science of weights.
concalefactus ignem excitare possit. Eiusmodi speculi commentum Ptolemaeo a nonnullis
adscribitur, cum in libello citetur Apollonius, qui posterior fuit Archimede." Finally, we
can note that Maurolieo briefly mentions in his 36th question (p. 45) the planetarium that
Archimedes was supposed to have constructed.
25 See the following applications of impetus to the Aristotelian problems: (pp. 24-25,
Quaest. XXXI rephrased from Aristotle's Quaest. 32): "Hinc quaeritur. Cur ea quae vi animali
vel instrumenti proiiciuntur, ut lapides et caetera missilia cessant a motu? Siquidem cessat
motus rei missilis, quoniam virtus impellens, hoc est impetus a proiiciente in lapidem
impressus, paulatim lentescens desinit marcessitque, quoniam violentus motus, et a finita
virtute inditus, finitus est. Unde sicut in virtute maiori fit motus per maius intervallum,
ita a virtute infinita infinitus esset. Adde quod motus naturalis rei proiectae qui tendit ad
medium semper inest ipsi; quare remittente tantisper motu violento, vincit naturalis, donec
illo prorsus desinente solus hie remanet, quo tandem res gravis fertur ad centrum." The
next question (Quaest. XXXII) continues (p. 25) as follows: "Adhaec quaeritur. Cur ea
quae proiiciuntur, ut lapides et reliqua missilia, postquam a proiiciente sunt elapsa, et
ipso impulsore non consequente, violenta motione feruntur, cum tamen naturalis eis non
sit ille motus? Quoniam scilicet proiiciens in principio motus quendam rei proiectae impetum
tradens, ut res proiecta quasi perse mobilis aerem successive dispellens, donec praevalente
nutu, hoc est ponderositate ipsius, impetum illum debilitari necesse sit. Talis ergo motus
(ut in praemissa questione dictum est) ab impetu percutientis exoritur. Et quarta quedam
potentia est, ut initio diximus; nimirum ut prima sit corpus, secunda pondus, tertia
momentum, quarta impetus percutientis aut proiicientis. Potest enim fieri proiectio haec
utroque modo, aut ex motu quodam, ut qui manu fundave iaculatur lapidem, aut ex per-
cussione, ut qui talitro impellit percutiens lentem aut cicerculam aut catapulta iaculum."
The impetus doctrine is also applied to the next two questions (pp. 25-26): "Quaestio
XXXIII. Haud absimile a praedictis, id est, quod deinceps quaeritur: Unde videlicet fiat,
quod magna vel modica, sive gravia vellevia nimis longe proiici nequeunt: sed convenientiam
quandam iuxta mensuram proiicientis habere necesse sit? Quoniam scilicet in omni actione
dispositionem esse oportet, tam ex parte agente, quam ex parte patientis; quo circa magna
vel gravia nimis, quoniam excedunt vim moventis interdum ne moveri quidem, nedum proiici
a motore queunt. Contra vero levia vel modica nimis, quod pondere vel magnitudine congrua
earent, non sunt suseeptiva impetus quo possint aerem vel aliud medium scindere:
quamobrem plumae, pulvis, atomi, et levissima quaeque corpuseula in aerem (ventis
ludibrium) levantur. Itaque in proiiciente necessaria est vis ad proiiciendum, in proiecta vero
re, eongrua gravitas ad impetus impressionem suscipiendam. Quaestio XXXIV. Sub haec
circa motum, quaesitum est. Cur facilius moveantur commota quaedam et fluxa quam
manentia et firma, ut in curm agitato facilius continuatur motus quam in quieto? Quoniam
scilicet res quieta suopte nutu, hoc est ingenita sibi gravitate, contranititur moventi, et ideo
qui rem quietam movet oppugnatur a pondere contranitente. Qui vero agitatum impellit
habet impetum rei iam moveri captae sibi obtemperantem et propitium. Unde a simili facilius
est inventis addere." Maurolieo further briefly applies the impetus theory to his own 18th,
19th and 20th questions (pp. 37-38). For details of the medieval impetus theory, the reader
may consult M. Clagett, The Science ofMechanics in the Middle Ages (2nd print.; Madison,
Wise., 1961), Chaps. 8 and 9.
Ill. Maurolico' s Use of Medieval
Archimedean Texts
I have already suggested in the preceding section that Maurolico made
rather extensive use of medieval Archimedean works in preparing his
versions of Archimedes. The evidence is particularly striking in four of
the seven works that appeared in the published corpus of 1685: (1)
Praeparatio ad Archimedis opera, (2) De circuli dimensione libellus,
(3) De sphaera et cylindro, and (4) Quadratura parabolae. Before
examining and republishing the corrected texts of these four works, I must
say a word about the publication of the volume containing the corpus,
for this volume contains the only copy of the texts that Maurolico
reconstructed with the exception of that of On the Measurement of the
Circle, which exists also in manuscript. The volume was published at
Palermo in 1685 by Don Cyllenius Hesperius under the title Admirandi
Archimedis Syracusani monumenta omnia mathematica quae extant,
quorumque catalogum inversa pagina demonstrat, ex traditione
doctissimi viri D. Francisci Maurolici, nobilis Siculi, abbatis Sanctae
Mariae a Partu. Opus praeclarissimum, non prius typis commissum, a
matheseos vero studiosis enixe desideratum, tandemque e fuligine
temporum accurate excussum. Ad illust. et religiosissimum virum Fr.
Simonem Rondinelli . ... Published, then, over one hundred years after
the actual composition of the works in 1534 and 1547-50, it followed
the sheets of an abortive effort to publish the works in 1670-72 (and not
1570, as was widely reported after Montucla).l From the letters included
by the publisher at the beginning of the volume, and particularly from
the informative letter of the Jesuit Father Carlo di Balsamo, written from
Messina on 20 June, 1681, we can glean the essential facts concerning
the abortive edition.
2
We are told that it was based on genuine
1 J. E. Montucla, Histoire des mathematiques, Vol. 1 (Paris, An VII [1799]), p. 238.
(In the first edition, Vo!. 1, Paris, 1758, p. 251, he dated the supposed first edition of
Mauro1ico's work as 1572.) Montucla also twice misdated the 1685 volume as 1681, though in
the earlier edition Montucla correctly gave it as 1685. I myself repeated Montucla's error
ofthe 1570 edition in Vol. 1, p. 13. It is not clear what the source was of Montucla's error
concerning the supposed edition of 1570. At any rate, there is absolutely no evidence for
such an edition. Nor is there any evidence for the suggestion of Scina', Elogio, p. 127,
that there probably was an edition printed between 1550 and 1560.
2 Ed. of 1685, unnumbered pages 5-8 (cf. Guardione, "Franceseo Maurolieo,"
pp. 44-48): "D. Cyllenius Hesperius Rev. P. Francisco Alias Societatis lesu, Panormo
Melitam. Si mihi paululum sexcentis ab occupationibus vaeasset, iam pridem istuc
posthabito literarum quali quali (I) supp1emento, te invisum me contulissem: postquam
enim Famam ubique de te suspexi personantem, quam omnigena virtute, ac eruditione
praeceUas: quam vario idiomate (cuius et me studiosa tenet ambitio) omatus existas,
animum incessit desiderium tanto viro mancipandi quamprimum obsequia mea: nec requievi
interea, donee dilectos tuos Genitorem, Fratresque adirem, ut saltem illos tui loco venerarer,
impetraremque ab eis, ut me tibi dignarentur habere commendatum, quatenus ignorantie
meae tenebras doetrinae tuae radijs collustrares: a quo enim nisi abs te uno tanquam ab
788
MAUROLICO AND THE MEDIEVAL ARCHIMEDES 789
oraculo suo in hoc Trinacriae Regno florentissimo responsa, praesertim de Divina Mathesi
queat expectare Respublica leteraria? Atque id est in causa, cur tuam humanitatem folio
praesenti compello, ut de istius facultatis Principe Archimede, qui ex traditione Abbatis
Maurolyci ante paucos annos Messanae typis cudebatur, cunctas mihi notitias (scientiam
enim huius impressionis te peculiariter audivi non latere) extense rescribere non recuses.
Unde nempe originalia Maurolicana sint deprompta, et quodnam huius veritatis indicium,
ne pro suppositis habeatur? Quis huis operis Curator, et Procurator extiterit, ut non
periret in tenebris a tam longo tempore posthumum? Quis expensas elargitus est, ut
imprimeretur? Apud quem Typographum est praelo commissum? Quomodo ex novem libris,
quos in praefatione Maurolicus pollicetur, sex tantum absoluti sunt? Quaenam de caeteris
Maurolyci lucubrationibus fuerit intentio, sitque modo status? et reliqua demum alia editionem
hanc spectantia, quae fas est lectorem indagare. Pervenit in hanc Urbem desideratum hoc
Opus ex Messana sub potestate Fisci Regij, inter plurimas chartas miscellaneas, e quibus
vix unum, vel aliud integrum Exemplar potuit colligi, cum tamen prius irato in mari
naufragium perpessum fuisset: adeo persequitur improba Fortuna non modo Viros doctos,
verum et ipsorum ingenuos liberos Libros. De qua re cum acerbe dolemus, de recudendo
ilIo hie Panormi cura non modica geritur: ut et reliquis tribus Libris, qui post sex
desiderantur, sicubi inveniri poterint, vel saltem eorum puro textu, quando ilIos invenire
non sit datum, ut, qua possumus parte, prodeat absolutum. Suadet hoc maxime
eruditissimus Dominus D. Iosephus Delvoglia, Vir nullo silendus aevo, et affatim sua
doctrina in Orbe notus, cuius doctissimo consilio ea propter has ad te literas mitto.
Misertus vero est quamplurimum iniquae sortis Scriptorum adeo praestantium Religiosissimus
pariter ac doctus Dominus D. Fr. Simon Rondinelli, Sacrae Divi Ioannis Hierosolymitani
Religionis inclytus Commendatarius, qui sui Nominis clypeo eos protegit, et late honorat;
nec enim alium, cui aequiori titulo illos dicarem, desiderare unquam poteram. Quorum
dum gratam memoriam chartas meas cernis decorantem, nec minor exinde tibi surget
gloria, quod, ut in tenebris tanti Authores non delitescant tuis luculentis notitijs me
ditaveris. Rogo ergo te enixe, ut quantocius meis supplicationibus acquiescas: expectatur
enim avidissime hoc opus, et gauderemus profeeto relationem tuam, quam de ilIo expostulo,
ipsi adnectere, quo luculentius evadat. Vale vir doctissime, et fave. Panormi Nonis Maij,
Anno a Virgineo Partu M. DC. LXXXI. Rev. Tuae, Obsequentiss. Famulus, D. Cyllenius
Hesperius.
"Responsio Rev. P. Francisci Alias Ad D. Cyllen. Hesp. Supra id, quod meis par erat
meritis, epistolam tuam laudibus meis onerasti: cave iterum pecces; sed condono errorem:
absentia in causa fuit. Speciosiora, quae procul, et in prospectu sunt, apparere solent; quae
si propriora fiant, venustatem ammittunt. Moram in respondendo nonnullam interponere
volebam, ut tuae petitioni facerem satis: quaedam enim videbam esse, quae me latebant;
quare illico ad amicum meum Messanae degentem misi, ut ex ilIo nota mihi fierent, tibique
absolutissime responderem, cum Ioseph La-Barbera typographus adventu suo secundam
attulit epistolam, calamumque meum excitavit, ut ea, quae mihi notiora erant, tibi
exponerem, iterum, et plenius, cum Messana, quae postulavi, ad meam pervenerint notitiam,
expositurus. Haec igitur in praesens accipe. Plura Maurolyci de Mathesi scriptionibus
suis exarata apud nescio quem Messanae servabantur, quorum nonnulla Ioanni Alphonso
Borelli insigni, ac celeberrimo Mathematico, meoque intimo familiari a Senatu Mamertino
consignata fuerant; ut ad publicam utilitatem pervenirent, iamque typis edita fuerunt
-commentaria in Apollonij Pergaei conicas sectiones: cum circa decimum ab hinc annum
eiusdem Maurolici in Archimedem lucubrationes praelo committere meditabatur, et iam
Senatus expensis opus perfiei caeptum; cum exitiali. Superum fato, publicaeque rei exitio
Borellus, quamvis vitae integer, omnisque sceleris purus, paulo ante urbis illius rumores
exulare nonnullorum delationibus cogitur. Opus inde imperfectum, ut habes, in potestatem
cuiusdam aromatarij, viri eruditione, ac mathematicis disciplinis pollentis eognomento di
Lorenzo pervenit: hie sub Hispani dominium urbe redeunte, sibi metuens Gallicam
classem ,secutus evasit. Maurolyci exemplaria domi relicta Regius Fiscus occupavit, nunc
vero a te coempta, et recuperata esse vehementer et supra quam credibile est, gaudeo.
Haec in praesentiarum, caetera, cum ad me pervenient, libens daturus ero. Caeterum
scriptiones meas mathematicas, quas nunc Italico sermone recudo (non alio idiomate Equites
Hierosolymitani discipuli mei, in quorum gratiam desudo, compositas esse iubent) Gallicis
praelis committere in animo habebam; sed cum te intelligam bonarum artium, ac liberalium
disciplinarum fautorem, sententiam mutare cogor, nee alium Mecoenatem quam te
expetere debeo. Sub finem anni Geometriam, nova, facilique methodo excogitatam, curae
tuae committam, ut typis edita in omnium manibus versetur: interim, si unum Maurolyci
in Archimede exemplar ad me miseris, nihil hoc mihi gratius facere poteris. Vale,
meque, ac meorum istic commorantium parentum in servorum tuorum album fac referas.
Melitae prid. Kal Iun. 1681.
"Literae Rev. Patris Caroli De Balsamo Soc. Iesu. ad Rev. P. Alias, Messana Melitam.
Ad literam volendo corrispondere alia celerita delle lettere di V. R. impostami, ho fatto
intensive, cio ch' extensive si doveva, per rintracciare cose adesso molto difficili, stante il
mancamento del flore di Messina: con tutto cio scrivendo con risposte corrispondenti ad
ogni interrogatione diro. 1. All'Unde Originalia Maurolycana etc. Che si hebbero questi da
un certo Cavaliere, che veniva da parenti del detto Maroli, e nominaronmi il Marchese
di Campotondo. 2. Quodnam huius veritatis indicium, ne pro suppositis, etc. Ecco: Il
Carattere qui assai nota del Maroli, che pure io stesso conosco; carattere minuto, e che
molto favoriva al risparmio della carta: inoltre il segno di esservi al fine de' commentarij
il luogo, anno, giomo, et hora, in che si compivano i suoi trattati. 3. Quis huius Operis
Curator, et Procurator, etc. Del prima si e il Sig. Lorenzo di Tomaso Aromatario in
Messina, ma huomo di molteplice Letteratura, che adesso s'intende di professare in Roma
la Medicina a' Cardinali, e primi Signori con molto applauso. Costui per danari di
medicamenti, che gli devevano i Signori parenti del Mauroli gli riscosse quegli originali,
et havendo di propria borsa cavatasi qualche somma per promovere l'impressione dell' Opera
suddetta, fu soccorso a tempo di Alberto Fuccari dal Senato della Citta di Messina, a cui
doveva dedicarsi, d'onze 100. E benche questo della professione se n'intendesse, si
comincio pero l'impressione con l'assistenza, e studio del Sign. Gio. Alfonso Borelli
nell'anoo 1670, e seguito a stamparsi sino al 72, e dopo per i disturbi di quel tempo
necessitato il Borelli a partirsi per Roma, resto imperfetta, essendosene solamente stampati
i sei libri, che al presente si vedono, ch'erano rimasti in casa di Lorenzo di Tomaso,
dove con altre robbe furono incorporati dal Regio Fisco, e trasportati in Palermo. Dal
Che si sodisfa al dubbio 4. Quis expensas etc. All'altro 5. Apud quem Typographum etc.
L'Impressore fu Paolo Bonacota, Stampatore in quei tempi del Senato, benche dallo
stampato sin hora non ne comparisca il nome, non essendovi ne frontispicio ne fine al
libro. Siegue nelli quesiti il 6. Quomodo ex novem libris, quos in praefatione, etc. Da tre
libri, che mancano al compimento di tutto il commento d'Archimede, quello de numero
arene non si haveva dal Mauroli, e fu supplito in Roma dal detto Sig. Borelli, se ben non
si sa per certo, s'ella sia stata fatica sua, 0 pure estratto da qualche altro Commentatore
d' Archimede: E quanto agli altri due manco si hanno: onde si stima che sopragiunto dalla
morte, benche egli li prometesse, non I'havesse potuto travagliare: siche conforme il
Cillenio dice, vi potrebbe aggiungere il puro Testo d' Archimede, per no lasciar I' opera
imperfetta. Restano gli ultimi due quesiti. 7. Quaenam de caeteris Maurolyci Lucubra-
tionibus, etc. Certo e che Maroli scrisse piu altre cose, non solo di Matematica, ma
d'altre professioni. Il Sig. Gio. di Natale mi disse una volta, che vidde in potere d'Alberto
Fuccari una historia Latina m. s. di tutto il ricevimento fatto in Messina, e forse nel resto
di Sicilia (che non me 10 ricordo per appunto) all'lmperatore Carolo V et io ne cerchero
di tenere altro esame intomo a cio. E l'altro 8. che dice: Et reliqua demum alia editionem
hanc spectantia, etc. Nello stamparsi quest'Opera d'Archimede facevasi prima dal detto di
Tomaso, e dal Borelli stampare illibro primo v.g. d'Archimede, e poi si dava a stampare
l'autografo del Maroli sopra il medesimo libro, e cosi degli altri libri, e commentarietti
separati l'uno dall'altro: e diceva, mentre attendeva a questa stampa il BorelIi, che puliva
i calzati de' suoi Signori nella Matematica. Questo e quanto posso avvisare a V. R. sopra
i quesiti domandatimi dell' Archimede del Maroli. 10 ho a caro, ch'ella facci mentione al
Cillenio, come questa relatione gli sia stata inviata da me, che ne ho fatta accurata
indagine, e gran lume ho ricevuto dal Sig. Gio. di Natale Dottore in Medicina, cospicuo
MAUROLlCO AND THE MEDlEVAL ARCHlMEDES 791
manuscripts of Maurolico originally owned by some descendants of
Maurolico's family in Messina who gave them to an apothecary Lorenzo
di Tom[m]aso of Messina in payment for a pharmaceutical bill. The
manuscripts were described as being in Maurolico's well-known hand,
"a small hand well adapted to saving paper." And indeed a comparison
of the text of the Archimedis de circuli dimensione libellus republished
by Cyllenius from the sheets of the abortive edition with the holograph
manuscript of that work now in the Bibliotheque Nationale at Paris
confirms the origin of at least this text in a genuine manuscript of
Maurolico.
3
Further confirmation of the genuineness of the texts in the
abortive edition is their inclusion of colophonic statements giving the dates
and places of their completion, a practice which Maurolico customarily
followed, as we have seen.
4
We are further told by Father di Balsamo
that after receiving the manuscripts Tommaso raised the money for their
printing (lOO ounces [of gold] were made available from the Senate of
Messina on the initiative of Alberto Fuccari). The printing was begun in
1670 by Paolo Bonacota, Printer to the Senate, under the guidance of the
well-known mathematician Giovanni Alfonso Borelli, who was wont to say
while working on this edition that "he was cleaning the boots of his lords
fra gli Academici di Messina, destinato sempre per Secretario della CiUa e Senato, quando
fion. Potra pure V. R. significare, che per quant'altro occorrera di voler sapere il Cillenio,
potra scrivere a me, per l'affetto, che gli ho conceputo, per essersi appassionato tanto
degl'infortunij d' Autori si gloriosi, si che accettero volentieri la corrispondenza con lui.
Col che tutto a' SS. Sacdficij di V. R. mi raccomando. Messina 20 di Giugno 1681. Di V. R.
Indegno servo in Xpo Carlo di Balsamo.
"D. Cyllenius Hesperius Rev. P. Carolo Di Balsamo S. Iucundissimus tui Nominis odor
animum meum totum suavitate plurima refecit, dum per literas tuas ad R. P. Franciscum
Alias (quas, et ipse mihi, cum primum Melitam appuli, fecit communes) abunde
quaesitis meis de Maurolyci Archimede desideratam coronidem imponis. Retulit etiam
mihi Panormi benevolentiam tuam erga me Illustr. ac Religiosiss. Dominus Commendatarius
Rondinelli, cui opus hoc celebre dedico. Gratias ago tibi immortales pro tarn singulari
urbanitate, etenim ex arbore Balsami non nisi fragrantia distillat. Vellem te pro dignitate
laudare, sed tua Stirps, tuae actiones satis te praedicant. Dum ex hac Insula Panormum
redux me conferam, spero obsequia mea tibi ore, et corde confirmare. Vale Vir suavissime.
Melitae. Kal. Septembris 1681. Tuae Rever. Deditissimus Servus D. Cyllenius Hesperius."
3 As noted below this is MS Paris BN lat. 7465, 2Iv-31r, which not only includes his
reconstruction of the Archimedean work but two additional pieces on quadrature.
4 The various dates given in the colophons of the edition of 1685 have been referred to
in scattered places in my account. For convenience we can collect them here in one place:
Praeparatio ad Archimedis opera, dated on page 25 at Thermae, 13 February, 1550; De
circuli dimensione, on p. 36, 19 August, 1534; Maurolyci tetragonismus, on p. 39, 19 August,
1534; De sphaera et cylindro, on page 85, at Messina, 10 September, 1534; De momentis
aequalibus, Bk. I, on p. 111, at Castelbuono, 6 December, 1547; Bk. 11, on p. 132, at
Castelbuono, 19 December, 1547; Bk. III, on p. 155, at Castelbuono, 30 December, 1547;
Bk. IV, on p. 180, at Palermo, 23 January MDXVIII (! MDXLVIII, i.e. 1548); Quadratura
parabolae, on p. 195, at Messina, 23 July, 1534; De lineis spiralibus, on p. 225, at
Castelbuono, 18 October, 1549; De conoidibus et sphaeroidibus, on p. 275, at Castelbuono,
17 December, 1549. Maurolico's practice of dating his works, and even the parts of his
works, has made possible the construction of the detailed chronology of my "The Works of
F. M.," Sect. 1.
>
t
t
f
[
!
I
I
I
I
I
in mathematics," Le. Archimedes and Maurolico. The printing continued
over a two-year period. But because of political disturbances accompany-
ing the occupation of Messina by the French Borelli (and later
Tommaso) left for Rome and the publication remained incomplete, only
six of the nine Archimedean or Pseudo-Archimedean works mentioned
by Maurolico in the proem to his Praeparatio having been printed in toto.
There seem to have been scraps of the seventh (Le. De numero arenae),
not in a version of Maurolico but in some other version obtained by
Borelli from Rome. The pages of the incomplete edition remained in
the home of Tommaso until they were confiscated by the Spanish Royal
Fisc (presumably after the French left the city in 1678 and Tommaso
was declared a rebel) and brought to Palermo. It was in Palermo that
they were discovered by Cyllenius who undertook to publish them in the
1685 edition, after adding a title page, the letters describing the
circumstances of the abortive edition, and some further material from
Commandino and Rivault.
5
Such are the main points of the story of the
1685 edition. V. Flauti added a detail to it, when he showed that some part
of the edition was issued in a distinctively inferior form in 1684, only to
be recalled and corrected in favor of its final appearance in 1685.
6
It is
difficult to know what connection, if any, Cyllenius' edition has with the
purchase of 425 exemplars of the abortive edition from the Royal Fisc
by Juan Silvestre Salva, though Macri supposes Salva to be Cyllenius'
real name.
7
From a letter of Salva we learn that he intended to publish
5 The additional textual material not prepared by Maurolico consists of the following:
the De numero arenae, pp. 276-87 (taken from David Rivault's edition: Archimedis opera
quae extant, Paris, 1615, pp. 448- 72); the suppositions and enunciations of De insidentibus
humido, pp. 288-92 (in the Commandino version as presented by Rivault, ibid., pp. 491-532);
some Exotica sive externa, pp. 293-96 (largely extracted from Rivault, ibid., pp. 533-49,
but without Rivault's scholia).
6 V. Flauti, "Sull'Archimede e l'Apollonio di Maurolico," Memorie delta Reale
Accademia delle Scienze dal 1852 in avanti ripartite nelta tre classi di matematiche,
scienze naturali, e scienze morale, Vol. 2 (Naples, 1857), pp. LXXXIV-XCIV (and
particularly pp. XC-XCII).
7 Guardione, "Francesco Maurolico," pp. 49-52, gives the whole letter of Salva. The
crucial part on the sheets of the abortive edition follows (pp. 49-50): .. AL Hus. mo senor
D. Manuel de Arios. . . . Aviendo comprado en Palermo Ias Obras de Archimedes en
numero de 425 exempIares in folio, confiscadas de Mezina por el Regio Fisco, para darlas
a luz me eran necessarias algunas particulares noticias: en cuya consideraci6 escrivi al muy
Rev.do P.e Alias, que era de quien unicamente se colegia me las podia conferir: compre
despues una imprenta de muy buen molde para esta y otras obras que se me ofrecen.
Apenas passaron quatro meses que la puse en orden, y promuIgue una muestra del
caracter, quando mis emulos (que en Sicilia regna dilatadamente la embidia, y bien dixo el
Poeta: Invidia Siculi non invenere Tyranni tormentum majus) ofrecieron una suma
considerable di dinero aI que me le avia prestado, paraque, me la quitara; donde poco
falto que todo mi trabajo no se me huviera malogrado, y deslucido. Suplique cl mi Acreedor,
me diera tienpo para ir cl Malta a verme con el P.e Alias, y recabar con prestel<a las
noticias de mi Archimedes, pues con su venta se podian pagar dos imprentas y sus interesses.
Tres cosas, Illus.mo Senor, me movieron cl emprender este viage, desacomodandone a
mi y ami pobre casa, y en 10 fuerte de los canicuIares. La una el deseo que tenia de conocer aI
the Archimedes himself and that he too (as well as Cyllenius) corresponded
with a Jesuit scholar well known in mathematical circles, Francisco Alias
of Malta. It could be that Cyllenius bought the sheets from Salva,
although neither mentions the other in the extant letters. Needless to
say, the problem disappears if Cyllenius is merely a pseudonym of Salva.
Of the four works showing strong medieval influence, the first under-
taken by Maurolico was Quadratura parabolae (Text D below). At the end
of the tract, before telling us that it was completed at Messina on 23 July,
1534, Maurolico indicates that it has been "corrected and restored from a
very corrupt exemplar that is circulating." One might first suppose (in
view of Maurolico' s knowledge of Greek) that the exemplar he mentions
was a Greek manuscript. But this turns out not to be the case. The text
that served as his point of departure was rather some copy of the Latin
translation of William of Moerbeke. The briefest comparison of the proem
and the enunciations of Moerbeke's version with the corresponding
places of the text of Maurolico demonstrates Maurolico's dependence
on the text of the medieval Dominican translator. For example, in
the proem, which Maurolico greatly abbreviated, he continued to employ
some phrases peculiar to the Moerbeke translation: line 3, "bene agere"
(cf. Vol. 2, 20vE); line 4, "graviter doluimus" (ibid.); lines 4-5 "in
mathematibus ... mirabile quoddam" (ibid.); lines 10-12 "Inae-
qualium ... finitum" (20vH-I). Even more striking than the occasional
identical phrases of the proem is the virtually complete agreement in
both versions of the enunciations of Propositions XX-XXV (equivalent
to Moerbeke's Propositions 19-24), which the reader can note for
himself. This identification of phraseology does not preclude necessarily
Maurolico's having also consulted a Greek text. But he expressly
mentioned only a single exemplar, and, if he used only one exemplar, that
exemplar was surely one of the Moerbeke translation. Furthermore, other
considerations make his possession of a Greek exemplar very unlikely.
For example, where there is a difference, Maurolico always uses the same
lettering as Moerbeke for the diagrams rather than that of the Greek
text. Thus Maurolico, like Moerbeke, uses "e" to represent the Greek
tau (Moerbeke had already employed "T" for theta). Also, in
Fig. III.5D.14 Maurolico follows Moerbeke (and thus indirectly the lost
Greek manuscript B) in his arrangement of T, D, K and R rather than
the arrangement found in Greek manuscript A and its derivative
manuscripts. Similarly in Fig. III.5D.21 Maurolico follows Moerbeke
P.[e] Alias, pues la fama de su erudicion tanto en la variedad de lenguas, como en 10
profundo de las Matematicas no es de poco aprecio en toda Europa; y yo de mi parte peco
mas de observancia a los buenos ingenios que de poco zelo. La segunda, come he
referido, recabar sin dilacion del mismo Rev.do P.e aquellas noticias necessarias a mi libro.
Yla tercera ver si haIlava manera de establecerme en Malta con mi Imprenta y mi casa. . . ."
For G. Macri's comments, see his Francesco Maurolico nella vita e negli scritti, 2nd ed.
(Messina, 1901), p. 95.
(and thus indirectly Greek manuscript B) in employing "Z" instead of
"D". Also worthy of note is the fact that nowhere does Maurolico follow
the Latin order of letters adopted by Cremonensis in his translation.
Hence, it is highly unlikely that he had read the Cremonensis translation
at this early date.
If it is certain that Maurolico used the translation of William of
Moerbeke, our next question concerns which copy of the medieval
translation he used. Again the answer is almost certain. Maurolico
employed the edition of the Moerbeke translation included in Luca
Gaurico's Tetragon;smus of 1503, an edition which I have discussed in
the preceding chapter. The evidence supporting this conclusion, while not
extensive, is nevertheless persuasive. The first thing to note is the
reading "per mathematica" found in line 9 of Maurolico's proemium.
The correct reading in the Greek text and in the holograph copy of
Moerbeke's translation, i.e. manuscript 0, is "per mechanica" (Vo!. 2,
20vK). But manuscript M (followed by Gaurico) altered this to "per
mathematicam" and Maurolico carelessly followed that tradition although
he was well aware of the fact that the first half of the tract gives a
mechanical proof of the quadrature of the parabola (see Text D, Prop.
XVIII, lines 28-29). Now, of course, on the basis of this evidence alone
we do not know whether Maurolico was following manuscript M or
Gaurico's text. But by further evidence we can discriminate Maurolico's
source as Gaurico's text rather than manuscript M. For example, in Fig.
III.5D.l, Maurolico marks ..E" on the diagram...E" is present only in
the diagram found in Gaurico's edition (i.e., it is not in the Greek text
nor in manuscripts M and 0; nor is it found in the body of the proof in
any of the copies or versions). Hence, the only sensible conclusion for
"E's" appearance is that Maurolico took it from Gaurico's diagram.
Similarly, in Fig. III.5D.25, Maurolico employs the letter "R" that also
appears in Gaurico's text rather than the letter "Z" found in the Greek
text and in manuscripts 0 and M. This is another good indication that
Maurolico was using Gaurico's text. Furthermore, in the enunciation of
Proposition XIX (=Moerbeke Proposition 18) Maurolico reproduced the
wording of Gaurico' s text with considerable exactness including Gaurico' s
transposition of the last two words that appear in the enunciation as
given in manuscripts 0 and M (see the Commentary, Text D, Proposition
XIX, lines 6-10). Finally, in the enunciation of Proposition XXII
(=Moerbeke Proposition 21) Maurolico's text agrees with Gaurico against
manuscripts 0 and M in the reading "tota portione" for "totam
portionem" (see the Commentary, Text D, Proposition XXII, lines 2-9).
Though I believe it assured that Maurolico used only Gaurico' s text
of the Quadratura parabolae, I should not pass over in silence one unre-
solved difficulty concerning the correlative conclusions that form a part of
the argument developed above, conclusions that suggest it unlikely that
by 1534 Maurolico had seen any of the following versions or copies of
the Archimedean corpus: (1) the Greek text, (2) manuscript 0 of
Moerbeke's translations, (3) manuscript M of Moerbeke's translations,
and (4) the full Cremonensis translations. But if he saw none of these,
where did he find a copy of Archimedes' On the Equilibrium ofPlanes, or
On Equal Moments, as he calls it? For Maurolico claims to have read that
work by 1528 and he specifically cites it (or some preliminary version of
it which he had reconstructed) in his Quadratura parabolae (Propositions
VII, VIII, XI, XVIII and the colophon) and in his Tetragonismus of 1534
(see Text B below) as well as in his Cosmographia completed in 1535 (see
the commentary to Maurolycii Tetragonismus, lines 39-68). I know of
no manuscript in which this work of Archimedes appeared alone (and
thus without On the Quadrature of the Parabola). But if my argument
above is correct and if at the same time he had read a copy of On the
Equilibrium of Planes, then we will have to posit a copy of it circulating
independently, perhaps a copy like the text of the first part of the
Anonymous Florentine manuscript described and edited below as Text
A of Appendix IV, Section 4. A similar problem exists in connection
with Maurolico's use of Archimedes' On the Sphere and the Cylinder in
1534, though as I shall argue below it is quite possible that he had not read
Archimedes' work when he composed his De sphaera et cylindro.
But to return to Maurolico's Quadratura parabolae, we are immedi-
ately struck by his skill in reconstructing his version from the poor
version found in Gaurico's edition. His proofs are sound paraphrases.
In Gaurico's text the enunciations and proofs were badly delineated, so
that sometime the enunciations appear as parts of the proofs and sometime
parts of the proofs are given the status of enunciations. Furthermore,
several diagrams were erroneously presented and a considerable number
of errors is present in the texts of the proofs. Maurolico has removed all
of these ambiguities and errors. In place of Archimedes' brief reference to
the (anonymous) elements of conics of his day for the proof of Propositions
1-3 (which Maurolico expanded to his Propositions I-IV), the Sicilian
abbot gives specific references to the Conics of Apollonius. This shows
that Maurolico by 1534 had already mastered the text of Apollonius'
work, which he was later to rework in 1547. Maurolico justly remarks at
the end of his Quadratura parabolae that without recourse to Apollonius'
Conics and Archimedes' On Equal Moments (Le. On the Equilibrium of
Planes), "the whole structure of the present book would collapse."
It is not without significance that this was the first of Archimedes'
works reconstructed by Maurolico. He maintained his interest in the
parabola for many years. He was well aware that the central problem in
Book 11 of On the Equilibrium ofPlanes (in Book HI of his own On Equal
Moments) was the determination of the center of gravity of a parabolic
section. Further, proceeding by symmetry, he made the center of gravity
of a paraboloid the central problem of Book IV of his On Equal Moments
(see above, Section H, notes 10 and 11). Indeed his interest in the
paraboloid in 1548 makes it quite certain that he had not yet seen Book II
of On Floating Bodies where that center of gravity plays an important
role, for he could scarcely have passed over this work in silence had he
read it. It is true that Book I of On Floating Bodies had been published
by Tartaglia in 1543, but this contained nothing about the paraboloid.
In fact, the only versions of the second book of On Floating Bodies that
Maurolico could have seen in 1548 were those in manuscripts 0 and M.
Hence, his silence may be taken as another bit of evidence that he had
seen neither of these manuscripts. Further, there is no sure evidence that
he later saw Book II of On Floating Bodies in the two editions of 1565
(those of Troianus and Commandino), although he did produce in that same
year a short work on the determination of the centers of gravity of a
parabola and a paraboloid (see above, Section II, note 12).
I shall terminate my brief remarks on Maurolico' s continuing interest
in the parabola by noting that in his Compendium mathematicae, pub-
lished in the omnibus edition of 1558, Maurolico states (after remarking
that the paraboloidal mirror is the most efficacious one for burning
since all the parallel solar rays are reflected from its surface to a single
point) "From the things said is evident the great and admirable superi-
ority of the parabola among geometrical figures." (See above, Section II,
end of note 22.)
The second of the Archimedean works reconstructed by Maurolico was
the Archimedis de circuli dimensione libellus (see Text B below). This
work was completed on 19 August, 1534, as he tells us in the colophon.
Although the three propositions of Archimedes' On the Measurement of
the Circle are buried amidst twelve propositions in Maurolico's work
(Propositions IV, VII, and VIII), there is substantial agreement between
Maurolico's enunciations of these propositions and the enunciations of
Propositions 1, 3, and 2 of Gaurico's edition of William of Moerbeke's
translation as over against agreement with these enunciations in the
translation of Cremonensis or in any of the medieval translations or
versions based on the Arabic tradition and published in Volume One.
Again, details concerning the lettering of magnitudes in the text and the
diagrams strongly suggest, if not assure, that it was Gaurico' s version of
the Moerbeke text of On the Measurement of the Circle that Maurolico
used (see below, Commentary to Text B, Propositions IV, VII and VIII).
I say further that Maurolico saw Gaurico's text of the Moerbeke translation
rather than that of manuscripts 0 or M because this is the more economical
conclusion if we assume, as we have, that Maurolico used the Gaurico
edition in preparing his version of Quadratura parabolae a month earlier
and also if my remarks about the unlikelihood that Maurolico in 1534
had seen any other version of the Quadratura parabolae but that of
Gaurico are sound. Though Maurolico seems to have had Gaurico' sedition
at hand, his greatly expanded tract seems also to reflect other medieval
versions of On the Measurement of the Circle. For it is clear that his
Proposition Ill, which is preparatory to the main quadrature proof in
Proposition IV, is similar to Propositions I and II of the medieval Verba
filiorum (see Volume One, pages 246- 52) and to other propositions present
in the fourteenth-century versions ofDe mensura circuli which I published
in Volume One (see especially pages 374-78, 390-92 and 414-16). Of
these fourteenth-century versions the most likely to have influenced
Maurolico is the Versio abbreviata, as I have argued in the Commentary
to Text B below (see Propositions I and Ill). Not only was the enunciation
of Proposition I of the Versio abbreviata quite similar to the enunciation
that Maurolico used in his Proposition III but both proofs are constructed
in terms of a regular pentagon. Maurolico's Propositions I and II had
demonstrated that the isosceles triangle inscribed in a circular segment
is more than half the segment and that the isosceles triangle formed by two
tangents drawn from the same point to a circle and a third tangent to the
middle point of the arc intercepted by the first two tangents is more than
half the mixed triangle formed by the first two tangents and the inter-
cepted arc. These propositions were necessary for (and indeed implied in)
the Archimedean exhaustion procedure used to prove the main quadrature
proposition. While such procedures were ordinarily not dignified as
separate propositions in the medieval tracts, their substance was embraced
by the elaborations found in almost all of the emended versions of
De mensura circuli published in Chapter 3 of Volume One (see particularly
pp. 150-54, 158-60, 178-80, 182-84, 202-04). And in one case, that of
the above-mentioned Versio abbreviata, the substance of both of
Maurolico's first two propositions appears in a single proposition (Volume
One, page 392), once again making it likely that Maurolico was influenced
by this particular version of the De mensura circuli. As I have indicated,
Maurolico's Proposition IV is Proposition I of Archimedes' On the
Measurement of the Circle. Proposition V is similar to Proposition V of
the medieval Verba filiorum (Volume 1, pp. 260-64). Maurolico's
Proposition VI is equivalent to the Heronian corollary on the area of a
sector of a circle found in Gerard of Cremona's translation of the Arabic
version of Archimedes' work (ibid., p. 46) and in the Verbafiliorum (ibid.,
p. 260). Proposition VII is Archimedes' Proposition 3. The only notable
point in connection with it is that Maurolico places it before his
Proposition VIII, which is Proposition 2 of Archimedes. In doing so,
Maurolico corrected an obvious impropriety in the extant text ofArchimedes,
since Proposition 2 used the results of Proposition 3, that is, it used the
determination of one of the limits of 1T elaborated in Proposition 3. Finally,
we should note that Maurolico adds, on his own, Propositions IX-XII
in order to give authority to the procedures evident in two of the three
short, supplementary quadrature tracts which he completed at the time of
his Archimedean reconstruction. These added tracts have been published
below in Text B.
The first is entitled Hippocratis Tetragonismus. This Maurolico no
doubt took in substance from Valla's account of the quadrature by lunes
attributed to Hippocrates (see above, Part Ill, Chapter 2, Section V).
Maurolico was careful to include the warning that this procedure is
fallacious for squaring a circle (lines 32-37):
But it seems that here Hippocrates wished to deceive geometers, for he does not
relate the doctrine for finding a rectilinear figure equal to any lune but only one
equal to the lune bounded by a semicircle and a quadrant arc. Now for the
quadrature of the circle it was necessary to find a rectilinear figure equal to the
lune bounded by a semicircle and a sextant arc. And so with this basic foundation
[of his proof] removed, the demonstration of Hippocrates collapses.
Although this tract was not dated by Maurolico, the fact that it appears
in manuscript in Paris, BN lat. 7465 between two works each dated 19
August, 1534, is fair evidence that it too was completed on that day.
The second supplementary quadrature tract is entitled Maurolyci
Tetragonismus and is, as I have indicated, dated 19 August, 1534. In the
first part of the tract he presents a proof that he may have drawn from
another source. At least he notes that it is erroneous because, although
he has been able to give a rule for finding a circle equal to the difference
between two segments whose arcs make up a semicircumference, this
rule does not show how to find a circle equal to the difference of any two
segments. To put it another way, the finding of a circle F (see Fig.
III.5B.14) equal to the difference between circular segments AC and AB
is only possible when chord BC is parallel to diameter AD. But chord
BC is parallel to diameter AD only when the sum of the arcs of segments
AC and AB is equal to a semicircumference, i.e., when arc AB equals arc
CD and D falls on the diameter. But such is not the case for segments
GHK and GH (see Fig. III.5B.I5) in the remainder of the proof.
The proof in the second part of the tract is a clear-cut mechanical proof
based on the lawof the lever and other conclusions implicit in Archimedes'
On the Equilibrium of Planes. It resembles, in a way, the statical form of
quadrature suggested by Nicole Oresme (see above, Part I, Chapter 7,
note 29) except that Maurolico specifies in the beginning a method for
finding the center of gravity of a plane figure by suspending it from two
different points rather than by imagining it at the center of the world, as
Oresme did. As I have indicated earlier, this brief tract raises the
unsolved question of which version of Archimedes' On the Equilibrium of
Planes Maurolico had read by 1534.
The third and last supplementary quadrature is entitled Modus alius
quadrandi. It is extant in another of Maurolico' s autograph manuscripts
(Paris, BN lat. 7464, 25r) and bears no date. Still it was probably composed
about the same time as the others. It is based on the physical procedure
of pouring liquid from a cylindrical to a cubical container. It therefore
employs a technique similar to that suggested by Albert of Saxony in
Questio de quadratura circuli (V01. I, p. 406) for cubing a sphere.
However, Maurolico casts the proof into geometrical form.
Less than a month after the completion of the De circuli dimensione
libellus Maurolico finished his version of Archimedes' De sphaera et
cylindro (Text C below). It will be immediately evident to readers of my
first volume that Maurolico's work is not a paraphrase of Archimedes but
an elaboration of the medieval Liber de curvis superficiebus of Johannes
de Tinemue (see Vol. 1, pp. 439-520). The close relationship between
the two works will be detailed in the commentary to Text C below. For
the present, we can say that Propositions I-XII lead to the determination
of the surface area of a sphere by using the techniques and the specific
propositions of De curvis superficiebus. Propositions XII-XX with
similar techniques establish the area of spherical segments, Propositions
XXI-XXVIII the volume of a sphere and Propositions XXIX-XXXII the
volume of a spherical segment. Propositions XXXIII- XXXVII are
original with Maurolico and relate the volumes of a sphere and its
sectors to pyramids. The treatise is concluded with Proposition XXXVIII,
which relates a sphere to the cube of its diameter. It was drawn from
Proposition X(i.e. the last proposition) oftheLiber de curvis superficiebus.
Despite his heavy reliance on the medieval tract and in contrast to his
usual practice of citing authorities, nowhere does Maurolico mention the
Liber de curvis superficiebus (perhaps because his copy of the Liber de
curvis superficiebus was without adequate title or author ascription and
he believed the medieval tract to be a form of Archimedes' work?). But
he does underline in his Praeparatio ad Archimedis opera, which he
completed on 13 February, 1550 (Text A below), that he has employed
an "easier way" whose basic assumptions he briefly notes in the
preface (lines 85-94):
In the work On the Sphere and the Cylinder I have used an easier way [than
Archimedes ']. Lest anyone judge that I postulated in it principles that are not to
be conceded when I suppose that to any surface there exists some equal
spherical or conical surface or some surface of a spherical segment-Of an
equal conical or cylindrical surface of a given altitude, we shall demonstrate
these principles here [i.e., in the Praeparatio, Propositions XX, XXII, XXIII,
XXV]. In addition [we shall demonstrate] that with two surfaces given, there
exists a surface similar to one of the given [surfaces] and equal to the other [in
Proposition XXI]; and that with two solids given there exists a solid similar to
one of the given [solids] and equal to the other [in Proposition XLII]. Since it is
necessary for the demonstration of this last proposition [i.e., actually first for
Proposition XXXIII and consequently for Propositions XLI and XLII] to find
two mean proportionals, we shall treat this problem out of the tradition of the old
philosophers [in Propositions XXVI-XXXII], as the above-mentioned Eutocius
wrote in his commentaries [On the Sphere and the Cylinder].
These basic postulates were of course the assumptions of the Liber de
curvis superficiebus. The author of that work apparently derived the
technique based on these assumptions from Euclid's Elements, Proposi-
tion XII.I8. That proposition proves that "Spheres are to one another
in the triplicate ratio of their respective diameters" by a method not used
elsewhere in the Elements and may be summarized as follows:
8
8 I have taken the summary of this proof from Thomas Heath's Euclid: The Elements,
Vol. 3 (reprint ed., Annapolis, 1947), pp. 436-37. Perhaps the earli,est medieval use of this
method of Euclid XII.18 as applied to the actual measures of curved figures occurred
We will suppose S, S' to be the volumes of the spheres, and d, d
'
to be their
diameters; and we will for brevity express the triplicate ratio of d to d ' by
d
3
:d'3. If d
3
:d'3 =f=. S:S', then d
3
:d'3 = S: T, where T is the volume of some sphere
either greater or less than S' .
I. Suppose, if possible, that T < S'. Let T be supposed concentric with S'. As
in XII .17, inscribe a polyhedron in S' such that its faces do not anywhere touch
T; and inscribe in S a polyhedron similar to that in S'. Then S:T = d
3
:d'3
= (polyhedron in S):(polyhedron in S'); or, alternately, S:(polyhedron in S)
= T:(polyhedron in S'). And S > (polyhedron in S); therefore, T> (polyhedron
in S'). But, by construction, T < (polyhedron in S'), which is impossible.
Therefore T <{:. S'.
11. Suppose, if possible, that T > S'. Now d
3
:d
'3
= S:T = X:S', where X is the
volume of some sphere less than S [XII.2, Lemma]; or, inversely, d'3:d
3
= S':X,
where X < S. This is proved impossible exactly as in Part I. Therefore T 1> S' .
Hence T, not being greater or less than S', is equal to it, and d
3
:d'3 = S:S'.
As noted in the summary, this proof depends on Proposition XII. 17:
"Given two spheres about the same center, to inscribe in the greater
sphere a polyhedral solid which does not touch the lesser sphere at its
surface." The identity of the technique described for Proposition XII. 18
with that used throughout the Liber de curvis superficiebus can be most
easily seen by consulting my summaries of the proofs of the Liber de
curvis superficiebus in Volume One, pages 507-19. A similar perusal of
Maurolico's proofs in his On the Sphere and the Cylinder below in Text C
(and my Commentary thereto) will show that he has taken over and
expanded the proofs of the Liber de curvis superficiebus. Furthermore,
the similarity of Maurolico's Propositions XVlI and XVIII with one of
the propositions added to the Liber de curvis superficiebus in a
Florentine manuscript (see Volume One, page 532), seems to confirm that
Maurolico read the medieval tract in some manuscript of that tradition.
Indeed if he had read the Florentine manuscript or one closely similar
to it, this might explain why he did not mention the title Liber de curvis
superficiebus or the author Johannes de Tinemue, for the copy of the Liber
de curvis superficiebus in the Florentine manuscript (Bib!. Naz. Conv.
soppr. J.V.18, 93r-96v) fails to have title or author in the hand of the
scribe of the manuscript, though it does have in a later hand on folio
93r: "Liber de curvis superficiebus." Instead of giving the medieval title,
Maurolico simply called his work Archimedis Liber de sphaera et
cylindro, implying thereby that the work he had constructed from the
medieval tract represented the Archimedean work whose title he had
perhaps first encountered in Valla's De expetendis et fugiendis rebus
(see my argument below where I discuss whether or not Maurolico also
in the Verba jiliorum, Proposition XV (see Vol. 1, pp. 332-34). This latter proof was
repeated by Leonardo Fibonacci (see Appendix I, Sect. 3B(8]), by Regiomontanus (see
above, Part Ill, Chap. 2, Sect. 11, n. 13), and by Pacioli (ibid., Sect. IV, n. 55). But it was
only in the Liber de curvis superjiciebus (which Maurolico exploited) that the method was
systematically used for propositions relative to the areas and volumes of curved figures.
consulted Archimedes' work as well as the Liber de curvis superjiciebus).
Presumably the Florentine manuscript would have encouraged him to
identify the two works, for in the proofs added to that manuscript the
unknown continuator cites the main propositions of the medieval work
as being "of Archimedes." Thus Proposition I of the Liber de curvis
superjiciebus is cited simply as "the first of Archimedes" (Vol. 1, p. 542,
line 22) and Proposition V as "the fifth of Archimedes" (ibid., p. 534,
lines 15-16, p. 538, line 85). In taking over the enunciations of the
propositions from the medieval tract, Maurolico frequently changes the
terminology. For example, rotunda pyramis becomes conus, hypothenusa
rotundae pyramidis becomes conicum latus, columpna rotunda becomes
cylindrus, the ambiguous tetragonum (when used for a rectangle) becomes
rectangulum, etc. On the other hand, enough of the terminology of the
enunciations of the Liber de curvis superjiciebus is retained to assure us
that Maurolico is following those enunciations, to say nothing of the
already noted fact that the proofs and whole development of Maurolico's
work betray its origin in the medieval tract. Though it is evident that
Maurolico borrowed the enunciations and the method of the "easier way"
from the Liber de curvis superjiciebus, he could have also encountered
its occasional use in other medieval or Renaissance geometrical works
(see above, note 8).
At this point I should emphasize a fact already implicit in my quotation
from the proem of Maurolico' s Praeparatio above. The Praeparatio was
composed by Maurolico with the sole purpose of strengthening the
underpinnings of the "easier way" he borrowed from the Liber de curvis
superjiciebus and used throughout his 1534 version of On the Sphere and
the Cylinder. I have indicated within brackets in that quotation the
specific propositions of the Praeparatio in which the assumptions are
proved; the propositions necessary for these proofs are noted below and
the proofs themselves may be consulted in Text A. It may be that when
Maurolico composed his reworking of the Liber de curvis superjiciebus
in 1534 he did not yet realize to what extent the method of the medieval
tract differed from that of Archimedes' genuine On the Sphere and the
Cylinder and that it was only after studying the genuine On the Sphere
and the Cylinder in the editio princeps of 1544 that he felt it necessary to
compose the Praeparatio to justify the postulates of his work of 1534.
We shall turn to the question of whether or not he knew the genuine work
of Archimedes in 1534 shortly. But before doing so, I should like to point
out that a technique almost identical with Maurolico's "easier way" was
adopted by Adrien-Marie Legendre in his Elemens de geomhrie (Paris,
1794 and many other editions). The details of Legendre's use of the "easier
way" can be ascertained by consulting my commentary to Text C below
(Propositions 11, IV, VI, X, and XXV). I do not know whether Legendre
wittingly took the method from Maurolico (or even from the Liber de
curvis superjiciebus) or whether he developed it independently on the
model of Proposition XII.18 of Euclid's Elements, as did the Italian
geometer V. Flauti a few years afterwards.
9
Flauti tells us that he only
later realized that he had been anticipated by Maurolico in its use to prove
Archimedes' conclusions. Be that as it may, it is of considerable interest
that the application of this method to the conclusions of On the Sphere
and the Cylinder made by the author of the Liber de curvis superjiciebus
was taken over so completely by Maurolico and that the method still had
a vigorous life in the late-eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.
Before leaving my discussion of the relationship between the Liber de
curvis superjiciebus and Maurolico's version of On the Sphere and the
Cylinder, I ought to describe in some detail the techniques employed by
Maurolico in his later Praeparatio to prove the basic assumptions
employed in his On the Sphere and the Cylinder. Crucial to thePraeparatio
was a form of proof which we may call the"converse way" to distinguish
it from the" easier way" that Maurolico borrowed from the Liber de curvis
superjiciebus and used in his own work of 1534. I have already presented
above a summary of the proof of Euclid XII.18 to illustrate the character
and origin of the "easier way. " Now in order to distinguish the "converse
way" from it, let me first summarize as an example of the "converse way"
Maurolico's proof of the same proposition, Le. that spheres are propor-
tional to the cubes of their diameters (see below, Text A, Proposition
XXXVIII):
We shall suppose Sand S' to be the volumes of two spheres and d and d' their
diameters. Then we suppose that SIS' = d
3
le3, where e is some line [see Text A,
Prop. XXXIII where on the basis of the solution of the problem of finding two
mean proportionals it is proved that there exists some cube which has a given
ratio to a given cube]. Now we must demonstrate that e = d'. If e -=F d', then
e > d' or e < d'.
1. Suppose, ifpossible, thate > d'. Then let a sphere S" be constructed concentric
with sphere S'. Then by Euclid XII. I? (=Campanus XII. B), let a solid of rotation
T" be inscribed in S" but not touching the surface of S'. Let a similar solid T be
inscribed in S. Then TIT" = d
3
1e
3
by Proposition XXXVII [where it was shown
that such similar solids of rotation are proportional to the cubes of their diameters].
Hence by the initial assumption of e and this last statement, TIT" = SIS', or,
alternately, TIS = TillS'. But S > T, since T is inscribed in S. Therefore, S' > TI/.
But this is impossible since T" includes (but does not touch) S'. Therefore the
assumption from which this impossibility was deduced is false. Hence e 1> d'.
II. Suppose, if possible, thate < d'. Then, inversely,S'/S = e
3
1d
3
By Proposition
XXXIII let e
3
/d
3
= d
'3
/h
3
, where h is some line. And hence d'31h
3
= S'/S. And
since d' > e, so h > d. But this leads to the same impossibility as in the first
half, namely that a first sphere is to a second sphere as the inscribed solid with
a diameter of the first sphere is to the inscribed solid with a diameter greater
than the diameter of the second sphere. Hence the assumption from which it was
deduced is false. Therefore e </:. d'. Therefore since e 1> d', and e </:. d', e = d';
and so S/S' = d
3
/d'3. Q.E.D.
9 Flauti, "Sull'Archimede," pp. XCIII-XCIV. See the Commentary to Text C,
Propositions X and XXV for citations of Flauti's use of the "easier way."
With this proof before us, I can now explain why I call this the" converse
way. " I do so because it is a procedure that uses a hypothesis that is the
converse of the one used in the "easier way" whose assumptions
Maurolico is attempting to prove in the Praeparatio. Glancing at the
example of the "easier way" given above from Euclid, XII.I8, we can
see that there the basic hypothesis was that if spheres are not as the cubes
of their diameters then the ratio of the cube of the first diameter to the cube
of the second diameter is as the ratio of the first sphere to some sphere
that is either greater or less than the second sphere. Now in Maurolico's
proof of this same proposition, he supposes conversely that if the spheres
are not as the cubes of their diameters then the ratio of the first sphere
to the second sphere is as the ratio of the cube of the first diameter to the
cube of some line greater or less than the second diameter. A further
occasional distinction between the methods is that in the "converse way"
the second half of the proof always produces the impossibility already
refuted in the first half, while in the "easier way" the second half
sometimes employs a reductio proof independent of that of the first half
but similar thereto. (This distinction between the two ways is not present
in the comparative examples of the methods given above; but see
Propositions 11 and IV of Text C below, and the Commentary to
Proposition VI, line 2, ofthat same text.) Other aspects ofthe two methods
are the same. Both make use of the same basic postulate that the
circumscribing or including figure is greater than the circumscribed or
included figure and both use Euclid XII. 17 to inscribe a solid in a sphere
so that it does not touch the surface of a lesser concentric sphere. My
use of' 'converse" to describe a technique that is logically prior may seem
strange but is justified here because it applies to a historically posterior
technique.
Maurolico widely applies the "converse way" in the Praeparatio and
with it proves, in addition to Proposition XXXVIII described above, a
number of others. Thus he uses it to prove that the circumferences of
circles are proportional to their diameters (Prop. VIII), that circles are
proportional to the squares of their diameters (Prop. X), that the surfaces
of similar cylinders (Prop. XII) or of similar cones (Prop. XIII) are
proportional to the squares of their base diameters, that the surfaces of
spheres (Prop. XVIII) or of the segments of spheres (Prop. XIX) are
proportional to the squares of their diameters, that the volumes of similar
cylinders (Prop. XXXIV) or of similar cones (Prop. XXXV) or of similar
spherical sectors (Prop. XXXIX) are proportional to the cubes of their
diameters. These propositions proved by Maurolico's "converse way" led
to a number of correlative propositions, e.g., that similar arcs are
proportional to their chords and to their diameters (Prop. IX), that the
lateral surfaces of similar truncated cones are proportional to the squares
of the diameters of their corresponding bases (Prop. XVI), that the surfaces
of similar solids of rotation are proportional to the squares of their
diameters (Prop. XVII), that the volumes of similar truncated cones are
proportional to the cubes oftheir corresponding diameters (Prop. XXXVI),
that the volumes of similar solids of rotation are proportional to the
cubes of their diameters (Prop. XXXVII), and that the volumes of similar
spherical segments are proportional to the cubes of their diameters
(Prop. XL).
This array of propositions whose proofs depend either directly or
indirectly on Maurolico's "converse way" led him to the proofs of the
propositions that embraced the basic assumptions of the "easier way."
For example, the proof of Proposition XIV of the Praeparatio (' 'There
exists some circle equal to any given surface") depends essentially on
Proposition X; that of Proposition XX ("There exists a surface of some
sphere equal to any given surface") depends on Proposition XVIII; that
of Proposition XXI ("With any two surfaces given, there exists some
surface similar to one of them and equal to the other") depends on
Proposition XI when the similar surface is a segment of a circle, on
Proposition XII when the similar surface is cylindrical, on Proposition
XIII when it is conical; that of Proposition XLI (' 'There exists some
sphere equal to any given solid") depends on Proposition XXXVIII
(whose proof I gave above); that of Proposition XLII ("With any two
solids given, there exists some solid similar to the one ofthem and equal to
the other' ') depends on Proposition XXXV when the similar solid is a
cone, on Proposition XXXIV when the similar solid is a cylinder, on
Proposition XXXVI when the similar solid is a truncated cone, on
Proposition XXXVII when it is a solid of rotation, on Proposition XXXIX
when it is a spherical sector and on Proposition XL when it is a spherical
segment. Crucial also for the proofs of these last propositions and
indeed for the proofs using the" converse way" was Proposition V(' 'There
exists some line to which a given line has a given ratio"), or Proposition
VII ("There exists some square to which a given square may have a given
ratio' ') or Proposition XXXIII ("There exists some cube which has a given
ratio to a given cube"). And it was for Proposition XXXIII that Maurolico
needed the solution to the problem of finding two mean proportionals (see
Propositions XXVI-XXXII). Finally we should consider the propositions
embracing the remaining basic assumptions of the Liber de curvis
superjiciebus and Maurolico's On the Sphere and the Cylinder. These are
Proposition XXII (' 'There exists some cylindrical surface about a given
axis which is equal to any given surface") and Proposition XXIII (ditto
for a conical surface). as well as Proposition XXV (ditto for the surface of
a spherical segment). The first two depend on Propositions I-IV, which
hold that a cylindrical surface (or a conical surface) is greater than an
inscribed or included prismatic columnar surface (or a pyramidal surface)
and that a prismatic columnar surface (or a pyramidal surface) is greater
than an inscribed or included cylindrical (or pyramidal) surface. In addition
the proofs of the first two propositions depend on Postulate 6 that regards
as equal two magnitudes that are always at the same time greater or at the
same time less that a third magnitude, or to put it in a more modern way,
two magnitudes are equal that are each the limit of the same infinite,
continuous sets of greater and lesser magnitudes (see the Commentary
to the Postulates, Text A). The last of the three propositions (i.e. Prop.
XXV) has a similar proof depending on Postulates 4 and 6.
Having proved all of the basic assumptions of his "easier way,"
Maurolico then uses it once in the Praeparatio for the proof of Proposition
XLIII ('. A circle is equal to the product of its radius and its semicircum-
ference"), a proposition necessary for the proofs of several propositions
and corollaries in Maurolico's On the Sphere and the Cylinder (see the
Commentary to Text A, Prop. XLIII, lines 2-25). This proposition is
essentially Proposition 1 of Archimedes' On the Measurement of the
Circle and its different Archimedean proof had been given by Maurolico
in Proposition IV of his version of that work in 1534 (see Text B below).
There the actual enunciation in question was given as a corollary to
Proposition IV. Indeed it was that corollary or Proposition IV itself that
was many times cited in Maurolico's On the Sphere and the Cylinder.
I believe that the basic quadrature proposition was proved here again in
the Praeparatio because Maurolico wished to have a proof independent
of the Archimedean method of On the Measurement of the Circle and
resting solely on the techniques and assumptions developed in the
Praeparatio for use in On the Sphere and the Cylinder. Lastly we should
note that Propositions XLIV-XLVI of the Praeparatio concern the
relationships of the diameters and circumferences, or radii and semi-
circumferences, of two and three unequal circles and are repetitious of
the corollaries to Proposition VI of Maurolico's On the Sphere and the
Cylinder (see Text C), supplying proofs thereto.
To this point I have emphasized the central role that the medieval
Liber de curvis superficiebus played in Maurolico' s composition of his
version of On the Sphere and the Cylinder and thus in dictating the
character ofhisPraeparatio. One final problemremains. What role, if any,
did the genuine On the Sphere and the Cylinder of Archimedes play in
Maurolico's task of reconstruction? Did Maurolico have a copy of the work
of Archimedes in 1534 as he completed his work? These questions cannot
be answered with certainty. At first it would seem that he must have
consulted the genuine text of Archimedes, for six of his corollaries and
three of his propositions are contained in Archimedes' work but not in the
Liber de curvis superficiebus. The corollaries are: (1) Corollary III to
Proposition Il (=Archimedes, Proposition 1.14), (2) Corollary III to
Proposition IV (=Archimedes 1.13), (3) Corollary 11 to Proposition VII
(=Archimedes 1.16), (4) Corollary I to Proposition IX (=part of proof of
Archimedes 1.25), (5) Corollary 11 to Proposition XIV (=part of proof of
Archimedes 1.37), (6) the second part of Proposition XVI which is
correlative to the first part (=Archimedes 1.42). The three propositions
are Proposition XXX (=Archimedes 1.44), Proposition XXXI (=Archi-
medes Il.2) and Proposition XXXII-Aliter (=Archimedes 11.4). Now I
suggest in the following argument that he may not have drawn these
corollaries and propositions directly from the work of Archimedes.
The six corollaries convert rectangular measures of the curved
surfaces of a cone, cylinder, a truncated cone, a solid of rotation, a
segment of such a solid and a spherical segment to circular measures.
In Maurolico's text they are all corollaries that derive from propositions
embracing rectangular measures of these curved surfaces, propositions
that were proved by Maurolico using the' 'easier way" which he borrowed
from the Liber de curvis superficiebus. In Archimedes' text the circular
measures themselves are the object of the principal propositions and
are proved by his different exhaustion procedures. They are crucially
necessary for his proofs of propositions relative to the areas and volumes
of spheres and their segments. While they play no such central role in
Maurolico's text, still they do not appear to be mere gratuitous additions
made by Maurolico for the purpose of harmonizing the Archimedean
work with his own. For such corollaries (even though unacknowledged
as authorities) do justify Maurolico's assumptions in Propositions XXIII,
XXIV, XXVII, XXIX and XXX, of cones having as their bases circles
equal to the various curved surfaces noted above in the corollaries,
assumptions that were made by the author of the Liber de curvis
superficiebus without presenting the corollaries. In short, it may be that
Maurolico decided that he needed such corollaries to make the procedure
he took over from the medieval work logically tight, thus reflecting the
scrupulous attention to the validity of his assumptions everywhere
evident in his geometrical works and particularly exemplified in the
composition of his Praeparatio. Hence it is at least possible that
Maurolico derived these corollaries independently of Archimedes' text.
There are two considerations that lend some plausibility to this suggestion.
The first is that Maurolico includes as Corollary II to Proposition XV
another such circular measure that is not found in Archimedes' text in the
form that Maurolico gives it. Thus he was quite capable of inventing such
corollaries. The second consideration is that Maurolico' s proofs of the
corollaries show no trace of Archimedes' procedures, but all (except the
sixth corollary) employ Corollary IV to Proposition VI (see my
Commentary to Text C, Prop. VI) not found in Archimedes' text, and the
proof of the sixth corollary also has a form differing from that of
Archimedes. Still I do not insist on the complete independence of the
corollaries from the Archimedean propositions, since Maurolico may have
learned of four of the six from Johannes de Muris' De arte mensurandi
(see above, Part I, Chapter 6). In the proem of Chapter X of that work,
Johannes de Muris gave the enunciations of Archimedean Propositions
1.14, 1.13 and 1.42, and he further cited those propositions in his own
Propositions 3, 5 and 9 of that chapter. In addition in Proposition 21 of
the same chapter he cited Proposition 1.16 in such a context that the
purport of the proposition is perfectly clear. Now it is true that Johannes
de Muris does not give any citations to suggest the Archimedean origins
of the fourth and fifth corollaries. But I think it is quite possible for
Maurolico to have himself framed such corollaries, in an analogical way,
once he had seen and proved the other four corollaries and realized the
necessity for all six corollaries to justify his assumptions regarding the
base circles of cones. So much then for the possible origin of the six
corollaries. Now for the three propositions appearing in Maurolico's work
and Archimedes' text but not in the Liber de curvis superjiciebus. The
last one, i.e. Proposition XXXII-Aliter (=Archimedes 11.4), can be easily
disposed of because Maurolico himself tells us that he took it from
Eutocius' exposition of the solution of Dionysodorus and there can be
little doubt that by 1534 Maurolico had read only Valla's extract from
Eutocius' Commentary and not another version, as I have suggested
above and reason in the next chapter, Section Ill. As for the sources of
Proposition XXX and XXXI (=Archimedes 1.44 and 11.2), again I can
suggest Johannes de Muris' work as a likely source, since they were given
in the above-noted proem to Chapter X of his work and were cited in
Propositions 11 and 12 of that chapter. Furthermore the enunciation of
Archimedes' Proposition 11.2 is found in Eutocius' Commentary on the
Sphere and the Cylinder as partially translated by Valla (see below,
Commentary to Text C, Proposition XXXI). Unfortunately we cannot
be completely certain that Maurolico knew Johannes de Muris' work.
Still there is some slight evidence that he had the Parisian's work before
him when composing his De circuli dimensione (see below, Commentary
to Text B, Proposition VII). Furthermore, there are several Italian
manuscripts of the De arte mensurandi (see above, Part I, Chapter 3) and
Maurolico could have obtained a copy of it as he did of other medieval
treatises. Incidentally, I can note that the substance of the sixth corollary
and the first and second of the propositions is contained in Fibonacci's
Practica, Piero della Francesca's De corporibus regularibus (both in the
Latin text and the Italian version published by Pacioli with his Divina
proportione) and Pacioli's Summa .10
There is one further difficulty in accepting the suggestion that Maurolico
had not read the genuine On the Sphere and the Cylinder when he
composed his treatise in 1534. When Maurolico gives the substance of
Archimedes' Proposition 11.2 as his Proposition XXXI, he not only gives
the enunciation and a proof fairly close to the first proof of Archimedes but
he also adds a corollary that is identical with one added by Archimedes.
Even if one argues that once Maurolico had learned of Archimedes'
enunciation from Johannes de Muris or Valla he independently con-
structed a proof like that of Archimedes since the proof was simple and
indeed the logical one in view of the common prior propositions the two
works shared, one still has to find an adequate explanation for the
inclusion of Archimedes' corollary. This difficulty is increased when we
10 See above, Part Ill, Chapter 2, Sect. Ill, ns. 13,37 and 38; Sect. IV, ns. 66 and 67; and
below Appendix I, Sect. 3B[9]. We know that Maurolico knew Pacioli's Summa, for he
mentions the work in his letter to Juan de Vega (F. Napoli, "Scritti inediti," p. 30).
~ _
realize that Maurolico made no use of the corollary in his succeeding
proposition. Then, 'would it not appear to have been a mere gratuitous
addition made only because it was in Archimedes' text? There seem to
me to be at least three possible hypotheses that account for the origin of the
corollary. (1) Maurolico had a copy of On the Sphere and the Cylinder
all along and it provided him with this corollary as well as all the
Archimedean propositions he added as corollaries and propositions. (2)
Maurolico found the corollary (and indeed the whole proposition) in some
geometrical handbook unknown to me (e.g., an expanded version of the
Liber de curvis superficiebus that included not only a section on the
surfaces of spherical segments in the manner of the above-noted
Florentine manuscript but also a section on the volume of such segments
added by someone who had read Archimedes' genuine work in the
Moerbeke or Cremonensis translations). (3) After finding the enunciation
of the proposition in the De expetendis of Valla and/or in the De arte
mensurandi of Johannes de Muris and constructing a proof therefor, he
later added the corollary after he had seen the edition of 1544. I exclude
a fourth possibility, namely Maurolico' s independent invention of the
corollary, because of the corollary's apparently gratuitous nature. The
third hypothesis (which like the second accords well with the evidence
that Maurolico had not seen On the Sphere and the Cylinder in 1534) is
not so contrived as it sounds, for when we examine the extant notebooks of
Maurolico we find them filled with examples of corollaries and postscripts
added at later dates (many of which have been noted in the Chronology
in "Works of F. M.," Sect. 1).
But let us suppose, contrary to my suggestion, that Maurolico did
consult Archimedes' text in 1534. Which copy or version of it did he read?
In my discussion of Maurolico's Quadratura parabolae above I suggested
that it was unlikely that he saw either a Greek manuscript or Cremonensis'
translation of that work and that it was also unlikely that he saw
manuscript 0 of the Moerbeke translation. But the copies of the Greek
text and of the Cremonensis translations that we do know, as well as
manuscript 0 of the Moerbeke translations, all contain the corpus of
Archimedean works. Hence, if he saw Archimedes' On the Sphere and
the Cylinder in anyone of these versions, would he not also have seen
the text of On the Quadrature of the Parabola in the same copy? Hence,
since I showed with some surety that he saw only Gaurico's edition of
On the Quadrature of Parabola and no other copy or version, and since
the Gaurico edition did not contain On the Sphere and the Cylinder, it
seems probable that Maurolico had also not seen the genuine text of On the
Sphere and the Cylinder in 1534 when he composed his work. I suppose
it is not impossible that he saw some manuscript of one or another version
of Archimedes that contained only On the Sphere and the Cylinder, just
as he apparently saw some such individual copy of On the Equilibrium
of Planes. But this conclusion seems less likely than the one I have
adopted, inasmuch as we know of no specific manuscript or edition that
contained only On the Sphere and Cylinder, though in Part Ill, Chapter
4, Sect. n above I have suggested with little confidence the possibility
of some manuscript which included Moerbeke' s translation of On the
Sphere and the Cylinder alone. The fact that Maurolico employed the
correct title of Archimedes' work in his own reconstruction of 1534 gives
us no assurance that he had read the work, for that title was mentioned
by Valla (see above, Part In, Chapter 2, Sect. V, n. 6), whose work was
read and used by Maurolico, as I have said before and will show in Section
III of the next chapter. Another argument against Maurolico' s
knowledge of the genuine text of Archimedes at this time rests on his
omission of Propositions 11.1, n.s, n.6, n.?, n.8, and n.9. Such omission
would be hard to explain if Maurolico had read the genuine text of
Archimedes. Finally, the conjecture that Maurolico had not read the
genuine Archimedean text at the time of writing his 1534 version of On the
Sphere and the Cylinder receives some support from a statement of
his nephew:
ll
11 This statement occurs amidst a more general statement about Maurolico's renewed
efforts in mathematical studies after an attack of vertigo that caused him to take a year
off (about 1526-277), Vita, pp. 4-5: "Guariti, come dicemmo, merce di quell'annua quiete,
et intermissione; s'applico di subito con istudio altretano intenso quanto era stato prima
rotio; e comincio (I) con una avidita, e fame, malagevole ad esprimere, a porsi innanzi
tutti gli Autori od impressi, 0 manuscritti, che delle facolta Mathematiche lodevolmente
scrissero. Questi correggendo, quelli chiosando, altri illlJstrando, altri raffinando, molti
trascrivendo di man propria, supplendo a lor diffetti, sciogliendo le difficolta spiegandoli
con maggior chiarezza, secondo conosceva esser bisogno, come e dalla Biblioteca, e
dall'Indice de'suoi studi, itone fuori, puossi apertamente comprendere: in cui quasi in un
lucido specchio mirasi, che non lascio egli a dietro authore in cotal professione, e parte
alcuna della medesima scienza intatta, e che non I'havesse con miglior chiarezza, e
methodo pienamente trattata. Anzi che desiderandosi I'opere d' Archimede, non per all'hora
comparse al mondo, speculandovi sopra i lor subietti (cosa veramente ammirabile) da per
se le compose in maniera che divulgaronsi sotto il nome d' Archimede, e quando poscia
vennero in luce le d'Archimede gia impresse in Germania, e riscontrandosi rune con I'altre
insieme, furono a senno dell'intendenti quelle del Maruli per migliori giudicate, come con
maggior chiarezza, e per piu dritto, et agevol sentiero procedenti. Non minor fatiga duro
egli nell'emenda de quaUro libri Conici d' Apollonio, aggiongendovi il quinto, e sesto, et
formatone in ~ t r un breve trattato de'sopranominati distinto in tre libri con dimostrationi
rette, e brevi, nelle quali racchiudesi quasi tutta la scienza Conica. Compose etiandio due
libri de Cylindrici di Sereno, tutto che come in una pistola al Comandino ei testifica, non
solamente non I'havesse havuto in mano, ma ne anche opera alcuna pertinente a Cylindri
veduto giamai. Ristoro parimente tutto il corpo della Mathematica cominciando da
Euclide, Menelao, Theodosio, Autholico, Giordano, Ruggiero Baccone, Giovanni Petsan,
Boetio et altri che 10 devolmente ne scrissero; emendando i luoghi corrotti, e depravati,
supplendo a i tralasciati, rischiarando I'oscurita, componendo, e speculando quelle parti,
che, ne furono trattati giamai, ne pur dall'autori, od antichi, 0 moderni ritocchi;
riprendendone con somma modestia lor errori. In tanto, che coloro, che tengono l' opere del
Maurolico, si possono meritevolmente gloriare, d'havere la perfetta contezza, et intero
raguaglio di quelle facolta, senza veruno neo, e difetto, e possederne il vero simolacro,
et imagine al natural espressa, et incarnata. " Incidentally, this statement confirms my often
noted conclusion that Maurolico perused not only printed books in his efforts at reconstruc-
tion but also manuscripts.
-
Desiring the works of Archimedes not then available to the world and
speculating on their subjects (a truly remarkable thing), he [i.e., Maurolico]
composed, in his own way, those things which were divulged under the name of
Archimedes. And later, when the works of Archimedes were published in
Germany, and the two versions were compared, connoisseurs judged the versions
of Maurolico to be better, as proceeding with a greater clarity by a more direct
and easy way.
The reference to the publication of Archimedes' works in "Germany"
is clearly to the editio princeps, published in Basel in 1544. Though it is
not so clear from this passage that Maurolico had not yet seen the genuine
works of Archimedes before the preparation of his early versions of
Archimedes (and thus had not seen the genuine On the Sphere and the
Cylinder before preparing his version of that work in 1534), that conclusion
is certainly compatible with the statement. At any rate, Macrl, without the
benefit of any detailed analysis of the earlier works, so interpreted the
passage, saying that Maurolico constructed the works (presumably those
before 1544) though he knew only their subject matter. 12 If this is indeed
what was meant by Maurolico' s nephew, then the Liber de curvis
superjiciebus would have been the prime example of a work that revealed
Archimedean subject matter but was not actually composed by the great
Syracusan mathematician.
I now give the texts of Maurolico' s four Archimedean works that show
medieval influence. I give them in the order that they appear in the edition
of 1685. Texts A, C and D are based exclusively on that edition (where
they occupy pages 1-25,40-85 and 181-95) since no manuscripts of these
texts have survived. Text B is based primarily on the Parisian manuscript
BN lat. 7465, 21v-31r (with the Modus alius quadrandi at the end based
on BN lat. 7464, 25r). But I have also had recourse in the variant readings
of Text B to the version in the edition of 1685, where the full text of B
appears on pages 26-39.
In these various texts I have altered somewhat the chaotic punctuation
of the edition of 1685. The chief change in punctuation has been the
removal of commas between dependent clauses and the words they
modify. I have also occasionally changed commas to semicolons (or vice
versa) and semicolons to periods (or vice versa). Occasionally these
changes have required capitalizing or reducing to minuscules the first
letters of succeeding words. Ordinarily, I have noted serious printing
or mathematical errors by supplying the correct reading in parentheses
following the erroneous word, though on occasion I have not noted a case
where a letter is printed upside down or one letter is carelessly substituted
12 Macn, Francesco Maurolico, 2d. ed., p. 174: "Connobe di molte opere d'Archimede
il solo argomento, ma su questo speculando, siffattamente le ricompose, che a quanto
afferma il barone delIa Foresta, furono attribuite al geometra siracusano; e quando in
Germania le opere di costui vennero stampate, giudicarono i dotti che spesso il nostro
concittadino fosse giunto alIa meta, per piu retto ed agevol sentiero." Macn cites the
passage given in the preceding note to support this conclusion.
for another, or letters are transposed, or some such other trivial error.
I have also made paragraph changes everywhere in conformity with the
procedure followed by Maurolico in his autograph of Text B, since I
suppose that he had followed the same procedure as well in the works
of which we have no manuscripts and that the editors of the 1685 edition
ignored his instructions for these works as they did for Text B. In
following Maurolico' s procedure, I have usually set out the specification
of the enunciation in a separate paragraph and I have frequently begun
the second half of a reductio proof with a new paragraph. As in the other
texts of these volumes, I have capitalized the enunciations as an indication
that they appear in a larger type in the 1685 edition.
In Text C I have made one change throughout without any further
indication after the first time it appears, namely hypothemisa to
hypothenusa. Abbreviated readings have been completely expanded in all
four texts where numerical citations are not concerned and at least partially
expanded where such citations are given. Thus "maioe" is given as
"maiorem" but "per 13.12 Euclid." becomes "per 13
arn
12
i
Euclidis."
The symbols D and c::=:J used by Maurolico in the manuscripts of Text
B I have converted to quadratum and rectangulum, as they are in the
edition. Similarly Maurolico's occasional use in the same manuscripts of a
bar' '-" to stand for ad has been ignored in my text in favor of ad. In
Texts A, C and D and in my translation of B, I have preserved the
Roman numerals indicating the proposition numbers, though I suspect that
the original manuscripts of A, C and D had Arabic numerals just as did
the extant manuscript of B. Thus I have given "Propositio n." instead
of "Propositio 2
a
." In conformity with my customary practice I have
italicized the letters indicating magnitudes, i.e. "ARC" instead of" ABC" .
(I have discarded the use of minuscules for these letters in the manuscript
of Text B in favor of capital letters as given in the edition.) On the other
hand, I have changed to roman type all the italicized phrases in the
edition of 1685 that indicate sources; e.g., "in 20. primi conicorum Apoll."
becomes "in 20
a
primi conicorum Apollonii." In doing so, I have followed
the model of the manuscript of Text B.
I have supplied English translations to accompany the texts. The only
liberty I have taken in these translations has been to reduce the verbal
expression of proportions to modern symbolic forms, as I have in all
of the texts of these volumes. Thus "trigonum EBH ad trigonum ZDT
sicut quadratum EB ad quadratum ZD" becomes " f.,.EBH/f.,.ZDT
= EB2/ZD2." Needless to say, by my use of the fractional form to represent
ratios I do not mean to imply that the author understood a modem system of
real numbers. I have occasionally preserved the Archimedean language
in my translations where the modern reader might prefer some other term.
But I have done this only when the use of the Archimedean language
will not unduly confuse the reader. Thus in Text D, I have kept the
expression "diameter of a parabola" where "axis of a parabola" is now
preferred. Similarly, I have retained Maurolico's occasional use of the
-
Archimedean "section of a right-angle cone" where "parabola" is
preferred. Actually, Maurolico himself usually converted the Archimedean
expressions to their modern forms; but on occasion he retained, from the
translation of William of Moerbeke, the older expressions. My retention
of the older terms, then, emphasizes the relationship between Maurolico's
text and its source. Finally, I should note certain peculiar or, at least
uncommon, terms used by Maurolico. In Text A he employs in Proposi-
tion XXXIX (misnumbered as "XXXXIX") sphaeralis cuneus for sector
sphaericus, in Texts A and C he frequently uses the expression solidum
tornatile or simply tornatile for the solid described by half a regular
polygon inscribed in a circle when it rotates completely about a diameter.
I have rendered it simply by "solid of rotation." In Text A (Proposition
XXXI) he calls asymptotes non coincidentes, as had both Valla and
Cremonensis.
To each of the texts I have added a short commentary, hoping thereby
to clarify the source or the meaning of certain passages. I have
particularly used the commentaries to relate Maurolico' s texts to their
medieval sources, such as Campanus' version of Euclid's Elements and
the Liber de curvis superficiebus of Johannes de Tinemue.
13
13 In my commentaries to Maurolico's texts, I have commented only on those citations of
Euclid that seem to be incorrect or on those whose proposition numbers in the Campanus
version (which Maurolico everywhere cites in these Archimedean works) differ from the
numbers in the Greek text or in Zamberti's translation. It is of some interest that
Maurolico preferred the Campanus version to that of Zamberti. I suspect that the reason
for this preference was his affirmed distrust of the Zamberti translation (see Maurolico's
remarks in the dedicatory letter to his Cosmographia quoted above in Section I, n. 9).
In a later letter to Simeone Ventimiglia, written in 1556, he speaks of Zamberti as
"ignorant of mathematical matters" (Real Bib!. del Escorial, &.IV.22,185r): "Campanus
mathematicus erat, sed pro sua libidine multa mutavit ex sententia Euclidis, et multa
addidit. Barthol. Zamber. graecae linguae peritus, sed mathematum ignarus. Campanum
saepe reprehendit ubi opus non est, et ipse pueriliter errat."
813
Archimedes Syracusanus acutissimus geometra, machinator praestan-
5 tissimus, ac syderum speculator clarissimus extitit. Qui cum M. Marcellus
Syracusas obsideret, machinis ingeniose inventis diu patriam tutatus est.
Nam saxorum iactu, ferrea manu comprehensis navigiorum hostilium
malis, telorum iaculatu per murorum rimas ad id factas, hostem admira-
tione pariter ac terrore concusserat, ut Livius ait. Is idem portentosae
10 magnitudinis navimab Hierone Rege constructam, solus, machinis sua una
manu correptis, deduxit, ut Moschion multis refert. Sphaeram, in qua
motus omnes astrorum repraesentarentur, fabricavit; de qua extat
Claudiani Epigramma. Coronam auream a dicto Rege Diis dicatam, ab
artifice vitiatam, novo miroque ingenio coarguit, ut Vitruvius refert. Sed
15 non omnia eius inventa litteris mandata sunt, tarn scilicet mechanica quam
geometrica. Demum post triennium, captis Syracusis Philosophus
illustrissimus ab imprudente milite, geometricis lineamentis in pulvere
descriptis, intentus, dum interrogatus quis esset nomen suum edere
differt, illumque ne lineas disturbaret, oraret, peremptus sanguine proprio
20 deductas formas faedavit. Sic vir praeclarus, quem apprime incolumem
Romanus ductor cupiebat, quemque servari praeceperat, ingenio et arte
et salutem et interitum sibi comparavit. Non defuit tamen ductoris
munificentia erga perempti cognatos, quippe quos et honore decoravit
et praesidio iuvit, ut Livius, Valerius, et aliique historici prodidere. Sed
25 intentum nostrum est commemorare huius egregii philosophi monumenta
quibus praecipue nomen suum immortalitati mandavit, et quorum parcius
mentio fit in historiis.
Eius itaque operum in ordine primum est TOV KVKAOV hoc
est, circuli dimensio, in quo demonstrat circulum esse aequalem triangulo
30 orthogonio cuius eorum quae circa rectum angulum laterum unum aequale
est circuli semidiametro, alterum peripheriae. Secundo loco ponendum
est opus 1TEpt (Tcpaipat Kat KVAiv8pov, hoc est, de sphaera et cylindro, ad
Dositheum, in quo demonstrat sphaerae superficiem quadruplam esse suo
maxima circulo, et cylindrum eiusdem crassitudinis axisque cum sphaera
35 esse ad earn sesquialterum, et alia circa sphaerica segmenta. Ex quo tan-
tum gloriae sibi comparasse visus est Archimedes, ut qui rem in geometria
praecipuam primus omnium demonstraverit ut eius sepulchro sphaeram
et cylindrum insculpi mandatum sit. Cicero id sepulchrum, dum Siciliam
1
A
The Praeparatio ad Archimedis opera
of Francesco Maurolico
IFrancisci Maurolyci Messanensis Praeparatio
ad Archimedis opera
Proemium
peragraret, a se inter dumeta inventum memorat. Tertium in ordine poni-
2 40 mus opus 1TP'i lcrOpp01TtKWV, / hoc est, de aequiponderantibus, in quo
praeceptum tradit inveniendi centra gravitatis in rectilineis planisque
figuris. In quo quidem mirum est, ab eo centra solidorum fuisse prae-
termissa. Quartum erit TTpayoVtCT/iOr; (1) 1Tapaf3oAfJr;, hoc est, Quadra-
tura parabolae, ubi demonstrat parabolen esse sesquitertiam ad triangulum
45 rectilineum eiusdem basis ac celsitudinis; utiturque in demonstratione turn
doctrina aequiponderantium turn geometrico syllogismo. Quem libellum
scribit ad Dositheum, faciens mentionemde morte Cononis, ad quem antea
scribere consueverat, quorum uterque in geometria versatus, et Archi-
medis familiaris extiterat. Quinto his loco succedit opus 1TEpt AtKWV
50 ypa/i/iwv, hoc est, de spiralibus lineis, ubi rectas quasdam spiram
tangentes peripheriis circularibus aequales esse demonstrat; item primam
spiram esse tertiam partem sui circuli, secundam spiram ad suum circulum
esse sicut septem ad duodecim, itaque deinceps. Nam cum circuli sint in
proportione quadratorum numerorum, ipsae spirae consistunt in propor-
55 tione hexagonalium aequiangulorum. Hunc quoque libellum misit ad
Dositheum, faciens item Cononis mentionem, qui morte praereptus ea
inexplicata reliquerat. Sextum in ordine facio libellum 1Tpt KWVOEtl>EWV
Kat crcpatpOtl>EWV, hoc est, de conoidibus et sphaeroidibus figuris, quem
et ad Dositheumpraedictum misit; in quo multa de proportione circulorum
60 et ellipsium inter se demonstrat. Item, solidum parabolicum esse sesquial-
terum ad suum conum. Et alia de proportione tarn hyperbolici quam
sphaeroidis solidi ad conum suum; acutissima quidem et tanto ingenio
digna inventa. Septimum erit opus de numero arenae, in quo plus
admirationis titulus affert quam liber ipse speculationis, ad Gelonem
65 Regem inscriptus. Multa in eo de magnitudine terrae ac luminarium, quae
quoniam ea tempestate nondum satis perspecta fuerant, culpa tempori,
non Philosopho imputanda. Addendum postea opus 1Tpt lCT01TEpt/LETPWV,
hoc est, de figuris aequalis ambitus, quod ab aliquibus Archimedi, ab
aliis vero et verius Theoni Alexandrino attribuitur. In quo ostensum est,
70 inter planas figuras isoperimetras circulum, inter solidas vero sphaeram
esse capacissimam. Et tandem nonum, et minime praetermittendum,
1TPi. KaTo1TTpwV KavcrTtKWV, hoc est, de speculis comburentibus, quod
aliqui Archimedi, alii verius Ptolomaeo adscribunt; in quo docet, speculo
ad comburendum efficaci dandam esse formam concavam a parabola
75 descriptam, quippe in quam solares radii ad aequidistantiam incidentes ad
idem punctum reflectuntur; in quo collectus ex plurima luce calor
potentissimus sit ad comburendum fomitem ibi appositum. Eutotius
Ascalonita commentarios scripsit in opera de circuli dimensione, de
sphaera et cylindro, de aequiponderantibus, ubi multa plus obscuritatis
80 quam aut iucunditatis aut utilitatis habentia, et nihil ad intelligentiam
authoris spectantia, intermiscuit.
Haec ego omnia cum vidissem, conatus sum ad faciliorem intellectum
multa lemmata adiicere, muIta ab Archimede omissa demonstrare, turn in
aequalium momentorum negotio centra solidorurn tractare, rem ab illo
MAUROLICO'S PRAEPARATIO AD ARCHIMEDIS OPERA 815
85 praetermissam. In libello de sphaera et cylindro usus sum faciliori via;
in quo, ne quis arbitretur me inconcessibilia principia postulasse, si
cuilibet superficiei aliquam sphaericam aut conicam aut sphaericae por-
tionis superficiem aequalem esse supponam, aut conicam sive cylindricam
sub data celsitudine, demonstrabimus et hic ipsa principia. Item datis
90 duabus superficiebus, superficiem esse uni datarum similem et alteri
aequalem. Datisque duobus solidis, aliquod solidum esse uni datorum
simile et alteri aequale. Ad quod cum necessaria sit duarum mediarum
proportionalium inventio, id ipsum problema ex veterum philosophorum
traditione tractabimus, ut Eutotius memoratus in commentariis scripsit.
95 Praemittemus autem principia quae ut facile concessibila postulavimus.
3 IPostulata.
I. Quibuslibet duabus eiusdem generis magnitudinibus esse duas lineas
proportionales.
2. Perimetrum figurae planae circumscribentis aut includentis planam
5 figuram perimetro circumscriptae aut inclusae esse maiorem, si tamen ad
easdem partes cavae fuerint.
3. Figuramcircumscribentemaut includentem circumscripta aut inclusa
esse malOrem.
4. Superficiem figurae solidae circumscribentis aut includentis solidam
10 quampiam figuram superficie inscriptae aut inclusae ad easdem partes
cavae esse malOrem.
5. Figuram solidam circumscribentem aut includentem figura circum-
scripta aut inclusa esse maiorem.
6. Si duae magnitudines semper alia magnitudine sint simul maiores
15 aut simul minores erunt inter se aequales.
Propositio I.
SUPERFICIEM CYLINDRICAM SUPERFICIE COLUMNARI
CIRCUMSCRIPTA VEL INCLUSA ESSE MAIOREM.
Capiatur enim unum laterum columnae circumscriptae erectum super
5 lineam rectam AC [Fig. III.5A.I], et portio superficiei cylindricae erecta
super arcum ABC.
Et sic demonstrandum erit quod superficies cylindrica ARC maior est
superficie plana AC; hoc enim ostenso, sequitur totam superficiem
cylindricam tota superficie columnari inscripta maiorem esse.
10 Itaque sit, si possibile est, superficies cylindrica ABC minor superficie
plana AC, ita ut cum superficie Z sit superficiei AC aequalis. Et diviso
arcu ARC iterum atque iterum donec relictae portiones sint minus quam
Z, erit iam cylindrica superficies ABC cum reliquis portionibus sumpta
minor superficie plana AC, et a fortiori minor superficiebus planis
15 erectis super lineis rectis AD, DB, BE, EC, quod est contra quartum
postulatum. Non igitur minor est superficies cylindrica ABC superficie
planaAC. Similiter nec aequalis esse eidem demonstrabitur. Superest ergo
ut maior sit, quemadmodum proponitur.
Propositio lI.
SUPERFICIEM CONICAM SUPERFICIE PYRAMIDALI IN-
SCRIPTA VEL INCLUSA ESSE MAIOREM.
Idem processus eademque descriptio huic propositioni inserviet quae
5 praecedenti. Unde si superficies tarn cylindrica columnarem inscriptam,
quam conica pyramidalem inscriptam excedit, multo magis et inclusam
quam non tangit excedet, quandoquidem inscripta maior est quam
inclusa. Constat ergo propositum.
4 /Propositio Ill.
SUPERFICIEM COLUMNAREM MAIOREM ESSE SUPERFICIE
CYLINDRICA INSCRIPTA VEL INCLUSA.
Capiantur duo latera columnae erecta super rectas AF, FC [Fig.
5 III .5A.2], et portio cylindricae superficiei super arcumABC, quae super-
ficies utraeque terminantur ad latera cylindri erecta super puncta A, C,
quae latera sunt contactus superficierum planarum super AF, FC posi-
tarum cum superficie cylindrica posita super arcum ABC.
Itaque demonstrandum est quod plana superficies AFC maior est cylin-
10 drica superficie ABC; hoc enim ostenso, sequitur totam columnarem
planam superficiem maiorem esse tota cylindrica superficie.
Itaque sit, si possibile est, plana superficies AFC minor cylindrica
superficie ABC. Sectoque iterum arcu ABC atque iterum ducantuf
tangentes circulum donec relictae portiones inter tangentes et peripheriam
15 sint minus spatio Z quo superficies cylindrica ABC excedere supponitur
planam AFC, eritque a fortiori eadem superficies cylindrica ABC maior
quam superficies plana posita super AK, KL, LM, MN, NC una cum
portionibus relictis, quod est contra quartum postulatum. Non igitur minor
est superficies planaAFC superficie cylindricaABC. Similiter nec aequalis
20 esse demonstrabitur. Maior igitur erit, quod est propositum.
Propositio IV.
SUPERFICIEM PYRAMIDALEM MAIOREM ESSE SUPERFICIE
CONICA INSCRIPTA VEL INCLUSA.
Non alio processu quam praecedens demonstrabitur. Unde si super-
5 ficies, tarn columnaris cylindricam inscriptam, quam piramidalis conicam
inscriptam excedit, multo fortius et inclusam excedet, quandoquidem
inscripta sibi inclusam excedit.
Illud autem notandum quod in cylindrica superficie relictae portiones
supradictae tarn in praemissa quam in prima huius capiendae sunt in
10 utraque basi quo superficies circumscribens eosdem terminos habeat cum
inscripta, sicut quartum postulatum supponit. Constat ergo propositum.
Propositio V.
ESSE ALIQUAM LINEAM AD QUAM DATA LINEA DATAM
HABET RATIONEM.
Sit data ratio magnitudinis A ad magnitudinem B, data linea C [Fig.
5 III.5A.3], erunt utique per primum postulatum lineae ipsis magnitudinibus
SA, B / proportionales quae sint D, E, ut scilicet A ad B sit sicut linea
D ad lineam E. Sit per decimam sexti Euclidis sicut D ad E, sic C ad F.
Eritque C ad F, sicut A ad B, quod est propositum.
Propositio VI.
QUIBUSLIBET DUABUS LINEIS ALIQUAM MEDIAM INTER-
ESSE PROPORTIONALEM.
Ut si sint datae lineae rectae AB, BC [Fig. III.5A.4] in rectum coni-
S unctae. Descripto super totamAC semicirculo, excitataque perpendiculari
AD (! BD) usque ad peripheriam, erit per nonam sexti Euclidis BD inter
ipsas AB, BC media proportionalis. Constat ergo propositum.
Propositio VII.
ESSE ALIQUOD QUADRATUM AD QUOD DATUM QUADRA-
TUM DATAM HABEAT RATIONEM.
Sit data ratio quae magnitudinis A ad magnitudinem B [Fig. III.5A.5];
5 datum quadratum lineae C. Erit iam per quintam praemissam sicut A
ad B, sic linea C ad aliquam lineam, quae sit D; intersit itaque ipsis C,
D per praecedentem media proportionalis E; eritque sicut C ad D, hoc est,
sicut A ad B, sic quadratum C ad quadratum E, quandoquidem dupla
est ratio C ad D eius quae C ad E. Constat ergo propositum.
Propositio VIII.
CIRCULORUM PERIPHERIAE SUNT DIAMETRIS PROPOR-
TIONALES.
Sint circuli AIR et CKD [Fig. III.5A.6], quorum diametri AB, CD.
S Sitque sicut peripheria AIB ad periferiam (I) CKD sic diameter AB ad
lineam EF, per quintam huius.
Et demonstrandum erit quod linea EF aequalis erit lineae CD.
Nam si linea EF maior est quam linea CD, intelligatur circulus ELF
concentricus circulo CKD, et inscribatur circulo ELF figura multiangula
6 10 ENF minime tangens circulum CKD, per / decimamtertiam duodecimi
Elementorum Euclidis. Et ei similis figura AMB inscribatur circulo AIB.
Eritque sicut linea AB ad lineam EF, sic perimeter figurae AMB ad
perimetrum figurae ENF, et ideo sicut peripheria AlB ad peripheriam
CKD; et permutatim sicut perimeter AMB ad peripheriam AIB, sic
15 perimeter ENF ad peripheriam CKD. Sed per secundum postulatum
maior peripheria AIB perimetro AMB, igitur et maior peripheria CKD
perimetro ENF, inclusa videlicet maior includente, quod est contra dictum
postulatum. Non est ergo maior linea EF quam linea CD.
Si autem minor, tunc conversim erit sicut peripheria CKD ad periphe-
20 riam AIR, sic iam linea EF ad lineam AB. Sit itaque sicut linea EF ad
lineam AB, sic linea CD ad lineam GH, per quintam huius. Eritque sicut
linea CD ad lineam GH, sic peripheria CKD ad peripheriam AIR, et
erit per 14
am
quinti, quoniam CD maior quamEF, iam et GH maior quam
AB. Unde sequitur idem impossibile quod prius, ut scilicet peripheriae
25 primae ad peripheriam secundam ratio sit sicut prima diameter ad lineam
maiorem secunda diametro. Non est igitur lineaEF minor quam linea CD.
Sed nec maior fuit. Aequalis erit ergo, quod fuit demonstrandum.
Propositio IX.
SIMILES CIRCULORUM ARCUS SUNT CHORDIS ATQUE
ETIAM DIAMETRIS PROPORTIONALES.
Nam similes arcus per diffinitionem assumunt aequales tarn ad centrum
5 quam ad peripherias angulos. Ed idcirco per ultimam sexti Euclidis sunt
proportionales integris suorum circulorum peripheriis. Sed per praeceden-
tern peripheriae diametris sunt proportionales; igitur et similes arcus sint
itidem diametris; quare propter similitudinem triangulorum et chordis
proportionales, quod proponitur demonstrandum.
Propositio X.
CIRCULI SUNT QUADRATIS DIAMETRORUM PROPOR-
TIONALES.
Sunto circuli AIB, CKD [Fig. III.5A.7], quorum diametri AB, CD;
5 sitque sicut circulus AIB ad circulum CKD, sic quadratum AB ad
quadratum lineae EF, per septimam huius.
Et demonstrandum erit quod linea EF aequalis est lineae CD.
Nam secus est maior aut minor. Si linea EF maior quam linea CD,
tunc flant eadem quae in praemissa sa. Eritque sicut quadratum AB ad
10 quadratum EF, sic figura AMB ad figuram ENF, et ideo sicut circulus
AIB ad circulum CKD; et permutatim sicut figura AMB ad circulumAIB,
sic figura ENF ad circulum CKD; maior est autem per 3
um
postulatum
circulus AIB quam figura AMB. Ergo maior circulus CKD quam figura
ENF, quod est impossibile per dictum postulatum. Non est ergo maior
15 linea EF quam linea CD.
7 Si autem minor, tunc con/versim erit sicut circulus CKD ad circulum
AIB, sic quadratum EF ad quadratum AB; sit ergo per septimam sicut
quadratum EF ad quadratum AB, sic quadratum CD ad quadratum GH;
eritque sicut quadratum CD ad quadratum GH, sic circulus CKD ad cir-
20 cuIum AIB; et quoniam CD maior quam EF, iam per 14
am
5
i
GH maior
quam AB. Unde sequitur idem impossibiIe, ut scilicet circuli primi ad
circulum secundum ratio sit ut quadratum primae diametri ad quadratum
lineae maioris secunda diametro. Non est ergo minor linea EF quam
linea CD; sed nec maior fuit. Aequalis est ergo, quod fuit demon-
2S strandum.
Propositio XI.
SIMILES CIRCULORUM SECTORES ET SIMILES PORTIONES
SUNT QUADRATIS DIAMETRORUM PROPORTIONALES.
Similes enim sectores sunt per ultimam sexti Euclidis circulis
5 integris proportionales. Quare per praecedentem sunt et quadratis
diametrorum proportionales. Item in huiusmodi sectoribus triangula
rectilinea ad centra super chordas portionum sunt et dictis quadratis
proportionalia. Quare cum ablata, quae sunt ipsa triangula, sint totis,
quae sunt sectores, proportionalia, erunt per decimam nonam quinti
10 Elementorum et relicta, quae sunt portiones, totis proportionalia,
quod fuit ostendendum.
Propositio XII.
CYLINDRORUM SIMILIUM SUPERFICIES SUNT QUADRATIS
QUAE EX DIAMETRIS BASIUM PROPORTIONALES.
Fiant ea quae in x
a
praecedenti, et super circulos AB, CD, EF, GH
S [Fig. III.5A.8] intelligantur similes cylindri erecti; et super figuras
multiangulas AB, CD, EF, CH intelligantur columnae lateratae cylindris
inscriptae, et eiusdem altitudinis cum cylindris; et pro circulis, cylindricae
superficies quarum circuli sunt bases; pro figuris autem inter circulos
descriptis sumantur columnares laterum superficies quorum figurae sunt
10 bases; et pro tertio postulato citetur prima huius. Et idem processus in
demonstratione servetur.
Propositio XIII.
CONORUM SIMILIUM SUPERFICIES SUNT QUADRATIS QUAE
EX DIAMETRIS BASIUM PROPORTIONALES.
Fiant similiter ea quae in x
a
praecedenti, et super circulos AB, CD,
S EF, GH [Fig. III.5A.9] intelligantur [similes coni erecti et intelligantur]
8 totidem laterum pyramides conis inscriptae et eiusdem celsitudinis / cum
conis. Et pro circulis conicae superficies quarum figurae (! circuli) sunt
bases; pro figuris autem intra circulos descriptis sumantur laterales
pyramidum superficies quarum figurae sunt bases, et pro tertio postulato
10 citetur secunda huius. Nam idem penitus est demonstrationis syllogismus.
Propositio XIV.
DATAE CUILIBET SUPERFICIEI ALIQUEM CIRCULUM ESSE
AEQUALEM.
Esto data quaelibet superficies A [Fig. I1I.5A.1O]; describatur super
5 quamvis lineam BD circulus BED, qui aut aequalis erit superficiei A aut
minime aequalis. Si aequalis, constat iam propositum. Sin autem, tunc
per VIIam huius sicut est circulus BED ad superficiem A, sic iam sit
quadratum BD ad quadratum CF; eritque per decimam huius sicut
quadratum BD ad quadratum CF, sic omnino circulus BED ad circulum
10 CGF; quamobrem sicut circulus BED ad circulum CGF, sic circulus
BED ad superficiem A; et idcirco per nonam quinti aequalis est
superficiei A circulus CGF. Rursum ergo constat propositum.
Propositio XV.
CUIVIS DATAE LINEAE ALICUIUS CIRCULI PERIPHERIAM
ESSE AEQUALEM.
Esto quaevis data linea A [Fig. III.5A.ll]; describatur super quamvis
5 lineam BD circulus BED, cuius peripheria si aequalis sit lineae A constat
propositum. Sin vero, tunc per quintam huius sicut est peripheriaBED ad
9 lineamA, sic sit diameter BD ad lineam CF; eritque per / octavam huius
sicut diameter BD ad diametrum CF, sic peripheria BED ad peripheriam
CGF; eandem igitur rationem cum habeat peripheriaBFD ad peripheriam
10 CGF quam ad lineamA, aequalis erit per nonam quinti lineae A peripheria
CGF. Rursum ergo liquet propositum.
Ex quibus manifestum est et datum circulum alicui rectilineo esse
aequalem, itemque dati circuli peripheriam alicui rectae lineae esse
aequalem.
15 Similiter haec enim ostenduntur, mutato tantum supposito: ut scilicet
pro superficie circulus, et pro data linea circuli peripheria dari supponatur.
[Vocat Maurolicus coni-colurum segmentum coni abscissum a pIano
parallelo basi coni comprehensumque inter duo praedicta plana.]
Propositio XVI.
CONORUM-COLURORUM SIMILIUM CURVAE SUPERFICIES
SUNT QUADRATIS QUAE EX DIAMETRIS CORRELATIVARUM
BASIUM PROPORTIONALES.
5 Nam cum coluri-coni segmenta sint conorum, et similes coni-coluri
similium conorum similiter factae portiones erunt. Sed per decimamter-
tiam huius desectorum conorum, quoniam similes sunt, superficies sunt
quadratis quae ex diametris basiumproportionales; et integrorum conorum
qui similes sunt superficies quadratis quae ex diametris basium propor-
10 tionales; et ideo superficiebus desectorum conorum proportionales,
quandoquidem basium diametri basium diametris proportionales. Igitur
per decimamnonam quinti et relictorum conorum-colurorum superficies
dictarum diametrorum correlativarum quadratis proportionales erunt,
sicut proponitur demonstrandum.
Propositio XVII.
SOLIDORUM SIMILIUM A DIMIDIIS SIMILIUM PLANARUM
MULTIANGULARUM FIGURARUM, STANTIBUS DIAMETRIS,
SEMEL CIRCUMDUCTIS DESCRIPTORUM SUPERFICIES SUNT
5 IPSARUM DIAMETRORUM QUADRATIS PROPORTIONALES.
Namque talium solidorum superficies componuntur ex similibus
numeroque aequalibus conicis superficiebus, inter quas binae ad extrema
diametrorum sunt perfectorum conorum, caeterae conorum-colurorum,
ex quibus quandoque binae cylindricae. Verum per duodecimam,
10 decimamtertiam et decimamsextam praemissas tales superficies correla-
tivae correlativis singulae singulis comparatae sunt sicut quadrata quae
ex diametris correlativarum basium. Huiusmodi autem quadrata sunt
quadratis diametrorum super quas dimidia figurarum circumducuntur
proportionalia. Igitur per coniunctam proportionem, quoties opus fuerit
15 assumptam, integrae solidorum superficies erunt et dictarum diametrorum
quadratis proportionales, quemadmodum ponitur demonstrandum.
Propositio XVIII.
SPHAERARUM SUPERFICIES SUNT QUADRATIS DIAMETRO-
RUM PROPORTIONALES.
Sint duae sphaerae AIB et CKD [Fig. III.5A.12], quarum diametri AB,
5 CD. Sitque per primam (! septimam) huius sicut sphaerica superficies
10 AIB ad sphaericam superficiem CKD, sic qualdratum AB ad quadratum
EF.
Et demonstrandum erit quod linea EF aequalis est lineae CD.
Nam, si possibile est, sit maior linea EF quam linea CD. Et circa
10 diametrum EF sphaera ELF intelligatur concentrica sphaerae CKD, et
intra sphaeram ELF solidum ENF tornatile ex conicis superficiebus
sphaeram CKD minime tangentibus, et huic simile solidum AMB intra
sphaeram AIB. Eritque per praecedentem sicut quadratum AB ad
quadratum EF, sic superficies solidi AMB ad superficiem solidi ENF.
15 Et ideo sicut sphaerica superficies AIB ad sphaericam superficiem CKD,
et permutatim sicut superficies solidi AMB ad sphaericam superficiem
AIB, sic superficies solidi ENF ad superficiem sphaericam CKD. Sed per
quartum postulatum maior est superficies sphaericaAIB quam superficies
solidi AMB. Ergo et superficies sphaerica CKD maior quam superficies
20 solidi ENF, quod est impossibile per dictum postulatum. Non est ergo
maior linea EF quam linea CD.
Si autem sit minor, tunc conversim erit sicut sphaerica superficies CKD
ad sphaericam superficiem AIB, sic quadratum EF ad quadratum AB;
sit ergo per septimam huius sicut quadratum EF ad quadratum AB, sic
25 quadratum CD ad quadratum GH. Eritque sicut quadratum CD ad
quadratum GH, sic iam superficies sphaerica CKD ad superficiem
sphaericam AIB. Et quoniam CD maior quam EF, iam per decimam
quartam quinti erit et GH maior quamAB. Unde sequitur idem impossibile
quod prius, ut scilicet sphaericae superficiei primae ad sphaericam
30 superficiem secundam ratio sit sicut quadratum primae diametri ad
quadratum lineae maioris secunda diametro. Non est ergo minor linea
-
EF quam linea CD. Sed nec maior fuit: aequalis ergo erit, quod fuit
demonstrandum.
Propositio XIX.
SIMILIUM SPHAERICARUM PORTIONUM SUPERFICIES SUNT
QUADRATIS DIAMETRORUM PROPORTIONALES.
Eadem huic quae praecedenti demonstratio inserviet, hoc excepto,
5 quod pro totalibus sphaerarum superficiebus capiantur portionum
superficies, et pro integrorum solidorum tornatilium superficiebus capian-
tur partiales ipsorum superficies quae similibus sphaerarum portionibus
inscriptae similes sunt. Unde concludetur propositum, quod scilicet talium
portionum superficies erunt quadratis ex sphaerarum diametris, atque
10 etiam ex diametris circulorum super quos portiones consistunt, propor-
tionales, quandoquidem talium circulorum diametri sunt sphaerarum
diametris, propter similitudinem, proportionales.
11 IPropositio XX.
CUILIBET DATAE SUPERFICIEI ALICUIUS SPHAERAE SUPER-
FICIEM ESSE AEQUALEM.
Est quaevis data superficies A [Fig. III.5A.13], describatur super
5 quamvis lineam BD sphaera BED, cuius superficies aut aequalis est
superficieiA aut non. Si aequalis, constat propositum. Secus autem, tunc
per septimam huius sicut est sphaerica superficies BED ad superficiem
A, sic iam esto quadratum BD ad quadratum CF [per septimam huius].
Eritque per decimam octavam praecedentem sicut quadratum BD ad
10 quadratum CF, sic utique sphaerica superficies BED ad sphaericam
superficiem CGF. Eandem igitur rationem habebit sphaerica superficies
BED ad sphaericam superficiem CGF et ad superficiem A. Quare per
nonam quinti Elementorum aequalis erit superficiei A sphaerica super-
ficies CGF. Rursum ergo constat propositum. [Adverte quod figurae
15 sphaericae compleri debent circa diametros BD, CF.]
ET SIMILITER CONSTABIT CUIUSLIBET DATAE SPHAERAE
SUPERFICIEM ALICUI RECTILINEO ESSE AEQUALEM.
Data scilicet primum sphaera, et mox rectilineo descripto.
Propositio XXI.
DATIS DUABUS QUIBUSCUNQUE SUPERFICIEBUS ALIQUAM
SUPERFICIEM ESSE UNI EARUM SIMILEM ET ALTER! AE-
QUALEM.
5 Haec propositio est tanto generalior decimaquarta et vigesima huius,
quanto superficies generalior quam circularis aut sphaerica. Sit igitur,
exempli gratia, superficies quaevis A [Fig. III.5A.14], et portio quaepiam
circuli BED super chordam BD.
MAUROLICQ'S PRAEPARATIO AD ARCHIMEDIS OPERA 823
Ostendam aliquam circuli portionem esse superficiei A aequalem et por-
10 tioni BED similem.
Sit enim per septimam huius sicut BED portio ad A superficiem, sic
BD chordae quadratum ad quadratum CF lineae. Et per 31am tertii Ele-
mentorum super CF lineam constituatur circuli portio COF similis ipsi
BED portioni. Et quoniam chordae similium portionum sunt diametris
15 circulorum proportionales, et periede (! perinde) quadrata quadratis
proportionalia. Atque per undecimam huius similes portiones circulorum
sunt quadratis diametrorum proportionales. Idcirco erit sicut quadratum
BD ad quadratum CF sic portio BED ad portionem COF. Itaque cum
eandem rationem habeat portio BED ad portionem COF quam et ad
20 superficiem A, aequalis erit per nonam quinti elementorum superficiei
A portio COF. Sed et similis fuit portioni BED; constat ergo propositum.
Similiter data qualibet superficie et alia quavis superficiali figura,
utpote cylindrica, conica, demonstrabimus aliquam superficiem esse
figurae propositae similem et date superficiei aequalem, pro undecima
25 tamen duodecimam, XIIpm, aut xvpm huius adducentes.
12 litem data superficie ac tornatili solido, non aliter per decimam-
septimam ostendemus esse quodpiam tomatile solidum cuius superficies
datae sit aequalis ac tornatilis propositi superficiei similis etc.
Propositio XXII.
CUILIBET DATAE SUPERFICIEI ESSE ALIQUAM SUPER-
FICIEM CYLINDRICAM AEQUALEM CIRCA DATUM AXEM.
Sit data superficies A [Fig. III.5A.15), datus axis BC perpendicularis
5 pIano in quo iacet linea DE indefinita. lam, quoniam circum axem BC
constitui possunt infinitae columnae lateratae quarum superficies laterales
singulae minores sint superficie A, tales autem superficies maiores sunt
superficiebus cylindricis circa eundem axem sibi inscriptis per tertiam
huius, idcirco et infinitae superficies cylindricae circum axem BC fieri
10 possunt singulae minores data superficie A. Item, quoniam circum
axemBC construi possunt infinitae columnae lateratae quarum superficies
laterales singulae maiores sint superficie A, tales autem superficies
minores sunt superficiebus cylindricis quibus inscribuntur, per primam
huius, ideo et infinitae superficies cylindricae circum axem BC locari
15 queunt singulae maiores data superficie A. Erit itaque in linea DE aliquis
terminus intra quem cylindricae superficies sint minores singulae
superficie A et extra quem sint maiores. Esto talis terminus punctum
D, eritque per primam et tertiam ex dictis superficiebus cylindricis
quaecunque intra terminum D consistit minor superficie cylindrica cuius
20 semidiameter basis CD, quaecunque autem extra terminum D maior
eadem. Cum itaque superficies data A et superficies cylindrica cuius basis
semidiameter CD axisque BC collatae ad omnem aliam superficiem intra
extraque punctum D sint ea simul maiores aut simul minores, iam per
ultimum postulatum aequales erunt. Constat ergo propositum.
Propositio XXIII.
CUILIBET DATAE SUPERFICIEI ESSE ALIQUAM SUPER-
FICIEM CONICAM AEQUALEM CIRCA DATUM AXEM.
Sit data superficies A [Fig. III.5A.I6], datusque axisBC perpendicularis
5 ad planam in quo recta DE indefinita. lam, quoniam circum axem BC
poni possunt infinitae pyramides. lateratae quarum superficies laterales
singulae minores sint superficie A, tales autem superficies maiores sunt
superficiebus conicis circa eundem axem sibi inscriptis, per quartam huius,
propterea et infinitae superficies conicae circum axem BC possunt erigi
10 singulae minores data superficie A. Item, quoniam circa axem BC esse
possunt infinitae pyramides quarum laterales superficies singulae maiores
13 sint superficie A, tales / autem superficies minores sunt superficiebus
conicis quibus inscribuntur, per secundam huius, ob id et infinitae
superficies conicae circum axem BC stabunt singulae maiores data
15 superficie A. Erit itaque in linea DE aliquis terminus intra quem conicae
superficies sint minores singulae superficie A et extra quem sint maiores.
Esto talis terminus punctum D, eritque per secundam et quartam ex
dictis conicis superficiebus quaecunque intra punctum D minor superficie
conica cuius semidiameter basis CD, quecunque autem extra punctum
20 D maior eadem. Cum itaque superficies dataA et superficies conica cuius
basis semidiameter CD axisque BC collatae ad omnem aliam super-
ficiem intra extrave punctum D sumptam sint simul maiores aut simul
minores, iam per ultimum postulatum aequales esse convincuntur.
Constat ergo positum.
Propositio XXIV.
DUABUS SPHAERICIS PORTIONIBUS SUPER UNUM PLANUM
EXISTENTIBUS, MAIOR EST SUPERFICIES EXTERIORIS.
Ut si portiones sphaericae ABC, DEF [Fig. III.5A.I?], quarum
5 exteriorABC, stent super planumin quo rectaADFC, maior erit superficies
ABC. Stent enim ex altera parte eiusdem plani portiones sphaericae AGC,
DHF singulae suis conterminis aequales et similes. Eritque per quartum
postulatum totalis superficies ABCG maior totali superficie DEFH,
includens videlicet inc1usa. Ergo et dimidium dimidio maius, superficies
10 scilicet ARC superficie DEF, quod fuit demonstrandum.
Propositio XXV.
CUILIBET DATAE SUPERFICIEI ESSE AEQUALEM ALICUIUS
SPHAERICAE PORTIONIS SUPER DATUM CENTRUM ET A
DATO PLANO ABSCISSAE SUPERFICIEM.
5 Si data superficies A [Fig. III.5A.18], datum centrumB, datum planum
in quo iacet recta CD ita ut BC sit perpendicularis ipsi pIano indefinito.
lam, ut in 22
a
et 23
a
huius patuit, infinitae cylindricae sive conicae super-
ficies habentes axem in rectum ipsi BC consistent turn minores, turn
maiores singulae data superficie A. Cumque per quartum postulatum
10 cylindrica sive conica superficies maior quidem sit sphaericae portionis
14 sibi I inscriptae superficie, minor vero sphaericae portionis cui inscribitur
superficie, propterea et infinitae sphaericarum portionum circa centrum
B et a pIano CD abscissarum superficies erunt turn minores, turn
maiores superficie A. Erit itaque aliquis terminus in linea CD intra
15 quem sphaericarum portionum superficies minores erunt superficie A et
extra quem maiores. Esto talis terminus punctum D. Eritque per
praecedentem ex dictarum sphaericarum portionum superficiebus quae-
cunque intra punctum D minor superficie sphaericae portionis cuius basis
semidiameter CD, quaecunque autem extra punctum D maior eadem.
20 Quando itaque superficies data A et superficies sphaericae portionis
cuius basis semidiameter CD collatae ad omnem aliam superficiem
intra extrave punctum D sumptam sint simul maiores aut simul minores,
ideo per ultimum postulatum aequales erunt, quod est propositum.
Propositio XXVI.
QUIBUSLIBET DUABUS LINEIS DUAS MEDIAS ESSE PRO-
PORTIONALES.
Sint quaelibet datae lineae rectae AB, BC [Fig. III.5A.19], compleatur
5 rectangulum ABCD, et BC, BA producantur indefinitae, centrumque
rectanguli sit E, in quo se vicissim secant diametri AC, BD; productis
autem BA, BC applicetur per D ducta recta FDG, hac conditione, ut
coniunctae EF, EG sint aequales.
Aio tunc CF, AG medias proportionales interiacere ipsis AB, BC.
10 Ducantur enimEH, EK perpendiculares ad AB, BC; eritque per sextam
secundi Euclidi s rectangulumBF, FC cum quadrato KC sumptum aequale
quadratoKF; commune ponatur quadratumEK. Eritque rectangulumBF,
FC cum quadrato KC et quadrate KE, hoc est cum quadrato EC
sumptum, aequale quadrate KF cum quadrato EK, hoc est quadrato EF.
15 Similiter omnino demonstrabimus quod rectangulumBG, GA cum quad-
rato EA sumptum aequale est quadrato EG; aequalia vero sunt per hypo-
stesim (! hypothesim) quadrata EF, EG. Igitur rectangulum BFC cum
quadrato EC aequale est rectanguloBGA cum quadrato EA. Itern quadrata
EC et EA sunt aequalia quoniam dimidiis eiusdem AC lineae debentur.
15 20 Supe/rerunt ergo rectangulum BF, FC et rectangulum BG, GA inter se
aequalia. Quare per 15
am
sexti Euclidis sicut BG ad BF, sic FC ad GA.
Et propter similitudinem triangulorumGBF, DCF, sicut DC, hoc est AB,
ad CF, sic FC ad GA. Item propter similitudinem triangulorum GAD,
DCF, sicut DC ad CF, sic GA ad AD, hoc est ad BC. Itaque quatuor
25 lineae AB, CF, GA, BC sunt continuae proportionales. Et hoc propone-
batur demonstrandum.
Et hie quidem est modus Heronis, qui Mechanica scripsit. Subiiciemus
nunc aliorum philosophorum circa idem problema ex Eutocio sumptas
traditiones.
L
Propositio XXVII.
IDEM ALITER DEMONSTRARE.
Sunto datae lineae AB, BC [Fig. III.5A.20], et compleatur rectangulum
ABCD, cui per nonam 4
i
Eudidis circulus circumscribatur. Mox inter
5 BA, BC indefinitum productas deducatur recta FDHG, hac conditione, ut
ipsae FD, HG sint inter se aequales; tunc enim CF, AG erunt inter ipsas
AB, BC datas mediae proportionales. Nam per 35
arn
tertii Eudidis rec-
tangulum AG, GB aequale est rectangulo HG, GD, et rectangulum CF,
FB aequale est rectangulo DF, FH. Sed rectangulum DF, PH aequale
10 est rectangulo HG, GD, quandoquidem DF, GH lineae supponuntur
aequales. Igitur rectangulum CF, FB aequale est rectangulo AG, GB.
Quare per xv
arn
sexti, non aliter quam in praecedenti, ex similitudine
ipsa triangulorum demonstrabuntur AB, CF, GA, BC continue propor-
tionales.
15 Et hic est modus Apollonii et Philonis Byzantii, ut testatur Ioannes
Philoponus Alexandrinus. Et est idem ferme cum modo Heronis, quamvis
demonstrationes aliquantum differant.
Propositio XXVIII.
ALITER IDIPSUM OSTENDERE.
Sunto datae rectaeAB,BG ad angulum rectum positae [Fig. III.5A.2l],
quae producantur, sintque BE, BD singulae ipsi AB aequales, ad cuius
5 spatium super centro B describatur semicirculus ADE, coniunctaque
AG producatur ad peripheriam in punctum Z, et circa punctum E
moveatur canon ET (! EH) donee portio canonis TK inter peripheriam
16 et AZ per aequalia secetur ab ipsa BD in puncto L. / Et per punctum
K ipsi BD parallelus agatur MN, sitque sicut MA ad AB, sic EM ad MX.
10 Itemque sic NM ad MO.
Dico itaque quod BG, MX, MO, AB lineae sunt continuae propor-
tionales.
Agatur enim ipsi BD parallelus TP; eruntque BP,BMaequales, quando-
quidem TL, LK iisdem parallelis interpositae fuerunt inter se aequales.
15 Quare KM ad ME, sicut TP ad PE; et ideo sicut NM ad MA; et ideo sicut
ME ad MN: quandoquidemMN media proportionalis est inter ipsas AM,
ME; igitur et ME ipsis KM, MN media proportionalis est. Non dubium
ergo quin KM, ME, MN, MA sint in proportione continua. Sed sicut
BG ad KM, sic AB ad MA, propter similitudinem triangulorum. Itemque
20 per hypothesim sicut MX ad ME, et sic MO ad MN. Ergo ex permutata
proportione sequitur ut ipsae quoque lineae BG, MX, MO, AB sint in
eadem continua proportione, quod erat demonstrandum.
Est autem haec traditio Pappi in Mechanicis. Et hac eadem uti videntur
Diodes et Porus (!).
Propositio XXIX.
ID IPSUM ALITER DEMONSTRARE.
Sunto datae rectae lineae AB, BC ad rectos angulos positae [Fig.
III.5A.22], quae producantur in infinitum, sintqueABD, CBE; et fabricetur
5 rectus angulus FGH, et in uno crure, ut pote FG, moveatur regula KL
in canali quopiam qui sit in ipso FG, utque KL regula parallelus sit
semper ipsi GH; alterum regulamentum ipsi GH cruri insertum, scilicet
HM, ipsique FG parallelum aptetur; ut KL regula ipsarum FG, HM
aptata canalibus, ipsique GH parallelus ultro citroque semper ad
10 aequidistantiam ipsius GH moveatur. Huic demum structurae ipse ABC
angulus ita erit accomodandus ita, inquam, rectaeABD, CBE regulamentis
interponendae, ut A punctum contingat regulam KL, et ipsum C punctum
contingat regulam GH, utque ABD eat per angulum G et linea CBE per
angulum K. Hoc enim pacto fient nimirum ipsi AED, EDC anguli recti.
15 Quare per 7
am
sexti elementorum bis assumptam erunt lineae AB, BE,
BD, BC continuae proportionales. Itaque datis duabus AB, BC totidem
interiacent lineae proportionales, quod erat ostendendum.
Fuit autem haec inventio Platonis, cum, Deliis pestilentia laborantibus,
consultus Apollo respondisset, ut lues cessaret, aram esse duplicandam;
20 quae cum cubi formam haberet, cubusque aliter duplicari non posset nisi
per duarum mediarum proportionalium interpositionem, proposita fuit
huiusmodi quaestio.
Propositio XXX.
ALITER ILLUD IDEM DEMONSTRARE.
Sint datae rectae lineae AB et CD [Fig. III.5A.23], et intra parallelo-
grammata rectangula inter se aequalia et similia quorum maiora latera
17 5 aequalia sint AB maiori datarum / disponendaque sunt parallelogrammata
in eodem pIano ut eorum bases minores super eadem recta BK iaceant et
eorum diametri aequidistent inter se; et fixo manente parallelogrammo
medio compellatur unum supra, alterum infra eundem, aptata in eodem
pIano quousque puncta A, E, H extrema diametrorum in una linea AK
10 cadant, quae praeterea cum recta BK extremi parallelogrami (!) lateris
portionem CD abscindat aequalem minori datarum. Hoc enim facto ipsae
EF, GH mediae proportionales erunt inter ipsas AB, CD; nam propter
trianguIorum similitudinem, sicut AB ad EF, sic AK ad KE; sicut autem
AK ad KE, sic FK ad KG, sed et FK ad KG sicut EF ad HG. Igitur sicut
15 EF ad HG, sic AB ad EF. Rursum, sicut EF ad HG, sic EK ad KH;
sicut autemEK adKH, sicGK adKC. Sed etGK adKC, sicutHG ad CD.
Igitur EF ad HG, sicut HG ad CD. Constat ergo lineas AB, EF, HG,
CD esse in proportione continua, sicut fuit demonstrandum. Et haec est
Eratosthenis traditio.
Propositio XXXI.
IDEM ALITER OSTENDERE.
Sunto datae rectae AB, BG (! AG) in rectum positae [Fig. I1I.5A.24],
describatur circa axem AG paraboIe ADH, quam in puncto D secet recta
5 BD ipsi AG perpendicularis; et per punctum D ipsi AG paralleIus agatur
EDZ, cui a punctis A, G lineae ipsi BD parallelae occurrant ad puncta
20
10
18
2S
E, Z lineae AE, GZ. Item per punctum Z circa non coincidentes EA,
AG describatur hyperbole ZH, quae secet parabolam in puncto H, a quo
ad lineas AE, AG perpendiculares cadant lineae HT, HK. Et per sextarn
huius ipsis AB, AT media proportionalis intersit AL.
Aio itaque quod AL, AT mediae proportionales interiacent ipsis AB,
AG.
Nam cum hyperbole sitHZ, non coincidentes autemKAG, iam per 12
am
secundi Conicorum Elementorum rectangulumAH aequale erit rectangulo
15 AZ. Quare per 15
am
sexti Elementorum Euclidis erit sicut AT ad AG, sic
GZ, hoc est BD, ad TH. Sed per 20
am
primi Conicorum Elementorum ratio
AB adAT dupla est rationisBD ad TH, quandoquidem parabole estADH;
ergo et ratio AB adAT dupla est rationisAT adAG. Quare fiet sicut AB ad
AL, vel sicutAL adAT (eadem enim ratio per hypothesim) sic AT adAG.
Igitur AB, AL, AT, AG continuae proportionales sunt, quod fuit demon-
strandum.
Et haec est inventio Menaechmi aliis modis commendatior, quoniam
innititur geometricis et absolubilibus praeceptis quando alii fortuito casu
videantur quodammodo intentum adipisci. Sed huic adde, quod si / AB,
BD ponantur aequales, et mox per A, D puncta parabole ADHdescribatur,
et reliqua, ut prius, erit per iam demonstrata sicut BD, hoc estAB, ad TH,
sic AT ad AG. Sed per 20
am
primi Conicorum ratio AB ad AT dupla est
rationis ipsius BD, hoc estAB, ad TH. Igitur hac via fientAB, TH, AT, AG
continue proportionales. Nec opus est ipsius AL interpositione, quem-
30 admodum Menaechmus docet.
Propositio XXXII.
ADHUC IDIPSUM ALITER DEMONSTRARE.
Sunto datae rectae AB, BG [Fig. III.5A.25], quarum maior AB, de-
scribatur super AB diametrum circulus BGA intra quem per secundam
5 (! primam) quarti Euclidis coaptetur BG, quae producta occurrat ipsi AD
tangenti circulum in puncto D. Item EG secet ad rectos angulos dia-
metrum AB in puncto Z, et super EG diametrum fiat semicirculus EHG
rectus ad circulum BGA; hinc super semicirculum BGA erigatur hemi-
cylindrus rectus; et in rectangulo quod per axem cylindri describatur hemi-
10 circulus super AB diametrum, qui semicirculus moveatur super planum
circuli BGA semper rectus ad idem pIano, moto scilicet diametro AB
versus G, manente termino B immoto, sitque semicirculus iam motus TKB
super diametro BT secante periferiamBGA in puncto L; quo quidem motu
peripheria TKB describet in superficie cylindrica lineam quandam curvam;
15 inde moveatur triangulum BDA super axem AB, quo motu punctum G
circumferetur in peripheria EHG, et linea BD sic circulata describet
conicam superficiem, et secabit lineam curvam in superficie cylindrica
descriptam in puncto quodam, quod sit K, in quo peripheria TKB latus
ipsum BD motum secabit. Sit ergo BDA triangulum ad talem situm
20 translatum ipsum BMA triangulariter, latere scilicet BM ipsam TKB
peripheriamsecante in punctoK in ipsa cylindrica superficie. Et coniugatur
KL recta, quae erit communis sectio pIani TKB et cylindricae super-
ficiei, quoniam scilicet cylindrus rectus est, atque ideo planum ipsum
TKB basi cylindricae rectum aequidistat axi cylindrico. Quare KL eidem
2S axi parallelus erit circulo BGA, et ideo rectae TB perpendicularis;
praeterea communis sectio circuli TKB et circuli EHG sit recta HN, quae
per 19
am
undecimi Euclidis circulo BAG et ideo rectae TB perpendicularis
erit; et coniungantur TK, LH.
Aio itaque quod BL, BK ipsis BG, AB interiacent mediae propor-
30 tionales, quod sic demonstratur.
Nam per octavam sexti Elementorum Euclidis quadratum HN aequale
est rectangulo EN, NG, et ideo adducta 34
a
tertii rectangulo BN, NL:
quo fit ut angulus BHL sit rectus. Cum anguli BLK, BKT recti sint, erunt
ob id triangula BHL, BLK, BKT similia, quandoquidem aequiangula.
3S Unde sequitur ut ipsae BH, BL, BK, BY sint continuo processu propor-
19 tionales. Verum BH aequalis ipsi BG, / quia sunt latera coni recti cuius
axis BZ, vertex autem B. Item BY aequalis ipsi BA, per hypothesim.
Igitur etBG,BL,BK,BA continuae proportionales erunt, quod fuit demon-
strandum.
40 Est autem inventio Archytae Tarentini, ut refert Eudemus et Eutotius;
ingeniosa quidem et tali viro digna speculatio, cuius praxis etsi difficilis
sit, facillime tamen demonstratur.
Propositio XXXIII.
ESSE ALIQUEM CUBUM QUI AD DATUM CUBUM DATAM
HABEAT RATIONEM.
Sit data ratio quae magnitudinis A ad magnitudinem B, datus cubus
S lineae C [Fig. III.5A.26]. Erit iam per quintam huius sicut A ad B, sic
linea C ad aliquam lineam quae sic (! sit) D. Itaque ipsis C, D, per
quamvis sex (! septem) praecedentium, interiacebunt duae mediae pro-
portionales, quae sint E, F. Eritque per 36
am
undecimi Euclidis sicut C
ad D, hoc est sicut A ad B, sic cubus C ad cubum E. Igitur cubus
10 datus C ad cubum E datam habet rationem quae A ad B, quod est
propositum.
Propositio XXXIV
SIMILES CYLINDRI SUNT CUBIS QUI EX BASIUM DIAMETRIS
PROPORTIONALES.
Sunto similes cylindriXAIB etZCKD [Fig. III.5A.27], quorum basium
S diametri AB, CD, sitque sicut cylindricus XAIB ad cylindrumZCKD, sic
cubus AB ad cubum lineae EF per praecedentem.
Nam secus erit aut maior aut minor. Si linea EF maior est quam linea
CD, intelligatur circulus ELF concentricus circulo CKD, et inscribatur
10 circulo ELF figura multiangula ENF minime tangens circulum CKD per
Barn duodecimi Euclidis. Et ei similis figura AMB inscribatur circulo AlB,
et super tales figuras erigantur lateratae columnae QENF et XAMB ipsis
iam cylindricis QELF, XAlB similibus inscriptae; eritque per octavam
12
i
Euclidis sicut cubus AB ad cubum EF, sic columna XAMB ad
15 columnam QENF, quandoquidem similes sunt columnae sicut et cylindri;
quare sicut columna XAMB ad columnam QENF, sic cylindrus KAlB
ad cylindrum ZGKD (! ZCKD) et permutatim, sicut columna XAMB
20 ad cylindrumXAlB, sic columna QENF ad / cylindrumZCKD; sed maior
est cylindrus XAlB quam columna XAMB inscripta per quintum postula-
20 turn; ergo et cylindrus ZCKD est maior quam columna QENF, quod est
impossibile per dictum postulatum. Non est ergo maior linea EF quam
linea CD.
Si autem minor, tunc conversim erit sicut cylindricus ZCKD ad
cylindrum XAlB, sicut cubus EF ad cubum AB; sit ergo sicut cubus EF
25 ad cubum AB, sic cubus CD ad cubum GH, per praecedentem; eritque
sicut cubus CD ad cubum GH, sic cylindrus ZCKD ad cylindrum
XAIB; et quoniam CD maior est quam EF, ideo per 8
arn
12
i
et 14
arn
quinti
erit GH maior quam AB. Unde sequitur idem impossibile, ut scilicet
cylindri primi ad cylindrom secundum ratio sit sicut columna diametri
30 primae basis ad columnam lineae maioris diametro secundae basis. Non
est ergo minor linea EF quam linea CD. Sed nec maior fuit; aequalis
ergo. Et hoc fuit demonstrandum.
Propositio XXXV.
SIMILES CONI SUNT CUBIS QUI EX BASIUM DIAMETRIS
PROPORTIONALES.
Omnino eadem demonstratio, si pro columnis pyramides lateratas conis
5 includas et iisdem argumentationibus utaris.
Propositio XXXVI.
SIMILES CONI-COLURI SUNT CUBIS QUI EX CORRELATI-
VARUM BASIUM DIAMETRIS FIUNT PROPORTIONALES.
Nam similes coni-coluri sunt similium conorum similiter factae por-
5 tiones, sed per praecedentem integri coni sunt cubis qui ex basium
diametris proportionales, et abscissi coni sunt cubis qui ex basium
sectricium diametris fiunt proportionales; sed hi cubi sunt illis propor-
tionales, quoniam basium harum diametri basium illarum diametris sunt
proportionales propter similitudinem portionum. Igitur abscissi coni sunt
10 integris conis proportionales. Quare per 19
arn
quinti et relictae portiones,
qui sunt ipsi coni-coluri, sunt tarn abscissis quam integris conis, et ideo
correlativarum basium cubis proportionales, quod fuit ostendendum.
Propositio XXXVII.
SIMILIA SOLIDA TORNATILIA, HOC EST, A DIMIDIIS SIMILIUM
PLANARUM MULTIANGULARUM FIGURARUM SUPER FIXAS
MAUROLICO'S PRAEPARATlO AD ARCHlMEDlS OPERA 831
DIAMETROS SEMEL CIRCUMDUCTIS DESCRIPTA, SUNT CUBIS
5 IPSARUM DIAMETRORUM PROPORTIONALIA.
Namque huiusmodi solida compacta sunt ex similibus numeroque
aequalibus conis, Inter quos bini et bini qui sunt ad extrema diametrorum
sunt peIfecti, caeteri vero coluri-coni, inter quos tamen sunt quandoque
bini cylindri; verum per 34
am
, 35
am
, et 36
am
praecedentes tales coni, cor-
10 relativos correlativis comparando, sunt cubis qui ex diametris correla-
tivarum basium fiunt diametris proportionales; hi autem cubi sunt cubis
diametrorum super quas dimidia figurarum circumducuntur propor-
tionales, quandoquidem diametri diametris proportionales sunt propter
similitudinem figurarum. Igitur per Barn quinti elementorum et aggregata
21 15 omnium conorum, hoc est ipsa / solida tornatilia integra erunt cubis
earundem diametrorum proportionalia, quod fuit demonstrandum.
Propositio XXXVIII.
SPHAERAE SUNT CUBIS DIAMETRORUM PROPORTIONALES.
Sint duae sphaerae AlB et CKD [Fig. III.5A.28], quarum diametri AB,
CD; sitque per 33
am
huius sicut sphaeraAlB ad sphaeram CKD, sic cubus
5 AB ad cubum alicuius lineae EF.
Nam secus erit aut maior aut minor. Si linea EF maior sit quam linea
CD, intelligatur sphaera ELF concentrica sphaerae CKD; et per Barn 12
i
Euclidis et per figuram planam multiangulam inscribatur sphaerae ELF
10 solidum tornatile ENF cuius superficies minime tangat sphaeram CKD;
et ei simile solidum AMB inscribatur sphaerae AlB; eritque per prae-
cedentem sicut cubus AB ad cubum EF, sic solidum tornatile AMB ad
solidum tomatile ENF; quare sicut solidum AMB ad solidum ENF, sic
sphaera AlB ad sphaeram CKD: et permutatim, sicut solidum AMB ad
15 sphaeram AlB, sic solidum ENF ad sphaeram CKD. Sed maior sphaera
AlB solido AMB per quintum postulatum; ergo et sphaera CKD maior
solido ENF, quod est impossibile per dictum postulatum. Non ergo est
maior linea EF diametro CD.
Si autem minor, tunc conversim erit sicut sphaera CKD ad sphaeram
20 AlB, sic cubus EF ad cubumAB. Sit ergo per 33
am
huius ~ u t cubus EF
ad cubum AB, sic cubus CD ad cubum GH; eritque sicut cubus CD ad
cubum GH, sic sphaera CKD ad sphaeram AlB. Et quoniam CD est
maior quam EF, ideo per praemissam et 14
am
quinti GH maior erit quam
AB. Unde sequitur idem impossibile, ut scilicet sphaerae primae ad
2S sphaeram secundam ratio sit sicut solidum inscriptum primae ad solidum
lineae maioris secunda diametro. Non est ergo minor linea EF diametro
CD; sed nee maior fuit: aequalis ergo, quod fuit demonstrandum.
Propositio XXXXIX (! XXXIX).
SIMILES SPHAERALES CUNEI SUNT CUBIS DIAMETRORUM
PROPORTIONALES.
Sphaeralem cuneum intelligo corpus sub conica superficie verticem in
L- -
..
5 centro sphaerae habente et sub assumpta sphaerica superficie com-
prehensum, quod quidem componitur ex cono et sphaerica portione com-
munem basim circulum qui sphaeram per inaequalia secat. De-
monstratur autem haec non aliter quam praemissa, hoc excepto, quod
pro totalibus sphaeris cunei sphaerales similes capiantur, et pro
10 tornatilibus solidis tomatiles cunei capiantur. Componitur autem
tornatilis cuneus ex cono supradicto cunei sphaeralis et portione
tornatilis solidi cadente intra sphaericam portionem. Nam huiusmodi
22 tornatiles cunei similes sunt, quandoquidem / intra similes sphaerales
cuneos cadunt; et ideo per antepraemissam sunt cubis diametrorum
15 sphaeralium proportionales. Atque etiam cubis dictarum basium
diametrorum, quippe quae sphaeralibus diametris sint proportionales
propter portionum similitudinem.
Propositio XL.
SIMILES SPHAERICAE PORTIONES SUNT CUBIS DIAME-
TRORUM PROPORTIONALES.
Nam cum sphaerica portio (per definitionem in praemissa assignatam)
5 sit relictum solidum post coni a sphaerali cuneo abscissionem, atque per
praecedentem tales cunei, per 35
am
aut tales coni (quia similes), sint
diametrorum basium et etiam sphaerarum cubis proportionales; hoc est,
cum tota sint abscissis proportionalia, erunt et relicta totis proportionalia,
hoc est, sphaericae portiones dictarum diametrorum cubis proportionales,
10 quod proponitur demonstrandum.
Cum igitur similes sphaericae portiones hemisphaeris minores sint
diametrorum cubis proportionales, erunt et relictae sphaericae portiones
hemisphaeriis maiores iisdem cubis proportionales.
Propositio XLI.
CUILIBET DATO SOLIDO ALIQUAM SPHAERAM ESSE
AEQUALEM.
Esto quodvis datum solidum A [Fig. III.5A.29], exponatur quaelibet
S linea BD, super quam diametrum sphaera BED intelligatur. Aut igitur
sphaera BED aequalis erit solido A aut minime. Si aequalis, constat
propositum. Sin vero, tunc sicut est sphaera BED ad solidum A, sic sit
cubus lineae BD ad cubum lineae CF per 33
am
huius; eritque per 35
am
(! 38
am
) huius sicut cubus BD ad cubum CF, sic sphaera BED ad
10 sphaeram CGF; itaque eandem rationem cum habeat sphaera BED ad
solidum A quam et ad sphaeram CGF, aequalis erit iam sphaera CGF
solido A. Rursum ergo constat propositum.
Propositio XLII.
DATIS DUOBUS QUIBUSCUNQUE SOLIDIS ESSE ALIQUOD
SOLIDUM UNI EORUM SIMILE ET ALTERI AEQUALE.
Esto, exempli gratia, solidum quodlibet A [Fig. III.5A.30], et conus
S BED super basim cuius diameter BD.
MAUROLICQ'S PRAEPARATIO AD ARCHIMEDIS OPERA 833
Demonstrabo iam conum aliquem esse cono BED similem et solido
dato A aequalem.
Sit enim per 33
am
huius, sicut conus BED ad solidum A, sic cubus
lineae BD ad cubum lineae cuiuspiam CF, et super circulum CF conus
10 CGF erigatur similis cono BED; eritque per 35
am
huius conus BED ad
23 conum CGF, sicut cubus BD ad cubum CF, et I ideo sicut conus BED ad
solidum A; eandem ergo rationem cum habeat conus BED ad solidum A
quam et ad conum CGF, aequalis erit iam conus COF solido A. Constat
igitur propositum.
15 Quod si super basim cuius diameter BD cylindrus supponatur, similiter
et per 30
am
(! 33
am
) et 33
am
(! 34
am
) huius cylindrum GCF similem
cylindro EBD et aequalem solido A esse demonstrabimus. Idem quoque
per 33
am
et 36
am
pro conis-coluris, per 37
am
pro tomatilibus solidis, per 39
am
pro sphaeralibus cuneis, per 40
am
pro sphaericis portionibus efficiemus.
20 Non aliter de cubis, aut prismatibus, aut pyramidibus, aut parallelepipedis,
aut polyhedris regularibus, sive irregularibus solidis propositum constabit,
quandoquidem ut in Elementorum 12 ostensum est, similia solida semper
sunt cubis correlativorum laterum proportionalia.
Propositio XLIII.
CIRCULUS AEQUALIS EST El QUOD PRODUCITUR EX
SEMIDIAMETRO IN SEMIPERIPHERIAM.
Sit circulusAGH [Fig. III.5A.31], cuius semidiameterAB, superficies
5 autem C sit id quod fit ex semidiametro AB in semiperipheriam circuli
AHG.
Demonstrandum est quod circulus AHG aequalis est superficiei C.
Nam per 14
arn
huius erit circulus quispiam aequalis superficiei C; sit
ergo circulus DIK, cuius semidiameter BD, aequalis superficiei C; et
10 ostendendum erit quod BD linea aequalis erit ipsi BA. Nam secus erit
utravis maior; et circulus DIK describatur concentricus circulo AGH;
et per 12
arn
12
i
Euclidis intra maiorem horum circulorum describatur
figura multiangula circulum minorem minime tangens, fietque per 1am sexti
Euclidis ut superficies talis figurae inscriptae sit aequalis ei quod fit ex
15 aliqua linea inter ipsas AB, BD, quae sit BE, in ELM semiperimetrum
ipsius figurae; quod productum sitF; itaque si AB sit maior quamBD, erit
tunc BE minor quam AB linea; et proinde superficies C maior superficie
F; igitur tunc circulus DIK (qui aequalis figurae C positus fuit) maior erit
figura F seu ELM, quod est impossibile per tertium postulatum.
20 Si autem AB sit minor quam BD, tunc BE maior erit quam AB linea;
quare superficies F maior tunc est superficie C; et idcirco figura F seu
ELM erit maior spatio C seu circulo DIK intra quem inscribitur, quod
est impossibile per dictum postulatum. Cum ergo linea BD neque minor
neque maior possit esse quam linea AB, erit aequalis, quod erat
25 demonstrandum.
Similiter autem ostendemus quod superficies cylindrica aequalis est ei
24 quod fit I ex latere cylindrico in peripheriam basis. Idque per columnam
inscriptam maiori cylindro, ita ut minorem non tangat. Item quod
-
superficies conica aequalis est ei quod fit ex latere conico in semi-
30 peripheriam basis. Idque per pyramidem inscriptam maiori cono, ita ut
minorem similem vel sub eodem axe positum non tangat.
Propositio XLIV.
IN DUOBUS CIRCULIS INAEQUALIBUS, ID QUOD FIT EX
DIAMETRO MAIORIS IN PERIPHERIAM MINORIS AEQUALE
EST El QUOD FIT EX DIAMETRO MINORIS IN PERIPHERIAM
5 MAIORIS. IDEMQUE DE SEMIDIAMETRIS ET SEMIPERIPHERIIS
EST DICENDUM.
Sunto duo circuli inaequales AGE et BHF [Fig. III.5A.32], quorum
diametri AE et BF, et peripheriae earum aequales sint lineis C, D, hoc
est, ut per 15
am
huius linea C sit aequalis peripheriae circuli AGE et
10 linea D aequalis peripheriae circuli BHF.
Demonstrandum ergo est quod rectangulum AED aequale est rectangulo
BFC.
Nam cum per 8
am
huius sicut est AE ad BF, sic sit C ad D, iam per gam
sexti Elementorum Euclidis constat prima propositi pars. Quod si AI et
15 BL supponantur semidiametri, iam per eandein 8
am
lineae C et D tunc
erunt semiperipheriae. Unde constabit quod superat demonstrandum.
Propositio XLV.
IN TRIBUS CIRCULIS QUORUM DIAMETRI SUNT IN PROPOR-
TIONE CONTINUA, ID QUOD FIT EX DIAMETRO PRIMI IN
PERIPHERIAM POSTREMI AEQUALE EST El QUOD FIT EX
5 DIAMETRO MEDII IN PERIPHERIAM SUAM. IDEMQUE DE
SEMIDIAMETRIS ET SEMIPERIPHERIIS DICENDUM.
Intersit enim per sextam huius ipsis AG et BL diametris proportionalis
linea El [Fig. III.5A.33], eritque per octavam huius F peripheria circuli
cuius diameter El media proportionalis inter C et D peripherias,
10 quandoquidem peripheriae sunt diametris proportionales.
Et demonstrandum erit quod rectangulumAGD, sive rectangulumBLC
(aequalia enim sunt per praecedentem), aequale est rectangulo ElF.
Nam cum AG ad El sit sicut F ad D, iam per 15
am
sexti Euclidis
constat prima propositi pars. Et reliqua similiter; nam si AN, EO, et BR
15 lineae supponantur semidiametri, erunt per 8
am
huius ipsae C, F, D semi-
peripheriae. Constat ergo propositum.
25 / Propositio XLVI.
IN TRIBUS CIRCULIS QUORUM SEMIDIAMETRI CONTINUAE
PROPORTIONALES, QUOD FIT EX SEMIDIAMETRO PRIMI IN
SEMIPERIPHERIAM POSTREMI AEQUALE EST CIRCULO MEDIO.
s IDEMQUE DICENDUM, SI IN PRIMO ET POSTREMO INTEGRAE
DIAMETRI ET INTEGRAE PERIPHERIAE LINEAE IPSAE
APPELLENTUR.
Namque cum per praecedentem, in eadem descriptione, tarn
rectangulum AND quam rectangulum BRC aequale sit rectangulo EOF,
10 quod scilicet fit ex EO semidiametro in suam peripheriam F, quodque
per 43
am
praecedentem aequale est ipsi circulo cuius semidiameter EO,
iam et ipse circulus cuius semidiameter EO, aequalis erit tarn rectangulo
AND quam rectangulo BRC; quorum videlicet utrumvis fit ex semi-
diametro alterius extremorum in semiperipheriam reliqui, sive maius ex
15 diametro tota in peripheriam totam iuxta suppositionem. Constat ergo
id quod proponitur demonstrandum.
Expletum Thermis hora noctis prima diei Iovis in extremo carnisprivio,
qui fuit mensis Februarii tredecimus VIII. Ind. MDL.
Prolegomena to the Works of Archimedes
by Francesco Maurolico
Proem
Archimedes of Syracuse was a most acute geometer, a very outstanding
engineer, a most famous observer of the stars. When Marcellus
besieged Syracuse, he [Archimedes] long defended his native land with
his ingeniously contrived machines. For, as Livy says,l by catapulting
rocks, by seizing the masts of hostile ships in an iron grapnel, by hurling
bolts through slits in the walls made for this, he shook the enemy equally
with wonder and terror. This same man, by himself, and with machines
grasped in his hand alone, drew along a ship of unusual size built by
King Hieron, as Moschion reports at length.
2
He [Archimedes] built a
[planetary] sphere in which all the motions of the stars were to be
represented; the Epigramma of Claudianus speaks of this.
3
By an
ingenious and marvelous device, he [Archimedes] proved as faulty a
golden crown dedicated by the said king to the gods but corrupted by
artifice, as Vitruvius reports.
4
But not all of his discoveries-mechanical
as well as geometrical-have been reported in books. Finally after three
years, with Syracuse taken, this most illustrious philosopher was killed
by an ignorant soldier when Archimedes, intent upon geometrical
drawings that had been described in sand and asked [by the soldier] who
he was, delayed in giving his name and implored the soldier not to disturb
his lines [in the sand]. [And thus killed] he besmirched his drawing with
his own blood. So this famous man, whom the Roman general especially
had wished unharmed and had ordered protected, gained his death as well
as his well-being through his genius and art. Nor was the general's
generosity toward the relatives of the slain man lacking, inasmuch as he
Proem
1 Ab urbe cond. libri, XXIV, Cap. 34.
2 Quoted by Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae, V, 206d, 207a-b.
3 Carmina minora, Poem 51.
4 De re architectura, IX, pref. 9-12.
adorned them with his protection, as Livy, Valerius, and other historians
have recorded." But our intention is to commemorate the [literary]
monuments of this great philosopher by which he has commended his
name to immortality and of which there has been scant mention by the
historians.
And so the first in order of his works is TOU KVKAOV ILETpTJU"lS,
i.e., The Measurement of the Circle, in which he demonstrates that a
circle is equal to the right triangle one of whose sides about the right
angle is equal to the radius of the circle and the other to the circumference.
In the second place is to be put the work rrepL mpaipm KaL KVAivBpov,
Le., On the Sphere and the Cylinder, [addressed] to Dositheus, in which
he demonstrates that the surface of a sphere is quadruple its maximum
circle and that a cylinder of the same width and axis as the sphere is 3/2
the sphere; and he demonstrates [there] other things concerning segments
of a sphere. From this [work] it has been seen that Archimedes gained
for himself so much glory (as he was the first of all to have demonstrated
this important matter in geometry) that a sphere and a cylinder were
ordered engraved on his tomb. Cicero mentions that this tomb was found
by him among thickets while he was traveling in Sicily. Third in order
we place the work rrepL lU"OPPO'1T'/'KWV, i.e., On Things Weighing Equally
(=On the Equilibrium ofPlanes), in which he presents the rule for finding
the centers of gravity of rectilinear, plane figures. It is remarkable that he
omitted in this book the centers of solids. The fourth will be
(1) '1T'apa{3oA:ijr;, i.e., The Quadrature of the Parabola, where he
demonstrates that a parabola is 4/3 the rectilinear triangle of the same base
and altitude. In the demonstration he uses both the doctrine of On the
Equilibrium [of Planes] and geometrical argument. He writes this book to
Dositheus, making mention of the death of Conon, to whom he had previously
been accustomed to write. Both these men were versed in geometry and were
friends of Archimedes. In the fifth place follows the work rrepL EAiKWV
ypalLILWv, Le., On Spiral Lines, where he demonstrates that certain
straight lines tangent to the spiral are equal to the circumferences of
circles; .also that the spiral of first revolution is one-third part of its
circle; that the second spiral is to its circle as seven is to twelve, and
so on. For since the circles are in the proportion of the square numbers,
these spirals are in the proportion of regular hexagons. He also sent this
book to Dositheus, again making mention of Conon, who seized by death
had left them [Le. the propositions concerning the spiral] unexplained.
I put sixth in order the book '1T'epL KwvoetBEwv Kat U"cpatpoELBewv, Le.,
On Conoidal and Spheroidal Figures, which he also sent to the afore-
mentioned Dositheus. In it he demonstrates many things concerning the
mutual proportion of circles and ellipses; also that a parabolic solid is
3/2 its cone, and other [propositions] concerning the proportion of
both hyperbolic and spheroidal solids to their respective cones. Indeed
5 See below, Appendix Ill, notes 1-4.
these are most acute discoveries and are worthy of such genius. The
seventh is The Sandreckoner addressed to King Gelon. Its title offers
more to admire than the book itself does to ponder. There are many
things in it concerning the size of the earth and the celestial luminaries
for which blame must be imputed to the times [in which they were written]
rather than to the philosopher, since in that age such things were not
yet adequately perceived. Afterwards there is to be added the work
1rEp"i lU01rEPLf-tETPWV, i.e., On Figures of Equal Perimeter, which is
attributed by some to Archimedes and by others, more correctly, to Theon
of Alexandria.
6
In this work it has been demonstrated that the circle
is the most capacious of isoperimetric plane figures and the sphere of solid
[isoperimetric figures]. And finally the ninth-and not at all to be
excluded-is the 1rEP'i KaT01rTpWV KaVUTLKWV, Le., On Burning Mir-
rors, which some attribute to Archimedes and others, more correctly,
to Ptolemy.
7
In it he teaches that the concave form described by a
parabola is the one to be given to a mirror for it to be most effective
in burning, inasmuch as the parallel solar rays falling on it are reflected
to the same point. It is in this point where the most light is gathered that
the heat is most potent for burning fuel placed there. Eutocius of Ascalon
wrote commentaries on the works On the Measurement of the Circle,
On the Sphere and the Cylinder and On Things Weighing Equally (=On
the Equilibrium of Planes), where he has intermingled many things which
have more obscurity than either pleasure or utility and nothing relevant
for understanding the author [i.e. Archimedes].
When I had seen all of these works, I was forced to add many lemmas
for their easier understanding, to demonstrate many things omitted by
Archimedes, e.g., in the matter of equal moments, to treat of the centers
of gravity of solids, a topic which he omitted. In the work On the
Sphere and the Cylinder I have used an easier way [than Archimedes'].
Lest anyone judge that I have postulated in it principles that are not to
be conceded when I suppose that to any surface there exists some equal
spherical or conical surface or some surface of a spherical segment- or
an equal conical or cylindrical surface of a given altitude, we shall
demonstrate these principles here [in the Praeparatio].
8
In addition [we
shall demonstrate] that with two surfaces given, there exists a surface
similar to one of the given [surfaces] and equal to the other; and that with
two solids given there exists a solid similar to one of the given [solids] and
equal to the other. Since it is necessary for the demonstration of this
last proposition to find two mean proportionals, we shall treat this
problem out of the tradition of the old philosophers, as the above-
6 See above in this chapter, Sect. 11, notes 3-5.
7 Ibid., n. 6.
B In quoting this whole passage above in Section III of this chapter, I have added the
numbers of the propositions of the Praeparatio where Maurolico proves these basic
assumptions.
mentioned Eutocius wrote in his commentaries [On the Sphere and the
Cylinder]. But we shall premise [without demonstrations] those principles
which we have postulated [below] as being easily conceded.
Postulates
l
1. There exist two lines proportional to any two magnitudes of the
same kind.
2. The perimeter of a plane figure that circumscribes or includes a
plane figure is greater than the perimeter of the circumscribed or
included figure, so long as the figures are concave in the same direction.
3. A circumscribing or including figure is greater than the circumscribed
or included figure.
4. The surface of a solid figure that circumscribes or includes any
solid figure is greater than the surface of the inscribed or included
figure concave in the same direction.
5. A circumscribing or including solid figure is greater than the
circumscribed or included figure.
6. If two magnitudes are always at the same time greater or at the same
time less than another magnitude, they are equal to one another.
Proposition I. .
A CYLINDRICAL SURFACE IS GREATER THAN A COLUMNAR
SURFACE IT HAS CIRCUMSCRIBEDl OR INCLUDED.
For let there be taken one of the sides [i.e. faces] of the [prismatic]
column that has been circumscribed, the side having been erected on
straight lineAC [see Fig. III.5A.I] and [let there be taken] that part of the
cylindrical surface erected on arc ABC.
And so it is to be demonstrated that cylindrical surface ABC is greater
than plane surface AC, for with this shown it follows that the whole
cylindrical surface is greater than the whole columnar surface.
And so, if it is possible, let cylindrical surface ABC be less than plane
surfaceAC, so that with surfaceZ [added to it] it is equal to surfaceAC.
And if arc ABC is continually bisected until the portions [of the
cylindrical surface] remaining are less than Z, then at that point the
cylindrical surface ABC plus the remaining portions will be less than plane
surface AC, and a fortiori less than the plane surfaces erected on straight
lines AD, DB, BE and EC, which is against the fourth postulate. Therefore
cylindrical surface ABC is not less than plane surface AC. It will be
demonstrated in the same way that it is not equal to it. Therefore, it
remains that it is greater than it, as proposed.
Post.
I See Commentary to Text A, Postulates.
Prop. J
I See Corn., Prop. I, lines 2-3.
Proposition 11.
A CONICAL SURFACE IS GREATER THAN AN INSCRIBED
OR INCLUDED PYRAMIDAL SURFACE.
The same procedure and construction will serve for this proposition as
for the preceding one. Whence, if the cylindrical or conical surface
exceeds an inscribed columnar surface, even more does it exceed an
included surface which it does not touch, inasmuch as the inscribed
surface is greater than the [non-touching] included surface. Therefore,
the proposition is evident.
Proposition Ill.
A COLUMNAR SURFACE IS GREATER THAN AN INSCRIBED
OR INCLUDED CYLINDRICAL SURFACE.
Let the sides of a [prismatic] column be erected on lines AF and FC
[see Fig. III.5A.2}, and let a portion of the cylindrical surface be erected
on arc ABC and both surfaces are terminated by the lines of the cylinder
erected on points A and C. These lines are the contacts between the
plane surfaces erected on AF and FC and the cylindrical surface erected
on arc ARC.
And so it is to be demonstrated that plane surface AFC is greater than
cylindrical surface ARC, for with this shown it follows that the columnar
plane surface is greater than the whole cylindrical surface.
And so, if it is possible, let plane surface AFC be less than cylindrical
surface ARC. And if arc ARC is continually bisected and tangents to the
circle are continually drawn until the portions between the tangents and
the circumference are less than space Z by which cylindrical surface ARC
is posited as exceeding plane [surface] AFC, then a fortiori the same
cylindrical surface ABC will be greater than the plane surface erected on
AK, KL, LM, MN, NC plus the remaining portions; this is against the
fourth postulate. Therefore, plane surface AFC is not less than cylindrical
surface ARC. It will be demonstrated in the same way that it is not equal
[to it]. Therefore, it will be greater, which has been proposed.
Proposition IV.
A PYRAMIDAL SURFACE IS GREATER THAN AN INSCRIBED
OR INCLUDED CONICAL SURFACE.
This will be demonstrated by a procedure no different than [that used
for] the preceding proposition. Whence, if a columnar surface exceeds
both the inscribed cylindrical and pyramidal surfaces, even more will it
exceed an included surface [which it does not touch], inasmuch as the
inscribed surface exceeds the surface included in it.
Moreover, it ought to be noted that in a cylindrical surface the above-
mentioned remaining portions [or segments] in the preceding as well as in
the first [proposition] of this [work] are to be taken on each base where
the circumscribing surface has the same termini as the inscribed surface,
as the fourth postulate supposes. Therefore the proposition is evident.
Proposition V.
THERE EXISTS SOME LINE TO WHICH A GIVEN LINE HAS
A GIVEN RATIO.!
Let the given ratio be that of magnitude A to magnitude B [see Fig.
III.5A.3], and let the given line be C; and so by the first postulate there
will exist lines proportional to magnitudes A and B, which lines we let
be D and E, so that AIB = DIE. By VI.lO of Euclid
2
let DIE = CIF.
Hence, CIF = AIR. Q.E.D.
Proposition VI.
THERE EXISTS SOME MEAN PROPORTIONAL BETWEEN ANY
TWO LINES.
So that if we let the given straight lines AB andBC [see Fig. III.5AA] be
joined as a straight line and if we describe on the whole AC a semicircle
and erect perpendicular BD up to the circumference, then by VI.9 of
Euclid! BD will be the mean proportional between these [lines] AB and
BC. Therefore the proposition is evident.
Proposition VII.
THERE EXISTS SOME SQUARE TO WHICH A GIVEN SQUARE
MAY BAVE A GIVEN RATIO.
III.5A.5], and let the given square be that of line C. Now by the fifth
proposition C will to some line, say D, as A is to B. So, by the preceding
[proposition] there will be a mean proportional E between lines C and D.
And so CID = AIB = C
2
1E
2
, inasmuch as CID = (CIE)2. Therefore the
proposition is evident.
Proposition VIII.
THE CIRCUMFERENCES OF CIRCLES ARE PROPORTIONAL
TO THEIR DIAMETERS.!
Let the circles be AIB and CKD with diameters [respectively] AB and
CD [see Fig. III.5A.6]. And let circum. AIBlcircum. CKD = diam.
ABlline EF, by [Proposition] V of this [work].
Prop. V
1 See Corn., Prop. V, lines 2-3.
2 Ibid., line 7.
Prop. VI
1 See Corn., Prop. VI, line 6.
Prop. VIII
1 See Corn., Prop. VIII, lines 2-3.
MAUROLICO'S PRAEPARATIO AD ARCBIMEDIS OPERA 841
Now it is to be demonstrated that line EF will be equal to line CD.
For if line EF > line CD, let there be imagined circle ELF concentric
with circle CKD, and let there be inscribed in circle ELF a regular
polygon ENF that does not at all touch circle CKD, by XII.13 of
Euclid's Elements.
2
And let a similar figure AMB be inscribed in circle
AIB. And line AB/line EF = perim. fig. AMBlperim. fig. ENF = circum.
AIBlcircum. CKD. Therefore, alternately, perim. AMBlcircum. AIB
= perim. ENF/circum. CKD. But by the second postulate circum. AIB
> perim. AMB. Therefore circum. CKD > perim. ENF, i.e., the included
is greater than the including, which is contrary to the said postulate.
Therefore line EF ';f line CD.
But if it is less, then, inversely, circum. CKD/circum. AIB = line
EFlline AB. And so let line EFlline AB = line CDlline GB, by [proposi-
tion] V of this [work]. And line CDlline GB = circum. CKD/circum.
AIB. And, by V.14 [of Euclid], since CD > EF, so also GB > AB.
Whence the same impossibility follows as before, namely that the ratio of
the first circumference to the second circumference is as the first diameter
to a line greater than the second diameter. Therefore line EF <f.. line CD.
But neither was it greater. Therefore it will be equal. Q.E.D.
Proposition IX.
SIMILAR ARCS OF CIRCLES ARE PROPORTIONAL TO THEIR
CHORDS AND ALSO TO THEIR DIAMETERS.
For by definition similar arcs assume equal angles both at the center
and in the arcs. And hence by the last [proposition] of [Book] VI of
Euclid they are proportional to the whole circumferences of the circles.
But by the preceding [proposition] the circumferences are proportional
to the diameters; therefore similar arcs are also in the same way propor-
tional to their diameters. Hence by the similarity of triangles, they are
proportional to their chords. Q.E.D.
Proposition X.
CIRCLES ARE PROPORTIONAL TO THE SQUARES OF THEIR
DIAMETERS.
1
Let the circles be AIB and CKD with diameters AB and CD [see
Fig. III.5A.7]; and let circleAIBlcircle CKD = AB2/EF2, by [Proposition]
VII of this [work].
Now it will have to be demonstrated that line EF is equal to line CD.
For otherwise it is either greater or less. If line EF > line CD, then
let the same construction be made as in Proposition VIII. And AB
2
1EF2
= fig. AMBlfig. ENF = circle AIBlcircle CKD. And therefore, alter-
2 Ibid., line 10.
Prop. X
1 See Corn., Prop. X, lines 1-25.
nately, fig. AMB/circle AIB = fig. ENF/circle CKD. But by the third
postulate circle AIB > fig. AMB. Therefore, circle CKD > fig. ENF,
which is impossible by the said postulate. Therefore line EF 1- line CD.
But if it is less, then, inversely, circle CKD/circle AIB = EF2/AB2.
Therefore, by [proposition] VII let EF2/AB2 = CD2/GH2, and CD2/GH2
= circle CKD/circle AIB. And since CD > EF, so by V.14 [of Euclid]
GB > AB. Whence follows the same impossibility,2 namely that the ratio
of the first circle to the second circle is as the square of the first diameter
to the square of a line greater than the second diameter. Therefore line
EF <f. line CD. But neither was it more; therefore it is equal. Q.E.D.
Proposition XI.
SIMILAR SECTORS AS WELL AS SIMILAR SEGMENTS OF
CIRCLES ARE PROPORTIONAL TO THE SQUARES OF THEIR
DIAMETERS.
By the last [proposition] of [Book] VI of Euclid, similar sectors are
proportional to their whole circles. Wherefore by the preceding [proposi-
tion] they are also proportional to the squares of their diameters. Also,
the triangles in sectors of this sort that are on the chords of the segments
and with vertices at the center are also proportional to the said squares.
Hence, since the magnitudes which are subtracted, namely the triangles,
are proportional to the wholes, namely the sectors, therefore by V.19 of
the Elements the remainders, namely the segments, will also be propor-
tional to the wholes [and hence to the squares of the diameters]. Q.E.D.
Proposition XII.
THE SURFACES OF SIMILAR CYLINDERS ARE PROPOR-
TIONAL TO THE SQUARES OF THE DIAMETERS OF THEIR
BASES.!
Let the construction be as in [proposition] X above, and let similar
cylinders be imagined as erected on circles AB, CD, EF and GH
[see Fig. III.5A.8] and columns be imagined as erected on regular
polygons AB, CD, EF and GH and of the same altitudes as the cylinders.
And in place of the circles [used in the demonstration of Proposition
X], let the cylindrical surfaces whose bases are the circles be assumed
[here]; in place of the polygons inscribed in the circles [in Proposition X],
let the lateral surfaces of the columns whose bases are the polygons be
assumed [here]; and in place of the third postulate [used in Proposition X],
let [proposition] I of this [work] be cited [here]. And [with these substitu-
tions made] let the same procedure be retained in this demonstration [as
in Proposition X].
2 Ibid., lines 21-23.
Prop. XII
1 See Corn., Prop. XII, lines 2-11.
Proposition XIII.
THE SURFACES OF SIMILAR CONES ARE PROPORTIONAL
TO THE SQUARES OF THE DIAMETERS OF THEIR BASES.l
Let the construction be as in [proposition] X above. And let similar
cones be imagined as erected on circles AB, CD, EF and GH [see
Fig. III.5A.9] and also as many pyramids inscribed in the cones and of the
same altitudes as the cones. And in place of the circles [in Proposition X],
let the conical surfaces whose bases are the circles be assumed [here]; in
place of the polygons inscribed in the circles [in Proposition X], let the
lateral surfaces of the pyramids whose bases are the polygons be assumed
[here]; and for the third postulate [used in Proposition X], let [Proposition]
II of this [work] be cited [here]. For the argument of this demonstration
is completely the same [as in Proposition X].
Proposition XIV.
THERE EXISTS SOME CIRCLE EQUAL TO ANY GIVEN
SURFACE.l
Let A be any given surface [see Fig. III.5A.1O]; and let circle BED be
described on whatever line BD, which circle will either be equal to surface
A or not equal to it. If it is equal to it, then the proposition is immediately
evident. But if not, then by [proposition] VII of this [work] circle BED/
surface A = BD2/CF2. And by [proposition] X of this [work] BD2/CF2
= circle BED/circle CGF; and since circle BED/circle CGP = circle
BED/surface A, therefore by V.9 [of Euclid] circle CGP = surface A.
Therefore the proposition is again evident.
Proposition XV.
THERE EXISTS A CIRCUMFERENCE OF SOME CIRCLE
EQUAL TO ANY GIVEN LINE.
Let A be any given line [see Fig. III.5A.II], and let circle BED be
described on any line BD. If its circumference is equal to line A, then the
proposition is evident. But if not, then by [proposition] V of this [work]
circum. BED/line A = diameter BD/line CF. And by [Proposition] VIII
of this [work], diameter BD/diameter CF = circum. BED/circum. CGP.
Therefore, since circumference BFD has the same ratio to circumference
CGF as it has to line A, by V.9 [of Euclid] circumference CGF will be
equal to line A. Again the proposition will be clear.
From these [considerations in Propositions XIV and XV], it is manifest
that a given circle is equal to some rectilinear figure and also that the
circumference of a given circle is equal to some straight line.
Prop. XIII
1 See Corn., Prop. XIII, lines 2-10.
Prop. XIV
1 See Corn" Prop. XIV, lines 2-3.
For these things are demonstrated in the same way with only the
assumption changed, i.e., let the circle be supposed in place of the
surface [to demonstrate the converse of Proposition XIV] and the
circumference of the circle in place of the given line [to demonstrate the
converse of Proposition XV].
[(Ed. 1685 in re Prop. XVI) Maurolico calls the segment of a cone cut
off by a plane parallel to the base and comprised between the aforesaid
planes a truncated cone.]1
Proposition XVI.
THE CURVED [I.E. LATERAL] SURFACES OF SIMILAR
TRUNCATED CONES ARE PROPORTIONAL TO THE SQUARES
OF THE DIAMETERS OF THEIR CORRESPONDING BASES.
For since truncated cones are segments of cones, similar truncated
cones will be segments of similarly constructed cones. But by [Proposi-
tion] XIII of this [work], the surfaces of the cones cut off [at the top], since
they are similar, are proportional to the squares of the diameters of their
bases; and the surfaces of the whole similar cones are proportional to
the squares of the diameters of their bases and hence are proportional
to the surfaces of the cones cut off [at the top], inasmuch as the
diameters of the bases [of the whole cones] are proportional to the
diameters of the bases [of the cut-off cones]. Therefore by V.19 [of Euclid]
the surfaces of the truncated cones which remain [after the top cones are
cut off from the whole cones] will be proportional to the squares of the
said corresponding diameters. Q.E.D.
Proposition XVII.
THE SURFACES OF THE SIMILAR SOLIDS DESCRIBED BY
THE COMPLETE ROTATION OF SIMILAR SEMIPOLYGONS
ABOUT THEIR FIXED DIAMETERS ARE PROPORTIONAL TO
THE SQUARES OF THEIR DIAMETERS.
For the surfaces of such solids are composed out of an equivalent
number of similar conical surfaces. Among these the pairs at the ends of
the diameters are of whole cones, while the others are of truncated
cones, [except that if the rotated semipolygons have an odd number of
sides] a pair of the latter surfaces will be cylindrical. 1But by [Propositions]
XII, XIII and XVI above such corresponding surfaces correspondingly
compared one to the other are as the squares of the diameters of their
corresponding bases. But these latter squares are proportional to the
squares of the diameters about which the semipolygons are rotated.
Prop. xv
I See Corn., Prop. XV, lines 17-18.
Prop. XVII
I See Corn., Prop. XVII, line 9.
Therefore by conjunct proportion used as often as necessary the whole
surfaces of the solids will be proportional to the squares of the said
diameters. Q.E.D.
Proposition XVIII.
THE SURFACES OF SPHERES ARE PROPORTIONAL TO THE
SQUARES OF THEIR DIAMETERS.!
Let AIB and CKD be two spheres with diameters AB and CD [see
Fig. 1II.5A.12]. And by [proposition] VII of this [work] let spher. surf.
AlBlspher. surf. CKD = AB
2
IEF2.
And it will have to be demonstrated that line EF = line CD.
For, if it is possible, let line EF be greater than line CD. And about
diameter EF let sphere ELF be imagined concentric with sphere CKD,
and within sphere ELF let there be a solid of rotation ENF composed of
conical surfaces that do not touch sphere CKD at all, and a solid AMB
similar to this in sphere AlB. By the preceding [proposition] surf. solid
AMB/surf. solid ENF = AB2/EF2. Therefore, surf. solid AMB/surf. solid
ENF = surf. sphere AlBlsurf. sphere CKD. Alternately, surf. solid
AMBlsurf. sphere AlB = surf. solid ENFlsurf. sphere CKD. But by the
fourth postulate, surf. sphere AIB > surf. solid AMB. Therefore, surf.
sphere CKD > surf. solid ENF, which is impossible by the said postulate.
Therefore line EF 1> line CD.
But if it is less, then, inversely, surf. sphere CKDlsurf. sphere AlB
= EF
2
IAB2. Hence by [Proposition] VII of this [work] EF
2
1AB2 = CD
2
1
GH
2
And so surf. sphere CKDlsurf. sphere AlB = CD2/GH2. And since
CD > EF, so by V.14 [of Euclid] GB > AB. Whence the same im-
possibility follows as before, namely that the ratio of the first spherical
surface to the second spherical surface is as the ratio of the square of the
first diameter to the square of a diameter greater than the second
diameter.
2
Therefore line EF 4:. CD. But neither was it greater; therefore
it will be equal to it. Q.E.D.
Proposition XIX.
THE SURFACES OF SIMILAR SPHERICAL SEGMENTS ARE
PROPORTIONAL TO THE SQUARES OF THEIR DIAMETERS.
The same demonstration will serve for this proposition as for the
preceding one, with this exception: in place of the surfaces of the whole
sphere [used in Proposition XVIII] let the surfaces of the segments be
taken [here], and instead of the surfaces of the whole solids of rotation
[used in Proposition XVIII] let the partial surfaces of those solids which
having been inscribed in similar segments of spheres are similar be taken
Prop. XVIII
1 See Corn., Prop. XVIII, lines 2-33.
[here]. Hence the proposition will be concluded, namely that the
surfaces of such segments will be proportional to the squares of the
diameters of their spheres and also to the squares of the diameters of the
circles on which the segments stand, inasmuch as the diameters of such
circles are proportional to the diameters of the spheres because of the
similarity [of the segments].!
Proposition XX.
THERE EXISTS A SURFACE OF SOME SPHERE EQUAL TO
ANY GIVEN SURFACE.!
Let A be any given surface [see Fig. 1II.5A.13]; and let sphere BED be
described on any line BD whose surface is either equal to surface A or is
not. If it is equal, the proposition is evident. But if otherwise, then by
[proposition] VII of this [work],2Iet surf. sphere BED/surf. A = BD2/CF2.
And by [Proposition] XVIII above, BD2/CF2 = surf. sphere BED/surf.
sphere CGF. Therefore spherical surface BED has the same ratio to
spherical surface CGF as it has to surface A. Therefore, by V.9 of the
Elements, spherical surface CGF = surface A. Hence again the proposi-
tion is evident. [(Ed. 1685 in re Fig. III.5A.13)] Notice that the spherical
figures ought to be drawn about diameters BD and CF. P
AND SIMILARLY IT WILL BE EVIDENT THAT THE SURFACE
OF ANY GIVEN SPHERE IS EQUAL TO SOME RECTILINEAR
FIGURE.
That is, with the sphere first given, [proceed] then to the rectilinear
figure described.
Proposition XXI.
WITH ANY TWO SURFACES GIVEN, THERE EXISTS SOME
SURFACE SIMILAR TO ONE OF THEM AND EQUAL TO THE
OTHER.!
This proposition is that much more general than [Propositions] XIV
and XX of this [work] as the surface [to which a given surface is to be
equal] is more general in kind than a circular or spherical surface.
Therefore, e.g., let A be any surface and let any segment of circle BED
[be constructed] on chord BD [see Fig. III.5A.14].
I shall show that there is some segment of a circle that is equal to
surface A and similar to segment BED.
Prop. XIX
1 See Corn., Prop. XIX, lines 2-12.
Prop. XX
1 See Corn., Prop. XX, lines 2-3.
2 Ibid., line 8.
Prop. XXI
1 See Corn., Prop. XXI, lines 2-4.
For by [Proposition] VII of this [work], let seg. BED/surf. A
= (chord BD)2/(line CF)2. And by III.31 of the Elements a segment of
circle CGF may be constructed on line CF which is similar to segment
BED. And since the chords of similar segments are proportional to the
diameters of the circles, hence the squares are proportional to the squares.
Then by [proposition] XI of this [work] similar segments of the circles
are proportional to the squares of their diameters. Therefore, BD2/CF2
= seg. BED/seg. COF. And so since segment BED has the same ratio
to segment COF and to surface A, by V.9 of the Elements segment COF
will be equal to surface A. But it was also similar to segment BED.
Therefore the proposition is evident.
In the case of any given figure taken together with the surface of any
other figure like a cylindrical or conical figure, we shall demonstrate in
the same way that there is some surface similar to the proposed figure and
equal to the given surface. But in place of [Proposition] XI, we shall use
[Propositions] XII, XIII or XVI of this [work].
Also in the case of a given surface and a solid of rotation, we shall prove
in the same way by [Proposition] XVII that there is some solid of rotation
whose surface is equal to the given surface and similar to the surface of
the proposed solid of rotation.
Proposition XXII.
THERE EXISTS SOME CYLINDRICAL SURFACE ABOUT A
GIVEN AXIS WHICH IS EQUAL TO ANY GIVEN SURFACE. 1
Let A be the given surface [see Fig. III.5A.15], BC the given axis
perpendicular to the plane in which indefinite [straight] line DE lies. Now
since about axis BC there can be constructed an infinitude of prismatic
columns whose individual lateral surfaces are less than surface A - and such
lateral surfaces are greater than the cylindrical surfaces inscribed in them
about the same axis by [Proposition] III of this [work], therefore an
infinitude of cylindrical surfaces can be constructed about axis BC whose
individual lateral surfaces are less than the given surface A. Also, since
about axis BC there can be constructed an infinitude of prismatic
columns whose individual lateral surfaces are greater than surface A -and
such surfaces are less than the cylindrical surfaces in which they are
inscribed by [proposition] I of this [work], therefore there is also an
infinitude of cylindrical surfaces which can be located about axis BC and
whose individual lateral surfaces are greater than surface A. And so there
will be some terminus in line DE inside of which the cylindrical surfaces
are individually less than surface A and outside of which they are greater
[than it]. Let such a terminus be point D; and by [Propositions] I and Ill,
whichever of the said cylindrical surfaces is inside terminus D is less than
Prop. XXII
1 See Corn., Prop. XXII, lines 2-3.
the cylindrical surface whose base radius is CD and whichever is outside
of terminus D is greater [than it]. And so since the given surface A and the
cylindrical smface with base radius CD and axis BC when compared with
every other surface inside and outside of point D are each at the same time
greater than the ones or at the same time less than the others, they will be
equal to each other by the last postulate.
2
Therefore the proposition
is evident.
Proposition XXIII.
THERE EXISTS SOME CONICAL SURFACE ABOUT A GIVEN
AXIS THAT IS EQUAL TO ANY GIVEN SURFACE.!
Let A be the given surface [see Fig. III.5A.16] and BC the given axis
perpendicular to the plane in which indefinite straight line DE lies. Now
since about axis BC there can be placed an infinitude of pyramids whose
lateral surfaces are individually less than surface A and such lateral
surfaces are greater than the conical surfaces about the same axis inscribed
in them by [proposition] IV of this [work], therefore an infinitude of
conical surfaces can be erected about axis BC whose individual lateral
surfaces are less than given surface A. Also, since about axis BC there
is an infinitude of pyramids whose individual lateral surfaces are greater
than surface A -and such surfaces are less than the conical surfaces in
which they are inscribed by [proposition] II of this [work], therefore there
is also an infinitude of conical surfaces around axisBC that are individually
greater than surface A. And so there will be some terminus in line DE
inside of which the conical surfaces are individually less than surface A
and outside of which they are greater [than it]. Let such a terminus be
point D; and by [propositions] II and IV whichever of the said conical
surfaces is inside of point D is less than the conical surface whose base
radius is CD and whichever is outside of point D is greater than it. And
so since the given surface A and the conical surface with base radius
CD and axis BC when compared with every other surface assumed inside
and outside of point D are each at the same time greater than the former
or at the same time less than the latter they are demonstrated to be equal
to each other by the last postulate. Therefore the proposition is evident.
Proposition XXIV.
IN THE CASE OF TWO SPHERICAL SEGMENTS STANDING
ON ONE PLANE, THE GREATER SURFACE IS THAT OF THE
EXTERIOR SEGMENT.
So that if spherical segments ABC, DEF [see Fig. III.5A.17] stand on
a plane in which the straight line ADFC lies, with segment ABC the
2 Ibid., line 24.
Prop. XXIII
1 See Corn., Prop. XXIII, lines 2-3.
exterior surface, the surface of ABC will be the greater. For if in the other
direction on the same plane we let spherical segments AGC and DHF
stand and each is equal and similar to the segment coterminal with it, then
by the fourth postulate the total surface ABCG will be greater than the
total surfaceDEFH, i.e. the including surface than the included. Therefore
the half is greater than the half, Le. surfaceABC than surfaceDEF. Q.E.D.
Proposition XXV.
THERE EXISTS SOME SURFACE OF SOME SPHERICAL
SEGMENT DESCRIBED ON A GIVEN CENTER, THE SEGMENT
HAVING BEEN CUT OFF BY A GIVEN PLANE, EQUAL TO
ANY GIVEN SURFACE.1
LetA be the given sUlface [see Fig. III.5A.18],B the given center, and
the given plane the one in which straight line CD lies so that BC is
perpendicular to this indefinite plane. Now, as in [Propositions] XXII
and XXIII of this [work], there is an infinitude of cylindrical or conical
surfaces having an axis in line BC that are individually less than and greater
than the given surfaceA; and since by the fourth postulate a spherical or con-
ical surface is greater than the surface of the spherical segment inscribed in it
and less than the surface of the spherical segment in which it is inscribed,
therefore there will be an infinitude of surfaces of spherical segments about
center B and cut off by the plane CD that are less than surface A and also that
are greater than it. And so there will be some terminus in line CD inside of
which the surfaces of the spherical segments will be [individually] less
than surface A and outside of which they will be greater [than it]. Let
pointD be such a terminus, and by the preceding [proposition] whichever
surface of a spherical segment is inside of point D is less than the surface
of the spherical segment with base radius CD and whichever is outside
of point D is greater than it. And so since the given surface A and the
surface of the spherical segment whose base radius is CD when compared
[individually] to every other surface assumed inside and outside of point
D are each at the same time greater than the former or at the same time
less than the latter, therefore, by the last postulate, they will be equal
[to one another]. Q.E.D.
Proposition XXVI.
THERE EXIST TWO MEAN PROPORTIONALS TO ANY TWO
GIVEN LINES.
Let AB and BC be any two given straight lines [see Fig. III.5A.19], and
let the rectangle ABCD be completed, and let BC and BA be extended
indefinitely, and let the center of the rectangle be E, in which the two
diagonals AC and BD intersect. Now with BA and BC produced, let
Prop. xxv
1 See Corn., Prop. XXV, lines 2-4.
straight line FDG be applied through D in such a way that the two lines
EF and EG are equal.
I say then that CF and AG lie as mean proportionals betweenAB and BC.
For let EH and EK be drawn perpendicularly to AB and BC. And by
1I.6 of Euclid (BF'FC) + KC2 = KF2. And let the common term EK2
be added [to both sides]. So (BF'FC) + KC2 + KE2 = KF2 + KE
2
or
(BF FC) + EC2 = EF2. In entirely the same way we shall demonstrate
that (BG GA) + EA2 = EG2. EF
2
= EG2 by hypothesis. Therefore,
(BF'FC) + EC2 = (BG'GA) + EA2. Further, EC2 = EA2, since EC
and EA are each half of the same line AC. Therefore, (BF'FC)
= (BGGA). Wherefore by VI.I5 of Euclid
1
BG/BF = FC/GA. And,
because of the similarity of triangles GBF and DCF, DC (or AB)/CF
= FC/GA. Also, because of the similarity of triangles GAD and DCF,
DC/CF = GA/AD (or BC). And so the four lines AB, CF, GA and BC are
continually proportional. And this was proposed for demonstration.
And this is the method of Hero, who wrote a Mechanica.
2
Now let
us present the traditions of other philosophers on the problem, which
we have taken from Eutocius.
Proposition XXVII.
TO DEMONSTRATE THE SAME THING IN ANOTHER WAY.
LetAB and BC be the given lines [see Fig. I1I.5A.20], and let rectangle
ABCD be completed, around which we circumscribe a circle by IV.9 of
Euclid. Then between BA and BC extended indefinitely let straight line
FDHG be drawn in such a way that FD and HG are equal to one
another, for then CF and AG will be the mean proportionals between
AB and BC. For by III.35 of Euclid,l (AG'GB) = (HG'GD) and
(CF'FB) = (DFFH). But (DFFH) = (HG'GD), inasmuch as lines
DF and GH are posited as equal. Therefore (CF'FB) = (AGGB).
Wherefore, by VI. 15 [of Euclid] the situation is no different from that of
the preceding [Proposition]:-from- the similarity of the triangles we shall
demonstrate that AB, CF, GA and BC are continually proportional.
And this is the method of Apollonius and Philo of Byzantium, as
Johannes Philoponus the Alexandrian attests.
2
And this method is almost
the same as that of Hero, although the demonstrations differ somewhat.
Proposition XXVIII.
TO SHOW THE VERY SAME THING IN ANOTHER WAY.
Let AB and BG be the two given lines [see Fig. III.5A.2I] joined at a
Prop. XXVI
1 See Corn., Prop. XXVI, line 21.
2 Ibid., line 27.
Prop. XXVII
1 See Corn., Prop. XXVII, line 7.
MAUROLICO'S PRAEPARATIO AD ARCBIMEDIS OPERA 851
right angle and let them be extended, and let BE and BD each be equal
to AB, and let the semicircle ADE be described on center B with AB as
a radius, and with AG drawn let it be extended to the circumference in
point Z, and about E let rule EB be moved until the segment TK of the
rule intercepted between the circumference and AZ is bisected by BD in
point L. And through point K let line MN be drawn parallel to BD, and
MA/AB = EM/MX = MN/MO [X and 0 having been taken so as to
preserve the proportion].
And so I say that lines BG, MX, MO and AB are continuous propor-
tionals.
For let TP be drawn parallel to BD, and BP and BM are equal inasmuch
as TL and LK (placed between the same parallels) are equal to each
other. Therefore, KM/ME = TP/PE = MN/MA = ME/MN, inasmuch as
MN is the mean proportional between AM and ME. Therefore ME is also
a mean proportional between KM and MN. Therefore, there is no doubt
but that KM, ME, MN and MA are in continued proportion. But BG/KM
= AB/MA because of the similarity of triangles. And so by hypothesis,
MX/ME = MO/MN. Therefore by alternate proportionality it follows that
linesBG, MX, MO and AB are in the same continued proportion. Q.E.D.
This is the tradition of Pappus in the Mechanics, and Diodes and Porus
[Le. Sporus] seem to use the same method.
Proposition XXIX.
TO DEMONSTRATE THE VERY SAME THING IN ANOTHER
WAY.
Let AB and BC be the given straight lines [see Fig. III.5A.22] joined
at right angles and produced indefinitely, and let these extended lines
be ABD and CBE, and let a right angle [Le. a carpenter's square] FGB
be constructed; and in one arm, e.g. FG, let a rule KL be moved in a
channel which is FG, so that rule KL is always parallel to GB. Let another
rule be inserted in arm GB, namely HM, and let BM be made parallel to
FG, so that rule KL fitted to the channels of FG and BM may be moved
back and forth [remaining] always parallel to GB. Then angle ABC is
to be accommodated to this structure in such a way, I say, that lines
ABD and CBE are interposed between the rules with point A touching
rule KL and point C touching rule GB and with [line]ABD passing through
angle G and line CBE through angle K. For with this done, surely angles
AED and EDC will be right angles. Wherefore, by VI.7 of the Elements
twice assumed, the lines AB, BE, BD and BC are continuous proportionals.
And so between the two given [lines] AB and BC there are just as many
proportional lines, and this was to be shown.
Now this was the discovery of Plato when Apollo, having been
consulted by the Delians who were suffering under a pestilence, responded
that the plague would cease if his altar were to be doubled. Since the
altar had the shape of a cube and a cube could only be duplicated by
the interposition of two mean proportionals, the problem of this sort
was proposed. 1
Proposition XXX.
Let AB and CD be the given straight lines [see Fig. III.5A.23]. And
insert between them [three] equal and similar rectangles whose longer
arms are each equal to AB, the greater of the given lines. And these
rectangles are to be disposed in the same plane so that their shorter sides
lie on the same straight line BK and their diagonals are mutually parallel.
Then with the middle rectangle remaining stationary, let one of the others
be pushed along above it and the other pushed along below it but in the
same plane [and toward each other] until the extremes of the diagonals,
namely points A, E and H, are in a single line AK which furthermore
intercepts with straight line BK a segment DC on the side of the last
rectangle, the segment being equal to the lesser of the [two] given [lines].
With this done, lines EF and GB will be the mean proportionals between
AB and CD. For because of the similarity of triangles, AB/EF = AKI
KE, and AKIKE = FKIKG. But FK/KG = EFIHG. Therefore, EF/HG
= ABIEF. Again, EFIHG = EKIKH. Now EKIKH = GKIKC. But
GK/KC = HG/CD. Therefore, EF/HG = HG/CD. Therefore it is
evident that AB, EF, HG and CD are in continued proportion, as was
to be demonstrated. And this is the tradition of Eratosthenes.
Proposition XXXI.
Let AB and BG (! AG) be the given lines [see Fig. III.5A.24] and let
them be placed in a straight line [i.e., ABG], and let parabola ADH be
described about axis AG, and let straight line BD perpendicular to AG
cut the parabola in point D. Then through point D let a straight line EDZ
be drawn parallel to AG. Then from points A and G let lines AE and GZ be
drawn to points E and Z and be parallel to line BD. Also let hyperbola
ZH be described through point Z within asymptotes EA and AG. Let the
hyperbola cut the parabola in point B, from which let fall perpendiculars
HT andHK to linesAE andAG. And by [Proposition] VI of this [work] let
AL be the mean proportional between AB and AT.
And so I say that AL and AT are the mean proportionals between AB
andAG.
For since HZ is a hyperbola with KA and AG its asymptotes, so by
II.12 of the Conical Elements [of Apollonius]l rectangle AB will be equal
Prop. XXIX
1 See Corn., Prop. XXIX, lines 18-22.
Prop. XXXI
I See Corn., Prop. XXXI, lines 13-14.
to rectangle AZ. Therefore by VI.15 of the ELements of Euclid,
AT/AG = GZ (or BD)/TH. But by 1.20 of the ConicaL ELements ,2 AB/AT
= (BD/TH)2, inasmuch as ADH is a parabola. Therefore AB/AT
= (AT/AG)2. Therefore AB to AL, or AL to AT (for the ratios are the
same by hypothesis), will be as AT to AG. Therefore, AB, AL, AT and AG
are continuous proportionals. Q.E.D.
And this is the discovery of Menaechmus.
3
1t is to be more commended
than the other methods since it uses geometrical and more complete
precepts while the others seem to achieve their objective by a certain
fortuitous procedure. But add to this [demonstration], that if AB and
BD are posited as being equal, and then the parabola ADH is described
through points A and D, and the rest as before, then by the above
demonstration BD (or AB)/TH = AT/AG. But by 1.20 of the Conics [of
Apollonius], AB/AT = (BD/TH)2 or AB/AT = (AB/TH)2 [since AB
= BD]. Therefore, by this way, AB, TH, AT and AG are continually
proportional. Thus the interposition of AL is not necessary, as
Menaechmus teaches.
Proposition XXXII.
TO DEMONSTRATE THIS VERY SAME THING IN STILL
ANOTHER WAY.
Let AB and BG be the two given straight lines [see Fig. I11.5A.25] with
AB the greater, and let circle BGA be described on diameter AB, within
which circle the lineBG is applied by IV.l of Euclid,
1
and letBG extended
meet, in point D, line AD tangent to the circle. Also let [chord] EG cut
diameter AB at right angles in pointZ. And on diameter EG let a semicircle
EHG be drawn perpendicular to circle BGA. Then upon semicircle BGA
let a right semicylinder be erected and let a semicircle be described on the
diameter AB in the rectangle that passes through the axis of the semi-
cylinder. Let this semicircle be moved on the plane of circle BGA so that
it always remains perpendicular to that plane, the motion of AB being
towards G and the terminus B remaining unmoved. And let the semi-
circle, after it has been moved, be TKB on diameter BT and let it cut the
circumference of BGA in point L. With this motion circumference TKB
will describe on the cylindrical surface a certain curved line. Then let
~ D be rotated on axis AB. With this motion point G will be carried
in circumference EHG, and line BD thus rotated describes a conical
surface, and it will cut the curved line described on the cylindrical surface
in a certain point K in which the circumference TKB will cut the side
BD in motion. Therefore let ~ D after its translation to this position
be ~ M with its side BM cutting the circumference TKB in point
2 Ibid., line 16.
Prop. XXXII
t See Corn., Prop. XXXII, lines 4-5.
K in the cylindrical suIface. Let straight line KL be drawn. This will be
the common section of plane TKB and the cylindrical suIface, since the
cylinder is a right cylinder; and therefore the plane TKB, being perpen-
dicular to the base of the cylinder, is parallel to the axis of the cylinder;
and therefore KL, parallel to that same axis, will be perpendicular to
circle BGA and hence to straight line TB. Furthermore, line HN, which
by XI.19 of Euclid will be perpendicular to circle BAG and hence to
straight line TB, will be the common section of circle TKB and circle
EHG. And let TK and LH be drawn.
And so I say that BL and BK will lie as mean proportionals between
BG and AB, which is demonstrated as follows.
For by VI.8 of the Elements of Euclid,2 HN2 = EN NG; and with
III.34 [of Euclid]3 adduced, HN2 = BNNL. From this it follows that
LBHL is a right angle. Since angles BLK and BKT are right angles, hence
triangles BHL, BLK and BKT are similar, inasmuch as they are equi-
angular. Whence it follows that BH, BL, BK and BT are continually
proportional. ButBH = BG because they are elements [of the suIface] of
the right cone whose axis is BZ and whose apex is B. Also BT = BA by
hypothesis. Therefore, BG, BL, BK and BA will also be continually
proportional. Q.E.D.
This is the discovery of Archytas of Taras, as Eudemus and Eutocius
report.
4
It is indeed an ingenious theoretical device worthy of such a man,
that despite its difficult construction it is nevertheless quite easy to
demonstrate.
Proposition XXXIII.
THERE EXISTS SOME CUBE WHICH HAS A GIVEN RATIO
TO A GIVEN CUBE.!
III.5A.26], and let the given cube be that ofline C. Now by [Proposition] V
ofthis [work], A is toB as lineC is to some lineD. And so by any of the seven
preceding [propositions],
2
two mean proportionals will lie between C and
D; let these be E and F. And by XI.36 of Euclid,3 CID = C
3
1E3, or
AIB = C
3
1E3. Therefore the given cube of C has to cube ofE the given ratio
of A to B. Q. E.D.
2 Ibid. , line 31.
3 Ibid., line 32.
4 Ibid., line 40.
Prop. XXXIII
1 See Corn., Prop. XXXIII, lines 2-3.
2 Ibid., line 7.
3 Ibid., line 8.
Proposition XXXIV.
SIMILAR CYLINDERS ARE PROPORTIONAL TO THE CUBES
OF THEIR BASE DIAMETERS.!
Let XAIB and ZCKD be the similar cylinders [see Fig. III.5A.27]
with base diameters [respectively] of AB and CD. And let cylinder
XAIB/cylinder ZCKD = AB3/EF3 by the preceding [proposition].
And it will have to be demonstrated that line EF = line CD.
For otherwise it will be greater or less [than it]. If line EF > line CD,
let there be imagined a circle ELF concentric with circle CKD; and let
there be inscribed in circle ELF a polygon ENF that does not touch
circle CKD at all, by XII. 13 of Euclid.
2
And let a polygon AMB similar
to it be inscribed in circle AIB. And on the [polygonal] figures let
[prismatic] columns QENF and XAMB be erected, which [by their
erections] become inscribed in similar cylinders QELF and XAIB. And
by XII.8 of Euclid,3 AB3/EF3 = col. XAMB/col. QENF, inasmuch as the
columns as well as the cylinders are similar. Therefore col. XAMB/col.
QENF = cyl. XAIB/cyl. ZCKD. And, alternately, col. XAMB/cyl.
XAIB = col. QENF/cyl. ZCKD. But by the fifth postulate cyl.
XAIB > col. XAMB, since the column is inscribed in the cylinder.
Therefore, cyl. ZCKD > col. QENF, which is impossible by the said
postulate. Therefore, line EF "'j> line CD.
Now if it is less, then inversely, cyl. ZCKD/cyl. XAIB = EF3/AB3.
Therefore EF3/AB3 = CD3/GH3, by the preceding [proposition]. And
CD3/GH3 = cyl. ZCKD/cyl. XAIB. And since CD > EF, therefore by
V.8, V.12 and V.14 [of Euclid], GH > AB. From this follows the same
impossibility,
4
namely that the ratio of the first cylinder to the second
cylinder is as the ratio of the column [whose base diameter] is the
diameter of the first base to the column [whose base diameter is] a line
greater than the diameter of the second base. Therefore line EF </:. line
CD. But neither was it more; therefore it is equal. Q.E.D.
Proposition XXXV.
SIMILAR CONES ARE PROPORTIONAL TO THE CUBES OF
THEIR BASE DIAMETERS.
The demonstration is entirely the same [as that of the preceding proposi-
tion] if instead of [prismatic] columns [included in cylinders] you include
pyramids in cones and you use the same arguments.
Prop. XXXIV
1 See Corn., Prop. XXXIV, lines 2-32.
2 See Corn., Prop. VIII, line 10.
3 See Corn., Prop. XXXIV, lines 13-14.
-
Proposition XXXVI.
SIMILAR TRUNCATED CONES ARE PROPORTIONAL TO THE
CUBES OF THEIR CORRESPONDING BASE DIAMETERS.
For similar truncated cones are segments of similarly constructed cones.
But by the preceding [proposition] the whole cones are proportional to
the cubes of their base diameters and the cones cut off [at the top] become
proportional to the cubes of the diameters of their cutting [circles]. But
this set of cubes is proportional to the other, since the diameters of the
bases of the one set are proportional to the diameters of the bases of the
other set because of the similarity of the segments. Therefore the cones
cut off [at the top] are proportional to the whole cones. Therefore
V.19 [of Euclid], the remaining segments, which are the truncated cones,
are as the cut-off cones and as the whole cones, and therefore are propor-
tional to the cubes of their corresponding bases. Q.E.D.
Proposition XXXVII.
SIMILAR SOLIDS OF ROTATION, I.E. THOSE OF SIMILAR
PLANE SEMIPOLYGONS AROUND THEIR FIXED DIAMETERS,
ARE PROPORTIONAL TO THE CUBES OF THESE DIAMETERS.
For solids of this sort are made up of the same number of similar cones,
among which the pairs at the ends of the diameters are complete cones,
while the others are truncated cones, except that sometimes [Le. when
the number of sides of the semipolygons is an odd number] there is a pair
of cylinders. Now by [propositions] XXXIV, XXXV and XXXVI above,
such cones are proportional to the cubes of their corresponding base
diameters (when we compare the corresponding cones). But these cubes
are proportional to the cubes of the diameters around which the [similar]
semipolygons are rotated, inasmuch as the diameters are proportional to
the diameters because of the similarity of the figures. Therefore by V.13
of the Elements! the aggregates of all the cones, i.e., the whole solids of
rotation, will be proportional to the cubes of their diameters. Q.E.D.
Proposition XXXVIII.
SPHERES ARE PROPORTIONAL TO THE CUBES OF THEIR
DIAMETERS.!
Let AlB and CKD be two spheres with diameters AB and CD [see
Fig. III.5A.28]. By [Proposition] XXXIII of this [work] sphere AlB/sphere
CKD = AB3/EF3, where EF is some line.
It will have to be demonstrated that line EF = line CD.
Prop. XXXVII
1 See Corn., Prop. XXXVII. line 14.
Prop. XXXVIII
1 See Corn. Prop. XXXVIII. lines 2-27.
MAUROLICO'S PRAEPARATlO AD ARCHlMEDlS OPERA 857
For otherwise it will be greater or less. If EF > CD, let there be
imagined sphere ELF concentric with sphere CKD. And by XII.13 [of
Euclid] let a solid of rotation ENF [described by a polygon] be
inscribed in sphere ELF so that it does not touch sphere CKD at all. And
let a similar solid AMB be inscribed in sphere AIB. By the preceding
[proposition] AB3/EF3 = solid AMB/solid ENF. Hence solid AMB/solid
ENF = sphere AlB/sphere CKD. And, alternatelY, solid AMB/sphere
AlB = solid ENF/sphere CKD. But sphere AlB > solid AMB by the fifth
postulate. Therefore sphere CKD > solid ENF, which is impossible by
the said postulate. Therefore line EF 1- diameter CD.
But if it is less, then, inversely, sphere CKD/sphere AlB = EF3/AB3.
Hence by [Proposition] XXXIII of this [work] EF3/AB3 = CD3/GH3,
and CD3/GH3 = sphere CKD/sphere AlB. And since CD > EF, by
what has been premised and by V.14 [of Euclid] GH > AB. Whence
the same impossibility follows, namely that the ratio of the first sphere
to the second sphere is the same as the ratio ofthe first inscribed solid to a solid
[described around] a line greater than the second diameter. Therefore
line EF <t diameter CD. But neither was it greater; therefore it is
equal. Q.E.D.
Proposition XXXIX.
SIMILAR SPHERICAL WEDGES [I.E. SECTORS] ARE PRO-
PORTIONAL TO THE CUBES OF THEIR DIAMETERS.
I understand by a spherical wedge [i.e. sector] a body with a conical
[lateral] surface having its apex in the center of the sphere and contained
[at its base] by an assumed spherical surface. It is indeed composed of
a cone and a spherical segment that have as their common base the circle
which cuts the sphere into two unequal parts. This is demonstrated in
a way not different from that of the preceding [proposition], with this
exception, that instead of the total spheres similar spherical wedges are
taken; and instead of [complete] solids of rotation similar wedges of
rotation are taken. Now a solid wedge of rotation is composed of the
aforesaid cone of the spherical wedge and the segment of the solid of
revolution that falls within the spherical segment. For solid wedges of
rotation of this sort are similar, inasmuch as they fall within similar
spherical wedges. And therefore by the next to the last proposition [above]
they are proportional to the cubes of the diameters of the spheres and also
to the cubes of the diameters of the said bases since these latter
diameters are proportional to the diameters of the spheres because of the
similarity of the segments.
Proposition XL.
SIMILAR SPHERICAL SEGMENTS ARE PROPORTIONAL TO
THE CUBES OF THEIR DIAMETERS.
For since the spherical segment (assigned by definition in the preceding
[proposition]) is that which is left after cutting off the cone of the spherical
wedge [or sector], and by the preceding [proposition] such wedges, or by
[Proposition] XXXV such cones (for they are similar), are proportional
to the cubes of the diameters of their bases and also to the cubes of the
diameters of the spheres; that is, since the whole [sectors] are propor-
tional to the [cones] cut off, hence the parts which remain will be propor-
tional to the wholes, Le., the spherical segments will be proportional to
the cubes of the said diameters. Q.E.D.
Therefore, since similar spherical segments less than hemispheres are
proportional to the cubes of the diameters, so also will the remaining
spherical segments greater than hemispheres be proportional to the same
cubes.
Proposition XLI.
THERE EXISTS SOME SPHERE EQUAL TO ANY GIVEN SOLID.l
Let A be any given solid [see Fig. III.5A.29]; and let any line BD
be drawn, on which as a diameter let sphere BED be imagined. Therefore,
either sphere BED will be equal to solid A or not at all. If it is equal, the
proposition is evident. But if not, the sphere BED is to solid A as the
cube of line BD is to the cube of [some] line CF, by [Proposition] XXXIII
of this [work]. By [Proposition] XXXVIII of this [work], BD3/CF3
= sphere BED/sphere CGF; and so, since sphere BED has the same ratio
to solid A as it has to sphere CGF, therefore sphere CGF = solid A.
Again, therefore, the proposition is evident.
Proposition XLII.
WITH ANY TWO SOLIDS GIVEN, THERE EXISTS SOME SOLID
SIMILAR TO ONE OF THEM AND EQUAL TO THE OTHER.l
For example, letA be any solid and let BED be a cone on a base whose
diameter is BD [see Fig. III.5A.30].
Now I shall demonstrate that there is a cone similar to cone BED and
equal to given solid A.
For by [proposition] XXXIII of this [work], cone BED is to solid A
as the cube of line BD is the cube of some line CF; and on circle CF let
cone CGF similar to cone BEF be erected. Then by [Proposition] XXXV
of this [work], cone BED/cone CGF = BD3/CF3; and therefore cone
BED/cone CGF = cone BED/solid A. Hence since cone BED has the
same ratio to solid A as to cone CGF, cone CGP = solid A. Therefore
the proposition is evident.
But if on the base whose diameter is BD a cylinder is supposed, then
Prop. XLI
1 See Corn., Prop. XLI, lines 2-3.
Prop. XL/I
1 See Corn., Prop. XLII, lines 2-3.
by [propositions] XXXIII and XXXIV of this [work] we shall demonstrate
in the same way [as above] that cylinder GCF is similar to cylinder
EBD and equal to solid A. We shall be able to effect this same thing
for truncated cones by [Propositions] XXXIII and XXXVI, for solids of
rotation by [proposition] XXXVII, for spherical wedges by [Proposition]
XXXIX, for spherical segments by [Proposition] XL. Nor will the
proposition be evident in any other way for cubes, or prisms, or
pyramids, or parallelepipeds, or regular polyhedra, or irregular solids,
inasmuch as it has been demonstrated in Book XII of the Elements that
similar solids are always proportional to the cubes of their corresponding
sides.
Proposition XLIII.
A CIRCLE IS EQUAL TO THE PRODUCT OF ITS RADIUS AND
ITS SEMICIRCUMFERENCE.l
Let AGH be a circle of radius AB [see Fig. III.5A.31] and let C be the
surface measured by the product of radius AB and the semicircumference
of circle AHG.
It is to be demonstrated that circle AHG = surface C.
For by [Proposition] XIV of this [work] there will exist some circle equal
to surface C. Therefore let circle DIK with radius BD be equal to surface
C, and it will have to be shown that line BD = BA. For otherwise either
one of the two will be greater. And let circle DIK be described concentric
with circle AGH, and by XII.12 of Euclid within the greater of these
circles let there be described a polygon that does not touch the lesser circle
at all. Then by VI. 1 of Euclid the surface of such an inscribed figure is
equal to the product of BE (which is some line between AB and BD in
length) and ELM (which is the semiperimeter of the figure). Let this
product be F. And so if AB > BD, then BE < line AB and hence surface
C > surface F. Therefore circle DIK (which was posited as equal to
figure C) is greater than figure F or than ELM, which is impossible by
the third postulate.
'But if AB < BD, then BE > line AB. Hence surface F > surface C,
and therefore figure F or ELM will be greater than space C or circle DIK
within which it is inscribed, which is impossible by the said postulate.
Therefore since line BD <. line AB, and line BD 1> line AB, hence line
BD = line AB. Q.E.D.
Moreover we shall show in the same way that a cylindrical surface
is equal to the product of an element of the cylindrical surface and the
circumference of its base. This [is done] by means of a [prismatic]
column inscribed in the greater cylinder so that it does not touch the
lesser. And also [we shall demonstrate similarly] that the surface of a cone
Prop. XLIII
1 See Corn., Prop. XLIII, lines 2-25.
is equal to the product of an element of the conical surface [Le., its slant
height] and the semicircumference of the base. This [is done] by means of a
pyramid inscribed in the greater cone so that it does not touch a lesser
similar cone or a cone under the same axis.
2
Proposition XLIV.
IN TWO UNEQUAL CIRCLES THE PRODUCT OF THE GREATER
DIAMETER AND THE LESSER CIRCUMFERENCE IS EQUAL TO
THE PRODUCT OF THE LESSER DIAMETER AND THE GREATER
CIRCUMFERENCE. THE SAME THING IS TO BE SAID FOR THEIR
RADII AND SEMICIRCUMFERENCES.l
Let AGE and BHF be two unequal circles with diameters AE and
BF [see Fig. III.5A.32]. And let their circumferences be equal to lines
C andD, i.e., by [Proposition] XV of this [work] let line C be equal to the
circumference of circle AGE and line D to the circumference of circle BHF.
Therefore it is to be demonstrated that rectangle AE D = rectangle
BFC.
For since by [Proposition] VIII of this [work] AEIBF = CID, so by
VI.8 of the Elements of Euclid the first part of the proposition is
immediately evident. But if AI and BL are posited as the radii, then by the
same [Proposition] VIII [of this work] lines C and D will be the semi-
circumferences. Hence what remained to be demonstrated will be evident.
Proposition XLV.
IN THREE CIRCLES WHOSE DIAMETERS ARE IN CONTINUED
PROPORTION THE PRODUCT OF THE DIAMETER OF THE FIRST
AND THE CIRCUMFERENCE OF THE LAST IS EQUAL TO THE
PRODUCT OF THE DIAMETER OF THE MIDDLE CIRCLE AND
ITS CIRCUMFERENCE. THE SAME THING IS TO BE SAID FOR
THEIR RADII AND SEMICIRCUMFERENCES. 1
For by [Proposition] VI of this [work] let line El be the mean proportional
between diameters AG andBL [see Fig. III.5A.33]. Then by [Proposition]
VIII of this [work] F the circumference of the circle with diameter El
will be the mean proportional between circumferences C and D inasmuch
as the circumferences are proportional to the diameters.
And it will have to be demonstrated that rectangle AG.D = rectangle
El F or that rectangle BL C = rectangle El F (for rectangle AG D
= rectangle BLC by the preceding [proposition]).
For since AGIEI = FID, by VI.15 of Euclid the first part of the
Prop. XLIV
1 Cf. Text C, Prop. VI, Cor. Ill.
Prop. XLV
1 Cf. Text C, Prop. VI, Cor. IV.
proposition is evident. And the remainder [of the proposition follows] in
the same way. For if lines AN, EO and BR are posited as radii, then
lines C, F and D will be the semicircumferences by [Proposition] VIII of
this [work]. Therefore the proposition is evident.
Proposition XLVI.
IN THREE CIRCLES WHOSE RADII ARE CONTINUALLY
PROPORTIONAL, THE PRODUCT OF THE RADIUS OF THE FIRST
AND THE SEMICIRCUMFERENCE OF THE LAST IS EQUAL TO
THE MIDDLE CIRCLE. THE SAME THING IS TO BE SAID IF
THESE LINES IN THE FIRST AND THE LAST ARE DESIGNATED
AS WHOLE DIAMETERS AND WHOLE CIRCUMFERENCES.1
For since by the preceding [proposition], and following the same
figure, each of the rectangles AND and BR' C is equal to the rectangle
EO F, and that last rectangle is equal to the product of the radius EO and
its semicircumference F, so by [proposition] XLIII above that product
is equal to each of the rectangles AN D and BR . C, each of which is the
product of the radius of one of the extreme [circles] and the semi-
circumference of the other, or even of the whole diameter and the whole
circumference by supposition. Therefore, that which is proposed for
demonstration is evident.
Completed at Termini in the first hour of the night of Thursday
beginning Lent, which was the thirteenth of the month of February
of the eighth indiction, 1550.
Commentary to Text A
Postulates
1 "Postulata." These postulates play an important role in the
treatise. The first one, which asserts that the ratio of any
magnitudes of the same kind can be represented by some ratio
of two [straight] lines, is the assumption that makes Book V of
Euclid's Elements such a powerful tool for the manipulation
of homogeneous magnitudes. Campanus stresses this in his
comment to Book V, Def. 3 (Elementa, Basel, 1546, p. 104):
"Sed quaecunque proportio reperitur in uno' genere con-
tinuorum, eadem reperitur in omnibus aliis. Nam qualitercunque
se habet aliqua linea ad quamlibet aliam: sic se habet
quaelibet superficies ad aliquam aliam, et quodlibet corpus ad
aliquod aliud, similiter et tempus." Postulates 2-5, the "in-
clusion postulates," assume that a circumscribing or including
line, surface or solid is greater than any line, surface or solid
Prop. XLVI
1 Cf. Text C, Prop. VI, Cor. IV. See also Corn., Prop. XLVI, lines 5- 7.
it circumscribes or includes. Postulate 6 is important for
Propositions XXII, XXIII and XXV. It resembles in form
Definition 5 of Book V of Euclid's Elements. Where the latter
limits itself to a definition of the equality of ratios, Maurolico' s
postulate embraces the equality of any two comparable mag-
nitudes. The postulate was constructed to allow the possibility
of equality between rectiplanar and curved surfaces where
ordinary tests of congruence or rectilinear transformation cannot
apply. This postulate in effect asserts that magnitude A is said to be
equal to B if it can be shown to occupy the same relative
position as B in a whole, compact infinite set of continually
increasing magnitudes of the same kind, i.e. to say, A and Bare
equal to each other if each is the limit of the same sets of greater
and lesser magnitudes. Hence, if A and B are always simul-
taneously compared to any magnitude C in its infinite set
they will on any such simultaneous comparison be at the same
time greater or at the same time less than magnitude C to
which they are each compared. Alexander of Aphrodisias, accord-
ing to Philoponus, used such a postulate of equality for explicat-
ing Bryson's method of quadrature (see Volume One, p. 427).
Proposition I
2-3 "circumscripta" Perhaps this would be less confusing if he had
said inscripta here (and also in Postulates 2, 3 and 5) instead of
circumscripta, as in fact he did in Postulate 4 and Proposition n.
In any case what is intended is the figure that has been
"circumscribed" by the circumscribing figure, i.e., it is the
"inscribed" figure itself. Incidentally, we may call the first four
propositions the "inclusion" propositions just as we called
Postulates 2-5 the "inclusion postulates." Their purpose is
to show that a circumscribing or including cylinder (or cone) is
greater than an inscribed or included prismatic column (or
pyramid) and that a circumscribing or including prismatic
column (or pyramid) is greater than an inscribed or included
cylinder (or cone). We shall see later that the kind of included
figure often intended is one that is less than an inscribed figure
and is in fact one that the inscribed figure does not touch.
Proposition V
2-3 "Esse ... rationem." This is the first of three important exist-
ence theorems. See the similar theorems for a square (Proposi-
tion VII) and for a cube (Proposition XXXIII).
7 "per decimam sexti" The appeal is to the additio of Campanus
(see Elementa, Basel, 1546, p. 146) where Campanus describes
the finding of a fourth proportional. This is a separate proposition
(VL12) in the Greek text and Zamberti's translation (ibid.,
p. 147). Hence in his use of the number VLlO we have the
first of a whole host of citations that indicate that Maurolico
was using Campanus' version of the Elements. I shall note
in these commentaries only those propositions where the citation
is clearly from the version of Campanus. Where the citation is
identical in the Greek text and the version of Campanus, I offer
no comment.
Proposition VI
6 "per nonam sexti" Again it is Campanus' version that is being
followed instead of the Greek text or Zamberti's translation
where the appropriate proposition is VI.13 (see Elementa,
Basel, 1546, pp. 145, 147).
Proposition VIII
2-3 "Circulorum ... proportionales." Note the similar proposi-
tion with different enunciation and proof in the Verba filiorum
(Volume One, pp. 260-64). Maurolico also proved this theorem
twice in his On the Sphere and the Cylinder (Text C, Proposi-
tion VI), using his H easier way." But here in the Praeparatio
Maurolico has given his first example of the "converse way"
and it can be summarized as follows.
Let us suppose unequal circles with diameters d and d' and circum-
ferences c and c'. Then, by Prop. V, let c / c' = d / e, where e is
some line. Hence to prove that c / c' = d / d
'
. we must prove that
e = d'. If e -=F d', then e > d' or e < d' .
I. Suppose, if possible that e > d ' . Then let a circle with diameter e be
circumscribed about and be concentric with the circle with diameter
d'. By XII. 13 of Euclid (=Gr XII. 16) inscribe within a circle of diameter
e a regular polygon of perimeter p' that does not touch c' and within
circumference c a similar polygon of perimeter p. Hence [by XII. 1 of
Euclid] d / e =p / p'. And so, since c / c' =d / e by hypothesis, p / p'
= c / c'. And, alternately, p / c = p' / c'. But, by Post. 2, c > p.
Hence c' > p', i.e., the included> the including, which is against Post.
2. Therefore, e :} d
'
.
11. Suppose, if possible, e < d'. Then invert the proportion ofthe initial
supposition, so that c' / c = e / d. By Prop. V, let e / d = d' / h. Hence
c' / c = d' / h. [And since, alternately d' / e = h / d] and d ' > e, hence
h > d. Therefore, with c' / c = d' / h, we have the same kind of im-
possibility disproved in the first part, namely that a first circum-
ference (here c') is to a second (here c) as the first diameter (here d')
to a line (h) greater than the second diameter (here d). Therefore,
e <t: d'. But it was proved that e :} d'. Hence e = d' and thus
c / c' = d / d'. Q.E.D.
10 "per decimamtertiam duodecimi" Again the citation is to the
Campanus version, for in the Greek text and the Zamberti
translation the proposition appears as XII.16 (Elementa, Basel,
1546, pp. 413-14).
Proposition X
1-25 "Circuli.... demonstrandum." This is Maurolico's second
example ofthe use of his "converse way." The proof is formally
identical with that of Proposition VIII and need not be sum-
marized here. This proposition was proved in a different way,
employing the more usual form of the exhaustion method, in
Euclid's Elements, Prop. XII.2. A proof using the "easier way"
was suggested by A.-M. Legendre (see below, Corn. Text C,
Prop. VI).
21- 23 "idem . . . diametro" Here in the second part of the proof
circle CKD becomes the first circle, circle AIB the second, CD
the first diameter, AB the second diameter and GB the line
greater than the second diameter. And so the impossibility is
that refuted in the first part of the proof.
Proposition XII
2-11 "Cylindrorum.... servetur." Maurolico notes that the proof
of this proposition will be the same as that of Proposition X
(i.e. by what I have called the "converse way") except that the
including figure is a cylinder instead of a circle and the included
figure is a prismatic figure based on a regular polygon instead of
a regular polygon and hence Proposition I instead of Postulate 3
is the inclusion assumption controverted.
Proposition XIII
2-10 "Conorum.... syllogismus." As in the preceding proposition,
Maurolico declares that the proof will be the same as that of
,Proposition X, except that this time the including figure is a cone,
the included figure a pyramid and the inclusion assumption
controverted Proposition n.
Proposition XIV
2- 3 "Datae . . . aequalem." This proposition is crucial for the only
use of the "easier way" in the Praeparatio, namely that in the
proof of Proposition XLIII.
Proposition XV
17-18 "Vocat . . . plana." This editorial comment added by Borelli
or perhaps Cyllenius of course refers not to Proposition XV
but to the term conus-colurus (or colurus-conus) used in
Proposition XVI. It was used in Greek mathematical literature,
e.g. in Nicomachus, Intro. Arith., ed. R. Hoche (Leipzig, 1866),
XIV, 5, p. 104, line 1, and in Eutocius' Comm. in libros de
sphaera et cylindro (Archimedes, Opera omnia, Vol. 3, p. 42,
line 27 and p. 44, line 4). And it appears in Latin in the transla-
tions of Eutocius by Moerbeke (Vol. 2, 35vY) and Cremonensis
(ed. 1544, p. 11), and also in Valla's De expetendis et jugiendis
rebus (Venice, 1501), sign. z iiii recto, where no doubt Maurolico
first encountered it. Note also other citations to Hero and Pappus
~ _-------- ---------- ---------- --------
in C. Mugler, Dictionnaire historique de la terminologie
geometrique des Grecs (Paris, 1958), p. 255. Maurolico was al-
ready using the expression conus-colurus in 1534 (see below,
Text C, Prop. VII, line 2).
Proposition XVII
9 "'binae cylindricae" In Archimedes' On the Sphere and the
Cylinder, the only solid of rotation was that described by a
regular polygon whose number of sides was divisible by four and
where therefore the number of sides of the semipolygon was an
even number. But in the Liber de curvis superficiebus, semi-
polygons of an odd number of sides were also used (see Vol. 1,
p. 476) and they were consequently used by Maurolico in his
version of the De sphaera et cylindro (see below, Text C, Prop.
VIII). Needless to say, it is only where the semipolygon rotated
has an odd number of sides that the middle side describes a
cylindrical surface.
Proposition XVIII
2-33 "Sphaerarum.... demonstrandum." Once more the "con-
verse way," already used in the proofs of Propositions VIII,
X, XII and XIII, is here applied in almost exactly the same
fashion.
28-31 "idem ... diametro" In the second half of the proof the
surface of the first sphere is that of CKD, the second that of
AIB; the first diameter is accordingly CD, the second AB, and
the line greater than the second diameter GH. And so the impos-
sibility is that refuted in the first part of the proof.
Proposition XIX .
2-12 "Similium.... proportionales." Maurolico here indicates
that the same procedure as in Proposition XVIII (i.e., the
"converse way") is to be used here, except in this proof the
surfaces of the spherical segments are to be taken instead of
the surfaces of the spheres and the surfaces of the segments of
the solids of rotation inscribed in the segments of the spheres
are to be taken instead of the whole surfaces of those solids.
Proposition XX
2-3 "Cuilibet ... aequalem." This proposition justifies the proce-
dure of Proposition X of Maurolico's On the Sphere and the
Cylinder (see Text C), for it allows that if the rectangle
composed of the diameter and the circumference of a great circle
of the sphere is not equal to the surface of the given sphere,
it is equal to that of some sphere and hence to the surface of one
either greater or less than the given sphere.
8 .. [per septimam huius]." This phrase has been bracketed as
superfluous in view of the appearance of the same phrase in
line 7.
,j
14-15 "Adverte . . . CF." This is an editorial comment of either
Borelli or Cyllenius. It seems to confirm that there was only
one figure in the manuscript to serve for both Propositions
XX and XXI and that was a figure where the segments on
BD and CF were less than hemispheres. Hence the editor is
simply pointing out that when the figure is used for Proposition
XX, BD and CF ought to be diameters of spherical figures.
Proposition XXI
2-4 "Datis ... aequalem." This proposition provides a kind of
general justification for the hypotheses used in the "easier way"
of the Liber de curvis superficiebus and of Maurolico's On the
Sphere and the Cylinder (see particularly Propositions 11, IV
and XV in Text C below), since it allows us to posit that the
given rectilinear figures of these propositions can be equal to
some curved surfaces of the kinds specified in the propositions
(i.e. cone and cylinders in Propositions 11 and IV and a spherical
segment in Proposition XV). Then the succeeding propositions
of the Praeparatio (i.e. Propositions XXII, XXIII and XXV)
more specifically allow that they be equal to some particular
curved surfaces of the given kind (e.g. cones and cylinders of a
given axis in Propositions 11 and IV and a spherical segment
erected on the same plane but concentric with the given segment
in Prop. XV). But in fact without the three succeeding
propositions that are necessary for the actual proofs of Proposi-
tions II, IV and of Maurolico's On the Sphere and the
Cylinder, one could construct similar proofs on the basis of this
Proposition XX alone by holding, for example in the case of the
proof of Proposition II, that if the given rectilinear surface is not
equal to the given conical surface, it must be equal to the
surface of a similar cone that is greater or less than the
given cone rather than to the surface or cone of the same axis
but of greater or lesser base circumference. Indeed such an
alternative proof is suggested at the end of the last paragraph
of the proof of Proposition XLIII of the Praeparatio.
Proposition XXII
2-3 "Cuilibet ... axem." As I have noted before, this proposition
gives specific justification for the procedure of the proof of
Proposition IV of Maurolico's De sphaera et cylindro (and thus
of its equivalent Proposition II of the Liber de curvis super-
ficiebus) , which commences by asserting that if the rectangle
composed of the axis of a cylinder and the circumference of its
base is not equal to the lateral surface of the given cylinder,
then it is equal to the lateral surface of some other cylinder of
the same axis but of greater or lesser base circumference.
24 "ultimum postulatum" Consult the commentary to the postu-
lates for the significance of this last postulate.
Proposition XXIII
2-3 "Cuilibet ... axem." This proposition is crucial for the basic
procedure of the proof of Proposition II of Maurolico's De
sphaera et cylindro (and thus for its equivalent Proposition I
of the Liber de curvis superjiciebus), which begins by asserting
that if the right triangle with sides about the right angle equal
respectively to the slant height of a cone and the circumference
of its base is not equal to the lateral surface of the given cone,
then it is equal to some conical surface of a cone of the same
axis but of greater or lesser base circumference.
Proposition XXV
2-4 "Cuilibet . . . superficiem." This proposition is essential for
the basic procedure of the proof of Proposition XV of Mauro-
lico's De sphaera et cylindro, which begins by asserting that if
the product of the diameter of a sphere and the circumference
of the circle whose diameter is equal to the axis of the segment
of the sphere is not equal to the surface of the spherical segment,
it is equal to the surface of a greater or lesser segment con-
structed on the same plane and concentric with the given spher-
ical segment.
Proposition XXVI
21 "per 15
am
sexti" Again the citation is to Campanus' version of
the Elements rather than to the Greek text or Zamberti's transla-
tion where the number of the proposition is V1.16 (see Elementa,
Basel, 1546, pp. 149-50).
27 "modus Heronis" Maurolico' s comment perhaps implies that he
drew Hero's method from the Mechanica, while drawing the re-
maining solutions of the proportional means problem (Proposi-
tions XXVII-XXXII) from Eutocius. However, Maurolico
could scarcely have taken it from the Mechanica, 1.11 (ed. of
L. Nix, pp. 24-26) since the Greek text of that work had
disappeared. It is not impossible that he read it in the Belopoiika
of Hero (ed. of H. Diels and E. Schramm, pp. 52-55) since
that work was available in manuscript. But if so, it is strange that
Maurolico made no mention of that work. One can argue in the
same way against his having seen the same proof in Pappus'
Collectio, Book Ill, Sect. IX (ed. Hultsch, Vol. 1, pp. 62-65).
All in all, I am reasonably certain that he took this solution from
its Eutocian account where it is labeled as being from Hero's
Mechanics. By the time he composed the Praeparatio, he no
doubt had read the Greek text and the translations of Valla and
Cremonensis of the pertinent section of Eutocius' Commentary.
Maurolico's diagram follows the Latin lettering adopted by both
Valla and Cremonensis, except that he has transposed D and B,
has K instead of H and has added letter H where no letter ap-
peared in the translations. Maurolico's reference to the title of
Hero's work seems compounded of the reference found in
Valla's version (De expetendis, sign. [u vi verso]: "Ex Herone in
mechanicis traditionibus") and that found in Cremonensis' (ed.
Basel, 1544, p. 15: "Modus Heronis in mechanicis intro-
ductionibus et in telis fabricandis").
Proposition XXVII
7 "per 35
am
tertii" Again Maurolico cites the version of Campanus
and in fact Campanus' additio to the proof (Elementa, Basel,
1546, p. 83): "Et ex hac nota, quod puncto extra circulum
signato, si ab ipso ad circulum quodlibet secantes lineae
ducantur, rectangula quae continentur sub totis et earum por-
tionibus extrinsecis adinvicem sunt aequalia." The proper
proposition in the Greek text and Zamberti's translation is
111.36, but no such addition as that of Campanus is found there
(ibid., p. 84).
15-16 "ut ... Alexandrinus" ef. above, Part Ill, Chap. 3, notes 75
and 76. There is little doubt that Maurolico' s information on
Philoponus' account comes from Valla' s translation of Philop-
onus' discussion (given in note 76) rather than from the Greek
text itself (cited in note 75). Maurolico mentioned Philoponus'
discussion earlier in brief discussions of the mean proportionals
problem written in 1533 and 1535 (see below, Chap. 6, Sect. Ill,
n.7).
Proposition XXIX
18-22 "Fuit ... quaestio." This comment about Plato and the
Delians was drawn from the earlier section of the account in
Philoponus' Commentary on the Posterior Analytics (ed. of
Wallies, p. 102) noted above in the comment to Proposition
XXVII. Valla in his De expetendis et jugiendis rebus opus, sign.
x ii recto, says:
Ut Philoponus. Quo pacto duos cubos unum possis cubum facere
inventum est, quod deliis (nota siquidem est historia) pestilenti lue
passim laborantibus, ac pereuntibus Apollo consultus responderit earn
luem sedari posse si aram duplicassent. Erat autem ea cubus hi alterum
alteri aequalem cubum sibi capiendo arae imposuerunt. sed adhuc
crudescente grassanteque pestilentia, respondit Apollo eos quod fuerat
imparatum non fecisse, quod mandasset aram duplicandam, eos autem
cubum cubo superimposuisse. Platonem adierunt consulendo, quonam
pacto cubus foret duplicandus qui respondit videri sibi numen eos
incessere, quod geometriam ignorarent. Cubi vero duplicationem, turn
demum posse inveniri, cum binae mediae lineae proportionales essent
inventae et continuo suis hanc quaestionem proposuit indagandam
discipulis.
However, Maurolico' s account of the so-called Platonic method
itself was drawn from the section on the problem of propor-
tional means composed by Eutocius, as he had confessed at the
end of Proposition XXVI.
Proposition XXXI
13-14 "per 12
am
secundi Conicorum Elementorum" Proposition II.12
in Maurolico's version of Apollonius' Conics (Emendatio et
restitutio Conicorum Apollonii Pergaei, Messina, 1654, p. 58)
runs: "XII. Si penes non tangentes a quodam puncto in sectione
duae lineae ad ipsas non tangentes ducantur, et rursus ab alio
puncto in sectione his aequidistantes similiter non tangentibus
incidant: rectangulum sub his contentum aequale erit rectangulo
sub illis contento."
16 "per 20
am
primi Conicorum Elementorum" Propositio 1.20 in
Maurolico's version of Apollonius (ed. cit., p. 19) runs: "XX.
Si in Parabola a sectione ducantur duae lineae ad diametrum
ordinate: erunt ut quadrata quae ab ipsis fiunt adinvicem, sic
secatae (!) sub ipsis ex diametro ad summitatem." (Punctuation
slightly altered.)
22-30 "Et haec.... docet." The proof described to this point was
essentially drawn from the synthesis of Menaechmus' first proof.
However, Maurolico changed it in one respect. He did not
specify AB as the latus rectum. Hence he added the procedure
of interposing a mean AL between AB and AT. Now in this
paragraph he notes that the interposition of AL as a mean is not
necessary if we make DB = AB and construct the parabola
through points A and D with AG the axis. This is the same as
saying that AB is the latus rectum and indeed the proof of
Menechmus had so specified this (see above, Vo!. 2, 37vL).
Proposition XXXII
4-5 "per secundam quarti" Surely IV.l is the proper citation, for that
proposition in all of the versions of Euclid shows how to fit in
a circle a straight line equal to a given line which is not greater
than the diameter of the circle, and BG is such a line.
31 "per octavam sexti" That is, by the corollary to VL8.
32 "adducta 34
a
tertii" Again Campanus' version of the Elements
is being cited; the proposition is numbered III.35 in the Greek
text and the translation of Zamberti (see the Elementa, Basel,
1546, pp. 81-82).
40 "inventio Archytae Tarentini" See my discussion of this method
in Vo!. 1, pp. 365-66.
Proposition XXXIII
2-3 "Esse ... rationem." Since this proposition is immediately
necessary for the proofs of Propositions XXXIV, XXXV,
XXXVIII, XXXIX, XLI and XLII below (and thus indirectly
necessary for Propositions XXXVI, XXXVII, and XXXIX) and
since its proof requires the solution of the proportional means
problem we can now see why Maurolico included so many solu-
tions to that problem.
7 "sex (! septem)" There are seven propositions that give solu-
tions to the problem of proportional means. But perhaps when
Maurolico used "six" here, he meant to identify the first two
solutions (i.e., Propositions XXVI and XXVII) as a single
method.
8 "per 36
arn
undecimi" This is XI.36 in the Campanus version
and XL33 in the Greek text and Zamberti's translation (see the
Elementa, Basel 1546, pp. 377-78).
Proposition XXXIV
2-32 "Similes.... demonstrandum." Maurolico's proof is again
by the "converse way" already described in Section III of the
chapter and in the commentary to Proposition VIII.
13-14 "per octavam 12
i
Euclidis" Campanus' last additio to Proposi-
tion XII.8 (Elementa, Basel, 1546, p. 401) asserts: "Omnium
duarum columnarum lateratarum similium est proportio alterius
ad alteram, tanquam lateris ad suum relativum latus proportio
triplicata. " One simply has to add that the ratios of the cor-
responding sides of the similar prismatic columns are propor-
tional to the diameters of the bases. Therefore, AB3 / EF3
= col. XAMB / col. QENF, as Maurolico states.
28- 30 ., Unde . . . basis." In the second half of the proof the first
cylinder is now ZCKD, the second XAIB; the diameter of the
first base is CD, that of the second is AB, and the line greater
than the second diameter is OH. And so the impossibility is
that refuted in the first part of the proof.
Proposition XXXVII
14 "per Barn quinti" The citation is once more to Campanus'
version of the Elements; it is Proposition V.12 in the Greek
text and in Zamberti's translation (see Elementa, Basel, 1546,
pp. 123-24).
Proposition XXXVIII
2-27 "Sphaerae. . . . demonstrandum." I have summarized this
proof above in Section III of this chapter and given it as the
principal example of the "converse way. "
Proposition XLI
2-3 "Cuilibet ... aequalem." This proposition justifies the basic
procedure of the proof of Proposition XXV of Maurolico's
De sphaera et cylindro (see Text C below), which commences
by asserting that if the cone there described does not equal
the volume of the given sphere, it equals the volume of some
sphere greater or less than the given sphere.
Proposition XLII
2-3 "Datis ... aequale." With some adaptation this proposition
will serve to justify in a general way the procedure of the
proof of Proposition XXX of Maurolico's De sphaera et cylindro
(see Text C below), which commences by asserting that if the
specified cone does not equal the volume of the given spherical
sector, it equals the volume of one greater or less than it.
Proposition XLIII
2-25 "Circulus.... demonstrandum." This proof reveals the only
application of the "easier way" in the Praeparatio. It was
included, I suspect, because although he had given the proposi-
tion itself in his On the Measurement of the Circle (see Text B,
Prop. IV), the proof there was by Archimedes' method rather
than by the "easier way." Hence he used this opportunity to
give its proof by the same method he had used in his De sphaera
et cylindro of 1534. Furthermore, in the form that the proposi-
tion is given here, it provides partial authority for Propositions
Ill, V, XI, XXV and for Corollaries to Propositions VI, X and
XXXVII of his De sphaera et cylindro (see Text C below). A
similar but somewhat more elaborate use of the "easier way" to
prove this proposition was made by A.-M. Legendre, which I
quote in the English translation: Elements of Geometry and
Trigonometry, tr. of E. D. Brewster (Edinburgh, 1824), BK.
IV, Prop. XII, pp. 96-97:
Proposition XII. Theorem.
The area of a circle is equal to the product of its circumference
by half the radius.
Let us designate the smface of the circle whose radius is CA [see
Fig. III.5A.34] by surf. CA; we shall have surf. CA = ~ x circ.
CA.
For if l/zCA . circ. CA is not the area of the circle whose radius is
CA, it must be the area of a circle either greater or less. Let us first
suppose it to be the area of a greater circle; and, if possible, that
~ . circ. CA = surf. CB.
About the circle whose radius is CA describe a regular polygon
DEFG &c., such (lO.IV.) that its sides shall not meet the circum-
ference whose radius is CB. The surface of this polygon will be equal
(7.IV.) to its perimeter DE + EF + FG + &c. multiplied by Y2AC: but
the perimeter of the polygon is greater than the inscribed circum-
ference enveloped by it on all sides; hence the surface of the polygon
DEFG &c. is greater than ~ circ. AC, which by the supposition is
the measure of the circle whose radius is CB; thus the polygon must
be greater than that circle. But in reality it is less, being contained
wholly within the circumference: hence it is impossible that l/zCA . circ.
AC can be greater than surf. CA; in other words, it is impossible that
the circumference of a circle multiplied by half its radius can be the
measure of a greater circle.
t
l
In the second place, we assert it to be equally impossible that this
product can be the measure of a smaller circle. To avoid the trouble
of changing our figure, let us suppose that the circle in question is the
one whose radius is CB: we are to shew that ~ C B circ. CB cannot be
the measure of a smaller circle, of the circle, for instance, whose
radius is CA. Grant it to be so; and that, if possible, ~ C B circ. CB
= surf. CA.
Having made the same construction as before, the surface of the
polygon DEFG, &c. will be measured by (DE + EF + FG + &c.)
. ~ C A but the perimeter DE + EF + FG + &c. is less than circ. CB,
being enveloped by it on all sides; hence the area of the polygon is less
than ~ C A circ. CB, and still more than ~ C B circ. CB. Now by the
supposition, this last quantity is the measure of the circle whose radius
is CA: hence the polygon must be less than the inscribed circle, which
is absurd; hence it is impossible that the circumference of a circle
multiplied by half its radius, can be the measure of a smaller circle.
Hence, finally, the circumference of a circle multiplied by half its
radius is the measure of that circle itself.
I have changed all multiplication signs from 44 x" to a raised
dot after the first one and I have changed his expressions
surf. and dre. to roman type. Further, I have italicized all
letters marking the magnitudes.
26-31 "Similiter.... tangat." Here he points to the application of
the same method (i.e., the "easier way") to the cases of the
lateral surfaces of cylinders and cones. He does not give the
actual proofs since they were included in De sphaera et eylindro
(see Text C, Propositions 11 and IV). But in a sense his remarks
here provide not only for the proofs as found in his earlier work
that apply to cones or cylinders of the same altitudes and of
greater or lesser base circumferences but also for proofs that
could be constructed by using similar cones or cylinders.
Proposition XLVI
5- 7 "Si . . . appellentur." This cannot be literally so; that is, the
products of the whole diameters and the whole circumferences
cannot equal the middle circle [in area]. But perhaps all that he
means is that these products are equal to the middle rectangle
(which is in fact four times the area of the middle circle). Still
if this is so, then the supplementary statement in nowise differs
from Proposition XLIV.
B
873
[Propositio] 2
a
SI A PUNCTO EXTRA CIRCULUM DUAE LINEAE DUCANTUR

CIRCULUM CONTINGENTES, DE FIGURA SUB CONTINGENT-
IBUS ET ASSUMPTO ARCU COMPREHENSA PLUS QUAM
5 DIMIDIUM ABSCINDET RECTA QUAE CIRCULUM CONTINGIT
APUD PUNCTUM MEDIUM ARCUS ASSUMPTI.
A puncto E, extra circulum ABG, ducantur duae rectae EA, EG con-
22r tingentes circulum I in punctis A, G, et secta bifariam periferia
Tit. et Prop. 1
1 libellus: liber Ed
2 ex . . . Maurolyci Ed. om. MS
3 Propositio Ed, om. MS hie et in omnibus propositionibus I la mg. MS I Ed
hie et pro omnibus propositionibus
9 peripheria Ed hie et ubique
12 enim MS, om. Ed
17 ante eruntque ser. et del. MS erintque per
BN
7465,
2lv
The Archimedis de circuli dimensione libellus
IArchimedis de circuli dimensione libellus
[ex traditione Francisci Maurolyci]
[Propositio] 1a.
TRIANGULUM RECTILINEUM DESCRIPTUM SUPER CHOR-
5 DAM PORTIONIS CIRCULARIS SEMICIRCULO NON MAIORIS,
EANDEM CUM PORTIONE CELSITUDINEM HABENS, MAlUS
EST QUAM DIMIDIUM PORTIONIS.
Sit circuli ABG, cuius centrum D, portio ABG non maior semi-
circulo, sectaque per 29 am 3
ii
periferiaABG bifariam in punctoB, ductaque
10 chorda AG, connexisque AB, BG [Fig. III.5B.l].
Aio quod triangulum ABG maius est quam dimidium portionis ABG.
Ducatur enim semidiameter DB secans AG apud E, et per signum B
agatur ipsiDB perpendicularis ZBH, quae per 15
am
3
ii
cadet extra circulum,
eritque ipsi AG parallelus per 28
am
primi quando recti sunt anguli apud
15 E, quoniam scilicet DB bifariam secat arcum ABG, et ideo chordamAG.
Unde per 3
am
3
ii
eandem ad angulos secabit rectos. Itaque compleatur
rectangulum AZHG, eruntque rectae AZ, GH extra circulum, quoniam
portio ABG non est maior semicirculo. Maius ergo erit rectangulum AH
portione ABG. Sed per 41 am primi triangulumABG dimidium est rectanguli
20 AH. Ergo triangulum ABG maius quam dimidium portionis ABG, quod
est propositum.
I
L
ABG in puncto B; agatur per signum B recta ZBH circulum contingens,
10 et apud Z, H occurrens ipsis AE, EG [Fig. III.5B.2].
Aio quod triangulum ZEH maius est quam dimidium figurae EABG,
contentae scilicet sub lineis AE, EG, et periferia ABG.
Connectantur enim recte AB, BE, BG, et quoniam ex penultima 3
ii
AE, EG sunt aequales et per 27
arn
eiusdem rectae AB, BG aequales,
15 ideo per 8
arn
primi triangula AEB, BEG sunt invicem aequiangula, igitur
anguli ZAB, HGB aequales. Sed angulus ZBA aequalis angulo ZAB, et
angulus HBG aequalis angulo HGB, quoniam utrumque triangulorum
AZB, BHG isosceles ex penultima 3
ii
Igitur triangula AZB, BHG sunt
invicem aequilatera per 26
arn
primi. Quare rectae AZ, GH aequales; et
20 ipsae ZB, BH aequales. Itemque supersunt ZE, EH aequales. Unde tri-
angula BEZ, BEH invicem aequilatera erunt per 8
arn
primi et aequiangula;
et ideo angulus ZBE aequalis angulo EBH. Recti sunt ergo anguli ZBE,
EBH. Itaque per 19
arn
primi EZ maior quam ZB et ideo maior quam
AZ. Quare per primam 6
i
maius triangulum EBZ triangulo ZBA. Similiter
25 ostendam quod triangulum EBH maius triangulo HBG. Igitur totum tri-
angulum ZEH maius quam duo triangula ZBA, HBG simul. Quare tri-
angulumZEH maius quam dimidium triangulorum EBA, EBG; sed figura
EABG minor quam duo triangula EBA, EBG. Ergo a fortiori triangulum
ZEH maius quam dimidium figurae EABG, comprehensae videlicet sub
30 lineis AE, EG, et arcu ABG, quod est propositum.
Corollarium.
Manifestum est ergo quod quatuor lineae AZ, ZB, BH, HG sunt
invicem aequales.
22v /[propositio] 3a.
POLYGONIUM RECTILINEUM IN QUO A QUOPIAM INTERIORI
PUNCTO AD LATERA SINGULA PERPENDICULARES SUNT
INVICEM AEQUALES (QUALE EST CIRCULO CIRCUM-
5 SCRIPTUM VEL AEQUILATERUM CIRCULO INSCRIPTUM)
AEQUALE EST TRIANGULO RECTANGULO CUIUS UNUM
LATERUM QUAE CIRCUM RECTUM ANGULUM AEQUALE
EST UNI PERPENDICULARIUM PRAEDICTARUM, RELIQUUM
VERO AEQUALE PERIMETRO RECTILINEI.
10 Esto rectilinea figura ABGDE, in qua a quodam interno puncto ut
pote Z, ad latera singula perpendiculares sint aequales [Fig. III.5B.3];
ducatur autem ad unum laterum, ut pote AB, perpendicularis ZH, sitque
triangulum TKL rectum qui apud K angulum habens, cuius latus TK
Prop. 2
12 AE: EA Ed
Prop. 3
7 circa Ed
35
25
20
aequum sit perpendiculariZH, latus veroKL aequum sit perimetro figurae
15 ABG.
Aio quod aequale est polygonium ABG triangulo TKL.
Connectantur enim anguli figurae ABG cum puncto Z, et dividatur KL
in portiones tot, quot sunt latera figurae ABG singulas singulis lateribus
aequales, quando tota KL universis simul lateribus est aequalis, sitque
ipsi AB ipsa KM, ipsi BG ipsa MN, ipsi GD ipsa NX, ipsi DE ipsa XO,
ipsique EA ipsa OL aeqalis, et connectantur puncta M, N, X, 0 cum
puncto T.
Itaque quoniam triangulorumAZB, KTM bases sunt aequales, et celsitu-
dines aequales, ideo per primam 6
i
aequalia sunt invicem triangula AZB,
TKM. Similiter et ipsa triangula BZG, MTN invicem, et ipsa GZD, NTX
invicem, et ipsa DZE, XTO invicem, et ipsa EZA, OTL invicem aequalia
erunt. Quare totum rectilineumABG toti triangulo KTL aequum est, quod
est propositum.
/Et attendendum quod in figura circulo circumscripta perpendiculares a
centro circuli ad latera figurae sunt aequales, namque rectae a centro ad
puncta contactuum egredientes sunt per 17
am
3
ii
ipsis lateribus perpen-
diculares, quae per diffinitonem circuli sunt aequales.
Item in figura aequilatera circulo inscripta perpendiculares a centro ad
latera sunt aequales, quod patet per Barn 3
ii
; bene ergo huiusmodi figuras
in exemplum citat propositio.
32 diff. EdMS
Prop. 4
2 triangulo Ed
5 E: CEF Ed hie et ubique in ista propositione (et etiam in figura)
10 spacio: spatio Ed hie et ubique
MAUROLICO'S DE CIRCULI DIMENSIONE 875
[Propositio] 4
a
.
CIRCULUS AEQUALIS EST TRIGONO RECTANGULO CUIUS
QUAE QUIDEM EX CENTRO AEQUALIS EST UNI EARUM QUAE
CIRCUM RECTUM ANGULUM, PERIMETER AUTEM BASI.
5 Sit circulus ABGD, et trigonum rectangulum E, sitque semidiameter
circuli ABG aequalis uni laterum trianguli E, que circum rectum angulum,
perimeter autem ABG aequalis reliquo lateri trianguli E, quod circum
rectum angulum [Fig. III.5B.4].
Aio quod aequalis est circulus ABG triangulo E.
10 Sit enim, si possibile est, maior circulus trigono in spacio quopiam,
ut pote Z, et inscribatur circulo per 6
am
4
i
quadratum ABG, sectisque
periferiis bifariam inscribatur octogonumAKB, eritque per primam huius
triangulum AKB maius quam portionis circularis AKB, et similiter
reliqua triangula reliquis portionibus; hoc autem toties faciam, donec per
15 primam 10
i
relictae portiones sint minus quam spacium Z, itaque in-
scriptum polygonium AKB maius erit trigono E.
Capiatur una perpendicularium a centro circuli N ad latera polygonii
23r
30
24r
41
35
30
45
AKB, ut pote NX perpendicularis ad latus AK, eritque per praecedentem
polygo/nium AKB aequale trigono rectangulo cuius laterum quae circa
20 rectum alterum ipsi NX, reliquum perimetro polygonii AKB est aequale.
Sed tale trigonum minus trigono E, quandoquidem trigoni E latera quae
circa rectum maiora sunt, ut pote quorum alterum semidiametro [NK]
circuli ABG, quae maior est perpendiculari NX; reliquum perimetro
circuli, qui maior perimetro polygonii, aequale est. Ergo polygonium
25 AKB minus erit trigono E; fuit autem maius, quod est impossibile. Non
est ergo circulus ABG maior trigono E.
Sit nunc, si possibile est, minor circulus ABG triangulo E in spacio
quovis, ut puta Z, et circumscribatur circulo per 7
am
4
1
quadratum OH,
cuius latera contingant circulum apud puncta A, B, G, D, sectaque
periferia AKB bifariam in signa K, similiter et reliquae; agatur per K
circulum contingensPKR lateribus quadrati circumscripti occurrens apud
P, R, et similiter in reliquis periferiis BG, GD, DA, eritque per 2
am
huius
triangulum POR maius quam Yz figurae AOBK, quae videlicet sub rectis
AO, OB, et arcu AKB comprehenditur, et similiter reliqua triangula apud
angulos quadrati OH maiora quam dimidia reliquarum figurarum. Non
ergo cessabo ab huiusmodi periferiarum bifaria sectione, donee per
primam 10
1
figurae, quae a circuli periferiis et lateribus circumscripti poly-
gonii comprehenduntur, redigantur ad minus spacium spacio Z. Itaque
circumscriptumpolygoniumAPRB erit minus trigono E. Connectatur ergo
centrum N cum uno / punctorum in quibus latera polygonii APK con-
tingunt circulum, ut pote cum puncta K, eritque per praecedentem poly-
goniumAPK aequum trigono rectangulo cuius laterum, quae circa rectum
alterum ipsi NK, reliquum perimetro polygonii APK est aequale.
Huiusmodi ergo trigonum maius est trigono E, quandoquidem trigoni E
laterum quae circum rectum, unum ipsi NK est aequale, reliquum vero
perimetro circuli, qui minor est perimetro polygonii APK. Quare poly-
gonium APK maius est trigono E; foit autem minus, quod est absurdum.
Non est igitur circulus ABG minor trigono E, fuitque ostensum quod
nec maior. Aequalis ergo erit circulus ABG trigonoE, quod est propositum.
Hinc manifestum est quod circulus aequalis est rectangulo quod sub
semidiametro circuli et linea aequali dimidio periferiae comprehenditur.
so
23v
Corollarium.
Manifestum est ergo quod ex ductu semidiametri in dimidium periferiae
producitur area circuli.
18 AKB: AKEd
22 NK Ed, om. MS
30 AKB: ABEd
32 reliquis: reliquis 4
0r
MS
39 APRB corr. Ed ex APKN in MS
41 pute Ed
[Propositio] sa.
CIRCULORUM DIAMETRI SUNT PERIFERIIS PROPOR-
TIONALES.
Sunto duo circuli AB, GD, quorum centra E, Z, et semidiametri EB,
5 ZD [Fig. III.SB.S].
Aio quod sicut semidiameter EB ad semidiametrum ZD, sic periferia
AB ad periferiam GD.
Sint enim ipsis EB, ZD ad rectos angulos ipsae BH, DT, quarum BH
periferiae AB et DT periferiae GD ponantur aequales, et connectantur
10 EH, ZT, eritque per praemissam circulus AB trigono EBH, et circulus
GD trigono ZDT aequalis. Sed per 2
am
12
i
circulus AB ad circulum GD
[est] sicut quadratum EB ad quadratum ZD. Ergo trigonum EBH ad
trigonum ZDT [est] sicut quadratum EB ad quadratum ZD. Verum ratio
quadrati EB ad quadratumZD dupla est eius que EB ad ZD per 17
am
6
i
.
15 Igitur ratio trigoni EBH ad trigonum ZTD cQmponitur ex duabus ratio-
24v nibus, quarum quaelibet / est sicut EB ad ZD. Sed eiusdem trigoni EBH
ad idem trigonum ZDT ratio per 24
am
6
i
componitur ex ratione EB ad
ZD et ex ratione BH ad DT, propter angulos B, D aequales. Necesse
est ergo ut ratio EB ad ZD sit sicut BH ad TD, et ideo sicut periferia
20 AB ad periferiam GD, quod est propositum.
[propositio] 6
a
SECTOR CIRCULI AEQUALIS EST TRIANGULO RECTANGULO

CUIUS UNUM EORUM LATERUM QUAE CIRCA RECTUM
ANGULUM AEQUALE EST El QUAE EX CENTRO, RELIQUUM
5 VERO PERIFERIAE SECTORIS.
Ex circulo ABG, cuius centrumD, abscindatur sector DBG, et ponatur
triangulumEZH angulumZ rectum habens, sitque latus EZ semidiametro
DB, latus vero ZH periferiae BG aequale [Fig. III.SB.6].
Aio quod aequalis est sector DBG trigono EZH.
10 Producatur enim ZH, ponaturque toti periferiae ABG aequalis ZT,
et connectatur ET, eritque per 4
am
huius circulus ABG aequalis trigono
EZT. Sed ex ultima 6
i
et coniuncta proportione est circulus ABG ad
sectorem DBG sicut tota periferia ABG ad periferiam BG, et ideo sicut
ZT ad ZH, et ideo per primam sexti sicut triangulum EZT ad triangulum
15 EZH, estque circulus ABG triangulo EZT aequalis. Igitur per 14
am
Si
et sector DBG erit trigono EZH aequalis, quod est propositum.
Hinc manifestum est quod sector circuli aequalis est rectangulo quod
sub semidiametro circuli et linea aequali dimidio periferiae assumptae
continetur.
Prop. 5
10 et erit Ed
12, 13 est Ed, om. MS
20 Scholium.
25r Attende quod ex 4
a
praemissa circuli superficies producitur ex / ductu
semidiametri in dimidium periferiae; ex praesenti vero sectoris superficies
producitur ex semidiametro circuli in dimidium periferie sectoris quemad-
modum trigoni rectanguli superficies consurgit ex ductu alterius laterum
25 quae circa rectum angulum in dimidium reliqui per 42
am
primi
Elementorum.
Scholium.
Ex hac quoque propositione sequitur ut sectorum ratio componatur
ex rationibus semidiametrorum et arcuum; utque similium sectorum
30 ratio sit sicut semidiametrorum duplata; utque sectores quorum semi-
diametri sunt arcubus reciproci sint invicem aequales.
Similiter ut portionum circularium similium ratio sit quae chordarum
dupla.
[Propositio] 7
a
.
CIRCULI PERIMETER TRIPLA EST DIAMETRI ET ADHUC
EXCEDIT MINORI QUAM SEPTIMA PARTE DIAMETRI, MAIORI
AUTEM QUAM DECEM SEPTUAGESIMIS PRIMIS.
5 Esto circulus AG, cuius diameter AG et centrum E [Fig. III.5B.7a].
Aio quod periferia AG minor quidem est quam tripla sesquiseptima
diametri AG, maior vero quam tripla superpartiens decem septuagesimas
pnmas.
Agatur ipsi AG ad rectos angulos MGR, quae cadet extra circulum
10 per 15
am
3
ii
, ponaturque angulus GER dimidium anguli trigoni aequi-
lateri hoc est tertia pars recti, eritque EG perpendicularis ab angulo
trianguli aequilateri ad latus oppositum. Dupla ergo erit ER ipsius RG,
et ideo quadratum ER quadruplum quadrati RG. Quare per penultimam
primi quadratum EG triplum quadrati GR.
15 Itaque si ponatur ER partium 306, fiet GR 153, et EG plus quam 265.
Secetur angulus GER per 9
am
primi bifariam ducta EH, eritque per
3
am
6
i
sicut ER ad RH, sic EG ad GH. Quare per Barn 5
i
aggregatum
25v ex GE, ER ad totum / GR erit sicut EG ad GH. Itaque [ratio] EG ad
GH maior erit quam 571 ad 153. Quare ex penultima primi [ratio] EH ad
20 GH maior quam 591 %0 ad 153.
Rursum secto bifariamangulo GEHductaET, iisdemrationibus adductis
fiet [ratio] EG ad GT maior quam 1162%0 ad 153. Quare [ratio] ET ad
GT maior 1172
4
/25 ad 153.
Item secto bifariam angulo GET ducta EK similiter erit [ratio] EG ad
Prop. 7
2 perimeter MS peripheria Ed
18 ratio Ed hie et ubique in ista propositione, om. MS
26r
36
25
50
32 post circumscripti ser. et del. MS Itaque quoniam EO ad OL maior quam 4673
3
/5
ad 153, ideo EO ad ML maior quam 4673
3
/5 ad 306. Sed AO dupla ipsius EO;
ergo AO ad ML maior quam 9347 ad 306
39 diameter MS
43 est Ed, om. MS
65
40
GK maior quam 2334
3
/10 ad 153. Quare EK ad GK maior quam 23393/10
ad 153.
Adhuc secto bifariam angulo GEK ducta EL non aliter erit [ratio] EG
ad GL maior quam 4673
3
/5 ad 153.
Quoniam ergo angulus GER tertia pars recti quater sectus est bifariam,
ideo angulus GEL erit pars 48
a
recti. Ponatur ergo ipsi GEL aequalis
GEM eritque totus LEM 24
a
pars recti. Itaque LM est latus polygonii
96 angulorum circulo AG circumscripti. Cum ergo ML ipsius GL, et AG
ipsius EG dupla sit, erit sicut AG ad ML, sic EG ad GL, et ideo sicut
AG ad nonagincuplum sexcuplum ipsius ML, hoc est ad perimetrum poly-
gonii dicti, sic / EG ad nonagincuplum sexcuplum ipsius GL.
Fuit autem maior [ratio] EG ad GL quam 4673% ad 153. Multiplicentur
ergo 153 nonagies sexies fientque 14688. Quare maior erit [ratio] EG ad
nonagincuplum sexcuplum ipsius GL quam 4673
3
/5 ad 14688. Itaque maior
[ratio] AG diametri ad perimetrum polygonii 96 laterum circulo circum-
scripti quam4673% ad 14688. Sed numerus 14688 continet numerum4673%
ter, et supersunt 667
1
/5, qui minus est quam septima pars ipsius 4673%.
Quare dicti polygonii perimeter triplus est diametri, et excedit minori quam
septima parte. Sed polygonii perimeter maior [est] circuli perimetro; a
fortiori ergo circuli perimeter triplus erit diametro, et excedit minori quam
septima parte, et haec est prima pars propositionis.
Ducantur nunc intra circulum AB, BG, sitque BAG angulus tertia pars
recti [Fig. III.5B.7b]. Itaque sicut superius, si AG ponatur partium 1560,
fiet BG partium 780. Quare [ratio] AB ad BG minor quam 1351 ad 780.
Secetur bifariam angulus BAG ducta AH secante ipsam BG apud R,
et connectatur HG eritque angulusBAH aequalis anguloBGH per 20
am
3
ii
.
Sed angulus HAG aequalis anguloBAH; ergo angulusBGH aequalis angulo
HAG; igiturtriangulaHAG, HGR (angulosBGH, HAG aequales habentia,
et angulum AHG communem) sunt ad invicem aequiangula.
Itaque per 4
am
6
1
sicut AH ad HG, sic GH ad HR, et AG ad GR. Sed
55 AG ad GR per 3
am
6
1
et 13
am
51 sicut aggregatum ex GA, AB ad BG;
ergo sicut aggregatum ex GA, AB ad BG, sic AH ad HG. Quare AH ad
HG [ratio] minor quam 2911 ad 780, et ideo [ratio] AG ad GH minor
quam 3 3 ~ ad 780.
Rursus secetur bifariam angulus HAG ducta TA; et connexa TG; fiet
iisdem adductis [ratio] AT ad TG minor quam / 5 9 2 4 ~ ad 780, et ideo
[ratio] AG ad GT minor quam 5976 ad 780.
Item secetur TAG angulus bifariam ducta AK et connexa KG eritque
similiter [ratio] AK ad KG minor quam 1190Q3,4 ad 780, et ideo minor
quam 1007 ad 66, et [ratio] AG ad GK minor quam 1009
1
/6 ad 66.
Adhuc secto bifariam angulo KAG per lineam AL, ductaque LG non
61
30
45
26v
aliter fiet [ratio] AL ad LG minor quam 2016
1
/6 ad 66, et ideo [ratio]
AG ad GL minor [quam] 2017Y4 ad 66.
Sed angulus LAG est quadragesima octava pars recti, et ideo per 19
am
tertii angulus quem subtendit periferia LG ad centrum circuli est vigesima
70 quarta pars recti. Quare recta LG est latus polygonii aequilateri 96
angulorum circulo inscripti. Multiplicentur igitur 66 nonagies sexies
fientque 6336. Itaque [ratio] AG ad perimetrum dicti polygonii minor erit
quam 2017Y4 ad 6336. Quare conversim per 26
am
5
i
perimeter dicti poly-
gonii ad AG diametrum maior erit quam 6336 ad 2017Y4. Sed ratio 6336
75 ad 2017Y4 maior quam tripla superpartiens decem septuagesimas primas.
Ergo perimeter polygonii ad diametrum maior [est] quam tripla superpartiens
1/71. Sed circuli perimeter maior [est] polygonii perimetro. Igitur a fortiori
circuli perimeter ad diametrum maior [est] quam tripla superpartiens
1/71 , quod est propositi residuum.
27r /Corollarium.
81 Ex quo quidem calculo manifestum est quod si circuli diameter ponatur
partes 497, periferia erit maior quidem quam partes 1561, minor vero
quam partes 1562.
[Propositio] 8
a
.
CIRCULUS AD ID QUOD A DIAMETRO QUADRATUM RA-
TIONEM HABET QUAM UNDECIM AD QUATUORDECIM FERE.
Sit circulus, cuius diameter AB [Fig. III.5B.8], cui circumscribatur per
5 7
am
4
i
quadratum GDH, et lineae GD dupla sit quae DE, ipsius autem
GD pars septima quae ER, et connectantur AD, AE, AR, eritque per
praecedentem recta GR aequalis fere perimetro circuli AB. Sed AG per
7
am
4
i
aequalis semidiametro circuli eiusdem. Ergo per 4
am
huius circulus
AB aequalis fere trigono AGR.
10 Trigonum autem AGR ad trigonum ADG per primam 6
i
et coniunctam
proportionem sicut basis GR ad basimGD, ergo sicut 22 ad 7. Sed trigonum
ADG ad quadratum GH, sicut 7 ad 28, quoniam quarta pars eius. Igitur
trigonum AGR ad quadratum GH, sicut 22 ad 28, hoc est sicut 11 ad 14.
Quare et circulus AB, aequalis iam trigono AGR, ad quadratum GH sicut
15 11 ad 14, quod est propositum.
67 quam addidi, om. EdMS
68 post ideo scr. et del. MS periferia LG est
74 post diametrum add. Ed ratio sed non mutat perimeter in perimetri
76 post Ergo add. Ed ratio I perimetri Ed
76,77,78 est Ed, om. MS
77 perimeter: peripheria Ed
78 circuli perimeter: ratio circuli peripheriae Ed
Prop. 8
7 perimetro: peripheriae Ed
Corollarium.
Manifestum est ergo quod 14 circuli aequales sunt simul quadratis 11
simul quibus inscribuntur.
Patet, nam per praemissam circulus ad quadratum suae diametri est
20 sicut 11 ad 14. Ergo per Barn 5
i
11 circuli ad 11 quadrata sunt sicut 11
ad 14. Ergo conversim 11 quadrata ad 11 circulos sunt sicut 14 ad 11.
Sed 14 circuli ad 11 circulos sunt sicut 14 ad 11. Ergo 14 circuli
27v earn habent rationem / ad 11 circulos quam 11 quadrata ad eosdem 11
circulos. Quare per 9
am
5
i
14 circuli aequales sunt 11 quadratis suarum
25 diametrorum.
Corollarium.
Praeterea patet quod, si quadratum diametri alicuius circuli multiplicetur
undecies, producti pars quatuordecima est area circuli.
Contra, si circuli area quatuordecies coacervetur, producti pars un-
30 decima erit quadratum quod ex circuli diametro.
Haec autem secundum rationem triplam sesquiseptimam, nam se-
cundum rationem triplam superpartientem 1/71, erit circulus ad quadratum
suae diametri sicut 223 ad 284. Unde 284 circuli erunt aequales 223 quad-
ratis. Quare si quadratum diametri multiplicetur bis centies vicies ter,
35 producti pars ducentesima octuagesima quarta erit area circuli.
Contra, si circuli area ducenties octogesies quater multiplicetur,
producti pars ducentesima vicesima tertia est quadratum diametri.
[Propositio] 9
a
CIRCULUS SUPER LATUS TRIGONI RECTANGULI ANGULO

RECTO SUBTENSUM DESCRIPTUS AEQUALIS EST AGGREGATO
DUORUM CIRCULORUM SUPER RELIQUA LATERA SIMILITER
5 DESCRIPTORUM.
Sit rectangulum trigonum ABG rectum qui ad B angulum habens [Fig.
III.5B.9].
Aio quod circulus cuius diameter AG aequalis est aggregato duorum
circulorum quorum diametri AB, BG.
10 Nam per 2
am
12
i
sicut quadratum AB ad quadratum AG, sic circulus
ex diametro AB ad circulum ex diametro AG, itemque sicut quadratum
BG ad quadratum AG, sic circulus ex diametro BG ad circulum ex
diametro AG. Quare per 24
am
5
i
erit sicut aggregatum quadratorum
17 simul tr. Ed ante aequales / 11 tr. Ed ante quadratis
21 post Ergo scr. et del. MS 14
clm
circuli ad l1
c1m
quadrata sunt sicut 14 ad 14
cim
22 Sed . . . 1)2 om. Ed
24 suorum Ed
28 post undecies scr. et del. MS et productum dispertiatur in partes quatuordecimas,
una huiusmodi partium erit aequalis circulo / area tr. Ed ante est
31 nam: non Ed
AB, BG ad quadratumAG, sic aggregatum circulorum ex diametrisAB, BG
15 ad circulum ex diametro AG. Sed per penultimam primi aggregatum quad-
ratorumAB, BG aequum est quadrato AG. Ergo et aggregatum circulorum
ex diametris AB, BG aequum est circulo cuius diameter AG, quod est
propositum.
Similiter ostendam quod circuli quorum semidiametri AB, BG simul
20 aequales sunt circulo cuius semidiameter AG, quod etiam in proposito
videtur includi.
28r /[propositio] lOa.
PROPOSITIS DUOBUS CIRCULIS, EORUM AGGREGATO
AEQUALEM COMPERIRE CIRCULUM.
Sunto duo circuli quorum diametri AB, BG, oportet comperire circulum
5 eorum aggegato aequalem.
Componantur AB, BG ad angulum rectum apud B [cf. Fig. llI.5B.9]
et connectatur AG, super quam diametron circulus describatur, qui per
praecedentem aequalis est circulis quorum diametri AB, BG, quod
faciendum proponitur.
10 Hinc potes quotcumque circulorum datorum aggregato aequalem in-
venire circulum.
[Propositio] 11a.
PROPOSITIS DUOBUS CIRCULIS INAEQUALIBUS, EORUM
DIFFERENTIAE AEQUALEM COMPERIRE CIRCULUM.
Sunto duo circuli quorum diametri AB, BG, quorum maior AB [Fig.
5 Ill.5B.lO]; oportet comperire circulum aequalem excessui quo circulus
cuius diameter AB excedit circulum cuius diameter BG.
Super AB describatur semicirculus AGB, intra quem per primam 4
1
coaptetur a signo B ipsa BG, et connectatur AG, eritque per 30
am
3
ii
angulus AGB rectus, et ideo per ante praemissam circuli quorum diametri
10 AG, GB simul aequales circulo cuius diameter AB. Quare circulus cuius
diameter AG est excessus quo circulus cuius diameter AB excedit cir-
culum cuius diameter BG. Circulus ergo cuius diameter AG est qui
quaerebatur.
,

28v /[Propositio] 12
a
.
COMPERIRE CIRCULUM QUI AD DATUM CIRCULUM DATAM
HABEAT RATIONEM.
Datus circulus sit AB, data ratio quae D ad G [Fig. llI.5B.ll].
5 Oportet describere circulum qui ad circulum AB sit sicut D ad G.
Prop. 12
4,5,9,
13
2
, 14
2
,
16, 17, 18 AB: ACB Ed (et etiam in figura)
MAUROLICO'S DE CIRCULI D/MENS/ONE 883
Sicut est G ad D, sic sit per loam 6
i
diameter AB ad lineam E, et ipsis
AB, E intersit per gam 6
i
media proportionalis ZH, super qua diametro
describatur circulus ZH.
Aio quod sicut est D ad G, sic est circulus ZH ad circulum AB, quod
10 sic ostendam.
Lineae AB, ZH, E sunt continuae proportionales; ergo per 17
am
6
i
sicut
AB ad E, sic quadratum quod ex AB ad quadratum quod ex ZH. Sicut
autem quadratum AB ad quadratum ZH per 2
am
12
i
, sic circulus AB
ad circulum ZH. Igitur sicut AB ad E, sic circulus AB ad circulum ZH.
15 Sed AB ad E sicut G ad D.
Itaque sicut G ad D, sic circulus AB ad circulum ZH, et conversim
ergo sicut D ad G, sic circulus ZH ad circulum AB.
Descripsimus ergo circulum ZH qui ad circulum datum AB rationem
habet quam D ad G datam, quod faciendum proponitur.
20 Scholium.
Hinc ergo potes dato sectori qui datam habeat ad suum circulum
rationem, aequalem comperire circulum.
Nam si, exempli causa, sector quispiam sit quinta pars sui circuli,
videlicet assumens quintam totius periferiae partem, tunc circulus, qui
25 sit quinta pars illius circuli per praesentem inventus, est huiusmodi sectori
aequalis.
Libelli de dimensione circuli finis. Igo Augusti 1534.
29r /Hippocratis
Tetragonismus.
Super diametrum AB describatur semicirculus ACB super centrum D,
sitque CD semidiameter ipsi AB perpendicularis, et connexa AC de-
s scribatur super AC semicirculus AEC [Fig. III.5B.12].
Aio quod meniscus contentus semicirculo AEC et quadrante AFC
aequalis est trigono rectilineo ACD.
Connectatur enim BC, eritque per 30
am
3
ii
angulus ACB rectus. Quare
per gam propositionem libelli de circuli dimensione semicirculus ACB
10 aequalis erit duobus semicirculis quorum diametri AC, CB; duplus ergo
erit semicirculus ACB semicirculi AEC. Igitur quadrans circuli AFCD
8, 9,
141,2, 16,
17, 18 ZH: ZFH Ed (et etiam infigura)
18 circulum
2
: citulum Ed
21 potes om. Ed
23 causa: gratia Ed
Hipp.
8 eritque: et erit Ed
10 duplus: duplex Ed
11 erit (et) MS est Ed
aequalis est semicirculo AEC. Itaque dempta portione AFC communi
superest meniscus AECF aequalis trigono rectilineo ACD, quod erat
demonstrandum.
15 Porro exponatur super diametrum AB semicirculus AB, et super
diametrum CD ipsius AB duplam semicirculus CEFD, eritque per 2
am
12
i
semicirculus CEFD quadruplus semicirculi AB [Fig. III.5B.13]. Et in
ipso CED semicirculo coaptentur tria latera hexagoni aequilateri CE, EF,
FD, super quibus singulis describantur semicirculi CGE, EHF, FKD, qui
20 singuli erunt ipsi AB semicirculo aequales, quoniam scilicet CE, EF, FD
sunt singulae dimidio ipsius CD, et ideo ipsi AB aequales. Itaque semi-
circulus CEFD aequalis est tribus semicirculis CGE, EHF, FKD et
semicirculo AB.
Demantur ergo communes ipsae CLE, EMF, FND portiones, et
25 supererit trapezium CEFD aequum tribus meniscis GL, HM, KN et
semicirculo AB.
29v Auferantur ergo de rectilineo CEFD tria triangula tribus / meniscis
aequalia, modo nuper tradito inventa, et supererit rectilineum ipsi AB
semicirculo aequale, quod duplatumfaciet rectilineum toti circulo aequale.
30 Inde quadratum ipsi rectilineo aequale comperietur per ultimam 2
i
, et
perinde quadratum erit circulo aequale.
Videtur autem hic Hippocrates voluisse decipere geometras, non enim
tradidit doctrinam comperiendi rectilineum aequale cuicumque menisco,
sed solum ei qui sub semicirculo et quadrante concluditur. Ad quadra-
35 turam vero circuli opus erat invenire rectilineum ei menisco aequale qui
sub semicirculo et sextante continetur. Corruit itaque Hippocratis demon-
stratio subducto fundamento.
Maurolyci
Tetragonismus
Ad comperiendum rectilineum circulo aequale sic procedam.
Esto semicirculus ABCD super diametrum AD centrumque E [Fig.
s III.5B.14]; in quo sumatur portio ABC, ita ut arcus ABC datam habeat
rationem ad totam circuli ABC periferiam, et BC sit ipsi diametro AD
parallelus, et connexa AB assignabo circulum aequalem differentiae
ipsarum portionum ABC, AB.
Connectantur AC, BE, EC. Et quoniam datur ratio arcus ABC ad totam
10 periferiam, ideo datur et ratio arcus BC ad totam periferiam. Quare per
ultimam 6
i
dabitur ratio sectoris EBC ad totum circulum. Talem ergo
30r rationem / per ultimam libelli de dimensione circuli habeat circulus F
ad circulum ABC, eritque per 9
am
5
i
circulus F aequalis sectori EBC.
Sed triangulumEBC per 37
am
primi aequum trianguloABC, positaque com-
13 erat: est Ed
22 aequalis: aequales Ed
Maur. Tetr.
1 Maurolycii MS
4 dimetro Ed / -que om. Ed
6 rarionem Ed
15 muni portione BC fiet sector EBC aequalis figurae ABC sub rectis lineis
BA, AC et arcu BC contentae. Ergo circulus F aequalis erit figurae ABC,
quae est differentia portionum AB, ABC, quod volebam.
Sit deinde semicirculus GKL super diametrumGL centrumqueM, sitque
KM ipsi GL perpendicularis [Fig. III.5B.15]. Item GH sit latus hexagoni,
20 et connectantur GK, MH, eritque sector MHK duodecima pars circuli.
Sit ergo circulus N aequalis sectori MHK per ultimam libelli de dimen-
sione circuli compertus. Item sit circulus P aequalis differentiae ipsarum
portionum GHK, GH, sicut dudum docuimus, inventus. Erit autem cir-
culus N maior circulo P, quoniam sector MHK maior est quam differ-
25 entia portionum GHK, GH, quae differentia est figura GHK sub rectis
GH, GK et arcu HK contenta. Itaque per 11 am libelli de dimen-
sione circuli sit ipsorum circulorum N, P differentiae aequalis Q circulus,
qui aequalis erit differentiae triangulorum rectilineorum MGH, MKG.
Namque subducta differentia proportionum GHK, GH, circulo videlicet
30 P, de differentia sectorum MGK, MGH, circulo videlicet N, supererit
differentia triangulorum MGH, MKG, circulus videlicet Q. Sit ergo tri-
angulorumMGH, MKG differentia trigonumR, quod erit aequale circulo
Q. Itaque circulo aequale descripsimus rectilineum.
Verum in hoc deficit problema, quod non docet prima regula invenire
35 circulum aequalem differentiae quorumcumque circularium portionum,
sed solum earum quarum periferie semicirculum perficiunt. Opus autem
erat extendi regulam ad portiones GHK, GH, quarum periferiae [semi]-
circulum non complent.
30v Itaque quoniam hoc modo non succedit, alia aggredi/emur via. As-
40 sumemus autem doctrinam aequalium momentorum, docentem quo pacto
queat centrum gravitatis propositae figurae planae comperiri.
Sit rectilineum vel alia qualiscumque plana figura AB, cuius oportet
centrum gravitatis invenire [Fig. III.5B.16a]. Suspendatur rectilineum a
signo quovis, ut pote A, et ducatur perpendicularis ad horizontem AB,
45 quae sicut in libello momentorum aequalium ostenditur, ibit per centrum
gravitatis figurae AB. Item suspendatur figura ab alio signo, ut pote C,
et ducatur ad horizontem perpendicularis CD secans ipsam AB in signo
E, ibit enim similiter CD per centrum gravitatis. Itaque centrum gravitatis
figurae AB erit E, quod invenisse oportuit. Nunc parata est proposito via
50 nostro.
Proponatur circulus quispiam, cui oporteat aequum rectilineum de-
scribere, sitque circulusABC, cuius centrumD [Fig. III.5B.16b].
Assumatur de ipso portio aliquota, ut pote quadrans ABCD, semi-
diametris AD, DC ductis, et connectatur A C.
55 Capiatur autem, sicut dudum docuimus, ipsius quadrantis ABCD gravi-
15 BC corr. MS ex ABC
16 erit (et) MS est Ed
24 quoniam Ed quando (qn) MS I post est del. MS sectore fig
36 perficiunt: conficiunt Ed
40 docentem correxi ex docentes
48 Itaque . . . gravitatis om. Ed

tatis centrum, quod sit E. Capiatur et trianguli rectilinei ACD centrum,
quod sit F, nec non portionis ABC centrum, quod sit G. Et quoniam
E centrum est aggregati ex triangulo et portione, hoc est quadrantis,
31r ideo sicut in momentis aequalibus ostensum I est, erit E centrum in recta
60 GF. Item quoniam spacia reciproca sunt ponderibus, erit sicut triangulum
ACD ad portionem ABC, sic spacium GE ad spacium EF. Sic ergo sit
DC ad CH sibi in rectum coniunctam, et connectatur AH, eritque per
primam 6
i
sicut DC ad CH, et ideo sicut triangulum ACD ad por-
tionem ABC, sic triangulum ACD ad triangulum ACH. Itaque per 9
am
5
i
65 triangulumACH aequum erit portioniABC, positoque communi triangulo
ACD erit triangulum AHD aequum quadranti ABCD. Quadrupletur ergo
triangulum AHD, fietque triangulum vel rectilineum aequum toti circulo
ABC, quod erat faciendum.
Neque hoc contenti sciscitabimur arithmetico calculo rationem peri-
70 feriae ad diametrum annitentes propius Archimedeae veritati accedere,
quamquam id olim Apollonius factitasse narratur in magnum diffusus
numerorum acervum.
19 Augusti 1534.
BN 7464, IModus alius quadrandi
25r circulum.
Sit datus circulus AB super diametrum AB, quem quadrari oporteat
[Fig. III.5B.17]. Intelligatur cylindrus AC super basim circularem AB,
5 cuius altitudo BC, aequalis ponatur diametro AB. Deinde quadratum
fabricetur DEF, cuius latus aequale diametro AB, et super tale quadratum
cubus DG; stent autem tarn cylindrus AC quam cubus DG super colli-
brato pIano. Et impleatur cylindrus AC aqua, sive liquore quovis, ita
ut plana sit suprema liquoris superficies. Mox effundatur liquor in
10 cubum. Et quoniam maior cubus cylindro, utpote, quem circumscribit
aut circumscribere potest, ideo non explebit totum liquor cubum. Impleat
sane usque ad signum H, ut videlicet liquoris celsitudo sit FH, pIano
liquoris HK aequedistante superficiei planae DF; quibus peractis
habebimus duo solida aequalia, cylindrum scilicetAC et parallelepipedum
15 DH, quandoquidem idem liquor implet utrumque. Necesse est ergo
huiusmodi solidorum celsitudines esse basibus reciprocas, ut alibi
ostensum est; hoc est ut circulus AB ad quadratum DF, sive EG, sic
celsitudo FH ad celsitudinem BC, quae est FG. Sed per primam 6
i
elementorum sicut FH ad FG, sic rectangulum EH ad quadratum EG.
20 Igitur sicut rectangulum EH ad quadratum EG, sic circulus AB ad quad-
60 spatia Ed
61 spacium
1
2
: spatium Ed
72 post acervum add. MS et om. Ed Sequitur calculus periferiae
Modus alius
3 oportet Ed
7 AC: AGEd
17 ad Ed-MS hie et postea I quadratum Ed 0 MS hie et postea
ratum EG; quare rectangulum EH aequale erit circulo AB. Ponatur ipsis
EF, FH media proportionalis linea L, eritque quadratum ex L aequale
rectangulo EH, et ideo aequale circulo AB, quod est propositum.
Archimedes' Booklet on the Measurement
of the Circle
[From the tradition of Francesco Maurolico]
Proposition I.
A RECTILINEAR TRIANGLE DESCRIBED ON THE CHORD OF
A CIRCULAR SEGMENT NO GREATER THAN A SEMICIRCLE
AND HAVING THE SAME ALTITUDE AS THE SEGMENT IS
GREATER THAN HALF THE SEGMENT [IN AREA].1
Let there be a segment ABG of circle ABG, whose center is D, which
segment is not greater than a semicircle and let the arc ABG be
bisected in point B by 111.29 [of Euclid's Elements].2 And let chord AG
be drawn, with AB and BG connected [see Fig. 11I.5B.l].
I say that !::.ABG > segment ABG.
Let radius DB be drawn so as to cut AG at E, and let ZBH be
drawn through point B perpendicular to DB. By 111.15 [of Euclid]3 it
will fall outside of the circle and it will be parallel to AG by 1.28 [of
Euclid] when the angles at E are right angles since evidently DB bisects
arc ABG and hence the chord AG. Whence, by IIL3 [of Euclid], it
will cut the chord at right angles. And so let the rectangle AZHG be
completed; and so straight lines AZ and GH will be outside the circle
since segment ABG is not greater than a semicircle. Therefore, rect.
AH > segm. ABG. But, by 1.41 [of Euclid], !::.ABG = rect. AH. There-
fore !::.ABG > segm. ABG. Q.E.D.
Proposition 11.
IF TWO LINES ARE DRAWN TANGENT TO A CIRCLE FROM A
POINT OUTSIDE OF THE CIRCLE, A [THIRD] STRAIGHT LINE
WHICH IS TANGENT TO THE CIRCLE AT THE MIDDLE OF THE
ASSUMED ARC [INCLUDED BETWEEN THE FIRST TWO
TANGENTS] WILL CUT MORE THAN HALF FROM THE FIGURE
BOUNDED BY THE [FIRST TWO] TANGENTS AND THE
ASSUMED ARC.1
19 rectangu!um Ed CJ MS hie et postea
Prop. I
1 See Commentary to Text B, Prop. I, lines 4-7.
2 Ibid., line 9.
3 Ibid., line 13.
Prop. II
1 See Com., Prop. I, lines 4-7.
From point E outside of circle ABG let the two straight lines EA and
EG be drawn tangent to the circle in points A and G and let the
arc ABG be bisected in point B [see Fig. I1I.5B.2]. And let straight line
ZBH be drawn tangent to the circle through point B, meeting the lines
AE and EG at points Z and H.
I say that I::.ZEH > ~ the figure EABG contained by lines AE, EG
and arcABG.
For let straight lines AB, BE, BG be connected and, since from
the penultimate [proposition] of [Book] III [of the Elements]2 AE and
EG are equal, and by 111.27 [of Euclid]3 straight lines AB and BG are
equal, therefore by 1.8 [of Euclid]4 triangles AEB and BEG are mutually
equiangular; therefore, LZAB = LHGB. But LZBA = LZAB and
LHBG = LHGB since each of the trianglesAZB andBHG is an isosceles
triangle from the penultimate [proposition] of [Book] III [of the Elements].
Therefore, triangles AZB and BHG are mutually equilateral by 1.26 [of
Euclid]. Hence AZ = GH and ZB =BH. And also ZE = EH. Whence
triangles BEZ and BEH are mutually equilateral and equiangular by
1.8 [of Euclid]. Therefore, LZBE = LEBH and hence angles ZBE and
EBH are right angles. And so, by 1.19 [of Euclid],5 EZ > ZB and
hence EZ > AZ. Hence, by VI.I [of Euclid], I::.EBZ > I::.ZBA. I shall show
in the same way that I::.EBH > I::.HBG. Therefore, the whole I::.ZEH
>(I::.ZBA + I::.HBG). Hence, I::.ZEH > ~ I : : E B A + I::.EBG). But figure
EABG < (I::.EBA + I::.EBG). Therefore, a fortiori, I::.ZEH > ~ figure
EABG contained by lines AE, EG and arc ABG. Q.E.D.
Corollary.
Therefore it is evident that the four lines AZ, ZB, BH and HG are
mutually equal.
Proposition Ill.
A RECTILINEAR POLYGON IN WHICH PERPENDICULARS
DRAWN FROM AN INTERIOR POINT TO THE INDIVIDUAL
SIDES ARE MUTUALLY EQUAL (OF WHICH SORTIS AREGULAR
POLYGON CIRCUMSCRIBED ABOUT, OR INSCRIBED IN, A
CIRCLE) IS EQUAL TO A RIGHT TRIANGLE ONE OF WHOSE
SIDES ABOUT THE RIGHT ANGLE IS EQUAL TO ONE OF THE
AFORESAID PERPENDICULARS WHILE THE OTHER IS EQUAL
TO THE PERIMETER OF THE POLYGON.l
2 See Corn., Prop. 11, lines 13, 18.
3 Ibid., line 14.
4 Ibid., line 15.
5 Proposition 1.18 would be a preferable citation.
Prop. III
1 See Corn., Prop. Ill, lines 2-9.
j
Let the rectilinear figure be ABGDE, in which the perpendiculars
from a certain interior point, e.g. Z, to the individual sides are
equal [see Fig. III.5B.3]. Moreover, let such a perpendicularZH be drawn
to one of the sides, AB, and let 6. TKL be a triangle which has a
right angle at K with side TK equal to the perpendicular ZH and side
KL equal to the perimeter of figure ABG.
I say that polygon ABG = 6. TKL.
For let the angles of figure ABG be connected to point Z and let
KL be divided into as many equal parts as there are individual sides
of figure ABG, each part being equal to a single side and the whole KL
being equal to the sum of the sides; and let KM be equal to AB, MN
to BG, NX to GD, XO to DE, and OL to EA; and let points M, N, X,
and 0 be connected to point T.
And so, since the bases and altitudes of triangles AZB and KTM are
equal, therefore by VLl [of Euclid] the triangles AZB and TKM are
mutually equal. And in the same way triangles BZG and MTN, GZD
and NTX, DZE and XTO, and EZA and OTL will be mutually equal.
Therefore, the whole rectlinear figure ABG is equal to the whole 6.KTL.
Q.E.D.
It ought to be noticed that in a figure circumscribed about a circle
the perpendiculars from the center of the circle to the [individual] sides
are equal, for the straight lines going out from the center to the
points of contact [of the sides with the circle] are, by 111.17 [of Euclid],2
perpendicular to these sides. These perpendiculars, by the definition of
a circle, are equal.
Also, in an equilateral figure inscribed in a circle, the perpendiculars
from the center to the sides are equal, which is evident by 111.13
[of Euclid].3 Hence, the proposition correctly cites figures of this kind
as examples.
4
Proposition IV.
A CIRCLE IS EQUAL TO A RIGHT TRIANGLE ONE OF WHOSE
SIDES ABOUT THE RIGHT ANGLE IS EQUAL TO THE RADIUS
OF THE CIRCLE WHILE THE OTHER IS EQUAL TO THE
CIRCUMFERENCE.}
Let the circle be ABGD and the right triangle E and let the radius
of circle ABG be equal to one of the sides of 6.E that is about the right
angle, while the circumference of ABG is equal to the other side of 6.E
that is about the right angle [see Fig. IIL5BA].
I say that circle ABG = 6.E.
2 Ibid., line 31.
3 Ibid., line 34.
Prop. IV
1 See Corn., Prop. IV, lines 2-4.
For, if it is possible, let the circle be greater than the triangle by a
certain area, say Z; and let square ABG be inscribed in the circle by
IV.6 [of Euclid]. And, with the arcs bisected, let octagon AKB be in-
scribed. By the first [proposition] of this [work] t::.ADK > Y2 circular
segment AKB, and similarly the remaining triangles are greater than
half the remaining segments. I do this often enough until by X.I [of
Euclid] the' segments left over are less than area Z, and so the inscribed
polygon AKB will be greater than /:::"E.
Let one of the perpendiculars from the center of circle N to the sides
of polygon AKB be taken, e.g., perpendicular NX drawn to side AK, and
by the preceding [proposition] polygon AKB will be equal to the right
triangle one of whose sides about the right angle is equal to NX while
the other is equal to the perimeter of polygon AKB. But such a triangle
is less than t::.E since the sides about the right angle in /:::,.E are greater,
that is, one of them is equal to radius [NK] of circle ABG which is
greater than perpendicular NX and the other is equal to the circum-
ference of the circle which is greater than the perimeter of the polygon.
Therefore, polygonAKB < /:::"E; but it was [before shown to be] greater,
which is impossible. Therefore, circle ABG ::t- /:::"E.
Now, if it is possible, let circle ABG < /:::,.E by some area, e.g., Z;
and, by IV.? [of Euclid], let square OH be circumscribed about the
circle, its sides being tangent to the circle at points A, B, G, D; and let
the arc AKB be bisected in point K, and the remaining arcs in the
same way. Let PKR be drawn tangent to the circle through K and meeting
the sides of the circumscribed square at P and R; and similarly [let
tangents be drawn] to the remaining arcs BG, GD and DA. By the second
[proposition] of this [work] /:::,.POR > Y2 figure AOBK which is contained
by straight lines AO, OB and arc AKB; and similarly the remaining
triangles at the angles of square OH are greater than half the remaining
figures. Therefore, I shall not cease from bisecting the arcs in this manner
until, by X.I [of Euclid], the figures which are bounded by the arcs of the
circle and the sides of the circumscribed polygon reduce to an area less
than area Z. And so the circumscribed polygon APRB [at that time] will
be less than /:::"E. Therefore, let center N be connected to one of the
points in which the sides of polygon APK touch the circle, for example,
to point K. By the preceding [proposition] polygon APK will be equal
to a right triangle one of whose sides about the right angle is equal to
NK and the other to the perimeter of polygon APK. Therefore a triangle
of this sort is greater than t::.E since, of the sides of t::.E about the right
angle, one is equal to NK while the other is equal to the circumference
of the circle which is less than the perimeter of polygon APK. Hence,
polygonAPK > /:::"E; but it was [before shown to be] less, which is absurd.
Therefore, circle ABG 1: /:::"E. It was shown [earlier] not to be greater;
therefore circle ABG = /:::"E. Q.E.D.
Hence it is evident that a circle is equal to the rectangle contained by
the radius of the circle and a line equal to one-half the circumference.
2
Corollary.
It is evident, therefore, that the area of the circle is produced from the
product of the radius and one-half the circumference.
Proposition V.
THE DIAMETERS OF CIRCLES ARE PROPORTIONAL TO
[THEIR] CIRCUMFERENCES.l
Let there be two circles AB, GD, whose centers are E and Z and radii
are EB and ZD [see Fig. 11I.5B.5].
I say that radius EB / radius ZD = circum. AB / circum. GD.
For let BH and DT be placed at right angles to EB and ZD, with
BH being placed equal to circumference AB and DT to circumference
GD; and let EH and ZT be drawn. By the preceding [proposition} circle
AB = 6.EBH and circle GD = 6.ZDT. But by Xl1.2 [of Euclid} circle
AB/circle GD = EB2/ ZD2. Therefore, 6.EBH / 6.ZDT = EB2/ ZD2. But
EB2 / ZD2 = (EB / ZD)' (EB / ZD) by VI. 17 [of Euclid},
2
Therefore, 6.EBH /
6.ZTD = (EB / ZD)'(EB / ZD). But, by VI.24 [of Euclid},3 6..EBH /
6.ZDT = (EB / ZD) (BH / DT), since angles Band D are equal [i.e., they
are right angles]. Therefore, it is necessary thatEB / ZD = BH / TD; and,
therefore, EB / ZD = circum. AB/circum. GD. Q.E.D.
Proposition VI.
THE SECTOR OF A CIRCLE IS EQUAL TO A RIGHT TRIANGLE
ONE OF WHOSE SIDES ABOUT THE RIGHT ANGLE IS EQUAL TO
THE RADIUS WHILE THE OTHERIS EQUAL TO THE ARC OF THE
SECTOR.l
Let sector DBG be cut from circle ABG with center D, and let 6.EZH
be posed with right angle Z, side EZ being equal to radius DB and side
ZH to the arc BG [see Fig. 1I1.5B.6].
I say that sector DBG = 6. EZH.
For let ZH be produced so that ZT is equal to the whole circumference
of ABG and let ET be drawn. By the fourth [Proposition] of this [work}
2 Ibid., lines 50- 51.
Prop. V
1 See Corn., Prop. V, lines 2-3.
2 Ibid., line 14.
3 Ibid., line 17.
Prop. VI
1 See Corn., Prop. VI, lines 2-5.
,
,

circleABG = L:::.EZT. But, from the last [proposition] of [Book] VI [of the
Elements] and conjunct proportionality, circle ABG / sector DBG = whole
circum. ABG / arcBG. And, therefore, circle ABG/ sector DBG =ZT/ ZH.
Therefore by VI. 1 [of Euclid] circle ABG / sector DBG = L:::.EZT / L:::.EZH.
And circle ABG = L:::.EZT. Therefore by V.14 [of Euclid] sector DBG
= L:::.EZH. Q.E.D.
Hence, it is evident that the sector of a circle is equal to the rectangle
which is contained by the radius of the circle and a line equal to half
the assumed arc.
Scholium.
Notice that from the fourth proposition the surface of the circle is pro-
duced from the product of the radius and one-half the circumference,
while from the present [proposition] the surface of the sector is pro-
duced from the radius of the circle and half the arc of the sector, just
as the surface of a triangle, by 1.42 of the Elements, arises from the
product of one of the sides about the right angle and half the other.
Scholium.
From this proposition it also follows that the ratio of sectors is com-
posed of the ratios of the radii and of the arcs; and that the ratio of
similar sectors is as that of the squares of the diameters; and that sectors
whose radii are reciprocally as the arcs are mutually equal.
Similarly, the ratio of similar circular segments is equal to the
square of the ratio of their chords.
Proposition VII.
THE CIRCUMFERENCE OF A CIRCLE IS TRIPLE [ITS]
DIAMETER PLUS AN AMOUNT WHICH IS LESS THAN A
SEVENTH PART OF THE DIAMETER AND MORE THAN TEN
SEVENTY-FIRSTS [OF ITV
Let there be a circle AG with diameter AG and center E [see Fig.
11I.5B.7a].
I say that circumference AG is less than 3
1
/7 the diameter AG and
more than 3
10
/71 [it].
Let MGR be drawn at right angles to AG; it will fall outside of the
circle by 111.15 [of Euclid].2 And let LGER be posed as one-half an
angle of an equilateral triangle, Le., one-third of a right angle. And EG
will be as a perpendicular from an angle of an equilateral triangle to the
side opposite. Hence ER = 2 RG. Therefore ER2 = 4RG2. Hence, by the
penultimate [proposition] of [Book] I [of the Elements], EG2 = 3GR2.
Prop. VII
1 See Corn., Prop. VII, lines 2-4.
2 Ibid., line 10.
And so if ER is assumed to be of 306 parts, GR will become 153 and
EG more than 265.
3
Let LGER be bisected by line EH, by 1.9 [of Euclid]; and, by VI.3 [of
Euclid] ER / RH = EG / GH. Hence by V.B [of Euclid] (GE +ER) /
GR = EG / GH. And so EG / GH> 571 / 153. Hence, from the
penultimate [proposition] of [Book] I [of the Elements], EH / GH
> 59F/50 / 153.
4
Further, I bisect L GEH by line ET. With the same ratios adduced, EG /
GT> 1162%0/ 153. Hence ET / GT > 1172
4
/25/ 153.
5
Also, with LGET bisected by line EK, then, similarly, EG / GK
> 2334
3
/ 10 / 153. Hence EK / GK > 23393/10/ 153.
6
Further, with LGEK bisected by line EL, EG / GL > 4673% / 153.
Therefore, since L GER is right angle and has been bisected four
times, hence LGEL = Y48 right angle. Therefore, let LGEM be placed
equal to LGEL. Then the total LLEM = 1124 right angle. And soLM is the
side of a polygon of 96 angles circumscribed about circle AG. Therefore,
since ML = 2 GL and AG = 2 EG, so AG / ML = EG / GL. Therefore,
AG / (96'ML) = EG / (96'GL), (96ML) being the perimeter of the said
polygon.
But EG / GL > 4673% / 153.
7
Therefore, let 96 be multiplied 153 times
and the result is 14688. Hence, EG / (96'GL) > 4673% / 14688. And so [the
ratio of] diameter AG to the perimeter of a polygon of 96 sides circum-
scribed about the circle is greater than 4673%/14688. But the number 14688
contains the number 4673315 thrice with 6671f5 remaining, which remainder
is less than one-seventh of4673%. Hence, the perimeter ofthe said polygon
is triple the diameter plus an amount that is less than one seventh of it. But
the perimeter of the polygon is greater than the circumference of the circle;
hence afortiori the circumference ofthe circle is triple the diameter plus an
amount that is less than one-seventh of it; and this is the first part of the
proposition.
Now inside the circle letAB andBG be drawn, and let LBAG = right
angle [see Fig. III.5B.7b]. And so, as above, ifAG is assumed to be of 1560
parts, BG will become 780 parts. Hence, AB/BG < 1351/780.
Let LBAG be bisected by line AH which intersects BG at R , and let HG
be drawn. LBAH = LBGH, by 111.20 [of Euclid].8 But LHAG
= LBAH. Hence LBGH = LHAG. Therefore, .6.HAG and .6.HGR
(having angles BGH and HAG equal and LAHG common) are mutually
equiangular.
And so, by VIA [of Euclid], AH/ HG = GH / HR = AG / GR. But AG /
3 Ibid., line 15.
5 Ibid., lines 22 and 23.
6 Ibid., line 25 (bis).
7 Ibid., lines 28, etc. I
8 Ibid., line 50.
GR = (GA +AB) / BG, by VI.3 and V.B [of Euclid].9 Therefore,
(GA +AB) / BG =AH / HG. Hence, AH / HG < 2911/780. Therefore,
AG / GH < 3013% / 780.
Further, let LHAG be bisected by line TA, with TG drawn. With the
same ratios adduced, AT/ TG < 5924% / 780; and henceAG / GT < 5976/780.
Also, let LTAG be bisected by line AK, with KG drawn. Similarly,
AK / KG < 11900% / 780. And hence AK / KG < 1007 / 66, and AG / GK
< 1009
1
/6 / 66.
Once more, with LKAG bisected by line AL and with LG drawn,
AL / LG < 2016
1
/6/66; and hence AG / GL < / 66.
But LLAG = 1/48 right angle. Therefore, by 111.19 [of Euclid], 10 the angle
at the center whichLG subtends is 1/24 right angle. Hence straight lineLG is
the side of an equilateral polygon of96 sides which is inscribed in the circle.
Let 66 be multiplied 96 times and the result is 6336. And soAG / perimeter
of said polygon / 6336. Hence, inversely, by V.26 [of Euclid],
perimeter of said polygon / diameter AG > 6336 / But 6336 /
20 > 3
1
/71. Therefore the [ratio of the] perimeter of the polygon to the
diameter is greater than 3
1
/71. But the circumference of the circle is greater
than the perimeter of the polygon. Therefore a fortiori the [ratio of the]
circumference of the circle to [its] diameter is greater than 3
1
/71, which is
the rest of the proposition.
Corollary.
From this calculation it is evident that, if the diameter of a circle is placed
equal to 497 parts, the circumference will be greater than 1561 parts and
less than 1562 parts.
Proposition VIII.
A CIRCLE HAS A RATIO TO THE SQUARE OF [ITS]
DIAMETER THAT IS NEARLY THAT OF 11 to 14.
1
Let there be a circle whose diameter is AB, about which we let
square GDH be described by IV.7 [of Euclid] [see Fig. III.5B.8]. Let
DE be double GD and ER one-seventh part of GD, and join AD, AE,
and AR. By the preceding [proposition] straight line GR is nearly equal
to the circumference of circle AB. But AG, by IV.7 [of Euclid],
is equal to the radius of the same circle. Therefore by the fourth [propo-
sition] of this [work] circle AB is nearly equal to
But / = base GR / base GD, by VI.I [of Euclid] and con-
junct proportionality. Therefore, / = 22/7. But /
square GH = 7 / 28, since it is of it. Therefore, / square GH
9 Ibid., line 55.
Prop. VIII
I
=22/28 = 11 / 14. Hence, the circle AB, already equal to ~ G R is to
square GH as 11 to 14. Q.E.D.
Corollary.
It is evident, therefore, that the sum of 14 circles is equal to the sum
of 11 squares in which they are inscribed.
This is obvious, for by the present [proposition] the circle is to the
square of its diameter as 11 to 14. Therefore (by V.13 [of Euclid]) 11
circles are to 11 squares as 11 to 14. Therefore, inversely, 11 squares
are to 11 circles as 14 to 11. But 14 circles are to 11 circles as 14 to
11. Therefore, 14 circles have the same ratio to 11 circles as 11 squares
to those same 11 circles. Hence (by V. 9 [of Euclid]) 14 circles are equal
to 11 squares of their diameters.
Corollary.
In addition, it is obvious that, if the square of the diameter of some
circle is multiplied 11 times, 1/14 of the product is the area of the circle.
Conversely, if the area of the circle is taken 14 times, lit 1 of the product
will be [the area of] the square of the diameter.
This [calculation follows] according to the ratio 3
1
17 [to 1]. For accord-
ing to the ratio 3
1
/71 [to 1], the circle will be to the square of its diameter
as 223 to 284. Whence 284 circles will be equal to 223 squares. Hence,
if the square of the diameter is multiplied 223 times, the 11284 part
of the product will be the area of the circle.
Conversely, if the area of the circle is multiplied 284 times, the 1/223
part of the product is the square of the diameter.
Proposition IX.
THE CIRCLE DESCRIBED ON THE SIDE OF A RIGHT TRI-
ANGLE SUBTENDED BY THE RIGHT ANGLE IS EQUAL TO THE
SUM OF THE TWO CIRCLES SIMILARLY DESCRIBED ON THE
REMAINING SIDES. 1
Let there be a right triangle ABG, having its right angle at B [see Fig.
III.5B.9].
I say that the circle whose diameter is equal to AG is equal to the sum of
the two circles whose diameters are AB and BG.
For, by XII.2 [of Euclid],AB
2
/ AG2 = circle with diam.AB / circle with
diam. AG. Also, BG
2
/ AG
2
= circle with diam. BG / circle with diam.
AG. Hence, by V.24 [of Euclid], (AB2 + BG
2
) / AG2 = (circ. AB + circ.
BG) / circ. AG. But, by 1.47 [of Euclid], AB2 + BG2 = AG2. Therefore,
circ. AB + eirc. BG = eirc. AG. Q.E.D.
Prop. IX
1 See Corn., Prop. IX, lines 2-5.
I
I shall show in the same way that the circles whose radii are AB and BG
are together equal to the circle whose radius isAG, which also seems to be
included in the proposition.
Proposition X.
WITH TWO CIRCLES PROPOSED, TO FIND A CIRCLE EQUAL
TO THEIR SUM.
Let there be two circles whose diameters are AB, BG. It is required to
find a circle equal to their sum.
LetAB andBG be placed at right angles atB and letAG be joined [again
see Fig. III.5B.9]. On it (AG) as a diameter let a circle be described,
which, by the preceding [proposition], is equal to the circles whose
diameters are AB and BG, which is what is proposed to be done.
Hence, you can find a circle equal to the sum of any number of given
circles.
Proposition XI.
WITH TWO UNEQUAL CIRCLES GIVEN, TO FIND A CIRCLE
EQUAL TO THEIR DIFFERENCE.l
Let there be two circles whose diameters are AB and BG, AB being
the larger [see Fig. III.5B.1O]. It is necessary to find a circle equal to the
excess by which the circle with diameter AB exceeds the circle with
diameter BG.
Let semicircleABG be described onAB, within whichBG is applied from
point B by IV.I [of Euclid], and AG is joined. Hence, by III.3Q2 [of
Euclid], LAGB is a right angle, and therefore by Proposition IX the
circles whose diameters are AG and GB are together equal to the circle
whose diameter isAB. Hence the circle whose diameter isAG is the excess
by which the circle whose diameter is AB exceeds the circle whose
diameter is BG. Therefore the circle whose diameter is AG is the one
which was sought.
Proposition XII.
TO FIND A CIRCLE WHICH HAS A GIVEN RATIO TO A GIVEN
CIRCLE.l
Let the given circle beAB and the given ratioD to G [see Fig. III.5B.ll].
It is required to describe a circle which has the same ratio to circle AB
as D does to G.
By VI.IO [of the Elements]2 let diameter AB be to lineE as G is toD. Let
Prop. XI
1 See Corn., Prop. XI, lines 2-3.
2 Ibid., line 8.
Prop. XII
2 Ibid., line 6.
\
MAUROLICO'S DE CIRCULI DIMENS/ONE 897
there be a mean proportionalZH between AB andE by VI.9 [of Euclid].3
Let circle ZH be described on ZH as a diameter.
I say that as D is to G so circle ZH is to circle AB, which I shall demon-
strate as follows.
Lines AB, ZH, and E are continual proportionals. Therefore, by VI. 17
[of Euclid] ,4 AB / E = AB2 / ZH2. But, by XII.2 [of Euclid], AB2 / ZH2
= circle AB I circle ZH. Therefore, AB / E = circle AB / circle ZH.
But AB / E = G / D.
Thus circle AB / circle ZH = G / D, and, inversely, then, circle ZH /
circle AB = D / G.
Therefore, we have described a circle ZH which has to the given circle
AB the given ratio of D to G, which is what is proposed for construction.
Scholium.
From this, therefore, you can find a circle equal to a given sector which
has a given ratio to its circle.
For if, by example, some sector be a fifth part of its circle, i. e., (its arc]
takes a fifth part of the whole circumference, then the circle which is found
to be a fifth part of this circle by the present (proposition] is equal to the
sector of this sort.
The end of the Booklet on the Measurement of the Circle. 19 August
1534.
The Quadrature of Hippocrates. 1
Let semicircleACB be described on diameter AB with center D, and let
radius CD be perpendicular toAB; and withAC drawn let semicircleAEC
be described on AC (see Fig. 1I1.5B.12].
I say that the lune contained by semicircleAEC and quadrant arc AFC is
equal to the rectilinear triangle ACD.
For let BC be drawn, and, by 111.30 (of Euclid],2 LACB will be a right
angle. Hence, by Proposition 9 of the Booklet on the Measurement of the
Circle, semicircle ACB will be equal to the two semicircles whose diame-
ters are AC and CB. Therefore, semicircle ACB = 2 semicircle AEC.
Therefore, the quarter circle AFCD = semicircle AEC. And so, with the
common segment AFC subtracted, the lune AECF remains equal to the
rectilinear triangle ACD. Q.E.D.
Further, let semicircle AB be laid out on diameter AB, and, on diameter
CD, semicircle CEFD double semicircle AB. By XII.2 [of Euclid] semi-
circle CEFD = 4 semicircle AB (see Fig. III.5B.13]. And in semicircle
CED let three sides of a regular hexagon be applied: CE, EF and FD. On
3/bid., line 7.
4 See Corn., Prop. V, line 14.
Hipp.
1 See Corn., Hip. Tetra., lines 1-2.
2 See Corn., Prop. XI, line 8.
,
these individual sides let semicircles CGE, EHF and FKD be described.
Each of these semicircles will be equal to semicircle AB since each of
CE, EF and ED is equal to one-half CD and therefore is equal to AB.
And so semicircle CEFD = semicircle CGE + semicircle EHF + semi-
circle FKD + semicircle AB.
Therefore, let the common segments CLE, EMF andFND be subtracted
and trapezium CEFD will remain equal to the three lunes GL, HM and
KN plus the semicircle AB.
Now from the trapezium CEFD subtract three triangles equal to the
three lunes, these triangles having been found by the method described
above. Hence, there will remain a rectilinear figure equal to semicircle
AB. If this is doubled, a rectilinear figure equal to the whole circle will
be formed. Hence a square equal to this rectilinear figure will be found
by the last [proposition] of [Book] 11 [of the Elements]. Thus this square
will be equal to the circle.
But it seems that here Hippocrates wished to deceive geometers, for
he does not relate the doctrine for finding a rectilinear figure equal to any
lune but only one equal to the lune bounded by a semicircle and a quadrant
arc. Now for the quadrature of the circle it was necessary to find a recti-
linear figure equal to the lune bounded by a semicircle and a sextant
arc. And so with this basic foundation [of his proof] removed, the demon-
stration of Hippocrates collapses.
3
The Quadrature of Maurolycus
I shall proceed as follows to find a rectilinear figure equal to a circle.
1
Let there be semicircle ABCD with center E [constructed] on diameter
AD [see Fig. 11I.5B.14]. Let there be taken in this semicircle a segment
ABC such that arc ABC has a given ratio to the whole circumference of
a circle ABC, and let BC be parallel to diameter AD. With AB drawn, I
shall mark out a circle equal to the difference between these segments
ABC andAB.
Let AC, BE and EC be drawn. Since the ratio of arc ABC to the whole
circumference is given, therefore also given is the ratio of arc BC to the
whole circumference. Hence, by the last [proposition] of [Book] VI [of
the Elements], the ratio of sector EBC to the whole circle will be given.
Therefore by the last [proposition] of the Booklet on the Measurement of
the Circle let circle F have such a ratio to circle ABC. By V.9 [of Euclid]
circle F will be equal to sector EBC. But, by 1.37 [of Euclid] MBC
= l:.ABC. And with the common segment BC added, sector EBC will be-
come equal to the figure ABC bounded by straight lines BA, AC and
3 See below, Appendix 11, for other treatments of the quadrature by lunes and for the
significance of Sirnplicius' warning that the proof is false.
Maur. Tetr.
1 See Corn., Maur. Tetra., lines 3-38.
I
arc BC. Therefore, circle F will be equal to figure ABC, which figure is the
difference between segments AB and ABC. This is what I was wanting.
Then let semicircle GKL with center M be [constructed] upon diameter
GL, and let KM be perpendicular to GL [see Fig. III.5B.15]. Also, let
GH be the side of a hexagon, and let GK and MH be drawn. Sector
MHK will be a twelfth part of the circle. Therefore, let circle N, equal to
sector MHK, be found, by the last [proposition] of the Booklet on the
Measurement of the Circle. Also, let circle P, equal to the difference be-
tween these segments GHK and GH, be found, just as we showed above.
But circle N is greater than circle P since sector MHK is greater than the
difference between segments GHK and GH, which difference is the figure
bounded by straight lines GH, GK and arcHK. And so, by [Proposition] 11
of the Booklet on the Measurement ofthe Circle, let circle Qbe equal to the
difference between circles Nand P. This will be equal to the difference
between rectilinear triangles MGH and MKG. For with the difference
between segments GHK and GH (evidently circle P) subtracted from the
difference between sectors MGK andMGH (evidently circleN), there will
remain the difference between triangle MGH and MKG (evidently circle
Q). Hence let triangle R be the difference between triangles MGH and
MKG, which triangle [then] will be equal to circle Q. And so we have de-
scribed a rectilinear figure equal to a circle.
But the problem is defective in this, namely, that the first rule does not
show how to find a circle equal to the difference of any circular segments
but only of those whose arcs complete [Le. add up to] a semicircle. But
it was necessary [in the proof] for the rule to be extended to segments GHK
and GH, whose arcs do not complete a semicircle.
And so, since this method is not successful, let us undertake another
way.2 Now let us assume the doctrine of equal moments which shows
how the center of gravity of a proposed plane figure can be found.
Let there be a rectilinear figure (or any other plane figure) AB whose
center of gravity it is required to find [see Fig. III.5B.16a]. Let the
rectilinear figure be suspended from any point, e.g., A, and let a per-
pendicular AB be drawn to the horizon, which, as is demonstrated in the
Booklet ofEqual Moments, will pass through the center of gravity of figure
AB. Also let the figure be suspended from another point, e.g., C, and let
perpendicular CD be drawn to the horizon, cutting AB in point E, for CD
similarly will pass through the center of gravity. And so the center of
gravity of figure AB will be E, which it had been required to find. Now the
way has been prepared [to demonstrate] what we have proposed.
Let any circle be proposed, to which it be necessary to describe an
equal rectilinear i g u r ~ and let it be circle ABC with center D [see Fig.
III.5B.16b].
Let some part of it be taken, e.g., quarter circle ABCD, with radii AD
and DC drawn; and let AC be joined.
Now, in the manner we have just taught, let the center of gravity of
quarter circle ABeD be taken, which center is E, and also let the center of
the rectilinear MCD be taken, which center is F, and the center of seg-
mentABC, which is G. And since E is the center of gravity of the aggregate
of the triangle and the segment, i.e., of the quarter circle, therefore, as has
been demonstrated in the Equal Moments, the center E will be in straight
line GF. Also, since the distances are in reciprocal proportion to the
weights, MCD will be to segment ABC as distance GE is to distance
EF. Hence, let DC be to [some line] CH (joined directly to it) as GE is to
EF, and let AH be drawn. By VI. 1 [of Euclid) DC / CH = MCD I seg.
ARC = MCD I MCR. And so by V.9 [of Euclid] MCH = seg. ABC.
With the common MCD added, MHD = quarter circleABCD. There-
fore, let MHD be quadrupled and there will result a triangle or rectilinear
figure equal to the whole circle ABC, which was to be constructed.
Being content with this, we shall not investigate the ratio of the circum-
ference to the diameter by arithmetic calculation, striving to come closer to
the Archimedean truth, although it is narrated that once Apollonius,
pouring out a great pile of numbers, kept on doing this.
3
19 August, 1534.
Another Method of Squaring a Circle. 1
On diameter AB let there be given circle AB to be squared [see Fig.
III.5B.17]. Let cylinder AC be thought of as on the circular base AB and
let the altitude of the cylinder, BC, be placed equal to diameter AB.
Then let a square, DEF, be constructed whose side is equal to diameter
AB, and upon such a square the cube DG. Let both the cylinder AC and
the cube DG stand on a level plane. And let cylinder AC be filled with
water or any liquid so that the upper plane [base of the cylinder] coincides
with the surface of the liquid. Then let the liquid be poured into the cube.
And since the cube is greater than the cylinder (which, for example, it will
circumscribe or can circumscribe), therefore, the liquid will not fill up the
whole cube. However, let it fill it up to pointH so that evidently the altitude
of the liquid is FH with the [upper] plane of the liquid HK being parallel
to planeDF. When these things have been done, we shall have two equal
solids, namely, cylinder AC and parallelepiped DH, since the same liquid
fills up each [solid]. Hence, it is necessary that the altitudes of solids of
this sort are reciprocally proportional to [their] bases, as has been demon-
strated elsewhere. That is, circle AB I square DF (or EG) = altitude FH /
altitude BC (or FG). But, by VI. 1 of the Elements, FH / FG = rectangle
EH/ squareEG. Therefore, rectangle EH / squareEG = circleAB / square
EG. Hence, rectangle ER = circle AB. Then between EF and FH let a
mean proportional, line L, be placed, and L 2 = rect. EH = circle AB.
Q.E.D.
Modus alius
1 See Corn., Mod. al. quad., lines 3-23.
Commentary to Text B
Archimedis de circuli dimensione libel/us
Proposition I
4-7 "Triangulum ... portionis." I have already mentioned in Sec-
tion III of this chapter the relevant parts of medieval
versions of De mensura circuli that contained elaborations
similar to that presented here as the first two propositions.
Though each of these propositions does not appear as a separate
proposition in the medieval works, they do appear together in a
somewhat different form as a single proposition in Proposition
11 of the quadrature tract which I have called the Versio ab-
breviata (see Vol. 1, p. 392). In view of the fact that the Versio
abbreviata also included as its Proposition I a proposition quite
similar to Maurolico's Proposition Ill, I think it the most likely
source of Maurolico' s preliminary propositions, although to be
sure Maurolico freely changed and adapted to his own way of
proceeding the language and form of his source.
9 "per 29
am
3
ii
" Campanus 111.29 = Greek and Zamberti 111.30.
See the Elementa (Basel, 1546), p. 77.
13 "per 15
arn
3
ii
See the Elementa (Basel, 1546), pp. 66-68.
Proposition II
13, 18 "ex penultima 3
ii
" Maurolico is citing Campanus' additio to 111.35
(Elementa, Basel, 1546, p. 83): "Nota etiam quod si a quolibet
puncto extra circulum signato duae lineae contingentes ad
circulum ipsum ducantur, ipsae emnt adinvicem aequales." The
same thing is proved in the course of the proof of 111.37 in the
Greek text and Zamberti's translation (ibid., p. 85).
14 "per 27
arn
eiusdem" Campanus 111.28 = Greek and Zamberti
111.29. See the Elementa (Basel, 1546), pp. 75-76.
15 "per 8
arn
primi" That is, by 1.8 LEAB = LEGB and hence by
1.4 triangles AEB and BEG are equiangular.
Proposition III
2-9 "Polygonium ... rectilinei." Note that I have mentioned in
Section III of this chapter the various medieval propositions
that are similar to this proposition. The closest of the earlier
propositions to this one so far as the enunciation is concerned
are Proposition I of the Versio Vaticana (Vo!. 1, p. 374) and its
equivalent, Proposition I of the Versio abbreviata (ibid., p. 390),
derived from the Versio Vaticana. Further, Maurolico's proof is
couched in terms of a regular pentagon as were those of the
earlier works. If we consider only this proposition, we cannot
decide which of the two versions influenced Maurolico. But in
view of the possible influence of the Versio abbreviata on
Maurolico's Propositions I and 11 mentioned in the commentary
above, it would appear that it was the Versio abbreviata that
influenced him in preparing this proposition.
31 "per 17
arn
3
ii
34 "per Barn 3
ii
34-35 "bene ... propositio" This statement implies that Maurolico
took the substance of the parenthetical phrase in the enunci-
ation (" of which sort is a regular polygon circumscribed about,
or inscribed in, a circle") from an earlier work. That phrase is
not in the Versio abbreviata mentioned in the earlier comment
as a likely source consulted by Maurolico. But Maurolico could
also have seen the Corpus Christi Version of the De mensura
circuli (Vo!. 1, p. 174) where in the enunciations of Propositions
IlIA and IIIB the polygons are mentioned as being inscribed in,
and circumscribed about, a circle. Such is also the case of
Propositions I and 11 of the Verbafiliorum (ibid., pp. 246-52).
Though he may have seen either or both of the latter works, his
principal source seems to have been the Versio abbreviata, as
I have already said, for, like the enunciation in that version, he
specifies that the area of the regular polygon is equal to that of a
right triangle with sides about the right angle equal to the perim-
eter of the polygon and to a perpendicular from the center of the
polygon to the middle of one of the sides. In the enunciations in
the Verba filiorum and the Corpus Christi Version there is no
mention of the right triangle. In the Verba filiorum the area of
the polygon is described as being equal to the product of the
semiperimeter and the aforesaid perpendicular. In the Corpus
Christi Version the product of the whole perimeter and the said
perpendicular is declared to be equal to double the polygon.
Proposition IV
2-4 "Circulus ... basi." This is Proposition I of the genuine text
of Archimedes. There can be no doubt that the enunciation was
taken by Maurolico directly from Moerbeke's translation (see
Vo!. 2, 22vl). Maurolico's only changes were to transpose "est
aequalis" twice. I have argued in Section III of this chapter that
he took the enunciation from Gaurico' s version of Moerbeke' s
translation. Though the lettering used in the text and on the
diagrams is similar to that of the Moerbeke translation, he has
made a few changes which prevent us from asserting without
some hesitation that the proof depends on the Gaurico version.
However, in view of the fact that we can show that Proposition
VII was drawn from the Gaurico text there seems no reason to
doubt that the enunciation of Proposition IV was also taken
from Gaurico's text (see below, Commentary, Prop. VII, lines
,
2-4). Finally, we should observe that this proposition was
proved by a different method in the Verba filiorum, Proposition
IV (Vol. 1, pp. 256-60) and also later by Maurolico in his
Praeparatio, Proposition XLIII (Text A, above).
50-51 "Rinc ... comprehenditur." See the similar corollary in
Gerard of Cremona' s translation of De mensura circuli (Vol. 1,
p.46).
Proposition V
2-3 "Circulorum ... proportionales." See the equivalent proposi-
tion with a different proof in the Verba filiorum, Proposition
V (Vol. 1, p. 260). The only real similarity in the proofs is that
both depend on the main quadrature proposition (Proposition
IV in the Verbafiliorum and Proposition IV in Maurolico's text).
The same proposition is proved in the Liber de curvis super-
ficiebus, Proposition III (ibid., pp. 462-66) by the "easier way"
and consequently by Maurolico in his version of De sphaera et
cylindro, Proposition VI (see Text C below). Furthermore,
Maurolico later proved the proposition in his Praeparatio,
Proposition VIII (Text A above) by what I have called the
"converse way."
14 "per 17
am
6
i
" Campanus VI.17 = Greek and Zamberti VI.I9.
17 "per 24
am
6
i
" Campanus VI.24 = Greek and Zamberti VI.23.
See the Elementa (Base!, 1546), pp. 158-59.
Proposition VI
2- 5 "Sector . . . sectoris." This is the so-called corollary of Rero
which appears in Gerard of Cremona' s translation of De
mensura circuli (Vo], 1, pp. 5, 46) and in the Verba filiorum
(ibid., p. 260). Maurolico's terminology is distinctly different
from that used in either of the basic medieval versions of the
corollary. This may mean that he found it in a later manual or
that he took it from one of the earlier works and modernized
the terminology as he was accustomed to do.
Proposition VII
2-4 "Circuli ... primis." This is Proposition III of Archimedes'
On the Measurement of the Circle. Again the enunciation was
drawn from the Moerbeke translation (see Vo!. 2, 22vO-P) with
some change. Maurolico has omitted" Omnis" before" circuli. "
It is interesting that the lettering for magnitudes in the text and on the
diagrams is exactly that of Gaurico' s edition of the Moerbeke trans-
lation; thus, like Gaurico's text alone, it has the letter R substituted
for Z, which is found in the Greek text and in manuscripts M
and 0 of the Moerbeke translation. This is good evidence that
Maurolico used the Gaurico version of Moerbeke' s translation
for this enunciation (and hence for the enunciations of the
,
other propositions from Archimedes' work). The actual calcula-
tions used by Maurolico in the course of the proof were not
taken from Moerbeke's translation. They resemble the numbers
found in the Arabic tradition passed on in Gerard of Cremona's
translation, but with an elaboration similar to that of Johannes de
Muris' De arte mensurandi (see above, Part I, Chapter 4). How-
ever, as I have noted in a series of comments below, Maurolico
has in several instances adopted slightly different fractions in
his approximations.
10 "per 15
am
3
ii
15 "EG plus quam 265" The Greek text and the Moerbeke trans-
lation imply that EG = 265. But the Arabic text translated by
Plato of Tivoli recognized that the equality was not exact (see
Vol. 1, p. 29, Corn. to lines 75-111). Johannes de Muris in his
De arte mensurandi expresses this by saying "ent ... latus
EG 265 et pars modica." See also my introduction to the text
of the De mensura circuli in Appendix I, Section 2, where I
note that Proposition III in that text includes the phrase "et
proportio EG ad GZ est maior quam 265 ad 153."
19-20 "EH . .. 153." In the Greek text, the Moerbeke translation
and Plato of Tivoli's translation the number appears incorrectly
as 591 instead of 591YS. In Eutocius' commentary, in Gerard
of Cremona' s translation, in a late addition to Moerbeke' s
translation and in Johannes de Muris' version, the approxima-
tion of 591 Ys appears, while Maurolico here uses the approxima-
tion 59F/50. Furthermore, the Greek text (and Moerbeke's
translation) compounds the error by asserting that EH / HG
= 591 / 153, where the correct expression is that EH / HG
> 591 YS / 153, as the various other versions give it (and Mauro-
lico's too if we substitute his 59FIso for 591Ys).
22 "1162%0" The Archimedean figure is 1162Ys.
23 "1172%5" The Archimedean figure is 1172YS.
25 "2334
3
/10" The Archimedean figure is 3 3 4 ~
25 "2339
3
/ 10" The Archimedean figure is 3 3 9 ~
28, 36,
38, 40,
41 "4673%" The Archimedean figure is 4673Y:2..
50 "per 20
am
3
ii
55 "per Barn 5
i
" Campanus V.13 = Greek and Zamberti V.12. See
the Elementa (Basel, 1546), pp. 123-24.
68-69 "per 19
arn
tertii" Campanus 111.19 = Greek and Zamberti 111.20.
See the Elementa (Basel, 1546), p. 70. ,
Proposition VIII
2-3 "Circulus ... fere. " This is Proposition 11 of Archimedes' On
the Measurement of the Circle. Again the source of the enunci-
ation was Moerbeke's translation (see Vol. 2, 22vM). Maurolico,
however, substituted "quadratum rationem" for Moerbeke's
"tetragonum proportionem" and added "fere" to the end of the
enunciation. The latter addition was taken from the body of the
proof. The term "fere" was used in the various versions of
De mensura circuli in the Arabo-Latin tradition (see "Selective
Index" of Volume One, "fere"). It was also used in Valla's very
brief statement of this proposition (see above, Part Ill, Chap. 2,
Sect. V, n. 6). The equivalent term in the Moerbeke translation
is "propinquissime" (see Vol. 2, 22vO) and in Jacobus Cre-
monensis' translation is "prope" (ed., Basel, 1544, p. 56). The
lettering used for the magnitudes in the text and on the diagrams
was taken from Moerbeke' s translation. Again Maurolico' s use
of "R" where "z" is present in manuscripts 0 and M indicates
that Maurolico used Gaurico' s edition of the Moerbeke transla-
tion.
Proposition IX
2-5 "Circulus ... descriptorum." This proposition is added here
so that it may serve as an authority for Maurolico' s proof of
the Hippocratis Tetragonismus below (see that text, line 9). It
is also cited in Prop. XVI of Maurolico's On the Sphere and
the Cylinder (see Text C, line 38).
Proposition XI
2-3 "Propositis ... circulum." This proposition is added to sup-
port Maurolico's Tetragonismus (see that text below, lines 26-
27).
8 "per 30
am
3
ii
Proposition XII
2-3 "Comperire ... rationem." This proposition was used in
Maurolico's Tetragonismus (see text below, lines 12, 21).
6 "per lOam 6
i
". Campanus Vl.lO = Greek and Zamberti VI.l1.
7 "per 9
am
6
i
". Campanus VI.9 = Greek and Zamberti VI. 13. See
the Elementa (Basel, 1546), pp. 145, 147.
Hippocratis Tetragonismus
1-2 "Hippocratis Tetragonismus. " Maurolico' s source of the
quadrature by lunes was apparently Valla's De expetendis et
fugiendis rebus, Bk. XI, Cap. VIII (see the text above in Part
Ill, Chap. 2, Sect. V). ,
Maurolyci Tetragonismus
3-38 "Ad.... complent." This is the first of the two quadratures
discussed in this short tract. I have commented in Section III
of this chapter on the fact that Maurolico presented the proof
but at the same time pointed out its flaw. I do not know whether
the proof was an invention of Maurolico or whether he took it
from some other author. If the latter, the author is unknown.
39-68 "Haque.... faciendum." The most interesting aspect of the
second quadrature of this tract is its dependence on On Equal
Moments. The first citations in lines 39-40 and 45 justify the
determination of the center gravity of a plane figure by suc-
cessively suspending it at two different points and noting where
the lines drawn from the respective points of suspension per-
pendicularly to the horizon intersect. It is evident that Archi-
medes' text is not being cited directly but rather some proposi-
tion deduced from Archimedes, like Proposition V of Book I of
Maurolico's reconstruction of On Equal Moments (ed., 1685,
p.89):
Propositio V. Propositi gravis centrum invenire. Sit grave propositum
A [Fig. III.5B.18]: oportet in ipso A centrum gravitatis comperire.
Suspendatur A per primum postulatum a puncto utrumque relicto B,
ducaturque ad horizontem perpendicularis BC. Rursum suspendatur
et ab alio puncto D, et perpendicularis ad horizontem ducatur DE, quae
perpendiculares per praecedentem se invicem in centro gravitatis, quod
sit A, secabunt. Itaque A erit centrum gravitatis quod comperire
oportuit. Atque hoc quidem praecepto centrum gravitatis in quolibet
gravi comperietur, sive grave propositum sit planum, sive solidum,
sive regulare, sive qualiscunque formae, nihil interest.
(The substance of this same proposition on the finding of the
center of gravity of any figure was also given by Maurolico in
the Dialogus primus of his Cosmographia [Venice, 1543], 19r-v,
a work which had already been completed by 1535:
ANTI. Sed istoc gravitatis centrum, quod ad universale semper centrum
pendet, et non nisi in eodem naturaliter requiescit, quo pacto
comperiri potest? NICO. Suspendatur proposita res utcunque ut libere
pendeat: mox ab ipso suspensionis signo ad horizontis planum per-
pendicularis recta ducatur, quemadmodum Euclides in 11. undecimi
docet. Rursum ab alio signo similiter res ipsa appendatur: et a signo
rursum perpendicularis agatur ad horizontem; oportebit nanque
utranque perpendicularium per centrum incedere gravitatis, quando-
quidem tale centrum in ipsa semper ad horizontem perpendiculari,
utcunque res pendeat, invenitur. Punctum igitur in quo se vicissim
perpendiculares intersecant erit proculdubio quesitum gravitatis
centrum. ANTI. Et tradis et demonstras praeceptum; habeo plusquam
petii. NICO. Verum de hoc negocio plenius agit Archimedes in libro I
aequalium momentorum; ibi nanque docet quemadmodum in qualibet
rectilinea figura sive parallelepipedo solido gravitatis centrum com-
periatur; unde tota staterae ac bilancis instrumenti pendet ratio. Sed
haec alias discutientur.)
The next citation in line 59 justifies Maurolico' s conclusion
that the center of gravity of the figure aggregated of the
triangle ACD and the segment ABC lies in the line GF connect-
ing their centers of gravity. The citation is to a proposition like
Proposition VI of Maurolico's On Equal Moments (ibid.):
"Propositio VI. Centrum totius est in recta coniungente centra
partium. Totum grave sit AB, partes eius A et B, centra gravi-
tatum partium A, B sint puncta A, B; coniungatur AB. Aio
itaque quod centrum totius AB est in ipsa recta linea AB. . . ."
Finally in line 60 of Maurolico's Tetragonismus the law of the
lever is noted and probably reflects a proposition like Proposition
XXX of Book I of his On Equal Moments (ibid., p. 100):
"Propositio XXX. Gravia aequeponderantia reciproca sunt
spatiis a quibus pendent."
The fact that Maurolico appears to be citing propositions
similar to those of his later work seems to imply that Maurolico
had produced a version of his On Equal Moments by 1534 and
thus long before the final form of that work completed in
1547-48. In any case, Maurolico demonstrates by his citations
in this tract and in his Quadratura parabolae a knowledge of
Archimedes' On the Equilibrium of Planes by 1534. As I noted
above in Section III of this chapter, this early knowledge of the
Archimedean work presents the yet unsolved problem of which
version of On the Equilibrium of Planes Maurolico had con-
sulted.
71-72 "quamquam ... acervum" The reference to Apollonius' ef-
forts to approximate 1T more closely than Archimedes comes
from Eutocius' Commentary on the Measurement of the Circle
as reported by Valla in his De expetendis, Bk. XI, Cap. VIII (see
the text above in Part IIl, Chap. 2, Sect. V).
Modus alius quadrandi
3-23 "Sit. ... propositum." I have noted in Section III of this
chapter the similarity of this proof with the procedure suggested
by Albert of Saxony for cubing a sphere. It should also be
compared with other efforts to perform quadrature by physical
means, like the bending of a hair circumference-wise suggested
in the Corpus Christi Version of the De mensura circuli (Vol. 1,
p. 170) and the comparative weighing of the liquid content of
cylindrical and cubical vases of known dimensions recom-
mended by Nicholas of Cusa (see above, Part Ill, Chap. 1,
Sect. I, n. 26).
c
The Archimedis Liber de sphaera et cylindro
40 / Archimedis liber de sphaera et cylindro, ex traditione
Eutocii per Franciscum Maurolycum Mamertinum
Mathematicae disciplinae studiosissimum emendati, et
ad optimum ordinem restituti et adaucti.
5 Propositio I.
PYRAMIDIS SUPER BASIM AEQUILATERAM ET AEQUI-
ANGULAM ERECTAE SUPERFICIES (QUAE CONGERIES EST
TRIGONORUM AD VERTICEM PYRAMIDIS COEUNTIUM)
AEQUALIS EST TRIGONO RECTANGULO CUIUS UNUM
10 EORUM QUAE CIRCA RECTUM ANGULUM AEQUALE EST
PERPENDICULARI QUAE A VERTICE AD LATUS BASIS, RE-
LIQUUM VERO PERlMETRO BASIS.
Sit, exempli gratia, super basim pentagonam ABGD aequilateram
et aequiangulam pyramis, cuius vertex Z, ita ut recta quae a puncto Z ad
15 centrum circuli circumscribentis pentagonum ABG sit ipsi pentagono
perpendicularis [see Fig. III.5C.l]. Unde fit ut triangula quae ad verticem
Z concurrunt sint invicem aequilatera et aequiangula; cadat autem a
puncto Z ad unum laterum pentagoni, utpote AB, perpendicularis ZH,
ponaturque trigonum TKL rectum qui apud K angulum habens, cuius
20 latus TK ipsi ZH, latus autem KL universo perimetro pentagoni ABG sit
aequale.
Dico itaque totam superficiem pyramidis, quae congeries est trigonorum
ad verticem Z coniunctorum, aequalem esse trigono TKL.
Secetur KL in tot segmenta quot sunt latera basis ABG, hoc est in hoc
25 exemplo in quinque partes KM, MN, NX, XO, OL, quae singulae sint
aequales singulis lateribus basis ABG, et connectantur TM, TN, TX, TO.
Itaque quoniam trigonorum AZB, TKM bases AB, KM sunt aequales, et
perpendiculares ZH, TK aequales, ideo ipsa trigona per 38
am
primi
aequalia; sed per primam sexti trigonum TKL ad trigonum TKM, sicut
41 basis KL ad basim KM, et ideo quincuplum; ipsa quoque / superficies
31 pyramidis ABG, quae congeries est quinque trigonorum ad punctum Z
compactorum, quincupla est ad trigonum AZB. Ergo et dicta superficies
pyramidis ABG aequalis est trigono TKL, quod erat demonstrandum.
Propositio II.
CONI CURVA SUPERFICIES AEQUALIS EST TRIGONO REC-
TANGULO CUIUS UNUM LATERUM RECTUM ANGULUM CON-
908
MAUROLICO'S DE SPHAERA ET CYLINDRO 909
5
35
10
30
TINENTIUM AEQUALE EST CONICO LATERI, RELIQUUM VERO
PERIPHERIAE BASIS.
Sit trigonum rectangulum ABG, rectum qui ad B angulum habens
[Fig. III.5C.2] quo super axem AB revoluto donec redeat ad locum
suum, describatur conus verticem habens A, basim vero circulum GDE,
sitque trigonum ZHT rectum apud H angulum habens, cuius latus ZH
ipsi hypothemisae (! hypothenusae) AG sit aequale; latus autem HT
peripheriae circulari GDE aequalis.
Dieo quod conica superficies coni AGDE, quam describit linea AG,
aequalis est trigono ZHT.
Nam si trigonum ZHT non sit aequum conicae superficiei AGDE, erit
omnino aequum conicae superficiei coni habentis basim minorem mai-
oremve circulo GD, et altitudinem eandem cum cono AGD. Sit ergo
primum trigonum ZHT aequum conicae superficiei coni, cuius vertex A
basisque circulus KL minor ipso circulo EG, et latus AL, qui videlicet
conus ab ipso trigono ALB describitur. Et per Barn 12
i
intra circulum
20 EG describatur polygonium rectilineum aequilaterum et aequiangulum
cuius latera minime contingant circulum KL, et a vertice A descendant
hypothenusae ad angulos polygonii, quae cum lateribus polygonii con-
tinebunt pyramidem habentem cum cono AGD verticem eundem, et in-
clusam eidem cono. Itaque ducatur a vertice A perpendicularis ad unum
laterum polygonii EG, ut pote ad latus GD, quae perpendicularis sit
AM, eritque per praecedentem superficies pyramidis AGD, quae congeries
est trigonorum ad verticem A coeuntium, aequalis trigono rectangulo
cuius unum latus eorum quae circa rectum aequale est perpendiculari
AM, reliquum perimetro polygonii GDE. Huiusmodi ergo trigonum
minus est trigono ZHT, cuius latera ZH, HT, quae circa rectum,
maiora sunt, quippe quae aequalia sunt lateri AG et peripheriae circuli
GDE, quae maiora sunt perpendiculari AM et perimetro polygonii GDE.
Sed trigonum ZHT aequum fuit superficiei coni ALK. Igitur superficies
dicta pyramidis AGD minor est superficie coni ALK, quod est impos-
sibile, cum superficies pyramidis maior sit superficiei (!) coni ALK
inclusa. Vel sic, quoniam trigonum ZHT maius est trigono cui aequalis
est superficies pyramidis, superficies autem pyramidis maior est super-
ficie coni ALK inclusa, ergo trigonum ZHT maius est superficie coni
ALK; itaque non est ei aequale, sicut supponebatur.
Esto nunc trigonum ZHT aequum, si possibile est, conicae super-
ficiei coni habentis basim maio/rem circulo GD et eandem altitudinem
cum conoAGD; sitque, brevitatis causa, conus suppositusALK, et trigoni
ZHT latus ZH aequum hypothenusae AL, at latus HT aequum peripheriae
circuli KL.
Aio iam quod non est possibile trigonum ZHT esse aequum super-
ficiei curvae alicuius coni habentis basim maiorem circuloKL et verticemA .
Nam, si possibile est, sit trigonum ZHT aequum superficiei coni cuius
basis circulus EG maior circulo KL, et describatur ut prius intra
15
25
45
40
42
-,
circulum EG polygonium aequalium laterum non tangentium circulum
so KL; et super poligonium pyramis GD vertice A, a quo ad unum laterum
polygonii DG cadat perpendicularis AM. Eritque per praecedentem
superficies pyramidis AGD, quae congeries est trigonorum ad verticem,
aequalis trigono rectangulo cuius laterum quae circa rectum unum aequale
est perpendiculari AM, reliquum perimetro polygonii GDE. Hoc itaque
ss trigonum maius est trigono ZHT, cum habeat latera quae circa rectum
maiora. Sed trigonum ZHT aequum fuit superficiei coni AGDE. Ergo
dicta pyramidis superficies maior est superficie coni AGDE, inclusa
claudente, quod est impossibile. Similiter ergo si trigoni ZHT latus ZH
hypothenusae AG, et latus HT peripheriae circuli EG sit aequale, non
60 esset trigonum ZHT aequale superficie (!) coni cuiuspiam cuius basis sit
maior circulo EG et vertex A. Fuitque ostensum quod nec idem trigonum
aequum est superficiei coni cuiuslibet cuius basis sit minor circulo EG,
et vertice A. Superest ergo ut idem trigonum ZHT aequum sit conicae
superficiei coni AGDE, quod erat demonstrandum.
65 Corollarium I.
Manifestum est ergo quod ex ductu conici lateris in dimidium
periphaeriae basis producitur conica superficies, quemadmodum ex ductu
unius laterum quae circa rectum in trigono rectangulo in reliqui dimidium
per 4tarn primi consurgit area trigoni.
70 Corollarium 11.
Rursum ex ductu semidiametri conicae basis in semiperipheriam circuli
cuius semidiameter est latus conicum producitur conica superficies, quod
sequitur ex tertio corollario primae (! sextae).
Corollarium Ill.
......
75 Demum circulus cuius semidiameter est media proportionalis inter
latus conicum ac semidiametrum conicae basis aequalis est conicae
superficiei, quod sequitur ex prostremo corollario primae (! sextae).
43 IPropositio Ill.
CONICA SUPERFICIES AD BASIM EST SICUT CONICUM LATUS
AD SEMIDIAMETRUM BASIS.
Sit conus ADG descriptus a trigono ABG angulum B rectum habente,
5 et revoluto circa axem AB, cuius vertex A, basis DG, eiusque semi-
diameter BG [Fig. III.5C.3].
Aio quod curva superficies coni ABG ad circulum DG est sicut
hypothenusae AG ad semidiametrumBG.
Sit enim trigonum ZHT rectum angulum Z habens, cuius latus ZH
10 sit aequum hypothenusae AG, ipsum vero ZT aequum periphaeriae (l)
circuli DG. ItemdeZH(quae maior est ipsaBG, quoniamAG maior eadem)
abscindatur ipsi BG aequalis ZN, et connectatur NT. Per 4
am
libelli de
dimensione circuli trigonum ZNT aequum circulo DG, trigonum vero
ZHT per praemissam aequum curvae superficiei coni DAG. Sed per
15 primam 6
i
et coniunctam proportionem, sicuti ZH ad ZN, sic trigonum
ZTH ad trigonum ZTN. Ergo superficies curva coni ADG ad circulum
DG, sicut ZH ad ZN, et ideo sicut AG ad BG, quod erat demonstrandum.
Vel sic per corollarium quartae de dimensione circuli, area circuli
DG aequalis est ei quod fit ex semidiametro BG in semiperipheriam
20 DG. Per corollarium praemissae, conica superficies ADG aequalis est ei
quod fit ex AG latere in semiperipheriam DG. Ergo adhuc per primam
6
i
sicut AG ad BG, sic conica superficies ADG ad circulumDG, quod est
propositum.
Propositio IV.
CYLINDRI CURVA SUPERFICIES AEQUALIS EST REC-
TANGULO SUB LATERIBUS CONTENTO QUORUM UNUM AXI
CYLINDRICO, RELIQUUM VERO PERIPHERIAE BASIS EST
5 AEQUALE.
Sit parallelogrammum rectangulum ABGD, quo semel revoluto circa
latus AB fixum, describatur cylindrus axem habens AB, basim vero
circulum GE [Fig. III.5CA]. Sitque rectangulum ZHT, cuius latus
quidem ZH axi AB, latus vero HT peripheriae circuli EG sit aequale.
10 Aio quod cylindrica superficies quam describit latus GD aequalis est
rectangulo ZT.
Nam si rectangulum ZHT non sit aequum cylindricae superficiei quam
describit linea DG, erit aequum cylindricae superficiei alicuius cylindri
44 ha/bentis basim maiorem, minoremve circulo EG circa eundem axemAB.
15 Sit ergo primum rectangulum ZHT aequum curvae superficiei cylindri
cuius basis sit circulus KL minor circulo EG, et axis idem AB, qui
scilicet cylindrus a rectangulo ABLM circa axem AB circumducto
describitur, et cuius curva superficies describitur a linea LM. Et per
13
am
12
i
inscribitur circulo EG polygoniumEG laterum aequalium minime
20 contingentium circulum KL, super quod polygonium erigatur prisma
eandem cum cylindro habens celsitudinem, ductis lateribus cylindri super
angulos polygonii perpendicularibus. Eruntque parallelogrammata pris-
matis quorum bases sunt latera polygonii simul aequalia per 36
am
primi
vel per primam 6
i
rectangulo quod fit ex axe AB in perimetrum
25 polygonii EG. Sed hoc rectangulum minus est rectangulo ZT, quod
fit ex axe AB in peripheriam circuli EG, quae maior est perimetro
polygonii. Rectangulum autem ZT aequum fuit superficiei cylindricae
quam describit linea LM. Igitur parallelogrammum prismatis cuius basis
polygonium EG minus est quam superficies cylindrica quam describit
30 linea LM; superficies, inquam, claudens minor est inclusa, quod est
impossibile.
......
Vel sic quoniam rectangulum ZT maius est rectangulis prismatis
praedictis, rectangula vero prismatis maiora quam superficies cylindrica
quam describit linea LM, quandoquidem includens inclusa maior, ideo
35 rectangulum ZT maius superficie cylindrica quam describit linea LM.
Quare non ei aequale sicut proponebatur.
Esto nunc rectangulum ZHT aequum, si possibile est, cylindricae
superficiei cylindri habentis basim maiorem circulo EG et axemAB. Sitque
brevitatis causa, cylindrus suppositus cuius axis AB et basis circulus KL,
40 qui scilicet describitur a rectangulo ABLM circumducto semel circa axem
AB, et rectanguli ZT latus ZH aequum axi AB, et latus HT aequum
peripheriae circuli KL.
Aio iam quod non est possibile rectangulum ZT esse aequum super-
ficiei curvae alicuius cylindri circum axemAB descripti, et habentis basim
45 maiorem circulo KL.
Nam, si possibile est, sit rectangulum ZT aequum superficiei curvae
cylindri cuius basis circulus EG maior circulo KL, qui scilicet a rectangulo
ABGD circum axem AB revoluto, et cuius superficies curva a linea GD
describitur. Et inscribatur ut prius circulo EG polygonium aequalium
50 laterum non tangentium circulum KL, et super polygonium prisma in-
clusum cylindricae superficiei quam describit linea GD. Eruntque pris-
matis rectangula quorum bases sunt latera polygonii simul aequalia per
36
am
primi vel primam 6
i
rectangulo quod fit ex axe AB in perimetrum
polygonii EG. Hoc itaque rectangulum maius est rectangulo ZT, quoniam
55 illius unum latus aequale uni lateri huius, et reliquum reliquo maius
(maius enim perimeter polygonii EG quam peripheria KL). Sed rec-
tangulumZT aequum fuit superficiei cylindricae quam describit linea GD.
Ergo dicta prismatis rectangula simul maiora sunt superficie cylindrica
quam describit linea GD. Superficies itaque inclusa prismatis maior super-
60 ficie cylindrica claudente, quod est impossible: Non est igitur rectangulum
ZT aequum alicui curvae superficiei cylindri circum axemAB cuius basis
sit maior circulo KL.
45 / Similiter ergo si rectanguli ZT latus ZH axi AB, et latus HT peripheriae
circuliEG sit aequale, non erit rectangulumZT aequum superficiei curvae
65 cylindri cuiuspiam circum axem AB cuius basis sit maior circulo EG.
Fuitque ostensum quod nec idem rectangulum aequum est superficiei
curvae cylindri cuiuspiam circum axem AB cuius basis sit minor circulo
EG. Superest ergo ut idem rectangulumZT aequale sit superficiei curvae
cylindri cuius axis AB basisque circulus EG, quam scilicet superficiem
70 describit linea GD, quod est propositum.
Corollarium I.
Manifestum est ergo quod cylindrica superficies producitur ex axe
cylindrico in peripheriam basis.
1
Corollarium 11.
75 Rursum ex ductu diametri cylindricae basis in peripheriam circuli cuius
diameter est cylindricus axis producitur cylindrica superficies, quod
sequitur ex tertio corollario primae (! sextae).
Demum circulus cuius semidiameter est media proportionalis inter
latus seu axem cylindricum ac diametrum cylindricae basis superficiei
80 cylindricae aequalis est, quod sequitur ex postremo corollario primae
(! sextae).
Propositio V.
CYLINDRICA SUPERFICIES AD CONICAM EUNDEM AXEM
EANDEMQUE BASIM HABENTEM EST SICUT AXIS AD DIMIDIUM
CONICI LATERIS; CYLINDRICA QUOQUE SUPERFICIES AD
5 BASIM EST SICUT AXIS AD DIMIDIUM SEMIDIAMETRI.
Circumducto rectangulo ABGD circum axem AB semel describatur
cylindrus, et circum eundem axem revoluto triangulo ABG fiat conus,
eritque tarn cylindri quam coni basis circulus quem describit linea
BG, qui sit EG [Fig. III.5C.5].
10 Aio quod cylindrica superficies quam describit linea DG ad conicam
superficiem quam describit linea AG est sic axis AB ad dimidium
lineae AG, ad circulum vero EG sicut axis AB ad dimidium lineae BG.
Nam per praecedentem cylindrica superficies quam describit linea GD
aequalis est ei quod fit ex AB in peripheriam circuli EG. Per 2
am
autem
15 huius conica superficies quam describit linea AG aequalis est ei quod fit
ex AG in dimidium peripheriae EG; ergo et ei quod fit ex dimidio
ipsius AG in totam peripheriam EG. Per corollarium vero quartae de
circuli dimensione, circulus EG aequalis est ei quod fit ex BG in dimidium
peripheriae EG; ergo et ei quod ex dimidio ipsius BG in totam peripheriam
20 EG. Igitur cum horum trium rectangulorum una sit altitudo, quae est
aequalis peripheriae circuli EG, iam per primam 6
i
erunt ad invicem sicut
bases. Itaque cylindrica superficies quam describit linea DG ad conicam
quam describit linea AG erit sicut DG ad dimidium AG; ad circulum
vero EG sicut linea AB ad dimidium ipsius BG, quod est propositum.
46 /Propositio VI.
CIRCULORUM PERIPHERIAE SUNT DIAMETRIS PROPOR-
TIONALES
[Demonstratio huius propositionis habetur in svapraeambuli Maurolyci.]
5 Sunto enim duo circuli AB, GD, quorum diametri AB, GD [Fig.
III.5C.6].
Aio quod diameter AB ad diametrum GD, sicut peripheria AB ad
peripheriam GD.
Sit enim sicut diameter AB ad diametrum GD, sic iam peripheria
10 AB ad peripheriam EZ. Et erit peripheria EZ aequalis peripheriae GD,
secus enim erit minor aut maior. Si minor, sit ipsi GD concentrica, et
per Barn 12
i
inscribatur peripheriae GD polygonium aequilaterum quod
peripheriam EZ non tangat; et aliud ipsi simile intra peripheriam AB.
Eritque, propter figurarum similitudinem, sicut diameter AB ad diametrum
15 GD, sic perimeter figurae AB ad perimetrum figurae GD. Quare sicut
perimeter figurae AB ad perimetrum figurae GD, sic erit peripheria AB
ad peripheriam EZ. Maior autem perimeter figurae GD quam peripheria
EZ, nimirum continens contento. Ergo per 14
arn
Si maior erit perimeter
figuraeAB quamperipheriaAB: comprehensum comprehendente, quod est
20 imposibile (!). Si autem peripheria EZ sit maior quam peripheria GD, tunc
conversim erit peripheria EZ ad peripheriam AB, sicut diameter GD ad
diametrum AB, et sic sit iam peripheria GD ad peripheriam TB; eritque
per 14
arn
, Si minor peripheria TB quam peripheria AB. Haque erit sicut
diameter GD ad diametrum AB, sic nunc peripheria GD ad peripheriam
25 TB minorem peripheria ipsius diametri AB, quod ducit ad primum im-
possibile. Quamobrem non erit peripheria EZ maior quam pripheria (I)
GD. Fuitque ostensum quod nec minor. Omnino igitur erit ei aequalis; fuit
autem peripheria AB ad peripheriamEZ, sicut diameter AB ad diametrum
GD. Ergo et peripheria AB ad peripheriam GD erit item sicut diameter
30 AB ad diametrum GD, quod erat demonstrandum.
Manifestum est ergo quod sicut est diameter propositi circuli ad ag-
gregatum ex diametris quorumcumque circulorum, sic est peripheria pro-
positi circuli ad aggregatum ex peripheriis omnium illorum circulorum,
hoc enim sequitur ex praemissa, et Ba Si.
35 Quare si diameter propositi circuli sit aequalis aggregato ex diametris
quotcumque circulorum, et peripheria propositi circuli aequalis erit ag-
gregato ex peripheriis omnium illorum circulorum.
Item quod fit ex diametro primi circuli in peripheriam secundi aequale
est ei quod fit ex diametro secundi in peripheriam primi; idemque de
40 semidiametris ac peripheriis dicendum. Id enim sequitur ex praemissa, et
IS
a
6
i
.
Denique si trium circulorum diametri sint continue proportionales, tunc
quoniam et eorum peripheriae sunt in eadem ratione proportionales,
44 estque ob id, sicut semidiametrum primi ad semidiametrum secundi, sic
47 semiperipheria secundi ad semiperi/pheriam tertii. Propterea per Is
arn
6
i
erit quod fit ex [semi]diametro primi in semiperipheriam tertii, aequale ei
quod fit ex semidiametro secundi in semiperipheriam ipsius secundi; et
perinde aequale ipsi circulo secundo, quin ex semidiametro in semi-
peripheriam producitur area circuli.
so Alia demonstratio eiusdem sextae.
Sunto duo circuli AB, GD, quorum diametri AB, GD.
Aio quod peripheria AB ad peripheriam GD est sicut diameter AB ad
diametrum GD.
Nam si sic non fuerit, erit sicut diameter AB ad diametrum GD, sic
55 peripheria AB ad aliquam peripheriam minorem, maioremve peripheria
GD. Sit ergo primum sicut diameter AB ad diametrum GD, sic peripheria
AB ad peripheriamEZ minorem peripheria GD, et ei concentricam. Et per
Barn 12
i
inscribatur circulo GD poligonium aequalium laterum non tan-
gentium circulum EZ, quod sit polygonium GD; et simile ipsi circulo AB
60 inscribatur. Eritque, propter polygoniorum similitudinem, perimeter poly-
gonii AB ad perimetrum polygonii GD, sicut diameter AB ad diametrum
GD, et ideo sicut peripheria circuli GB (I AB) ad peripheriam circuli
EZ. Et permutatim, erit sicut peripheria circuli AB ad perimetrum poly-
gonii AB, sic peripheria circuli EZ ad perimetrum polygonii GD. Sed
65 peripheria circuli AB maior est perimetro polygonii AB; ergo peripheria
circuli EZ maior est perimetro polygonii GD: inclusa includente, quod
est impossibile.
Sit deinde sicut diameter AB ad diametrum GD, sic peripheria AB ad
peripheriamHT maiorem peripheria GD eritque conversim, sicut diameter
70 GD ad diametrum AB, sicut peripheria HT ad peripheriam AB, et sic sit
peripheria GD ad quampiam peripheriam EZ; eritque permutatim, sicut
peripheria HT ad peripheriam GD, sic peripheria AB ad peripheriam EZ.
Maior autem peripheriaHT quam peripheriaGD. Ergo et maior peripheria
AB quam peripheria EZ. Quare fiet sicut diameter GD ad diametrum
75 AB, sic peripheria GD ad peripheriam EZ minorem peripheria AB. Unde
sequitur idem impossibile quod prius. Itaque ratio diametri AB ad
diametrum GD non est sicut peripheria AB ad peripheriam aliquam
maiorem, minoremve peripheria GD. Erit ergo sicut ipsa peripheria AB
ad peripheriam GD, quod erat demonstrandum, quamquam idem in quinta
80 libelli de dimensione circuli abstractive demonstratur.
Corollarium.
Manifestum est ergo quod sicut est diameter dati circuli ad aggregatum
diametrorum quotcunque circulorum, sic peripheria dati circuli ad ag-
gregatum ex peripheriis omnium illorum circulorum. Hoc enim patet ex
85 praemissa, et Ba 5
i
. Quapropter, si dimeter (I) sit aequalis aggregato
diametrorum, peripheria erit aequalis aggregato peripheriarum.
Corollarium.
Item quod fit ex diametro circuli in peripheriam alterius circuli,
aequum ei quod ex diametro huius in peripherium illius. Hoc patet ex
90 praesenti, et 15
a
6
i
.
48 IPropositio VII.
CONI-COLURI CURVA SUPERFICIES AEQUALIS S ~ QUOD
FIT EX LATERE IPSIUS CONI IN DIMIDIAS BASlUM PERIPHERIAS.
Sit trigonum ABG rectum qui apud B angulum habens, et DE ipsi BG
5 paral1elus [Fig. IIl.5C.?]; et circumducto triangulo ABG semel circum
.....
axemAB, sit a trigono ABG descriptus conus AGZ basim habens circulum
GZ, qui vero a trigono ADE conus describitur, sit AHE basim habens
circulumHE. Horum autem conorum differentia, quae scilicet describitur
a trapezio DBGE, vocatur colurus-conus; habetque duas bases in-
10 aequales circulos scilicet GZ, EH.
Aio itaque quod curva superficies coni-coluri, quae scilicet describitur
a linea EG, aequalis est ei quod fit ex ipsa linea EG in dimidias
peripherias circulorum GZ, EH.
Exponatur enim trigonum TKL rectum qui apud K angulum habens,
15 cuius latus TK sit ipsi AG hypotenusae, latus vero KL ipsi GZ peripheriae
aequale, eritque per 2
am
huius coniAGZ curva superficies aequalis trigono
TKL. Ponatur ipsi GE aequalis KM, et ducatur ipsi KL parellelus MN,
eritque, propter triangulorum similitudinem, sicut TK ad TM, et ideo sicut
GA adAE, et ideo sicut semidiameter BG ad semidiametrumDE, sic KL ad
20 MN. Sed per praemissam, sicutBG semidiameter ad DE semidiametrum,
sic GZ peripheria ad EH peripheriam. Igitur sicut GZ peripheria ad EH
peripheriam, sic KL ad MN; et permutatim, sicut peripheria GZ ad KL,
sic peripheria EH ad MN; aequalis autem est peripheria GZ lineae KL.
Ergo et peripheria HE aequalis lineae MN. Et quoniam TM aequalis ipsi
25 AE, ideo per 2
am
huius superficies coni AHE aequalis est trigono TMN;
fuit autem curva superficies coni AZG aequalis trigono TKL. Ergo curva
superficies coni-coluri EZ aequalis erit trapezio KMNL.
Connectantur itaque KN, ML, eruntque per 7
am
primi triangula KML,
KNL aequalia invicem. Sed quod fit ex KM in KL est duplum trianguli
30 KML, ergo et duplum trianguli KNL. Quod autem fit ex KM in MN
duplum est trianguli KMN. 19itur quod fit ex KM in ipsas KL, MN duplum
est totius trapezii KMNL. Itaque quod fit ex KM in dimidium ipsarum
KL, MN aequum est trapezio KMNL. Verum KM fuit aequalis ipsi EG,
ipsa autemKL aequalis peripheriaeZG, ipsa veroMN aequalis peripheriae
35 EH. Ergo quod fit ex EG in dimidias peripherias circulorum GZ, EH
aequum est trapezio KMNL, et ideo curvae superficiei coni-coluri EZ,
cui fuit trapezium aequale, et hoc erat demonstrandum.
Corollaria.
Itaque quod fit ex aggregato semidiametrorum basium coni-coluri in
40 peripheriam cuius diameter est latus conicum aequale est superficiei
conicae, quod sequitur ex 2 et 3 corollario secundae.
49 IAdhuc et circulus cuius semidiameter est media proportionalis inter
latus coni-coluri et aggregatum ex semidiametris basium aequalis est
conicae superficiei, quod sequitur ex postremo corollario primae (! sextae).
Propositio VIII.
SI IN CIRCULO DESCRIPTI POLYGONII AEQUILATERIA>I-
MIDIUM, AD TERMINOS DIAMETRI TERMINATUM, DIAMETRO
STANTE MOVEATUR PERFECTA REVOLUTIONE, DESCRIPTI
I
5
35
30
15
,
10
SOLIDI CONICAE SUPERFICIES CONIUNCTAE AEQUALES
ERUNT El QUOD FIT EX DUCTU LATERIS POLIGONII IN
OMNES PERIPHERIAS CIRCULORUM AB ANGULIS POLYGONII
DESCRIPTORUM.
Intra circulum AB, cuius diameter AB, describatur polygonium
aequalium laterum [Fig. III.5C.8], ut puta decagonum AGDEZBHTKL,
et ducantur GL, DK, ET, ZH, quae etiam ad rectos angulos secabunt
diametrum AB in punctis M, N, X, 0; circumvolvatur autem dimidium
polygonii utrumlibet, ut puta dimidiumADB, stante diametro AB completa
revolutione, qua circumductione ipsum polygonii dimidium describet
quodam solidum tornatile ADB compositum ex diversis solidis, scilicet
ex conis quos describunt triangulaAGM, BZD, ex conis-coluris quos de-
scribunt trapezia MGDN, OZEX, et ex cylindro quem describit rec-
tangulum NDEX; describunt, inquam, in ipsa semipolygonii revolutione.
Si numerus laterum ipsius semipolygonii sit par, tunc ad compositionem
descripti solidi non interveniet cylindrus, non enim erit latus medium,
quod parallelum sit diametro, sicut hic ED parallelus est ipsi AB, et in
revolutione describat cylindrum.
Aio itaque quod solidi tornatilis AB conicae superficies, hoc est tota
solidi superficies, aequalis est ei quod fit ex ductu lateris AG in peripherias
circulorum quos describunt lineae MG, ND, XE, OZ.
Nam per zam huius conica superficies quam describit linea AG aequalis
est ei quod fit ex AG in dimidium peripheriae descriptae ab angulo
G, et per eandem conica superficies quam describit linea BZ aequalis est
ei quod fit ex BZ, vel AG, in dimidium peripheriae descriptae ab angulo Z .
Item per praecedentem curva superficies coni-coluri quam describit linea
GD aequalisest ei quod fit ex ductu lateris GD, vel AG in dimidias
peripherias descriptas ab angulis G, D; et per eandem superficies coni-
coluri quam describit linea EZ aequalis est ei quod fit ex ductu lateris
EZ, vel AG, in dimidias peripherias descriptas ab angulis Z, E. Adhuc
cylindrica superficies quam describit linea DE per primam (! quartam)
huius aequalis est ei quod fit ex ductu lateris DE in peripheriam
descriptam ab angulo D, vel angulo E, cum uterque describat peripheriam
cylindricae basis. Et ideo dicta cylindrica superficies aequalis est ei quod
fit ex ductu lateris DE vel AG in dimidias peripherias descriptas ab angulis
40 E, D. Itaque in hos ductus concurrunt omnes et integrae peripheriae
descriptae ab angulis G, D, E, Z . Quare per primam Zi elementorum omnes
conicae superficies descriptae a semipolygonio ADB, quae tota est a semi-
poligonio descripti solidi superficies, aequalis est ei quod fit ex ductu
lateris AG in peripherias omnes et integras descriptas ab angulis G, D,
E,Z.
/Hoc idem ostendam de solido descripto a semipolygonio cuius laterum
numerus erit par. Sed quoniam ibi non contingit aliquis cylindrus, non
opus erit citare 4
am
huius sed solum zam propter conos qui semper fiunt
apud extrema diametri stantis, et per praecedentem, propter conos-coluros
intermedios. Verum ergo, quod proponitur. 50
20
25
45
50
Propositio IX.
SI IN CIRCULO DESCRIPTI POLYGONII AEQUILATERI
DIMIDIUM AD TERMINOS DIAMETRI TERMINATUM DIAMETRO
STANTE, DONEC AD LOCUM SUUM REDEAT, CIRCUM-
5 DUCATUR, DESCRIPTI SOLIDI TOTA SUPERFICIES AEQUALIS
ERIT El QUOD FIT EX DUCTU PERIPHERIAE CONTINENTIS
POLYGONIUM IN LINEAM QUAE CUM DIAMETRO EIUSDEM
CIRCULI ET LATERE POLYGONII IN IPSO CIRCULO CON-
STITUIT TRIGONUM RECTANGULUM.
10 Intra circulum AB, cuius diameter AB, sit descriptum aequilaterum
polygonium [Fig. III.5C.9], quodvis ut puta dodecagonum, cuius anguli
sint apud puncta A, G, D, E, Z, H, B, T, K, L, M, N, et ducantur lineae
GN, DM, EL, ZK, HT secantes orthogonaliter diametrumAB apud puncta
X, 0, P, R, S. Item lineae DN, EM, ZL, HK, secantes dictum (!)
15 diametrum apud puncta Y, F, C, Q. Item rectaBG faciens cum GA latus
rectum angulum per 29
arn
3
ii
et circumducto semipolygonio AEB super
axem AB completo ambitu describatur solidum tomatile conicarum
superficierum, quemadmodum in praecedenti.
Aio quod huiusmodi solidi tota superficies, quae scilicet aggregatum est
20 conicarum superficierum a lateribus semipolygonii descriptarum, aequalis
est ei quod fit ex ductu lineae BG in peripheriam circuli AB.
Nam per praecedentem quod fit ex AG in omnes peripherias descriptas
ab angulis G, D, E, Z, H aequum est toti superficiei solidi a semipoly-
gonio descripti, quam demonstrationem, si placet, sic repete.
25
30
Superficies
conica quam
describit latus
AG aequale est ei quod fit ex latere AG in dimidium peripheriae cuius diameterGN
GD AG GN DM
DE AG DM EL
EZ '" AG .......................... EL ZK
ZH " AG ZK HT .
HB AG HT
40
45
Et hoc per 7
am
praemissam et 2
am
. Quare per primam 2
i
Elementorum
tota superficies solidi a semipolygonio descripti aequalis est ei quod fit
ex latere AG in omnes peripherias, quarum diametri GN, DM, EL, ZK,
51 HT. Sed triangula GAX, NGX, DQO, MCO, / ECP, LFP, ZFR, KRY,
35 HXS (! HYS), TBS sunt similia triangulo BGA quoniam scilicet sunt
orthogonia, et anguli assumentes aequales arcus sunt aequales per
26
arn
3
ii
; quare et reliqui aequales.
Itaque per 4
arn
sexti: sicut BG ad GA, sic GX -ad-XA
XN XQ
DO QO
OM OC
EP CP
PL PF
ZR FR
RK RY
HS YS
ST SB.
I
Quare per l3
arn
Si sicut BG ad GA, sic aggregatum ON, DM, EL, ZK,
HT ad totam AB, et ideo per corollarium 6
ae
huius, sicut BO ad OA, sic
50 peripheria cuius diameter est aggregatum ex GN, DM, EL, ZK, HT ad
peripheriam cuius diameter AB. Sed peripheria cuius diameter est ag-
gregatum ex ON, DM, EL, ZK, HT per corollarium 6
ae
huius aequalis est
aggregato periperiarum(!) quarum diameteri ON, DM, EL, ZK, HT. Igitur
sicutBO ad OA, sic aggregatum peripheriarum quarum diametri ON, DM,
55 EL, ZK, HT ad peripheriam cuius diameter AB. Quare per 15
arn
sexti
Elementorum, quod fit ex BO in peripheriam cuius diameter AB aequum
est ei quod fit ex OA in aggregatum peripheriarum quarum diameteri
(I) ON, DM, EL, ZK, HT. Sed per praecedentem, quod fit ex OA in ag-
gregatum peripheriarum quarum diametri GN , DM, EL, ZK, HT aequale est
60 superficiei solidi a semipolygonio AEB descriptio Ergo quod fit ex BG in
peripheriam cuius diameter AB aequale est superficiei solidi a semipoly-
gonio AEB descripti; et hoc erat demonstrandum.
Corollarium I.
Unde et quod fit ex diametro AB in peripheriam circuli cuius diameter
65 est BO aequale erit eiusdem solidi tornatilis superficiei, quod quidem
sequitur ex praesenti, et ex tertio corollario primae (! sextae). Item circulus
cuius semidiameter est media proportionalis inter ipsas lineas AB, BG
aequalis est superficiei memorati solidi tornatilis, quod sequitur ex ultimo
corollario primae (I sextae).
70 Corollarium 11.
Hinc manifestum est quod superficies solidi a semipolygonio AEB de-
scripti aequalis est cylindricae superficiei cuius axis est linea BO et basis
circulus AB; namque per 4
arn
huius cylindrica superficies aequalis est ei
quod ex axe in peripheriam basis.
52 / Corollarium Ill.
76 Item quod fit ex perpendiculari a centro circuli ad latus polygonii in
peripheriam circuli continentis polygonium dimidium est totius super-
ficiei solidi a semipolygonio super diametrum semel revoluto descripti.
Nam perpendicularis quae a centro P ad latus AG dimidium est ipsius
80 BO, sicut AP dimidium ipsius AB. Itaque quod ex dicta perpendiculari
in peripheriam AB dimidium est eius quod ex BG in peripheriam AB, et
ideo dimidium superficiei praedicti solidi a semipolygonio descriptio
Propositio X.
....
SPHAERAE SUPERFICIES AEQUALIS EST RECTANGULO
QUOD FIT EX DIAMETRO SPHERAE (I) IN PERIPHERIAM
MAXIMI SUI CIRCULI.
5 Sit circulus ABOD, cuius centrumE, diameter AO, et circumducto semel
altero semicirculorum, ut puta semicirculo ABG, stante diametro AG,
describatur sphaera ABG [Fig. III.5C.to].
Aio quod superficies sphaerae ABG aequalis est ei quod fit ex diametro
AG in peripheriam circuli ABG.
10 Nam si quod fit ex AG in peripheriam circuli ABG non est aequale
superficiei sphaerae ABG, erit aequale superficiei sphaerae alicuius
maioris vel minoris sphaera ABG. Sit ergo primum aequale superficiei
sphaerae ZHT minoris ipsa sphaera ABG et cum ea concentricae, cuius
diameter ZT, et quam circa diametrum ZT revolutus describit semi-
15 circulus ZHT. Et per 13
arn
12
i
inscribatur circulo ABG polygonium
aequalium laterum minime tangentium circulum ZHT, quod sit poly-
gonium ABGD, cuius laterum unum sit AK. Et connectatur GK, ac poly-
gonii dimidio circa diametrum AG circumducto, describatur solidum
tornatile conicarum superficierum iam minime tangentium sphaeramZHT.
20 Eritque per praecedentem, quod fit ex GK in peripheriam ABG circuli
aequum superficiei universae solidi ABG a semipolygonio descriptio Sed
quod fit ex diametro AG in peripheriam circuli ABG maius est eo quod
ex GK in peripheriam eandem. Ergo quod fit ex diametro AG in
peripheriam circuli ABG, et ideo ipsa sphaerae ZHT superficies, maior
25 erit solidi a semipolygonio ABG descripti superficie: inclusa includente,
quod est impossibile.
Vel sic, quoniam quod fit ex AG diametro in peripheriam ABG circuli
maius est solidi a semipoligonio ABG descripti superficie, et haec maior
superficie sphaerae ZHT inclusae, ideo quod fit ex AG diametro in
30 peripheriamABG circuli maius est ipsa sphaerae ZHT superficie; non est
ergo ei aequalis sicut supponebatur.
Sitdeinde quod fit ex AG in peripheriam circuli ABG aequale super-
ficiei sphaerae maioris ipsa sphaera ABG, sed, brevitatis causa, sit
proposita sphaera ZHT.
35 Aio quod id quod fit ex diametro ZT in peripheriam circuli ZHT non
erit aequale superficiei alicuius sphaerae maioris sphaera ZHT.
Nam, si possibile est, sit aequale superficiei sphaerae ABG ipsi ZHT
concentricae, et quam circa diametrum AG describit semicirculus ABG,
et inscribatur, ut prius, circulo ABG polygonium aequalium laterum non
40 tangentium circulum ZHT, cuius unum laterum fit AK, et ducetur GK,
et EL perpendicularis ad AK. Et circumducto semipolygonio ABG super
diametrum AG describatur solidum tornatile conicarum superficierum,
53 I iam minime tangentium sphaeram ZHT. Est autem GK dupla ipsius EL,
sicut AG dupla ipsius AE. Sed ZT dupla ipsius ZE minor ipsa EL. Ergo
45 GK maior quam ZT. Quare quod fit ex GK in peripheriam circuli ABG
maius est eo quod fit ex diametro ZT in peripheriam circuli ZHT. Verum
quod fit ex GK in peripheriam circuliABG, per praecedentem, aequale est
superficiei solidi a semipolygonio ABG descriptio Quod autem fit ex
diametro ZT in peripheriam circuli ZHT aeqUll!r est (per hypothesi.m)
50 superficiei sphaerae ABG. Igitur superficies solidi a semipoligonio ABG
descripti maior est superficie sphaerae ABG: inclusa includente, quod est
impossibile. Non est ergo quod fit ex ZT diametrum (! diametro) in
peripheriam ZHT aequale superficiei alicuius sphaerae maioris sphaera
ZHT. Similiter ostendam quod id quod sit ex AG diametrum (! diametro)
ss in peripheriam circuli ABG non est aequale superficiei sphaerae alicuius
maioris sphaera G ~ sed nec minoris, ut fuit ostensum. Superest ergo
ut id quod fit ex diametro AG in peripheriamABG aequale sit superficiei
sphaerae GBG (! ABG), quod erat demonstrandum.
Corollarium.
60 Manifestum est ergo quod sphaerae superficies aequalis est circulo
cuius semidiameter aequalis est diametro sphaerae. Nam area talis
circuli per 4
am
de dimensione circuli producitur ex suo semidiametro,
quae est diameter sphaerae, in dimidium suae peripheriae, quae per
sextam huius aequalis est peripheriae circuli maximi in sphaera.
Propositio XI.
SPHAERAE SUPERFICIES QUADRUPLA EST AD SUUM MAX-
IMUM CIRCULUM, ESTQUE AEQUALIS CURVAE SUPERFICIEI
ElUS CYLINDRI CUIUS TAM AXIS QUAM BASIS DIAMETER
5 AEQUALIS EST SPHAERAE DIAMETRO.
Esto sphaera ABG, quam describat semicirculus ABG, stante diametro
AG circumductus, cuius centrum D [Fig. III.5C.ll].
Aio quod superficies sphaerae ABG quadrupla est ad circulum ABG.
Nam per praemissam sphaerae ABG superficies aequalis est ei quod
10 fit ex diametro AG in peripheriam circuli ABG. Per 4
am
vero libelli de
dimensione circuli, area circuli aequalis est ei quod fit ex semidiametro
DG in dimidium periphaeriae totius circuli ABG. Estque per l8
am
sexti
quod fit ex diametro AG in peripheriam circuli ABG quadruplum ad id
quod ex semidiametroDG inperipheriamsemicirculiABG (quandoquidem
15 latera singulorum laterum dupla). Igitur sphaerae ABG superficies
quadrupla est ad circulum ABG maximum in sphaera, quod est primum
ex propositis. Reliquum sic ostendo.
Sit cylindrus cuius tarn axis quam basis diameter sit aequalis diametro
AG.
20 Aio quod spherae ABG superficies aequalis est curvae superficiei
huiusmodi cylindri.
Nam talis cylindri basis erit circulus G ~ quare per 4
am
huius curva
superficies ipsius cylindri aequalis erit ei quod ex diametro AG in
peripheriam circuliABG. Sed hoc aequale est sphaericae superficiei. Ergo
25 sphaerica superficies aequalis erit curvae superficiei talis cylindri; quod
supererat demonstrandum.
Corollarium.
-
Manifestum est ergo quod cylindri cuius tarn axis quam basis diameter
aequalis est sphaerae diametro tota superficies est ad sphaerae super-
..... '
54 ficiem sesquiaUtera. Namque duae bases cylindri sunt dimidium sphaer-
31 icae superficiei, et cum sphaerica superficies sit quadrupla ad unam il-
larum, et curva superficies cylindri aequalis sphaericae superficiei, igitur
tota cylindri superficies, quae constat ex curva superficie et basibus, con-
tinet sphaericam superficiem semel et insuper eius dimidium.
Propositio XII.
SI CIRCULO DUAE AEQUILATERAE ET AEQUIANGULAE
FIGURAE UNA INSCRIBATUR, ALTERA CIRCUMSCRIBATUR
CORRESPONDENTIBUS ANGULlS, ET DIAMETRO STANTE, TAM
5 SEMICIRCULUS, QUAM FIGURARUM DIMIDIA, DONEC AD
LOCUM SUUM REDEANT, CIRCUMVOLVANTUR, DESCRIPTAE A
SEMICIRCULO SPHAERAE SUPERFICIES MEDIA PROPOR-
TIONALIS INTER SOLIDORUM A DIMIDIIS FIGURARUM DE-
SCRIPTORUM SUPERFICIES.
10 Circulo ABG, cuius diameter AG centrumque D, inscribatur figura
aequilatera cuius laterum unum sit AB [Fig. III.5C.12], et secta arcu
AB bifariam in signo E, et ducta semidiametro DE secante chordam AB
in puncto Z bifariam, et orthogonaliter ducatur HET ad rectos ipsi DE.
Et ideo contingens circulum in puncto E per 15
am
3
ii
, quae ipsis DA, DB
15 semidiametris productis occurrat ad signa H, T, eritque TH latus figurae
aequilaterae et aequiangulae circumscribentis circulumABG et similis ipsi
figurae ABG inscriptae. Compleatur itaque figura circumscripta, sitque
THK. Et circumducatur semel tarn semicurculus (!) ABG, quam semi-
polygonium ABG quamque semipolygonium THK super axem TK
20 stantem.
Aio itaque quod superficies sphaerae quam describit semicirculus ABG
media proportionalis est inter superficiem solidi quod describit semi-
polygonium ABG et inter superficiem solidi quod describit semipoly-
gonium THK, quod sic ostendo.
25 Cadat a signo E ad DB perpendicularis EL, eruntque triangula DEL,
DBZ invicem aequilatera; quare ipsae DZ, DL aequales. Per corollarium
autem 3
um
nonae huius ex DZ, et ideo ex DL, in peripheriam ABG fit
dimidium superficiei solidi descripti a semipolygonioABG. Per warn autem
huius ex DB semidiametro in peripheriam circuli ABG fit dimidium
30 superficiei sphaerae descriptae a semicirculo ABG. Adhuc per corollarium
3
um
nonae ex DE in peripheriam circuli THK circumscribentis poly-
gonum (I), et ideo ex DB in peripheriam circuli ABG, (sunt enim haec
duo aequalia per secundum corollarium 6
e
huius) fit dimidium super-
ficiei descriptae a semipolygonio TBK. Igitur haec tria producta, quae
35 sunt dimidia dictarum superficierum, sunt per primam 6
i
ad invicem sicut
lineae DL, DE, DB, quae sunt bases productorum, nam altitudo
est aequalis periphaeriae (1) circuliABG. SedDL, DE, DH s u n ~ n t i n u
proportionales, propter similitudinem triangulorum DEL, DHE. Ergo tria
producta, quae sunt dimidia dictarum superficierum, sunt continue pro-
55
40 portionalia. Quare et earum dupla, totae scilicet superficies, sunt con-
tinmle proportionales. Itaque superficies solidi descripti a semipolygonio
ABG, superficies sphaerae descripte a semicirculo ABG, superficies solidi
descripti a semipolygonio THK sunt continuae proportionales in propor-
tione scilicet ipsarum DL, DE, DH linearum. quod est propositum.
/Scholium.
"
46 Quod si aequilaterae et aequiangulae figurae rectilineae duo circuli unus
circumscribatur, aliter (.' alter) inscribatur, et diametro manente tarn
semipoligonium, quam duo semicirculi circumducantur, descripti quoque
a semipoligonio solidi superficies media proportionalis est inter sphaer-
50 arum a semicirculis descriptarum superficies.
Descriptioni praecedentis addatur circulus THK circumscriptus figurae
rectilineae THK, et sphaera per revolutionem semicirculi THK descripta.
Aio iam quod solidi THK superficies media proportionalis est inter
sphaerarumABG, THK superficies.
55 Nam per lOam ex recta HD in peripheriam circuli THK fit dimidium
superficiei sphaerae THK, atque, ut in praemissa, ostensum est, ex recta
HD in peripheriam circuli ABG fit dimidium superficiei solidi THK. Quare
per primam sexti superficies sphaerae THK ad superficiem solidi THK
erit sicut peripheria circuli THK ad peripheriam circuli ABG, et ideo per
60 sextam sicut semidiameter DH ad semidiametrum DE. Sed fuit in
praemissa, sicut DH ad ipsam DE, sic superficies solidi THK ad super-
ficiem sphaerae ABG. Ergo et sicut superficies solidi THK ad super-
ficiem sphaerae ABG sic superficies sphaerae THK ad superficiem solidi
THK. Itaque superficies solidi THK media proportionalis est inter
65 sphaerarum THK, ABG superficies; quod erat demonstrandum.
Corollarium.
Manifestum est ergo quod si circulo polygonium aequilaterum, et poly-
gonio rursum circulus; et circulo adhuc polygonium respondentibus
angulis: et ita deinceps, quoties lubet, inscribatur, et diametro manente
70 tarn semicirculi quam semipolygonia circumducantur: descriptarum
sphaerarum et tomatilium solidorum superficies sunt continuae propor-
tionales secundum inscriptionis ordinem.
Hactenus de solidi tOInatilis ac sphaerae superficie, nunc de seg-
mentorum a dictis solidis abscissorum superficiebus verba faciemus.
Propositio XIII.
CONICAE SUPERFICIES SEGMENTI QUOD SUMITUR A
VERTICE SOLIDI DESCRIPTI A SEMIPOLYGONIO AEQUI-
LATERO AD UNUM CIRCULORUM AB ANGULIS DESCRIP-
5 TORUM CONIUNCTAE SUNT AEQUALES El QUOD FIT EX
DUCTU LATERIS CIRCUMDUCTAE IN P R I P R I ~ DE-
SCRIPTAS AB ANGULIS MINUS DIMIDIO PERIPHAERIAE
CIRCULI SEGMENTUM [DE] SOLIDO ABSCINDENTIS.
Intra circulum AB, cuius diameter AB, describatur polygonium
10 aequalium laterum AGB, cuius dimidio semel circa diametrum AB
stantem circumducto describatur solidum tornatile, de quo sumatur seg-
mentum a vertice A ad unum circulorum ab angulis descriptorum, ut
puta ad circulum descriptum ab angulo E, quod sit segmentum AEZ
[Fig. III.5C.13].
15 Aio quod conicae superficies segmenti AEZ, quae scilicet a lateribus
AG, GD, DE describuntur, aequales sunt simul ei quod fit ex latere AG
56 in aggregatum ex peripheriis ab angulis G, D, E minus dimidio / periphe-
riae descriptae ab angulo E. Ducantur enim GT, DH, EZ, secantes
diametrum AB apud K, L, N, secabunt autem ad angulos rectos. Itaque
20 per 2
am
huius conica superficies quam describit linea AG aequalis est ei
quod ex AG in dimidium peripheriae quam describit punctum G. Item per
7
am
conica superficies coni-coluri quam describit linea GD aequalis est ei
quod ex GD in dimidias peripherias descriptas a punctis G, D. Item per
7
am
conica superficies quam describit linea DE, sive per 4
am
si LDEM sit
25 parallelogrammum, ac ideo superficies descripta cylindrica aequalis est ei
quod ex DE, vel AG, in dimidias peripherias descriptas a punctis D, E.
Huc ergo concurrunt integrae peripheriae descriptae a punctis G, D, et
dimidium eius quae describitur a puncto ultimo E. Quare per primam 2
1
Elementorum omnes conicae superficies descriptae a lineiis AG, GD, DE,
30 quae est superficies segmenti AEZ, aequalis est ei quod fit ex ductu
lateris AG in omnes peripherias descriptas ab angulis, G, D, E minus
dimidio periphaeriae descriptae ab angulo E intimo, quae peripheria est
circuli abscindentis segmentum AEZ de toto solido per semipolygonium
descripto, quod erat demonstrandum.
35 Hoc idem ostenditur etiam si chorda AG non fuerit latus polygonii
aequilateri circulo inscripti, dum arcus AG, GD, DE sint aequales.
Propositio XIV.
CONICAE SUPERFICIES SEGMENTI QUOD SUMITUR A
VERTICE SOLIDI DESCRIPTI A SEMIPOLYGONIO AEQUILATERO
AD UNUM CIRCULORUM AB ANGULIS DESCRIPTORUM
5 CONIUNCTAE SUNT AEQUALES El QUOD FIT EX DUCTU
PERIPHERIAE CIRCULI CUIUS DIAMETER EST AXIS IPSIUS
SEGMENTI IN LINEAM QUAE CUM DIAMETRO CIRCULI
CONTINENTIS POLYGONIUM ET LATERE POLYGONII IN IPSO
CIRCULO CONSTITUIT TRIANGULUM ORTHOGONIUM.
10 Quid verbis opus erit? Assumo totam nonae descriptionem, sed de
.solido quod describit semipolygonium AEB assumo segmentum cuius
vertex est A, basis vero aliquis circulorum ab angulis polygonii de-
scriptorum, utpote circulus cuius diameter DM, quod segmentum vocetur
DAM [Fig. III.5C.14]. ,
15 Aio itaque quod conicae superficies segmenti DAM, quae scilicet a
MAUROLICQ'S DE SPHAERA ET CYLINDRO 925
lineis AG, GD describuntur, aequales simul sunt ei quod fit ex linea BG
in peripheriam circuli cuius diameter AO, quem voco axem segmenti
DAM.
Que demonstratio fere eadem est cum demonstratione nonae: nam,
20 sicut ibi, triangula GAX, NQX, DQO similia sunt triangulo BGA, hoc est
aequiangula. Quare per 4
am
sexti sicut BG ad GA, sic GX ad AX, sic
etiam XN ad XQ, sic et DO ad QO. Et ideo per Barn 5
i
sicut BG ad
GA, sic aggregatum ex GN, DO ad totam AO. Itaque per corollarium
57 sextae huius sicut BG ad GA, sic peripheria cuius diameter / est ag-
25 gregatum ex GN, DO ad peripheriam cuius diameter AO. Sed peripheria
cuius diameter est aggregatum ex GN, DO per corollarium sextae aequalis
est aggregato peripheriarum quarum diametri GN, DO. Igitur sicut BG ad
GA, sic aggregatum peripheriarum quarum diametri GN, DO ad
peripheriam cuius diameter est AO. Peripheria autem cuius diameter DO
30 per corollarium sextae aequalis est dimidio peripheriae cuius diameter
DM, cum diameter DO sit dimidium diametri DM. Ergo sicut BG ad GA,
sic aggregatum ex peripheria cuius diameter GN et ex dimidio peripheriae
cuius diameter DM ad peripheriam cuius diameter AO. Unde per 15
am
sexti elementorum quod fit ex BG in peripheriam cuius diameter AO
35 aequale est ei quod fit ex GA in aggregatum ex peripheria cuius
diameter GN et ex dimidio peripheriae cuius diameter DM. Sed per
praemissam, quod fit ex GA in aggregatum ex peripheria cuius diameter
GN et ex dimidio peripheriae cuius diameter DM aequale est conicis
superficiebus segmenti solidi DAM. Igitur quod fit ex BG in peripheriam
40 cuius diameter AO aequum est conicis superficiebus segmenti solidi DAM,
quod erat demonstrandum.
Non aliter ostendam quod id quod fit ex BG linea in peripheriam cuius
diameter AP aequale est conicis superficiebus segmenti solidi EAL. Nec
secus concludam id quod fit ex linea BG in peripheriam cuius diameter
45 AR aequale esse conicis superficiebus segmenti ZAK, quandoquidem
segmenti EAL axis est ipsa AP, segmenti vero ZAK ipsa AR linea.
Verum est ergo quod proponitur.
Hoc idem ostendetur etiam si chorda AG non sit latus polygonii
aequilateri circulo AB inscripti, modo latera segmenti sint aequalia.
50 Corollaria.
Igitur et quod fit ex linea AO in peripheriam circuli cuius diameter
BG aequale est conicis superficiebus DAM, quod sequitur ex corollario
3 1e (! 6
ae
). Nec non circulus cuius semidiameter est media proportionalis
inter lineas AO, BG aequalis est iisdem conicis superficiebus segmenti
55 DAM, quod sequitur ex 4 corollario primae (! sextae).
Propositio XV.
SI SPHAERA PLANO SECETUR, SEGMENTI UTRIUSLIBET
SPHAERICA SUPERFICIES AEQUALIS EST RECTANGULO QUOD
,
FIT EX DIAMETRO SPHAERAE IN PERIPHERIAM EIUS CIRCULI
5 CUIUS DIAMETER EST AXIS SEGMENTI.
Sit circulus ABGD, cuius diameter AG, centrum E, secetur autem
diameter AG recta BD ad angulos rectos in signa Z quocumque, et cir-
cumducto altero semicirculo, ut puta ABG, semel super axem AG
stantem, describatur sphaera ABGD [Fig. III.5C.15]. Unde in tali ambitu
10 linea ZB describit circulum qui secabit sphaeram in duo segmenta BAD,
BGD.
Aio itaque quod sphaerica superficies utriuslibet segmenti, ut puta seg-
menti BAD, aequalis est ei quod fit ex diametro AG in peripheriam
circuli cuius diameter est AZ, quem voco axem segmenti BAD, quae
15 demonstratio similis est demonstrationi decimae.
Nam si quod fit ex AG diametro in peripheriam circuli cuius diameter
AZ non est aequale superficiei sphaericae segmenti ABD, sit aequalis
58 / superficiei phaericae alicuius segmenti maiori vel minori superficie seg-
menti BAD. Et primum minori scilicet superficiei sphaericae segmenti
20 THL abscissi per planum dicti circuli de sphaera HTKL, quam sphaerae
ABG concentricam describit semicirculus HTK super diametrum HK, et
secentur arcus AB, AD iterum, atque iterum donec per Barn 12
i
arcuum
chordae non contingant peripheriam THL. Sitque una chordarum AM,
et connectatur GM. Eritque maius quod ex diametro AG in peripheriam
25 circuli cuius diameter AZ quam id quod ex GM, quae minor diametro,
in peripheriam circuli cuius diameter AZ. Sed quod ex diametro AG in
peripheriam circuli cuius diameter AZ per hypothesim aequale est super-
ficiei segmenti sphaerici THL; quod autem ex GM in peripheriam
circuli cuius diameter AZ per praecedentem, aequale est superficiebus
30 conicis descriptis a chordis arcuum in quos secatur arcus AB maior. Ergo
superficies sphaerica segmenti THL maior est quam superficies conicae
descriptae a chordis portionum arcus AB. Superficies ergo inclusa maior
includente, quod est impossibile.
Vel sic, quoniam quod fit ex AG diametro in peripheriam circuli
35 cuius diameter AZ maius est eo quod ex GM in peripheriam eandem, et
ideo maius superficiebus conicis descriptis per chordas portionum arcus
AB, haeque superficies maiores sunt superficie sphaerica segmenti THL
inclusa, ideo quod fit ex diametroAG in peripheriam circuli cuius diameter
AZ maius est superficie sphaerica segmenti THL. Ergo non est ei aequalis,
40 sicut supponebatur.
Sit deinde quod ex AG diametro in peripheriam circuli cuius diameter
AZ aequalis sphaericae superficiei maiori superficie sphaerica segmenti
BAD. Sed brevitatis causa sit suppositum segmentum THL.
Aio quod id quod ex HK diametro in peripheriam circuli cuius diameter
45 HZ non est aequale alicuius segmenti sphaericae superficiei maiori
superficie segmenti THL sphaerici. "
Sit enim, si possibile est, aequale superficiei sphaericae segmenti .
BAD maiori superficie THL abscissi per planum circuli secantis sphaeram
BD de sphera ABGD, quam describit semicirculus ABG super diametrum
50 AG. Et secentur arcus AB, AD per l3
am
12
i
donec portionum chordae
non contingant arcum THL. Sitque ex chordis una AM, et connectatur
GM, et ducatur ad AM perpendicularis EN. Et quoniam AG dupla ipsius
AE, ideo et GM dupla ipsius EN, sed HK dupla ipsius HE minoris
ipsa EN; minor ergoHK quamGM. Quare quod fit ex GM in peripheriam
55 circuli cuius diameter HZ maius est eo quod fit ex HK in peripheriam
circuli cuius diameter HZ. Sed quod fit ex GM in peripheriam circuli cuius
diameter AZ per praecedentem aequale est superficiebus conicis de-
scriptis a chordis arcuum in quos secatur arcus AB. Quod autem fit ex
HK in peripheriam circuli cuius diameter HZ per hypothesim aequale est
60 superficiei sphaericae segmenti BAD. Ergo superficies conicae descriptae
a chordis portionum arcus AB maius sunt superficie sphaerica segmenti
BAD. Superficies itaque inclusa maior includente, quod est impossibile.
Non est ergo quod exHK in peripheriam circuli cuius diameter HZ aequale
superficiei sphaericae segmenti alicuius maiori superficie sphaerica seg-
65 menti THL. Similiter ostendam quod id quod ex AG in peripheriam
circuli cuius diameter AZ non est aequale alicuius segmenti sphaericae
superficiei maiori superficie sphaerica segmenti BAD. Fuitque ostensum,
quod nec minori. Omnino igitur id quod fit ex AG in peripheriam
circuli cuius diameter AZ aequale est segmenti BAD sphaericae super-
70 ficiei, quod erat demonstrandum.
59 Suppo/suimus autem segmentum sphaericum BAD minus emispherio.
Et similiter ostendi poterit quod id quod fit ex AG in peripheriam
circuli cuius diameter GZ aequale est sphaericae superficiei segmenti
BGD. Vel si lubet pro linea BZ ducatur linea BE, et pro ZD linea
75 ED, secantes peripheriamcirculi HTK apud punctaX, O. Et agatur demon-
stratio per segmenta sphaerica descripta per arcus BG, XK similes et per
superficies conicas descriptas a chordis portionum arcus BG non tangenti-
bus In secunda autem parte demonstrationis ducatur XO
secans ipsam EZ apud P, eritque GZ axis segmenti BGD maior quam
80 KP axis segmenti XKO, quod est necessarium in secunda parte demon-
strationis. Unde concludens eodem modo quo prius id quod fit ex AG
in peripheriam circuli cuius diameter GZ esse maius omni superficie
sphaerica segmenti descripti per arcum minorem ipso BG, et ei similem,
et minus omni sphaerica superficie segmenti descripti per arcum maiorem
85 ipso BG, et ei similem, et ideo aequalem esse sphaericae superficiei
segmenti ab arcu BG descriptio
Verum postquam ostenderis hoc de uno segmentorum sphaericorum,
potest ex hoc idem facilius ostendi de reliquo sic.
Quoniam ostensum est quod id quod fit ex AG in peripheriam circuli-
90 cuius AZ est diameter aequum superficiei sphaericae segmenti BAD: ex
hoc ego ostendam quod id quod fit ex AG in peripheriam circuli cuius
diameter GZ aequum erit superficiei sphaericae segmenti BGD. Nam per
lOam huius superficies tota sphaerae ABG, quod est aggregatum ex super-
ficiebus sphaericis duorum segmentorumBAD, BGD, aequalis est ei quod
95 fit ex AG in peripheriam circuli ABG. Sed peripheria circuli ABG per
primum corollarium sextae aequalis est peripheriis circulorum quorum
diametri AZ, ZG coniunctis. Ergo aggregatum ex superficiebus sphaericis
segmentorum BAD, BDG aequale est ei quod fit ex AG in peripherias
circulorum quorum diametri AZ, ZG. Auferatur inde segmenti BAD
100 sphaerica superficies, hinc vero quod fit ex AG in peripheriam circuli
cuius diameter AZ, quae, ut fuit ostensum, sunt aequalia, et supererit
segmenti BDG superficies sphaerica aequalis ei quod fit ex AG in
peripheriam circuli cuius diameter ZG, et hoc erat propositum.
Corollarium I.
105 Manifestum est ergo quod superficies sphaerica segmenti sphaerici
aequalis est ei quod fit ex axe segmenti in peripheriam circuli maximi in
sphaera, et ideo curvae superficiei cylindri cuius basis est circulus max-
imus sphaerae, celsitudo vero axis segmenti. Hoc patet ex 2 (! 3)
corollario sextae.
110 Corollarium II.
Item et circulus cuius semidiameter media proportionalis est inter
axem sphaerici segmenti ac sphaerae diametrum aequalis est sphaericae
superficiei ipsius segmenti, quod liquet ex quarto corollario primae
(! sextae). Ex quo corollario facillime demonstrabitur sequens propositio
115 decima sexta.
60 IPropositio XVI.
SI SPHAERA PLANa SECETUR, UTRIUSLIBET SEGMENTI
SUPERFICIES AEQUALIS EST El QUOD FIT EX LINEA CADENTE
A VERTICE IPSIUS SEGMENTI AD PERIPHERIAM CIRCULI
5 SECANTIS IN PERIPHERIAM CIRCULI CUIUS DICTA LINEA EST
DIAMETER. ET IDEO IPSA SPHAERICA SUPERFICIES SEGMENTI
AEQUALIS EST CIRCULO CUIUS DICTA LINEA EST SEMI-
DIAMETER.
Circuli ABGD diametrumAG secet ad rectos angulos linea BD apud Z
10 punctum quodcumque; et circumducto semel circa AG diametrum
semicirculo ABG, describatur sphaera ABGD; in qua revolutione linea
ZB describet circulum qui terminus est communis duorum sphaericorum
segmentorum BAD, BGD [cf. Fig. 11I.5C.15]. Protrahantur itaque rectae
AB, BG, quae sunt a verticibus sphaericorum segmentorum ad
15 peripheriam circuli cuius diameter BD secantis.
Aio iam quod sphaerica superficies segmenti BAD aequalis est ei E]uod
fit ex AB in peripheriam circuli cuius diameter AB. Nam per 8
am
sexti
sicut AG ad BA, ita BA ad AZ. Ergo per 6
am
huius sicut GA ad AB, sic
peripheria cuius diameter AB ad peripheriam cuius diameter AZ. Quare
20 per 15
am
sexti quod fit ex AB in peripheriam cuius diameter AB aequum
est ei quod ex AG in peripheriam cuius diameter AZ. Sed per praemis-
sam quod ex AG in peripheriam cuius diameter AZ aequale est segmenti
BAD sphaericae superficiei. Igitur segmenti BAD sphaerica superficies
aequalis est ei quod ex AB in peripheriam cuius diameter AB, et hoc est
25 primum ex propositis.
Cumque peripheria cuius diameter AB sit per sextam dimidium
periphaeriae (!) cuius AB semidiameter, ideo ex AB in dimidium
peripheriae cuius AB semidiameter fit etiam sphaerica superficies seg-
menti BAD. Sed ex AB in dimidium peripheriae cuius AB est semidia-
30 meter fit circulus ipse cuius AB semidiameter per 4
am
de dimensione
circuli. Itaque circulus cuius AB semidiameter aequalis est sphaericae
superficiei segmenti BAD, quod erat alterum ex propositis.
Iisdem penitus mediis ostendam quod sphaerica superficies segmenti
BGD aequalis est ei quod fit ex BG in peripheriam circuli cuius diameter
35 BG, vel circulo cuius semidiameter BG.
Verum hoc apud unum segmentorum ut putaBAD demonstrato, potest
idem ostendi apud reliquum sic. Quoniam angulus ABG rectus per 29
am
(! 30
am
) 3
ii
, ideo per 9
am
de dimensione circuli duo circuli quorum semi-
diameteri AB, BG simul aequales sunt circulo cuius semidiameter AG.
40 Hic autem per lOam huius aequalis superficiei sphaericae, et ideo sphaericis
superficiebus segmentorum BAD, BDG. Quare circuli quorum semi-
diametri AB, BG aequales sunt sphaericis superficiebus segmentorum
BAD, BDG. Aequalis autem fuit circulus cuius semidiameter AB segmenti
BAD sphaericae superficiei. Superest ergo circulus cuius semidiameter
45 BG aequalis sphaericae superficiei segmenti BDG, quod erat propositum.
61 /Corollarium.
Manifestum est igitur quod sphaerica superficies segmenti sphaerici
aequalis est circulo cuius semidiameter est linea quae a vertice segmenti
ad peripheriam circuli secantis spaeram (I). Nam per sextam peripheria
50 cuiusAB diameter aequalis est dimidio peripheriae cuiusAB semidiameter.
Aequale est igitur quod ex AB in peripheriam cuius AB diameter ei quod
ex AB in dimidium peripheriae cuius AB semidiameter. Sed quod ex AB
in peripheriam cuius AB diameter aequum est sphaericae superficiei
segmenti BAD. Quod autem ex AB in dimidium peripheriae cuius AB
55 semidiameter per 4
am
de dimensione circuli aequum est circulo cuius AB
semidiameter. Ergo sphaerica superficies segmenti BAD aequalis est
circulo cuiusAB semidiameter, quod est propositum. Non aliter ostendam
quod superficies sphaerica segmenti BGD aequalis est circulo cuius BG
semidiameter.
Propositio XVII.
SI SPHAERA PLANO SECETUR, SEGMENTORUM SPHAERICAE
SUPERFICIES SUNT AD INVICEM SICUT AXES SEGMENTORUM.
Repetens proximae descriptionem, aio quod superficies sphaerica seg-
5 menti BAD ad superficiem sphaericam segmenti BGD est sicut aXIS
AZ ad axem ZG [Fig. III.5C.15A].
Nam per 8
am
6
i
ratio AZ ad ZG dupla est eius que AZ ad ZB; sicut
AZ ad ZB, sic AB ad BG (propter similitudinem triangulorumAZB, ABG).
Ergo ratio AZ ad ZG dupla est eius quae AB ad BG et eius quae AB
10 adBG dupla est per 18
am
sexti ratio quadrati AB ad quadratumBG. Quare
quadratum AB ad quadratum BG, sicut AZ ad ZG. Sed ex 2
a
12
i
circulus
cuius semidiameter AB ad circulum cuius semidiameter BG, sicut qua-
dratum ex duplo AB ad quadratum ex duplo BG; et ideo sicut quadratum
AB ad quadratumBG. Igitur circulus cuius semidiameter AB ad circulum
15 cuius semidiameter BG, sicut AZ ad ZG. Verum circulus cuius semidia-
meter AB aequalis est per praemissae corollarium sphaericae superficiei
segmenti BAD. Ergo sphaerica superficies segmenti BAD ad sphericam
superficiem segmenti BDG est sicut axis AZ ad axem ZG, quod est
propositum.
20 Corollarium.
Manifestum est ergo quod sphaerae superficies ad sui segmenti
sphaericam superficiem est sicut diameter sphaerae ad axem segmenti;
patet ex coniuncta proportione.
62 /Propositio XVIII.
SI SPHAERA PLANO SECETUR, UTRIUSLIBET SEGMENTI
SPHAERICA SUPERFICIES AD CIRCULUM SECANTEM EST
SICUT DIAMETER SPHAERAE AD AXEM RELIQUI SEGMENTI.
5 Adhuc manebo in eadem descriptione [cf. Fig. III.5C.15A] dicens
quod sphaerica superficies segmenti BAD ad circulum cuius diameter
BD secantem est sicut diameter AG ad axem GZ. Item quod sphaerica
superficies segmenti BGD ad circulum cuius diameter BD est sicut diam-
eter AG ad axem AZ.
10 Nam per 8
am
sexti ratio AG ad GZ est dupla eius quae AG ad GB; sed
AG ad GB, sicut AB ad BZ, propter similitudinem triangulorum AGB,
ABZ. Ergo ratio AG ad GZ dupla est eius quae AB ad BZ. Sed et eius quae
AB ad BZ dupla est per 2
am
12
i
quae circuli cuius semidiameter
AB ad circulum cuius semidiameter BZ. Igitur circulus cuius semi-
15 diameter AB ad circulum cuius semidiameter BZ est sicut AG ad ZG. Fuit
autem per 16
am
circulus cuius semidiameter AB aequalis superficiei
sphaericae segmenti BAD, circulus vero cuius semidiameter BZ aequalis
est circulo BD sphaeram secante. Ergo sphaerica superficies segmenti"
BAD ad circulum cuius semidiameter BZ (qui segmenta disterminat) est
20 sicut AG diameter ad axem GZ reliqui segmenti.
Non aliter ostendam quod sphaerica superficies segmenti BGD ad
circulum cuius semidiameter BZ est sicut diameter AG ad axem reliqui
segmenti AZ, quod est propositum.
Propositio XIX.
SI SPHAERA DUOBUS PARALLELIS PLANIS SECETUR, INTER-
CEPTI SEGMENTI SPHAERICA SUPERFICIES, ZONA SCILICET
SPHAERICA, AEQUALIS EST El QUOD FIT EX DIAMETRO
5 SPHAERAE IN PERIPHERIAM CIRCULI CUIUS DIAMETER EST
AXIS SEGMENTI.
Praeteritae descriptioni addo rectam RS ad rectos angulos secantem
diametrum AG in puncto Y [Fig. III.5C.16]. Itaque RY in circum-
ductione semicirculi describet circulum parallelum circulo cuius diameter
10 BD.
Aio itaque quod segmenti sphaerici BS, quod inter duos circulos
parallelos quorum diametri BD, RS intercipitur, sphaerica superficies,
quae quasi zona est ab arcu BR descripta, aequalis est ei quod fit ex
diametro AG in peripheriam circuli cuius diameter est axis ZY.
15 Nam per 15
am
praemissam quod fit ex AG in peripheriam circuli
cuius diameter AY aequum est sphaericae superficiei segmenti RAS,
63 peripheria autem cir/culi cuius diameter AY aequalis est per primum
corollarium sextae peripheriis circulorum quorum diametri AZ, ZY. Ergo
quod fit exAG in peripherias circulorum quorum diametriAZ,ZYaequum
20 est sphaericae superficiei segmenti RAS. Verum per 15
am
quod fit ex AG
in peripheriam circuli cuius diameter AZ aequum est sphaericae super-
ficiei segmenti BAD. Itaque de eo quod ex AG in peripherias circulorum
quorum diametri AZ, Z Y dematur id quod ex AG in peripheriam circuli
cuius diameter AZ. Item de superficie sphaerica segmenti RAS dematur
25 superficies sphaerica segmenti BAD (duo scilicet aequalia de duobus
aequalibus). Et supererit, inde, id quod ex AG in peripheriam circuli
cuius diameter ZY; hinc autem id quod superficies sphaerica segmenti
intercepti BS. Et per consequentiam aequalia, quod est propositum.
Idem ostendes per corollarium 15
ae
. Nam per illud ex linea AY in
30 peripheriam circuli ABG fit superficies sphaerica segmenti RAS, ex linea
autem AZ in peripheriam eandem fit superficies sphaerica segmenti
BAD. Unde sequitur ex prima 2
i
elementorum ut ex ZY in dictam
peripheriam fiat superficies sphaerica segmenti BS intercepti, quod est
propositum.
35
40
Corollarium I.
Manifestum est ergo quod sphaerici segmenti parallelis circulis inter-
dusi sphaerica zona aequalis est ei quod fit ex axe segmenti in peripheriam
circuli maximi in sphaera; et ideo curvae superficiei cylindri cuius basis
est circulus maximus sphaerae, celsitudo autem axis segmenti.
Corollarium 11.
Item manifestum est quod, parallelis planis quotcumque sphaeram
secantibus, sphaericae superficies planis interceptae sunt ad invicem sicut
ipsorum sphaeralium segmentorum axes. Patet hoc ex corollario praece-
dentis et prima sexti Elementorum. Poterat et hoc corollarium demon-
45 strari per corollarium 17
ae
praeteritae, ex aequa, et disiuncta proportione
facillime.
Propositio XX.
SI SPHAERA ET CYLINDRUS DIAMETRUM COMMUNEM ET
AXEM COMMUNEM HABEANT, SECENTUR AUTEM PARAL-
LELIS QUOTLIBET PLANIS QUIBUS AXIS PERPENDICU-
5 LARITER INSTET, ERUNT SPHAERICAE SUPERFICIES
CYLINDRICIS SUPERFICIEBUS INTER EADEM SECANTIA
PLANA INTERPOSITIS SINGULAE SINGULIS AEQUALES.
Circulo ABGD circumscribatur quadratum EZHT, sintque contactuum
punctaA,B, G,D, et connectatur AG [Fig. III.5C.17]. Item ducantur inter
10 latera ZH, ET ipsisque EZ, HT paralleli KL, MN ad placitum secantes
axem, quidem AG, apud X, 0, peripheriam autemABG apud P, R, S, Y.
Et circumAG diametrum immotam circumducatur, donec ad locum suum
red[e]at; parallelogrammum cylindrum, semicirculus vero sphaeram de-
scribet, eritqueAG axis tarn sphaerae quam cylindri.ltemEZ,HTdiametri
64 basium cylindri / sphaerae diametro aequales, et cylindrus sphaeram
16 circumscribet: Contingent namque cylindricae bases sphaericam super-
ficiem in punctis A, G; cylindrica quoque superficies sphaericam con-
tinget, eritque contactus circuli peripheria per punctum contactus B
descripta. Ipsae quoque lineae KX, MO circumductae describent circulos
20 parallelos secantes cylindrum, ipsa autem puncta P, S describent
circulorum peripherias, quae communes sectiones erunt dictorum cir-
culorum secantium cylindrum et sphaericae superficiei.
Aio itaque quod sphaerica superficies interiacens circulis quorum
diametri ZE, KL, quae scilicet describitur ab arcu AP, aequalis est
25 cylindricae superficiei iisdem circulis interpositae, quae scilicet de-
scribitur a linea ZK. Item quod sphaerica superficies quae inter circulos
quorum diametri KL, MN, quam scilicet describit arcus PS, aequalis est
cylindricae superficiei quae inter eosdem circulos, quae scilicet a linea
KM describitur. Item quod sphaerica superficies quae inter circulos
30 quorum diametri MN, TH, quam scilicet describit arcus SBG, aequalis
est cylindricae superficiei quae inter eosdem clauditur circulos, quam
scilicet describit linea MH.
Primum horum et tertium patet per corollarium 15
ae
praemissae, cum
cylindrus ZL habeat altitudinem aequalem ipsi AX, quae est axis segmenti
35 sphaerici PAR, et basim circulum sphaerae maximum, atque etiam cum
cylindrus MT habeat altitudinemOG, qui est axis segmenti sphaerici SGY,
et basim circulum in sphaera maximum. Secundum autem patet per
primum corollarium praecedentis, cum cylindrus KN habeat altitudinem
XO, qui est axis segmenti sphaerici SPRY, et basim circulum maximum
40 sphaerae. Hoc idem ostendam de superficiebus sphaericis ac cylindricis
quos intercipiant quaecunque duo plana parallela basibus cylindri, quibus
65
scilicet axis cylindri rectus insistat, et hoc erat quod demonstrandum
proponebatur.
Ostendam hoc idem aliter. Cum per quartam huius ex AGin peripheriam
45 circuli ABG, quae basis est cylindri ZT, fiat superficies curva cylindri
ZT, itemque ex AX in peripheriam eiusdem circuli fiat superficies curva
cylindri ZL, propterea per primam sexti et coniunctam proportionem erit
curva cylindri ZT superficies ad curvam cylindri ZL superficiem sicut
AG ad AX. Sed per corollarium 17
ae
praeteritae, sicut AG ad AX, sic
50 sphaerae ABG superficies ad segmenti sphaerici PAR sphaericam super-
ficiem. Igitur et sicut sphaerae ABG superficies ad segmenti PAR
sphaericam superficiem, sic curva cylindri ZT superficies ad curvam
cylindri ZL superficiem. Et permutatim sicut sphaerae ABG superficies
ad curvam cylindri ZT superficiem, sic segmenti PAR sphaerica super-
55 ficies ad curvam cylindri ZL superficiem; aequalis autem est, per 11 am
huius, sphaerae ABG superficies curvae cylindri ZT superficiei. Ergo et
segmenti PAR sphaerica superficies aequalis est curvae cylindri ZL super-
ficiei. Similiter ostendam quod segmenti SAY sphaerica superficies
aequalis est curvae cylindri ZN superficiei. Unde per consequentiam
60 supererit sphaerica [superficies] segmenti PY, quae zona est sphaerica ab
arcu PS descripta, aequalis curvae superficiei cylindri KN. Itemque
sphaerici segmenti SGY superficies aequalis est curvae MT cylindri super-
ficiei. Hoc idem ostendam quibuscumque planis cylindricae basi paral-
lelis tarn cylindrum quam sphaeram cylindro circumscriptam secantibus,
65 et hoc est quod propositio nostra significat.
Haec de superficiebus tomatilium, et sphaericorum segmentorum.
Postulat ordo, ut iam de soliditate primum quidem tornatilis corporis,
et exinde sphaerae disputemus.
IPropositio XXI.
CONUS CUIUS BASIS AEQUALIS EST AGGREGATO BASIUM
QUOTLIBET CONORUM SUB EODEM FASTIGIO AEQUALIS EST
AGGREGATO OMNIUM ILLORUM.
5 Exempli gratia, basis coni A aequalis basibus simul sumptis aliquot
conorum, utputa trium B, G, D [Fig. IIl.5C.18]. Sitque omnium
celsitudo una.
Aio quod conus A aequalis est aggregato conorum B, G, D.
Cum enim eorum altitudines sint aequales, erit per 11am 12
i
conus B
10 ad conum A, sicut basis coni B ad basim coni A. Item conus G ad conum
A, sicut basis coni G ad basim coni A. Quare per 24
am
5
i
coni B, G simul
sumpti ad conum A, sicut bases conorumB, G simul sumptae ad basim
coni A. Adhuc conus D ad conumA, sicut basis coni D ad basim coni A.
Rursum ergo per 24
am
5
i
coni B, G, D simul sumpti ad conum A, sicut
15 bases conorum B, G, D simul sumptae ad basim coni A. Sed bases
conorum B, G, D, simul sumptae, per hypothesim, sunt aequales basi
coni A. Ergo et coni B, G, D simul sumpti sunt aequales cono A, quod
est propositum. Idem demonstrabimus de quotcumque conis.
Idem concludere potes de cylindris quorum celsitudines aequales.
Propositio XXII.
CONUS CUIUS CELSITUDO AEQUALIS EST AGGREGATO
CELSITUDINUM QUOTLIBET CONORUM SUPER AEQUAS
BASES EST AEQUALIS AGGREGATO ILLORUM.
5 Exempli causa, celsitudo coni A sit aequalis celsitudinibus aliquot
conorum, ut puta trium B, G, D [Fig. III.5C.19]. Sintque omnium
bases aequales.
Aio quod conus A aequalis est conis B, G, D simul sumptis.
Nam cum eorum bases sint aequales, erit per Ham 12
i
conus B ad
10 conum A, sicut altitudo coni B ad altitudinem coni A. Item conus G ad
conum A, sicut altitudo coni G ad altitudinem coni A. Ergo per 24
am
5
i
coni B, G, D simul ad conum A, sicut altitudines conorum B, G, D simul
sumptae ad [altitudinem] conum (! coni) A. Adhuc conus D ad conum
A, sicut altitudo coni D ad altitudinem coni A. Rursum ergo per 24
am
5
i
15 coni B, G, D simul ad conum A, sicut altitudines conorum B, G, D simul
sumptae ad coni A celsitudinem: sed celsitudines conorumB, G, D simul
sumptae aequales sunt celsitudini coni A . Ergo et coniB,G,D simul sumpti
aequales sunt cono A, quod est propositum. Idem de quotcumque conis
demonstrabimus repetita quoties opus fuerit 24
a
5
i
, quod propositum est.
66 IPropositio XXIII.
SOLIDUM QUOD A TRIANGULO CIRCA UNUM LATERUM
FIXUM, DONEC AD LOCUM SUUM REDEAT, CIRCUMDUCTO
DESCRIBITUR, AEQUALE EST El CONO CUIUS BASIS AEQUALIS
5 EST CONICAE SUPERFICIEI AB ALTERO LATERUM TRIANGULI
CIRCUMDUCTORUM DESCRIPTAE, ALTITUDO AUTEM
AEQUALIS PERPENDICULARI AD IDEM LATUS CADENTI AB
ANGULO OPPOSITO. QUIN ETIAM SI AB ALTERO TERMINORUM
LATERIS FIXI AD OPPOSITUM LATUS LINEA UTCUNQUE
10 DUCATUR, SOLIDUM A TRIANGULO ABSCISSO DESCRIPTUM
AEQUALE EST El CONO CUIUS BASIS AEQUALIS EST CONICAE
SUPERFICIEI DESCRIPTAE A SEGMENTO LATERIS ABSCISSI,
ALTITUDO AUTEM AEQUALIS EST PERPENDICULARI AD
IDEM LATUS A DICTO TERMINO LATERIS FIXI. ADHUC, SI
15 LATUS TRIANGULI AEQUIDISTET AXI CIRCA QUEM CIR-
CUMDUCITUR TRIANGULUM, SOLUSQUE TRIGONI ANGULUS
IN AXE TERMINETUR, DESCRIPTUM A TRIANGULO SOLIDUM
AEQUALE ERIT El CONO CUIUS BASIS AEQUALIS EST
CYLINDRICAE SUPERFICIEI DESCRIPTAE A LATERE AXI
20 AEQUIDISTANTE, CELSITUDO AUTEM AEQUALIS PER-
PENDICULARI AD IDEM LATUS AB AXE IPSO DELAPSAE.
Brevissime hanc trifariam propositionem ostendam. Sit namque
trigonumABG quod circa unum laterum, ut puta circa latus AB, tanquam
axem semel circumductum describat solidum AGB [Fig. III.5C.20(a)].
25 Ab angulo autem opposito AG, ut puta B, ad latus oppositum AG cadat
perpendicularis BD. Sitque conus H, cuius basis sit aequalis conicae
superficiei quam describit latus AG, celsitudo vero aequalis perpendic-
ulari BD.
Aio quod conus H aequalis est solido AGB.
30 Ponatur enim primo trigonum ABG rectum angulum habens, qui apud
B; et tunc per definitionem coni solidum ABG a triangulo descriptum est
conus cuius axis AB basisque semidiameter BG. Quare per 3
am
huius
superficies conica quam describit linea AG, et ideo basis coni H illi
aequalis, ad basim coni ABG, sicut linea AG ad semidiametrum BG; et
35 ideo propter triangulorumAGB, ABD similitudinem, sicut axis AB ad per-
pendicularem BD, quae celsitudo est coni H. Itaque conorum AGB et H
bases sunt celsitudinibus mutuae; aequales ergo sunt per 12
am
12
i
coni
AGB et H, quod est propositum.
Ponantur nunc anguli trigoniABG qui apudA,B acuti [Fig. III.5C.20(b)],
40 et demittatur a puncto G perpendicularis ad AB axem linea GE; quae in
revolutione trianguli ABG describet circulum cuius semidiameter GE.
Eritque solidum AGB compositum ex duobus conis AGE, BGE com-
munem basem habentes circulum cuius semidiameter GE. Sit itaque conus
K basim dicto circulo aequalem habens, celsitudinem vero aequalem
45 ipsi AB; eritque per praecedentem aequalis conus K conis AGE,
BGE simul sumptis, et proinde solidoAGB. Itaque quoniam per 3
am
super-
ficies conica quam describit linea AG, et ideo basis coni H illi aequalis
ad basim coni AGE, et ideo ad basim coni K illi aequalem, est sicut
67 AG ad GE; et ideo propter triangulorumAGE, IABD similitudinem, sicut
so AB celsitudo coni K ad BD celsitudinem coni H, ideo per 12
am
12
i
aequalis
est conus H cono K, et ideo solido AGB, quod est propositum.
Demum in tertia descriptione [Fig. III.5C.20(c)] ponatur ex angulis
trianguli ABG, qui apud B obtusus, et tunc cadat a puncto G perpendicu-
laris ad axem AB productum, qui sit GE, ut in ambitu trianguli linea
ss GE circulum describat, qui basis erit tarn coni AGE a triangulo AGE
descripti, quam coni BGE a triangulo BGE descriptio Sit itaque conus K
basim habens dicto circulo aequalem, et celsitudinem rectaeAB; eruntque
per praemissam conus K et conus BGE simul sumpti aequales cono AGE;
communis utrinque auferatur conus BGE, et supererit conus K aequalis
60 solido quod in ambitu describitur per triangulum ABG. Itaque quoniam
per 3
am
superficies conica quam describit linea AG, et ideo basis coni H
illi aequalis, ad basim coni AGE, et ideo ad basim coni K illi aequalem,
est sicutAG adGE, et ideo propter triangulorumAGE, ABD similitudinem,
sicut AB celsitudo coni K ad BD celsitudinem coni H, per 12
am
12
i
65 aequalis est conus H cono K, et ideo solido AGB, quod est propositurn.
Hactenus demonstraturn est prirnum ex propositis.
Alterum sic se habet [Fig. III.5C.21]. In ipso triangulo ABG ab altero
terminorum AB, qui sit B, ducatur ad oppositum latus linea BZ; sitque
conus N habens basim aequalem conicae superficiei quam in circum-
70 ductione describit linea GZ, et celsitudinem aequalem perpendiculari BD.
Aio quod conus N aequalis est solido quod in ambitu describitur a
trigono BGZ.
Sit enim conus H basim habens aequalem conicae superficiei quam
describit linea AG, et celsitudinem BD. Item conus M basim habens
75 aequalem conicae superficiei quam describit linea AZ, et celsitudinem
BD. Eritque, ut ostensum est, conus H aequalis solido descripto per
trigonum ABG; conus autem M aequalis solido descripto per rrigonum
(I trigonum) ABZ. Item quoniam conica superficies quam describit linea
AG aequalis est conicis superficiebus simul sumptis quas describunt
68 linea AZ et linea ZG, ideo basis coni H, / quae fuit aequalis illi conicae,
81 aequalis erit basibus conorum, M, N simul sumptis, quorum scilicet bases
his conicis fuerunt aequales; cumque conorumH, M, N sit una celsitudo,
erit per antepraemissam conus H aequalis conis M, N simul sumptis.
Itaque de cono H et solido AGB invicem aequalibus , auferatur conus
85 M et solidum AZB invicem aequalia: et supererunt conus N et solidum
descriptum a triangulo BGZ invicem aequalia, quod est propositum.
Superest tertia propositionis pars: circumducatur ut prius trigonum
BGZ circum axem AB, sitque GZ latus ipsi AB parallelum, et conus
H habeat basim aequalem cylindricae superficiei quam describit linea
90 GZ, celsitudinem vero aequalem perpendiculari BD ab angulo B ad latus
GZ [Fig. III.5C.22].
Aio quod conus H aequalis est solido quod describitur a triangulo
BZG circumducto.
Compleatur enim rectangulum AZGX, quod in revolutione describet
95 cylindrum cuius axis AX et basium semidiametri AZ, GX. Unde et BD
circulum describet, qui terminus erit cylindrorum AD, DX; quin etiam
triangula ABZ, BGX describent conos, quorum bases, quae et cylindri,
et quorum vertex B. Sit itaque conus K basim quidem habens aequalem
basi cylindri AG, celsitudinem vero duplam ipsius AX; eritque per
100 11am 12
i
conus K duplus coni habentis basim eandem, et axem AX. Sed
hie conus per praemissam aequalis est conis AZB, BGX simul sumptis.
Ergo conus K duplus est ad conos AZB, BGX simul sumptos. Sed
eorumdem conorum AZB, BGX simul sumptorum duplum est solidum a
triangulo BGZ descriptum, quando per 9
am
12
i
totus cylindrus AG
105 triplus est eorundem conorum. Itaque aequalis est conus K solido per
triangulumBGZ descripto.
At cum cylindrica superficies quam describit linea GZ, et ideo basis coni
H ei aequalis, ad basim cylindri AG, et ideo ad basim coni K, sit per
5
am
huius sicut axis AX ad dimidium semidiametri GX: et ideo sicut
110 celsitudo coni K, quae dupla est axis AX, ad semidiametrum GX, quae
dupla est sui dimidii, et ideo ad BD celsitudinem coni H, propterea per
12
am
12
i
aequalis est conus H cono K, et ideo solido per triangulum
BGZ descripto, quod est propositum.
Hoc autem cum perpendicularis DB cadit inter puncta G, Z; quod
115 si perpendicularis a puncto B ad GZ sit altera ipsarum BZ, BG,
demonstratio adhuc erit eadem, sed intra cylindrumAG unus describetur
conus non duo. Si vero perpendicularis DB cadat extra puncta G, Z
69 [Fig. III.5C.23], tunc / sic ostendam hanc propositionis partem. Producta
ZD ad libitum ad signum 0 connectatur BO. Sitque M conus basim
120 habens aequam cylindricae superficiei quam describit linea OG, celsitudo
vero BD: item conus N basim habens aequalem cylindricae superficiei
quam describit linea OZ et celsitudinem BD. Eritque, sicut dudum fuit
demonstratum, conus M aequalis solido descripto per triangulum OBG,
conus autem N aequalis solido descripto per triangulum OBZ. Et
125 quoniam cylindrica superficies quam describit linea OG aequalis est
cylindricis superficiebus simul sumptis quas describunt lineae OZ, ZG,
ideo basis coni M aequalis est basibus conorum N, H simul sumptis;
quorum, cum sit una celsitudo, erit per antepraemissam conus M
aequalis conis N, H simul sumptis. Itaque de cono M conus N, et de
130 solido per triangulum OBG descripto solidum per triangulum OBZ
descriptum, ab aequalibus scilicet aequalia, subtrahantur, et relinquitur
conus H aequalis solido per triangulum BZG descripto, quod est
propositum.
Concluditur ergo quod solidum a triangulo lateraliter vel angulariter
135 axi in eodem pIano existenti applicato et circa eumdem axem perfecta
revolutione circumducto descriptum, aequale est ei cono cuius basis
aequalis est conicae superficiei vel cylindricae descriptae a latere
trianguli quod opponitur angulo applicato ad axem, celsitudo vero aequalis
perpendiculari quae a dicto angulo ad dictum latus egreditur ubicumque
140 occurrat. Et haec est tota propositi summa, quae sequentibus inservit
demonstrationibus.
Propositio XXIV.
SOLIDUM A DIMIDIO POLYGONII AEQUILATERI CIRCULO
INSCRIPTI SUPER DIAMETRUM STANTEMPERFECTA REVOLU-
TIONE CIRCUMDUCTO DESCRIPTUM, AEQUALE EST El CONO
5 CUIUS BASIS AEQUALIS EST UNIVERSAE SOLIDI SUPER-
FICIEI, AXIS VERO PERPENDICULARI QUAE A CIRCULI
CENTRO AD QUODLIBET POLYGONII LATUS EGREDITUR.
In circulo AB, cuius diameter AB, inscriptum sit polygonium aequi-
laterum, ut puta decagonum AB, a cuius dimidio AGDEZB super
10 axemAB semel revoluto describatur solidumAB conicarum superficierum
[Fig. III.5C.24]. Ad unum autem laterum polygonii, quod sit AG,
ducatur a centro sphaerae H perpendicularis HT; sitque conus K, cuius
basis sit aequalis superficiei totae solidi AB, celsitudo vero aequalis per-
pendiculari HT.
15 Aio quod aequalis est conus K solido AB.
Connectantur enim anguli G, D, E, Z cum centro H, et constituantur
coni sub celsitudine HT: videlicet conus L basim habens aequam conicae
superficiei quam describit linea AG, conus M ei quam describit linea
70 BZ, conus N ei / quam describit linea GD, conus X ei quam describit
20 linea ZE, conus 0 ei quam describit linea DE, quae cylindrica est. Unde
conorum L, M, N, X, 0 bases simul sumptae aequales erunt universae
superficiei solidi AB, et ideo aequales erunt basi coni K. Quare per 21am
huius omnes hi coni L, M, N, X, 0 simul aequales erunt cono K. Per
primam autem partem praecedentis solidum quod per triangulum HAG
25 circumductum describitur aequum est cono L, quod autem per triangulum
HBZ aequum est cono M. Item quod per triangulum HGD aequum est
per secundam partem praecedentis cono N; quodque per triangulum
HZE aequum est cono X. Quod tandem per triangulum HDE aequum
est, per tertiam partem praecedentis, cono O. Itaque solidum AB, quod
30 a toto semipolygonio ADB describitur, aequum est aggregato conorum
L, M, N, X, 0; fuit autem hoc aggregatum cono K aequale. Ergo et
AB solidum cono K aequale erit. Et hoc fuerat demonstrandum.
Manifestum est ergo quod solidumAB aequum est cylindro cuius basis
est aequalis superficiei ipsius solidi AB, axis vero aequalis tertiae parti
35 perpendicularis HT, namque talis cylindrus per 11am et 9
am
12
i
aequalis
est cono K, et ideo solido AB etc.
Propositio XXV.
SPHAERA AEQUALIS EST CONO CUIUS BASIS SPHAERICAE
SUPERFICIEI, CELSITUDO VERO SPHAERAE SEMIDIAMETRO
AEQUALIS EST.
5 Sit circulus ABGD, cuius centrum E, diameter AG, et circumacto
semel semicirculo ABG super immotam diametron AG describatur
sphaera ABG, sitque conus M, cuius basis sphaerae ABG superficiei,
celsitudo autem semidiametro AE sit aequalis [Fig. III.5C.25].
Aio quod aequalis est conus M sphaerae ABG.
10 Nam si conus M non sit aequalis sphaerae ABG, erit aequalis
sphaerae alteri alicui maiori vel minori quam est ipsa sphaera ABG.
Sit ergo primum, si possibile est, conus M aequalis sphaerae ZHT minori
quam est sphaera ABG, et cum ea concentricae, cuius diameter ZT, et
quam circa diametrum ZT revolutus describit semicirculus ZHT; et per
15 Barn 12
i
inscribatur circulo ABG polygonium aequalium laterum minime
tangentium circulum ZT, quod sit ABGD, cuius laterum unum sit AK,
ad quod a centro perpendicularis exeat EL; et polygonii dimidio semel
71 circa diametrum AG circumacto describatur solidum co/nicarun:'l super-
ficierum minime iam tangentium sphaeram ZHT, eritque per prae-
20 cedentem solidumABG aequum cono cuius basis aequalis est superficiei
solidi ABG, celsitudo vero perpendiculari EL; huiusmodi itaque cono
maior est conus M, quandoquidem et basi et celsitudine superior est,
quoniam scilicet sphaerae ABG superficies maior est solidi ABG inclusi
superficie et linea AE maior quam perpendicularis EL. Et ideo sphaera
25 ZHT ipsi cono M aequalis maior erit solido ABG: pars toto, quod est
impossibile.
Vel sic, quoniam conus M maior fuit cono dicto aequali ipsi solido
ABG, et ideo maior ipso solido ABG, et solidum ABG maius sphaera
ZHT; propterea conus M maior erit sphaeraZHT; non est ergo ei aequalis
30 sicut supponebatur.
Sit deinde, si possibile est, conus M aequalis sphaerae maiori quam est
sphaera ABG. Sed, brevitatis causa, sit supposita ipsa ZHT, et conus
M basim habeat aequalem superficiei sphaerae ZHT, celsitudinem vero
aequalem semidiametro EZ.
35 Aio quod conus M non erit aequalis sphaerae alicui maiori quam est
sphaera ZHT.
Nam si possibile est, sit aequalis sphaerae ABG maiori quam est
sphaera ZHT, et cum ea concentricae; describatur intra sphaeram ABG
solidum ABG ut prius, cuius superficies non tangat sphaeram ZHT etc.
40 Eritque per praecedentem solidumABG aequum cono cuius basis aequalis
est superficiei solidi ABG et celsitudo perpendiculari EL. Talis ergo conus
maior cono M, quem et basi et celsitudine superat. Quare solidum ABG
maius cono M. Sed conus M, per hypothesim, aequalis fuit sphaerae
ABG. Ergo solidum ABG maius quam sphaera ABG: pars toto, quod est
45 impossibile. Non est ergo conus M aequalis alicui sphaerae maiori quam est
sphaera ZHT. Similiter si conus M [habeat] basim superficiei sphaerae
ABG et celsitudinem aequam semidiametro EA, non erit aequalis sphaerae
cuiquam maiori quam est sphaera ABG; fuitque ostensum quod nec
minori. Superest ergo ut aequalis omnino sit conus M sphaerae ABG,
50 quod erat demonstrandum.
Manifestum est ergo quod sphaera aequalis est cono cuius basis semi-
diameter aequalis est diametro sphaerae, axis vero semidiametro sphaerae.
Patet, nam per corollarium lOae circulus cuius semidiameter aequalis
diametro sphaerae est aequalis superficiei sphaerae.
Propositio XXVI.
SPHAERA DUPLA EST CONI CUIUS BASIS CIRCULO SPHAERAE
MAXIMO, CELSITUDO VERO SPHAERAE DIAMETRO FUERIT
AEQUALIS.
5 Sit sphaera A, cuius circulus maximus BCD [Fig. III.5C.26], conus
autem N basim habeat aequalem circulo BCD, celsitudinem vero
aequam diametro sphaerae BD.
Aio quod sphaera A dupla est coni N.
Ponatur enim conus M basim habens aequalem superficiei sphaerae A et
10 celsitudinem aequalem semidiametro sphaerae AD; eritque per prae-
cedentem conus M aequalis sphaerae A. Ponatur item conus X basim
72 habens duplam circuli BCD et celsitu/dinem aequalem diametro sphaerae
BD. Haque basis coni M aequalis superficiei sphaerae A per 11 am est
quadrupla ad circulum BCD, et basis coni X dupla circuli BCD. Igitur
15 basis coni M dupla ad basim coni X; celsitudo autem coni X dupla ad
celsitudinem coni M. Quare conorum M, X reciprocae sunt bases
fastigiis; et ideo per 12
am
12
i
aequales sunt coni. Sed conus M aequalis
sphaerae A. Ergo et conus X aequalis sphaerae A. Verum conus X duplus
est coni N, est enim eiusdem celsitudinis et habet basim duplam, nam
20 basis coni X dupla ad circulum BeD et basis coni N aequalis circulo
eidem. Igitur sphaera A dupla est coni N, quod est propositum.
Corollarium.
Manifestum est ergo quod cylindrus cuius basis aequalis est circulo
sphaerae maximo, celsitudo autem aequalis diametro sphaerae, est ad
25 sphaeram sesquialter. Namque cylindrus per 9
am
12
i
triplus est sui coni,
cuius sphaera dupla est, ut fuit ostensum. Unde fiet cylindrus ad sphaeram
sesquialter.
Propositio XXVII.
SI FUERIT AXIS CYLINDRI AEQUALIS DIAMETRO BASIS,
CONI AUTEM BASIS AEQUALIS UNIVERSAE SUPERFICIEI
CYLINDRI, CELSITUDO VERa AEQUALIS SEMIDIAMETRO
5 CYLINDRICAE BASIS, AEQUALIS ERIT CYLINDRUS CONO.
Rectanguli ABGD latus AB duplum sit lateris BG [Fig. III.5C.27], et
circumducto rectangulo semel manente latere AB, describatur cylindrus
AG. Itaque cum BG, quae semidiameter est basis, sit dimidium axis
AB, erit tota diameter aequalis axi. Item sit conus E, cuius basis sit
10 aequalis universae cylindri AG superficiei, hoc est aggregato ex curva
superficie quam describit linea GD et ex basibus quas describunt lineae
AD, BG, celsitudo vero semidiametro AD.
Aio quod cylindrus AG et conus E sunt aequales.
Secetur enim axis AB bifariam apud Z, et connectantur DZ, ZG quo
15 fiet ut in circumductu rectanguli AG ipsa triangula ZDA, ZGB describant
conos quorum bases quae et cylindri et quarum (I) vertex punctum Z.
Cadat autem perpendicularis a puncto Z ad DG, quae sit ZH; sitque
conus T, cuius basis sit aequalis cylindricae superficiei quam describit
73 / linea GD, celsitudo vero aequalis perpendiculari ZH, et ideo semi-
20 diametro AD, quae celsitudo est coni E; eritque per tertiam partem 23
ae
praecedentis conus T aequalis solido descripto per triangulum DZG.
Quamobrem conus T cum conis descriptis per triangula ZDA, ZGB
simul aequalis erit toti cylindro AG; basis quoque coni T cum basibus
cylindri aequalis erit universae superficiei cylindri; et ideo basis coni T
25 cum basibus conorum ADZ, BGZ, quae sunt bases cylindri, simul
aequales erunt basi coni E, quae fuit aequalis universae superficiei
cylindri; estque horum quatuor conorum celsitudo una, quoniam lineae
AD, AZ, ZB, ZH, quae fuerunt conorum celsitudines, sunt aequales.
Igitur per 21
am
praedictam conus E aequalis est aggregato conorum T,
30 ADZ, BGZ; fuit autem hoc aggregatum aequale cylindro AG. Ergo
cylindrus AG aequalis erit cono E, quod est propositum.
Propositio XXVIII.
CYLINDRUS CUIUS TAM AXIS QUAM BASIS DIAMETER
AEQUALIS EST SPHAERAE DIAMETRO SESQUIALTER EST
AD SPHAERAM.
5 Quamvis haec propositio demonstrata sit in praemissa 26
a
ut ipsius
corollarium, placuit tamen hie earn aliter demonstrare.
Esto sphaera quidem A, cylindrus Z; sitque tarn axis Z cylindri quam
diameter aequalis sphaerae A diametro CB [Fig. 1II.5C.28].
Aio quod cylindrus Z sesquialter est ad sphaeram A.
10 Sit enim conus M basim habens aequalem superficiei sphaerae A et
celsitudinem aequalem semidiametro sphaerae AB; eritque per 2s
am
praemissam conus M aequalis sphaerae A. Item sit conus E basim habens
aequalem universae superficiei cylindri Z et celsitudinem aequalem semi-
diametro basis cylindri. Eritque per praecedentem conus E aequalis
15 cylindro Z (cum semidiameter sphaerae A et [semidiameter] cylindricae
basis, quae sunt celsitudines conorumM ,E, sint aequales per hypothesim)
atque cylindri Z tota superficies, quae basis est coni E, sesquialtera sit
per corollarium 11ae superficiei sphaerae A, quae basis est coni M; et coni
eiusdem altitudinis per 11am 12
i
sint ad invicem sicut bases. lam et conus
20 E sesquialter erit ad conum M. Verum conus M sphaerae A conusque
E cylindroZ fuit aequalis. Ergo et cylindrusZ sesquialter erit ad sphaeram
A, quod fuit propositum.
Corollarium.
Rursum ergo hinc patet quod sphaera dupla est ad conum cuius tarn
25 axis quam basis diameter aequalis est sphaericae diametro. Nam cum
cylindrus huiusmodi sit per praemissam ad sphaeram sesquialter, ad
conum vero per 9
am
12
i
triplus, erit sphaera ad conum dupla.
Itaque sphaera sic se habet ad cylindrom et reliqua tornatilia. Nunc
ad segmentorum soliditates transibimus.
74 / Propositio XXIX.
SI CIRCULI ARCUS QUISPIAM IN PORTIONES SECETUR
AEQUALES, QUIBUS CHORDAE SUBTENDANTUR, ET ARCUS
EXTREMA CUM CENTRO CIRCULI CONNECTANTUR, REC-
5 TILINEUM AUTEM SUB CHORDIS ET SEMIDIAMETRIS COM-
PREHENSUM, ALTERA SEMIDIAMETRORUM STANTE, SEMEL
CIRCUMDUCATUR: DESCRIPTUM SOLIDUM AEQUUM EST El
CONO CUIUS BASIS AEQUALIS EST CONICIS SUPERFICIEBUS
PER CHORDAS DESCRIPTIS, CELSITUDO VERO AEQUALIS
10 PERPENDICULARI QUAE A CENTRO CIRCULI AD QUAMLIBET
CHORDARUM EGREDITUR.
In circulo AD [Fig. III.5C.29], cuius centrum H, arcus AD secetur
in quotvis partes aequales, ut puta duas AG, GD, quibus subtendantur
chordae AG, GD, et ductis semidiametris AH, DH circumducatur
15 rectilineum AD, stante semidiametro AH, ut describatur solidum AD.
Sitque conus K, cuius basis sit aequalis conicis superficiebus descriptis
per chordas AG, GD, celsitudo autem aequalis perpendiculari HT ad
latus AG.
Aio quod aequalis est conus K solido AD.
20 Connectatur enim GH, et constituantur sub celsitudine HT duo coni,
scilicet conus L basim habens aequam conicae superficiei quam describit
linea AG et conus N basim habens aequam conicae superficiei quam
describit linea GD. Unde conorum L, N bases simul aequales erunt basi
coni K, quae fuit dictis conicis superficiebus aequalis. Quare per 21am
25 huius coni L, N simul aequales erunt cono K. Sed per 23
am
solidum a
triangulo HAG descriptum aequum est cono L, quodque per triangulum
GHD describitur aequum est cono N. Ergo solidum AD quod a toto
rectilineoAD describitur aequum est aggregato conorumL, N. Fuit autem
hoc aggregatum cono K aequale. Igitur etAD solidum cono K erit aequale,
30 quod demonstrandum proponitur.
Hoc idem ostendemus quotcunque fuerint chordae factis tot conis
quot fuerint triangula, qui singuli sunt singulis solidis per triangula
descriptis aequales, adhibitis semper 21 a et 23
a
huius, estque similis
demonstratio 24
ae
huius.
Propositio XXX.
SI CONICA SUPERFICIES VERTICEM IN CENTRO SPHAERAE
HABENS SPHAERAM IN DUOS SECTORES DISTERMINET,
UTERLIBET SECTORUM AEQUALIS EST CONO CUIUS BASIS
5 AEQUALIS EST BASI SPHAERICAE IPSIUS SECTORIS, CEL-
SITUDO AUTEM AEQUALIS SEMIDIAMETRO SPHAERAE.
De circulo ABGD [Fig. III.5C.30], cuius centrum E et diameter AG,
sumatur arcus AB, et ducatur semidiameter EB, circumducto autem
75 semicirculo ABG, stante diametro AG, / describetur sphaera, et in eodem
10 ambitu sector circuli ABE describet solidum sphaerae sectorem ABED;
ponatur conus M, cuius basis aequa sit basi sphaericae sectoris
ABD, quam scilicet describit arcus AB, celsitudo vero aequalis sit
semidiametro AE.
Aio quod aequalis est conus M sphaerico sectori ABD.
15 Nam secus erit aequalis alicui sectori maiori vel minori. Sit ergo
primum aequalis conus M sectori sphaerico ZHT minori quam est sector
ABD, et cum eo concentrico, quem describat arcus ZH ipsis lineis
AE, EB terminatus, et secetur arcus AB iterum atque iterum donec
per Barn 12
i
arcuum chordae non contingant peripheriam ZHT. Sitque
20 una chordarumAK, et ad eum(!) perpendicularis EL, et circumacto recti-
lineo AKBE circa axem AE describatur solidum ABD, quod per praece-
dentem aequale erit cono cuius basis aequalis est conicis superficiebus
per chordas AK, KB descriptis, celsitudo vero perpendiculari EL. Hoc
itaque cono maior est conus M, qui et basi et celsitudine maior est.
25 Sed conus M aequalis fuit sphaerico sectori ZT. Ergo [sector] sphaericus
ZT maior est solido ABD, pars toto, quod est impossibile.
Vel sic, conus M maior est solido ABD, quandoquidem maior est cono
qui solido aequalis; ergo et maior sectore sphaerico ZT; non est ergo ei
aequalis, sicut supponebatur.
30 Sit deinde conus M aequalis sectori sphaerico maiori quam est sector
ABD. Sed brevitatis causa suppositus sector sit sector sphaericus ZHTE,
et conus M habeat basim aequam sphaericae sectoris ZT, quam scilicet
describit arcus ZH, et celsitudinem aequalem semidiametro EH.
Aio quod conus M non erit aequalis alicui sectori sphaerico maiori
35 quam est sector ZT.
Sit enim, si possibile est, aequalis sectori BD concentrico cum sectore
ZT et ipso maiori quem describit sector circuli ABE; et inscribantur
arcui AB chordae ut prius non tangentes circulum ZH, et circumducto
rectilineo ABE formetur solidum BD etc. , quod per praecedentem
40 aequale erit cono cuius basis aequalis est conicis superficiebus per chordas
AK, KB descriptis, celsitudo vero perpendiculari EL. Hie ergo conus
maior erit cono M, quem et basi et celsitudine superat; sed conus M
aequalis fuit per hypothesim sectori BD; igitur et solidum BD maius est
sectoreBD, pars toto, quod est impossibile. Non est ergo conus M aequalis
45 alicui sectori sphaerico maiori quam est sector ZT. Similiter si conus
M supponatur habere basim aequam sphaericae basi sectoris BD et celsi-
tudinem aequam semidiametroAE, non erit conus M aequalis alicui sectori
maiori quam est sector BD; sed nee minori, ut fuit ostensum. Superest
ergo ut aequalis sit omnino conus M sectori sphaerico ABED, quod est
50 propositum.
Et quoniam sphaera ABG dissecatur in duos sectores quos disterminat
conica superficies descripta per lineamEB, poterimus hoc idem ostendere
de sphaerico sectore BGD descripto per circuli secorem EBG. Sit ergo
conus N, cuius basis aequalis sit sphaericae basi sectoris BGD, quam
55 describit arcus BG, [et cuius celsitudo aequalis sit semidiametro AE], et
similiter ostendemus quod aequalis erit conus N sectori sphaerico BGD.
Vel hac via: sit conus X habens basim aequam superficiei toti sphaerae
ABG et celsitudinem aequam semidiametro AE; eritque per 25
am
aequalis
76 conus X / sphaerae ABG; et basis coni X aequalis basibus conorum
60 M, N simul sumptis. Quapropter per 2pm et conus X conis M, N simul
sumptis aequalis erit. Igitur et coni M, N simul sumpti erunt aequales
sphaerae ABG. Itaque de sphaera ABG sector sphaericus ABD, et de
aggregato conorum M, N conus M auferatur, aequalia ab aequalibus;
et supererunt sector sphaericus BGD et conus N aequales, quod est
65 propositum.
Corollarium.
Manifestum est ergo quod sector sphaericus aequalis est cono cuius
basis semidiameter est aequalis lineae quae a vertice sphaerici segmenti
ad peripheriam basis, celsitudo autem aequalis semidiametro sphaerae.
70 Nam per corollarium 16
ae
circulus cuius semidiameter est linea quae a
vertice segmenti sphaerici ad peripheriam basis aequalis est basi
sphaericae ipsius sectoris. Quare conus cuius basis aequalis circulo cuius
diameter est linea quae a vertice segmenti sphaerici ad peripheriam
basis, celsitudo autem aequalis semidiametro sphaera[e]; iam aequalis
75 erit cono cuius basis aequalis est basi sphaericae sectoris, celsitudo
autem semidiametro sphaerae. Sed hie conus aequalis fuit sphaerico
sectori. Ergo et ille conus cuius basis est circulus habens semidiametrum
aequalem lineae quae a vertice segmenti sphaerici ad peripheriam basis
et [cuius] celsitudinem (1) aequalem (I) semidiametro sphaerae aequalis
80 erit sphaerico sectori, sicut infert corollarium.
Propositio XXXI.
SI CIRCULUS SPHAERAM SECET, SPHAERICORUM SEG-
MENTORUM UTRUMLIBET AEQUUM EST CONO CUIUS BASIS
EST SECANS CIRCULUS, CELSITUDO VERO EA RECTA QUAE
5 SIC SE HABET AD AXEM IPSIUS SEGMENTI SICUT AG-
GREGATUM EX SEMIDIAMETRO SPHAERAE ET EX AXE
RELIQUI SEGMENTI AD EUNDEM AXEM.
Est sphaera ABGD, quam circa axem AG manentem revolutus semel
describit semicirculus ABG, quae secetur circulo cui recta sit diameter
10 AG, et cuius diameter sit BD secans AG apud P [Fig. III.5C.31].
Sintque segmenta ABD, BGD, quorum axes AP, PG. Sitque sicut aggre-
gatum ex EA, PG ad ipsamPG, sic RP ad AP.
Aio quod conus cuius basis semidiameter BP et celsitudo RP aequalis
est sphaerico segmento ABD.
15 Item sit sicut aggregatum ex EG, PA ad ipsam PA, sic SP ad GP.
Aio quod conus cuius basis semidiameter BP et celsitudo SP aequalis
est sphaerico segmento BGD.
Primum sic ostendo. CumEA, PG simul ad PG sit sicut RP ad AP, erit
disiunctim sicut EA ad PG, sic RA ad AP; et conversim, sicut PG ad
20 EA, sic AP ad RA; et permutatim, sicut PG ad AP, sic EA ad RA; et
conversim, sicut AP ad PG, sic RA ad AE; et coniunctim, sicut AG ad
GP, sic RE ad EA. Sed AG ad GP ratio dupla est eius quae AG ad GB
per gam sexti; AG autem ad GB sicut AB ad BP, propter similitudinem
triangulorum AGB, ABP; ergo ratio AG ad GP dupla est eius quae
25 AB ad BP; foit autem sicut AG ad GP, sic RE ad EA. Igitur ratio RE
ad EA dupla est eius quae AB ad BP. Sed circulus cuius semidiameter
AB ad circulum cuius semidiameter BP duplam habet rationem eius quam
77 AB ad BP (quandoquidem circuli ad invicem sunt I per 2
am
12
i
sicut
quadrata diametrorum vel semidiametrorum). Itaque RE ad EA erit sicut
30 circulus cuius semidiameter AB ad circulum cuius semidiameter BP.
Quamobrem duo coni quorum unius quidem basis semidiameter AB et
celsitudo EA, alterius autem basis semidiameter BP et celsitudo RE, sunt
per 12
am
12
i
aequales invicem, quando celsitudines sunt basibus recipro-
cae. Sed conus cuius basis semidiameterBP et celsitudoRE per 22
am
huius
35 aequalis est duobus conis quorum basis semidiameter BP et celsitudines
RP, PE; conus autem cuius basis ex centro AB et celsitudo AE per corol-
larium praemissae aequalis est sectori sphaerico ABED. Igitur duo coni
quorum basis semidiameter BP et celsitudines RP, PE simul sumpti sunt
aequales sectori sphaerico ABED, quod est aggregatum ex segmento
40 sphaerico ABD et ex cono cuius basis semidiameter BP et celsitudo PE.
Auferatur ergo communis conus, cuius basis semidiameter BP et
celsitudo PE, et supererit conus cuius basis semidiameter BP et celsitudo
RP aequalis sphaerico segmento ABD, quod erat primum ex demon-
strandis. Reliquum sic ostemdo (1).
45 Cum EG, PA simul ad PA sit sicut SP ad GP, erit disiunctim sicut
EG ad PA, sic SG ad PG; et conversim, sicut PA ad EG, sic GP ad
SG; et permutatim, sicut AP ad PG, sic EG ad GS; et conversim, sicut
GP ad PA, sic SG ad GE; et coniunctim, sicut GA ad AP, sic SE ad EG.
Sed per gam sexti ratio GA ad AP dupla est eius quae GA ad AB;
50 estque sicut GA ad AB, sic GB ad BP propter similitudinem triangulorum
GAB, GBP. Igitur ratio GA ad AP dupla est eius quae GB ad BP; fuit
autem sicut GA ad AP, sic SE ad EG; quare et ratio SE ad EG dupla
eius est quae GB ad BP. Sed circulus cuius semidiameter GB ad circulum
cuius semidiameter BP duplam habet rationem eius quam GB ad BP ex
55 2
a
12
i
. Itaque SE ad EG erit sicut circulus cuius semidiameter GB ad
circulum cuius semidiameter BP. Quamobrem duo coni quorum unius
quidem basis semidiameter GB, celsitudo autem EG, alterius autem
basis semidiameter BP, celsitudo autem SE, sunt per 12
am
12
i
invicem
aequales (quandoquidem celsitudines sunt basibus mutuae). Per praece-
60 dentis autem corollarium conus cuius basis semidiameter BG, celsitudo
autemEG, aequalis est sectori sphaerico BGDE. Igitur sector sphaericus
BGDE aequalis est cono cuius basis quidem semidiameter BP, celsitudo
autem SE. Apponatur utrobique conus cuius basis semidiameter BP et
celsitudoPE; eritque segmentum sphaericumBGD aggregatum, scilicet ex
65 sectore BGDE et dictocono, aequale conis quorum basium semidiameter
BP et celsitudines PE, ES simul sumptae. Sed tales coni simul sumpti
sunt per 22
am
aequales cono cuius basis semidiameter BP et celsitudo
PS. Ergo et conus cuius basis semidiameter BP, celsitudo autem PS
aequalis est segmento sphaerico BGD, quod fuit reliquum ex demon-
70 strandis. Itaque vera est tota propositi sententia.
78 I Corollarium.
Hinc manifestum est quod sphaericum segmentum ad conum eiusdem
basis ac verticis est sicut linea constans ex semidiametro sphaerae et
axe reliqui segmenti ad ipsum axem. Namque, ut paucis agam, conus
..... _._- . -----------------------------
75 BRD ad conum BAD eiusdem basis est sicut RP altitudo ad PA alti-
tudinem; fuit autem sphaericum segmentum BAD aequale cono BRD.
Atque RP linea ad lineamPA, sicut aggregatumEGP ad axem GP. Igitur
sphaericum segmentum BAD ad conum BAD, sicut EGP aggregatum ad
axem GP, quod est propositum. Non aliter ostendam quod segmentum
80 sphaerae BGD ad conum BGD erit sicut aggregatum EAP ad axem AP,
sicut infert corollarium.
Propositio XXXII.
SI CIRCULUS SPHAERAM SECET, SPHAERICORUM SEGMEN-
TORUM UTRUMLIBET AEQUUM EST CONO CUIUS BASIS
SEMIDIAMETER EST AEQUALIS IPSIUS SEGMENTI AXI, CEL-
5 SITUDO VERO AEQUALIS AGGREGATO EX SEMIDIAMETRO
SPHAERAE ET EX AXE RELIQUI SEGMENTI.
Repetita descriptione praecedenti [cf. Fig. III.5C.3I], aio quod seg-
mentum sphaericum ABD aequum est cono cuius basis semidiameter
aequalis est axi AP, celsitudo vero aggregato ex EG semidiametri (I)
10 et GP axe reliqui segmenti. Item aiD quod segmentum sphaericum
BGD aequale est cono cuius basis semidiameter aequalis est axi GP, celsi-
tudo vero aequalis aggregato ex AE semidiametro et AP axe reliqui
segmenti.
Primum sic ostendo. Quoniam ratio GP ad PA dupla est eius quae BP
15 ad PA per 8
am
sexti, cuius et dupla est per 2
am
12
i
ratio circuli cuius
semidiameter BP ad circulum cuius semidiameter PA, ideo GP ad PA erit
sicut circulus cuius semidiameter BP ad circulum cuius semidiameter
PA. Fuit autem in praemissa sicut GP ad PA, sic EA, vel EG, ad AR;
et coniunctim, sicut EG, GP simul ad PR totum, sic PG ad PA per Barn
20 5
i
; et ideo sicut circulus cuius semidiameter BP ad circulum cuius semi-
diameter PA. Quamobrem duo coni quorum unius quidem basis semi-
diameter est AP et celsitudo aggregatum ex EG, GP, alterius vero
basis semidiameter BP et celsitudo PR, sunt aequales per 12
am
12
i
,
quandoquidem celsitudines basibus reciprocae. Verum per praecedentem
2S conus cuius basis semidiameter BP et celsitudoPR fuit aequalis sphaerico
segmento ABD. Ergo sphaericum segmentum ABD aequale est et cono
cuius basis semidiameter AP et celsitudo aggregatum ex EG, GP, quod
est unum ex demonstrandis. Accipe reliquum.
Quoniam ratio AP ad PG dupla est eius quae BP ad PG per 8
am
sexti,
30 cuius et dupla est per 2
am
12
i
ratio circuli cuius semidiameter BP ad
circulum cuius semidiameter PG, ideo AP ad PG erit sicut circulus cuius
semidiameter BP ad circulum cuius semidiameter PG. Fuit autem in
praemissa sicut AP ad PG, sic EG, vel EA, ad GS. Quare per Barn 5
i
sicut EA, AP simul ad PS totum, sic AP ad PG, et ideo sicut circulus
3S cuius semidiameter BP ad circulum cuius semidiameter PG. Quamobrem
79 duo coni quorum unius quidem basis semidiameter est / PG et celsitudo
aggregatum ex AE, AP, alterius autem basis semidiameter est BP et celsi-
tudo PS, sunt ad invicem aequales per 12
am
12
i
, quandoquidem reciproca
sunt basibus fastigia. Verum ex praecedenti conus cuius basis semi-
40 diameter BP et celsitudo PS aequalis est sphaerico segmento BGD. Ergo
sphaericum segmentum BGD aequale est cono cuius basis semidiameter
est PG et celsitudo aggregatum ex AE, AP, quod supererat demon-
strandum.
Aliter
PROPOSITAM SPHAERAM AD DATAM RATrONEM SECARE.
Sphaerae propositae diameter sit AB [Fig. rII.5C.32]; data ratio CD ad
DE, oportet sphaeram AB secare ita ut segmentum ad segmentum sit
5 sicut CD ad DE.
Ponatur AF dimidium ipsius AB; et sicut est CE ad ED sic sit FA ad
AG; quibus intersit media proportionalis AH, ut scilicet FA, AH, AG sint
continuae proportionales; et circa axem FB describatur parabola FHLK.
Itemque circum non coincidentes FB, XB per punctum G incedat hyper-
10 bola GL secans parabolen apud L punctum; et compleatur parallelo-
grammum LMBX, itemque parallelogrammum AGNB; eruntque per 12
am
2
i
conicorum elementorum parallelogramma LB, BG praedicta inter se
aequalia. Quare per 15
am
sexti Euclidis erit sicut AB ad BM, sic LM ad
GA. Itaque cum ratio quadrati LMad quadratumGA , et ideo ratio quadrati
15 AB ad quadratumBM, componatur ex rationibus quadrati LM ad quadra-
turn HA atque quadrati HA ad quadratum AG; et cum ratio FM ad AG
componatur ex rationibus MF ad FA et FA ad AG, cumque per 39
am
(! 20
am
) primi con[ic]orum elementorum sit sicut quadratumLM ad quad-
ratum HA, sic MF ad FA, et per 17
am
sexti Euclidis sicut quadratum
20 HA ad quadratum AG, sic FA ad AG, propterea ex aequa proportione
erit sicut quadratum LM ad quadratum AG; et ideo quadratum AB ad
quadratum BM, sic MF ad AG; et per 2
am
12
i
Euclidis sic etiam circulus
cuius semidiameter AB ad circulum cuius semidiameter BM; itaque per
12
am
[12
i
] praedicti conus cuius axis AG basisque semidiameter AB
25 aequalis erit cono cuius axis FM basisque semidiameter BM, quando-
quidem celsitudines basibus sunt reciprocae. Sed per 11 am 12
i
Euclidis
sicut conus cuius axis FA basisque semidiameter AB ad conum cuius
axis GA basisque semidiameter AB, sic FA ad AG. Ergo sicut conus
cuius axis FA basisque semidiameter AB ad conum cuius axis FM
30 basisque semidiameter MB , sic etiamFA adAG, hoc est, CE adED. Verum
per praecedentem 32
am
conus cuius axis FM basisque semidiameter BM
aequalis est sphaerico segmento cuius axis BM. Item per corollarium
25
ae
huius conus cuius axis FA basisque semidiameter AB aequalis est
sphaerae cuius diameter AB. Igitur sicut sphaera AB ad sphaericum
35 segmentum cuius axis BM, sic CE ad ED; et disiunctim, sicut CD ad DE,
sic sphaericum segmentum cuius axisAM ad sphaericum segmentum cuius
80 axis BM. Quare sphaera cuius diameter AB in / puncto M ipsius diametri
secatur in duo segmenta quorum ratio est quae CE ad ED, quod fuit
faciendum.
40 Haec propositio sumpta est ex Dionysiodoro (I) mathematico an-
tiquissimo, ut tradit Eutotius Ascalonica in commentariis Archimedis.
Propositio XXXIII.
PYRAMIS ET CONUS SUB AEQUIS FASTIGIIS SUNT AD
INVICEM SICUT BASES.
Sit pyramis AC super basim rectilineam A [Fig. III.SC.33]. Item conus
5 BGF super circulum BG eiusdem altitudinis.
Aio quod sicut est rectilineum A ad circulum BG, sic est pyramis
AC ad conumBGF.
Sit enim, si possibile est, pyramis AC ad conumBGF sicut rectilineum
A ad circulum maiorem minoremve ipso circulo BG. Et primo minorem,
10 qui sit DE concentricus ipsi BG; et ipsi BG inscribatur rectilineum
polygonium per Barn 12
i
laterum minime tangentiumcirculumDE; et super
rectilineum BG intelligatur pyramis eiusdem altitudinis cum cono BGF
eiusdem verticis; eritque per 7
am
(I 6am) 12
i
sicut rectilineum A ad
rectilineumBG, sic pyramis AC ad pyramidemBGF. Sed per 8
am
Si maior
15 est proportio rectilinei A ad circulumDE quam rectilinei A ad rectilineum
BG. Igitur maiorem rationem habet per 12
am
Si pyramis AC ad conum
BGF quam pyramis AC ad pyramidem BGF. Ergo per lOam Si pyramis
BGF maior est cono BGF, pars toto, quod est impossibile. Non est ergo
pyramis AC ad conum BGF, sicut rectilineum A ad circulum aliquem
20 minorem BG.
Sed nec maiorem, sit enim, brevitatis causa, circulus conusque proposi-
tus DEF eiusdem altitudinis cum pyramide AC.
Aio quod pyramis AC ad conum DEF non erit sicut rectilineum A ad
circulum quempiam maiorem ipso DE circulo, ut puta ad circulum BG.
25 Ponatur enim BG circulus ipsi DE concentricus, et inscribatur ut
prius circulo BG rectilineum laterum minime tangentium circulum DE,
et super rectilineum BG intelligatur pyramis eiusdem verticis cum cono
DEF. Itaque quoniam sicut rectilineum A ad circulum BG, sic pyramis
AC ad conum DEF, et per 7
am
(! 6
am
) 12
i
sicut rectilineum A ad recti-
30 lineum BG, sic pyramis AC ad pyramidem BGF, atque maior est ratio
rectilinei A ad rectilineum BG quam eiusdem rectilinei A ad circulum
BG per octavam Si: propterea per 12
am
Si maiorem rationem habet pyramis
AC ad pyramidem BGF quam eadem pyramis AC ad conum DEF. Ergo
per lOam 5
i
conus DEF maior est pyramide BGF, pars toto, quod
35 est impossibile. Similiter non erit pyramis AC ad conum BGF sicut recti-
lineum A ad circulum quempiam maiorem ipso circulo BG; sed nec
minorem, ut fuit ostensum. Superest ergo ut pyramis AC ad conum
BGF sit sicut rectilineum A ad circulum ipsumBG, quod est propositum.
81 I Corollarium I.
40 Manifestum est est (I) ergo quod prisma et cylindrus sub aequalibus
fastigiis sunt ad invicem sicut bases. Namque tarn prisma ad suam
pyramidem per sam 12
i
quam cylindrus ad suum conum per 9
am
eiusdem
triplus est.
Corollarium 11.
4S Itaque pyramis et conus quorum bases et celsitudines sunt aequales
erunt ad invicem aequales. Hoc idem de prismate et cylindro pronun-
ciandum.
Propositio XXXIV.
PYRAMIS ET CONUS SUPER AEQUALES ERECTI BASES
SUNT AD INVICEM SICUT CELSITUDINES.
Pyramis AB et conus GD stent super aequales bases B, D, existentibus
5 scilicet rectilineo B et circulo D aequalibus; sintque pyramidis et coni
celsitudines AB, GD [Fig. III.5C.34].
Aio quod pyramis AB ad conum GD est sicut celsitudo AB ad celsi-
tudinemDG.
Nam si celsitudines tales sint aequales, patet propositum per corol-
10 larium primum praecedentis. Si inaequales, tunc super circulum D con-
stituatur conus eiusdem altitudinis cum pyramide AB, qui sit conus ED,
eritque per praemissae corollarium secundum pyramis AB aequalis cono
ED. Sed per 11am 12
i
conus ED ad conum GD est sicut celsitudo ED
ad celsitudinem GD. Ergo et pyramis AB ad conum GD, sicut celsitudo
15 ED, et ideo sicut celsitudo AB (sunt enim aequales), ad celsitudinem
GD, quod est propositum.
Corollarium.
Manifestum est ergo quod prisma quoque et cylindrus super aequas
bases sunt ad invicem sicut celsitudines, nam prisma pyramidis et
20 cylindrus coni triplus est.
82 / Propositio XXXV.
PYRAMIDIS ET CONI RATIO COMPONITUR EX BASlUM
ET CELSITUDINUM RATIONIBUS.
Sit pyramis AB, cuius basis B, et celsitudo AB [Fig. III.5C.35].
S Item conus GD, cuius basis D et celsitudo GD.
Aio quod ratio pyramidis AB ad conum GD componitur ex ratione
basis B ad basim D et ex ratione altitudinis AB ad altitudinem GD.
Ponatur enim conus EZ super circulum Z aequalem circulo D, vel
pyramis EZ super basim Z aequalem basi D, cuius altitudo EZ sit
10 aequalis altitudiniAB; eritque per 33
am
praemissam pyramis AB ad conum
EZ, vel per sam 12
i
ad pyramidem EZ, sicut basis B ad basim Z, et per
llam 12
i
Si EZ sit conus (vel per praemissam si sit pyramis), erit conus
EZ, vel pyramis EZ, ad conum GD, sicut celsitudo EZ ad celsitudinem
GD. Verum ratio pyramidis AB ad conum GD componitur ex ratione
15 pyramidis AB ad conum sive pyramidem EZ et ex ratione com sive
pyramidis EZ ad conum GD. Ergo eadem ratio pyramidis AB ad conum
GD componetur ex ratione basis B ad basim Z vel basim D (cum sint
aequales) et ex ratione celsitudinis EZ vel celsitudinis AB (cum sint
aequales) ad celsitudinem GD, et hoc erat demonstrandum.
20 Corollarium I.
Manifestum est ergo quod similiter prismatis et cylindri ratio ex
basium et celsitudinum rationibus componitur, cum prisma pyramidis, et
cylindrus coni, sit triplus.
Corollarium 11.
25 Unde facillime sequitur ut pyramis et conus quorum bases sunt fastigiis
reciprocae sint invicem aequales; contra, si pyramis et conus ad invicem
extiterint aequales, eorum bases erunt fastigiis reciprocae; et hoc idem
de prismate et cylindro sentiendum.
Propositio XXXVI.
SPHAERA AEQUALIS EST PYRAMIDI CUIUS BASIS AE-
QUALIS EST SPHAERICAE SUPERFICIEI, CELSITUDO AUTEM
SPHAERAE SEMIDIAMETRO.
5 Esto sphaera A; pyramis autem P basim habeat aequalem superficiei
sphaerae A, celsitudinem vero aequalem semidiametro sphaerae A [Fig.
III.5C.36].
Aio quod aequalis est P pyramis sphaerae A .
Sit enim conus M basim habens aequalem superficiei sphaerae A,
83 celsitu/dinem vero aequalem semidiametro sphaerae A. Itaque P pyramis
11 et M conus et bases et celsitudines invicem aequales habent. Quare
per 2
um
corollarium 33
ae
praecedentis aequalis est P pyramis cono M.
Sed conus M per 24
am
(! 25am) aequalis est sphaerae A. Ergo et P pyramis
aequalis est sphaerae A, quod est propositum.
15 Corollarium I.
Unde manifestum est quod prisma cuius basis aequalis est superficiei
sphaerae, celsitudo autem aequalis semidiametro sphaerae, est triplum
ad sphaeram, quoniam per gam 12
i
tale prisma triplum est suae pyramidis,
quae aequalis est sphaerae.
20 Corollarium 11.
Quare prisma cuius basis aequalis est superficiei sphaerae, celsitudo
vero tertia pars semidiametri sphaerae, est aequale ipsi sphaerae.
Corollarium Ill.
Et quoniam superficies sphaerae per lOam huius aequalis est rectangulo
25 quod fit ex diametro sphaerae in peripheriam sui maximi circuli, ideo
15
sphaera aequalis est ei solido parallelepipedo cuius basis est dictum
rectangulum, celsitudo autem tertia pars semidiametri sphaerae.
Corollarium IV.
Manifestum est ergo quod ex ductu semidiametri sphaerae in super-
30 ficiem eius producitur triplum soliditatis sphaerae, nam tale productum
est soliditas prismatis habentis basim aequalem supeJ.iiciei sphaerae et
altitudinem aequalem semidiametro sphaerae.
Corollarium V.
Quamobrem ex ductu tertiae partis semidiametri in superficiem sphaerae
35 producitur soliditas sphaerae.
Propositio XXXVII.
SECTOR SPHAERICUS AEQUALIS EST PYRAMIDI CUIUS
BASIS AEQUALIS EST BASI SPHAERICAE SECTORIS, CEL-
SITUDO VERO SEMIDIAMETRO SPHAERAE.
5 Sit sector sphaericusA [Fig. III.5C.37]; pyramis autemP habeat basim
aequalem sphaericae basi sectoris A, celsitudinem autem semidiametro
sphaerae cuius est sector A.
84 Aio quod pyramis P aequalis est / ipsi A sectori.
Sit enim conus M, cuius basis aequalis sit sphaericae basi sectoris A,
10 celsitudo vero semidiametro sphaerae. Eritque per 2
um
corollarium 33
ae
huius pyramis P aequalis cono M. Sed conus M per 30
am
aequalis est
sectoriA; igitur et pyramis P aequalis est sectoriA, quod erat propositum.
Corollarium I.
Unde manifestum est quod prisma cuius basis aequalis est sphaericae
basi sectoris sphaerici, celsitudo autem aequalis semidiametro sphaerae,
est triplum ipsius sectoris, quandoquidem per 8
am
12
i
tale prisma triplum
est suae pyramidis, quae aequalis est sectori. Quare prisma cuius basis
aequalis est sphaericae basi sectoris sphaerici, celsitudo autem tertia pars
semidiametri sphaerae, aequale est sphaerico sectori dicto.
Et quoniam basis sphaerica sectoris sphaerici per corollarium 16
ae
huius
aequalis est circulo cuius semidiameter est recta quae a vertice segmenti
sphaerici ad peripheriam basis, hic autem circulus per 4
am
de dimensione
circuli aequalis est rectangulo contento sub sua semidiametro et dimidio
peripheriae, ideo parallelepipedum solidum cuius basis est dictum rec-
25 tangulum, celsitudo vero tertia pars semidiametri sphaerae aequale est
dicto sectori sphaerico.
Corollarium n.
Manifestum est ergo quod ex ductu semidiametri sphaerae in basim
sphaericam sectoris sphaerici producitur triplum sectoris. Ex ducto vero
30 tertiae partis semidiametri in dictam basim producitur sector ipse.
Propositio XXXVIII.
SPHAERA AD CUBUM SUAE DIAMETRI RATIONEM HABET
QUAM UNDECIM AD UNUM ET VIGINTI FERE.
Sit sphaera A, cubus R, cuius latus aequum sit diametro sphaerae
5 A [Fig. III.5C.38].
Aio quod sphaera A ad cubum Rest fere sicut 11 ad 21, quod sic
concludam.
Sit cylindrus S, cuius basis diameter diametro sphaerae A et celsitudo
eidem diametro sit aequalis. Itaque prismatis R et cylindri S celsitudo
10 est una. Quare per corollarium 33
ae
huius erit sicut basis prismatis R ad
basim cylindri S, sic prisma R ad cylindrum S. Sed basis prismatis Rest
quadratum quod ex diametro basis cylindri S; estque per 8
arn
de dimen-
sione circuli quadratum quod ex diametro circuli ad circulum sicut 14
ad 11 fere. Igitur prisma R ad cylindrum S est fere sicut 14 ad 11.
15 Per corollarium autem 26
ae
huius vel per 28
arn
cylindrus S sesquialter
est ad sphaeram A, et ideo sicut 21 ad 14. Ergo per 23
am
5
i
ex
aequa proportione erit sicut 21 ad 11, sic cubus R ad sphaeram A, quod
est propositum.
85 / Corollarium I.
20 Manifestum est ergo quod 21 sphaerae sunt aequales 11 cubis qui fiunt
ex diametro sphaerae. Patet, nam per praemissam sphaera ad cubum
suae diametri est sicut 11 ad 21. Ergo per Barn quinti 11 sphaerae ad
11 cubos sunt sicut 11 ad 21. Ergo conversim 11 cubi ad 11 sphaeras
sunt sicut 21 ad 11. Sed 21 sphaerae ad 11 sphaeras sunt sicut 21 ad 11.
25 Igitur 21 sphaerae earn habent rationem ad 11 sphaeras quam 11 cubi
ad easdem 11 sphaeras. Quare per 9
arn
quinti 21 sphaerae aequales sunt
11 cubis qui ex diametro sphaerae.
,
Corollarium II.
Unde manifestum est si cubus qui ex diametro cuiuspiam sphaerae
30 multiplicetur undecies, producti pars 21 a erit solidum sphaerae; contra,
si sphaera vicies semel multiplicetur, producti pars 11a erit cubus qui ex
diametro sphaerae. Sed haec supponunt rationem peripheriae ad dia-
metrum triplam sesquiseptimam. Quod si peripheriae ad diametrum
ratio supponatur tripla superpartiens I0/71-quoniam tunc per 8
arn
de
35 dimensione circuli quadratum quod ex diametro circuli ad ipsum circulum
est sicut 284 ad 223 et per 28
am
huius sphaera ad cylindrum (! cylindrus
ad sphaeram) est sicut 426 ad 284 scilicet sequialtera-ideo ex 23
a
quinti
ex aequa perversim proportione erit sicut 426 ad 223, sic cubus R ad
sphaeram A. Quamobrem tunc 426 sphaerae erunt aequales cubis 223 qui
40 fiunt ex diametro sphaerae, quod sequitur ex dicta argumentatione.
Unde si cubus qui ex diametro sphaerae multiplicetur 223
es
, producti
pars 426
a
erit solidum sphaerae. Contra, si sphaera 426
es
multiplicetur,
producti pars 223
a
erit cubus qui ex diametro sphaerae. Verum prima
suppositio, quae facit peripheria[m] ad diametrum esse triplam sesquisep-
45 timam, facit et sphaeram aliquanto maiorem vero; altera autem quae
peripheriam ad diametrum profert triplam superpartientem 10/71 facit
sphaeram aliquanto minorem veritate. Non enim licuit in hoc punctum
geometricum attingere-non ipsi quidem Archimedi quamvis geo-
metrarum omnium acutissimo.
50 Finis
Messanae 10. Septembris octavae Indictionis 1534.
The Book of Archimedes On the Sphere and the
Cylinder From the Tradition of Eutocius, Augmented,
Restored in the Best Order, and Emended by Fran-
cesco Maurolico the Mamertine, Most Zealous in the
Mathematical Discipline
Proposition I.
THE SURFACE OF A PYRAMID ERECTED ON AN EQUIANGU-
LAR AND EQUILATERAL BASE (THE SURFACE BEING A COL-
LECTION OF TRIANGLES MEETING AT THE APEX OF THE
PYRAMID) IS EQUAL TO THE RIGHT TRIANGLE ONE OF WHOSE
SIDES ABOUT THE RIGHT ANGLE IS EQUAL TO THE PERPEN-
DICULAR DRAWN FROM THE APEX TO A SIDE OF THE BASE
AND THE OTHER TO THE PERIMETER OF THE BASE.!
For example, let a pyramid with apex Z be erected on the equilateral
and equiangular pentagon ABGD as a base, so that the straight line from
point Z to the center of a circle circumscribing pentagon ABG be perpen-
dicular to the pentagon ft.ee Fig. 11I.5C.I]. Whence it happens that the
triangles which meet at a{1ex Z are mutually equilateral and equiangular.
Moreover, let perpendicular ZH fall from point Z to one of the sides of the
pentagon, say AB. And let right triangle TKL be posited, with its right
angle at K and whose side TK is equal to ZH and side KL to the whole
perimeter of pentagon ABG.
And so I say that the whole surface of the pyramid, which is a collection
of triangles joined at apex Z, is equal to ~ T L
For let KL be cut into as many segments as there are sides of base ABG,
i.e., in this example, into five parts: KM,MN, NX,XO, OL, each equal to
a single side of base ABG. And let TM, TN, TX, TO be joined. And so
since the bases AB and KM of triangles AZB and TKM are equal, as are
Prop. I
1 See the Commentary to Text C, Prop. I, lines 5-11.
the perpendiculars ZH and TK, therefore, by 1.38 [of Euclid] these
triangles are equal. But, by VI. I , f:..TKL / f:..TKM = KL / KM, and hence
as 5: 1; so also the surface ofpyramidABG-which surface is the collec-
tion of the five triangles meeting at point Z-is five times f:..AZB. There-
fore, the said surface of pyramid ABG is equal to f:.. TKL. Q.E.D.
Proposition 11.
THE CURVED [Le. LATERAL] SURFACE OF A [RIGHT] CONE IS
EQUAL TO THE RIGHT TRIANGLE ONE OF WHOSE SIDES CON-
TAINING THE RIGHT ANGLE IS EQUAL TO THE CONICAL
SLANT HEIGHT AND THE OTHER TO THE CIRCUMFERENCE OF
THE BASE.1
Let there be a right triangleABG with right angle atB [see Fig. III.5C.2].
When this triangle is rotated about AB as an axis until it returns to its
[starting] place, a cone is described which has A as its apex and circle
GDE as its base. And let there be a right triangle ZHT having a right angle
at H and whose side ZH is equal to slant height AG and where side HT
is equal to the circumference of circle GDE.
I say that the conical surface of cone AGDE which line AG describes is
equal to f:..ZHT.
For if f:..ZHT is not equal to the conical surface of AGDE it will be
completely equal to the conical surface of a cone having a base less or
greater than circle GD and an altitude the same as of coneAGD. Therefore,
in the first place let f:..ZHT be equal to the conical surface of a cone having
its apex at A and its base at circle KL less than circle EG, and a side AL.
This cone is evidently the one which is described by f:..ABL. And, by
XII.13 [of Euclid]2 let a regular polygon be described within circle EG
whose sides do not at all touch circle KL; and from apex A let slant heights
descend to the angles of the which with the sides of the polygon
will contain the pyramid having the same apex as cone AGD and included
therein. And so let a perpendicular AMbe drawn from apexA to one of the
sides of polygon EG, e.g., to side GD. And, by the preceding [proposi-
tion], the surface of pyramid AGD, which is the collection of triangles
meeting at apex A, is equal to the right triangle one of whose sides about
the right angle is equal to perpendicular AM while the other is equal to the
perimeter of polygon GDE. Therefore, a triangle of this sort is less than
f:..ZHT whose sides about the right angle, ZH and HT, are greater, being
equal to side AB and the circumference of circle GDE, which are [respec-
tively] greater than perpendicular AM and the perimeter of polygon GDE.
But f:..ZHT was equal to the surface of cone ALK. Therefore, the said
surface of pyramid AGD is less than the surface of cone ALK which is
impossible since the surface of the pyramid is greater than the included
surface of cone ALK. On thus: since f:..ZHT is greater than the triangle to
which the surface of the pyramid is equal, while the surface of the pyramid
Prop. II
1 See Corn., Prop. II, lines
2 Ibid., line 19.
is greater than the included surface of cone ALK; therefore /:::,.ZHT > surf.
cone ALK; and so it is not equal to it as was supposed.
Now let /:::,.ZHT be equal, if possible, to the conical surface of a cone
having a greater base than circle GD and having the same altitude as cone
AGD; and, for the sake of brevity, let the supposed cone beALK and side
ZH of /:::,.ZHT be equal to slant height AL and side HT equal to the cir-
cumference of circle KL.
I say now that it is not possible for /:::,.ZHT to equal the lateral surface
of some cone having as its base a circle greater than circle KL and its apex
atH.
For if it is possible, let /:::,.ZHT be equal to the surface of a cone whose
base circle EG > circle KL; and, as before, let there be described within
circle EG a regular polygon not touching circle KL, and on the polygon
[let there be erected] pyramid GD with apex A, from which we let drop
perpendicular AM to side DG of the polygon. And, by the preceding
[proposition], the surface of pyramid AGD, being a collection of triangles
at the apex, is equal to a right triangle one of whose sides about the right
angle is equal to perpendicular AMwhile the remaining side is equal to the
perimeter of polygon GDE. And so this triangle is greater than /:::,.ZHT
since it has sides about the right angle which are greater. But /:::,.ZHT was
equal to the surface of cone AGDE. Therefore, the said surface of the
pyramid is greater than the surface of the cone AGDE, that is, the
"included" is greater than the "including," which is impossible. Hence,
in the same way, if side ZH of /:::,.ZHT is equal to slant heightAG and side
HT to the circumference of circle EG, /:::,.ZHT would not be equal to the
surface of some cone whose base is greater than circle EG and has its
apex in A. And it was demonstrated that the same triangle is not equal
to the surface of any cone whose bIJe is less than circle EG and has its apex
at A. It remains, therefore, that The same /:::,.ZHT is equal to the conical
surface of cone AGDE. Q.E.D.
Corollary I.
Therefore, it is evident that a conical surface is produced from the
product of a conical side (i.e. slant height) and one-half the circumference
of the base, just as the area of a [right] triangle (by 1.41 [of Euclid]) arises
from the product of one of the sides about the right angle in the right
triangle and one-half the other [side about the right angle].3
Corollary n.
Again, the conical surface is produced from the product of the radius of
the conical base and the semicircumference of the circle whose radius
is the conical side (i.e. slant height). This follows out of the third corollary
of the sixth [proposition].4
Corollary Ill.
Then the circle whose radius is the mean proportional between the
slant height and the radius of the conical base is equal to the conical sur-
face, which follows from the last corollary of the sixth [proposition].5
Proposition Ill.
THE CONICAL SURFACE IS TO THE BASE AS THE CONICAL
SIDE [I.E. SLANT HEIGHT] IS TO THE RADIUS OF THE BASE.l
Let there be cone ADG described by the rotation around AB as an
axis of 6.ABG having a right angle at B; the apex of the cone is A, its base
[circle] DG and its [base] radius BG [see Fig. III.5C.3].
I say that the lateral surface of coneABG is related to circle DG as slant
height AG is to radius BG.
For let there be 6.ZHT having a right angle at Z and with side ZH equal
to slant height AG while ZT is equal to the circumference of circle DG.
Also, from ZH (which is greater than BG since AG is greater than it) let
there be cut ZN equal to BG, and let NT be joined. By [Proposition]
IV of the Booklet on the Measurement a/the Circle, 6.ZNT = circleDG,
while 6.ZHT (by the preceding [proposition]) is equal to the lateral surface
of cone DAG. But, by VI.l [of Euclid] and conjunct proportionality,
ZH / ZN = 6.ZTH / 6.ZTN. Therefore, lat. surf. ADG / circle DG = ZH /
ZN = AG / BG. Q.E.D.
Or as follows: By the corollary of [Proposition] IV of On the Measure-
ment a/the Circle, the area of circleDG is equal to the product ofradiusBG
and semicircumferenceDG. By corouat [I] of the preceding [Proposition],
the conical surface of ADG is equal to the product of slant height AG and
semicircumference DG. Therefore, by VLl again, AG / BG = lat. surf.
ADG / circle DG. Q.E.D.
Proposition IV.
THE LATERAL SURFACE OF A [RIGHT] CYLINDER IS EQUAL
TO THE RECTANGLE CONTAINED BY THE SIDES, ONE OF
WHICH IS EQUAL TO THE AXIS OF THE CYLINDER, WHILE THE
OTHER IS EQUAL TO THE CIRCUMFERENCE OF THE BASE.l
Let there be a rectangle ABGD. When it has been rotated once about
side AB as the fixed [axis], a cylinder is described which has AB as its axis
and circle GE as its base [Fig. IIL5C.4]. And let there be rectangle ZHT
whose side ZH is equal to axis AB while its side HT is equal to the cir-
cumference of circle EG.
Prop. III
Prop. IV
1 See Corn., Prop. IV, lines 2-5.
I say that the cylindrical surface which side GD describes is equal to
rectangle ZT.
For if rectangle ZHT is not equal to the cylindrical surface which line
DG describes, it will be equal to a cylindrical surface of some cylinder
having a base greater or less than circle EG and described about the same
axis. Therefore, in the first place, let rectangle ZHT be equal to the lateral
surface of a cylinder whose base is a circle KL less than circle EG and
whose axis is the same AB. This cylinder is evidently the one described
by the rotation ofrectangleABLM about axis AB and whose lateral surface
is described by line LM. And, by XII. 13 [of Euclid],2 let regular polygon
EG be inscribed in circle EG and not at all touching circle KL. On this
polygon let a prism be erected with the same altitude as the cylinder, the
sides of the cylinder having been drawn perpendicular to the angles of the
polygon. And the rectangular [surfaces] of the prism, whose bases are the
sides of the polygon, together will be equal (by 1.36 and V1.1 [of Euclid])
to the rectangle which arises from the product of axis AB and the perimeter
of polygon EG. But this rectangle is less than rectangle ZT, which arises
from the product of axis AB and the circumference of circle EG, which
latter is greater than the perimeter of the polygon. But the rectangle ZT
was equal to the cylindrical surface which line LM describes. Therefore,
the [surface] rectangles of the prism whose base is polygon EG are [to-
gether] less than the cylindrical surface which line LM describes; the in-
cluding surface, I say, is less than the included, which is impossible.
Or as follows. Since rectangle ZT is greater than the aforesaid [surface]
rectangles of the prism while the rectangles of the prism are [together]
greater than the cylindrical surface which line LM describes, since the
"including" is greater than the "included," t h ~ o r rectangle ZT is
greater than the cylindrical surface which line LM describes. Therefore,
it is not equal to it, as was proposed.
Now let rectangleZHT be equal, if possible, to the cylindrical surface of
a cylinder having a base greater than circle EG and an axis AB. And, for
the sake of brevity, let the supposed cylinder be the one whose axis is AB
and whose base circle is KL, the one evidently described by the rotation
of rectangle ABLM once about axis AB, and side ZH of rectangle ZT is
equal to axis AB while side HT is equal to the circumference of circle KL.
I say now that it is not possible for rectangle ZT to be equal to the lateral
surface of some cylinder described about axis AB and having a base greater
than circle KL.
For if it is possible, let rectangle ZT be equal to the lateral surface of
the cylinder whose base circle EG is greater than circle KL, which is
evidently the one described by the rotation of rectangle ABGD about axis
AB and whose lateral surface is described by line GD. And, as before, let
a regular polygon be inscribed in circle EG but not touching circle KL.
2 See Corn., Prop. 11, line 19.
l
And on this polygon let there be erected a prism included by the cylindrical
surface which line GD describes. And the [surface] rectangles of the
prism whose bases are sides of the polygon are together equal (by I. 36 or
VI.I [of Euclid]) to the rectangle which arises from the product of axis
AB and the perimeter of polygon EG. And so this rectangle is greater than
rectangle ZT since one of its sides is equal to one side of rectangle ZT
while the other is greater than its corresponding side of ZT (for the
perimeter of polygon EG is greater than the circumference of KL). But
rectangle ZT was equal to the cylindrical surface which line GD describes.
Therefore, the said [surface] rectangles of the prism together are greater
than the cylindrical surface which line GD describes. And so the included
surface of the prism is greater than the including cylindrical surface, which
is impossible. Therefore, rectangle ZT is not equal to some lateral
surface of a cylinder about axis AB whose base is greater than circle KL.
Similarly, if side ZH of rectangle ZT is equal to axis AB and side HT to
the circumference of circle EG, rectangle ZT will not be equal to the lateral
surface of any cylinder about axis AB whose base is greater than circle
EG. And it was demonstrated that neither is the same rectangle equal
to the lateral surface of any cylinder about axis AB whose base is less than
circle EG. Therefore, it remains that the same rectangle ZT is equal to the
lateral surface whose axis is AB and whose base is circle EG, which is evi-
dently the surface described by line GD. Q.E.D.
Corollary I.
It is evident, therefore, that a cylindrical surface is producedKom the
product of the cylindrical axis and the circumference of the ba e.
3
Corollary 11.
Again, the cylindrical surface is produced from the product of the
diameter of the cylindrical base and the circumference of the circle whose
diameter is [equal to] the cylindrical axis. This follows from the third
corollary of the sixth [proposition].4
[Corollary Ill.]
Finally, the circle whose radius is the mean proportional between the
cylindrical side or the axis and the diameter of the cylindrical base is
equal to the cylindrical surface. This follows from the last corollary of the
sixth [proposition].
5
Proposition V.
THE CYLINDRICAL SURFACE IS RELATED TO A CONICAL
SURFACE HAVING THE SAME AXIS AND BASE AS THE AXIS IS
3 See Corn" Prop. IV, lines 72-73.
TO ONE-HALF THE CONICAL SLANT HEIGHT. ALSO, THE
CYLINDRICAL SURFACE IS RELATED TO THE BASE AS THE
AXIS IS TO HALF THE RADIUS.
1
With the rectangle ABGD rotated once about axis AB let a cylinder be
described and with MBG rotated about the same axis let a cone be de-
scribed. And circle EG, which line BG describes, will be the base of the
cylinder as well as the cone [Fig. III.5C.5}.
I say that the cylindrical surface which line DG describes is related to
the conical surface which line AG describes as axis AB is to one-half line
AG, while it [i.e. the same cylindrical surface] is related to circle EG as
axis AB is to one-half line BG.
For by the preceding [proposition], the cylindrical surface which line GD
describes is equal to the product ofAB and the circumference of circle EG.
By the second [proposition] of this [work} the conical surface which line
AG describes is equal to the product ofAG and one-half the circumference
EG; hence [it also equals] the product of one-halfAG and the whole circum-
ference EG. But, by the corollary to the fourth [proposition] of On the
Measurement of the Circle, circle EG is equal to the product of BG and
one-half the circumference EG. Therefore, [it is also equal] to the product
of one-halfBG and the whole circumference EG. Therefore, since the alti-
tude of these three rectangles is the same, namely, a line equal to the
circumference of circle EG, then by VI. 1 [of Euclid} they will be related
to each other as the bases. And so the cylindrical surface which line
DG describes will be related to the conical [surface] which AG describes"
as DG is to one-half AG; but [it will also be related] to circle EG as line
AB is to one-half of BG. Q.E.D.
Proposition VI.
THE CIRCUMFERENCES OF CIRCLES ARE PROPORTIONAL
TO [THEIR] DIAMETERS. 1
[A demonstration of this proposition is had in the eighth (proposition)
of the Preamble of Maurolycus.]2
For let there be two circles AB and GD whose diameters are AB and
GD [see Fig. III.5C.6}.
I say that diameter AB / diameter GD = circumference AB / circum-
ference GD.
For let diameter AB / diameter GD = circumferenceAB / circumference
EZ. And circumference EZ will be equal to circumference GD, for other-
Prop. V
I See Corn., Prop. V, lines 2-5.
Prop. VI
I See Corn., Prop. VI, lines 2-3.
2 See above, Text A, Prop. VIII. This is, of course, an editorial comment made by Borelli
or Cyllenius.
wise it will be greater or less [than it]. If less, let it be concentric to this
GD, and by XII.13 [of Euclid] let regular polygon GD be inscribed [in
circle GD] but not touching circumference EZ; and similarly, let another
[regular polygon] similar to it [be inscribed] in circumference AB. On
account of the similitude of the polygons, diameter AB / diameter GD
= perimeter of polygon AB / perimeter of polygon GD. Hence, perimeter
of polygon AB / perimeter of polygon GD = circumference AB / circum-
ference EZ. But the perimeter of polygon GD is greater than the circum-
ference EZ, the "containing" certainly being greater than the "contained."
Therefore, by V.14 [of Euclid], the perimeter of polygonAB will be greater
than the circumference ofAB,i.e. the "included" will be greater than the
"including," which is impossible. Now if circumference EZ is [supposed
to be] greater than circumference GD, then inversely, circumference EZ /
circumference AB = diameter GD / diameter AB = circumference GD /
circumference TH, where circumference TH < circumference AB, by
V.14 [of Euclid]. And so diameter GD / diameter AB = circumference
GD / circumference TH, with circumference TH less than the circum-
ference of diameter AB, which leads to the first impossibility. Wherefore,
circumference EZ will not be greater than circumference GD. And it was
demonstrated that neither was it less. Hence it will be completely equal to
it. But circumference AB / circumference EZ = diameter AB / diameter
GD. Therefore, circumference AB / circumference GD = diameter
AB / diameter GD. Q.E.D.
[Corollary I.]
Hence, it is evident that just as the diameter of a proposed circle is to
the aggregate of the diameters of any circles, so is the circumference of
the proposed circle to the aggregate of the circumferences of all of these
circles, for this follows from this proposition and V.B [of Euclid].3
[Corollary H.]
Hence, ifthe diameter of the proposed circle be equal to the aggregate
of the diameters of any number of circles, so also the circumference of
the proposed circle will be equal to the aggregate of the circumference
of all those circles.
4
[Corollary HI.]
Further, it follows that the product of the diameter of the first circle
and the circumference of the second circle is equal to the product of the
diameter of the second circle and the circumference of the first. The same
thing ought to be said regarding radii and circumferences.
5
For this fol-
lows from the present proposition and VI. 15 [of Euclid].
6
3 See Corn., Prop. VI, lines 31-37 and 34.
6 Ibid., line 41.
[Corollary IV.]
Finally, if the diameters of three circles are continually proportional,
then, since their circumferences are proportional in the same ratio, and
accordingly, the radius of the first is to the radius of the second as the
semicircumference of the second is to the semicircumference of the
third, therefore, by VI. 15 [of Euclid], it will result that the product of the
radius of the first circle and the semicircumference of the third is equal
to the product of the radius of the second and the semicircumference of
the second and in the same way is equal to the second circle, the area of a
circle being in fact produced from the product of the radius and the semi-
circumference.
7
Another Demonstration of the Same Sixth [Proposition].
8
Let there be two circles AB, GD whose diameters are AB, GD.
I say that circumference AB / circumference GD = diameter AB /
diameter GD.
For if it is not so, then diameter AB will be to diameter GD as circum-
ference AB is to some circumference that is either less or more than cir-
cumference GD. First, let diameter AB / diameter GD = circumference
AB / circumference EZ, where EZ is less than circumference GD and
concentric to it. And by XII. 13 [of Euclid] let a regular polygon GD be
inscribed in circle GD but not touching EZ. And let [another] similar
polygon be inscribed in circle AB. Because of the similarity of the
polygons, perimeter of polygonAB / perimeter of polygon GD = diameter
AB / diameter GD; and, therefore, perim. polyg. AB / perim. polyg. GD
= circumference AB / circumference EZ. Alternately, circum. AB /
perim. polyg. AB = circum. EZ / perim. polyg. GD. But circumference
of circle AB > perimeter of polygon AB; therefore, circumference of
circle EZ > perimeter of polygon GD, i.e., the "included" is greater than
the "including," which is impossible.
Then let diameter AB / diameter GD = circumference AB / circum-
ference HT, where HT > circumference GD. And, inversely, diameter
GD / diameter AB = circumference HT / circumference AB; and thus
let this ratio be as circumference GD to some circumference EZ. Then,
alternately, circumference HT / circumference GD = circumference
AB / circumference EZ. But circumference HT > circumference GD
[by supposition]. Therefore circumference AB > circumference EZ.
Hence, diameter GD / diameter AB = circumference GD / circumference
EZ, whereEZ > circumferenceAB. Hence the same impossibility follows
as before. And so this ratio of diameter AB to diameter GD is not as the
ratio of circumference AB to some circumference that is either greater
than or less than circumference GD. The ratio therefore will be as circum-
ference AB to circumference GD, which was to be demonstrated [here],
8 Ibid., line 50.
although the same thing is demonstrated abstractly in the fifth [proposi-
tion] of the Booklet on the Measurement of the Circle.
Corollary.
It is evident, therefore, that the diameter of a given circle is related
to the aggregate of the diameters of any number of circles as the circum-
ference of the given circle is to the aggregate of the circumferences of all
those circles. For this is obvious from the present [proposition] and V.B
[of Euclid]. Accordingly, if the diameter is equal to the aggregate of the
diameters, the circumference is equal to the aggregate of the circum-
ferences.
9
Corollary.
Also, [it is evident] that the product of the diameter of a circle and the
circumference of another circle is equal to the product of the diameter of
this second circle and the circumference of the first. This is obvious from
the present [proposition] and VI. 15 [of Euclid].lO
I
Proposition VII.
THE LATERAL SURFACE OF A TRUNCATED CONE IS EQUAL
TO THE PRODUCT OF THE SLANT HEIGHT OF THE CONE AND
ONE-HALF [THE SUM OF] THE CIRCUMFERENCES OF THE
BASES.!
Let there be a [right] triangle ABG having its right angle at B with Dine]
DE parallel to BG [see Fig. III.5C.7]. When MBG has been rotated
once about axis AB, the coneAGZ with base circle GZ has been described
by MBG, while cone AHE with base circle HE has been described by
MDE. Now the difference of these cones, which evidently is described
by trapezium DBGE, is called a truncated cone, and it has two unequal
base circles, namely, GZ and EH.
And so I say that the lateral surface of the truncated cone, that is, the
surface described by line EG, is equal to the product of line EG and
(circum. circle GZ + circum. circle EH).
For let there be set out I::,. TKL having its right angle at K and its side
TK equal to slant height AG, while side KL is equal to circumference GZ.
Then, by the second [proposition] of this [work] the lateral surface of
cone AGZ will be equal to I::,.TKL. Let KM be placed equal to GE and
9 This "corollarium" is equivalent to Corollaries I and II to the first demonstration of the
proposition.
10 This is equivalent to Corollary III to the first demonstration. See Corn., Prop. VI,
lines 38-40. Note that Corollary IV to the first demonstration is not given here. Prop. VI. 15
= Gr. VI. 16. See Corn., Prop. VI, line 41.
Prop. VII
1 See Corn., Prop. VII, lines 2-3.
let MN be drawn parallel to KL; and, by the similitude of the triangles,
[KL / MN] = TK / TM = GA I AE. Therefore, radius BG I radius DE
= KL I MN. But, by the preceding [Proposition], radius BG I radius DE
= circum. GZ / circum. EH. Therefore, KL I MN = circum. GZ I circum.
EH; and, alternately, circum. EH I MN = circum. GZ I KL. But circum-
ference GZ = line KL. Therefore, circum. HE = line MN. And since
TM = AE, therefore by the second [proposition] of this [work] the
[lateral] surface of cone AHE is equal to t:.TMN. But the lateral surface
of cone AZG was equal to t:. TKL. Therefore, the lateral surface of trun-
cated cone EZ is equal to the trapezium KMNL.
And so letKN andML be drawn. By 1.7 [of Euclid], MML = MNL.
ButKMKL = 2 MML. Therefore, KMKL = 2 MNL. ButKMMN
= 2 MMN. Hence, KM(KL + MN) = (2'whole trapezium KMNL).
And so KM Y2 (KL + MN) = trapezium KMNL. Now KM was equal to
EG, and KL to the circumference ZG, and MN to the circumference EH.
Therefore, EGY2 (circum. GZ + circum. EH) = trapeziumKMNL, and,
therefore, it is equal to the lateral surface of truncated cone EZ, to which
thc:1rapezium was equal. Q.E.D.
Corollaries.
[I] And so the product of the sum of the radii of the bases of a truncated
cone and a circumference whose diameter is the conical slant height is
equal to the conical surface. This follows from the second and third
corollaries of the second [proposition].
[11] Further, the circle whose radius is the mean proportional between
the slant height of a truncated cone and the sum of the radii of its bases is
equal to the conical surface. This follows from the last corollary of the
sixth [proposition].
2
Proposition VIII.
IF THE HALF OF A REGULAR POLYGON TERMINATED AT
THE ENDS OF THE DIAMETER OF THE CIRCLE IN WHICH IT IS
DESCRIBED IS ROTATED COMPLETELY WITH THE DIAMETER
REMAINING FIXED, THE CONICAL SURFACES OF THE SOLID
DESCRIBED WILL TOGETHER BE EQUAL TO THE PRODUCT OF
A SIDE OF THE POLYGON AND [THE SUM OF] ALL THE CIR-
CUMFERENCES OF THE CIRCLES DESCRIBED BY THE ANGLES
OF THE POLYGON.1
In circleAB having diameter AB let there be described a regular polygon,
i.e., decagonAGDEZBHTKL [see Fig. III.5C.S], and let [lines] GL, DK,
ET, ZH be drawn to cut diamter AB at right angles in points M, N, X, and
Prop. VIII
O. Then let either half of the polygon (e.g. the half ADB) be rotated
cOI11pletely with diameter AB remaining fixed. In its rotation this half ofthe
polygon will describe a certain solid of rotation ADB composed of diverse
bodies: namely of (1) cones which triangles AGM and BZO describe, (2)
the truncated cones which trapezia MGDN and OZEX describe and (3)
the cylinder which rectangle NDEX describes. These will all be described, I
say, in the rotation of the semipolygon. If the number of sides of this semi-
polygon is an even number, then there will be no cylinder intervening in
the composition of the solid described, for there will be no middle side
parallel to the diameter as there is here with side ED parallel to AB and
describing a cylinder in its rotation.
And so I say that the conical surfaces of the solid of rotation AB, Le.,
the whole surface of the solid, is equal to the product of side AG and the
[sum of the] circumferences of the circles described by lines MG, ND, XE
and OZ.
. For, ~ t second [proposition] ofthis [work], the conical surface which
line AG describes is equal to the product of AG and one-half the circum-
ference described by angle G, and by the same [proposition] the conical
surface which lineBZ describes is equal to the product ofBZ (or AG) and
one-half the circumference described by angle Z.2 Also, by the preceding
[proposition], the lateral surface of the truncated cone which line GD de-
scribes is equal to the product of side GD (or AG) and one-half the [sum
of the] circumferences described by angles G and D; and, by the same
[proposition], the surface of the truncated cone which line EZ describes is
equal to the product of side EZ (or AG) and one-half the [sum of the]
circumferences described by angles Z and E. Further, the cylindrical
surface which line DE describes, by [Proposition] IVofthis [work], is equal
to the product of side DE and the circumference described by angle D or
angle E, since each describes the circumference of the cylindrical base.
And hence the said cylindrical surface is equal to the product of side
DE (or AG) and one-half the [sum of the] circumferences described by
angles E and D. And so [in sum] all of the complete circumferences
described by angles G, D, E, Z are multiplied by a side. Hence, by 11.1 of
the Elements [the sum of] all of the conical surfaces described by the
semipolygon ADB, i.e., the total surface of the solid described by the
semipolygon, is equal to the product of side AG and [the sum of] all of the
complete circumferences described by angles G, D, E, and Z.
I shall demonstrate this same proposition in regard to the solid described
by a semipolygon whose number of sides will be an even number. But,
since in this case there is no cylinder, it will not be necessary to cite
the fourth [proposition] of this [work] but only the second on behalf of
the cones which always are formed at the ends of the stationary diameter
and the preceding [proposition] on behalf of the intermediary truncated
cones. Therefore, what is proposed, is true.
Proposition IX.
IF THE HALF OF A REGULAR POLYGON INSCRIBED IN A
CIRCLE AND TERMINATED AT THE ENDS OF A DIAMETER
THAT REMAINS STATIONARY IS ROTATED UNTIL IT RETURNS
TO THE POSITION FROM WHICH IT STARTED, THE WHOLE
SURFACE OF THE SOLID DESCRIBED WILL BE EQUAL TO THE
PRODUCT OF THE CIRCUMFERENCE CONTAINING THE POLY-
GON AND THE LINE WHICH TOGETHER WITH THE DIAMETER
OF THE CIRCLE AND A SIDE OF THE POLYGON FORMS A
RIGHT TRIANGLE IN THE CIRCLE.1
In circle AB having diameter AB, let there be described a regular polygon
of any number of sides, e.g., a dodecagon whose angles are at points
A, G, D, E ~ B, T, K, L, M, N [see Fig. III.5C.9]; and let lines GN,
DM, EL, ZK and HT be drawn so as to cut the diameter AB orthogonally
at points X, 0, P, Rand S. Also let lines DN, EM, ZL, and HK be drawn
to cut the said diameter at points Y, F, C and Q. Also let line BG be drawn,
forming with side GA a right angle, by 111.29 [of Euclid].2 And with semi-
polygon AEB rotated through a complete turn on axis AB, let the solid of
rotation be described, just as in the preceding [proposition].
I say that the whole surface of this sort of solid, i.e., the aggregate of the
conical surfaces described by the sides of the semipolygon, is equal to the
product of line BG and circumference AB of the circle.
For by the preceding [proposition], the product ofAG and [the sum of]
all the circumferences described by angles G, D, E, Z and H is equal to
the whole surface of the solid described by the semipolygon, which
demonstration, if it be pleasing, repeat as follows:
The conical
sutface
described
by side
AG = AG ~ circum. of diam. GN
GD = A G ~ (circum. of diam. GN + circum. of diam. DM)
DE = A G ~ (circum. of diam. DM + circum. of diam. EL)
EZ = AG ~ (circum. of diam. EL + circum. of diam. ZK)
ZH = AG ~ (circum. of diam. ZK + circum. of diam. HT)
HE = AG ~ circum. of diam. HT
And this is by Propositions VII and 11. Therefore, by ILl of the
Elements, the whole surface of the solid described by the semipolygon
is equal to the product of the side AG and all of the circumferences
whose diameters are GN, DM, EL, ZK and HT. But triangles GAX,
NQX, DQO, MCO, ECP, LFP, ZFR, KRY, HYS and TBS are similar
to !.'.lBGA, since evidently they are right triangles and the angles
intercepting equal arcs are equal by 111.26 [of Euclid];3 and hence the
remaining angles are equal.
Prop. IX
1 See Corn., Prop. IX, lines 2-9.
2 Ibid., line 16.
3 Ibid., line 37.
And so by VIA [of Euclid]:
~ ~ ~ 00 ~ & n ~ ~ m ~
-- = -- = -- = -- = -- = -- = -- = -- = -- = -- =--
GA XA XQ QO OC CP PF FR RY YS SB
Hence by V.13 [of the Elements]:
BG
---
GA
(GN +DM +EL +ZK +HT)
AB
And, therefore, by [the first] corollary of Proposition VI of this [work]
BG is to GA as the circumference [of the circle] whose diameter is the
sum of GN + DM + EL + ZK + HT is to the circumference whose
diameter s ~ But the circumference whose diameter is the sum of
GN + DM + EL + ZK + HT by the [second] corollary of Proposition VI
of this [work] is equal to the sum of the circumferences whose diameters
are GN, DM, EL, ZK and HT. Therefore, BG is to GA as the sumof the cir-
cumferences whose diameters are GN, DM, EL, ZK and HT is to the
circumference whose diameter isAB. Therefore, by VI. 15 of the Elements ,
(BG circum. of diam AB) = (GA' [circum. of diam. GN + circum. of
diam. DM + circum. of diam. EL + circum. of diam. ZK + circum. of
diam. HT]). But, by the preceding [proposition], (GA' [circum. of diam.
GN + circum. of diam. DM + circum. of diam. EL + circum. of diam.
ZK + circum. of diam. HT]) is equal to the surface of the solid described
by semipolygonAEB. Therefore, the product ofBG and the circumference
whose diameter isAB is equal to the surface of the solid described by semi-
polygon AEB. Q.E.D.
Corollary I.
Whence the product of diameter AB and the circumference of the circle
whose diameter is BG will be equal to the surface of the same solid of rota-
tion. This indeed follows from this proposition and the third corollary of the
sixth [proposition]. Also the circle whose radius is the mean proportional
between lines AB and BG is equal to the surface of the above-mentioned
solid of rotation. This follows from the last corollary of the sixth [prop-
osition].4
Corollary 11.
Hence it is obvious that the surface of the solid described by semi-
polygon AEB is equal to the cylindrical surface whose axis is line BG
and base is circleAB. For by [Proposition] IV of this [work], the cylindrical
surface is equal to the product ofthe axis and the circumference of the base.
Corollary Ill.
Also the product of the perpendicular from the center of the circle to the
side of the polygon and the circumference of the circle containing the
polygon is one-half the whole surface of the solid described by the semi-
polygon rotated once on the diameter.
For the perpendicular drawn from center Pto sideAG is one-half ofBG
just as AP is one-half AB. And so the product of the said perpendicular
and circumference AB is one-half the product of BG and circumference
AB and therefore is one-half the surface of the aforesaid solid described
by the semipolygon.
Proposition X.
THE SURFACE OF A ~ IS EQUAL TO THE RECTANGLE
ARISING FROM THE PRODUCT OF THE DIAMETER OF THE
SPHERE AND THE CIRCUMFERENCE OF ITS GREATEST
CIRCLE.l
Let there be circle ABGD with center E and diameter AG; and, with
either of the semicircles (e.g. semicircle ABG) rotated once while the
diameter AG stands still, let sphereABG be described [see Fig. III.5C.1O].
I say that the surface of sphere ABG is equal to the product of diameter
AG and the circumference of circle ABG.
For, if the product of AG and the circumference of circle ABG is not
equal to the surface of sphere ABG, it will be equal to the surface of some
sphere greater or less than sphere ABG. Hence, first let it be equal to the
surface of sphere ZHT, less than sphere ABG and concentric with it, and
with diameter ZT. This sphere semicircle ZHT describes when rotated
about diameter ZT. And, by XII. 13 [of Euclid]2, let a regular polygon be
inscribed in circle ABG but not at all touching circle ZHT, which polygon
let be ABGD, one of whose sides is AK. And with GK drawn and with half
of the polygon rotated about diameter AG, let a solid of rotation [com-
posed] of conical surfaces be described which does not at all touch sphere
ZHT. And, by the preceding [proposition], the product of GK and the
circumference of circle ABG will be equal to the surface of the whole
solid ABG described by the semipolygon. But the product of diameter
AG and the circumference of circleABG is greater than the product ofGK
and the same circumference. Therefore, the product of diameter AG and
the circumference of circle ABG (and hence the surface of sphere ZHT)
will be greater than the surface of the solid described by semipolygon
ABG, that is, the "included" will be greater than the "including," which
is impossible.
Prop. X
1 See Corn., Prop. X, lines 2-4.
2/bid., line 15.
Or as follows: since the product of diameter AG and the circumference
of circle ABG is greater than the surface of the solid described by semi-
polygon ABG, and this is greater than the surface of the included sphere
ZHT, therefore the product of diameter AG and the circumference of
circle ABG is greater than the surface of sphere ZHT; therefore, it is not
equal to it as was supposed.
Then let the product of AG and the circumference of circle ABG be
equal to the surface of a sphere greater than sphere ABG; but for the sake
of brevity let the proposed sphere be ZHT.
I say that the product of diameter ZT and the circumference of circle
ZHT will not be equal to the surface of a sphere greater than sphere ZHT.
For, if it is possible, let it be t!tfual to the surface of sphere ABG con-
centric toZHT, the sphere which semicircleABG describes about diameter
AG; and, as before, let a regular polygon be inscribed in circle ABG and
not touching circleZHT. Let one of its sides beAK, and let GK be drawn,
and EL perpendicular to AK. And, with the semipolygon ABG rotated
about diameter AG, let a solid of rotation [composed] of conical surfaces
be described, which does not at all touch sphere ZHT. Now GK = 2EL just
as AG = 2AE. But ZT = 2 ZE and ZE < EL. Therefore GK > ZT. Hence,
(GK circum. circ. ABG) > (diam. ZTcircum. circ. ZHT). But, by the
preceding [proposition], the product ofGK and the circumference of circle
ABG is equal to the surface of the solid described by semipolygon ABG.
Now, by hypothesis, (diam. ZTcircum. circ. ZHT) = surface sphere
ABG. Therefore, the surface of the solid described by semipolygonABG is
greater than the surface of sphereABG, i.e. the "included" is greater than
the "including," which is impossible. Therefore, the product of diameter
ZT and circumference ZHT is not equal to the surface of some sphere
greater than sphere ZHT. Similarly, I may demonstrate that the product
of diameter AG and the circumference of circle ABG is not equal to the
surface of some sphere greater than sphere ABG. But neither [was it
equal to the surface of a sphere] less [than ABG], as was demonstrated.
Therefore, it remains that the product of diameter AG and the circum-
ference ABG is equal to the surface of sphere ABG. Q.E.D.
Corollary.
It is evident, therefore, that the surface of a sphere is equal to a circle
whose radius is equal to the diameter of the sphere.
3
For, by [proposition]
IV of On the Measurement of the Circle, the area of such a circle is equal
to the product of its radius, which is the diameter of the sphere, and one-
half of its circumference, which by [proposition] VI of this [work] is equal
to the circumference of the greatest circle in the sphere.
Proposition XI.
THE SURFACE OF A SPHERE IS QUADRUPLE ITS GREATEST
CIRCLE AND IS EQUAL TO THE LATERAL SURFACE OF THE
CYLINDER WHOSE AXIS AS WELL AS ITS BASE DIAMETER IS
EQUAL TO THE DIAMETER OF THE SPHERE.1
Let there be sphere ABG, which semicircle ABC describes when it is
rotated and diameter AG stands still; and let its center be D [see Fig.
IlI.5C.II].
I say that the suIface of sphere ABG = 4 circle ABG.
For, by the preceding [proposition], surface of sphere ABG = (diam.
AG. circum. circ. ABG). Now, by Pf'irposition IV of the Booklet on the
Measurement of the Circle, the area of the circle is equal to the product
of radius DG and one-half the circumference of the whole circle ABG and,
by VI. 18 [of Euclid],2 the product of diameter AG and the circumference
of circleABG is quadruple the product of radius DG and the circumference
of semicircle ABG (since each of the former factors is double each of
the latter). Therefore, the surface of sphere ABG is quadruple ABG, the
greatest circle in the sphere, which is the first of the things we proposed. I
prove the second as follows:
Let there be a cylinder whose axis as well as base diameter is equal to
diameter AG.
I say that the surface of sphere ABG is equal to the lateral surface of a
cylinder of this sort.
For the base of such a cylinder will be circle ABG; hence, by Proposi-
tion IV ofthis [work], the lateral surface of this cylinder will be equal to the
product of diameter AG and the circumference of circle ABG. But this
[latter product] is equal to the surface of the sphere. Therefore, the spheri-
cal surface will be equal to the lateral surface of such a cylinder, which had
remained to be demonstrated.
Corollary.
It is evident, therefore, that the total surface of the cylinder whose
axis as well as base diameter is equal to the diameter of the sphere is to
the surface of the sphere as 3 is to 2.
3
For the two bases of the cylinder are
[equal to] one-half of the spherical surface; and, since the spherical sur-
face is quadruple to one of those [base circles] and the lateral surface of
the cylinder is equal the spherical surface, therefore the total surface
of the cylinder, which consists of the lateral surface and the bases, con-
tains the spherical surface one and one-half times.
Prop. XI
1 See Corn., Prop. XI, lines 2-5.
2 Ibid., line 12.
Proposition XII.
IF THERE ARE TWO REGULAR AND SIMILAR FIGURES [I.E.
POLYGONS] AND ONE IS INSCRIBED IN AND THE OTHER CIR-
CUMSCRIBED ABOUT A CIRCLE, AND IF, WITH THE DIAMETER
STANDING STILL, THE SEMICIRCLE AS WELL AS THE HALVES
OF THE FIGURES [I.E. SEMIPOLYGONS] ARE ROTATED UNTIL
THEY RETURN TO THEIR [INITIAL] POSITION, THE SURFACE
OF THE SPHERE DESCRIBED BY THE SEMICIRCLE IS THE
MEAN PROPORTIONAL BETWEEN THE SURFACES OF THE
SOLIDS DESCRIBED BY THE HALVES OFJHE FIGURES.!
Let a regular polygon be described in circle "ABG with diameter AG
and center D [see Fig. III.5C.12]. Let one of its sides be AB. Let arc AB
be bisected in point E, and let radius DE be drawn so as to bisect chord AB
in pointZ. [Further] let HET be drawn orthogonally, [Le.] at right angles,
to this DE. And, therefore, by 111.15 [of Euclid]2 it is tangent to the circle
at point E and it meets radii DA and DB extended at points Hand T.
[Then] TH will be the side of regular polygon circumscribing circle ABG
and similar to inscribed polygon ABG. And so let [the exterior] circum-
scribed figure be completed, and let it be THK. And let semicircleABG as
well as semipolygons ABG and THK be rotated once on axis TK which
stands still.
And so I say that the surface of the sphere which semicircle ABG
describes is the mean proportional between the surfaces of the solids which
semipolygonsABG and THK describe. This I shall demonstrate as follows.
Let perpendicular EL drop from point E to DB and [thus] triangles
DEL and DBZ will be mutually equilateral; therefore, DZ = DL. But by
the third corollary of [proposition] IX of this [work], from the product of
EZ (or henceDL) and the circumferenceABG arises one-half ofthe surface
of the solid. described by semipolygon ABG. But, by [Proposition] X of
this [work], from the product of radius DB and the circumference of
circle ABG arises one-half the surface of the sphere described by semi-
circle ABG. Further, by the third corollary of [Proposition] IX [of this
work], from the product of DE and the circumference of circle THK
circumscribing the polygon [THK] (and, hence from the product of DH
and the circumference of circle ABG, for these two products are equal by
the second corollary of [Proposition] VI of this [work]) arises one-half
the surface of the solid described by semipolygon THK. Therefore, these
three products [namely (1) DL . circum. ABG, (2) DB circum. ABG, and
(3) DH circum. ABG], which are [respectively] the halves of the said
surfaces, are, by VI. 1 [of Euclid], mutually as the lines DL, DE, and DH,
the bases of the products, for the [common] altitude [of the three products]
Prop. XII
2 Ibid., line 14.
is equal to the circumference of circle ABG. But DL, DE and DH are
continual proportionals because of the similitude of triangles DEL and
DHE. Therefore, the three products, which are the halves of the said sur-
faces, are continualproportionals. Therefore, their doubles, i.e., the whole
surfaces, are continual proportionals. And so the surface of the solid
described by semipolygon ABG, the surface of the sphere described by
semicircle ABG and the surface of the solid described by semipolygon
THK are continuous proportionals in the proportion evidently of these
lines DL, DE and DH. Q.E.D.
Scholium.
In the case of two circles one of which is circumscribed about and the
other inscribed in a regular polygon, and, with the diameter remaining
fixed, if the semipolygon as well as the two semicircles is rotated, the
surface of the solid described by the semipolygon is the mean proportional
between the surfaces of the spheres described by the semicircles.
For to the data of the preceding [demonstration] let there be added circle
THK and then let a sphere be described by the rotation of semicircle
THK.
I say that the surface of solid THK is the mean proportional between
the surfaces of spheres ABG and THK.
For, by [Proposition] X, from the product of straight line HD and the
circumference of circle THK arises half the surface of sphere THK, and, as
in the preceding [proposition], it has been demonstrated that from the
product of line HD and the circumference of circle ABG arises half of the
surface of solid THK. Hence, by VI. 1 [of Euclid], the surface of sphere
THK will be to the surface of solid THK as the circumference of circle THK
is to the circumference of circle ABG, and, therefore, by [Proposition]
VI [of this work], as the radiusDH is to the radius DE. But, in the preceding
proof, DH / DE = surf. solid THK / surf. sphere ABG. Therefore, surf.
solid THK / surf. sphere ABG = surf. sphere THK / surf. solid THK.
And so the surface of solid THK is the mean proportional between the
surfaces of spheres THK and ABG. Q.E.D.
Corollary.
It is evident, therefore, that if a regular polygon is inscribed in a circle
and then a circle is inscribed in that polygon and further [another] polygon
with corresponding angles in the [second] circle, and this process [of
alternate inscription] is repeated as many times as you please, and if the
semicircles as well as the semipolygons are rotated while the diameter
remains fixed, the surfaces of the described spheres and solids of rota-
tion are continuously proportional following their order of inscription.
To this point [we have treated] of the surface of the solid of rotation and
the sphere; now we shall speak of the surfaces of segments cut from the
said solids.
bA
Proposition XIII.
THE CONICAL SURFACES OF THE SEGMENT INCLUDED
BETWEEN THE APEX OF THE SOLID DESCRIBED BY A REGU-
LAR SEMIPOLYGON AND ONE OF THE CIRCLES DESCRIBED
BY THE ANGLES ARE TOGETHER EQUAL TO THE PRODUCT OF
(1) A SIDE OF THE CIRCUMSCRIBED [POLYGON] AND (2) THE
[SUM OF THE] CIRCUMFERENCES DESCRIBED BYTHE ANGLES
MINUS HALF OF THE CIRCUMFERENCE OF THE I R ~
CUTTING THE SEGMENT FROM THE SOLID.1
For within circle AB with diameter AB let there be described regular
polygon AGB [see Fig. IlI.5C.13]. By rotating half of this polygon once
about fixed diameter AB let a solid of rotation be described. From this
solid let there be taken the segment included between apexA and one of the
circles described by the angles, for example, the circle described by angle
E. This segment then is AEZ.
I say that the conical surfaces of segment AEZ, which evidently are
those described by sidesAG, GD and DE, are together equal toAG(cir-
cum. descr. by angle G + circum. descr. by angle D + circum descr.
by angle E - ~ circum. descr. by angle E). For let GT, DH and EZ be
drawn so as to cut diameter AB at K, L, and N. Moreover, they will inter-
sect it at right angles. And so, by [proposition] 1I of this [work], the
conical surface which line AG describes is equal to the product of AG
and one-half the circumference which point G describes. Also, by
[proposition] VII, the conical surface of the truncated cone which line
GD describes is equal to the product of GD and one-half the [sum of the]
circumferences described by points G and D. Also, by [Proposition] VII,
the conical surface which DE describes (or, by [proposition] IV, if LDEM
is a parallelogram, the cylindrical surface described) is equal to the product
of DE (or AG) and half the [sum of the] circumferences described by
D and E. Here then these add up to the whole circumferences described
by points G and D plus one-half of that described by the final point E.
Hence, by II.! of the Elements, all the conical surfaces described by lines
AG, GD and DE, that is, the surface of segment AEZ, are equal to the
product of side AG and of all the circumferences described by angles G, D,
E less one-half of the circumference described by the lowest angleE (which
last circumference is the circumference of the circle cutting segment AEZ
from the whole solid described by the semipolygon). Q.E.D.
This same [conclusion] is demonstrated even if the chord AG is not the
side of a regular polygon inscribed in the circle so long as AG, GD and DE
are equal.
Proposition XIV.
THE CONICAL SURFACES OF THE SEGMENT INCLUDED
BETWEEN THE APEX OF THE SOLID DESCRIBED BY A REGU-
Prop. XIII
1 See Corn., Prop. XIII, lines 2-8.
MAUROLICO'S DE SPHAERA ET CYLINDRD 973
LAR SEMIPOLYGON AND ONE OF THE CIRCLES DESCRIBED
BY THE ANGLES ARE TOGETHER EQUAL TO THE PRODUCT OF
(1) THE CIRCUMFERENCE OF A CIRCLE WHOSE DIAMETER
IS THE AXIS OF THIS SEGMENT AND (2) THE LINE WHICH
TOGETHER WITH THE DIAMETER OF THE CIRCLE CONTAIN-
ING THE POLYGON AND THE SIDE OF THE POLYGON FORMS A
RIGHT TRIANGLE IN THE CIRCLE.
1
What will be necessary for the description? I assume the whole descrip-
tion of [proposition] IX, but from the solid which semipolygon AEB --
describes I take a segment whose apex is A and whose base is some one
of the circles described by the angles of the polygon, e.g., the circle
whose diameter is DM. Let this segment be designated DAM [see
Fig. III.5C.14].
And so I say that the conical sUlfaces of segment DAM, which evidently
are those described by linesAG and GD, are together equal to the product
of line BG and the circumference of a circle whose diameter is AD (and
AD I call the axis of segment DAM).
The demonstration of this is almost the same as the demonstration of
[Proposition] IX. For, as there, triangles GAX, NQX andDQO are similar
to f::..BGA, that is they are equiangular [with it]. Hence, by VIA [of Euclid],
BG / GA = GX / AX =XN / XQ =DO / QO. And, therefore, by V.B
[of Euclid]2 BG / GA = (GN +DO) / AO. And so by a corollary of
[proposition] VI of this [work], BG / GA = circum. of diam. (GN +DO) /
circum. of diam. AD. But, by a corollary of [Proposition] VI, the cir-
cumference whose diameter is the sum ofGN and DO is equal to the sum
of the circumferences whose diameters are GN and DO. Therefore, BG
is to GA as the sum of the circumferences of diameters GN and DD
is to the circumference of diameter AO. But, by a corollary of [proposition]
VI, the circumference of diameter DO is equal to one-half the circum-
ference of diameter DM, since the diam. DO = diam. DM. Therefore,
BG / GA = (circum. of diam. GN + circum. of diam. DM) / circum.
of diam. AD. Hence by VI.15 of the Elements ,3 BG(circum. of diam.
AD) = GA . (circum. of diam. GN + circum. of diam. DM). But by the
preceding [proposition] GA . (circum. of diam. GN + circum. of diam.
DM) = the conical surfaces of solid segment DAM. Therefore, BG (cir-
cum. of diam. AO) = the conical surfaces of solid segment DAM. Q.E.D.
I shall show in the same way that line BG (circum. of diam. AP) = the
conical surfaces of solid segment EAL, nor shall I show differently that
BG (circum. of diam. AR) = the conical surfaces of solid segment ZAK,
since the axis of segment EAL is this AP, while the axis of segment
ZAK is this line AR. Therefore that which is proposed is true.
This same thing will be demonstrated even if chord AG is not the side
Prop. XIV
1 See again Corn., Prop. XIII, lines 2-8.
2 See Corn. Prop. XIV. line 22.
I
r
t
i:

of a regular polygon inscribed in circle AB so long as the sides of the
segment are equal.
Corollaries.
[I] Therefore, (line AO. circum. of diam. BG) = the conical surfaces of
DAM. This follows from the third corollary of [Proposition] VI. [11]
Further, a circle whose radius is the mean proportional between lines
AO and BG is equal to those same conical surfaces of segment DAM.
4
..-
This follows from the fourth corollary of [Proposition] VI.
Proposition XV.
IF A SPHERE IS CUT BY A PLANE, THE SPHERICAL SURFACE
OF EACH SEGMENT IS EQUAL TO THE RECTANGLE WHICH
ARISES FROM THE PRODUCT OF THE DIAMETER OF THE
SPHERE AND THE CIRCUMFERENCE OF THAT CIRCLE WHOSE
DIAMETER IS THE AXIS OF THE SEGMENT.
1
Let there be circle ABGD, whose diameter is AG and center is E [see
Fig. III.5C.15]. Further, let diameter AG be cut at right angles by line
BD in any point Z. And with either semicircle (e.g. ABG) rotated once
about fixed axis AG, let sphere ABGD be described. Hence in such a
rotation line ZB describes a circle which will cut the sphere into two
segments: BAD, BGD.
And so I say that the spherical surface of either segment (e.g. of
segment BAD) is equal to the product of diameter AG and the circum-
ference of a circle whose diameter is AZ designated as the axis of segment
BAD; the demonstration of this is similar to the demonstration of
[proposition] X.
For if the product of diameter AG and the circumference of a circle
whose diameter is AZ is not equal to the surface of spherical segment
ABD, let it be equal to the spherical surface of some segment greater or
less than the surface of segment BAD. And first [let it be equal to a
spherical surface] less than [that ofBAD], namely to the spherical surface
of segment THL cut off from sphere HTKL by means of the plane of
the said circle, which sphere semicircle HTK describes about diameter
HK and which sphere is concentric to sphere ABG. And let arcs AB
and AD be divided repeatedly until, by XII. 13 [of EuclidJ,2 the chords
of the arcs do not touch circumference THL. And let one of the chords
be AM, and let GM be joined. And the product of diameter AG and the
circumference of the circle of diameter AZ will be greater than the product
of GM (which is less than the diameter [AGD and the circumference
Prop. XV
1 See Corn., Prop. XV, lines 2-5.
2 See Corn., Prop. X, line is.
of the circle of diameter AZ. But the product of diameter AG and the
circumference of the circle of diameter AZ is by hypothesis equal to the
surface of spherical segment THL; and the product of GM and the cir-
cumference of the circle of diameter AZ is, by the preceding [proposition],
equal to the conical surfaces described by the chords of the arcs into
which the greater arc AB is cut. Ther,efore, the spherical surface of segment
THL is greater than the conical surfaces described by the chords of the
parts of arc AB. Therefore, the "included" surface is greater than the
"including," which is impossible.
Or [proceed] as follows: Since the product of diameter AG and the
circumference of the circle of diameter AZ is greater than the product
of GM and that circumference and therefore is greater than the conical
surfaces described by the chords of the parts of arc AB, and [since]
these surfaces are greater than the included spherical sutface of segment
THL, therefore the product of diameter AG and the circumference of
the circle of diameter AZ is greater than the spherical surface of segment
THL. Therefore, it is not equal to it, as was supposed.
Then let the product of diameter AG and the circumference of the
circle of diameter AZ be equal to a spherical surface greater than the
spherical surface of segment BAD. But, for the sake of brevity, let the
supposed segment be THL [in the same figure as before].
I say that the product of diameter HK and the circumference of the
circle of diameter HZ is not equal to the spherical surface of some seg-
ment greater than the spherical surface of segment THL.
For, if it is possible, let it be equal to the spherical surface of segment
BAD which is greater than the sutface [of segment] THL cut off from
sphere ABGD by means of the plane of the circle cutting sphere
[A ]B[G]D [as well as sphere HTKL, which it originally cut]. This sphere
ABGD is the one described by semicircleABG on diameter AG [and is con-
centric with sphere HTKL]. And, by XII. 13 [of Euclid]3 let the arcs AB
and AD be divided [repeatedly] until the chords of the parts do not touch
arc THL. And let one of the chords be AM, let GM be joined, and let
EN be drawn perpendicular to AM. And since AG = 2AE and hence
GM = 2EN (withHK = 2HE and HE < EN), thereforeHK < GM. Hence
the product of GM and the circumference of the circle of diameter HZ
is greater than the product of HK and the circumference of the circle of
diameter HZ. But the product of GM and the circumference of the circle
of diameter AZ is, by the preceding [proposition], equal to the conical
surfaces described by the chords of the arcs into which arc AB is
divided. Now the product of HK and the circumference of the circle of
diameter HZ is by hypothesis equal to the spherical sutface of segment
BAD. Therefore, the conical surfaces described by the chords of the parts
of arc AB are greater than the spherical sutface of segment BAD. And so
the included sutface is greater than the including, which is impossible.
3 Ibid.
:-
"'rrl
Therefore, it is not [true] that the product of HK and the circumference
of the circle of diameter HZ is equal to the spherical surface of some
segment greater than the spherical surface of segment THL. In the same
way, I shall demonstrate that the product of AG and the circumference
of the circle of diameter AZ is not equal to the spherical surface
of some segment greater than the spherical surface of segment BAD. And
it was demonstrated [that the said product is] not [equal] to [a spherical
surface] less [than that of segmentBAD]. Therefore, [speaking] generally,
the product of AG and the circumference of the circle of diameter AZ is
equal to the spherical surface of segment BAD. Q.E.D.
Now we have supposed the spherical segment BAD to be less than a
hemisphere. But it can be shown in the same way that the product of
AG and the circumference of the circle of diameter GZ is equal to the
spherical surface of segment BGD. Or if you please, let line BE be drawn
in place of line BZ and ED in place of line ZD, these lines cutting
the circumference of circle HTK in points X and O. And the demon-
stration is effected through the spherical segments described by the similar
arcs BG andXK and through the conical surfaces described by the chords
of the parts of arc BG not touching the circumference XK. But in the
second part of the demonstration XO is drawn to cut EZ at [point] P
and GZ will be the axis of segment BGD greater than the axis KP of
segmentXKO, which is necessary for the second part of the demonstra-
tion. Whence, concluding in the same way as before, the product of AG
and the circumference of the circle of diameter GZ is more than every
segmental spherical surface described by an arc less than BG and similar
to it, and it is less than every segmental spherical surface described by
an arc greater than BG and similar to it and, therefore, it is equal to the
segmental spherical surface described by arc BG.
But just as you will have demonstrated this for one of the spherical
segments, so accordingly can it be easily demonstrated for the remaining
[segment] as follows.
Since it has been demonstrated that the product of AG and the cir-
cumference of the circle of diameter AZ is equal to the spherical surface
of segment BAD, from this I shall demonstrate that the product of AG
and the circumference of the circle of diameter GZ will be equal to the
spherical surface ofsegmentBGD. For, by [Proposition] X of this [work],
the whole surface of sphere ABG, which is the aggregate of the spheri-
cal surfaces of the two segments BAD, BGD, is equal to the product
of AG and the circumference of circle ABG. But, by the first corollary of
[Proposition] VI, the circumference of circle ABG is equal to the sum
of the circumferences of the circles whose diameters are AZ and ZG.
Therefore, the aggregate of the spherical surfaces of the segments BAD
and BDG is equal to the product of AG and the circumferences of the
circles whose diameters are AZ and ZG. Thence if the spherical surface
of segment BAD is subtracted, or if its demonstrated equal is subtracted,
namely the product of AG and the circumference of the circle of diameter
AZ, then the remaining spherical surface of segment BDG is equal to the
product of AG and the circumference of the circle of diameter ZG, and
this was proposed.
Corollary I.
It is evident, therefore, that the spherical surface of a spherical segment
is equal to the product of the axis of the segment and the circumference
of the greatest circle in the sphere and, therefore, to the lateral surface
of a cylinder whose base is the greatest circle of the sphere and whose
altitude is the axis of the segment. This is obvious from the third corollary
of [Proposition] VI.
Corollary n.
Also, the circle whose radius is the mean proportional between the
axis of a spherical segment and the diameter of the sphere is equal to
the spherical surface of this segment, which is clear from the fourth cor-
ollary of [proposition] VI.4 From this [present] corollary, the following
sixteenth proposition will be easily demonstrated.
Proposition XVI.
IF A SPHERE IS CUT BY A PLANE, THE SURFACE OF EACH
SEGMENT IS EQUAL TO THE PRODUCT OF (1) THE LINE
DRAWN FROM THE APEX OF THIS SEGMENT TO THE CIR-
CUMFERENCE OF THE CUTTING CIRCLE AND (2) THE CIRCUM-
FERENCE OF THE CIRCLE OF WHICH THE SAID LINE IS THE
DIAMETER. AND, THEREFORE, THIS SPHERICAL SURFACE OF
THE SEGMENT IS EQUAL TO THE CIRCLE OF WHICH THE SAID
LINE IS THE RADIUS.!
Let diameter AG of circle ABGD cut line BD at right angles in
any point Z; and, with semicircle ABG rotated once about diameter AG,
let sphere ABGD be described [consult previous Figure III.5C.15]. In this
rotation line ZB will describe the circle which is the common boundary
of the two spherical segments BAD and BGD. And so let straight lines
AB and BG be drawn from the apexes of the spherical segments to the
circumference of the cutting circle whose diameter is BD.
I say that the spherical surface of segment BAD is equal to the product
of AB and the circumference of the circle of which the diameter is AB.
For, by VI.8 [of Euclid], AG / BA = BA / AZ. Therefore, by [Proposition]
VI of this work, GA / AB = circum. of diam. AB / circum. of diam.
AZ. Hence, by VI. 15 [of Euclid],2 (ABcircum. ofdiam.AB) = (AGcir-
4 See Corn., Prop. XV, lines 111-14.
Prop. XVI
1 See Corn., Prop. XVI, lines 2-8.
2 See Corn., Prop. XIV, lines 33-34.
cum. of diam. AZ). But by the preceding [proposition], the product of
AG and the circumference of diameter AZ is equal to the spherical surface
of segment BAD. Therefore, the spherical surface of segment BAD is
equal to the product of AB and the circumference of diameter AB. And
this is the first of the things proposed.
And since the circumference of diameter AB is one-half the circum-
ference of radius AB by [Proposition] VI, hence from the product of AB
and half of the circumference of radius AB also arises the spherical sur-
face of the segment BAD. But from the product of AB and one-half the
circumference of radius AB arises a circle whose radius is AB, by
[Proposition] IV of On the Measurement of the Circle. And so the circle
of radius AB is equal to the spherical surface of segment BAD, which is the
second of the things proposed.
By methods that are completely the same, I shall show that the spheri-
cal surface of segment BGD is equal to the product of BG and the
circumference of the circle whose diameter is BG, or to the circle whose
radius is BG.
But if this has been demonstrated for one of the segments, e.g. BAD,
the same can be demonstrated for the remaining [segment] as follows.
Since LABG is a right angle, by III.30 [of Euclid],3 therefore, by
[Proposition] IX of On the Measurement of the Circle, two circles of
radii AB andBG are equal to the circle of radius AG. But, by [Proposition]
X of this [work], this [last] circle is equal to the [whole] spherical sur-
face and hence to the spherical surfaces of segments BAD and BDG.
Therefore, the circles of radii AB and BG are equal to the spherical sur-
faces of segments BAD and BDG. But the circle of radius AB was equal
to the spherical surface of segment BAD. Therefore, the circle of radius
BG remains equal to the spherical surface of segment BDG. Q.E.D.
Corollary.
It is evident, therefore, that the spherical surface of a spherical segment
is equal to the circle whose radius is the line from the apex of the segment
to the circumference of the circle cutting the sphere. For, by [Proposition]
VI, the circumference of the circle of diameter AB is equal to one-half
the circumference of radius AB. Therefore, the product of AB and the
circumference of diameter AB is equal to the product of AB and one-half
the circumference of radius AB. But the product of AB and the circum-
ference of diameter AB is equal to the spherical surface of segment BAD.
Now the product of AB and one-half the circumference of radius AB is,
by [Proposition IV of On the Measurement of the Circle, equal to the
circle of radius AB. Therefore, the spherical surface of segment BAD is
equal to the circle of radius AB, which is the thing proposed. I shall
demonstrate no differently that the spherical surface of segment BGD is
equal to the circle of radius BG.
3 See Corn., Prop. XVI, lines 37-38.
=
Proposition XVII.
IF A SPHERE IS CUT BY APLANE, THE SPHERICAL SURFACES
OF THE SEGMENTS ARE MUTUALLY AS THE AXES OF THE
SEGMENTS.!
Repeating the preceding description [i.e. of Fig. III.5C.15 but see Fig.
III.5C.15A], I say that the spherical surface of segment BAD is to the
spherical surface of segment BGD as axis AZ is to axis ZG.
For, by VI. 8 [ofEuclid],AZ /ZG = (AZ /ZB)'(AZ /ZB); andAZ /ZB
= AB / BG (because of the similarity of triangles AZB and ABG). There-
fore,AZ / ZG = (AB / BG)'(AB / BG). And, by VI. 18 [ofEuclid]AB2/ BG2
= (AB / BG)' (AB / BG). Therefore, AB2 / BG2 = AZ / ZG. But by XII. 2
[of Euclid], circle of radius AB / circle of radius BG = (2AB)2 / (2BG)2
= AB2 / BG2. Therefore, circle of radius AB / circle of radius BG = AZ / ZG.
But, by the corollary of the preceding [proposition], the circle of radius
AB is equal to the spherical surface of segment BAD. [And the circle
of radius BG is equal to the spherical surface of segment BGD.] There-
fore, the spherical surface of segment BAD is to the spherical surface
of segment BDG as axis AZ to axis ZG. Q.E.D.
Corollary.
It is evident, therefore, that the surface of a sphere is to the spherical
surface of its segment as the diameter of the sphere is to the axis of the
segment; this is obvious from conjunct proportionality.
Proposition XVIII.
IF A SPHERE IS CUT BY A PLANE, THE SPHERICAL SURFACE
OF EITHER SEGMENT IS TO THE CUTTING CIRCLE AS THE
DIAMETER OF THE SPHERE IS TO THE AXIS OF THE RE-
MAINING SEGMENT.!
I shall still stay with the same description [i.e. of Fig. III.5C.15, but
see Fig. III.5C.15A above], while asserting that the spherical surface
of segment BAD is to the cutting circle of diameter BD as diameter AG
is to axis GZ. Also, [I say] that the spherical surface of segment BGD
is to the circle of diameter BD as diameter AG is to axis AZ.
For, by VI.8 [of Euclid], AG / GZ = (AG / GB)'(AG / GB); but
AG / GB = AB / BZ (because of the similarity of triangles AGB and ABZ).
Therefore, AG / GZ = (AB / BZ)'(AB / BZ). But, by XII.2 [of Euclid],
circle of radius AB / circle of radius BZ = (AB / BZ)' (AB / BZ). There-
fore, circle of radius AB / circle of radius BZ = AG / ZG. But, by
Prop. XVII
1 See Corn., Prop. XVII, lines 2-3.
Prop. XVIII
1 See Corn., Prop. XVIII, lines 2-4.
[Proposition] XVI, the circle of radius AB is equal to the spherical
surface of segment BAD while the circle of radius BZ is equal to circle
BD cutting the sphere. Therefore, the spherical surface of segment BAD
is to the circle of radius BZ (which separates the segments) as diameter
AG is to GZ, the axis of the remaining segment.
I shall demonstrate in no way differently that the spherical surface of
segment BGD is to the circle of radius BZ as diameter AG is to AZ, the
axis of the remaining segment. Q.E.D.
Proposition XIX.
IF A SPHERE IS CUT BY TWO PARALLEL PLANES, THE
SPHERICAL SURFACE OF THE INTERCEPTED SEGMENT, I.E.
THE SPHERICAL ZONE, IS EQUAL TO THE PRODUCT OF THE
DIAMETER OF THE SPHERE AND THE CIRCUMFERENCE OF
THE CIRCLE WHOSE DIAMETER IS THE AXIS OF THE
SEGMENT.!
To the preceding description, I add the straight line RS so as to cut
diameter AG in point Y [see Fig. III.5C.16]. And so by the rotation
of the semicircle [ABG] R Y will describe a circle parallel to the circle
of diameter BD.
And so I say that the spherical surface of the spherical segment BS
intercepted between the two parallel circles of diameters BD and RS, i.e.
the zone described by arc BR, is equal to the product of diameter AG
and the circumference of the circle whose diameter is axis ZY.
For, by [Proposition] XV above, the product of AG and the circum-
ference of the circle of diameter A Y is equal to the spherical surface of
segment RAS, while the circumference of the circle whose diameter is
AY is, by the first corollary of [Proposition] VI, equal to the circum-
ferences of the circles whose diameters are AZ and ZY. Therefore,
the product of AG and the circumferences of the circles of diameters
AZ and ZY is equal to the spherical surface of segment RAS. But, by
[Proposition] XV, the product of AG and the circumference of the circle
of diameter AZ is equal to the spherical surface of segment BAD. And
so from the product of AG and the circumferences of the circles of
diameters AZ and ZY let us subtract the product of AG and the cir-
cumference of the circle of diameter AZ. Also from the spherical sur-
face of segment RAS let us subtract the spherical surface of segment
BAD (evidently two equals are being subtracted from two equals). And,
on the one hand, the product of AG and the circumference of the circle
of diameter ZY remains and, on the other, the spherical surface of the
intercepted segment BS. Consequently these are equals. Q.E.D.
You may show the same thing by the corollary of [Proposition] XV.
Prop. XIX
For, by that corollary, from the product of line AY and the circum-
ference of circleABG arises the spherical surface of segmentRAS and from
the product of AZ and the same circumference arises the spherical sur-
face of segment BAD. Whence it follows from ILl of the Elements that
from the product of ZY and the said circumference arises the spherical
surface of the intercepted segment BS. Q.E.D.
Corollary L
It is evident, therefore, that the spherical zone of the spherical seg-
ment included between parallel circles is equal to the product of the axis
of the segment and the circumference of the greatest circle in the sphere;
and, therefore, [the zone is equal] to the lateral surface of the cylinder
whose base is the greatest circle of the sphere and whose altitude is the
axis of the segment.
Corollary II.
Also it is evident that when a sphere has been cut by any number of
parallel planes, the spherical surfaces intercepted by the planes are to each
other as the axes of these spherical segments. This is obvious from the
corollary of the preceding [proposition] and from VLl of the Elements.
This corollary could also be demonstrated very easily by the corollary
of Proposition XVII, and by equal and disjunct proportionality.
Proposition XX.
IF A SPHERE AND A CYLINDER HAVE A COMMON DIAMETER
AND A COMMON AXIS, AND IF THEY ARE CUT BY ANY
NUMBER OF PARALLEL PLANES PERPENDICULAR TO THE
AXIS, EACH OF THE SPHERICAL SURFACES WILL BE EQUAL
TO EACH OF THE CYLINDRICAL SURFACES INTERPOSED
BETWEEN THE SAME CUTTING PLANES.!
Let square EZHT be circumscribed about circle ABGD, and let the
points of contact beA,B, G,D, and letAG be joined [see Fig. III.5C.17].
Also, between sides ZH and ET, let any lines you wish KL and MN be
drawn parallel to EZ and HT and cutting axis AG at points X and 0,
circumference ABG at P, R, Sand Y. And let it [the whole figure] be
rotated about the unmoved diameter AG until it returns to its place;
[then] the parallelogram will describe a cylinder, and the semicircle a
sphere, and AG will be the axis of the sphere as well as of the cylinder.
Also, EZ and HT, the diameters of the bases of the cylinders, [are] equal
to the diameter of the sphere; and the cylinder will circumscribe the
sphere. For the cylindrical bases touch the spherical surface in points
Prop. xx
A, G; and also the cylindrical surface touches the spherical [surface]
and the contact [of the two surfaces] will be the circumference of the
circle described by the point of contact B. Also, these lines KX, MO
when rotated will describe parallel circles cutting the cylinder, and the
points P, S will describe the circumferences of circles which will be
the common sections of the said circles cutting the cylinder and the spheri-
cal surface.
And so I say that the spherical surface lying between the circles of
diameters ZE and KL, Le. the surface described by arc AP, is equal to
the cylindrical surface interposed between the same circles, i.e., to the
surface described by line ZK. Also [I say] that the spherical surface
which is between the circles of diameters KL and MN, Le., the surface
described by arc PS, is equal to the cylindrical surface which is between
these same circles, i.e. to the surface described by line KM. Also [I
say] that the spherical surface which is between the circles of diameters
MN, TH, Le., the surface described by arc SBG, is equal to the cylindri-
cal surface which is included between these same circles, Le. to the
surface described by line MH.
The first and third of these [assertions] is obvious by the corollary
to Proposition XV above, since cylinder ZL has an altitude equal to AX,
the axis of spherical segment PAR, and a base which is the greatest circle
of the sphere, and also since cylinder MT has an altitude OG, which is
the axis of spherical segment SGY, and a base which is the greatest
circle in the sphere. The second [assertion] moreover is obvious by the
first corollary of the preceding [proposition], since cylinder KN has alti-
tudeXO, whichis the axis of spherical segment SPRY, and a base which
is the greatest circle of the sphere. I can demonstrate the same thing
for the spherical and cylindrical surfaces which any two planes parallel
to the bases of the cylinder intercept and on which planes the axis of
the cylinder stands perpendicularly. Q.E.D.
I shall demonstrate the same thing in another way. Since, by
[Proposition] IV of this [work], from the product of AG and the circum-
ference of circle ABG, the base of cylinder ZT, arises the lateral surface
of cylinder ZT, and also from the product ofAX and the circumference
of the same circle arises the lateral surface of cylinder ZL, therefore,
by VI. 1 [of Euclid] and conjunct proportionality, the lateral surface of
cylinder ZT will be to the lateral surface of cylinder ZL as AG to AX.
But by the corollary of [Proposition] XVII above, AG / AX = surf. sphere
ABG / spher. surf. seg. PAR. Therefore, surf. sphere ABG / spher.
surf. seg. PAR = lat. surf. cylind. ZT / lat. surf. cylind. ZL. And, by
alternation, surf. sphere ABG / lat. surf. cylind. ZT = spher. surf. seg.
PAR /lat. surf. cylind. ZL. But, by [Proposition] XI of this [work], the
surface of sphere ABG is equal to the lateral surface of cylinder ZT.
Therefore, the spherical surface of segment PAR is equal to the lateral
surface of cylinder ZL. Similarly, I shall show that the spherical surface
of segment SA Y is equal to the lateral surface of surface of cylinder ZN.
Consequently, the spherical surface of segment PY, which is the spherical
zone described by arc PS, is equal to the lateral surface of cylinder KN.
And also the surface of the spherical segment SGY is equal to the lateral
surface of cylinder MT. I can show this same thing for any planes paral-
lel to the cylindrical base and cutting both the cylinder and the sphere
circumscribed by the cylinder, and this is what our proposition signifies.
So much for the surfaces of solids of rotation and of spherical seg-
ments. The order [of proof] demands that now we ought to discuss first
the volume of [such] solids of rotation and then the volume of a sphere.
Proposition XXI.
THE CONE WHOSE BASE IS EQUAL TO THE SUM OF THE
BASES OF ANY NUMBER OF CONES AND WHOSE ALTITUDE
IS THE SAME [AS THEIRS] IS EQUAL TO THE SUM OF THOSE
[CONES].!
For example, the base of cone A is equal to the sum of the bases of
some number of cones, say of the three [cones] B, G, and D [see Fig.
11I.5C.18]. Let all of the cones have the same altitude.
I say that cone A = cone B + cone G + cone D.
For, since their altitudes are equal, by XII.II [of Euclid] cone B I cone
A = base of cone B I base of cone A. Also, cone G I cone A = base of
coneG I base of coneA. Therefore, by V.24 [of Euclid](coneB + cone G) I
cone A = (base of cone B + base of cone G) I base of cone A. Further,
cone D I cone A = base of cone D I base of cone A. Therefore, again
by V.24 (cone B + cone G + cone D) I cone A = (base of cone B + base
of cone G + base of cone D) I base of cone A. But by hypothesis, (base
of cone B + base of cone G + base of cone D) = base of cone A. There-
fore, cone B + cone G + cone D = cone A. Q.E.D. We shall demon-
strate the same thing for any number by cones.
You can conclude the same thing for cylinders whose altitudes are
equal.
Proposition XXII.
THE CONE WHOSE ALTITUDE IS EQUAL TO THE SUM OF
THE ALTITUDES OF ANY NUMBER OF CONES ON EQUAL
BASES IS EQUAL TO THE SUM OF THOSE [CONES].
For example, let the altitude of cone A be equal to [the sum of] the
altitudes of some number of cones, say of the three [cones] B, G and D
[see Fig. III.5C.19]. And let the bases of all the cones be equal.
I say that cone A = cone B + cone G + cone D.
For, since their bases are equal, by XII. 11 [of Euclid] cone B I cone
A = altitude of coneB I altitude of cone A . Also, cone GI cone A = altitude
Prop. XXI
of cone G / altitude of cone A. Therefore, by V.24 [of Euclid], (cone
B + cone G) / cone A = (altitude of cone B + altitude of cone G) / altitude
of cone A. Further, cone D / cone A = altitude of cone D / altitude of
coneA. Therefore, again by V.24 [of Euclid ], (coneB + cone G + coneD) /
cone A = (all. cone B + alt. cone G + all. cone D) / alto cone A. But (all.
cone B + all. cone G + all. cone D) = all. cone A. Therefore, cone B
+ cone G + cone D = cone A. Q.E.D. We shall demonstrate the same
thing for any number of cones, by repeating [Prop.] V.24 as many times
as is necessary. Q.E.D.
Proposition XXIII.
THE SOLID WHICH IS DESCRIBED BY A TRIANGLE ROTATED
ABOUT ONE OF ITS SIDES AS AN AXIS UNTIL IT RETURNS
TO ITS [INITIAL] POSITION IS EQUAL TO THE CONE WHOSE
BASE IS EQUAL TO THE CONICAL SURFACE DESCRIBED BY
THE ROTATION OF ANOTHER OF THE SIDES OF THE TRIANGLE
AND WHOSE ALTITUDE IS EQUAL TO A PERPENDICULAR
FALLING ON THE SAME SIDE FROM THE OPPOSITE ANGLE.
HOWEVER, IF A [STRAIGHT] LINE IS LED IN ANY WAY
FROM ONE OF THE TERMINI OF THE FIXED SIDE TO THE
OPPOSITE SIDE, THE SOLID DESCRIBED BY THIS TRIANGLE
[THUS] CUT OFF IS EQUAL TO THE CONE WHOSE BASE
IS EQUAL TO THE LATERAL SURFACE DESCRIBED BY THE
SEGMENT OF THAT SIDE CUT OFF AND WHOSE ALTITUDE IS
EQUAL TO THE PERPENDICULAR FROM THE SAID TERMINUS
OF THE FIXED SIDE TO THE SAME SIDE. FURTHER, IF THE
SIDE OF THE TRIANGLE IS PARALLEL TO THE AXIS ABOUT
WHICH THE TRIANGLE IS ROTATED AND ONLY [ONE] ANGLE
OF THE TRIANGLE IS TERMINATED IN THE AXIS, THE SOLID
DESCRIBED BY THE TRIANGLE WILL BE EQUAL TO THE CONE
WHOSE BASIS IS EQUAL TO THE CYLINDRICAL SURFACE
DESCRIBED BYTHE SIDE PARALLEL TO THE AXIS AND WHOSE
ALTITUDE IS EQUAL TO THE PERPENDICULAR DRAWN FROM
THE AXIS ITSELF TO THE SAME SIDE.1
I shall demonstrate this three-part proposition very briefly. For let there
be triangle ABG which when rotated once about one side (say, about
side AB) as an axis describes solid AGB [see Fig. III.5C.20(a)]. Now
from the angle opposite AG, that is B, let perpendicular BD fall on
opposite side AG. And let there be a cone H, whose base is equal to
the conical surface which side AG describes and whose altitude is equal
to the perpendicular BD.
I say that cone H is equal to solid AGB.
For let triangle ABG first be posed as having a right angle which is
Prop. XXIII
at B and then, by the definition of a cone, solid ABG described by the
triangle is a cone whose axis is AB and whose base radius is BG. Hence,
by the third [proposition] of this [work] the conical surface which line
AG describes (and hence the base of cone H equal to it) is to the base
of cone ABG as line AG is to radius BG and therefore (because of the
similarity of triangles AGB and ABD) as axis AB is to perpendicular
BD, which is the altitude of cone H. And so the bases of cones AGB
and H are mutually proportional to the altitudes. Therefore, cones AGB
and H are equal by XII. 12 [of Euclid].2 Q.E.D.
Now let the angles of t:.ABG atA and B be acute [see Fig. III.5C.20(b)]
and let perpendicular line GE be drawn from point G to the axis AB,
which perpendicular in the rotation of t:.ABG will describe the circle
of radius GE. And the solid ABG will be composed of two cones
AGE and BGE having as a common base the circle of radius GE. And
so let there be cone K having its base equal to the said circle and
its altitude equal to AB. And, by the preceding [proposition] cone
K = cone AGE + cone BGE = solid AGB. And so, since by the third
[proposition] the conical surface which line AG describes (and hence the
base of cone H equal to it) is to the base of cone AGE (and hence
to the base of cone K equal to it) as AG is to GE, and therefore (because
of the similarity of triangles AGE and ABD) as altitude AB of cone K is to
altitude BD of coneH, therefore, by XII.12 [of Euclid],3 coneH = coneK
= solid AGB. Q.E.D.
Then in the third case [see Fig. III.5C.20(c)], let the angle B (of the
angles of t:.ABG) be obtuse. Then let perpendicular GE be drawn from
point G to axis AB extended, so that in the rotation of the triangle
line GE describes a circle which will be the base of the cone AGE
described by t:.AGE as well as that of cone BGE described by t:.BGE.
And so let there be cone K having a base equal to the said circle and
an altitude equal to straight line AB. And, therefore, by what has been
premised, coneK + coneBGE = cone AGE. Then from both sides [of the
equation] let the common cone BGE be subtracted, and it will result
that cone K is equal to the solid described by the rotation of t:.ABG.
And so, since by the third [proposition] the conical surface described
by line AG (and hence the base of cone H equal to it) is to the base of
cone AGE (and hence to the base of cone K equal to it) as AG is to GE,
and therefore (because of the similarity of triangles AGE and ABD) as
altitude AB of cone K is to altitude BD of cone H, [therefore] by XII. 12
[of Euclid]4 cone H = cone K = solid AGB. Q.E.D. To this point the
first part of the proposition has been demonstrated.
The second part is proved as follows [see Fig. III.5C.21]. In this
t:.ABG let line BZ be drawn from terminus B (one of the termini of
2 Ibid., line 37.
3 Ibid.
4 Ibid.
line AB) to the opposite side; and let there be cone N having its base
equal to the conical surface described by line GZ in revolution and its
altitude equal to perpendicular BD.
I say that cone N is equal to the solid described by 6.BGZ in rotation.
For let there be cone H having its base equal to the conical surface
described by line AG [in revolution] and its altitude [equal to] BD. Also
[let there be] cone M having its base equal to the conical surface de-
scribed by line AZ and its altitude [equal to] BD. And, as was demon-
strated, cone H will be equal to the solid described by 6.ABG; but cone
M is equal to the solid described by 6.ABZ. Also, since the conical surface
described by line AG is equal to the sum of the conical surfaces described
by lines AZ and ZG, therefore the base of cone H, which was equal to
the conical [surface], will be equal to the sum of the bases of o n e s ~
M and N, whose surfaces are equal to the conical surfaces; and, since
the altitudes of cones H, M, and N are equal, hence, by the proposition
premised before, cone H = cone M + cone N. And so let the equal mag-
nitudes of cone M and solid AZB be subtracted from the equal magni-
tudes of cone H and solid AGB, and there will remain the equal magni-
tudes of cone N and the solid described by 6.BGZ. Q.E.D.
The third part of the proposition remains [see Fig. III.5C.22]. As before
let 6.BGZ be rotated about axis AB, and let GZ be the side parallel to
AB, and let cone H have its base equal to the cylindrical surface de-
scribed by line GZ and its altitude equal to the perpendicular BD drawn
from angle B to side GZ.
I say that cone H is equal to the solid described by the rotation of
6.BZG.
For let rectangle AZGX be completed. In rotation, this rectangle will
describe a cylinder whose axis is AX and whose base radii are AZ and
GX. Hence BD will describe a circle, which will be the terminus of
cylinders AD and DX. Also, as a matter of fact, the triangles ABZ and
BGX will describe cones whose bases are those of the cylinder and whose
[common] apex is B. And so let there be cone K having its base equal
to the base of cylinder AG and its altitude double AX. By XII.ll [of
Euclid]5 cone K will be double the cone having the same base and an
axis equal to AX. But, by the [proposition] premised, this latter cone is
equal to the sum of cones AZB and BGX. Therefore, cone K = 2'(cone
AZB + cone BGX). But the solid described by 6.BGZ is double the sum
of these same cones AZB and BGX since by XII.9 [of Euclid]6 the whole
cylinder AG is triple these same cones. And so cone K is equal to the
solid described by 6.BGZ.
By the fifth [proposition] of this [work] the cylindrical surface described
by line GZ (and hence the base of cone H equal to it) is to the base of
cylinder AG (and hence to the base of cone K) as axis AX is to Y2 radius
5 See Corn., Prop. XXXIV, line 13.
6 See Corn., Prop. XXIII, line 104.
GX, and, therefore, as the altitude of cone K (which is double axis AX)
is to radius GX (which is double its own half) and hence to altitude BD
of cone H. Therefore, by XII.12 [of EucIid],7 cone H = cone K, and
hence cone H = the solid described by L.BGZ. Q.E.D.
This is when the perpendicular DB falls between points G and Z. But if
the perpendicular from point B to GZ is one of these [two lines], BZ,
BG, the demonstration will still be the same, but within the cylinder
AG [only] one cone will be described, not two. Now if the perpendicular
DB falls outside of points G andZ [see Fig. III.5C.23], I shall demonstrate
this part of the proposition as follows. With ZD extended at will to point
0, let BO be connected. And let there be cone M having its base equal
to the cylindrical surface described by line OG and its altitude equal to
BD. Also, let there be cone N having its base equal to the cylindrical
surface described by line OZ and its altitude to BD. And, as was demon-
strated before, cone M will be equal to the solid described by L.OBG,
while cone N is equal to the solid described by L.OBZ. And since the
cylindrical surface described by line OG is equal to the sum of the cyl-
indrical surfaces described by lines OZ andZG, therefore the base of cone
M is equal to the sum of the bases of cones N, H. Since the altitude of
these latter cones is the same, by the previously premised [proposition],
cone M will be equal to the sum of cones Nand H. And so let cone
N be subtracted from cone M and the solid described by L. OBZ from
the solid described by L.OBG, i.e., equals from equals, and the result
is that cone H is equal to the solid described by L.BZG. Q.E.D.
It is concluded, therefore, that the solid described by a triangle applied
laterally or angularly to an axis existing in the same plane and rotated
in a complete revolution about the same axis is equal to the cone whose
base is equal to the conical or cylindrical surface described by the side
of the triangle opposite the angle applied to the axis and whose altitude is
equal to the perpendicular which proceeds from the said angle to the said
side wherever it falls. And this is the whole proposition which serves
for the succeeding demonstrations.
Proposition XXIV.
THE SOLID DESCRIBED BY HALF OF A REGULAR POLYGON
INSCRIBED IN A CIRCLE WHEN IT HAS ROTATED IN A COM-
PLETE ROTATION ABOUT A FIXED DIAMETER IS EQUAL TO
THE CONE WHOSE BASE IS EQUAL TO THE WHOLE SURFACE
OF THE SOLID AND WHOSE AXIS IS THE PERPENDICULAR
WHICH PROCEEDS FROM THE CENTER OF THE CIRCLE TO ANY
SIDE OF THE POLYGON.l
7 Ibid., line 37.
Prop. XXIV
1 See Corn., Prop. XXIV, lines 2-7.
In circle AB with diameter AB, let there be inscribed a regular polygon,
i.e., the decagon AB [see Fig. III.5C.24].2 Let the solid AB with conical
surfaces be described by the single rotation about axis AB of the half
of the decagonAGDEZB. Let perpendicular HT be drawn from the center
of sphere H to one of the sides of the polygon, say to side AG; and
let there be cone K, whose base is equal to the whole surface of solid
AB and whose altitude is equal to perpendicular HT.
I say that cone K is equal to solid AB.
For let angles G, D, E and Z be connected to the center H; and let
the following cones with altitude HT be constructed: cone L having a
base equal to the conical surface described by line AG; cone M [with a
base equal] to that [surface] described by line BZ; cone N [with a base
equal] to that [surface] described by line GD; cone X [with a base equal]
to that [surface] described by line ZE; cone 0 [with a base equal] to
that [surface] described by lineDE, which [surface] is cylindrical. Whence
the bases of cones L, M, N, X and 0 taken together will be equal to
the whole surface of solid AB and therefore will be equal to the base of
cone K. Therefore, by [Proposition] XXI of this [work] the sum of all
these cones L, M, N, X and 0 will be equal to cone K. Now by the
first part of the preceding [proposition] the solid which is described by
l::,.HAG in rotation is equal to cone L and that described by l::,.HBZ is
equal to cone M; by the second part of the preceding [proposition] that
described by l::,.HGB is equal to cone N and that described by l::,.HZE
is equal to coneX. Finally, by the third part of the preceding [proposition]
that [solid described] by l::,.HDE is equal to cone O. And so solid AB,
which is described by the whole semipolygon ADB, is equal to the sum
of cones L, M, N, X, 0; but this sum was equal to cone K. Therefore,
solid AB will be equal to cone K. And this was to be demonstrated.
Corollary.
It is clear, therefore, that solid AB is equal to the cylinder whose base
is equal to the surface of solid AB and whose axis is equal to one-third
part of perpendicular HT, for by XII.ll and XII.9 [of Euclid] such a
cylinder is equal to cone K and therefore to solid AB etc.
Proposition XXV.
A SPHERE IS EQUAL TO THE CONE WHOSE BASE IS EQUAL
TO THE SPHERICAL SURFACE AND WHOSE ALTITUDE IS
EQUAL TO THE RADIUS OF THE SPHERE.l
Let there be a circle ABGD with center E and diameter AG [see Fig.
III.5C.25]. And let sphere ABG be described by the complete rotation
2/bid., line 9.
Prop. XXV
1 See Corn., Prop. XXV, lines 2-4.
of semicircle ABG upon immobile diameter AG. And let there be a cone
M whose base is equal to the surface of sphere ABG and whose altitude
is equal to radius AE.
I say that cone M is equal to sphere ABG.
For if cone M is not equal to sphere ABG, it will be equal to some
other sphere that is greater or less than sphere ABG. Hence first, if it
is possible, let cone M be equal to sphere ZHT, which is less than sphere
ABG but concentric with it and which has a diameter zr and which
semicircle ZHr describes in rotation about diameter zr. And by XII. 13
[of Euclid]2 let there be inscribed in circle ABG a regular polygon that
does not touch circle zr at all. And let this polygon be ABGD, one of
whose sides is AK to which perpendicular EL is drawn from the center.
And by the complete rotation of half the polygon about diameter AG
let there be described a solid of conical surfaces that does not touch
sphere ZHr at all. Then by the preceding [proposition] solid ABG will
be equal to the cone whose base is equal to the surface of solid ABG
and whose altitude is equal to perpendicular EL. And so cone M is greater
than a cone of this sort, inasmuch as it is greater in both base and alti-
tude (since clearly the surface of sphere ABG is greater than the surface
of the included solid ABG and line AE is greater than perpendicular EL).
And therefore sphere ZHr [posited as] equal to cone M will be greater
than solid ABG, i.e. the part greater than the whole, which is impossible.
Or [prove it] thus. Since cone M was greater than the said cone equal
to solid ABG and therefore is greater than solid ABG, and since solid
ABG is greater than sphere ZHr, accordingly cone M will be greater
than sphere ZHr and hence is not equal to it as was supposed.
Then, if it is possible, let cone M be equal to a sphere greater than
sphere ABG. But for the sake of brevity, let it be supposed that this
sphere is ZHr [instead of ABG] and let cone M have a base equal to
the surface of sphere ZHr and an altitude equal to radius EZ.
I say that cone M will not be equal to some sphere that is greater
than sphere ZHr.
For, if it is possible, let it be equal to sphere ABG, which is greater
than sphere ZHr but concentric with it. Within sphere ABG let there be
described as before a solid ABG whose surface does not touch sphere
ZHT etc. And by the preceding [proposition] solid ABG will be equal to
the cone whose base is equal to the surface of solid ABG and whose
altitude is equal to perpendicular EL. Therefore such a cone is greater
than cone M since it exceeds it in both base and altitude. Therefore
solid ABG is greater than cone M. But cone M was by hypothesis equal
to sphere ABG. Therefore solid ABG is greater than sphere ABG, Le. the
part than the whole, which is impossible. Therefore cone M is not equal
to some sphere greater than sphere ZHT. Similarly, if cone M has a base
equal to the surface of sphere ABG and an altitude equal to radius EA,
2 Ibid., line 15.
..
it will not be equal to any sphere greater than sphere ABG. And it was
demonstrated that [it will] not [be equal] to [any] lesser [sphere]. There-
fore it remains that cone M is completely equal to sphere ABG. Q.E.D.
It is evident, therefore, that a sphere is equal to the cone whose
base radius is equal to the diameter of the sphere and whose axis is
equal to the radius of the sphere. This is obvious, for by the corollary
to [Proposition] X a circle whose radius is equal to the diameter of the
sphere is equal to the surface of the sphere.
Proposition XXVI.
A SPHERE IS DOUBLE THE CONE WHOSE BASE IS EQUAL
TO THE GREATEST CIRCLE IN THE SPHERE AND WHOSE
ALTITUDE IS EQUAL TO THE DIAMETER OF THE SPHERE.
Let A be a sphere whose greatest circle is BCD and let cone N have
a base equal to circle BCD and an altitude equal to the diameter BD of
the sphere [see Fig. III.5C.26].
I say that sphere A is double cone N.
For let cone M be posited which has a base equal to the surface of
sphere A and an altitude AD equal to the radius of sphere D. By the
preceding [proposition] cone M will be equal to sphere A. Also let cone X
be posited which has a base that is double circle BCD and an altitude
equal to the diameter BD of the sphere. And so the base of cone M,
which is equal to the surface of the sphere A, is by [Proposition] XI
quadruple circleBCD and the base of coneX is double circle BCD. There-
fore the base of cone M is double the base of cone X, while the altitude
of cone X is double the altitude of cone M. Therefore the bases of cones
M and X are reciprocally proportional to their altitudes, and hence by
XII.12 [of Euclid]! the cones are equal. But cone M is equal to sphere A;
therefore cone X is also equal to sphere A. But cone X is double cone N,
for it is of the same altitude and has a double base (since the base of
cone X is double circle BCD and the base of cone N is equal to the same
circle). Therefore, sphere A is double cone N. Q.E.D.
Corollary.
It is evident, therefore, that the cylinder whose base is equal to the
greatest circle in a sphere and whose altitude is equal to the diameter of
the sphere is 3f2 the sphere.
2
For by XII.9 [of Euclid]3 the cylinder is
triple its cone; and the sphere is double that cone as was demonstrated.
Hence the cylinder will become 3f2 the sphere.
Prop. XXVI
2 See Corn., Prop. XXVI. lines 23-25.
3 Ibid., line 25.
Proposition XXVII.
IF THE AXIS OF A CYLINDER IS EQUAL TO THE DIAMETER
OF ITS BASE AND IF THE BASE OF A CONE IS EQUAL TO
THE WHOLE SURFACE OF THE CYLINDER WHILE ITS ALTI-
TUDE IS EQUAL TO THE RADIUS OF THE BASE OF THE
CYLINDER, THE CYLINDER WILL BE EQUAL TO THE CONE.1
Let side AB of rectangle ABGD be double side BG [see Fig. III.5C.27],
and let cylinder AG be described by the complete rotation of the rectangle
around side AB. And so, since BG, which is the radius of the base, is
one-half the axis AB, the whole diameter will be equal to the axis. Also
let E be a cone whose base is equal to the whole surface of cylinder
AG, Le. to the sum of the lateral surface described by line GD and the
bases described by lines AD and BG, and whose altitude is equal to
radius AD.
I say that cylinder AG and cone E are equal.
For let axis AB be bisected at Z, and let DZ and ZG be drawn. Thus
it happens that in the rotation of rectangle AG these triangles ZDA and
ZGB describe cones whose bases are the bases of the cylinder and
whose apexes are at point Z. Now let a perpendicular fall from point
Z to DG, which perpendicular we let be ZH. And let there be a cone
T whose base is equal to the cylindrical surface described by line GD
and whose altitude is equal to perpendicular ZH and hence to radius
AD, which is the altitude of coneE. And by the third part of [Proposition]
XXIII above, cone T is equal to the solid described by LDZG. Accord-
ingly, cone T plus the cones described by triangles ZDA and ZGB will
be equal to the whole cylinder AG; and also the base of cone T plus
the bases of the cylinder will be equal to the whole surface of the cyl-
inder. Therefore the base of cone T plus the bases of cones ADZ and
BGZ (which are also the bases of the cylinder) will be equal to the
base of cone E, which was equal to the whole surface of the cylinder.
And the altitude of each of the four cones is the same since lines AD,
AZ, ZB, ZH, which are the altitudes of the cones, are equal. Therefore,
by [Proposition] XXI above cone E is equal to the sum of cones T, ADZ
and BGZ. But this sum was equal to cylinder AG. Therefore cylinder
AG will be equal to cone E. Q.E.D.
Proposition XXVIII.
THE CYLINDER WHOSE AXIS AND BASE ARE EACH EQUAL
TO THE DIAMETER OF A SPHERE IS THREE-HALVES THE
SPHERE.!
Prop. XXVII
1 See Corn., Prop. XXVII, lines 2-5.
Prop. XXVIII
1 See again Corn., Prop. XXVII, lines 2-5.
Although this proposition has been demonstrated as a corollary to
[Proposition] XXVI above, still I would like to demonstrate it in another
way here.
Let A be a sphere and Z a cylinder [see Fig. III.5C.28], and let the
axis of cylinder Z and its diameter be equal to diameter CB of sphere A .
I say that cylinder Z is 3/2 sphere A.
For let M be a cone whose base is equal to the surface of sphere A
and whose altitude is equal to the radius AB ofthe sphere. By [Proposition]
XXV above cone M will be equal to sphere A. Also let E be a cone
whose base is equal to the whole surface of cylinder Z and whose altitude
is equal to the radius of the base of the cylinder. By the preceding
[proposition] cone E will be equal to cylinder Z (since the radius of sphere
A and the radius of the base of the cylinder-which are the altitudes of
cones M, E-are equal by hypothesis) and the whole surface of cylinder
Z (which surface is the base of coneE), is, by the corollary of [Proposition]
XI, % the surface of sphere A (which surface is the base of cone M),
and by XII.II [of Euclid] cones of the same altitude are mutually as
their bases. Now cone E will be 312 cone M; but cone M was equal
to sphere A and cone E to cylinder Z. Therefore cylinder Z is also %
sphere A. Q.E.D.
Corollary.
Hence it is again obvious that a sphere is double the cone whose axis
and base diameter each are equal to the diameter of the sphere. For,
since by the preceding [proposition] a cylinder of this sort is 3/2 the
sphere, while by XII.9 [of Euclid]2 it is triple the cone, the sphere will
be double the cone.
And so the sphere is related to the cylinder and the remaining solids
of rotation in such manner. Now we shall pass on to the volumes of
segments.
3
Proposition XXIX.
IF ANY ARC OF A CIRCLE IS CUT INTO EQUAL SEGMENTS
AND CHORDS ARE SUBTENDED TO THESE ARCS, AND IF THE
EXTREMES OF THE ARC ARE CONNECTED TO THE CENTER
OF THE CIRCLE, ANDIF THE RECTILINEAR FIGURE INCLUDED
BY THE CHORDS AND RADII IS ROTATED COMPLETELY
ABOUT ONE OF THE RADII AS IT REMAINS STATIONARY,
THE SOLID DESCRIBED IS EQUAL TO THE CONE WHOSE
BASE IS EQUAL TO THE CONICAL SURFACES DESCRIBED
BY THE CHORDS AND WHOSE ALTITUDE IS EQUAL TO THE
3 See Corn., Prop. XXVIII, lines 28-29.
PERPENDICULAR DRAWN FROM THE CENTER OF THE CIRCLE
TO ANY OF THE CHORDS.1
In circle AD with center H let arc AD be cut into any number
of equal segments [see Fig. III.5C.29], e.g., into the two segments AG
and GD. Let chords AG and GD subtend those segments. And with
radii AH and DH drawn, let the rectilinear figure AD be rotated about
radius AH as it remains stationary, so that the solid AD is described.
And let K be a cone whose base is equal to the conical surfaces described
by chordsAG and GD and whose altitude is equal toHT, the perpendicular
drawn to side AG.
I say that cone K is equal to solid AD.
For let GH be joined and let two cones be constructed each with alti-
tude HT, namely cone L having a base equal to the conical surface
described by line AG and cone N having a base equal to the conical
surface described by line GD. Whence the bases of cones LandN together
will be equal to the base of cone K, which base was equal to the said
conical surfaces. Therefore by [Proposition] XXI of this [work] cones
Land N together will be equal to cone K. But by [Proposition] XXIII the
solid described by ~ H is equal to cone L and that described by ~ GHD
is equal to cone N. Therefore the solid AD described by the whole
rectilinear figure AD is equal to the sum of cones Land N. But this sum
was equal to coneK. Therefore solidAD will be equal to coneK. Q.E.D.
We shall demonstrate the same thing however many equal chords
there are [but with these provisos noted] that we must construct as many
cones as there are triangles, with each cone equal to each solid described
by the triangles. Further, we must continually apply [Propositions] XXI
and XXIII of this [work]. And [note that] the demonstration of
[Proposition] XXIV of this [work] is similar.
Proposition XXX.
IF A CONICAL SURFACE HAVING ITS APEX IN THE CENTER
OF THE SPHERE SEPARATES THE SPHERE INTO TWO SECTORS,
EACH OF THE SECTORS IS EQUAL TO THE CONE WHOSE BASE
IS EQUAL TO THE SPHERICAL BASE OF ITS SECTOR AND
WHOSE ALTITUDE IS EQUAL TO THE RADIUS OF THE SPHERE. 1
From circle ABGD with center E and diameter AG let arc AB be taken
[see Fig. III.5C.30]. Let radius EB be drawn. And a sphere will be
described by the rotation of semicircle ABG around its fixed diameter.
And in that same rotation the sector ABE of the circle will describe the
solid sector ABED of the sphere. Let M be posited as a cone whose
Prop. XXIX
1 See Corn., Prop. XXIX, lines 2-11.
Prop. XXX
1 See Corn., Prop. XXX, lines 2-6.
base is equal to the base of the spherical sector ABD, i.e. [the surface]
which arc AB describes, and whose altitude is equal to radius AE.
I say that cone M is equal to spherical sector ABD.
For otherwise it will be equal to some sector that is more or less [than
ABD]. Hence first let cone M be equal to spherical sector ZHT less than
sector ABD but concentric with it, sector ZHT being described by arc
ZH which lies between lines AE and EB. And let arc AB be continuously
bisected until by XII .13 [of Euclid]2 the chords of the arcs do not touch
arc ZHT, and let one of the chords be AK. Let EL be perpendicular to
AK. Let solid ABD be described by the rotation of the rectilinear figure
AKBE around axis AE. By the preceding [proposition] this solid will
be equal to the cone whose base is equal to the conical surfaces described
by chords AK and KB and whose altitude is equal to perpendicular EL.
And so cone M is greater than this cone since it is greater in both
base and altitude. But cone M was equal to the spherical sector ZT;
therefore the spherical sector ZT is greater than solid ABD, i.e. the part
than the whole, which is impossible.
Or [prove it] thus. Cone M is greater than solid ABD, inasmuch as
it is greater than the cone to which the solid is equal; therefore it is
greater than spherical sector ZT and hence it is not equal to it as was
supposed.
Then let cone M be equal to a spherical sector greater than sector
ABD. But for the sake of brevity let the assumed sector be spherical
sector ZHTE and let cone M have a base equal to the spherical base of
sector ZT, i.e. to [the surface] which arc ZH describes, and an altitude
equal to radius EH.
I say that cone M will not be equal to some spherical sector greater
than sector ZT.
For, if it is possible, let it be equal to sector BD concentric with sector
ZT but greater than it, [sector BD being that] which circular sector ABE
describes. And as before let there be described in arc AB chords that
do not touch circle ZH; and let solid BD be formed by the rotation of the
rectilinear figure ABE. By the preceding [proposition] this solid will be
equal to the cone whose base is equal to the conical surfaces described
by chords AK and KB and whose altitude is equal to perpendicular EL.
Therefore this cone will be greater than cone M, which it exceeds in both
base and altitude. But by hypothesis cone M was equal to sector BD.
Therefore solid BD is also greater than sector BD, i.e. the part than the
whole, which is impossible. Therefore, cone M is not equal to some
spherical sector greater than sector ZT. Similarly, if cone M is supposed
as having a base equal to the spherical base of sector BD and an altitude
equal to radius AE, cone M will not be equal to some sector greater
than sector BD. But neither [is it equal to a sector] less [than BD], as
2 See Corn., Prop. XXV, line 15.
was demonstrated. Therefore it remains that cone M is completely equal
to spherical sector ABED. Q.E.D.
And since sphere ABG was cut into the two sectors which the conical
surface described by line EB delimits, we shall be able to demonstrate
the same thing for spherical sector BGD described by circular sector EBG.
Hence let N be a cone whose base is equal to the spherical base of
sector BGD, i.e. [the surface] which arc BG describes [and whose alti-
tude is equal to radius AE]. And we shall demonstrate in the same way
[as before] that cone N will be equal to spherical sector BGD.
Or [prove it] thus. Let there be a cone X having a base equal to the
whole surface of sphere ABG and an altitude equal to radius AE. By
[Proposition] XXV cone X will be equal to sphere ABG; and the base
of cone X is equal to the bases of cones M and N taken together. Accord-
ingly, by [Proposition] XXI cone X is equal to the sum of cones M and N.
Therefore cones M and N taken together will be equal to sphere ABG.
And so let the spherical sector ABD be subtracted from sphere ABG
and cone M from the sum of cones M and N, Le., equals from equals.
Therefore spherical sector BGD and cone N will remain as equals. Q.E.D.
Corollary.
It is evident, therefore, that a spherical sector is equal to the cone
whose base radius is equal to the line which proceeds from the apex
of the spherical segment to the circumference of its base and whose alti-
tude is equal to the radius of the sphere. For, by the corollary of
[Proposition] XVI the circle whose radius is the line which proceeds from
the apex of the spherical segment to the circumference of the base is equal
to the spherical base of the sector. Therefore, the cone whose base is equal to
the circle with a radius equal to the line which proceeds from the apex
of the spherical segment to the circumference of its base and whose alti-
tude is equal to the radius of the sphere will immediately be equal to the
cone whose base is equal to the base of the spherical sector and whose
altitude is equal to the radius of the sphere. But this latter cone was
equal to the spherical sector. Therefore the former cone, whose base is the
circle having as a radius the line which proceeds from the apex of the
spherical segment to the circumference of its base and whose altitude is
equal to the radius of the sphere, will also be equal to the spherical
sector, just as the corollary adduces.
Proposition XXXI.
IF A CIRCLE CUTS A SPHERE, EACH OF THE SPHERICAL
SEGMENTS IS EQUAL TO THE CONE WHOSE BASE IS THE
CUTTING CIRCLE AND WHOSE ALTITUDE IS THE STRAIGHT
LINE WHICH IS RELATED TO THE AXIS OF THE SEGMENT
AS THE SUM OF THE RADIUS OF THE SPHERE AND THE
AXIS OF THE OTHER SEGMENT IS RELATED TO THE SAME
AXIS.1
Let ABGD be a sphere which circle ABG describes in a complete
rotation about fixed axis AG [see Fig. III.Se.31]. Let the sphere be cut by
a circle [i.e., planeJ perpendicular to diameter AG and whose diameter
is BD, which cuts AG at P. Let the segments be ABD and BGD
with axes respectively AP and PG, and let (EA +PG) / PG = RP / AP.
I say that the cone whose base radius is BP and whose altitude
is RP is equal to the spherical segment ABD.
Also let (EG +PA) / PA = SP / GP.
I further say that the cone whose base radius is BP and whose
altitude is SP is equal to the spherical segment BGD.
The first [statementJ I demonstrate as follows. Since (EA +PG) / PG
=RP / AP, by disjunct proportionality EA / PG = RA / AP, and inversely
PG / EA = AP / RA; and by alternationPG / AP = EA / RA; then inversely
AP / PG = RA / AE. And by conjunct proportionality AG / GP = RE / EA.
But AG / GP = (AG / GB)2, by VI.8 [of Euclid J. NowAG / GB = AB / BP,
because of the similarity of triangles AGB and ABP. Therefore, AG / GP
= (AB / BP)2. But AG / GP = RE / EA. Therefore, RE / EA = (AB / BP)2.
But circle of radius AB / circle of radius BP = (AB / BP)2 (inas-
much as the circles are mutually as the squares of their diameters, by
XII.2 [of EuclidJ). And soRE / EA = circle of radius AB / circle of radius
BP. Accordingly, the two cones of which one has a base radius AB and
an altitude EA and the other a base radius BP and an altitude RE are
equal to each other by XII. 12 [of Euclid J2 since their altitudes are inversely
proportional to their bases. But QY [PropositionJ XXII of this [workJ the
cone whose base radius is BP and whose altitude is RE is equal to
two cones each of whose base radii is BP and whose altitudes are
respectively RP and PE. And by the corollary of the preceding
[propositionJ the cone whose base radius is AB and whose altitude is AE
is equal to the spherical sector ABED. Therefore the two cones each of
whose base radii is BP and whose altitudes are respectively RP and PE
when taken together are equal to the spherical sector ABED, which is
itself the aggregate ofthe spherical segmentABD and the cone whose base
radius is BP and whose altitude is PE. Therefore, if the common cone,
whose base radius is BP and whose altitude is PE, is subtracted, the
cone whose base radius is BP and whose altitude is RP will remain
equal to the spherical segment ABD, which was the first thing to be
demonstrated. I [nowJ prove the rest.
Since (EG + PA) / PA = SP / GP, by disjunct proportionality EG / PA
= SG / PG, and inversely PA / EG = GP / SG. By alternation AP / PG
= EG / GS, and inversely GP / PA = SG / GE. By conjunct proportionality
Prop. XXXI
1 See Corn., Prop. XXXI, lines 2-7.
GA / AP = SE / EG. But by VI.8 [of Euclid] GA / AP = (GA I AB)2; and
GA / AB = GB / BP because of the similarity of triangles GAB and GBP.
Therefore, GA / AP = (GB / BP)2. Now GA / AP = SE I EG; therefore,
SE / EG = (GB / BP)2. But circle of radius GB / circle of radius BP = (GB /
BP)2, by XII.2 [of Euclid]. And so SE / EG = circle of radius GB / circle
of radius BP. Accordingly, the two cones of which one has base radius
GB and altitude EG and the other base radius BP and altitude SE are
equal to each other by XII. 12 [of Euclid]3 (inasmuch as the altitudes are
inversely proportional to the bases). By the corollary to the preceding
[proposition] the cone whose base radius is BG and whose altitude is EG
is equal to the spherical sector BGDE. Therefore the spherical sector
BGDE is equal to the cone whose base radius is BP and whose altitude is
SE. If the cone whose base radius is BP and whose altitude is PE is added
to both [the aforesaid magnitudes], [then] the spherical segment BGD
(i.e. the aggregate of sector BGDE and the said cone) is equal to the sum
of the cones each of whose base radii is BP and whose altitudes are
respectively PE and ES. But by [proposition] XXII such cones taken
together are equal to the cone whose base radius is BP and whose altitude
is PS. Therefore the cone whose base radius is BP and whose altitude is
PS is also equal to the spherical segment BGD, which is the rest that had to
be demonstrated. And so the whole proposition is true.
Corollary.
Thence it is evident that a spherical segment is to a cone of the same
base and same apex as the line consisting of the radius of the sphere and
the axis of the other segment is to that same axis. For, and I shall proceed
succinctly, cone BRD I cone BAD = altitude RP / altitude PA (since the
cones are on the same base). But the spherical segment BAD was equal
to cone BRD, and RP / PA = (EG + GP) / GP. Therefore, a spherical
segment BAD / coneBAD = (EG + GP) / GP. Q.E.D. I shall demonstrate
in a nowise different way that spherical segmentBGD / cone BGD = (EA
+ AP) / AP, as the corollary adduces.
Proposition XXXII.
IF A CIRCLE CUTS A SPHERE, EACH OF THE SPHERICAL SEG-
MENTS IS EQUAL TO THE CONE WHOSE BASE RADIUS IS
EQUALTO THE AXIS OF THE SEGMENTAND WHOSE ALTITUDE
IS EQUAL TO THE SUM OF THE RADIUS OF THE SPHERE AND
THE AXIS OF THE OTHER SEGMENT.l
Repeating the preceding description [i.e. of Fig. III.5C.31], I say that
spherical segment ABD is equal to the cone whose base radius is equal
3 Ibid.
Prop. XXXII
1 See Corn. Prop. XXXII, lines 2-6.
to axis AP and whose altitude is equal to the sum of the radius EG and the
axis GP of the other segment. I also say that spherical segment BGD is
equal to the cone whose base radius is equal to axis GP and whose altitude
is equal to the sum of radius AE and the axis AP of the other segment.
I shall prove the first [statement] as follows. Since GP / PA = (BP / PA)2
by VI.8 [Euclid], and by XII.2 fof Euclid] circle of radius BP / circle of
radius PA = (BP / PA)2, therefore GP / PA = circle of radius BP / circle of
radius PA. But it was assumed before that GP / PA = EA / AR or EG / AR.
And by conjunct proportionality (EG + GP) / PR = PG / PA, by V.B
[of Euclid]. Therefore circle of radius BP / circle of radius PA = (EG
+ GP) / PR. Accordingly, the two cones of which one has a base radius AP
and an altitude (EG + GP) and the other a base radius ofBP and an altitude
PR are equal by XII.12 [of Euclid]2 since their altitudes are inversely
proportional to their bases. But by the preceding [proposition] the cone
whose base radius is BP and whose altitude is PR was equal to spherical
segmentABD. Therefore spherical segmentABD is also equal to the cone
whose base radius is AP and whose altitude is (EG + GP), which is one
of the things to be demonstrated. [Now] take up the other.
SinceAP / PG = (BP / PG)2 by VI. 8 [of Euclid], and by XII.2 [of Euclid]3
circle of radius BP / circle of radius PG = (BP / PG)2, therefore AP / PG
= circle of radius BP / circle of radius PG. But it was premised before that
AP I PG = EG I GS or EA / GS. Therefore, by V.B [of Euclid], (EA
+ AP) I PS = AP / PG. Therefore (EA + AP) I PS = circle of radius
BP I circle of radius PG. Accordingly, the two cones of which one has a
base radius PG and an altitude (AE + AP) and the other a base radius
of BP and an altitude PS are equal to one another by XII. 12 [of Euclid],4
inasmuch as their altitudes are inversely proportional to their bases.
But from the preceding [proposition] the cone whose base radius is BP
and whose altitude is PS is equal to the spherical segment BGD. There-
fore the spherical segment BGD is [also] equal to the cone whose base
radius is PG and whose altitude is (AE + AP), which is what remained to
be demonstrated.
In another way
TO CUT A PROPOSED SPHERE IN A GIVEN RATIO.l
Let the diameter of the proposed sphere be AB and the given ratio
CD I DE [see Fig. III.5C.32]. It is necessary to cut the sphereAB so that one
segment is to the [other] segment as CD is to DE.
Let AF be posited as half ofAB, and CE I ED = FA / AG. Between FA
2 See Prop. XXIII, line 37.
3 Ibid.
4 Ibid.
Prop. XXXII-Aliter
1 See Corn., Prop. XXXII-Aliter, lines 2-41.
and AG insert a mean proportional AH, so that FA, AH and AG are con-
tinual proportionals; and about axis FE describe parabola FHLK. Also
though point G let hyperbola GL be constructed with FB and XB as
asymptotes; let it intersect the parabola at point L, and let the rectangle
LMBX be completed and also the rectangle AGNB. By 11.12 of the
Conical Elements [of Apollonius]2 the rectangles LB and BG will be equal.
Therefore, by VL15 [of Euclid]3 AB / BM = LM / GA. And so, since
LM
2
/GA 2 = AB
2
1BM
2
= (LM
2
1HA 2). (HA 21 AG2), and since FM / AG
= (MF 1 FA)' (FA / AG), and since by 1.20 of the Conical Elements
4
LM
2
1HA 2 = MF 1FA, and by VI. 17 of Euclid HA 21 AG2 = FA 1AG,
therefore by equality of proportion LM21 AG2 = AB
2
1BM2 = MF / AG.
And by XII.2 of Euclid circle of radius AB 1circle of radius BM = MF / AG.
And so by XII.l2
5
the cone whose axis is AG and whose base radius is AB
will be equal to the cone whose axis is FM and whose base radius is BM, in-
asmuch as their altitudes are inversely proportional to their bases. But
by XII. I! of Euclid the cone with axis FA and base radius AB is to the
cone with axis GA and base radius AB as FA to AG. Therefore the cone
with axis FA and base radius AB is to the cone with axis FM and base
radius MB as FA is to AG, Le. as CE is to ED. But by the preceding
[Proposition] XXXII, the cone with axis FM and base radius BM is equal
to the spherical segment whose axis is BM. Also by the corollary to
[proposition] XXV of this [work] the cone whose axis is FA and whose
base radius is AB is equal to the sphere with diameter AB. Therefore
sphere AB / spher. segm. with axis BM = CE 1ED; and by disjunct propor-
tionality spher. segm. with axis AM 1spher. segm. with axis BM = CD 1
DE. Therefore the sphere with diameter AB may be cut at point M in this
diameter into two segments whose ratio is CE 1ED, which was to be done.
This proposition has been taken from Dionysodorus, a mathematician of
very ancient times, as Eutocius of Ascalon passed it on in his commentaries
on Archimedes.
Proposition XXXIII.
A PYRAMID AND A CONE WITH EQUAL ALTITUDES ARE TO
EACH OTHER AS THEIR BASES.!
Let there be a pyramid AC on rectilinear base A [see Fig. IIL5C.33]
and cone BGF on circle BG and both of the same altitude.
I say that pyramid AC is to cone BGF as rectilinear figure A is to circle
BG.
For, if it is possible, let pyramid AC be to cone BGF as rectilinear
figureA is to a circle greater or less than circleBG. And in the first place, to
2 See Corn., to Text A, Prop. XXXI, line 16.
3 See Corn., to Text C, Prop. XIV, lines 33-34.
4 See Corn., Prop. XXXII-Aliter, lines 17-18.
(; See Corn., Prop. XXIII, line 37.
Prop. XXXIII
t See Corn., Prop. XXXIII, lines 2-3.
a circle less than but concentric withBG and let [that circle] be DE. Then
by XII. 13 [of Euclid]2 let there be inscribed in BG a rectilinear polygon
with sides that do not at all touch circle DE. And on rectilinear polygon
BG let there be understood to be a pyramid of the same altitude as cone BGF
and with the same apex. And by XII.6 [of Euclid] pyramidAC is to pyramid
BGF as rectilinear figure A is to rectilinear polygon BG. But by V.8 [of
Euclid] rect. fig. A / circle DE > rect. fig. A / rect. polyg. BG. Therefore
by V.12 [of Euclid]3 pyramid AC / cone BGF > pyramid AC / pyra-
mid BGF. Therefore, by V.IO [of Euclid], pyramid BGF > cone BGF,
i.e., the part than the whole, which is impossible. Therefore the ratio
of pyramid AC to cone BGF is not as the ratio of rectilinear figure A
to some circle less than BG.
But neither [is it to some circle] greater [thanBG]. For, in the cause of
brevity, let there be a circle and [on it] the proposed coneDEF of the same
altitude as pyramid AC.
I say that pyramidAC will not be to coneDEF as rectilinear figure A is to
any circle greater than circle DE, e.g. to circle BG.
For let circle BG be posited as concentric with DE, and, as before, let
there be inscribed in circle BG a rectilinear polygon with sides that do
not at all touch circle DE; and on rectilinear polygonBG let there be under-
stood to be a pyramid having the same apex as cone DEF. And so,
since pyramid AC / cone DEF = rect. fig. A / circle BG, and by XII.6
[of Euclid] pyramidAC / pyramidBGF = rect. fig. A / recto polyg. BG, and
by V.8 [of Euclid] rect. fig. A / rect. polyg. BG > rect. fig. A / circle BG,
hence by V.12 [of Euclid]4 pyramid AC / pyramid BGF > pyramid AC /
cone DEF. Therefore by V.lO [of Euclid] cone DEF > pyramid BGF,
Le., the part than the whole, which is impossible. Similarly, the
ratio of pyramid AC to cone BGF is not equal to the ratio of rectilinear
figure A to any circle greater than circle BG. But neither [was it to any]
lesser [circle], as was proved. It remains therefore that pyramidAC / cone
BGF = rect. fig. A / circle BG. Q.E.D.
Corollary I.
It is evident, therefore, that a prism and a cylinder with equal altitudes
are to each other as their bases. For by XII.8 [of Euclid]5 a prism is
triple its pyramid just as by XII.9
6
a cylinder is triple its cone.
Corollary 11.
And so a pyramid and a cone whose bases and altitudes are equal will
be equal to each other. The same thing is to be declared for a prism and
a cylinder.
2 See Corn., Prop. XXV, line IS.
3 See Corn" Prop. XXXIII, line 16.
4 Ibid.
5 Ibid., line 42.
Proposition XXXIV.
A PYRAMID AND A CONE ERECTED ON EQUAL BASES ARE TO
EACH OTHER AS THEIR ALTITUDES.
Let pyramid AB and cone GD stand on equal bases Band D, B being a
rectilinear figure and D a circle [see Fig. III.5C.34]; and let the altitudes
of the pyramid and cone respectively be AB and GD.
I say that pyramid AB is to cone GD as altitude AB is to altitude DG.
For if such altitudes are equal, the proposition is obvious by the first
corollary to the preceding [proposition]. If unequal, then let there be con-
structed on circle D a cone of the same altitude as pyramid AB, namely
cone ED, and by the second corollary to the preceding [Proposition]
pyramidAB is equal to coneED. But by XII.11 [of EuclidF coneED / cone
GD = altitude ED / altitude GD. Therefore, pyramidAB is to cone GD as
altitude ED (and hence as altitude AB, for they are equal) is to altitude
GD. Q.E.D.
Corollary.
It is evident, therefore, that a prism and a cylinder on equal bases are
to each other as their altitudes, for the prism is triple its pyramid and the
cylinder its cone.
Proposition XXXV.
THE RATIO OF A PYRAMID TO A CONE IS COMPOSED OF THE
RATIOS OF THE BASES AND THE ALTITUDES.
Let AB be a pyramid with base B and altitude AB; also let GD be a cone
with base Dand altitude GD [see Fig. III.5C.35].
I say that pyramid AB / cone GD = (base B / base D)' (altitude AB / alti-
tude GD). .
For let cone EZ be placed on circle Z equal to circle D, or a pyramid EZ
on baseZ equal to baseD, and let the altitude ofEZ be equal to the altitude
of AB. By [Proposition] XXXIII above, pyramid AB is to cone EZ (or by
XII.8
I
to pyramidEZ) as baseB is to baseZ. And also by XII. 11
2
ifEZ is a
cone (or by the previous [proposition] if it is a pyramid), cone EZ (or
pyramidEZ) is to cone GD as altitude EZ is to altitude GD. But the ratio of
pyramid AB to cone GD is composed of the ratio of pyramid AB to cone
(or pyramid) EZ and of the ratio of cone (or pyramid) EZ to cone GD.
Therefore the same ratio of pyramid AB to cone GD is composed of the
ratio of base B to base Z (or to base D, since they are equal) and of the
ratio of altitude EZ (or altitude AB, since they are equal) to altitude GD.
Q.E.D.
Prop. XXXIV
I See Corn., Prop. XXXIV, line 13.
Prop. XXXV
I See Corn., Prop. XXXV, line 11.
2 See Corn., Prop. XXXIV, line 13.
Corollary I.
It is evident, therefore, that similarly the ratio of a prism to a cylinder
is composed of the ratios of the bases and the altitudes since the prism is
triple its pyramid and the cylinder its cone.
Corollary 11.
Whence it easily follows that a pyramid and a cone whose bases are
inversely proportional to their altitudes are equal to one another. Contrari-
wise, if a pyramid and a cone are equal, their bases will be inversely pro-
portional to their altitudes. The same thing is to be grasped for a prism and
a cylinder.
Proposition XXXVI.
A SPHERE IS EQUAL TO THE PYRAMID WHOSE BASE IS
EQUAL TO THE SURFACE OF THE SPHERE AND WHOSE ALTI-
TUDE IS EQUAL TO THE RADIUS OF THE SPHERE.!
Let A be a sphere [see Fig. I1I.5C.36]. Let P be a pyramid having a
base equal to the surface of the sphere and an altitude equal to the
radius of a sphere A.
I say that pyramid P is equal to sphere A.
For let M be a cone having a base equal to the surface of sphere A and
an altitude equal to the radius of sphere A. And so pyramid P and cone M
have mutually equal bases and altitudes. Therefore by the second corollary
to [Proposition] XXXIII above, pyramid P is equal to cone M. But by
[Proposition] XXV cone M is equal to sphere A. Therefore pyramid P
is also equal to sphere A. Q.E.D.
Corollary I.
Whence it is evident that the prism whose base is equal to the smface of
a sphere and whose altitude is equal to the radius of the sphere is triple
the sphere, since by XII.8 [of Euclid]2 such a prism is triple its pyramid
and the pyramid is equal to the sphere.
Corollary 11.
Therefore a prism whose base is equal to the surface of a sphere but
whose altitude is one-third part of the radius of the sphere is equal to the
sphere.
Corollary Ill.
And since by [Proposition] X of this [work] the surface of a sphere is
equal to the rectangle which arises from the product of the diameter of the
Prop. XXXVI
1 See Corn., Prop. XXXVI. lines 2-4.
2 See Corn., Prop. XXXIII, line 42.
sphere and the circumference of its greatest circle, therefore the sphere is
equal to a solid [rectangular] parallelepiped whose base is the said rectangle
and whose altitude is one-third part of the radius of the sphere.
Corollary IV.
It is evident, therefore, that from the product of the radius of a sphere
and its surface a volume triple that of the sphere is produced, for such a
product is equal to the volume of a prism having a base equal to the surface
of the sphere and an altitude equal to the radius of the sphere.
Corollary V.
Therefore, from the product of one-third part of the radius and the
surface of a sphere the volume of the sphere is produced.
Proposition XXXVII.
A SPHERICAL SECTOR IS EQUAL TO THE PYRAMID WHOSE
BASE IS EQUAL TO THE SPHERICAL BASE OF THE SECTOR AND
WHOSE ALTITUDE IS EQUAL TO THE RADIUS OF THE SPHERE.!
Let A be a spherical sector, and let P be a pyramid having a base
equal to the spherical base of sector A and an altitude equal to the radius
of the sphere of which A is the sector [see Fig. III.5C.37].
I say that pyramid P is equal to sector A.
For let M be a cone whose base is equal to the spherical base of sector A
and whose altitude is equal to the radius of the sphere. By the second
corollary to [proposition] XXXIII of this [work] pyramid P is equal to
cone M. But by [proposition] XXX cone M is equal to sector A. Therefore
pyramid P is also equal to sector A. Q.E.D.
Corollary I.
Whence it is evident that the prism whose base is equal to the spherical
base of a spherical sector and whose altitude is equal to the radius of the
sphere [from which the sector is taken] is triple this sector, since by XII.S
[of Euclid] such a prism is triple its pyramid and the pyramid is equal to the
sector. Therefore the prism whose base is equal to the spherical base of a
spherical sector and whose altitude is one-third part of the radius of the
sphere is equal to the said spherical sector.
And since by the corollary to [Proposition] XVI of this [work] the
spherical base of a spherical sector is equal to a circle whose radius is the
straight line which proceeds from the apex of the spherical segment to the
circumference of its base and since by [Proposition] IV of On the
Measurement of the Circle this circle is equal to the rectangle contained
Prop. XXXVII
1 See again Corn., Prop. XXXVI, lines 2-4.
by its radius and half its circumference, therefore the solid parallelepiped
whose base is the said rectangle and whose altitude is one-third part of
the radius of the sphere is equal to the said spherical sector.
Corollary 11.
It is evident, therefore, that from the product of the radius of a sphere
and the spherical base of a spherical sector [of that sphere] a volume is
produced which is triple the sector, while from the product of one-third
part of the radius and the said base the volume of the sector itself is
produced.
. Proposition XXXVIII.
A SPHERE HAS TO THE CUBE OF ITS DIAMETER ALMOST THE
RATIO THAT ELEVEN HAS TO TWENTY-ONE.l
LetA be a sphere andR the cube whose edge is equal to the diameter of
sphere A [see Fig. III.5C.38].
I say that sphere A is to cube R almost as 11 is to 21, and I prove it
as follows.
Let S be a cylinder whose base diameter is equal to the diameter of
sphere A and whose altitude is equal to the same diameter. And so the alti-
tude of prism R and cylinder S is the same. Therefore by the [first] corol-
lary to [Proposition] XXXIII of this [work] prismR / cylinder S = base of
prism R / base of cylinder S. But the base of prism R is the square of the
diameter of the base of cylinder S. And by [Proposition] VIII of On the
Measurement of the Circle the square of the diameter of a circle is to the
circle almost as 14 to 11. Therefore prismR is to cylinder S almost as 14
to 11. But by the corollary to [Proposition] XXVI of this [work] or by
[Proposition] XXVIII cylinder S = 3f2 sphere A; therefore [they are
related] as 21 to 14. Hence by V.23 [of Euclid] and equal proportionality
cube R / sphere A = 21 / 11. Q.E.D.
Corollary I.
It is evident, therefore, that 21 spheres are equal to 11 cubes of the
diameter of a sphere. For by the [proposition] above a sphere is to the cube
of its diameter as 11 is to 21. Therefore by V.13 [of Euclid] 11 spheres / 11
cubes = 11/21. Inversely, 11 cubes / 11 spheres = 21/ 11. But 21 spheres / 11
spheres = 21/11. Therefore 21 spheres have the same ratio to 11 spheres
as 11 cubes have to these same 11 spheres. Hence by V.9 [of Euclid]
21 spheres are equal to 11 cubes of the diameter of a sphere.
Prop. XXXVIII
1 See Corn., Prop. XXXVIII, lines 2-3.
Corollary 11.
Whence it is evident that, if a cube of the diameter of any sphere is
multiplied 11 times, 1f21 of the product will be the volume of the sphere.
Contrariwise, if a sphere is multiplied 21 times, 1fu of the product will be
the cube of the diameter of the sphere. But these considerations assume
that the ratio of the circumference to the diameter is 3
1
h. But if the ratio of
the circumference to the diameter is assumed to be 3
1
/71, then by [Propo-
sition] VIII of On the Measurement o/the Circle the square of the diameter
of a circle is to that circle as 284 is to 223, and by [proposition] XXVIII
of this [work] a cylinder is to its sphere as 426 is to 284, i.e. as 3 is to 2.
Therefore by V.23 [of Euclid] and equal proportionality cube R / sphere
A = 426/223. Therefore 426 spheres will be equal to 223 cubes of the
diameter of the sphere, which follows from the said argument. Whence if
the cube of the diameter of a sphere is multiplied 223 times, 1/426 of the
product will be the volume of the sphere. Contrariwise, if the sphere is
multiplied 426 times, 1/223 of the product will be the cube of the diameter of
the sphere. But the first supposition which makes the [ratio of] circum-
ference to diameter to be 3lf7 is actually a little too great, while the other
supposition which makes the [ratio of] circumference to diameter to be
3
1
/71 is in truth too little. For it was not permitted in this matter to attain
geometrical exactness, not even to Archimedes himself, though he was the
most acute of all geometers.
The End
At Messina, 10 September of the eighth indiction, 1534.
Commentary to Text C
Proposition I
5-12 Although this proposition is not given as a separate proposition
in the Liber de curvis superficiebus, the substance of its enun-
ciation and proof is found there in Proposition I (Vol. 1, pp.
454-56, lines 48-57). In Tinemue's work the regular polygon
was an octagon; in Maurolico's a pentagon, thus reflecting the
procedure of Maurolico' s De circuli dimensione, Proposition III
(see Text B above).
Proposition II
2-5 "Coni ... basis." This was drawn by Maurolico from Proposi-
tion I of the Liber de curvis superficiebus (Vol. 1, p. 450, lines
1-5). Maurolico has altered the terminology. For rotunda
pyramis he used conus, for ypothenusa the more modern
conicum latus. But in this proposition he retained curva super-
ficies, though he occasionally changed it in other places. Mauro-
lico's proofof this proposition is a free adaptation of the medieval
proof and is adequately described by the summary I have given
l.
in Volume 1, pp. 507-08. It is the first of the proofs in which
Maurolico used the so-called "easier way," which I have dis-
cussed in Section III of this chapter. A.-M. Legendre offers a
similar proof using the "easier way" in his Elements ofGeometry
and Trigometry, tr. of E. D. Brewster (Edinburgh, 1824), Bk.
VIII, Prop. VII, pp. 202-03:
Proposition VII. Theorem.
The convex surface of a cone is equal to the circumference of its
base multiplied by half its side. [See Fig. III.5C.39.]
Let AD be a radius of the given cone's base, S its vertex, and SA its
side: the surface will be circ. AD hSA. For, if possible, let circ.
AD'SO be the surface of a cone having S for its vertex, and for its
base a circle whose radius OB is greater than AO.
About the smaller circle describe a regular polygon MNPT, the sides
of which shall not meet the circle whose radius is OB; and let SMNPT
be the regular pyramid, having this polygon for its base and the point
S for its vertex. The triangle SMN, one of those which compose the
convex surface of the pyramid, has for measure its base MN multiplied
by half its altitude SA, or half the side of the given cone; and since
this altitude is the same in all the other triangles SNP, SPQ, etc., the
convex surface of the pyramid must be equal to the perimeter
MNPTM multiplied by hSA. But the contour MNPTM is greater than
circ. AO; hence the convex surface of the pyramid is greater than
circ. AD hSA, and consequently greater than the convex surface of the
cone having the same vertex S and the circle whose radius is OB for
its base. On the contrary, however, the surface of this cone is greater
than that of the pyramid; because, if two such pyramids are adjusted
to each other base to base, and two such cones base to base, the
surface of the double cone will envelope on all sides that of the double
pyramid, and therefore (Lemma 2.) be greater than it; hence the surface
of the cone is greater than that of the pyramid. The reverse of this
resulted from our hypothesis; hence that hypothesis was false; hence,
in the first place, the circumference of the cone's base multiplied
by half the side cannot measure the surface of a greater cone.
We are next to shew that it cannot measure the surface of a smaller
cone. Let BO be the radius of the given cone's base; and, if possible,
let cire. BO' hSB be the surface of a cone having S for its vertex, and
AO less than OB for the radius of its base.
The same construction being made as above, the surface of the
pyramid SMNPT will still be equal to the perimeter MNPThSA. Now
this perimeter MNPT is less than eire. OB; likewise SA is less than
SB: hence, for a double reason, the convex surface of the pyramid is
less than circ. OB hSB, which, by hypothesis, is the surface of the
cone having SA for the radius of its base; hence the surface of the
pyramid must be less than that of the inscribed cone. On the contrary,
however, it is greater; for, adjusting two such pyramids to each other
base to base, and two such cones base to base, the surface of the double
pyramid will envelope that of the double cone, and (Lemma 2.) will be
greater than it. Hence, in the second place, the circumference of the
given cone's base multiplied by half the side cannot be the measure of
the surface of a smaller cone.
Hence finally, the convex surface of a cone is equal to the circum-
ference of its base multiplied by half its side.
19 "per Barn 12
i
" Campanus XH.13 = Greek and Zamberti XH.16.
66-69 "Manifestum ... trigoni." The thrust of this corollary is ob-
vious. If by the proposition the lateral surface is equal to the
right triangle with sides about the right angle equal respectively
to the slant height and the circumference of the base, then by
Proposition I.41 of the Elements it is equal to the product of one
ofthe sides and half the other. In general, throughout the treatise,
Maurolico introduced corollaries that convert the rectangular fig-
ures to which the curved figures are equal to products, that is to alge-
braic forms with which the early modern mathematicians began
to be more comfortable.
71-73 "Rursum ... primae (! sextae)." This is easily proved when
we realize that the reference to the 4' third corollary of the first"
is an error for the "third corollary of the sixth" proposition. It
might seem strange for the author to have cited a later proposition
until it is realized that the proof of Proposition VI is independent
of the first five propositions. The cited corollary holds that if
there are two unequal circles, then r' c' = r' .c when rand r' are
their radii, c and c' their circumferences. Now this equation is
applicable to the corollary here if we consider the first circle to
be the base circle of the cone with radius r and circumference
c and the second circle to be one with radius r' equal to the
slant height of the cone and circumference c'. Thus by the third
corollary of the sixth proposition r .c'/2 = r' el2. But the surface
of the cone S = r' 'c/2 by Corollary I of this Proposition H.
Hence S = rc'/2. Q.E.D.
75-77 "Demum ... primae (! sextae)." This is equivalent to
Proposition 1.14 of Archimedes' On the Sphere and the Cylinder
(see Vol. 2, 25vV). As I have noted in Section HI of this chapter,
it could have been seen by Maurolico in Johannes de Muris'
De arte mensurandi, Chap. X, if Maurolico had not yet seen
Archimedes' work in 1534. Maurolico's proof (completely dif-
ferent from Archimedes') is obvious once we realize that the
citation "ex postremo corollario primae" is actually to the last
(i.e. fourth) corollary ofthe "sixth" proposition. This is the same
error which I have described in the preceding comment. The
cited corollary holds that if we have three circles (with radii
r, r' and r") whose diameters (and hence radii) are in continual
proportion, then r'c"/2 = r"c'/2 = Area of 2nd circle. In the
corollary to Proposition 11 here being proved, the first circle is
that which has a radius r equal to the slant height, the second
circle is that which has a radius r' equal to the mean propor-
tional between rand r" and the third circle is that whose radius
r" is equal to the radius of the base circle of the cone. Now by
Corollary I to Proposition 11, the surface of the cone S = r'c"/2,
and by Corollary IV of Proposition VI r' c"/2 = r' c '/2 = Area
of 2nd circle. Hence S = Area of 2nd circle. Q.E.D. This
corollary is the first of several added by Maurolico to convert
the rectangular measures of curved surfaces to circular meas-
ures. It provides authority for the assumption of a cone with base
circle equal to the surface of another cone needed in later
propositions (e.g. see Proposition XXIII).
Proposition III
2-3 "Conica ... basis." This proposition is identical with the
corollary to Proposition I of the Liber de curvis superficiebus
(Vol. 1, pp. 458-60, lines 105-17), and with Proposition
1.15 of Archimedes' On the Sphere and the Cylinder (see Vo!. 2,
26rK). That Maurolico took it from the former rather than the
latter seems to be assured by the fact that, like the author of the
former, Maurolico used Proposition IV of De dimensione
circuli (=Proposition I of On the Measurement of the Circle)
while Archimedes used Proposition XII.2 of Euclid.
Proposition IV
2-5 "Cylindri ... aequale." Maurolico has taken this enunciation
from Proposition II of the Liber de curvis superficiebus (Vol. 1,
p. 460, lines 1-4), changing columpna rotunda to cylindrus,
tetragonum to rectangulum and circumferentia to peripheria.
In his proof Maurolico follows the instructions of the author of
the Liber de curvis superficiebus by constructing a proof similar
to that given in Proposition 11 (i.e. Proposition I of the medieval
work). He thus employs the"easier way." See also Legendre' s
use of the "easier way" in his Elements of Geometry, Bk.
VIII, Prop. IV (ed. cit., pp. 198-99):
PROPOSITION IV. THEOREM.
The convex surface of a cylinder is equal to the circumference of
its base multiplied by its altitude.
Let CA be the radius of the given cylinder's base, H its altitude; the
circumference whose radius is CA, being represented by cire. CA, we
are to shew that circ. CAH will be the convex surface of the cylinder.
[See Fig. III.5C.40.] For, if this proposition is not true, then cire.
CAH must be the surface of a greater cylinder, or of a less one.
Suppose it first to be the surface of a less cylinder; of the cylinder, for
example, the radius of whose base is CD, and whose altitude is H.
About the eircle whose radius is CD, circumscribe a regular
polygon GHIP, the sides of which shall not meet the circle whose
radius is CA; conceive a right prism having H for its altitude, and
the polygon GHIP for its base. The convex surface of this prism will
be equal (2. VIII.) to the contour of the polygon GHIP multiplied by
the altitude H: this contour is less than the circumference whose
radius is CA; hence the convex surface of the prism is less than eirc.
CA H. But, by hypothesis, eirc. CAH is the convex surface of the
cylinder whose base has CD for its radius; which cylinder is in-
scribed in the prism: hence the convex surface of the prism must be
less than that of the inscribed cylinder. On the other hand (3.VIII.)
it is greater; hence our hypothesis was false: hence, in the first place,
the circumference of a cylinder's base multiplied by its altitude cannot
be the measure of a smaller cylinder.
We are next to shew that this product cannot be the measure of a
greater cylinder. For, retaining the present figure, let CD be the radius
of the given cylinder's base; and, if possible, let circ. CD H be the
convex surface of a cylinder, which with the same altitude has for its
base a greater circle, the circle, for instance, whose radius is CA.
The same construction being performed as above, the convex surface
of the prism will again be equal to the contour of the polygon GHIP
multiplied by the altitude H. But this contour is greater than eirc.
CD; hence the surface of the prism must be greater than circ. CD H,
which, by hypothesis, is the surface of [the] cylinder having the same
altitude, and CA for the radius of its base. Hence the surface of the
prism must be greater than that of the prism (! cylinder). But even
though this prism were inscribed in the cylinder, its surface (3.VIII.)
would be less than the cylinder's; still farther is it less when the prism
does not reach so far as to touch the cylinder. Hence our last hy-
pothesis also was false; hence, in the second place, the circumference
of a cylinder's base multiplied by the altitude cannot measure the
surface of a greater cylinder.
Hence, finally, the convex surface of a cylinder is equal to the cir-
cumference of its base, multiplied by the altitude.
72-73 "Manifestum ... basis." Since the cylindrical surface is equal
to a rectangle with sides equal respectively to the axis of the
cylinder and the circumference of the base and such a rectangle
equals the product of these sides, then the cylindrical surface is
equal to the same product.
75-77 "Rursum ... primae (! sextae)." The reasoning is precisely
like that of Corollary 11 to Proposition 11. Cr. my Commentary,
Prop. 11, lines 71-73.
78-81 "Demum ... primae (! sextae)." This corollary is equivalent
to Proposition 1.13 of Archimedes' On the Sphere and the
Cylinder (see Vol. 2, 25vD-E). But again I note that Maurolico's
source need not have been the actual text of Archimedes. He
could have found this proposition in Johannes de Muris' De arte
mensurandi, Chap. X, as I have suggested in Section III of this
chapter. Its proof here (again completely different from Archi-
medes') is similar to that of Corollary III to Proposition 11. Cf.
my Commentary to that corollary, lines 75-77. As before, this
corollary provides justification for the assumption in later
propositions (e.g. Propositions XXIII and XXVII) of the ex-
istence of a cone having as its base circle the surface of some
cylinder.
Proposition V
2-5 "Cylindrica ... semidiametri." This two-part proposition was
taken by Maurolico from the two-part corollary to Proposition
11 of the Liber de curvis superficiebus (Vo!. 1, p. 462, lines
23-27), with some terminological changes. Maurolico's proof
makes specific the general instructions for proof in the medieval
work.
Proposition VI
2-3 "Circulorum ... proportionales." The enunciation and proof
(in fact the two proofs, since they are virtually identical) were
drawn by Maurolico from Proposition III of the Liber de curvis
superjiciebus (see Vo!. 1, pp. 462-66), once more with termino-
logical changes. The proofs use the "easier way" and their
character is described in my summary of the proof of Proposi-
tion III of the medieval work (see Vo!. 1, pp. 510-11). We
should note that in these proofs we have an example of the case
where the second half of the proof is so constructed that it leads
to the very same impossibility refuted in the first half. Such was
not the case in Maurolico's proofs of Propositions 11 and IV
above, where the second half of each proof is a reductio argu-
ment similar to but independent of the first half. The fact that
Maurolico gives two almost identical proofs for the propositions
is not unique. A similar practice is also reflected in Maurolico' s
treatment of the various solutions of the problem of finding two
mean proportionals, as I shall indicate in Section III of the next
chapter. Of the two proofs given by Maurolico, the first is proba-
bly the one preferred by him, for it is always the set of corol-
laries to the first proof that he cites in other propositions. I
suspect that the editor was at a loss as to which proof Maurolico
wanted in the published text and so he printed them both. In-
cidentally, Maurolico had previously proved this proposition in
Proposition V of his De circuli dimensione (see above Text B).
There the proof rests upon Proposition IV of that work and hence
ultimately on the Archimedean method of Proposition I of On the
Measurement of the Circle. Maurolico was also to prove the
same proposition in Proposition VIII of his Praeparatio (see
Text A above), but there the proof was by what I have called
the "converse way" rather than by the "easier way." Finally,
it is worth noting that Legendre uses the "easier way" to prove
the same proposition in his Elements ofGeometry , Bk. IV, Prop.
XI (ed. cit., pp. 94-95). Since I have already given two instances
of proofs by Legendre using the "easier way," from this point
on I shall only cite the text without giving the full proofs.
31-37 "Manifestum.... circulorum." The substance of these first
two corollaries was used in the Liber de curvis superficiebus,
Prop. V (Vot. 1, p. 474, lines 75-79), where it is noted that they
follow from Proposition III of the Liber de curvis superficiebus
(=Maurolico's Proposition VI) and the penultimate proposition
of Book V of Euclid. I am reasonably certain that Maurolico
saw them to be necessary for the proof of Proposition IX of his
work (see line 48) and so decided to present them here as corol-
laries.
34 "Ba 5
i
" Campanus V.13 = Greek and Zamberti V.12. See the
Elementa (Basel, 1546), pp. 123-24.
35-37 "Quare ... circulorum." This corollary was also necessary
for the proof of Proposition IX (see line 52).
38-40 "Item ... dicendum." This corollary was drawn by Maurolico
from the corollary to Proposition III of Liber de curvis super-
ficiebus (Vot. 1, p. 466, lines 36-38). We have already seen
how it was used in the proof of Corollary 11 to Proposition 11
and similarly in the proof of Corollary 11 to Proposition IV. It
was also used in the proofs of Corollary I to Proposition IX and
of the corollaries to Proposition XIV. Finally, it should
be observed that this corollary became Proposition XLIV in
Maurolico's Praeparatio (see Text A above).
41 "15
3
6
i
" Campanus VI. 15 = Greek and Zamberti VI. 16. See the
Elementa (Basel, 1546), pp. 149-50.
42-49 "Denique.... circuli." This corollary is important for the
proofs of Corollary III to Proposition 11, of Corollary III (unnum-
bered) to Proposition IV, of the corollaries to Proposition VII, of
Corollary I to Proposition IX and of the corollaries to Propositions
XIVand XV. Or to put it briefly, it was crucial in Maurolico' s efforts
to convert the rectangular measures of curved surfaces to circles,
i.e., to pass from the rectangular measures of the Liber de curvis
superficiebus to the circular measures of Archimedes' On the
Sphere and the Cylinder.
50 "Alia . . . sextae." This demonstration with its corollaries is
so close to the first demonstration with its four corollaries that I
am sure that if Maurolico had been the editor he would have
included only one of them. I have already suggested a possible
preference on Maurolico' s part for the first demonstration.
Proposition VII
2- 3 "Coni-coluri . . . peripherias." Though the enunciation has
been shortened, its source is clearly Proposition IV of the
Liber de curvis superficiebus (Vol. 1, pp. 466-68). The proofs
are substantially the same. An equivalent proposition with a
distinctly different proof was presented in the Verba filiorum
(ibid., pp. 302-06).
39-44 "Itaque.... primae (! sextae)." Cr. my Commentary,
Proposition II (lines 71-73, 75- 77), Proposition IV (lines 75-
77, 78-81) and Proposition VI (lines 38-40, 42-49). The second
corollary is equivalent to Proposition 1.16 of Archimedes' On
the Sphere and the Cylinder (Vol. 2, 26rO). This corollary justi-
fies the assumption in Propositions XXIII, XXIV and XXIX of
cones with base circles equal to the curved surfaces of trun-
cated cones.
Proposition VIII
2- 8 "Si . . . descriptorum." This enunciation was drawn from the
first half of the enunciation of Proposition V of the Liber de
curvis superficiebus (Vol. 1, pp. 468-70, lines 1-7), with only
minor terminological changes. Maurolico's next proposition
contains the remainder of the enunciation.
9-50 "Intra.... proponitur." Maurolico follows the author of the
Liber de curvis superficiebus in giving two proofs, one where
the semipolygon rotated has an odd number of sides and the
other where it has an even number of sides. However, in the
medieval tract the proof for the one with an even number of
sides is given first.
Proposition IX
2-9 "Si . . . rectangulum." This enunciation was drawn by Mauro-
lico from the second half of the enunciation of Proposition V
of the Liber de curvis superficiebus (Vol. 1, p. 470, lines 7-11).
16 "per 29
am
3
ii
" Campanus III.29 = Greek and Zamberti III.30.
37 "per 26
am
3
ii
" Campanus III.26 = Greek and Zamberti III.27.
See ibid., p. 75.
64-69 "Unde.... primae (! sextae)." Compare my Commentary,
Proposition II (lines 71-73, 75-77), Proposition IV (lines 75-
77, 78-81), Proposition VI (lines 38-40, 42-49). The second
part of the corollary appears within the proof of Proposition 1.25
of Archimedes' On the Sphere and the Cylinder (Vol. 2, 27vK-L).
It justifies the assumption in Proposition XXV of a cone whose
base circle is equal to the surface of the solid of rotation con-
sidered in this proposition.
Proposition X
2-4 "Sphaerae . . . circuli." This proposition was taken by Mauro-
lico from Proposition VI of the Liber de curvis superficiebus
(Vol. 1, pp. 478-80). The proof is, of course, that of the "easier
way." A similar proof was given by Legendre, Elements of
Geometry, Bk. VIII, Prop. X (ed. cit., p. 206). V. Flauti also
used the "easier way" in his Corso di geometria elementare
e sublime, Vol. 2 (Naples, 1852), pp. 406-408.
15 "per Barn 12
i
" Campanus XII. 13 = Greek and Zamberti XII.16.
60-61 "Manifestum ... sphaerae." Maurolico presents a single cir-
cle as the measure of the surface of the sphere, as indeed did
Archimedes in the course of his proof of Proposition 1.33 of
On the Sphere and the Cylinder (=Moerbeke 1.31; see Vol. 2,
29rA). Maurolico does this (even though he will present the more
conventional measure of four great circles of the sphere in the
next proposition) because he wishes to justify the assumption
in Proposition XXV of the existence of a cone whose base circle
is equal to the surface area of a sphere.
Proposition XI
2-5 "Sphaerae ... diametro." Maurolico has taken this proposi-
tion directly from the corollary to Proposition VI of the Liber de
curvis superjiciebus (Vol. 1, pp. 480-82). His proof was also
taken from the medieval text, except that he has adapted it to a
particular sphere and a particular cylinder. This proposition
appears as Proposition 1.33 of Archimedes' On the Sphere and
the Cylinder (see Vol. 2, 29rA) , with an entirely different
proof.
12 "per 18
arn
sexti" Campanus VI.18 = Greek and Zamberti
V1.20. See the Elementa (Basel, 1546), pp. 152, 154.
28-30 "Manifestum ... sesquialtera." This corollary was taken
from the supplementary corollary to Proposition VI of the Liber
de curvis superjiciebus (Vol. 1, p. 482, lines 54-56).
Proposition XII
2-9 "Si ... superficies." This proposition with its scholium and
corollary was independently added by Maurolico, it being in
neither the Liber de curvis superjiciebus nor Archimedes' On
the Sphere and the Cylinder. With it, the section concerned
with, and leading up to, the determination of the surface
of a sphere is terminated.
14 "per Is
arn
3
ii
Proposition XIII
2-8 "Conicae ... abscindentis." This proposition and the next
were constructed by Maurolico on the model of Propositions
VIII and IX (and thus ultimately on the model of Proposition
V of the Liber de curvis superjiciebus). This illustrates the
continued dominance of the medieval work even over the proofs
of propositions not included in the medieval tract.
Proposition XIV
22 "per l3
arn
5
i
" Campanus V.13 = Greek and Zamberti V.12. See
the Elementa (Basel, 1546), pp. 123-24.
33-34 "per 15
arn
V1.16. See ibid., pp. 149-50.
53-55 "Nee ... primae (! sextae)." This corollary is completely
parallel to Corollary I of Proposition IX. It does not appear as
a separate proposition in Archimedes' On the Sphere and the
Cylinder but is developed in the course of Proposition 1.37
(=1.35 in the Moerbeke text; see Vo!. 2, 29vN). It provides
authority for the assumption in Proposition XXIX of a cone
whose base circle is equal to the surface of the segment of this
kind of solid of rotation. See the Commentary, Proposition IX,
lines 64-69.
Proposition XV
2-5 "Si ... segmenti." This proposition was constructed entirely
on the model of Proposition X (and thus ultimately on that of
Proposition VI of the Liber de curvis superjiciebus), except that
it is concerned with the surface of a spherical segment rather
than that of the whole sphere. It could be that Proposition
III(XI) in the Florentine version of the Liber de curvis super-
jiciebus provided Maurolico with the suggestion to construct a
proof like that of Proposition VI of the medieval work, since
the proof of Proposition III(XI) specifically depended on
Proposition V of the medieval work (see Vo!. 1, p. 534, lines
15-16) and of course Proposition VI itself depended on Proposi-
tion V.
111-14 "Item ... primae (! sextae)." This corollary reducing the
rectangular measure of a spherical segment to a circle is not
in Archimedes' On the Sphere and the Cylinder but it leads
directly to Proposition XVI, which is equivalent to Proposition
1.42 of Archimedes' work (=1.40 of Moerbeke's text; see Vo!. 2,
30vL). The close relationship between this corollary and the next
proposition is asserted by Maurolico (lines 114-15).
Proposition XVI
2-8 "Si . . . semidiameter." The second part of the enunciation is
equivalent to the above-noted Proposition 1.42 of Archimedes'
work. I have suggested in Section III of this chapter that Mauro-
lico may have learned of the Archimedean proposition from
Johannes de Muris' De arte mensurandi, Chap. X. It also
circulated in a brief fragment of On the Sphere and the Cylinder,
perhaps translated by Gerard of Cremona (see Vo!. 1, p. 436,
Prop. 2). The proof of the first half of the proposition, which
presents another rectangular measure of a curved surface, de-
pends on the preceding proposition. Furthermore, the second
half of the proof is simply proved by the simultaneous appli-
cation of the first half and Proposition IV of Maurolico' s De
circuli dimensione. While its proof is given in the second half
of the proposition, it is also reflected in the corollary (lines
47-59). The corollary is crucial for the proof of the next
proposition, just as Archimedes' Proposition 1.42 was crucial
for the proof of Proposition H.3.
37-38 "per 29
am
(! 30
am
) 3
ii
" Campanus IH.30 = Greek and Zamberti
HL3!. See the Elementa (Basel, 1546), pp. 77-78.
Proposition XVII
2-3 "Si ... segmentorum." This proposition is present in the
corollary to Proposition HI(XI) of the Florentine version of the
Liber de curvis superjiciebus (Vol. 1, p. 540, lines 103-04). It
also appears as a part of the proof of Archimedes' On the Sphere
and the Cylinder, Proposition H.3 (Vol. 2, 32rB-C).
Proposition XVIII
2-4 "Si . . . segmenti." This proposition is equivalent to Proposi-
tion III(XI) of the Florentine version of the Liber de curvis
superjiciebus (Vol. 1, p. 532). Maurolico's proof depends on
Proposition XVI and thus does not need to employ the method
of the" easier way," which the author of the Florentine version
used. Maurolico had already used that method in Proposition XV
on which Proposition XVI depended. Indeed, since Proposition
III(XI) of the Florentine version was cast in the form of Proposi-
tion VI of the Liber de curvis superjiciebus, Maurolico's alleged
use of the Florentine version may well have suggested to him
his proof of Proposition XV, which was also constructed on the
model of Proposition VI of the Liber de curvis superjiciebus (see
above, Commentary, Proposition XV, lines 2-5).
Proposition XIX
2-6 "Si . . . segmenti." This proposition does not occur in either
the Liber de curvis superjiciebus or in Archimedes' On the
Sphere and the Cylinder. But the determination of the surface
areas of spherical zones was a popular exercise in the manuals of
Piero della Francesca (see his Trattato, described in Part Ill,
Chap. 2, Sect. Ill, n. 14; repeated in his De corporibus
regularibus, ed. of G. Mancini, p. 555, and the Italian version
published by Pacioli with his Divina proportione [see casus 28,
19v]) and Luca Pacioli (see Summa, 11, 73r, Prob. 53, which
reflects Piero della Francesca's Trattato). Both the De
corporibus regularibus and the Summa would have been easily
available to Maurolico, since both were printed and widely read.
Proposition XX
2- 7 "Si . . . aequales." So far as I know, this proposition was
entirely original with Maurolico. It marks the end of the section
on the areas of segments of solids of rotation and spherical
segments.
Proposition XXI
2-4 "Conus ... illorum." This and the succeeding proposition are
ancillary to the proof of Proposition XXIII. Proposition XXI
was probably constructed out of lines 163-70 of Proposition
VII of the Liber de curvis superjiciebus (Vol. 1, p. 494).
Proposition XXIII
2-21 "Solidum.... delapsae." This proposition is preliminary to
Proposition XXIV (and thus to Proposition XXV dependent on
Proposition XXIV). It reveals the procedures of Proposition VII
of the Liber de curvis superjiciebus (Vol. 1, pp. 482-94) and
thereby concerns the measures of the solids described by the
rotation of triangles applied laterally or angularly to an axis. In
each case the measure is shown to be a cone whose base is
equal to the conical or cylindrical surface described by the side
opposite the fixed terminus (i.e. the angle applied to the axis)
and whose altitude is equal to the perpendicular drawn from
that fixed terminus or angle to its opposite side. In the first part
of the proposition the triangle rotated is laterally applied to the
axis (i.e., one of its sides is the axis). There are three possible
cases of such application depending on whether the angle at
the fixed terminus is a right angle, an acute angle or an obtuse
angle. In the second part of the proposition the triangle in ro-
tation is imagined to have an angle other than a right angle with
the axis. In the solids fashioned in the first and second parts of
the proposition the side opposite the fixed terminus describes
a conical surface. Finally, in the third part, the side opposite
the fixed terminus of the rotating triangle is parallel to the axis
and the surface described by that side is a cylindrical surface
(and the perpendicular from the fixed terminus to the opposite
side either falls on the terminus of the opposite side or it
falls within or without the termini of the opposite side).
I have suggested earlier that the corollaries to Propositions
n, VII and IVjustify the assumption of cones whose base circles
are equal to the surfaces of cones (Part I), truncated cones
(Part I1) and cylinders (Part Ill). I should add that the third part
of the proposition does not directly reflect the procedure of
the Liber de curvis superjiciebus but was added by Maurolico
because in his next proposition he used a solid of rotation de-
scribed by a semipolygon having an odd number of sides (and
thus where the middle side describes a cylindrical surface),
while the author of the Liber de curvis superjiciebus in Proposi-
tion VII employs only a solid described by a semipolygon with
an even number of sides all of which sides describe conical
surfaces (see the Commentary, Proposition XXIV, line 9).
37 "per 12
am
I2
i
" Campanus XII.I2 = Greek and Zamberti
XII.I5. See the Elementa (Basel, 1546), pp. 412-13.
104 "per 9
am
12
i
" Campanus XII.9 = Greek and Zamberti XII.10.
See ibid., pp. 402-03.
Proposition XXIV
2-7 "Solidum ... egreditur." This propositIon was taken from
Proposition VII of the Liber de curvis superjiciebus (Vol. 1,
pp. 482-94). Its proof is very much shorter than that found
in the medieval tract, since the step-by-step use of the rotation
of triangles laterally or angularly applied to an axis was already
a part of the demonstration of the preceding proposition. This
proposition is also equivalent to Proposition 1.26 of Archimedes'
On the Sphere and the Cylinder (see Vo!. 2, 27vN-O) and in
fact the enunciation of Maurolico's proposition is closer to that
of Archimedes than that of the medieval tract, though the
proof obviously was constructed from the Liber de curvis
superjiciebus. I do not know whether the closer agreement of
this proposition's enunciation with Archimedes' is accidental or
whether it is an indication that Maurolico was also following
the Archimedean text as he composed his elaboration of the
Liber de curvis superjiciebus. Needless to say, I have already
discussed in Section III of this chapter the difficulties involved
in assuming that Maurolico had a copy of On the Sphere and
the Cylinder in 1534.
9 "decagonum AB" It is of interest that Maurolico here uses
a decagon as his regular polygon, though both Archimedes and
the author of the Liber de curvis superjiciebus used a polygon
with 4n sides. Maurolico hearkens back to his use of the same
polygon in the first part of his Proposition VIII, where like the
author of the medieval tract he specifies that the proposition is
true for a solid described by a semipolygon with an odd
number of sides and also for one with an even number of sides.
But in Proposition XXIV, Maurolico proves that proposition
only for a solid described by a decagon, that is, by a semipolygon
of an odd number of sides. On the other hand, the author of
the Liber de curvis superjiciebus in his Proposition VII
proves his proposition only for a solid described by a semi-
polygon with an even number of sides, at the same time
expressing some doubt whether it can be proved for a semi-
polygon with an odd number of sides (Vo!. 1, p. 494, lines
174-80). He says he will leave the demonstration of the
latter case to a diligent posterity. This challenge was accepted

by the author of a version of the Liber de curvis superficiebus
found in a manuscript of the British Museum (Harleian 625,
139v) , as I have indicated in Vol. 1, pp. 547-57. Whether
Maurolico's copy of the Liber de curvis superficiebus had this
added commentary I do not know.
Proposition XXV
2-4 "Sphaera . . . est." This enunciation was taken by Maurolico
from Proposition IX of the Liber de curvis superficiebus
(Vol. 1, p. 502). However it was Proposition VIII of the medieval
tract that included a proof by means of the "easier way" (ibid.,
pp. 496-500), and which thus presented Maurolico with a model
for his proof, which he adapts to a cone having as its base a
circle equal to the surface of the sphere and as its altitude the
radius of the sphere. Hence, in the medieval tract the method of
the "easier way" was used to prove that a cylinder with axis
and base diameter equal to the diameter of the sphere is % the
sphere and in Maurolico' s work that the sphere is equal to the
above noted case. Finally, in Proposition I. 34 of Archimedes'
On the Sphere and the Cylinder (=1.32 in the Moerbeke text;
see Vol. 2, 29rH) a different kind of proof was used to demon-
strate that a sphere is equal to four times the cone whose
base is equal to the greatest circle in the sphere and its
altitude to the radius of the sphere. Thus the primary
proposition proved in each of the three works differed from
those of the other two. But even so, Maurolico followed the
general method of the Liber de curvis superficiebus rather than
that of Archimedes' work. Legendre later used the" easier way"
to prove a proposition whose enunciation was more inclusive
than those of his predecessors (Elements of Geometry, Bk.
VIII, Prop. XV, ed. cit., pp. 212-14): "Every spherical
sector is measured by the zone which forms its base, multiplied
by a third of the radius; and the whole sphere has for its
measure a third of the radius, multiplied by its surface.' ,
Legendre also gave preliminary propositions (his Propositions
XII-XIV, pp. 210-12) that essentially resemble Maurolico's
Propositions XXIII and XXIV. We should further note that V.
Flauti used the "easier way" to prove the same theorem as
Maurolico in his Corso di geometria elementare, Vol. 2,
pp. 409-10.
15 "per 13
arn
12
i
" Campanus XII. 13 = Greek and Zamberti XII.16.
Proposition XXVI
23-25 "Manifestum ... sesquialter." This corollary was the main
proposition proved in the Liber de curvis superficiebus, Prop.
VIII (Vol. 1, p. 496, lines 1-3). It was the corollary to
Proposition 1.34 of Archimedes' On the Sphere and the Cylinder
(Cor. to Prop. 1.32 in the Moerbeke text; see Vol. 2, 29rT).
Maurolico repeats this corollary as a separate Proposition
XXVIII, where it has a different proof.
25 "per 9
am
12
i
" Campanus XI1.9 = Greek and Zamberti XII. 10.
Proposition XXVII
2-5 "Si . . . cono." This and the succeeding proposition constitute
little more than manipulations of the predetermined measures
of cylinders, cones and spheres. They need no commentary.
Proposition XXVIII
28-29 "Itaque ... transibimus." This is an announcement of the end
of the section on the volumes of spheres, cylinders and solids
of rotation. He also announces the beginning of the section on
the volumes of segments of such solids and of spheres.
Proposition XXIX
2- 11 "Si . . . egreditur." This proposition was modeled on Proposi-
tion XXIV and hence ultimately on Proposition VII of the
Liber de curvis superficiebus, except that here Maurolico was
concerned with a segment of the solid of rotation instead of the
whole solid. Like that of Proposition XXIV, its proof depends
fundamentally on Proposition XXIII.
Proposition XXX
2-6 "Si ... sphaerae." This proposition was modeled on Proposi-
tion XXV and has the same basic proof by the "easier way."
It is equivalent to Proposition 1.44 of Archimedes' On the Sphere
and the Cylinder (=Proposition 1.42 of Moerbeke's text; see
Vol. 2, 31rA). I have discussed Maurolico's possible knowledge
of this proposition from Johannes de Muris' De arte mensurandi
in Section III above. The need for such a proposition would have
occurred to Maurolico even if he had not read Archimedes'
On the Sphere and the Cylinder but only the various treatments
of the volumes of spherical segments in Fibonacci's Practica,
Piero della Francesca's De corporibus regularibus and/or
Pacioli's Summa. For all of these authors solved for such
volumes by subtracting from a spherical sector a cone whose base
is equal to the cutting circle and whose altitude is equal to the
segment of the radius between the center of the sphere and the
cutting circle.
Proposition XXXI
2-7 "Si ... axem." This proposition is not in the Liber de curvis
superficiebus in any form but was drawn either directly or
indirectly from Proposition 11.2 of Archimedes' On the Sphere
and the Cylinder (Vo!. 2, 31vA-B). One possible source of its
enunciation was Eutocius' Commentary on the Sphere and the
Cylinder as partially translated by Valla, for in giving the
beginning of Diocles' solution of the problem of cutting a sphere
into a given ratio Valla includes Diocles' statement of the
enunciation of Proposition U.2 (De expetendis, sign. x iii
recto):
Scribens Pyria Diodes inquit demonstravit Archimedes quod omne
segmentum sphaerae aequale est cono, basim quidem habenti cono
quam ipsi segmento, fastigium autem quandam rationem habentem ad
eum qui est ex segmento (! segmenti) verticem (! vertice) ad basim
perpendicularem quam habet simul utrumque ex centro sphaerae et
vicissim segmenti perpendicularis ad vicissim segmenti perpendic-
ularem.
Though this is an awkward translation, Diocles gives the
enunciation in terms of a specific figure immediately after it and
there the purport of the enunciation is perfectly clear. The
enunciation was also given by Johannes de Muris in the proem to
Chapter X of his De arte mensurandi, as I have already said
in Section III of this chapter. In that section I discussed at
some length the difficulty that this proposition and its corollary
poses for the view that Maurolico had not yet in 1534 seen the
genuine text of Archimedes' On the Sphere and the Cylinder.
Proposition XXXII
2-6 .. Si . . . segmenti." The source of this proposition and its proof
was the last part of Dionysodorus' solution of the problem of
cutting a sphere into a given ratio as presented in the above-
noted partial translation by Valla of Eutocius' Commentary on
the Sphere and the Cylinder (De expetendis, sign. x iii recto;
cf. Vo!. 2, 41vK-N). Since the proposition is necessary for
Dionysodorus' solution, which Maurolico gives as his"Aliter"
to this proposition, Maurolico removes the proposition and its
proof from the actual solution and presents it as a prior proposi-
tion.
Proposition XXXII-Aliter
2-41 "Propositam.... Archimedis." As I have already noted in
the previous account, Dionysodorus' solution of the problem of
Proposition 11.4 was drawn by Maurolico from Valla's
partial translation of Eutocius (De expefendis, sig. xii verso-x Hi
recto; cf. Vo!. 2, 41rT-41vN).
17-18 "per 39
am
(! 20
am
) primi con[ic]orum elementorum" This runs
in Maurolico's Emendatio et restitutio conicorum Apollonii
Pergaei (Messina, 1654), p. 19: "Si in parabola a sectione
ducantur duae lineae ad diametrum ordinate: erunt ut quadrata
quae ab ipsis flunt ad invicem sic secatae (I) sub ipsis ex
diametro ad summitatem." (Punctuation slightly changed.)
Proposition XXXIII
2-3 "Pyramis ... bases." The proof is by the "easier way."
16 "per 12
am
51." Campanus V.12 = Greek and Zamberti V. 13.
See the Elementa (Basel, 1546), pp. 122, 124.
42 "per sam 12
1
" This reference is to one of the additions to
Proposition XII.S of Campanus (ibid., p. 400): "Omnis laterata
columna tripla est ad suam pyramidem."
Proposition XXXIV
13 "per 11am 12
1
" This is incomplete, for XII. 11 in all the versions
of Euclid indicates rather that cones or cylinders of equal
height are proportional to their bases. In the Greek and
Zamberti text the proper proposition is XII. 14 (ibid., 412). But
this proposition was not given in the Campanus version. True,
the proof of XII.14 in the Greek text does use XII.11 but
it also crucially uses Proposition XII. 13, which is missing in the
Campanus version. Hence the reference is at the least in-
complete.
Proposition XXXV
11 "per sam 12
1
" The reference here assumes two of the enuncia-
tions added to XII.S in the Campanus version (ibid., pp. 400-01),
namely that which asserts that prismatic columns of equal
altitude are as their bases and that which asserts that a prismatic
column is triple its pyramid (see above, Commentary, Prop.
XXXIII, line 42). The further citation of Euclid XII.11 is quite
correct, for here it refers to cones of the same altitude.
Proposition XXXVI
2-4 "Sphaera . . . semidiametro." This and the succeeding prop-
osition adapt Propositions XXV and XXX to pyramids with
bases respectively equal to the surfaces of a sphere and its
sector and altitudes each equal to the radius of the sphere.
This is possible since such pyramids will be equal to the cones
of the same bases and altitudes and in the above-noted
propositions the cones were shown to be equal respectively
to a sphere and its sector. The corollaries to Propositions
XXXVI and XXXVII relate the sphere and its sector to
prisms and parallelepipeds and also present their measures as
products. The product that covers both the sphere and its
sector is V = (r/3)' A, where V is the volume of the sphere or
sector, r is the radius of the sphere or sector and A is the
surface area of the sphere or sector. Again I remind the reader
of Maurolico' s proclivity for reducing the measures of curved
figures to products, i.e. to algebraic forms.
Proposition XXXVIII
2-3 "Sphaera . . . fere." Maurolico has drawn this enuncIatIOn
from Proposition X of the Liber de curvis superficiebus
(Vol. 1, p. 504). It is fitting that Maurolico should make the
last proposition of the medieval work his last proposition, since,
as I have everywhere emphasized, Maurolico's work constitutes
a reworking and expansion of the medieval tract.
D
The Archimedis Quadratura parabolae
ISI / Archimedis Quadratura parabolae ex traditone
Francisci Maurolici
Archimedes Dositheo bene agere, Cononem quidem decessisse
graviter doluimus, tibi autem nobis tarn amico, et in mathematibus
5 erudito mirabile quoddam, quod praeconati sumus, nunc mittimus, quem-
admodum Cononi scribere consueveramus; demonstravimus enim quod
omnis portio contenta a recta et a sectione rectanguli coni est
epitrita trigoni eandem basim et altitudinem habentis, opus nulli priorum
tentatum; demonstravimus inquam primum per mathematica, et inde per
10 geometrica, sumpto ad demonstrationem hoc fundamento: Inaequalium
spatiorum excessum compositum possibile est excedere omne propositum
finitum.
Propositio prima.
Sit rectanguli coni portio ABG [Fig. 1lI.5D.l], quae quidemBD penes
seu aequidistans diametro, vel ipsa diameter; quae autemAG penes earn
seu aequidistans ei quae apud B contingit sectionem.
5 Aio quod aequalis est AD ipsi GD.
Nam si BD sit ipsa diameter, constat hoc ex conversa propositionis 5
ae
libri secundi conicorum Apollonii; si penes diametrum, ostenditur in
propositione 46
a
libri primi conicorum Apollonii.
Propositio Il.
Contra, si BD penes diametrum [Fig. 1lI.5D.2], vel ipsa diameter,
ipsae autem AD, DG aequales, aio quod parallelus est AG ei quae sec-
tionem apud B contingit, quod patet ex propositionibus Apollonii in
5 praecedenti citatis.
Propositio Ill.
Sit rectanguli coni portio ABG [Fig. 1lI.5D.3], quae BD penes dia-
metrum, vel ipsa diameter, quae autem AG penes earn quae apud
B contingit sectionem, quae porro GE contingat sectionem apud G et
5 occurrat ipsi DB apud E.
Aio quod aequalis est BD ipsi BE.
Hoc enim, si BD sit diameter, ostenditur in 35
a
primi conicorum;
si penes diametrum, in 16
a
tertii vel 35
a
primi conicorum Apollonii.
1023
182 /Propositio IV.
Sit rectanguli coni portio ABG [Fig. III.5D.4], quae BD penes dia-
metrum, vel ipsa diameter; quae autem AG et quae EZ penes earn quae
apud B contingit sectionem.
5 Aio quod erit sicut DB ad BZ longitudine, sic potentia quae AD ad EZ.
Ostenditur hoc in 20
a
primi conicorum Apollonii.
Propositio V.
Sit portio contenta a recta et sectione rectanguli coniABG [Fig. III.5D5],
quae quidem BD penes diametrum sectans (1) AG bifariam, vel ipsa
diameter; et a puncta quolibet lineae AG, ut pote a puncta Z, educatur
5 penes BD ipsaZH ad peripheriam, et producta occurrat ipsi GB productae
ad signum T.
Aio quod erit sicut GD ad DZ, sic ZT ad TH.
Agatur per H penes ipsam AG recta HK secans BD apud K et ipsam
BG apud I, eritque per praemissam, sicut quadratum DG ad quadratum
10 HK, vel DZ, sic DB ad BK, et ideo per 2
am
sexti Euclidis sic GB ad BI.
Sed per eandem, sicut quadratum GB ad quadratum BT, sic quadratum
GD ad quadratum DZ. Ergo sicut GB ad BI, sic quadratum GB ad
quadratum BT. Itaque dupla est ratio GB ad BI eius quae GB ad BT.
Quare ipsae GB, BT, BI sunt continuae proportionales; coniunctim igitur
15 (si Z signum cadit intra A, D; si vero intra signa D, G, eversim) erit sicut
GT ad TI, sic GB ad BT, et ideo per 2
am
sexti Euclidis sicut GD ad DZ.
Sed per eandem, sicut GT ad TI, sic ZT ad TH. Ergo sicut GD ad DZ,
sic ZT ad TH, quod est propositum.
Propositio VI.
5
Sit portio contenta a recta et sectione rectanguli coni ABG [Fig.
III.5D.6], et ducatur AZ penes diametrum, quae autem GZ contingens
sectionem apud G, et secta AG bifariam in puncta D, ducatur penes
diametrum DBE.
Aio quod sicut est AD ad DG, sic DB ad BE.
Nam cum AD, DG sint aequales, et quae DB penes diametrum, erit
per secundam quaeAG penes earn quae sectionem contingit apudB. Quare
per 3
am
quae DB aequalis ipsi BE. Ergo sicut AD ad DG, sic DB ad BE,
quod est propositum.
Rursum a quolibet alio puncta lineae / AG ut pote K ducatur penes
AZ linea KTL.
Aio rursum quod sicut est AK ad KG, sic KT ad TL.
Connectatur enim GB, et secet ipsam KL in puncto I; et quoniam
15 DB aequalis ipsi BE, ideo et KI aequalis ipsi IL. Sed per praecedentem,
sicut AD ad DK, sic KI ad IT. Igitur sicut DG ad DK, sic LI ad IT.
Quare (illic coniunctim, et hic disiunctim, et conversim, si punctum K
est inter D, G; vel Hlic disiunctim, et hie coniunctim, et conversim,
10
183
MAUROLICO'S DE QUADRATURA PARABOLAE 1025
si punctum K cadit inter A, D) erit sicut AK ad KD, sic KT ad TI; et
20 sicut DK ad KG, sic IT ad TL; ex aequa ergo proportione, sicut AK ad
KG, sic KT ad TL, quod est propositum.
Propositio VII.
Quibus demonstratis, sit libra ABG, cuius medium B [Fig. III.5D.7],
trigonum autem BDG, rectum habens angulum qui apud B; suspendatur a
signis B, G; suspendatur quoque et spatium Z ex alia parte librae apud
5 A, et aequaliter repat spatium Z apud A suspensum trigono BDG sic
iacenti.
Aio quod triplum est trigonum BDG spatii Z.
Secetur enim BG in E puncto, ita ut dupla sit GE ipsius EB, et agatur
penes BD linea EK, quae secetur in aequalia apud T; eritque, ut in libro
10 de Momentis Aequalibus fuit ostensum, T punctum centrum gravitatis
trigoni BDG. Itaque si trigoni BDG, quae quidem secundum B, G,
appensio solvatur, et suspendatur secundum E, manet trigonum ut nunc
se habet. Namque, ut in dicto libro ostenditur, recta ET, quae signum
appensionis cum centro gravitatis rei appensae connectit, kathetus est ad
15 horizontem, et ideo perpendicularis ad ipsam AG, quae parallelus est
horizonti; sic ergo manet trigonum BGD suspensum a signis B, G sicut
suspensum a signa E et aeque repit spatio Z suspenso a signa A. Verum
appensa aeque repentitia (I) reciproca sunt spatiis a quibus pendent, os-
tensum est enim hoc in momentis aequalibus. Igitur sicut quae AB ad
20 lineam BE, sic trigonum BGD ad spatium Z. Sed quae AB tripla fuit
ipsius BE quoniam BG tripla eiusdem. Ergo et trigonum BDG triplum
est ipsius Zspatii, quod est propositum.
Contra, si triplum sit trigonumBDG ipsiusZ spatii, trigonum et spatium
aequaliter repent, quoniam scilicet quae AB tripla ipsius BE, et per
2S doctrinam aequalium momentorum appensa longitudinibus a quibus
pendent reciproca aeque repunt.
Propositio VIII.
Sit rursum libra AG, cuius medium B [Fig. III.5D.8], trigonum autem
DGH amblygonium, habens angulum qui ad H obtusum, et latus DH per-
pendiculare ad AG et productum occurrat ipsi AG ad signumB, ut scilicet
5 GB altitudo trigoni sit librae dimidium; et suspendatur a signis B, G;
spatium autem Z suspensum a signa A aequae repat cum trigono HDG,
sic se habente ut nunc iacet.
Aio quod triplum est trigonum HDG spatii Z.
Apponatur enim spatia Z spatium L, quod sit trigoni BGH pars tertia;
10 et aeque repet per conversam praemissae spatium L trigono BHG; sed
184 ipsumZ / spatium aeque repit per hypothesim trigonoDGH. Ergo et totum
ZL spatium aeque repet trigono BDG toti; quando centra gravitatum tri-
angulorum BGH, HDG sunt in una recta quae penes BD, atque ideo
ab uno signa in quo praedicta recta occurrit ipsi BG, appensa iacent
15 ut nunc sunt. Quamobrem per praecedentem triplum est triangulumBDG
totum spatii ZL totius; sed trigonum BHG triplum spatii L, ablatum
ablatio Ergo etHDG triplum spatiiZ, relictum relicti, quod est propositum.
Demonstratur et haec propositio aliter. Secetur GH apud E ut dupla
sit GE ipsius EH, et agatur per E penes DH linea MEK occurens ipsis
20 BG, GD apud signa M, K, et secetur EK bifariam in T, quod per doctrinam
aequalium momentorum erit centrum gravitatis trianguli HDG. Unde sicut
in praemissa triangulum HDG solutum a signis B, G et a solo puncto M
appensum iacet ut nunc est. Itaque aeque repet spatio Z. Sed GH ipsius
HE et ideo per 2
am
sexti Euc1idis GB ipsius BM, quare et AB ipsius BM,
25 tripla est. Igitur et trigonum DHG spatii Z triplum quoniam videlicet
appensa sunt iis a quibus pendent longitudinibus reciproca, quod est
propositum.
Propositio IX.
Sit rursum libraABG, cuius mediumB [Fig. III.5D.9], trigonum autem
EDG rectum habens angulum qui apud E appendatur secundum E, G,
existente puncto E inter B, G; spatium autem Z suspendatur secundum
5 A et aeque repat cum trigono EDG ut nunc iacet; sicut autem est AB ad
BE, sic sit trigonum EDG ad spatium K.
Aio itaque spatiumZ trigono EDG minus, spatio autem K maius esse.
Sit enim trigoni EDG centrum gravitatis T, a quo penes ED agatur
TH, et pendebit trigonum EDG a solo signo H ut nunc iacet. Itaque
10 sicut AB ad BH, sic trigonum EDG ad spatium Z. Sed AB maior quam
BH; ergo trigonum EDG maius spatio Z. Et quoniam sicut AB ad BE,
sic trigonum EDG ad spatium K, ob id maior est ratio trigoni EDG ad
spatium K quam ad spatium Z. Quare per 8
am
et lOam quinti Euc1idis
spatium Z maius spatio K, sicut proponitur.
L.-- .
185 /Propositio X.
Sit rursum libra ABG, cuius medium B [Fig. 1II.5D.1O], trigonum
autem KDG amblygonium, habens angulum qui apud K obtusum, alti-
tudinem autemEG, existente E inter B , G puncta; et suspendatur ex libra
5 secundum E, G, spatium autem Z secundum A, et aeque repat cum
trigono KDG sic se habente ut nunc iacet; sicut autem est AB ad BE, sic
sit trigonum KDG ad spatium L.
Aio quod spatium Z maius est spatio L, minus autem triangulo KDG.
Haec non aliter demonstratur quam praemissa, per centrum gravitatis
10 T trianguli KDG penes ED ducta TH, ut pendeat triangulum a signo
H solo ut nunc iacet.
Propositio XI.
Sit rursum libra ABG, cuius medium B [Fig. III.5D.ll], trapetium
autem DBHK habeat eos qui apud B, H angulos rectos; latus autem DK
vergens ad G; spatium autem Z suspensum apud A aeque repat trapetio
5 BK. Item sicut est AB ad BH, sic sit trapetium BK ad spatium L.
Aio spatium Z minus esse spatio L.
Secetur enim quae BH apud E, ita ut HE ad EB sit sicut duplum ipsius
BD iunctum cumHK ad duplum ipius HK iunctum cumBD, et penes BD
ducatur linea EN, quae secetur bifariam apud T, eritque trapetii BK
10 centrum gravitatis T, sicut ostenditur in aequalibus momentis. Si igitur
trapetium RK (! BK) a signis B, H solutum apud E suspendatur,
pendebit ut nunc iacet, quandoquidem oportet ET kathetum esse ad hori-
zontem. Itaque trapetion BK suspensum apud E et spatium Z suspensum
apud A aequaliter repunt. Erit ergo sicut AB ad BE, sic trapetion BK ad
15 spatium Z; fuit autem sicut AB ad BH, sic trapetion BK ad spatium L.
Maior igitur est ratio trapetii BK ad spatiumZ quam ad spatiumL. Quare
per lOamquinti Euclidis spatiumZ minus est spatiaL, quod est propositum.
Quod si latus DK non fuerit vergens ad G, nihilominus propositum
verum est; non enim refert quorsum vergat latus DK dum recti sint qui
20 apud B, H anguli; sic enim semper signum appensionis E cadit inter
B, H puncta.
186 IPropositio XII.
Sit rursum libra ABG, cuius medium B [Fig. III.5D.12], trapetium
autem DKTR, cuius latera DK, RT vergant ad G; latera vero DR, KT
kathetos (!) ad BG, et producta occurrant ipsi AG apud puncta B , H; mox
5 spatium Z suspensum apud A aequaliter repat cum trapetio DT sic se
habente ut nunc iacet; et sicut est AB ad BH, sic sit trapetium DT ad
spatium L.
Aio spatium Z minus esse spatio L.
Quod quidem non aliter demonstrabitur quam praemissa, sumpto vide-
10 licet centro gravitatis in trapetio DT, et per ipsum centrum ducta linea
penes ipsa DR, KT latera.
Propositio XIII.
Sit rursum libra ABG, cuius medium B [Fig. III.5D.13], trapetium
autem EDKH, cuius qui apud E, H anguli recti, latus autem DK vergens
ad G; inde spatium Z apud A suspensum aeque repat trapetio EK sic se
5 habente ut nunc supponitur; et sicut est AB ad BH, sic sit trapetium
EK ad spatium M. Item sicut AB ad BE, sic sit trapetium EK ad
spatium L.
Aio spatium Z ipso quidem L maius, ipso autem M minus esse.
Sumatur enim sicut in nona trapetii EK centrum, quod sit T, et penes
10 DE ducatur TI, et trapetium a signis E, H solutum et apud I suspensum
pendebit ut nunc iacet ob dictam in praemissis rationem. Itaque trapetium
EK suspensum apud I, spatium autem Z apud A aeque repunt. Erit ergo
sicut AB ad BI, sic trapetium EK ad spatium Z. Fuit autem sicut AB
ad BH, sic trapetium EK ad spatium M; et sicut AB ad BE, sic spatium
15 EK ad spatium L; maior est ergo ratio (per 8
am
quinti Euclidis) trapetii
EK ad L quam ad Z; et maior ratio ad Z quam ad M. Quare per lOam
eiusdem M maius quam Z et Z maius quam L, quod est propositum.
Propositio XIV.
Sit rursum libraABG, cuius mediumB [Fig. III.5D.14], trapetium autem
KDTR, cuius lateraKD, TR vergant ad G, latera autemDT, KR sint katheti
ad BG, et suspendatur a libra secundum E, H, spatium autem Z sus-
5 pendatur secundumA, et aequaliter repat cum trapetio TK sic iacente; et
187 sicut est AB ad BE, sic sit trapetium TK ad spatium L; sicut / autem AB
ad BH, sic idem trapetium ad spatium M.
Aio spatium Z ipso quidem L maius, ipso autem M minus esse.
Quod non secus ostendetur ac praecedens, sumpto scilicet centro
10 gravitatis trapetii TK, et per ipsum centrum ducta linea penes ipsam
ED, vel HK, donec occurrat ipsi EH in aliquo puncto; unde pendeat
trapetium TK.
Propositio XV.
His opportune praemissis, sit portio BTG contenta a recta et a sectione
rectanguli coni [Fig. III.5D.15]; sitque primo BG ad rectos angulos
diametro; quae BD penes diametrum, quae autem DG contingens sec-
s tionem apud G, eritque trigonumBDG rectangulum, et sectaBG in partes
utcumque, ut pote in signis E, Z, H, I, ducantur penes diametrum ipsae
ES, ZC, HY, IX ad latus DG secantes peripheriam sectionis in signis
F, T, P, 0, quae singula connectantur cumG, et connexae educantur donec
sequenti singulae parallelo occurrant, videlicet ad puncta K, L, M, N.
10 Aio itaque trigonum BGD trapetiorum quidem KE, LZ, MH, NI et
trigoni XIG minus esse quam triplum, trapetiorum autem ZF, HT, IP et
trigoni lOG maius esse quam triplum.
Intelligatur enim libra ABG, cuius medium B, ex qua suspendatur
trigonum BGD secundum B, G; et secundum A suspendantur spatia R,
15 Q, V, w, 8; et aeque repat spatium R cum trapetio DE, spatium Q cum
trapetio ZS, spatium V cum trapetio CH, spatium w cum trapetio IY,
spatium 8 cum trigono XIG, sic se habentibus ut iacent. Itaque totum
spatium RQVw8 aeque repet cum trigono BGD. Quare per 7
am
triplum
erit trigonumBGD spatiiRQVw8; per6
am
autem sicutBG, velAB, ad BE,
20 sic SE ad EF, et ideo sicut trapetium DE ad trapetium KE; ergo per 11 am
maius est trapetium KE spatio R. Item per 6
am
sicut est BG, vel AB,
ad BZ, sic CZ ad ZT, et ideo sicut trapetiumSZ ad trapetiumLZ; et sicut
AB ad BE, sic SE ad EF, et ideo sic trapetium SZ ad trapetium FZ.
Ergo per 12
am
trapetium quidem LZ maius, trapetium autem FZ minus
2S est spatio Q. Similiter per 6
am
et Barn ostendam quod trapetium quidem
MH maius, trapetium autem TH minus est spatio V; quodque trapetium
NI maius, trapetium vero PI minus est spatio w. Et quoniam per 6
am
sicut
est BG, vel AB, ad BI, sic Xl ad 10, et ideo sicut triangulum XIG ad
triangulum OIG. Ideo per 9
am
triangulum XIG maius, triangulum OIG
30 autem minus est spatio 8. Itaque trapetia KE, LZ, MH, NI et trigonum
XIG coniuncta maius sunt toto spatio RQVw8; at trapetia FZ, TH, PI et
trigonum OIG coniuncta minus sunt toto spatio RQVw8. Sed trigonum
BGD triplum est spatii RQVw8. Igitur trapetia KE, LZ, MH NI et tri-
angulum XIG sunt maius quam tertia pars trianguli BGD, et trapetia FZ,
3S TH, PI et triangulum DIG sunt minus quam pars tertia trianguli BGD,
188 /Propositio XVI.
Sit rursum BTG portio contenta a recta et sectione rectanguli coni
[Fig. III.5D.16]; sitque BG non ad rectos angulos diametro, ita ut per
B penes diametrum acta faciat angulum DBG obtusum, et producta ipsi
S KG, quae recta sit diametro, occurrat ad signum K, et ad signum D
ipsi GD contingenti sectionem apud G; fietque trigonum KDG rec-
tangulum; et sectaBG in partes utcumque, ut pote in signis E, Z, H, I;
agantur penes diametrum ipsae ES, ZC, HY, IX ad latus DG, ipsi KG
occurentes ad signa "A., (J, cp, 1T, periferiam portionis secantes in singulis
10 (! signis) F, T, P, 0; quibus cum G connexis, connexae educantur ad
proximam ex parallelis sibi occurentem, videlicet ad t/J, L, M, N signa.
Aio itaque trigonum BGD amblygon[i]um trapetiorum quidem I/JE, LZ,
MH, NI et trigoni XIG minus esse quam triplum, trapetiorum vero FZ,
TH, PI et trigoni OIG maius esse quam triplum.
15 Intelligatur enim libra AKG, cuius medium K, ex quo suspendatur
trigonum BGD secundum G, K, et secundum A suspendantur spatia R,
Q, V, w, 8, ita ut aeque repat spatium R cum trapetio DE, spatium Q
cum trapetio SZ, spatium V cum trapetio CH, spatium w cum trapetio
YI, spatium 8 cum triangulo XIG, sic manentibus ut sunt. Itaque totum
20 spatiumRQVw8 aeque repet cum toto trigono BGD. Quare per gam triplum
erit trigonum BDG ambligonium spatii RQVwS; per 5
am
autem sicut est
KG, vel AK, ad K"A., sic SE ad EF, et ideo sic trapetium DE ad trapetium
I/JE. Ergo per 12
am
maius est trapetium I/JE spatio R . Item per 6
am
sicut est
KG, vel AK, ad K (J, sic ZC ad ZT, et ideo sic trapetium SZ ad trapetium
25 LZ; et sicut AK ad K"A., sic SE ad EF, et ideo sic trapetium SZ ad
trapetium FZ. Ergo per 14
am
trapetium quod LZ maius, trapetium autem
FZ minus est spatio Q. Similiter per 6
am
et 14
am
ostendam quod trapetium
quod MH maius, trapetium vero TH minus est spatio V; nec non quod
trapetium NI maius, trapetium vero PI minus est spatio w; et quoniam
30 per 6
am
sicut est KG, vel AK, ad K1T, sic est XI ad 10, et ideo sic tri-
angulum XIG ad triangulum OIG. Propterea per lOam triangulum XIG
maius, triangulum autem OIG minus est spatio 8. Itaque trapetia
I/JE, LZ, MH, NI et trigonum XIG simul sumpta maius sunt toto spatio
RQVw8, et ideo maius quam tertia pars trianguli BGD. At trapetia FZ,
35 TH, PI et trigonum OIG pariter accepta minus sunt toto spatio RQVwS,
et ideo minus quam tertia pars trianguli BGD, quod fuit triplum spatii.
Igitur triangulum BGD ipsorum t/JE, LZ, MH, NI trapetiorum et XIG
trianguli minus est quam triplum; ipsorum vero FZ, TH, PI trapetiorum
et OIG trianguli maius quam triplum, quod est propositum.
189
1Pr0positio XVII.
Sit rursum portio BTG contenta a recta et sectione rectanguli coni
[Fig. III.5D.17], quae BD penes diametrum, quae GD contingens sec-
tionem apud G; sit autem trigoni BDG tertia pars spatium Z.
5 Aio portionem BTG aequalem esse spatio Z.
Nam si non est aequalis, est aut maior aut minor. Sit ergo portio BTG
spatio Z maior, inquam, aliquo excessu, qui multiplicatus, sive com-
positus sibi ipsi poterit, per fundamentum primo assumptum, excedere
trigonum BGD. Multiplicetur igitur excessus quo portio BTG superat
10 spatiumZ toties donec excedat trigonumBDG, et in totidem partes secetur
BD aequales, quae sint BE, EH, HI, IK, KD, et divisionum puncta
connectantur cumpuncto G; connexae autem secent portionis peripheriam
in punctis F, R, T, S. Itaque quoniam tota pars est trigonum BEG
trigoni BDG quota pars est excessus quo portio BTG superat spatium Z
15 suae multiplicationis excedentis trigonumBDG; ideo minus est triangulum
BEG excessu quo portio superat Z; tunc ergo portio BTG maior est quam
aggregatum ex spatio Z et ex triangulo BEG; et a fortiori trapetia
BF, MR,AT,XS et triangulumPOG simul maius sunt quam spatiumZ et
triangulumBEG. Demantur ergo inde quidem trapetia BEF, FR, RT, TS et
20 triangulum GSO; hinc autem triangulum BEG predictis trapetiis et
triangulo aequale per primam sexti; et supererunt inde quidem trapetia
AF, XR, PT et triangulum GPS, hinc autem spatium Z. Maius ergo sunt
trapetia AF, XR, PT et triangulum GPS quam spatium Z; sed spatium
Z per hypothesim est trianguli BCG (! BDG) pars tertia. Ergo triangulum
25 BDG minus est quam triplum trapetiorum AF, XR, PT et trianguli GPS,
quod per alteram praecedentiumest impossibile. Non est ergo maior portio
BTG spatio Z.
Sit autem nunc minor, sitque ut prius triangulum BEG minus excessu
quo spatiumZ excedit portionemBTG, eritque tunc spatiumZ maius quam
30 aggregatum ex portione BTG et ex triangulo BGE. Sed trapetia BF,
MR, AT, XS et triangulumPGO per alteram praemissam sunt maius quam
spatium Z, quod est pars tertia trianguli BDG. Igitur a fortiori trapetia
BF, MR, AT, XS et triangulum PGO maius sunt quam portio BTG et
triangulum BGE. Dematur ergo utrinque portio ipsa BTG, et supererunt
35 inde quidem segmenta trapetiorum BF, MR, AT, XS et triangulum PGO
relicta extra peripheriam portionis, hinc autem triangulum BGE; maius
ergo sunt dicta segmenta relicta extra peripheriam quam triangulum
BGE. Sed triangulum BGE per primam sexti aequum est trapetiis BF,
FR,RT, TS et trianguloSGO. Igitur dicta segmenta trapetiorumBF, FR,
40 RT, TS et triangulum SGO maius sunt quam ipsa trapetia et triangulum,
pars videlicet toto, quod est impossibile. Non est ergo minor portio BTG
spatio Z; fuitque ostensum quod nec maior; aequalis ergo est portio BTG
spatio Z, quod est tertia pars trianguli BDG, et hoc erat propositum.
190 IPropositio XVIII.
Sit tandem portio BTG contenta a recta et sectione rectanguli coni
[Fig. III.5D.18], cuius vertex sit signum T, quod connectatur cum
subtensa BG.
5 Aio quod portio BTG epitrita est trigoni BTG.
Nam cum T sit portionis BTG vertex, erit ipsa BG penes earn quae
sectionem apud T contingit. Ducatur ergo penes diametrum recta TE, sive
ipsa diameter; eritque per primam huius libri quae BE aequalis ipsi EG;
ducatur item penes diametrum ipsa BD, cui apud D punctum occurrat
10 ipsa GD sectionem apud G contingens, ipsi autem GD apud K occurrat
et producta; et quoniam ET diameter vel penes diametrum, et quae BG
penes earn quae apud T contingit sectionem, et GK sectionem apud G
contingens ipsi ET concurrit apud K, ideo per 3
am
aequalis est ET ipsi TK.
Quare per 38
am
primi elementorum aequale est trigonum KTG trigono
15 TGE et per eandem aequale est trigonum TGE trigono ETB. Posito
ergo communi trigono TGE, fit trigonumKEG aequum trigono BTG. Sed
per 17
am
sexti elementorum trigonum DBG quadruplum trigoni KEG sibi
similis, quoniam latus lateris duplum. Igitur et trigonumDBG quadruplum
erit trigoni BTG; fuit autem per praemissam trigonum DBG triplum por-
20 tionis BTG. Ergo portio BTG epitrita est trigoni BTG, et hoc est quod a
principio demonstrandum promiseramus.
Corollarium.
Itaque triplum est triangulum BTG aggregati rectarum portionum BT,
TG; sed per praemissam triangulum KTG, et ideo triangulum ETG,
25 triplum est portionis TG. Ergo triangulum BTE residuum triplum est
portionis BT residuae. Cumque triangulaBTE, ETG sint invicem aequalia,
erunt et ipsae portiones BT, TG aequales.
Hactenus tamen hoc demonstratum est interveniente doctrina aequa-
lium momentorum. Deinceps idem argumentis pure geometricis os-
30 tendetur.
191 ISecunda Pars Libelli.
Portionum contentarum a recta et curva linea Basim quidem voco rec-
tarn, Altitudinem autem maximam kathetum a curva linea ductam ad
basim portionis. Verticem vero signum a quo maxima kathetus ducitur.
5 Propositio XIX.
SI IN PORTIONE QUAE CONTINETUR A RECTA ET A SEC-
TIONE RECTANGULI CONI A MEDIO BASIS DUCATUR RECTA
PENES DIAMETRUM VEL IPSA DIAMETER, VERTEX PORTIONIS
EST SIGNUM SECUNDUM QUOD DUCTA PENES DIAMETRUM
10 SECAT CONI SECTIONEM.
Sit enim portio ABG contenta a recta AG et sectione rectanguli coni
ABG, et secta bifariam AG in puncto D, ducatur BD penes diametrum
vel ipsa diameter [Fig. III.5D.19].
Aio quod B signum vertex est sectionis ABG.
15 Nam cum ipsae AD, DG sint aequales et ipsa BD diameter vel penes
diametrum, erit per 2
am
huius libri quae AG parallelus ipsi BE secundum
B signum contingenti sectionem. Unde manifestum est quod kathetorum a
peripheriaABG ad rectamAG cadentium maximus erit qui a signoB cadit.
Itaque portionis ABG vertex est signum A (! B), quod est propositum.
Propositio XX.
IN PORTIONE CONTENTA A RECTA ET A SECTIONE REC-
TANGULI CONI, QUAE A MEDIO BASIS PENES DIAMETRUM
SIVE IPSA DIAMETER AD PERIPHERIAM ElUS QUAE A MEDIO
5 DIMIDII AD PERPHERIAM DUCITUR EPITRITA EST LONGI-
TUDINE.
Sit enim portio ABG contenta a recta AG et sectione rectanguli coni
ABG [Fig. III.5D.20], et secta bifariam AG in puncto D, ducatur penes
diametrum sive ipsa diameter DB; rursum secta bifariam AD apud E
10 ducatur ad peripheriam penes diametrum EZ.
Aio quod DB ipsius EZ epitrita est longitudine.
Ducatur enim penes AG ad ipsam DB ipsa ZT, eritque per 4
am
huius
libri sicut longitudine DB ad BT sic potentia AD ad ZT. Sed quadratum
AD ad quadratumZT quadruplum. Ergo et linea DB ipsiusBT longitudine
15 quadrupla. Quare BD ipsius DT, et ideo ipsius EZ epitrita est longitudine,
192 /Propositio XXI.
SI IN PORTIONE CONTENTA A RECTA ET A SECTIONE
RECTANGULI CONI TRIGONUM INSCRIBATUR HABENS BASIM
EANDEM CUM PORTIONE ET ALTITUDINEM EANDEM, MAlUS
5 ERIT INSCRIPTUM TRIGONUM DIMIDIO PORTIONIS.
Sit enim portio ABG qualis proponitur, cui inscribatur trigonum
ABG super ipsam basim AG et sub eadem altitudine.
Aio quod trigonum ABG maius est quam dimidium portionis ABG
[Fig. III.5D.21].
10 Nam cum per hypothesim B sit vertex portionis ABG, parallelus erit
AG portionem contingenti apud B. Sit ergo talis contingens ZBE, cui
ad signa Z, E occurrant ipsae AZ, GE penes diametrum ductae, atque
ob id extra portionem cadentes. Eritque per 4pm primi elementorum
trigonum ABG dimidium parallelogrammi AZEG. Sed portio ABG minor
15 parallelogrammo. Igitur trigonum ABG maius quam dimidium portionis
ABG, quod est propositum.
Corollarium.
Palam ergo est quod in tali portione possibile est inscribere polygonium
rectilineum ita ut relictae portiones sint minus omni proposito spatio. Nam
20 intra portionem descripto triangulo super eandem basim eandemque alti-
tudinem, erit triangulum maius dimidio portionis; item intra duas relictas
portiones inscriptis similiter triangulis duobus, erunt duo triangula maius
dimidio portionum. Adhuc intra quatuor relictas portiones inscriptis
quatuor similiter triangulis, erunt quatuor triangula maius dimidio por-
25 tionum. Hoc autem toties potest fieri donec per primam decimi elemen-
torum relictae portiones sint minus quocumque quantumlibet exiguo
proposito spatio.
Propositio XXII.
SI IN PORTIONE CONTENTA A RECTA ET A SECTIONE
RECTANGULI CONI TRIGONUM INSCRIBATUR BASIM HABENS
EANDEM CUM PORTIONE ET ALTITUDINEM EAMDEM (I),
5 INSCRIBANTUR AUTEM ET ALIA TRIGONA IN RELICTAS
PORTIONES EANDEM BASIM HABENTIA PORTIONIBUS ET
ALTITUDINEM EANDEM, UTRIUSLIBET TRIGONORUM IN-
SCRIPTORUM IN RELICTAS PORTIONES OCTUPLUM EST
TRIGONUM QUOD IN TOTA PORTIONE INSCRIPTUM EST.
10 Sit portio ABG qualis dicta est [Fig. III.5D.22], et secetur recta
AG bifariam in D, et ducatur penes diametrum vel ipsa diameter ad
peripheriam recta DB, eritque per 19
am
huius portionis ABG vertex
signum B; describatur itaque triangulum ABG, eritque ipsius trianguli
cum portione altitudo una et basis una. Item secetur bifariam AD apud
15 E, et educatur ad peripheriam penes diametrum EZ, quae ipsam quoque
193 AB bifariam secabit / per 2
am
sexti, secet apud T, eritque per 19
am
huius
punctum Z vertex portionis AZB; describatur triangulum AZB, eritque
trigoni cum portione AZB altitudo una et basis una; non aliter secta
bifariam DG apud K, ductaque penes diametrum KH, describatur
20 triangulum BHG, quod cum portione BHG eamdem (I) celsitudinem
eandemque basim habebit.
Aio itaque trigonumABG trigoni AZB sive trigoni BHG octuplum esse.
Connectatur enimEB; et quoniamBD ipsius quidemZE per 20
am
huius
epitrita est, ipsius vero ET dupla, quando scilicet DA ipsius AE dupla,
25 propterea ZE ipsius ET sesquialtera est; et ideo ET ipsius TZ dupla.
Quare per primam sexti trigonum AET trigoni ATZ duplum, et trigonum
ETB trigoni TBZ duplum. Itaque totumABE trigonum totius AZB trigoni
duplum. Sed per primam sexti trigonum ABD trigoni ABE duplum. Ergo
trigonum ABD trigoni AZB quadruplum. Adhuc trigonum ABG trigoni
30 ABD duplum, et ideo trigonum ABG trigoni AZB ocutplum. Non aliter
idem trigonum ABG demonstrabitur ipsius trigoni BHG octuplum, quod
est propositum.
Corollarium.
Itaque trigonum ABG quadruplum est trigonorum AZB, BHG.
Propositio XXIII.
SI SIT PORTIO CONTENTA A RECTA ET A SECTIONE REC-
TANGULl CONI, ET SPATIA PONANTUR CONSEQUENTER
QUOTCUMQUE CONTINUE IN RATIONE QUADRUPLA, SIT
5 AUTEM SPATIORUM MAXIMUM AEQUALE TRIGONO HABENTI
BASIM EANDEM CUM PORTIONE ET ALTITUDINEM EAMDEM
(I), UNIVERSA SIMUL SPATIA ERUNT MINUS PORTIONE.
Sit enim portio ADBEG contenta a recta et a sectione rectanguli
coni [Fig. III.5D.23]; sintque spatia quotcumque ut puta Z, H, T, I, quorum
10 unumquodque sui sequentis sit quadruplum, maximum autem sit Z, quod
sit aequale trigono ABG cum portione ABG basim eandem idemque
fastigium habenti.
Aio itaque quod portio ABG maior est congerie spatiorum Z, H, T, I.
Sint enim ipsarum ADB, BEG portionum vertices signa D, E; et
15 describantur trigona ADB, BEG, eritque per corollarium praecedentis
trigonum ABG trigonorum ADB, BEG quadruplum. Sed per hypothesim
spatium Z, ipsi ABG triangulo aequum, spatii H quadruplum; ergo
aequum est spatium H trigonis ADB, BEG. Non aliter ostendam quod
spatium T aequum erit quatuor trigonis descriptis ad easdem bases,
20 eademque fastigia intra quatuor portiones AD, DB, BE, EG. Nec secus
concludam quod spatium I aequum erit octo trigonis similiter descriptis
intra octo posterius relictas sectiones. Quare spatiorum Z, H, T, I con-
geries aequalis erit cuidam rectilineo intra portionemABG descripto; tale
autem rectilineum minus est portione, quoniam scilicet pars eius. Ergo
25 et congeries spatiorum Z, H, T, I minor est portione ABG, quod est
propositum.
194 /Propositio XXIV.
SI FUERINT QUOTCUMQUE MAGNITUDINES IN RATIONE
QUADRUPLA CONSEQUENTER DISPOSITAE, OMNIUM EARUM
CONGERIES CUM TERTIA PARTE MINIMAE EPITRITA ERIT
5 MAXIMAE.
Sunto quotcumque magnitudines, ut pote quinqueA, B , G, D, E, quarum
unaquaeque sit sequentis quadrupla [Fig. III.5D.24]; sitque I tertia pars
ipsius E, quae sit magnitudinum minima.
Aio quod congeries ipsarum A, B, G, D, E magnitudinum cum
10 ipsa I epitrita est ipsius A magnitudinum maximae.
Sit enim Z ipsius B, et H ipsius G, et T ipsius D, et I ipsius E pars
tertia. Itaque cumB sit ipsius A pars quarta, ipsa autem Z ipsius B pars
tertia, erunt B, Z simul ipsius A pars tertia. Non aliter ostendam quod
G, H simul sunt ipsius B pars tertia, quodque D, T simul sunt ipsius
15 G pars tertia, et quod E, I simul sunt ipsius D pars tertia; estque I pars
tertia ipsius E. Igitur omnia simul B, G, D, E, I cum omnibus Z, H, T,
I sunt omnium ipsarum A, B, G, D, E simul pars tertia. Cumque ipsae
Z, H, T, I simul sint ipsarum B, G, D, E simul pars tertia; erunt
et relicta scilicet B, G, D, E, I pars tertia relicti, scilicet A. Quare totum
20 ABGDEI epitritum est ipsius A, quod est propositum.
5
10
195
15
20
25
30
Propositio XXV.
OMNIS PORTIO CONTENTA A RECTA ET A SECTIONE
RECTANGULI CONI EPITRITA EST TRIGONI HABENTIS BASEM
EANDEM IPSI ET ALTITUDINEM AEQUALEM.
Sit enim ADBEG portio contenta a recta et a sectione rectanguli coni
[Fig. III.5D.25]. Trigonum autem ABG sit super eandem basim sub
eodemque fastigio cum portione, et ipsius trigoni ABG epitritum sit
spatium K.
Aio quod spatium K aequum est portioni ABG.
Secus enim est aut maius aut minus. Si maior sit portio ABG spatio K,
tunc sit portio ABG aequalis spatio K cum spatio L, et per corollarium
21 ae huius portioni ABG inscribatur rectilineum ADBEG, ita ut relictae
portiones sint minus spatio L. Itaque polygonium ADBEG maius est
spatio K. Sed polygonium ADBEG est congeries magnitudi/num in
quadrupla ratione dispositarum, quarum maxima est triangulum ABG;
sequens ipsa congeries triangulorum ADB, BEG; tertia congeries tri-
angulorum in sequentes portiones inscriptorum, et sic deinceps; spatium
autem K est epitritum trianguli ABG, quae est maxima magnitudinum.
Ergo congeries magnitudinum in quadrupla ratione dispositarum est maior
quam epitrita maximae, quod per praecedentem est impossibile. Nam
talis congeries minor est quam epitrita maximae. Non est ergo maior
portio ABG ipso K spatio.
Sed nec minor. Nam si minor sit portio ABG spatio K, tunc sit portio
ABG cum spatio L simul aequalis spatio K. Sitque spatium R aequum
trigono ABG; et ipsius R sit pars quarta spatium H; ipsius autem H pars
quarta spatium T; et huius quarta spatium I; quod toties fiat donec
postremum fiet minus spatio L. Sitque iam I minus spatio L. Cum
itaque portio ABG cum L spatio sit aequalis spatio K, quod est epitritum
trianguli ABG et ideo spatii R; et per praemissam ipsa spatia R, H, T, I
cum parte tertia ipsius I simul sint epitrita ipsius R maximi: propterea
portio ABG una cumL spatio aequalis est ipsis simul R , H, T, I cum parte
tertia ipsius I. Igitur demptis inde quod ipso L spatio, hinc autem tertia
parte ipsius I, quae minus est quam L spatium, supererunt spatia R, H,
T, I maiora quam portioABG, quod per 32
am
(! 23
am
) huius est impossibile,
3S cum ipsa R , H, T, I spatia sint in ratione quadrupla et spatiorum maximum
R sit aequum triangulo ABG eandem cum portione ABG basim idemque
fastigium habenti. Non est ergo minor portio ABG spatio K; fuitque
ostensum quod nec maior; erit ergo aequalis. Sed spatiumK fuit epitritum
trianguli ABG. Igitur portio ABG epitrita est trigoni ABG, et hoc est quod
40 in praesenti propositione et in principio libri demonstrandum proponitur.
L.
45
50
Finis
Libelli Archimedis De Quadratura Parabolae.
Hic Archimedis De Quadratura Parabolae Libellus ex corruptissimo
quod circumfertur exemplari, labore et industria Francisci Maurolici
Mathematicae disciplinae studiosissimi correctus et restitutus est. Cui
tamen prius fuit necessarium aequalium momentorum libellum praedicti
authoris et Apollonii conica elementa incredibili mentis perspicacia
reparare, sine quibus tota praesentis libelli structura corruet, ut pote
quae illis tarnquam fundamentis innititur. Messanae in Freto Siculo 23.
luliL 1534.
The Quadrature of the Parabola in the Tradition
Archimedes to Dositheus, greetings. We have been sorely grieved by
Conon's death. So now we send to you as a friend and an admirable
mathematician something that we have investigated, just as we were ac-
customed to write to Conon before. For we have demonstrated that
every segment contained by a straight line and a section of a right-angle
cone is 4/3 the triangle having the same base and altitude, an undertaking
not attempted by anyone before. We have demonstrated it, I say, first
by means of mathematics (! mechanics) and then by geometry, with the
following lemma assumed for the demonstration: The excess of [two]
unequal areas can by being added to itself exceed every finite magnitude
[of the same kind as the unequal areas]. 1
Proposition 1.
Let ABG be a section of a right-angle cone [i.e. a parabola, see Fig.
III.5D.l], BD a line parallel to its diameter [Le., axis] or the diameter it-
self, AG [a line] parallel to the line which is tangent to the section at B.
I say that AD = GD.
For if BD is the diameter itself, the proposition is evident from the
Proem and Prop. I
1 See the Commentary to Text D, Proem, lines 3-12 and 10-12.
converse of Proposition 11.5 of the Conics of Apollonius.
2
If it is parallel
to the diameter, then the proposition is demonstrated in Proposition 1.46
of the Conics of Apollonius.
3
Proposition 11.
Conversely, if BD is parallel to the diameter [of a section of a right-
angle cone] or is the diameter itself [see Fig. 11I.5D.2], and if AD = DG,
I say that AG is parallel to the tangent to the section at B.1 This is
evident from the propositions of Apollonius cited in the preceding
[Proposition].
Proposition Ill.
Let ABG be a section of a right-angle cone [see Fig. 11I.5D.3], BD a
line parallel to its diameter or the diameter itself, AG a line parallel
to the line tangent to the section at B, GE a tangent to the section at G
which meets DB at E.
I say that BD = BE.
For if BD is the diameter, this is shown in 1.35 of the Conics [of Apol-
lonius); if it is parallel to the diameter, in III .16 or 1.35 of the Conics of
Apollonius.
1
Proposition IV.
Let ABG be a section of a right-angle cone [see Fig. III.5D.4], BD a
line parallel to its diameter or the diameter itself, AG and EZ lines
parallel to the line tangent to the section at B.
I say that DB / BZ = AD2 / EZ2.
This is shown in 1.20 of the Conics of Apollonius. 1
Proposition V.
Let ABG be a segment contained by a straight line and a section of a
right-angle cone [see Fig. III.5D.5], BD a line parallel to the diameter
(and bisecting AG) or the diameter itself. From any point of line AG,
e.g. from point Z, let ZH be drawn parallel to BD and extended to the
curve, and having been extended [further] let it intersect GB (the latter
having [also) been extended) at point T.
2 See Corn., Prop. I, lines 6-7.
3 Ibid., line 8.
Prop. Il
1 See Corn., Prop. 11, lines 2-4.
Prop. III
Prop. IV
1 See above, Corn. to Text C, Prop. XXXII-Aliter, lines 17-18.
I say that GD / DZ = ZT / TH.
Through H let straight line HK be drawn parallel to AG and cutting
BD at K and BG at I. By the preceding [proposition] DB / BK = DG2 /
DZ2 = DG2 / HK2. Therefore by VI.2 of Euclid GB / BI = DG2 / HK2.
But by the same GB2 / BT2 = GD2 / DZ2. Therefore
GB / BI = GB2 / BT2. And so GB / BI = (GB / Bn
2
. Therefore
BT and BI are continuous proportionals. Then, by the composition of
proportions (if Z falls between A and D) or by the subtraction of propor-
tions (if Z falls between points D and G), GB / BT = GT / TI. Therefore
by VI.12 of Euclid GD / DZ = GT / TI. But by the same [proposition]
GT / TI = ZT / TH. Therefore GD / DZ = ZT / TH. Q.E.D.
Proposition VI.
Let ABG be a segment contained by a straight line and a section of a
right-angle cone [see Fig. III.5D.6]. And let AZ be drawn parallel to the
diameter and GZ tangent to the section at G. And let AG be bisected in
point D, and let DBE be drawn parallel to the diameter.
I say that AD / DG = DB / BE.
For sinceAD = DG and DB is parallel to the diameter then by [proposi-
tion] 11 AG will be parallel to a line tangent to the section at B. Where-
fore, by [Proposition] Ill, DB = BE. Therefore AD / DG = DB / BE.
Q.E.D.
Again, from any point on line AG, e.g. K, let KTL be drawn parallel
toAZ.
I say again that AK / KG = KT / TL.
For let GB be joined and cut KL in point I. And since DB = BE, there-
fore KI = IL. But by the preceding [proposition] AD / DK = KI / IT.
Therefore DG / DK = LI / IT. Wherefore, proceeding successively by
conjunct, disjunct, and inverse proportionality (if point K is between D
and G) or by disjunct, conjunct, and inverse proportionality (if point K
lies between A and D), AK / KD = KT / TI, and DK / KG = IT / TL.
Therefore by equal proportionality AK / KG = KT / TL. Q.E.D.
Proposition VII.
With these things demonstrated, let ABG be a balance of which B is
the center [see Fig. III.5D.7], and let BDG be a triangle with right angle
at B, and let it be suspended from points Band G. Also let area Z be
suspended from the other side of the balance at A, and let area Z at A be
in equilibrium with !::J1DG lying as it is.
I say that !::J1DG = 3 area Z.
For let BG be cut in point E such that GE = 2 EB and let EK be drawn
parallel to BD and bisected at T. And, as was demonstrated in the Book
on Equal Moments, 1 T is the center of gravity of !::J1DG. And so if the
Prop. VII
1 See Corn. to Text D, Prop. VII, lines 9-10.
suspension of 6BDG at points Band G is freed and if it is suspended
instead at E, the triangle will remain [of the same effective force] as it
now is. For, as shown in the said book,2 the straight line ET, which
joins the point of suspension with the center of gravity of the thing sus-
pended, is perpendicular to the horizon and therefore perpendicular to
AG, which is parallel to the horizon. Therefore 6BGD suspended from
point E remains [the same] as when suspended from points Band G, and
[so] it is in equilibrium with area Z suspended from point A. But equally
balanced pendents are reciprocally proportional to the distances at which
they are hung. For this was shown in the Equal Moments.
3
Therefore
6BGD / area Z = line AB / line BE. But line AB = 3 line BE, since
BG = 3BE. Therefore 6BDG = 3 areaZ. Q.E.D.
Conversely, if 6BDG = 3 area Z, the triangle and the area are in
equilibrium since AB = 3BE and, by the doctrine of the Equal Moments,
when pendents are reciprocally proportional to the distances at which they
hang they are in equilibrium.
4
Proposition VIII.
Again let AG be a balance with center B [see Fig. III.5D.8], but let
DGH be an obtuse-angled triangle with the obtuse angle at H. And let
side DH be perpendicular to AG and extended to AG, which it meets at
B, so that GB, the altitude of the triangle, is equal to one-half the balance
[beam], and let the triangle be suspended from points Band G, and let
areaZ suspended from point A be in equilibrium with l:JlDG disposed as
it now is.
I say that l:JlDG = 3 area Z.
For let area L be added to area Z, which added area is 1/3 6BGH, and
by the c<:mverse of the preceding [proposition] areaL is in equilibrium with
6BHG. But area Z is in equilibrium with MGH by hypothesis. There-
fore the whole area Z + L is in equilibrium with the whole 6BDG. Since
the centers of gravity of triangles BGH and HDG are in the same straight
line parallel to BD, therefore the pendents will [effectively] lie as they are
if they are [instead] suspended from the point in which the aforesaid
straight line meets BG. Hence by the preceding [proposition] 6BDG
= 3 (Z + L). But 6BHG = 3 area L. Hence (6BDG - 6BHG) = 3 Z,
Le. the remainder l:JlDG is three times the remainder Z. Q.E.D.
This proposition is also demonstrated in another way. Let GH be cut at
E so that GE = 2EH. And let line MEK be drawn through point E parallel
to DH and meet BG and GD in points M and K. And let EK be bisected
in T, which by the doctrine of the Equal Moments will be the center of
2 Ibid., line 13.
3 Probably intended is Proposition XXX of Maurolico's De momentis aequalibus (see
above, Corn. to Text B, Maurolyci Tetragonismus, lines 39-68).
4 See Corn. to Text D, Prop. VII, lines 24-26.
gravity of tJIDG. 1 Whence, as in the preceding [Proposition], tJIDG,
freed from points Band G and suspended from point M alone, [effec-
tively] lies as it now does. And so it is in equilibrium with area Z. But
GH = 3 HE, and so by VI.2 of Euclid GB = 3 BM. Hence AB = 3 BM.
And therefore 6.DHG = 3 area Z, since clearly the pendents are recipro-
cally proportional to the distances at which they hang. Q.E.D.
Proposition IX.
Let ABG again be the balance with center B [see Fig. III.5D.9], and
let EDG be a triangle having a right angle at E and suspended at points
E and G, with E being between Band G. And let area Z be suspended
at A and be in equilibrium with !::EDG as it now lies. Further [let area
K be such that] AB / BE = !::EDG / area K.
And so I say that !::EDG > area Z > area K.
For let T be the center of gravity of MDG, and let TH be drawn
parallel to ED, H being the point from which MDG is suspended
alone, so that it will be as effective there as it is where it now lies. And
so AB / BH = MDG / area Z. But AB > BH. Therefore, !::EDG
> area Z. Then since AB / BE = MDG / area K, accordingly MDG /
area K > MDG / area Z. Therefore by V.8 and V.l 0 of Euclid area Z
> area K, as proposed.
Proposition X.
Let ABG again be a balance with center B [see Fig. III.5D.1O], and let
KDG be an obtuse-angled triangle having its obtuse angle at K and with
altitude EG, E being between points Band G. And let the triangle be
suspended from the balance at points E and G, and let area Z be sus-
pended at A so that it is in equilibrium with l::,.KDG disposed as it now
lies. And [let area L be such that] AB / BE = l::,.KDG / area L.
I say that l::,.EDG > area Z > area L.
This is demonstrated no differently from the preceding [proposition],
with TH drawn through the center of gravity T of l::,.KDG and parallel to ED,
so that the triangle may hang from pointH alone [with the same effect] as
[it has where] it now lies.
Proposition XI.
Let ABG again be a balance with center B [see Fig. III.5D.ll], and let
DBHK be a trapezium having right angles at Band H and with side DK
verging toward G. And let area Z suspended at A be in equilibrium with
trapeziumBK. Also [let areaL be such that] AB / BH = trap. BK I areaL.
I say that area Z < area L.
Prop. VIII
1 See again Corn., Prop. VII, lines 9-10.
l_., _
For let BH be cut at E in such a way that HE I EB = (2BD + HK) I
(2HK + BD). And let line EN, which is bisected at T, be drawn parallel to
BD. Then T will be the center of gravity of trapeziumBK, as is shown in
the Equal Moments .1 Hence if trapeziumBK is freed from points Band H
and hung atE [alone], it will weigh [the same as it does where] it now lies,
inasmuch as ET is necessarily perpendicular to the horizon. And so
trapeziumBK suspended atE and areaZ suspended at A are in equilibrium.
Therefore, AB I BE = trap. BK I areaZ. ButAB I BH = trap.BK I areaL.
Therefore trap. BK I area Z > trap. BK I area L. Wherefore by V.I0 of
Euclid areaZ < areaL. Q.E.D.
Even if side DK is not verging toward G the proposition is nevertheless
true. For it does not matter where side DK verges so long as the angles
at Band H are right angles; for in such case the point of suspension E
always falls between points Band H.2
Proposition XII.
Let ABG again be a balance with B as its center [see Fig. III.5D.12],
and let DKTR be a trapezium whose sides DK and RT verge toward G,
while sides DR and KT are perpendicular to BG and when extended meet
AG in points Band H. Then let area Z suspended at A be in equilibrium
with trapezium DT disposed as it now lies. And [let area L be such that]
AB I BH = trap. DT I area L.
I say that area Z < area L.
This will be demonstrated no differently from the previous [proposi-
tion], with the center of gravity assumed in trapeziumDT and a line drawn
through that center parallel to sides DR and KT.
Proposition XIII.
Let ABG again be a balance with center B [see Fig. III.5D.13], and let
EDKH be a trapezium with right angles at E and El and with side DK
verging toward G. Then let area Z suspended at A be in equilibrium with
trapezium EK disposed as it now lies. And [let area M be such that]
AB I BH = trap. EK I area M. Also [let area L be such that] AB I BE
= trap. EK I area L.
I say that area M > area Z > area L.
For let the center of trapezium EK be taken as in [Proposition] IX and
let it be T, and let TI be drawn parallel to DE, and then let the trapezium
be freed from points E and H and [instead] suspended at I. The pendent
will [then] weigh as it [does where it] now lies because of what has been
said in the previous [propositions]. And so trapezium EK suspended at I
Prop. XI
1 See Corn., Prop. XI, line 10.
2 This paragraph was added by Maurolico. It is not in the Greek text or in the translations
of Moerbeke and Cremonensis.
.....
and area Z at A are in equilibrium. Therefore, AB / BI = trap. EK / area
Z. But AB / BB = trap. EK / area M, and AB / BE = trap. EK / areaL.
Therefore by V.S of Euclid trap. EK / L > trap. EK I Z, and trap. EK / Z
> trap. EK I M. Therefore by V.IO [of Euclid] M > Z > L. Q.E.D.
Proposition XIV.
Let ABG again be a balance with B as the center [see Fig. III.5D.I4],
and let KDTR be a trapezium whose sides KD and TR verge toward G
and whose sides DT and KR are perpendicular to BG and which is sus-
pended from the balance at E and H. Let area Z suspended at A be in
equilibrium with trapezium TK lying as it is. And [let area L be such that]
AB / BE = trap. TK / area L. And [let area M be such that] AB / BH
= trap. TK / area M.
I say that area M > area Z > area L.
This will be demonstrated no differently from the preceding [proposi-
tion], with the center of gravity of trapezium TK assumed and with a line
drawn through that center parallel to either ED or HK and extended until
it meets EH in some point; whence let trapezium TK hang etc.
Proposition XV.
With the previous [Propositions] properly premised, now let BTG be a
segment contained by a straight line and by a section of a right-angle
cone [see Fig. 1II.5D.I5]. And first let BG be at right angles to the
diameter and let BD be parallel to the diameter. Moreover, let DG be
tangent to the section at G. And b.BDG will be right-angled. And with
BG cut into any number of [equal] parts, e.g. in points E, Z, H, and I, let
ES, ZC, BY and IX be drawn parallel to the diameter and extended to
side DG, and let these lines cut the curve of the section in points F, T, P
and 0, which are individually connected with G, and each of the con-
nected lines is extended until it meets a parallel, Le., at points K, L, M
andN.
And so I say that 3 (trap. KE + trap. LZ + trap. MH + trap. NI
+ b.XIG) > b.BGD > 3(trap. ZF + trap. HT + trap. IP + 6.lOG).
For let ABG be imagined as a balance with center B and from which
b.BGD is suspended at Band G. And let areas R, Q, V, W, 8 be suspended
at A, area R balancing trapezium DE, area Q trapezium ZS, area V
trapezium CH, area w trapezium IY and area 8 triangle XIG, all situated
as they now are. And so the whole area (R + Q + V + w + 8) balances
6.BGD. Therefore, by [proposition] VII, b.BGD = 3 (R + Q + V
+ w + 8). And, by [Proposition] VI, BG (or AB) / BE = SE / EF.
Therefore, trap. DE / trap. KE = AB / BE. Therefore, by [Proposition]
XI, trap. KE > area R. Also, by [proposition] VI, BG (or AB) / BZ
= CZ / ZT = trap. SZ / trap. LZ; and AB / BE = SE / EF = trap. SZ /
trap. FZ. Therefore, by [proposition] XII, trap. LZ > area Q > trap. FZ.
Similarly, by [Propositions] VI and XIII, I shall show that trap. MH
> area V > trap. TH, that trap. NI > area Cl) > trap. PI. And since, by
[proposition] VI,BG (or AB) / BI = XI /10 = / therefore,
by [Proposition] IX, > area B> And so (trap. KE + trap.
LZ + trap. MH + trap. NI + 6XIG) > (R + Q + V + Cl) + B) > (trap.
FZ + trap. TH + trap. PI + But = 3 (R + Q + V
+ Cl) + B). Therefore, (trap. KE + trap. LZ + trap. MH + trap. NI
+ 6XIG) > 6BGD, and (trap. FZ + trap. TH + trap. PI +
< Y3 Q.E.D.
Proposition XVI.
Again let BTG be a segment contained by a straight line and by a section
of a right-angle cone [see Fig. III.5D.16]. And let BG not be at right
angles to the diameter so that a line through B parallel to the diameter
produces the obtuse angle DBG and when extended meets KG-which is
perpendicular to the diameter-at point K. And let this line be extended
[in the other direction] to D, from which line GD is drawn tangent to the
section at G, and [accordingly] a right-angled triangle KDG will be formed.
Cut BG into any number of [equal] parts, e.g. in points E, Z, H and I,
and through these points let lines ES, ZC, HY and IX be drawn parallel
to the diameter and extended to side DG and [in the other direction] to
line KG, which they meet at points A, 0, cp, w, and let them cut the
curve of the section in points F, T, P and 0, to which points G is connected
and the connected lines are each extended to its nearest parallel [thus
GF] to ljJ, [GT] toL, [GP] toM and [GO] toN.
And so I say that 3 (trap. ljJE + trap. LZ + trap. MH + trap. NI
+ > > 3 (trap. FZ + trap. TH + trap. PI +
For let AKG be imagined as a balance with center K, from which let
be suspended at G and K, and at A let areas R, Q, V, Cl) , Bbe sus-
pended so that area R balances trapezium DE, area Q trapezium SZ,
area V trapeziumCH, area Cl) trapezium YI, area BtriangleXIG, all situated
as they now are. And so the whole area (R + Q + V + Cl) + B) balances
Therefore, by [proposition] VIII, obtuse-angled = 3 (R
+ Q + V + Cl) + B). But, by [Proposition] V, KG (or AK) / KA = SE /
EF = trap. DE / trap.ljJE. Therefore by [Proposition] XII, trap.ljJE > area
R. Also, by [proposition] VI, KG (or AK) / KO = ZC / ZT = trap.
SZ / trap. LZ; andAK / K'A = SE / EF = trap. SZ / trap. FZ. Therefore,
by [Proposition] XIV, trap. LZ > area Q > trap. FZ. Similarly by [Proposi-
tions] VI and XIV I shall show that trap. MH > area V > trap. TH, and
that trap. NI > area Cl) > trap. PI. And since by [proposition] VI, KG
(or AK) / Kw = XI/ID, therefore / = AK / Kw. There-
fore, by [Proposition]X, 6XIG > areaB > And so (trap.ljJE + trap.
LZ + trap. MH + trap. NI + > (R + Q + V + Cl) + B), and
Prop. XVI
1 These points were not marked in the Greek text or in the translations of Moerbeke
and Cremonensis.
therefore> Y3 6BGD. But (trap. FZ + trap. TH + trap. PI + 60IG)
< (R + Q + V + w + 8), and therefore < Y3 6BGD, which triangle was
triple the sum of the areas. Therefore, 3 (trap. ljJE + trap. LZ + trap.
MH + trap. NI + 6XIG) > 6BGD > 3 (trap. FZ + trap. TH + trap.
PI + 60IG). Q.E.D.
Proposition XVII.
Let BTG again be the segment contained by a straight line and a section
of a right-angle cone [see Fig. III.5D.17]. And let BD be parallel to the
diameter and GD tangent to the section at G. Further let area Z be
Y3 6BDG.
I say that segm. BTG = area Z.
For if not, it is either greater or less. Therefore let segm. BTG > area
Z, i.e., greater by some excess which when multiplied by or added to
itself can, by the lemma assumed at the beginning, exceed 6BGD.
Therefore, let the excess of segment BTG over area Z be multiplied as
many times [as necessary] until it exceeds 6BDG. And let BD be cut into
just as many equal parts, namely, BE, EH, HI, IK and KD; and let the
points of division be connected with point G, and let these connected lines
cut the curve of the section in points F, R, T and S. And so since 6BEG
is the same submultiple of 6BDG as the excess by which segmentBTG ex-
ceeds areaZ is of the quantity produced by the successive mUltiplications
of that excess needed to exceed 6BDG, therefore 6BEG is less than the
excess by which the segment exceeds Z. Therefore segm. BTG > (area
Z + 6BEG), and a fortiori (trap. BF + trap. MR + trap. AT + trap.
XS + MOG) > (area Z + 6BEG). Therefore let (trap. BF + trap. FR
+ trap. RT + trap. TS + 6GSO) be subtracted from one side and
6BEG equal to the immediately aforesaid aggregate of trapezia and
triangle by VI. 1 [of Euclid], from the other side. Therefore, there remains
on the one side (trap. AF + trap. XR + trap. PT + ~ G P S and on the
other side area Z. Therefore, (trap. AF + trap. XR + trap. PT + 6GPS)
> area Z. But by hypothesis area Z = Y3 6BDG. Therefore 6BDG
< 3 (trap. AF + trap. XR + trap. PT + 6GPS), which is impossible by
one of the preceding [propositions, Le. by Proposition XV or XVI].
Therefore segm. BTG '":/> area Z.
Now let segm. BTG < areaZ, and as before let 6BEG be less than the
excess by which area Z exceeds segment BTG. Then area Z > (segm.
BTG + 6BGE). But by one of the preceding [propositions] (trap. BF
+ trap. MR + trap. AT + trap. XS + 6PGO) > area Z, which is one-
third part of ~ B D G Therefore a fortiori (trap. BF + trap. MR + trap.
AT + trap. XS + 6PGO) > (segm. BTG + 6BGE). Then let segment
BTG be subtracted from each side. And there remains on the one side the
segments of trapezia BF, MR, AT, XS and 6PGO that lie outside of the
curve of the section, and on the other side 6BGE. Therefore the said
segments [of trapezia] remaining outside of the curve are greater than
~
L_" _
6.BGE. But 6.BGE is, by VI.I [of Euclid], equal to (trap. BF + trap.
FR + trap. RT + trap. TS + 6.SGO). Therefore the said segments of
trapezia BF, FR, RT, TS and 6.SGO are greater than these trapezia
plus the triangle, Le., the part than the whole, which is impossible.
Therefore segm. BTG 1:. area Z; and it was demonstrated not to be greater.
Hence segm. BTG = area Z = Y3 6.BDG, and this was proposed.
Proposition XVIII.
Finally let BTG be a segment contained by a straight line and a
section of a right-angle cone [see Fig. III.5D.18]. Let its vertex be T, and
T is joined with Band G.
I say that segm. BTG = 4/3 6.BTG.
For since T is the vertex of segment BTG, BG will be parallel to the line
tangent to the section at T. Therefore, let straight line TE be parallel to
the diameter or be the diameter itself. Then by [Proposition] I of this work
BE = EG. Also let BD be drawn parallel to the diameter. Let BD meet
GD (a tangent to the section at G) at point D, and let [TE] extended meet
GD at K. And since ET is the diameter or is parallel to the diameter, and
BG is parallel to a line tangent to the section at T, and GK (the tangent to
the section at G) meets ET at K, therefore, by [proposition] Ill, ET
= TK. Hence by 1.38 of the Elements 6.KTG = 6.TGE, and by the same
[Proposition] 6.TGE = f::.ETB. Therefore, with f::.TGE posed as common,
f::.KEG = f::.BTG. But by VI. 17 of the Elements
1
f::.DEG = 4 f::.KEG, the
triangles being similar, since the side of one is double the [corresponding]
side of the other. Therefore f::.DBG = 4 f::.BTG. Now by the preceding
[proposition] f::.DBG = 3 segm. BTG. Therefore segm. BTG = 413 f::.BTG,
and this is what we promised in the beginning to demonstrate.
Corollary.
And so f::.BTG is triple the sum of segments BT and TG. But by the
preceding [proposition] f::.KTG (and thus f::.ETG) = 3 segm. TG. There-
fore the other triangle BTE = 3 segm. BT. And since triangles BTE and
ETG are equal to one another, the segments BT and TG will also be equal.
Up to this point this [basic proposition] has been demonstrated by the
use of the doctrine of the Equal Moments. From here on the same thing
will be shown by purely geometrical arguments.
The Second Part of the Book.
In regard to segments contained by a straight line and a curve, I call
the straight line the base, and the greatest perpendicular drawn from
Prop. XVIII
1 See Corn., Prop. XVIII, line 17.
the curved line to the base the altitude, and the point from which the
maximum perpendicular is drawn the vertex.
Proposition XIX.
IF IN A SEGMENT CONTAINED BY A STRAIGHT LINE AND
THE SECTION OF A RIGHT-ANGLE CONE A STRAIGHT LINE
IS DRAWN FROM THE MIDDLE OF THE BASE PARALLEL TO
THE DIAMETER OR AS THE DIAMETER ITSELF, THE VERTEX
IS THE POINT AT WHICH THE LINE DRAWN PARALLEL TO
THE DIAMETER CUTS THE SECTION OF THE CONE.l
For let ABG be a segment contained by straight line AG and the
section ABG of a right-angle cone [see Fig. III.5D.19], and let AG be bi-
sected at point D, and let line BD be parallel to the diameter or be the
diameter itself.
I say that point B is the vertex of section ABG.
For since AD and DG are equal and BD is the diameter or is parallel to
the diameter, then by [Proposition] II of this book AG will be parallel to
BE which is tangent to the section at B. Whence it is manifest that of the
perpendiculars falling from curveABG to straight lineAG the greatest will
be the one which falls from point B. And so the vertex of segment ABG
is pointB. Q.E.D.
Proposition XX.
IN A SEGMENT CONTAINED BY A STRAIGHT LINE AND A
SECTION OF A RIGHT-ANGLE CONE, THE LINE DRAWN FROM
THE MIDDLE OF THE BASE PARALLEL TO THE DIAMETER
OR AS THE DIAMETER ITSELF AND UP TO THE CURVE IS
% THE LENGTH OF THE LINE DRAWN FROM THE MIDDLE
OF ONE-HALF [OF THE BASE] TO THE CURVE.l
Let ABG be a segment contained by a straight line AG and a section
ABG of a right-angle cone [see Fig. III.5D.20], and let AG be bisected in
point D. Then let DB be drawn parallel to the diameter or as the
diameter itself. Further let AD be bisected in E and let EZ be drawn
parallel to the diameter and up to the curve.
I say that DB = 4/3 EZ.
For let ZT be drawn parallel to AG and up to DB. By [proposition]
IV of this book DB / BT = (AD / ZT)2. But AD2 = 4 ZP. Therefore line
DB = 4BT. Therefore BD = 413 DT = % EZ. Q.E.D.
Proposition XXI.
IF IN A SEGMENT CONTAINED BY A STRAIGHT LINE AND
A SECTION OF A RIGHT-ANGLE CONE A TRIANGLE IS
Prop. XIX
Prop. XX
INSCRIBED WHICH HAS THE SAME BASE AND THE SAME
ALTITUDE AS THE SEGMENT, THEN THE INSCRIBED TRI-
ANGLE WILL BE GREATER THAN HALF THE SEGMENT.1
For let ABG be a segment of the kind proposed, in which l::.ABG is
inscribed on base AG and with the same altitude [see Fig. III.5D.21].
I say that l::.ABG > h segm. ABG.
For, since by hypothesis B is the vertex of segment ABG, AG will be
parallel to the line tangent to the segment atB. LetZBE be such a tangent,
to which are drawn at points Z and E lines AZ and GE that are parallel to
the diameter. And accordingly they fall outside of the segment. And by
1.41 of the Elements l::.ABG = h paral. AZEG. But segment ABG is less
than the parallelogram. Therefore l::.ABG > h segm. ABG. Q.E.D.
Corollary.
It is clear therefore that in such a segment it is possible to inscribe a
rectilinear polygon such that the segments left over [between it and the
curve of the section] are less than any proposed area. For if a triangle is
described within a segment on the same base and with the same altitude
as the segment, the triangle will be greater than half the segment. Simi-
larly if two triangles are described in the two leftover segments, these
two triangles will be greater than half the [sum of the two] segments.
Further, if four triangles are described within the four segments left over,
the four triangles will be greater than half the [sum of the] segments. This
can be done as many times as necessary until, by X.I of the Elements,
the leftover segments are less than the proposed area, however small.
Proposition XXII.
IF IN A SEGMENT CONTAINED BY A STRAIGHT LINE AND A
SECTION OF A RIGHT-ANGLE CONE A TRIANGLE IS INSCRIBED
WHICH HAS THE SAME BASE AND THE SAME ALTITUDE AS
THE SEGMENT, AND IF IN THE LEFTOVER SEGMENTS OTHER
TRIANGLES ARE INSCRIBED WHICH HAVE THE SAME BASE
AND THE SAME ALTITUDE AS THE SEGMENTS, THE TRIANGLE
DESCRIBED IN THE WHOLE SEGMENT IS EIGHT TIMES EACH
TRIANGLE DESCRIBED IN [EACH OF] THE LEFTOVER SEG-
MENTS.1
LetABG be a segment of the said kind [see Fig. III.5D.22], and letAG
be bisected in D, and let DB be drawn parallel to the diameter or as the
diameter itself and up to the curve; and by [Proposition] XIX of this
[work] point B will be the vertex of segment ABG. And so let l::.ABG be
Prop. XXI
Prop. XXII
1 See Corn., Prop. XXII, lines 2-9.
described, having the same altitude and the same base as the segment.
Also let AD be bisected at E and EZ drawn parallel to the diameter and
up to the curve. By VI.2 [of Euclid] EZ will also bisect AB at T. Then by
[proposition] XIX of this [work] point Z will be the vertex of segment
AZB. Let f:J.AZB be constructed, and it will be of the same altitude and
the same base as the segment AZB. It is no different if we bisect DG at
K, draw KH parallel to the diameter and describe f:J.BHG, which will
have the same base and the same altitude as segment BHG.
And so I say that f:J.ABG = 8 f:J.AZB = 8 f:J.BHG.
For let EB be connected; and since BD = 413 ZE by [Proposition] XX
of this [work] and since BD = 2ET(forDA = 2AE), henceZE = 3fzET.
. Therefore ET = 2 TZ. Hence by VI.l [of Euclid] f:J.AET = 2 f:J.ATZ,
and f:J.ETB = 2 f:J. TBZ. And so the whole f:J.ABE = 2 whole f:J.AZB. But
by VI.l [of Euclid] f:J.ABD = 2 f:J.ABE. Therefore f:J.ABD = 4 f:J.AZB,
and further f:J.ABG = 2 f:J.ABD. Therefore f:J.ABG = 8 f:J.AZB. It will be
demonstrated no differently that f:J.ABG = 8 f:J.BHG. Q.E.D.
Corollary.
And so f:J.ABG = 4 (f:J.AZB + f:J.BHG).2
Proposition XXIII.
IF THERE IS A SEGMENT CONTAINED BY A STRAIGHT LINE
AND A SECTION OF A RIGHT-ANGLE CONE, AND IF A SERIES
OF ANY NUMBER OF AREAS CONTINUALLY IN QUADRUPLE
PROPORTION IS PROPOSED, AND IF THE GREATEST OF THE
AREAS IS EQUAL TO A TRIANGLE HAVING THE SAME BASE
AND THE SAME ALTITUDE AS THE SEGMENT, THEN THE
SUM OF THE AREAS WILL BE LESS THAN THE SEGMENT.
1
For letADBEG be a segment contained by a straight line and a section of
a right-angle cone [see Fig. III.5D.23]. And let Z, H, T and I be any
number of areas such that anyone is quadruple its successor. And let the
greatest be Z, equal to f:J.ABG, which has the same base and the same
altitude as segment ABG.
And so I say that segm. ABG > (Z + H + T + I).
For let the vertices of segmentsADB andBEG be pointsD andE, and let
triangles ADB and BEG be described. And by the corollary to the pre-
ceding [proposition] f:J.ABG = 4 (f:J.ADB + f:J.BEG). But by hypothesis
areaZ, equal to f:J.ABG, is 4 H. Therefore areaH = (f:J.ADB + f:J.BEG).
I shall demonstrate no differently that area T will be equal to the four
triangles described in segments AD, DB, BE and EG and having the same
bases and same altitudes as the segments. Nor shall I conclude in any
2 This corollary is not in the Greek text or in the translations of Moerbeke and Crernonensis.
Prop. XXIII
l _
different way that area I will be equal to eight triangles similarly described
in the eight segments left over afterwards. Therefore (Z + H + T + 1)
will be equal to a certain rectilinear figure described inside of segment
ABG; but such a rectilinear figure is less than the segment since it is
obviously a part of it. Therefore (Z + H + T + I) < segm. ABG. Q.E.D.
Proposition XXIV.
IF THERE IS A SERIES OF ANY NUMBER OF MAGNITUDES
RELATED IN A QUADRUPLE PROPORTION, THEN THE SUM OF
THEM PLUS ONE-THIRD OF THE LEAST [MAGNITUDE] WILL
BE 4/3 THE GREATEST [MAGNITUDEV
Let the five magnitudes A , B, G, D and E be the "any number of mag-
nitudes." Each of them is quadruple its successor, and let I = Y3 E, where
E is the least of the magnitudes [see Fig. III.5D.24].
I say that (A + B + G + D + E + 1) = 4/3 A, where A is the greatest
of the magnitudes.
ForletZ = Y3B,H = Y3G,T = Y3D,I = Y3E.AndsosinceB =
and Z = Y3 B, (B + Z) = Y3 A. I shall show no differently that (G + H)
= Y3 B, that (D + T) = Y3 G and that (E + 1) = Y3 D. And I = Y3 E.
Hence (B + G + D + E + 1) + (Z + H + T + 1) = Y3(A + B + G
+ D + E). And since (Z + H + T + 1) = Y3 (B + G + D + E), [when
we subtract the latter equation from the former] there will remain
(B + G + D + E + 1) = Y3 A. Therefore the whole (A + B + G + D
+ E + 1) = 4/3 A. Q.E.D.
Proposition XXV.
EVERY SEGMENT CONTAINED BY A STRAIGHT LINE AND
A SECTION OF A RIGHT-ANGLE CONE IS 4/3 THE TRIANGLE
HAVING THE SAME BASE AND THE SAME ALTITUDE AS IT.1
For let ADBEG be a segment contained by a straight line and a
section of a right-angle cone [see Fig. III.5D.25]. And let !::.ABG be on the
same base and under the same altitude as the segment. And let area
K = % !::.ABG.
I say that area K = segm. ABG.
For otherwise it is either greater or less. If segm. ABG > area K, then
let segm. ABG = area K + area L. By the corollary to [proposition] XXI
of this [work], let a rectilinear figure ADBEG be inscribed in segment
ABG such that the segments left over [between its perimeter and the
parabolic curve] are less than area L. And so polygon ADBEG > area K.
But polygon ADBEG is the sum of the magnitudes disposed in quadruple
Prop. XXIV
1 See Corn., Prop. XXIV, lines 2-5.
Prop. XXV
1 See Corn. Prop. XXV, lines 2-4.
proportion of which the greatest magnitude is 6ABG, its successor is
(6ADB + 6BEG), the third is the sum of the triangles inscribed in the
succeeding segments, and so on. But area K = 4/3 6ABG, which is the
greatest of the magnitudes. Therefore the sum of the magnitudes disposed
in quadruple proportion is greater than 4f3 the greatest magnitude, which
by the preceding [proposition] is impossible. For such a sum is less than
4/3 the greatest. Therefore segm. ABG ::I> area K.
But neither is it less. For if segm. ABG < area K, then let segm. ABG
+ area L = area K. And let area R be equal to 6ABG; then let
H = 14R, T = 1/4 Hand 1 = 14 T. Let the division continue as many times
[as necessary] until the last term is less than area L; and let it be that
1 < area L. Since segm. ABG + L = area K, and K = 4/3 6ABG
= 413 R, and since by the preceding [Proposition] (R + H + T + 1
+ Y I) = 4/3 R, where R is the greatest term, accordingly segm. ABG + L
= (R + H + T + I + Y I). Therefore, if area L is subtracted from one
side [of the equation], and Y 1, which is less than L, from the other side,
the result is that (R + H + T + I) > segm. ABG, which is impossible by
[Proposition] XXIII of this [work] since areas R, H, T and I are in
quadruple proportion and the greatest of the areas R is equal to 6ABG
having the same base and the same altitude as the segment ABG. There-
fore segm. ABG <t area K, and it was shown that neither was it greater;
therefore it will be equal. But area K = 4/3 6ABG. Therefore segment
ABG = 4/3 6ABG, and this is what is proposed for demonstration in
the present proposition and in the beginning of the book.
The End of the Book ofArchimedes on the Quadrature ofthe Parabola.
This Book of Archimedes on the Quadrature of the Parabola has been
corrected and restored, from a very corrupt exemplar that is circulating,
by the labor and industry of Francesco Maurolico, most zealous in the
study of mathematics. But he needed to have recourse, with incredible
acuteness of mind, to the Book ofEqual Moments of the aforesaid author
and to the Conical Elements of Apollonius, which works he uses as
fundaments and without which the whole structure of the present book
would collapse. At Messina on the Sicilian Strait, 23 July, 1534.
Commentary to Text D
[Proem]
3-12 "Archimedes ... finitum." In Section III of this chapter I
have already discussed the fact that this much-abbreviated
proem contains linguistic remnants of William of Moerbeke' s
translation as published by Gaurico.
10-12 "Inaequalium . . . finitum." This is the Lemma of Archi-
medes. Maurolico has so truncated it that I thought it best to
add to the English translation a phrase in brackets to bring it
closer to the Greek text and to Moerbeke' s translation (see
Vol. 2, 11vY).
Proposition 1
6-7 "ex ... Apollonii" First note that Maurolico has substituted
for Archimedes' general statement that the first three proposi-
tions (in Maurolico' s text, the first four) have been demonstrated
"in the conical elements" (see Vol. 2, 20vN) specific citations
in their proper places to the Conics of Apollonius. Proposition
11.5 of the Conics is rendered as follows in Maurolico's
Emendatio et restitutio conicorum Apollonii Pergaei (Messina,
1654), p. 55: "V. Si paraboles vel hyperboles diameter lineam
quamdam secet bifariam: quae apud diametrum attingit
sectionem aequidistans erit bifariam sectae lineae; et perinde
secta ordinate ducta est." (Here and in the succeeding citations
from Maurolico's work I have altered the punctuation and
capitalization somewhat.)
8 "46
a
libri primi conicorum Apollonii" For Proposition 1.46 of
the Conics, see Maurolico's version, Emendatio, p. 38: "XLVI.
Si parabolen linea tangens coincidat diametro: ducta per tactum
aequidistans diametro intra sectionem ductas paenes tangentem
per medium secabit."
Proposition Il
2-4 "Contra . . . contingit." This converse of the first proposition
was included by Archimedes as a part of Proposition I (see
Vol. 2, 20vL). Maurolico has made it a separate proposition.
Hence all of the numbers of the succeeding propositions differ
by one from those adopted for Archimedes' text.
Proposition III
7-8 "in ... Apollonii" For 1.35 of the Conics, see Maurolico's
Emendatio, pp. 28-29: "XXXV. Si parabolen linea tangat,
coincidens diametro extra sectionem: ducta a tactu linea ordinate
ad diametrum aequalem recipiet ex diametro ad summitatem
sectionis ei quae a summitate ad tangentem; et inter locum
tangentis et sectionem nulla linea intercidet." The alternate
proposition cited, III.16, appears to be incorrect. I do not know
which proposition was intended.
Proposition VII
9-10 "ut ... Aequalibus" This would follow from Propositions
1.13 and 1.14 of Archimedes' On the Equilibrium of Planes
(=L11 and 1. 12 of Moerbeke' s text; see Vol. 2, 18rC- Q). More
specifically it follows from Maurolico's own De momentis
aequalibus, Bk. 11, Prop. XVIII (ed. 1685, p. 123): "Si in
quolibet triangulo ducatur linea uni laterum aequidistans et
reliqua secans, ita ut portiones ad angulum sub sectis contentum
receptae duplae sint reliquarum: centrum gravitatis trianguli erit
punctum in quo ducta per aequalia dividitur." Here we seem to
have evidence that Maurolico had produced some form of his
De momentis aequalibus by 1534 and that the version of 1547
was perhaps an elaboration of the early version.
13 "ut ... ostenditur" See Proposition III of Book I of
Maurolico's De momentis aequalibus (ed. 1685, p. 88): "Si
grave quodpiam ita locatum sit, ut a puncto quodam ad centrum
gravitatis acta perpendicularis sit ad horizontem, grave sive a
puncto tali sive a centro suspensum ita pendebit ut locatum est."
Again we should note that, though Maurolico's argument
could be proved in a general way by Book I of Archimedes'
On the Equilibrium of Planes, it is specifically supported by
this proposition of his own De momentis aequalibus.
24-26 "per ... repunt" See Proposition XXXI of Book I of Mauro-
lico's De momentis aequalibus (ed. 1685, p. 101): "Gravia
reciproca spatiis a quibus pendent, aequeponderant. " This is the
converse of Proposition XXX (which I have given in the
Commentary, Text B, Maurolyci Tetragonismus, lines 39-68).
Obviously Maurolico had these two propositions in mind when
he cited De momentis aequalibus here in the Quadratura
parabolae.
Proposition XI
10 "sicut . . . momentis" The ultimate authority is Proposition
1.15 of Archimedes' On the Equilibrium of Planes (=1.13 of
Moerbeke's x ~ see Vol. 2, 18rQ-R). Probably Maurolico
had in mind a proposition like that of Proposition VII of
Book III of his De momentis aequalibus (ed. 1685, p. 139),
which, together with Proposition V (p. 136), I now quote:
Propositio V. Contra si per centrum gravitatis ipsius trapetii ducatur
linea parallelus lateribus parallelis, ducta ita secabit unumquodque
reliquorum laterum ut segmentum aequidistantium laterum maiori
conterminum ad reliquum earn habeat rationem quam aggregatum ex
duplo minoris aequidistantium laterum et ex minori ad aggregatum ex
duplo maioris, et ex minori .... Propositio VII. Si in trapetio cuius
duo tantum latera aequidistant unum ex reliquis ad dictam rationem
secetur, et per punctum sectionis linea parallelus aequidistantibus
lateribus ducatur, et per aequalia secetur, punctum sectionis erit
centrum gravitatis trapetii.
Proposition XVIII
17 "per 17
am
VI. 19. See the Elementa (Basel, 1546), pp. 151, 153.
Proposition XIX
6-10 "Si . . . sectionem." The enunciation is taken from Moer-
beke's translation of Proposition 18 (see Vol. 2, 22rC), except
that Maurolico has changed "media basi" to "medio basis,"
has added "vel ipsa diameter," changes "eri!' , to "est" and
has transposed the last two words, giving .. coni sectionem"
instead of "sectionem coni." It is of interest that Gaurico
(Tetragonismus, 25r)-but not the scribe of manuscript M of
the Archimedean translations of Moerbeke (342v)-also trans-
poses these two words, another piece of evidence that Gaurico's
edition was the source of Maurolico' s knowledge of Moerbeke' s
translation of Quadratura parabolae.
Proposition XX
2-6 "In ... longitudine." The enunciation is similar to that of the
Moerbeke Proposition 19 (see Vo!. 2, 22rE), except that for
"media basi" Maurolico has "medio basis," for "ducta est" he
has "penes diametrum sive ipsa diameter ad peripheriam,"
for "media medietate" he has "medio dimidii ad peripheriam,"
and for "eri!" he has "est." None of these changes were in
Gaurico's text. Hence they appear to be Maurolico's own.
Proposition XXI
2-5 "Si ... portionis." The enunciation is exactly that of
Moerbeke's Proposition 20 (see Vo!. 2, 22rH), except that like
Gaurico and the scribe of manuscript M Maurolico has
"portione contenta" instead of "portionem contentam."
Furthermore he changes quam medietas" to dimidio' ,
without any precedent.
Proposition XXII
2- 9 "Si . . . est." The enunciation is exactly that of Moerbeke' s
Proposition 21 (see Vol. 2, 22rK-L), except that like Gaurico
and the scribe of manuscript M Maurolico has "portione
contenta" for "portionem contentam," and like Gaurico (but
not like the scribe of M) he has "tota portione" for "totam
portionem," and independently of both Gaurico and the scribe of
M he has substituted "relictas" twice for "residuas" and
"est" for "erit." Maurolico's agreement with Gaurico against
manuscripts 0 and M in regard to "tota portione" is one
more bit of evidence indicating that Gaurico's text was
Maurolico's source.
Proposition XXIII
2-7 "Si ... portione." The enunciation is like that of Moerbeke's
Proposition 22 (see Vo!. 2, 22rO-P), except for the following
changes: for "in proportione quadrupli" Maurolico has "con-
tinue in ratione quadrupla," for "maximum spatiorum" he has
"spatiorum maximum," for "simul omnia" he has "universa
simul" and for "minora erunt" he has "erunt minus." Mauro-
lico's changes were his own and thus independent of Gaurico' s
text.
Proposition XXIV
2-5 "Si ... maximae." Maurolico has considerably altered the
enunciation of Moerbeke's Proposition 23 (which see in Vol. 2,
22rS-T). This is the only instance of his paraphrasing instead
of reproducing the enunciations of the geometric section of
Quadratura parabolae (i.e. Propositions XIX-XXV).
Proposition XXV
2-4 "Omnis . . . aequalem." The enunciation is exactly that of
Moerbeke's Proposition XXIV (see Vo!. 2, 22vA), except that
Maurolico has transposed "est epitrita."
CHAPTER 6
Archimedean Problems in the First
Half of the Sixteenth Century: The
Influence of the Medieval Traditions
I. Spiral Lines
To this point I have examined what appear to be clear cases of the
transmission and use of medieval Archimedean texts in the sixteenth
century. Now I should like to examine the scattered treatment of
Archimedean problems in the first half of the century where some
medieval influences may be at work but where those influences are
intertwined with more recent Renaissance considerations. I am confining
myself to the first half of the century since the publication of the editio
princeps of the Greek text with Regiomontanus' corrected version of the
translation of Jacobus Cremonensis in 1544, together with the
Commandino translations of 1558, redirected Archimedean studies and
stimulated direct study of the Greek text in the second half of the
century, with the consequent fading away of the medieval treatments.
For then the full range of Archimedes' works and methods were
studied and a new method of infinitesimals was developed to solve
similar problems. But, in the first half of the ,century, only a few
Archimedean problems were of abiding interest. These problems
concerned (1) the construction and understanding of an Archimedean
spiral, (2) the crown problem, (3) the finding of two mean proportionals
between two given lines, and (4) the quadrature of curved figures
(most often the circle and the sphere) and the rectification of curved
lines. I have purposely omitted occasional efforts on the part of the
various mathematicians of the first half of the century to present non-
Archimedean solutions of their own, except where these "new" solutions
related to medieval efforts. I have also not attempted to trace completely
the influence, before 1544, of the Greek text of Archimedes or of the
Latin translation of Cremonensis, although I have in all probability
mentioned most of the mathematicians who were familiar with the Greek
Archimedes. For example, I have not attempted to discuss every trace
1055
of the Sandreckoner since that work had no medieval Latin tradition
and all Renaissance treatments of it were necessarily dependent on the
Greek text or on the translation of Cremonensis. I have mentioned in
a preceding section (Part Ill, Chap. 2, Sect. IV, n. 82) a vague reference
reflecting the Sandreckoner in Pacioli's De viribus quantitatis. A much
more detailed knowledge of that work was exhibited in an intriguing tract
of Paul of Middelburg: De numero atomorum totius universi contra
usurarios (Rome, 1518). In this tract he mentions Archimedes' system
for representing large numbers and describes a somewhat similar system
of his own, first to represent the number of atoms in the whole universe
and then to show how soon the compounding of usurious interest on
one ducat would produce a number exceeding the number of atoms
contained in the universe.
1
It is of incidental interest that Paul of
1 The reference to Archimedes and the outline of his own system of "periodic intervals"
occur in Book I, sign C [i] verso-C iv recto: "Archimedes item syracusanus mathematica
scientia insignis investigare conatus fuit numerum arenularum totius universi: sed quia
non habuit veram solis et lunae reliquorumque celestium corporum quantitatem et a centro
terrae orbium ipsorum distantiam: numerum arenularum totius universi vere cognoscere non
potuit; neque supputatio eius graecorum more per myriadas facta, hoc est per decem millia,
congruit supputationi latinorum qui per millenaria computant. Igitur numerum arenularum
et atomorum totius universi et partium eius hac nostra lucubratiuncula indagaturi. Primo
petitiones aut suppositiones aliquas praemittemus: quarum prima haec est. Decem millia
atomorum aequari uni arenulae vel saltem non minorem quantitatem efficere. Et licet atomus
iuxta graecam etimologiam quid individuum vel indivisibile significet, quia tamen
impossibile est corpus aliquod indivisibile reperiri, nos iuxta consuetudinem philosophorum
appellabimus atomum non simpliciter indivisibile corpus sed quod adeo est parvum atque
minutum ut etiam aciem acutissimi visus subterfugiat, qualia sunt corpuscula ilia
pulverulenta quae in radiis solis per fenestram domus intrantibus oculis in obscura vel
in umbra collocatis videri solent. Vel aliter quantitatem atomi sic insinuabimus: si
imaginati fuerimus unam arenulam esse divisam in decem millia partium, quamlibet
partem atomum vocabimus. Secunda suppositio est decem millia arenularum orbiculariter
invicem compactarum sphaerulam efficere non minorem uno grana sinapis. Has duas
suppositiones non aliter probabimus sed tanquamper se notas praesupponemus.... Tertia
suppositio est viginti millia granorum sinapis orbiculariter invicem compactorum sphaeram
efficere non minorem quam sit sphaera latitudinis unius digiti. . . . Quarta suppositio est
quater mille et nonagintasex sphaerulas digitales pedalem sphaeram efficere. . . . His
quatuor suppositionibus praemissis facile patebit quanta possit arenularum pulverum seu
atomorum multitudo contineri in sphaera cuius diameter pedalis fuerit quantitas; per
quartam nanque suppositionem immediate praemissam sphaera pedalis quantitatis
potentialiter in se continet sphaerulas digitales quater mille et nonagintasex; et quia per
tertiam supputationem quaelibet digitalis sphaera maior est grana sinapis non plus quam
vigesies millies: sequitur quod in sphaera pedalis quantitatis contineri poterunt grana
sinapis non plura quam 81920000, hoc est octuagesies et semel mille millia, noningentesies
vigesies mille grana sinapis. Et quia per secundam suppositionem quodlibet granum sinapis
maius est una arenula non plus quam decies millies, sequitur in sphaera pedali contineri
posse arenulas non plures quam his duodecim figuris compraehendantur, videlicet
8192()()()()()()()(, hoc est octies centum ac deciesnonies millies mille millia, ducenta mille
millia. . . . Sed quia quantitas numerorum centum mille millia excedentium non facile a
nobis distincte exprimi potest, nisi per confusam quandam millium aut myriadum
vicissitudinem et repetitionem, expediens erit ut maximam huiuscemodi atomorum multi-
tudinem facilius et commodius exprimere possimus novam quandam supputationis rationem
THE PROBLEM OF SPIRAL LINES 1057
confingere ut scilicet figurarum aut characterum loca per novem semper intervalla
distincta periodica quadam iteratione ordinem et significationem figurarum repetamus.
Et quod consuetudo hactenus in tribus terminis observavit nos ad novem extendemus, sic
quod primae novem figurae primae periodi vocitentur, sequentes novem secundae periodi
dicantur, deinceps reliquae novem tertiae periodi, rursus aliae novem quartae periodi, sicque
in caeteris in infinitum. Iuxta quam rationem decima figura quae millies mille millia nobis
designat prima secundae periodi dicetur, et numerum [i.e. unitatem] secundorum ostendet.
Undecima figura decena secundorum numerorum significabit. Duodecima figura centena
secundorum dabit. Tertiadecima millena secundae periodi. Quartadecima decena millia
secundae periodi, sicque in caeteris, quemadmodum multis exemplis postea declarabimus;
verbi gratia si numerum atomorum superius inventum sedecim characteribus constantem
quo maior in sphaera pedali contineri non potest, hoc est 8192OOOOOOOOOOOO per hanc
nostram supputationem exprimere velimus, dicemus omnem hanc atomorum multitudinem
esse octies mille millia centum nonagintaduo millia secundorum numerorum, hoc est
secundae periodi." (I have changed the punctuation somewhat, expanded ~ to "ae" and
changed consonantal "u" to "v".) In this passage Paul notes that Archimedes had
attempted to investigate the number of grains of sand in the universe but was unsuccessful
because he did not have the true size of the sun, moon, and remaining celestial bodies
nor the [true] distance of their orbs from the center of the earth. Furthermore, he says,
Archimedes based his system of representing large numbers on myriads (i.e. 10,000's)
[actually on a myriad of myriads, i.e. IOS] while the Latins use millenaria (i.e. 1000's). Hence,
he, Paul, wishes to investigate the subject anew. Let me first briefly recount Archimedes'
system of representing large numbers in the Sandreckoner (see the next footnote). Numbers
from 1 up to a myriad of myriads (i.e. lOS, which we can call M) constituted the "first
numbers" (i.e. the first order) of the first period. Then the number M was taken as the unit
for the second order of the first period. The second order extended up to M IOS (= 10
16
or
M2), the third from M2 to M2 'IOS (= l()24 or M3), and so on until the last order (i.e. the IOSth
or Mth order) of the first period extended up to the number (1OS)(108) or M
10
8or MM (which
for convenience we can callP). P then became the first number ofthe first order ofthe second
period and that order extended up to P -10
8
(i.e. p. M) which number became the first
number of the second order of the second period. That order extends up toP' 10
16
(i.e. p. M2).
Each succeeding order and period proceeded in the same way until the last (or IOSth or
Mth) order of the last (or 10
8
th or Mth) period extended up to the number p
l
o
8
(or PM)
[cf. T. L. Heath, The Works of Archimedes (Cambridge, 1912; reprint, New York, 1950),
pp. 228-29]. Now Paul in the above quoted passage adopts a Latin numbering system which
was based on millenaria. In his system, Archimedes' use of both "order" and "period"
is dropped in favor of the use of "period" alone. For him the first period extends from 1 to
a thousand thousand thousands (i.e 10
9
[which we can call N]). This last number becomes
the unit of the next period which includes the successive numbers up to 10
18
(Le. N2), and
this last number becomes the unit of the next period which extends to 102
7
(i.e. N3), and ~
on to infinity for each set of nine places. Thus, he says, if the number of atoms were found
to be 8,192,000,000,000,000, this would be the 8,192,OOOth number of the second period
(i.e. 8,192,000-10
9
). Paul's observation that the Archimedean system is based on myriads
inclines me to think that he had read the Greek text of the Sandreckoner, for in the only
Latin translation of it then available, namely the Cremonensis translation (see the next
footnote), the passage describing Archimedes' system of orders and periods never employs
myrias but only decem milia (although in the succeeding passage where Archimedes
describes octads Cremonensis introduces the word myrias for the first time). If Paul did
consult a Greek text, he perhaps used Greek manuscript A, which had been acquired from
Valla's estate by Alberto Pio di Carpi, the Imperial ambassador to Rome during the period
in which Paul wrote and published his work. There is, however, no evidence that Alberto
Pio had this codex with him in Rome at this time, and indeed his rich library appears to have
remained in Carpi until sent to Rome after Alberto's loss of Carpi (1525), or so supposes
D. Fava, La Biblioteca Estense ne! suo sviluppa starico (Modena, 1925), p. 152 (cf. G.
Mercati, Cadici Latini Pica Grimani Pia etc. [Vatican, 1938], pp. 60-61). But even if this
Middelburg worked in Rome, was connected with the Confraternitas B.
Mariae de anima (his tomb is in the Church of the Anima) and perhaps
knew Andreas Coner, the revisor of Moerbeke' s translations of
Archimedes. Before leaving the brief consideration of the Sandreckoner
in the first half of the century, I should remind the reader that Maurolico
was quite uninterested in this work and did not include it among the works
of Archimedes which he paraphrased (see the preceding chapter). The
first full-scale consideration of it occurs at the end of our period, in the
Commentarius in Archimedis Syracusani praeclari mathematici librum de
numero arenae, mullis locis per eundem Hamellium emendatum (Paris,
1557), composed by the French mathematician Paschasius Hamellius.
The Latin translation on which he based his commentary had as its point
of departure the translation of Jacobus Cremonensis but emerged as
a version considerably reworked by Hamellius.
2
An unpublished
suggestion is correct, Alberto Pio might have had Greek MS A with him in Rome in the
earlier period or have sent for it at Paul of Middelburg's request.
2 We can compare Cremonensis' translation and Hamellius' version of the Sandreckoner by
citing from each the significant passage describing Archimedes' system of orders and periods
that I described in the preceding footnote. In the Cremonensis translation the passage runs
(MS Venice, BibI. Naz. Marc. f.a.327, 197v-98v; cf. ed. ofBaseI, 1544, pp. 159-60): "At vero
utile esse arbitror denominationes numerorum enumerare, ut in his qui compositi sunt a
me in libro quem ad Zeuxippum scripsi non curent qui hie legent propterea quod nil
hie preter ea que in eo libro dicta sunt additum habetur. Contingit autem nomina numerorum
a nobis tradita in decem milibus collecta, et supra decem milia perfecte, et satis intelligimus
numerum decem milium referentes eum in reliquos superiores. Sunto itaque qui a nobis nunc
dicta sunt numeri in milies decem milia primi nominati; horumitaque qui primi dicuntur decies
milies decem milia vocetur (corr. MS ex vocentur) unitas eorum qui secundi sunt, et
numerorum secundorum unitates, et unitatum decem, et centeni, et mileni, et decies milies
erunt (I et in Gr MS A; ad? et tr. "ad" ante "decies") unitatum que dicuntur decies milies
decem milia. Et item decies milies decem milia secundorum numerorum vocetur unitas
tertiorum numerorum; et numerentur tertiorum numerorum unitates, et unitatum deceni, et
centeni, et mileni, et decies mileni, erunt (! et in Gr MS A; ad?) decies milies decem milium
(! milia) unitatumdictarum. Eodemautem modo et tertiorum numerorumdecies milies decem
milia vocentur unitates quartorum numerorum, et decies milies decem milia quartorum
numerorum similiter vocetur unitas quintorum numerorum. Et hoc modo procedentes numeri
huiusmodi nomina habentes, erunt (! et Gr MS A; ad?) decies milies decium milium (! should
be numerorum decies milies deciesmillesimorum, i. e. i081'h . miiies decem
milia [ultimarum unitatum]. Sufficiunt quidem, et ex tantis hi numeri cognoscuntur. Licet
autem et in plus producere. Sunto igitur hi qui nuper dicti sunt numeri prime periodi vocati.
Ultimus autem numerus [prime] periodi unitas vocetur secunde periodi primorum numero-
[rum], et rursus decies milies decem milia secunde periodi [primorum numerorum vocetur
unitas secunde periodi] secundorum numerorum; similiter et horum uItimus unitas vocetur
secunde periodi tertiorum numerorum. Et sie semper numeri procedentes nomina habeant
secunde periodi, erunt (I et Gr MS A; ad?) decies milies decem milia [ultimarum unitatum]
.. .. ... ... .. (I should be numerorum decies milies
deciesmillesimorum secunde periodi). Rursus ultimus secunde periodi numerus decies milies
decem milia (del.? et Gr) vocetur unitas tertie periodi primorum numerorum decies milies
decem milium (del.? ef. Gr). Et hoc modo procedentibus, erunt (! et in Gr MS A; ad?)
.. ... ... .. ... ... milia (! should be numerorum
decies milies deciesmillesimorum periodi decies milies deciesmillesime) decies milies decem
milia [ultimarum unitatum]." Greek MS Afrom which Cremonensis made his translation was
defective and I have attempted to make Archimedes' intention clear by adding alternate and
supplementary readings in parentheses and brackets .Ifthe phrase in the text has dots beneath
it, then the suggested phrase within parentheses is to be substituted for it as reflecting
Archimedes' intention. If only a single word is to be corrected, no dots are placed under
it but the suggested correction is also placed within parentheses. If the phrase in the text
has been put into italics followed by "(del.?)," this is an indication that I believe it ought
to be deleted since it is not in the Greek text. The bracketed" [ultimarum unitatum]," added
twice to the text, is for the convenience of the reader so that he may keep straight what
is being counted in the order under discussion. The remaining bracketed additions, namely
"[prime]" and "[primorum ... periodi]," represent necessary additions of words missing
in Gr MS A. The version of this passage given by Cremonensis is generally followed by
Hamellius in his Commentarius, 28r-29r, and I give it without correction: "At vero utile
esse arbitror denominationes numerorum constituere, ne ex aliis numeris libro quem ad
Zeuxippum scripsi, expositis, eas quemnt qui hunc legent: neque errore implicentur si
nihil horum hoc libro inveniant descriptum. Contingit autem nomina numerorum nobis
esse tradita usque ad myriades, et supra myriades sufficienter satis intelligimus numerum
myriadum referentes eum in reliquas myriades priores. Sunto itaque qui a nobis dicti sunt
numeri in millies decem millia primi nominati: horum itaque qui primi dicuntur decies
millies decem millia, vocetur unitas eorum qui secundi sunt: et numerorum secundorum
unitates, et unitatum deceni, et centeni, et milleni, et decies milleni, erunt unitatum earum
quae dicuntur decies millies decem millia: et item decies millies decem millia secundorum
numerorum, vocetur unitas tertiorum numerorum: et numerentur tertiorum numerorum
unitates, et unitatum deceni, et centeni, et rnilleni, et decies milleni usque ad decies millies
decem millia unitatum dictarum. Eodem autem modo et tertiorum numerorum decies
miUies decem millia vocentur unitates quartorum numerorum: et hoc modo procedentes
numeri nomina habentes erunt huiusmodi decies millies denorum millium decies millies
decem millia. Sufficiunt numeri qui ex istis tot tantisque cognoscuntur. Licet etiam
amplius procedere. Sunto igitur nunc praedicti numeri primae periodi vocati. Ultimus
autem numerus periodi unitas vocetur secundae periodi secundorum numerorum, et rursus
decies millies decem millia secundae periodi secundorum numerorum; similiter et horum u1timus
unitas vocetur tertiae periodi tertiorum numerorum: et sic semper numeri procedentes qui
nomina hahebunt a secunda periodo, erunt decies millies decem millia numerorum, decies
mille decies millies. Rursus ultimus secundae periodi numerus decies millies decem
millia, vocetur unitas tertiae periodi tertiorum numerurum (1). Et hoc modo procedehtibus
usque ad decies millies denorum millium, decies millies dena milia (I) decies millies decem
rnillia." The most interesting change made by Hamellius is that he substitutes myriades
for Cremonensis' decem milibus and decem milia the first times they occur in the passage.
(His later comment, ibid., 31v-32r, indicates the significance of this change: "Hac
voce mydriadum quamvis Graeca, et parum trita Latinis, necessitas uti cogit et in versione
et in hoc commentario: quod sine usu ilIius, authoris germanum sensum dilucide
explicare non possimus." In brief, he is holding that unless we use the term myrias we can
not clearly explain the true sense of Archimedes' system.) Notice also that Hamellius
has twice corrected the probably mistaken use of erunt (EUTat in Gr MS A) to usque ad
(cf. Wallis' later suggestion of EO; n):.,), but Hamellius has not corrected the other parallel
instances of it in the passage. Furthermore, he has omitted some phrases and confused
the numbers of orders and periods somewhat, as a careful comparison of his text with that
of Cremonensis above will reveal. As we might have suspected, Commandino's translation
with commentary that appeared in the next year (1558) was somewhat better (see
Archimedis opera non nulla, 52v-53r of text, 62v-63r of commentary), although even
Commandino has not reconstructed the text with sufficient clarity. Indeed, he comments
(commentary, 63r) on the bad state of the text: "Haec sunt, nisi me fallit animus, in
quibus dictorum Archimedis summa consistit, sed adeo sunt depravata, ut merito
ignoscendum, si non omnia restituantur."
compendium of the Sandreckoner in MS Venice, Bib!. Naz. Marc.
VIIl.34, 98r-99r is too trivial and too late for consideration here.
Turning now to the history of the above-noted specific problems in
the first half of the century, we should observe that the principal interest
of mathematicians in the Archimedean spiral arose from their interest in
problems of rectification and quadrature. We have already seen how
Nicholas of Cusa rejected the Archimedean proposition that used spirals
for demonstrating the existence of a straight line equal to the circum-
ference of a circle (see Part Ill, Chap. 1, Sect. I, notes 5 and 16) and
we have remarked on Valla's reference to the use of spirals in the
quadrature of the circle (Part Ill, Chap. 2, Sect. V). I have also discussed
Leonardo da Vinci's interest in the spiral and its application to the path
of falling bodies on a rotating earth (Part Ill, Chap. 3, notes 15, 17-20).
Now in the first half of the sixteenth century Albrecht Diirer (1471-1528)
showed some interest in the practical construction of the spirals in his
Underweysung der Messung (Nuremberg, 1525), which appeared in the
Latin translation of Joachim Camerarius seven years later: Albertus
Durerus . . . versus e Germanica lingua in Latinam . . . Quatuor his
suarum Institutionum geometricarum libris, lineas, superficies et solida
corpora tractavit (Paris, 1532), a work usually known simply as Insti-
tutiones geometricae.
3
But since no consideration was given by Diirer to
the mathematical description of the spiral and its properties, we must
not tarry over it. Suffice it to say, Diirer as a native and long resident
of Nuremberg could have learned about the spiral and its properties
through Johannes de Muris' De arte mensurandi, which, as we have seen
in Part I, Chapter 5, included a hybrid quadrature tract drawn from
Moerbeke's translation of Archimedes' On Spiral Lines. For, as I shall
show below in Section Ill, Diirer rendered into German another part
of Johannes de Muris' tract. It is also worth noting that Diirer was in
Venice (a second time) from the summer or fall of 1505 until January,
1507, where he could have met his countryman Andreas Coner.
4
3 Underweysung del' Messung (Nuremberg, 1525), sign. A iii verso-B iii verso. The term
used for a spiral line by Durer throughout this section is Schneckenlini ("snail-line"). But
in the Latin translation of Joachim Camerarius (Paris, 1532, pp. 4-20) this term is often
expanded. On page 4, Camerarius uses the expression linea involuta, which is somewhat
similar to Moerbeke's volutio andrevolutio (see above, Vo!. 2, llvP, 13rT, 13vEl-3 pi-3 G
1
,2).
On the next page, four further expressions for a spiral line appear: (1) linea spirae aut
cocleae involuta, (2) voluta sive eocleae linea, (3) linea helica and (4) linea spiralis. Linea
spirae is similar to, and linea spiralis is identical with, the expression in the translation
of Cremonensis (Basel, 1544, pp. 107 et seq .). As I have noted earlier in this volume (Part I,
Chap. 1, corn, to lines 7 ~ 9 spira itself is found in Michael Scot's translation of
Aristotle's De anima, I have not found eoclea (=coehlea) used for a mathematical curve
before its use here, although R. E. Latham, Revised Medieval Latin Word-List (London,
1965), p. 93, notes its use for a spiral staircase in the eighth century. It is the closest of
the Latin terms to Ourer's Schneekenlini. The use ofvoluta again reminds me of the above-
noted volutio of Moerbeke. Linea heliea is reminiscent of Moerbeke's constant use of ,
elix and elicus (see Vo!. 2, Index of Latin Terms).
4 For Durer's life I have depended on the brilliant account of my late colleague E.
Panofsky, The Life and Art of Albrecht Diirer, 3rd ed. (Princeton, 1948; reprint, 1955).
Some twelve years after the publication of the Latin translation of
Diirer's remarks on the spiral, the editio princeps of Archimedes' works
with the Cremonensis translations was published in Basel and thus the text
of On Spiral Lines became widely available. Shortly thereafter, in 1549,
Maurolico completed his version of this work from the Greek text.
5
But
his text was not published until 1685, as we have seen in Chapter Five.
Hence it was probably the editio princeps which stimulated a discussion
of spirals that appears in an unpublished notebook of Hector Ausonius
of the noted Barozzi family of Venice, an acquaintance of Niccolo
Tartaglia (see the end of note 8). The notebook bears the title Hectoris
Ausonii Adversaria mathematica: De circuli quadratura, De elice, De
polygoniis.
6
It seems to have been composed in Venice between 1554
and 1556 or 1557.
7
Although Ausonius may have seen the editio princeps
of Archimedes' works, his definitions of spirals resemble neither those of
the Cremonensis text nor those of the text of Moerbeke: but his use of the
term elix resembles the usage in the Moerbeke translation. At any rate,
the author, without actually completing a tract on the spiral, follows in
a long tradition going back to the hybrid quadrature tract added by
Johannes de Muris to hisDe arte mensurandi in singling out the importance
of a spiral-like curve for quadrature problems even though his technique
and the spiral in question are patently different from those found in On
Spiral Lines and thus in the hybrid quadrature tract. 8 Further, it is worth
5 Admirandi Archimedis Syracusani monumenta omnia mathematica, quae extant, ex
traditione ... D. Francisci Maurolici (Palermo, 1685), pp. 196-225. The date of comple-
tion appears on p. 225: "Castello Bono, hora 3. noctis diei 18. Octobris, viii. Indictionis
1549." It is of interest that Maurolicus moves the definitions from their position before
Proposition 12 in the Greek text to the beginning of the treatise. He most often used
linea spiralis for a spiral line, although at the beginning of the definitions he says that it is
also called linea coclearis (p. 196: " ... describit in pIano lineam spiralem, quam quidem
[! quidam?] coclearem vocant").
6 This is MS Milan, Bib!. Ambros. D.220 Inf. The Biblioteca Ambrosiana contains many
other manuscripts of Hector Ausonius. See A. L. Gabriel, A Summary Catalogue of
Microfilms of One Thousand Scientific Manuscripts in The Ambrosiana Library, Milan
(Notre Dame, Ind., 1968), index under "Hector Ausonius,"to which add nos. 149, 158,
828. (MS no. 157, p. 93, gives his name as Hector Ausonius Barocius, thus indicating
that he was a Barozzi.) Incidentally, I would suppose that Gabrie1's date for codex N.114
Sup. ("Saec. XV, manu Hectoris Ausonii") must be a slip for "Saec. XVL"
7 Folio lr bears the date of 1554. Folio 21r appears to have "1557 die primo octobris
venetiis. . .." But folio 30r has "Pro circuli quadratura theorema notum, factum die
29 Decembris 1556" and folio 57r has "MDLVI more astrologorum venetiis in contrata
Sancti Hieremiae apud monasterium dicatum Divo Iiob (1) inveni hoc archanum
pulcherrimum pro quadratura circuli dignoscenda cum instrumento."
8 MS cif., 5v-6v (cf. 55r-v): "Ordo libelli de circuli dimensione et quadratura eneagoni.
[The propositions and suppositions for the De circuli dimensione appear in the left-hand
column, those for the quadrature of the novangulum in the right-hand column; on 6r, the
two tracts shift columns. I give here only the De circuli dimensione.]
"Elix est linea curva successive recedens a principio suo et ad illud non rediens revoluta
imitando coclearum revolutiones.
"Elix puncti est curva successive recedens a principio suo et ad illud non rediens
revoluta descripta a puncto super rectam lineam ascendente in tempore quo recta ilIa
revolvitur manente eadem(del. MS) altera extremitate pro centro, ut circulum(del. MS) uno
eodemque tempore cum elice describat circulum.
"Elix contingentiae est linea curva successive rediens (del. MS) recedens a suo principio
et ad illud non rediens revoluta que describitur ab extremo puncto lineae contingentis
circulum prima quidem in puncta principii elicis, deinde vera successive revoluta in
circumferentia circuli ea ratione ut successive contingat circulum secundum omnia puncta
circumferentie et ipsius rectae contingentis circulum.
"Contingens que describit elicem dicitur omnis recta linea ducta a quovis puncto elicis
ad circuli periferiam que successive contigerit earn circuli portionem que intercidit
punctum principii elicis et punctum extremae contingentiae.
"Circumferentia sive arcus contingentiae alicuius rectae contingentis est circumferentia
circuli quae qui (1 del. ? ef. 55r) intercidit punctum elicis et punctum in quo contingit recta
contingens, ex ea in (or tamen?) parte ad quam facta est punctorum contingentium revolutio.
"Petimus autem quamlibet rectam lineam semel posse successive contingere puncta
circumferentiae secundum omnia sua puncta successive contingere.
"Data quocunque circulo, elicem contingentiae illius circuli deliniare.
"Si latera cuiuscunque trigoni ratione aut magnitudine nota fuerint, longitudine sive
potentia, anguli omnes eiusdem trigoni noti fient. [Then the following is deleted: Si fuerit
triangulum rectangulum noturn specie, magnitudine etiam notum esse necesse est.]
"Si a puncta principii elicis contingentiae ad elicem ducatur recta quedam linea equalis
semidiametro circuli eiusdem elicis, erit ratio anguli contenti sub ducta et diametro
transeunte per punctum principii elicis ad unum rectum angulum sesquitertia."
[The following is deleted: "Si a puncto in elice contingentiae accepto, quod est in
extremitate rectae cuiusdam lineae equalis semidiametro circuli quae altera extremitate
habet in puncta principii elicis. "J
"Si ab initio elicis contingentiae ducatur recta subtensa elici aequalis semidiametro
circuli, quae a puncto elicis ad centrum circuli recta linea ducitur nota erit.
"Cognita quacunque recta linea ducta a centro circuli ad elicem sue contingentiae recta
contingens que describit elicem ab eodem puncto ducta ut contingat circulum nota fiet.
"Cognitis binis rectis lineis ab eodem puncto elicis actis quarum una contingat
circulum ex parte revolutionis contingentis (?), reliqua vero ducatur ad centrum, portio
circumferentiae quae intercidit binas rectas lineas nota fiet.
"Si ab initio elicis contingentiae accepta fuerit portio quaedam circumferentiae nota (?) et
(?) recta per centrum et extremitatem notae portionis ad elicem ducta cum contingente ab
eodem elicis puncto ducta notae fuerint (!), ratio diametri ad portionem ilIam nota fiet.
"Si nota fuerit ratio diametri ad portionem a1iquam circuli, et portionis ratio ad periferiam
nota sit, erit ratio diametri ad periferiam nota.
"Cognita ratione diametri ad circumferentiam circuli, tetragonum circulari areae aequale
notum esse necesse est." (I have expanded "f' to "ae".)
No proofs are given by the author here. However, 1 can indicate his line of reasoning
(which consists of a series of "existence" propositions) by referring to the figure appearing
in a later passage discussed below in the note (Fig. 111.6.1.1). When we have a "spiral of
contingence" afghikl (described by the extremity a I when the indefinitely long line ae tangent
to the circle is rolled upon the whole circumference), if the radius am is drawn at the
beginning of the spiral, then line lm is known. If line lm is known, then line al is known.
But ifal and lm are known, the length of arc an is known (as is also the size ofangleamn). So
if ai, lm and the length of arc an are known, we know the ratio of diameter ae to arc an. If
we know ac / an and abcd I an, we knowac I abed, i.e. the ratio ofdiameter to circumference.
The difficulty of this procedure is obvious. Even if the lengths of am, al and lm determine
some exact arc length an (i.e. require the existence of a determined arc length), this fact
does not help us to discover what that arc length is without using some predetermined
constant like 7r that relates an arcallength to the length of a straight line.
On folio 55r, we find the same definitions of a "spiral," a "spiral of a point," a "spiral
of contingence," a "tangent which describes a spiral," and a "circumference or arc of a
spiral of contingence." These definitions are followed by what is labeled petitiones but
remarking that, when Ausonius applies his spiral to the quadrature of the
circle, he accompanies his application with a determined defense of the use
of kinematic procedures in geometry (see the end of note 8). In doing so,
he anticipates in some respect the widespread use of kinematic procedures
by Roberval and others. Of less interest than these remarks of Ausonius
is Robert Record's definition of the "spirall line," which he also calls
"a worm line."9
which in fact is a single petitio: "Petimus autem nobis dari posse verum canonem et
exactissimum in lineis irrationalibus subtensarum in circulo linearum, quamvis Ptolemaeus
et alii eum exposuerint veritati quam proxime accidente in Iineis rationalibus." Then
follows a "prima propositio" (and indeed the only one): "Dato circulo a quo incipiat elix
contingentiae et principio elicis posito ut centro, intervallo autem ut recta in circulo subtensa
circumferentiae partium centum triginta quinque, descriptoque circulo, seccabit circulus
elicem in puncto a quo recta ad centrum dati circuli ducta nota fiet." This is followed by a
proof. Then on folio 57r, after the date given in note 7, there follows a short piece that also
involves a spiral of contingence. It begins as follows: "Fiat circulus abed et eius diameter
ae, et ex puncto a ducatur contingens recta ae infinita ex parte e (?) [Fig. III.6.1.1] et
imaginetur revolvi continge[n]ter successive donee a [e] numeret et supraponatur omnibus
punctis circuli; ex motu, et resistentia circuli, resultat descriptio elicis orientis ex puncto
a, quae sit afghikl. Erit linea al aequalis circumferentiae quia superposita successive
non excedit atque exceditur. Queritur nunc ratio eius ad diametrum amc. . . ." This
is a rolling technique (something like the unrolling of a circumference on a plane, which
we shall discuss below in Section IV). In it, the "spiral of contingence" (as the definition
given above reveals) is a curve described by the determined end of an infinite tangent which
is rolled about a circumference so that each successive point of the tangent (starting from
the initial point of tangency) becomes tangent to each of all points of the circumference of
the circle. In this process the end of the tangent initially touching the circle describes the
so-called spiral of contingence. The straight line intercepted between the initial point of
tangency and the final point of the spiral is said to be equal to the circumference of the
circle because it has, point by point, been rolled out on the whole circumference. The
equation of this curve in Cartesian coordinates with the center of the circle as their
origin is as follows (see Fig. III.6.1.l):
X
2
+Y2 =(_O_'27Tr)2 +r
2
360
0
where r (=os) is the radius of the circle and 0 is the angle between the y-axis (ac) and the
rotating radius os to which the rolling tangent (a' e') is tangent. With this beginning
Ausonius goes on to compute the ratio of circumference to diameter. This long note can
be concluded by pointing out that Hector Ausonius gives evidence on folio 21r (just after
the date indicated above in note 7) of having had a discussion with Niccolo Tartaglia
(presumably in Venice, since they both lived in Venice) on the question of whether the use
of motion to generate figures is proper to geometry: "Scripsi hanc annotationem que facit
ad ea quae supra scripsimus de tetragonismo circuli, audiveram enim a Nicolao Tartalea
ea omnia quae in mathematicis fieri iubentur per (corr. ex pro) motum geometrica non
esse. Et quamvis huic rebus multis ac diu contradicerem, tamen ipse pertinaciter
contendebat ea omnia esse alterius generis que mutationem acciperunt (! acceperunt?) in
diffinitione. Propterea annotavi haec que sequuntur." Then follows a discussion supporting
the inclusion of kinematic procedures in geometry.
9 Robert Record, The Pathway to Knowledg (London, 1551), sign. [A iiii verso]: "And
an other sorte of lines is there, that is called a spiral/line or a worm line, which representeth
an apparant forme of many circles, where there is not one indede. . . ." There is no
Archimedean geometry in this volume, but earlier on sign. ii verso-iii verso Record gives
Somewhat later than Ausonius, Jean Borrel (Johannes Buteo) in his
De quadratura circuli (Paris, 1559) defended Archimedes' use of the spiral
against Nicholas ofCusa (see Part Ill, Chap. 1, Sect. I, n. 16) and I would sup-
pose that he too knew On Spiral Lines in the editio princeps of 1544. In the
year before Borrel's brief allusions to the Archimedean treatment of the
spiral, Commandino gave an acute and accurate rendering of On Spiral
Lines in his collected translations of Archimedes' work.
10
He also
appended a commentary in which he delineated carefully the various steps
of the proofs which Archimedes with his customary economy of expression
had either omitted or only briefly alluded toY Since an exposition of the
text was his objective in this commentary, he did not go into the question
of the use of the spiral in quadrature problems, as had some of his
predecessors. But with the publication of his translation and commentary
succeeding scholars had the full intent of the Archimedean demonstrations
laid before them. We hardly need mention later treatments of the spiral
since they almost all were based on the Greek text or translations from
that text and they lie beyond the period of my investigation. Thus Petrus
Ramus' remarks concerning the spiral in 1569 seem to have been inspired
completely by his reading of Greek sources,12 and Cardano's references
to spirals are not singular enough for us to linger over. 13 Incidentally,
an account of Archimedes' role in the defense of Syracuse. A somewhat longer account of
the spiral was published in the same year by Sebastian Munster, Rudimenta mathematica
(Basel, 1551), pp. 6-7: "Spiralis vera linea est circumducitur sed nunquam redit in
eundem punctum, et a vocatur e)uKou8T,<;, id est, revoluta seu circumvoluta,
puta circa centrum in pIano, ut serpens se gyrat in spiram, vel circa columnam, ut in
figuris columnarum et cochleis ubi linea, a fabris lignariis tronco duriori
incisa matricique conformi implicata, immensam habet vim torquendi. Unde vinum, oleum
et multi alii succi ex baccis, hac linea, ut ita dicam, in extorquentur: quin et nostro
libri similibus excuduntur. Vidi aliquando hic Basileae vim huiusmodi cochlearum,
quando sudes ferreis rastris olim in fundum profundissime
cochlearum officio et summa vi extorquebantur. Vidi etiam aliquando integras domos
ex lignis compaginatas, huiusmodi machinis in sublime sublevari."
10 Archimedis opera non nulla a Federico Commandino Urbinate nuper in Latinum
conversa, et commentariis illustrata (Venice, 1558), 3r-18r.
11 Ibid., Commentarii, 10v-20r.
12 P. Ramus, Arithmeticae libri duo: Geometriae septem et viginti (Basel, 1569), p. 11
(in separate pag. for geometry): "Helix est quae distat inaequaliter a medio utcunque
comprehensi spatii. Haec autem tortuosa linea eAtKOt8T,<; Proclo dicitur, et helix etiam
dici potest, cuius variae species sunt, ut Arithmetica quae est Archimedis helix, ut
conchois, ut cittois: quae in geometria suos postea authores habuerunt Archimedem,
Nicomedem, Geminum." Cf. Scholarum mathematicarum libri unus et trigenta (Basel,
1569), Bk. XII, p. 210, where he quotes from Archimedes' On Spiral Lines.
13 Hieronymus Cardanus, De rerum varietate libri XVII (Basel, 1557), pp. 485-87:
"Helicas lineas Durerius multis modis describere docet, sed tamen nullus satisfacit, imo ne
praxime ad scopum accedit, quod (ut alias dixi) hac in causa maximum esse debet. Igitur
optimus modus fit cum horalogiis, ita ut quemadmodum aequaliter fertur index, ita per
indicem denticulus describens helicam. Secundus modus, quoniam praecedens operosus
est, affigas regulam tabulae, et in regula scissura sit, atque in ea denticulus qui circumducta
regula ducatur sensim per scissuram recta, et lineam in charta haerens delineabit. Tertius
modus non adeo exactus, circulum describe [Fig. III.6.1.2], quem divide saltem in
quadragintaocto partes, et quanto plures tanto melius: sed tamen circulum oportet esse
the problem of the Archimedean screw, as distinguished from the
Archimedean spiral, was not to receive extended geometrical treatment
magnum, eo quod semidiametrum a centro versus peripheriam in totidem partes dividere
oportet, inde ex centro lineas absque atramento tenuissimas ad singula puncta divisionis
peripheriae deduces, pones circini pedem in centro, et secundum latitudinem primae
divisionis signabis punctum in prima linea, et secundum latitudinem secundae divisionis in
semidiametro factae signabis punctum in secunda linea, et ita de singulis aliis, deinde ubi
signaveris quadragintaocto puncta, unum scilicet in qualibet linea, eruntque eo remotiora
quo lineae erunt remotiores a lineaAB, et punctus ultimus erit punctusB, deduces portiones
circulorum inter duo puncta proximiora semper, correspondentium distantiae puncti
remotioris: exemplum, portio circuli quae deducetur a centro ad primum punctum, erit
portio circuli cuius semidiameter est distantia primi puncti a centro, et portio circuli quae
ducetur a vigesimo puncto, ad vigesimum primum, erit portio circuli cuius semidiameter
est linea aequalis, ei quae intercipitur inter centrum et punctum vigesimaeprimae sectionis.
Ex quo sequitur, quod omnia centra dictorum circulorum erunt data et inter se omnino
varia: nam primae portionis centrum non erit punctus A, sed punctus tantum distans a
puncto A, et a puncto prima in prima linea, quantum punctus ille in prima linea distat
a centro A. Pro aliis autem partibus secunda, tertia et quarta divisio in circulo praedicto,
et lineae eaedem ad divisiones ductae, et modus satisfacient: sed lineas illas praducere
oportebit, et regulae paTtern extra circulum praductam totidem divisionibus, et primis
aequalibus, cumque suis numeris signare opoTtebit. Alius modus absolutior, descripto circulo
et deducta diametro [Fig. 111.6.1.3], earn in centra alia diameter ad rectos dividet, igitur
in semidiametro AE signabis punctum quarta eius distantem a centro in AD dimidio, inAC
dodrante, inde divisis circulorum portionibus per aequalia BE, ED, DC, CA, duces lineas
ex centro, et has omnes cum ungue aut stylo comeo, ut sint delebiles, nec chartam laedant,
et in eis puncta alia signabis media a centro distantia inter A et F, F et G, G et H, H et B.
Pari ratione divisis rursus portionibus circulorum per aequalia, deduces octo alias lineas
ex centro, ut sint iam sexdecim, signabisque intermedia puncta inter iam signata: deinde
divides ea sexdecim intervalla aliis sexdecim lineis ex centro ad arcuum divisionem ductis,
parique ratione signabis puncta loco media inter puncta inter quae lineae singulae cadunt,
atque ita licebit ex trigintaduobus ad sexagintaquattuor procedere et ulterius si sit
magnus, aut subsistere etiam in sexdecim Iineis, si admodum sit parvus. Hic igitur modus
praecedente longe melior est, quod per aequalia semper fiat divisio, qua ratione dividendi
maxime utitur Archimedes, quod facilior sit et exactior, et divisionem lineae AB superfluam
et tediosam devitet, nec necessarium sit numeros ascribere, qui et scribendo et delendo non
parvum negocium exhibent: denique suis locis puncta, et exactius designari possunt.
Punctis igitur signatis latitudinem circini tantam adhibebis unicuique intervallo, quanta est
distantia puncti iIIius ex duobus quod a centra maxime distat, ut etiam superius dixi:
centrum igitur primae portionis deducendae erit in linea AE, eo quod earn portionem
contingit AB linea: huius igitur gratia solum he1icam ex octo punctis adieci, nam in exemplo
claritas potius quam subtilitas exigitur. Verum si recte peregeris, centra omnia in
altemis lineis quae ad perpendiculum superstant, cadunt: ut facillima sit haec descriptio,
nam solum ob hoc, sed etiam quia Ioca punctorum facile habentur ex una circini diductione
(1) pro omnibus intermediis Iineis, dum prima mensura detrahitur a loco priorum punctorum,
pro linea quae ipsum punctum antecedit, deinde in singulis circulorum portionibus diductio
circini eadem fuerit puncto in linea signando et portioni describende." I have made the usual
change of consonantal "u" to "v". While Cardano's basic concern here is with methods
of drawing the spiral, he obviously has in mind the theoretical description of it by
Archimedes. Note the reference in the beginning of the passage to Diirer. See also the
fleeting reference in Cardano's Opus novum de proportionibus numerorum etc. (Basel,
1570), p. 197: "Rationem centri gravitatis declarare. Duplicem rationem centri gravitatis
invenit declarare. Duplicem rationem centri gravitatis invenit Archimedes, unam
suspensorum ponderum: alteram supematantium acquae, in quarum utraque subtilitatis
certe est quantum dignum est authore illo ingeniosissimo, sicut etiam in e1ica linea. . .."
until the posthumously published work of Guido Ubaldo del Monte:
De cochlea libri quatuor (Venice, 1615).14
II. The Crown Problem
I have already mentioned in Chapter 4, Section II of this part of the
volume the interest in hydrostatics and its relationship to dynamics
stimulated in part by the publication of William of Moerbeke' s translation
of the genuine On Floating Bodies of Archimedes by Tartaglia in 1543
and by Tartaglia's Italian translation of and commentary on Book I of
that work in 1551. In the same section, I also commented briefly on
Tartaglia's experimental efforts at specific gravity determinations using
the Principle of Archimedes, experiments which he conducted between
1541 and 1551 (ibid., note 43). But even earlier, during the first half
of the century, there was considerable interest in the hydrostatic aspects
of a somewhat different problem, that of Archimedes' discovery of the
adulteration of Hieron's crown so dramatically described by Vitruvius in
Book IX of theArchitecture .1 Vitruvius' account appeared in print in Rome
as early as 1486 and was republished many times in the next seventy-five
years.
2
Alberti's earlier summary of the Vitruvian account of the crown
14 We can mention in passing a description of an Archimedean screw for lifting weights
(called Archimedis ergastum) given by a certain Matthaeus Christianus in his De mechanicis
quaestionibus written in 1554 (MS Naples, Bibl. Naz. XIII.G.38-third pagination, 52v-54r).
However, it gives no geometrical analysis of the curve involved. The drawing of the
machine on folio 54r is of interest. We can note that Christianus presents as a problem the
well-known story of Archimedes' use of a burning mirror to set the Roman ships at
Syracuse afire (69v-70r). His analysis is superficial but he includes on folio 70r a charming
drawing showing Archimedes in the act of turning his concave mirror on the Roman ships.
I must thank Professor Stillman Drake for alerting me to this manuscript and for loaning
me his microfilm copy of it. See also Galileo's treatment of the Archimedean Screw in the
Le mechaniche (Opere, ed. naz., Vo!. 2 [Florence, 1891], pp. 186-87).
1 Vitruvius, On Architecture, IX, Proem., 9-12, ed. and tr. of F. Granger, Vo!. 2
(London, 1934), pp. 202-07. The citation of this passage as Book IX, Chapter 3, by
Renaissance authors represents the different chapter divisions of the text as it appeared
in the Renaissance. See also M. Clagett, The Science of Mechanics in the Middle Ages
(Madison, Wisc., 1959), p. 85. I have given above in the preceding chapter, Section 11,
note 24, Maurolico's reference to Vitruvius, which, however, is considerably later than
those noted here.
2 The various editions of Vitruvius' De architectura represent a significant source of the
crown problem throughout the first half of the sixteenth century. I have consulted (except
for the texts indicated) the account of the crown problem in the following editions, transla-
tions, and commentaries between the first edition of Rome, 1486, and the Italian translation
of Daniele Barbaro of Venice, 1556: (1) Ad Cesarem Augustum de architectura (Rome,
1486) [no. pag. but 74r-v]; (2) L. V. P. de architectura decem libri, with S. J. Frontini de
aquaeductibus liber unus . . . A. Policiani opusculum quod Panepistemon inscrib-
itur ... A. Policiani in priora analytica (at end of Vitruvius: Florentinae, 1469 [I 1496],
and at end of the Panepistemon: Venetiis, 1495), sign. [H v verso]; (3) Ad Caesarem
Augustum de architectura (Venice, 1497), sign. [H v verso-H vi recto]; the same text
Plate (a)
(See footnote 2 on page 1067)
I
I
Plate (b)
(See footnote 2 on page 1068)
THE CROWN PROBLEM 1067
also appeared with the Harmonicum of Cleonides in Venice, 1497; (4) M. Vitruvius per
Iocundum solito castigatior factus (Venice, 1511), 85r-v; (5) De architectura (Florence,
1513), 144v-45r, the Iocundus text again; (6) De architectura libri dece (Como, 1521), the
Italian translation and commentary by Cesare Caesariano; (7) De architectura (Florence,
1522), a reprint of (5); (8) De architectura (Lyon, 1523), 157v-58v, related to (5); (9) De
architectura (Venice, 1524), 85r-v, the Italian translation of Francesco Lucio Durantino;
(10) De architectura (Venice, 1535), a reprint of (9); (11) Architettura (Perugia, 1536), the
Italian translation and commentary of Gianbattista Caporali which includes only the first
five books and hence not the crown story of Book IX; (12) De architectura (Argentorati,
1543), an edition I have not examined; (13) G. Philander, In decem libros M. Vitruvii
Pollionis de architectura annotationes (Rome, 1544), pp. 297-98; (14) a reprint of (13) at
Paris, 1545; (15) Architecture (Paris, 1547), 123r-v, the French translation of Jean Martin;
(16) Vitruvius Teutsch (Nuremberg, 1548), 267v-68r, the German translation with
commentary of G. H. Rivius (Ryff); (17) De architectura libri x (Argentorati, 1550),
pp. 389-92, with Philander's annotationes; (18) De architectura libri decem (Lyon, 1552),
Philander's edition with expanded annotationes, an edition I have not seen, but I have read
the expanded annotationes as republished in the De architectura (Amsterdam, 1649),
pp. 177-78; (19) I dieci libri dell'architettura (Venice, 1556), pp. 203-04, the Italian
translation of Daniele Barbaro. For the sake of the reader's convenience I shall give here
the text of the crown problem as presented in the popular edition of Venice, 1511: "[Bk. IX]
Quomodo portio argenti auro mista in integro opere depraehendi discemique possit.
Caput. Ill. Archimedis vero cum multa miranda inventa et varia fuerint, ex omnibus
etiam infinita solertia, id quod exponam, videtur esse expressum nimium. Hiero enim
siracusis auctus regia potestate, rebus bene gestis, cum auream coronam votivam diis
immortalibus in quodam fano constituisset ponendam. immani praetio locavit faciendam,
et aurum ad sacoma appendit redemptori. Is ad tempus opus manufactum subtiliter
regi approbavit et ad sacoma pondus coronae visus est praestitisse. Posteaquam indicium
est factum, dempto auro tantumdem argenti in id coronarium opus admixtum esse:
indignatus Hiero se contemptum, neque inveniens qua ratione id furtum repraehenderet,
rogavit Archimedem uti in se sumeret sibi de eo cogitationem. Tunc is cum haberet eius
rei curam, casu venit in balneum, ibique cum in solium descenderet, animadvertit
quantum corporis sui in eo insideret, tantum aquae extra solium eftluere. Itaque cum eius
rei rationem explicationis offendisset non est moratus, sed exilivit gaudio motus de solio,
et nudus vadens domum versus significabat clara voce invenisse quod quereret. Nam
currens identidem graecae clamabat Eilp1JKa Eilp1JKa. Turn vero ex eo inventionis
ingressu duas dicitur fecisse massas aequo pondere, quo etiam fuerat corona, unam ex auro,
alteram ex argento. Cum ita fecisset, vas amplum ad summa labra implevit aqua, in quo
demisit argenteam massam. Cuius quanta magnitudo in vase depraessa est, tantum aquae
effluxit. Ita exempta massa, quanto minus factum fuerat refudit, sextario mensus, vt
eodem modo quo prius fuerat ad labra aequaretur. Ita ex eo invenit, quantum ad certum
pondus argenti certa aquae mensura responderet. Cum id expertus esset, turn auream
massam similiter pleno vase demisit, et ea exempta, eadem ratione mensura addita, invenit
ex aqua non tantum defluxisse, sed tantum minus, quanto minus magno corpore eodem
pondere auri massa esset quam argenti. Postea vero repleto vase in eadem aqua ipsa
corona demissa, invenit plus aquae defluxisse in coronam, quam in auream eodem
pondere massam, et ita ex eo quod plus defluxerat aquae in corona, quam in massa
ratiocinatus, depraehendit argenti in auro mixtionem, et manifestum furtum redemptoris."
Some interesting points emerge from examining the various editions mentioned above.
Beginning with the edition of Venice, 1511, the account of Archimedes' solution of the
crown problem was often accompanied by woodcuts illustrating the story. These are of two
basic kinds: (1) The first is that found in the edition of 1511 (see Plate (a)),
where Archimedes, dressed in Italian Renaissance fashion, is shown lowering a metal ball
(presumably of silver since it is the larger of the two balls) into a cubical water tank.
Another metal ball (no doubt of gold), as well as a crown, lies on the floor beside him.
Essentially the same illustration is found in the editions of Florence, 1513 and 1523, the
problem has already been described (Part Ill, Chap. 1, Sect. 11), as has
the similar account in the anonymous Protheus of the fifteenth century
(Part 11, Chap. 4, Sect. 11, n.12). The rather different discussion of the
crown problem appearing in the Carmen de ponderibus, a work on
weights and measures attached to Priscian's grammatical work, was also
partially published in various early editions of Priscian, e.g., in the edition
of his Opera (Venice, 1488).3 Both of these ancient accounts of the crown
problem and the algebraic techniques that developed out of the works of
Fibonacci and Pacioli influenced the discussion of the crown problem by
Girolamo Cardano in his Practica arithmetice et mensurandi singularis
(Milan, 1539):4
Italian translations of Venice, 1524 and 1535, and in the French translation of Paris, 1547.
In the edition of Florence, 1513, the scene has been somewhat rearranged and the second
metal ball is now missing, as indeed are the books found in the woodcut of the 1511
edition. (2) The second major kind of woodcut originated in the Italian translation of Como,
1521 (see Plate (b. It shows Archimedes in a bath tub. Next to the tub a metal ball of
silver is partially immersed in a container of water, which is itself enclosed in a larger
container to catch the water displaced by the ball. Two further metal balls and a crown lie
on the floor, another crown is on a bench and a still-like set of flasks is in a recess in the
wall. Caesariano explains the elements of the drawing as follows (l46v): "Ma per
explicarte (I) brevemente questa lectione le due masse Potriano essere de varia affiguratione
seu formatione. . . . Per altre formatione: vel pono essere como le praesellte pile: la
Argentea signato la littera E imposita in 10 vase F, la efluente aqua si ricoglie in 10 vase G.
In 10 quale si po ponere la Argentea seu adulterata et commista Corona K. La aurea
Corona H processa de la massa seu pila Aurea D, quale de sua paucita quantitativa Iicet
sia di aequale pondo po stare si como vedi in 10 Corpo de la massa Argentea E; questo
procede perche epso Argento si e de minerale materia piu leve, che 10 Auro quale per la
sua gravitate: ut supra diximus." Virtually the same scene (though reversed in orientation)
is depicted in G. H. Rivius' Von rechten verstandt Weg und Gewicht (sign. A 1 verso)
published with separate pagination in the omnibus Der furnembsten, notwendigsten der
gantzen Architectur angehorigen mathematischen und mechanischen Kunst (Nuremberg,
1547), and in Rivius' German translation of Vitruvius: Vitruvius Teutsch. The only
commentary to discuss the scientific nature of the passage is the rather long-winded
commentary of Caesariano which never gets down to mathematical determinations of the
components. The only point of interest in the commentary is his remark that one can use
the Algebraic method of false position to solve for the unknowns involved in the problem,
without, however, showing how (l66v): "Aduncha qui convene operare per le opositione
quale in Arithmetica sono chiamate oppositione false: perche proponendo volere sapere
trovare uno numero vero: convene preponere dui de falsi: acio per il piu et per il mancho
si sapia discemere quello che sera vero per le probe demonstrative: non solum a sapere de
quale quantita potesseno essere stato 0 tempi de contracti in cogniti per le sorte de li
capitali si como le masse: et il vase et laqua che exe fora de li vasi." For actual sample
problems we must await Cardano's treatment.
3 For the Carmen de ponderibus, see F. Hultsch, Metrologicorum scriptorum reliquae,
Vol. 2 (Leipzig, 1866), pp. 95-98, lines 125-208. See also Clagett, The Science ofMechanics ,
pp. 85-91. The earliest edition of Priscian containing the section of the poem on the
crown problem available to me was that of the Opera (Venice, 1488). The lines after line
163 in the Hultsch edition are missing from this text. Still, it includes the part of the poem
wherein the crown problem is solved by the use of a hydrostatic balance.
4 Cap. 66, Sect. 45 (no pag.): "Dixit Vitruvius libro non Hieronem siracusanorum
tirannum vo[l]uisse coronam deo quam ingenti mole ex puro auro et diligentissimo artifitio
Vitruvius said in the ninth book [of the De architectura] that Hieron the Tyrant
of the Syracusans wished a crown for a god. He arranged for it to be made in
great size and of pure gold by means of the most careful workmanship of
a goldsmith; and after it was made, he consecrated it to the god; and when
it had already been consecrated, he learned that a large amount of silver had
been substituted for the gold. Irate, he charged Archimedes to find out how
much silver the goldsmith had introduced in place of the gold and to do so without
destroying the crown, for such was not permitted both because of its workmanship
and because of its consecration.
5
And after Archimedes had sought in vain [the
way to do] this over many days, he happened by chance, as he was entering his
bath, to perceive how to do it. For just as much water was expelled over the edges
of the bath as the mass of Archimedes' [body]. Whence, jumping out of his bath,
nude, he returned home. I do not know whether he ought rather to be praised
as a lover of truth or to be censured for his unbecoming and shameless
nudity. Therefore, when he had made two spheres having the same weight as the
fabricandam aurifici locavit. Eamque factam deo obtulit, cumque iam obtulisset intellexit
pro auro magna ex parte argentum esse suppositum. Indignatus curam Archimedi mandat
ut non soluta corona, neque enim turn ob artifitium turn ob dedicationem licebat, curaret
cognoscere quantum argenti loco auri aurifex iniunxisset. Cunque multos iam dies frustra
Archimedes hoc quereret, casu evenit ut in balneum intranti hoc inrelligeret (t). Nam tantum
excutiebatur aque a labris balnei, quanta fuit moles corporis Archimedis. Dnde nudus e
balneo exultans domum revertebatur. Nescio an ob amorem veritatis potius laudandus
quam ob importunam et impudicam nuditatem vituperandus. Igitur cum duas spheras
ponderis corone alteram ex auro, alteram ex argento fabricasset, utraque imposita vasi a
labris aqua pleno pondus aque examinavit. Demum etiam impleto vase coronaque imposita
intellexit quantum argenti atque auri haberet. Sit igitur exempli gratia corona ponderis
librarum 120. Aurea pila librarum 120. Argentea etiam totidem, videlicet librarum 120.
Et ponamus gratia exempli quod ex eadem vase plena aqua imposita aurea pila excutiantur
libre 40; imposita corona excutiantur aque libre 47; imposito argento excutiantur libre 60.
Volo scire quantum argenti continet corona. Divide 40 per 120, exit 1;3; et similiter divide
60 per 120, exit ti. Deinde pone quod fuerit in corona 1 co. (=cosa) argenti; igitur erit
residuum aurum idem libre 120 minus 1 co. MUltiplica 1 co. in ti, fit ti co. Multiplica
libras 120 minus 1co. in 1;3, fiunt libre 40 minus 1;3 co. lunge simul, fiunt libre 40 minus Y3 co.
plus ti co., quod est libre 40 plus 1/6 co., et hoc aequatur liquide 47, videlicet aque corone.
Igitur subtrao (1) 40 ex 47, remanebunt libre 7, aequales 1/6 co. Igitur 1 co. valebit 42. Et
quia positum fuit quod adesset 1 co. argenti, igitur faber supposuit argenti libras 42 et
tantumdem auri subripuit, et reliquum fuit aurum videlicet libre 78. Cuius probatio est,
nam pro omnibus 3 libris auri excluditur libra 1 aque; igitur pro 78 libris auri excluduntur
libre 26, quod est tertia pars, et pro omnibus duabus libris argenti excluditur libra aque;
igitur pro 42 libris argenti excluduntur libre 21 aque, que iuncte ad 26 faciunt 47. Cum
igitur tantumdem excludatur corona, sequitur ut corona contineat libras 78 auri et 42
argenti. Et ita in omnibus casibus invenies hoc modo veritatem. Potest etiam fieri per
positionem falsam sed non tarn faciliter." I have expanded the abbreviations, except for
co. which stands for cosa, the unknown. I have also changed the punctuation and hence
have capitalized the words beginning sentences where I have added periods. I have also
capitalized Vitruvius and Archimedes although they are not capitalized in the text. As usual
I have changed consonantal "u" to "v."
5 It is the reference to the crown's having already been consecrated and therefore
requiring an assay that would not destroy it that shows that Cardano had read the Carmen
de ponderibus as well as Vitruvius' account, since this point is made in the Carmen but
not in Vitruvius' description of the discovery.
crown-one of gold and the other of silver-he placed each in a vase full to the
brim with water and examined the weight of the water [displaced]. Then after
he had also placed the crown in the filled vase [and found the weight of the water
displaced by it], he knew how much silver and how much gold there was in it. For
example, let the crown be 120 pounds in weight, the golden ball 120 pounds, and
the silver ball the same, i.e. 120 pounds. Then we posit, for example, that when it
is placed in the same full vase 40 pounds of water are displaced by the golden
ball, while with the crown placed in the same situation 47 pounds are displaced
and with the silver so placed 60 pounds of water are displaced. I wish to know
how much silver the crown contains. Divide 40 by 120; the result is Y3. Similarly
divide 60 by 120; the result is lh. Then assume that there is in the crown x amount
of silver.
6
Therefore the residual gold = (120 - x). Then multiply x by lh, getting
x/2. Then multiply (120 - x) by Y3, getting [40 - (x/3)]. Add them together, getting
[40 - (x/3) + (x!2)] = [40 + (x/6)]. This is clearly equalto 47, that is to the weight of
the water displaced by the crown. Therefore, [40 + (x/6)] = 47, or 47 - 40 = 7
= x/6, i.e. x = 42. And because it was posited that there would be x amount of
silver present, therefore the smith substituted 42 pounds of silver and stole the
same amount of gold; and the rest, namely 78 pounds, was gold. The proof of
this is that for every three pounds of gold one pound of water is displaced.
Therefore, for 78 pounds of gold 26 pounds [of water] are displaced, which is
Y3 part, and for every two pounds of silver one pound of water is displaced;
therefore, for 42 pounds of silver 21 pounds of water are displaced, which joined
to 26 makes 47. Since, therefore, the crown displaces just this amount of water,
it follows that the crown contains 78 pounds of gold and 42 of silver. Similarly
in all cases you will find the truth of this way [of proceeding]. It can also be found
by false position but not so easily.
Cardano then gives a case where he does not take a complete crown's
weight of gold and silver but only a fraction thereof.
7
These cases of
Cardano are numerical examples of density assays. And although the
density assay appears later in works on practical metal working and
assaying, those works of this genre from early in the century seem to lack
any such section, e.g., the Bergbuchlein and Probierbuchlein. 8 It is true
6 Throughout the volume Cardano uses cosa for the unknown quantity in an equation.
Hence I have rendered it by x.
7 Practica, ibid.: "Possumus etiam facere hoc accipiendo spheras am; et argenti longe
minores ipsa corona, non enim est necessarium eas accipere aequales corone sed bene
inter se. Exemplum sit corona librarum 100. Facio duas spherulas alteram argenteam
alteram auream ponderis untiarum, ut pote 36. Et ponamus quod ab aurea excludantur untie
10 et ab argentea 13 aque et a corona Iibre 32. Dividemus igitur ut prius 10 per 36, et exit
1/36, et similiter 13 per 36, exit 13/36 , et pono quod fuerit 1 co. argenti in corona. 19itur
aurum fuit libre 100 minus 1 co. Multiplico 1 co. in 13/36 , fit 13/36 co. Multiplico 100 minus
1 co. in 1/36, fit 27719 minus 1/36 co. lungo, fiunt 27719 plus 1/12 , et hoc aequatur 32. 19itur
Iibre 4
2
/9 aequatur 1/12 co. 19itur res valet Iibra 5<Wl, quod est untie 8, et tantum inest
argenti, aurum autem est residuum, videlicet Iibre 49, untie 4; et ita semper poteris scire in
torquibus et anulis quantum auri sit defraudatum."
8 For English translations and a convenient discussion of these works, see A. G. Sisco
and C. S. Smith, Bergwerk- und Probierbiichlein (New York, 1949). In their Mappae
claviculae: A Little Key to the World of Medieval Techniques (Philadelphia, 1974), p. 56,
n. 132, J. G. Hawthome and C. S. Smith indicate that "the density assay in one form or
another is mentioned in most books on assaying published in the sixteenth to nineteenth
that Georg Agricola in his celebrated De re metallica (Basel, 1556) does
briefly mention Archimedes:
9
The ancients also discovered by burning how great a portion of silver gold would
contain. But in this way all the silver was lost, a not inconsiderable loss.
However, Archimedes, the noble mathematician, to gratify King Hieron,
discovered a method of determining the same thing [without loss] that is not
very clear and by which a large mass can be more accurately tested than a small
one. This I shall explain in the Commentaries.
Unfortunately, the Commentaries appear to be lost and we do not
know the details of Agricola's explanation. 10
To this point I have mentioned discussions of the crown problems that
primarily came from classical sources. More directly pertinent to our
investigation, however, was the interest displayed by Renaissance
scholars in the medieval text of the Pseudo-Archimedean De ponderibus
Archimenidis, which was also entitledDe incidentibus in humidum. A new
edition of this work has been given below in Appendix I, Section 4. The
purpose of the work was stated in its preface.
Since, on account of the irregular composition of certain bodies, one could not
determine the definite ratio of them by geometry and since the prices of certain
things which are bought and sold need to be proportioned to their volumes,
it was necessary to find the ratios of the volumes of these bodies by means of
their weights, so that by knowledge of their individual volumes through the ratio of
their weights, definite prices could be determined for them.
Although this is not clearly expressed, it is evident from the last proposi-
tion that the major problem to be solved by the tract was that of the
determination of the individual volumes of the component parts of a
mixture, starting from equal volumes of the mixture and each of the
substances comprising the mixture. According to this last proposition,
the rule to use was V
1
1V
2
= (Wc - Ws) I (Wg - Wc), where Vi and V
2
are the partial volumes sought, and Wc, Ws and Wg are the respective
weights of equal volumes of the mixture c, the substance of component s
and the substance of component g. The proof of this proposition in the
medieval text is only fragmentary and certainly not clear. However, it can
be easily shown in modern terms (but following the principles given in the
tract):
centuries-see especially Lazarus Ercker's Beschreibung allerfurnemisten mineralischen
Ertzt und Berckwercksarten etc. (Prague, 1574) and the extensive notes added by J. H.
Cardalucius to the 1672 edition."
9 Ed. cit., p. 194: "Veteres etiam ustione indagarunt quotam argenti portionem aurum in
se contineret: eoque modo omne argentum consumebatur, quae non levis iactura fuit.
Attamen Archimedes, nobilis mathematicus , Hieroniregi gratificaturus invenitrationem idem
deprehendi non admodum promptam, et qua massa magna accuratius quam parva explorari
potest, quam in commentariis exponam."
10 H. Wilsdorf, Georg Agricola und seine Zeit (Berlin, 1956), p. 312, lists the Commen-
tarii among Agricola's lost works.
(1) Let Wc, Wg, and Ws be given.
(2) Note that Swg = W1 / VI = Wg / V, where Swg is the specific weight
of substance g, W1 the partial weight of component g in the mixture,
V the given volume of the mixture, and the other quantities are as
described above. Thus W1 = Wg (VI/ V). Similarly, for the partial weight
of substance s in the mixture, W
2
= Ws (V
2
/ V).
(3) Wc = W
1
+ W
2
(4) Substituting the expressions for W
1
and W
2
determined in (2), we
get V'Wc = Wg'V
1
+ WS'V
2
; and since V = VI + V
2
, hence VI / V
2
= (Wc - Ws) / (Wg - Wc).
It is clear that Proposition 8, which embraces this conclusion, only
tells how to determine the ratio of the partial volumes V1 and V2' Hence
one would have expected the tract to have a supplementary proposition
or corollary indicating that if V is known and V = V1 + V2, then by
Proposition 8 the individual volumes VIand V2 can be found. Interestingly
enough, it was possible to meet this expectation by a proper interpretation
and rearrangement of material that was present in the tract itself. The
key to the solution is Proposition 4 whose enunciation reads: "In a body
mixed of two [kinds of simples], to determine how much there is of each
one [in it)." (See Appendix I, Section 4 below.) This proposition in the
original extant version was not accompanied by any proof or comment.
As it stands it could call for the determination either ofW
1
and W
2
(i.e. the
partial weights) or V
1
and V
2
If it is interpreted in terms of VI and V
2
,
then Proposition 8 gives the rule that leads to the solution of the problem
and hence Proposition 4 should be moved in the tract to a position after
Proposition 8. This is essentially what Johannes de Muris did in the
reworked version of the De ponderibus Archimenidis that appears in his
Quadripartitum numerorum of 1343, as I have noted below in Appendix I,
Section IV, note 2. And indeed one of the scribes of the medieval
manuscripts of the De ponderibus (BN lat. 7215, designated in my
Appendix as MS p), while not shifting Proposition 4 to the end, did add
the enunciation of Proposition 8 to the lacuna accompanying the enuncia-
tion of Proposition 4 to serve as a rule for solution. However, in doing
sO,thecompositorbyerrorwrotethatV
1
/V
2
= (Wc - Ws)/(Wc - Wg).
The denominator was thus incorrect and ought rather to have been
(Wg - Wc).
It will occur to the reader that the concern of the medieval tract and
its students with the determination of the ratio V
1
/ V
2
and the individual
volumes VIand V2 is different from the concern of the Archimedean
determination of the parts by weight of gold and silver in Hieron's crown.
None of the medieval copies of the tract indicates that the partial weights
W
1
and W
2
can be easily determined once we know VI and V
2
by an appeal
to the expressions for W
1
and W
2
noted above in step (2) of my suggested
proof for Proposition 8, coupled with the assumption of step (3). Still,
Johannes de Muris in his reworked version of the medieval De ponderibus
Archimenidis did move toward joining the objective of the medieval
tract with that of the crown problem in two respects. In the proof or
rather explanation of his Proposition 5 (= Proposition 8 of the medieval
De ponderibus Archimenidis) he illustrated the completely general
expressions of "mixture" and component "simples" by posing for
consideration an alloy of gold and silver.
11
Furthermore, in the same
explanation of his Proposition 5, after remarking that the sample alloy
of gold and silver has"one foot" of gold and "two feet" of silver, he adds
laconically, "And continue to suppose with me that one foot of gold
weighs 12 [pounds], [one] of silver 9, and [one] of lead 8. "12 Hence, any
reader might easily make the final partial weight determination for
himself: since the alloy weighed 30 pounds, and had one foot of gold
weighing 12 pounds, its weight of silver would be 18 pounds. Still, such
weight determinations were not his primary objective and he was
certainly not attempting to give a general rule for weight determinations.
In fact, we must wait until the sixteenth century for the confluence of
the medieval tract with the Archimedean crown problem, as I shall show
below.
We are now in a position to examine the fate of De ponderibus
Archimenidis in the sixteenth century. Let us first turn our attention
to the early sixteenth-century corrector of the copy of De ponderibus
Archimenidis in manuscript O. The corrector (=0
2
), as I shall indicate
below in Appendix I, Section 4, filled in the lacuna of Proposition 4 in
the same way as the compositor of manuscript p noted above, except
that in O
2
the erroneous denominator is correctly changed to (Wg - Wc).
Furthermore the corrector has renumbered Proposition 4 as "8", thereby
indicating its dependence on the last proposition (accordingly renumbered
as "7" in his copy). I am disposed to believe that the various corrections
in O
2
(noted in more detail below in the Appendix) were made by Andreas
Coner, who extensively corrected the genuine Archimedean texts also
included in manuscript 0 (see above, Part Ill, Chapter 4, Section I). If
Coner was the author ofthe corrections to the De ponderibus Archimenidis
in 0, then he probably made them some time between 1508 (when he
11 Clagett, The Science ojMechanics in the Middle Ages, p. 131: "5
a
Sifuerint tria corpora
equalia in magnitudine, quorum duo sunt simplicia generum diversorum, a1iud vero mixtum
ex utrisque, fueritque simplicium unum altero gravius in specie, erit partis mixti que in
ipso est de genere gravioris proportio ad a1iam sui partem que in ipso est de genere levioris,
tanquam proportio differentie ponderis mixti ad pondus levioris, ad differentiam ponderis
gravioris ad pondus mixti. Sint tria corporaequalia: argentum, aurum, tertiumex hiis mixtum.
Et sit pondus auri 36 lb, argenti 27, compositi vero 30. Erit autem differentia ponderis
mixti ad pondus gravioris 6, hoc est, in tantum exceditur mixtum. Item differentia mixti
ad levius in pondere est 3. Sicut ergo 3 ad 6, ita pars que est in mixto de genere gravioris
ad aliam partem mixti que est de genere levioris, hoc est, pars auri est subdupla partis
argenti. Argentum ergo est duplum ad aurum, quod est propositum."
12 Ibid.: "Erat autem in mixto pes auri et duo pedes argenti secundum mensuras ponderum
prius dictorum. Et isti tres ponderant 30 libras, et tres pedes auri 36, et tres pedes argenti
27. Ex hiis patet propositum antedictum. Et suppone semper mecum, quod auri pes
ponderet 12, et argenti 9, plumbi 8, sicut fuit anterius designatum."
acquired the manuscript) and 1513 (when he was first mentioned as being
in Rome), that is, in the same period he made the corrections to the
genuine Archimedes (ibid.). One conclusion from this reasoning is that
a manuscript of the De ponderibus Archimenidis in the tradition of
manuscript p was in Venice in the early sixteenth century. This is
confirmed by the appearance in Venice in 1518 and 1519 of two editions
oftheDe ponderibus Archimenidis with theSphaera of John of Sacrobosco,
both of them unquestionably in the tradition of manuscript p (see below,
Appendix I, Section 4). Thus for the first time the Pseudo-Archimedean
work was removed from the relatively limited circle of manuscript readers
to the potentially larger readership of printed books. Unfortunately, the
printed editions reflected the erroneous readings of p rather than Coner's
corrections of p as found in O
2
, Furthermore, these editions and the
available medieval manuscripts, even where correct, must have left
readers with considerable doubt as to the intention and soundness
of the proofs of the medieval tract. Such was clearly so in the case of
the Portuguese scholar, Francisco de Mello, who responded to the in-
coherence and inconsistency of the medieval tract by producing a
commentary to the tract: Archimedis de incidentibus in humidis cum
Francisci de mello commentariis, the treatise which we must now
examine and publish. First, a word about the author.
Francisco de Mello was born in Lisbon of noble lineage in 1490.
13
He
was in residence at the University of Paris (1514-17) with stipends from
the Portuguese King Don Manue!' He studied philosophy and mathematics
and followed the courses of Pierre Brisson, an eminent philosopher and
mathematician who was professor of arts and of medicine at the University.
De Mello also studied theology and received the licentiate therein. At
Paris, he was an associate and friend of the Aragonese mathematician
Gaspar Lax and the latter is said to have dedicated his Arithmetica
speculativa (Paris, 1515) to de Mello.
14
On his return to Portugal,
Francisco was appointed a counselor to the king and tutor to the king's
children. He was later named first bishop of Goa by King Don Joao Ill,
but he was prevented by death from assuming the post. He died in Elvora
in 1536 and was buried in the Church of the Convento de S. Joao
Evangelista in that city. 15
Francisco's commentary on De ponderibus Archimenidis appears in a
13 The best modem account of the life and works of Francisco de Mello (which indeed
is the only original account) is that of Antonio Ribeiro dos Santos, "Da Vida, e Escritos de
D. Francisco de Mello," Memorias da litteratura portugueza publicadas pe/a Academia
das Ciecias de Lisboa, Vol. 7 (1806), pp. 237-49.
14 So says F. Picatoste y Rodrfguez, Apuntes para una biblioteca cientifica espanola del
siglo XVI (Madrid, 1891), p. 167. The copy available to me had no dedication.
15 Ribeiro dos Santos, UDa Vida," p. 248, gives the following epitaph that appears on
Francisco's tomb: "Aqui jaz Francisco de Mello do Conselho del Rei D. Joao Ill, filho
de Manoel de Mello, e de D. Brites da Silva sua mulher. Falleceo de 46 annos aos 27
dias de Abril de 1536."
unique manuscript copy in the Biblioteca Nacional of Lisbon. The
contents of this manuscript (numbered Cod. 2262) ought to be noted
briefly:
1. Folio Iris blank except for the number "F.G.2262." On Iv is a poem
dedicated to the King Don Manuel, which begins "Invictissimo atque
Serenissimo Principi Emmanueli Lusitanorum Regi potentissimo Francisci
de Mello Elegum carmen." Folio 2 is blank.
2. 3r-6r: Francisco's preface to his Commentary on Euclid's Optics,
beginning (3r) "Francisci de Mello in Euclidis Megarensis Philosophi
atque Mathematici praestantissimi Perspectivae Commentaria ad Optimum
quemque Praefatio. In tanta humani ingenii caligine sola . . ." and
ending (6r) "Studium agnoscitur. Sed iam ... (?) aggrediamur."
3. 6r-26v: A work of Francisco on the nature of seeing and the form
of the eye, written as a "corollary" to Euclid's Optics, begins "Francisci
de Mello de videndi ratione atque oculorumforma in Euclidis perspectivam
corrollarium (!). Luciferis quidem oculorum orbibus videndi facultatem
tributam esse, nemo ambigit. ..." It ends (26v) "Explicit Francisci de
Mello in Perspectivam Euclidis corollarium."
4. 27r-62v: The Optica of Euclid (in the Zamberti translation) with
the commentary of Francisco, begins (27r): "Perspectiva Euclidis cum
Francisci de Mello commentariis. Suppositiones. Supponatur ab oculo
visus emissos in rectas lineas ferri. ..." It ends (62v) " ... igitur
apparent latera bc, cd, de, be quod est . . . (?) quadrati; igitur et cetera."
5. 63r-lOOv: Euclid's Catoptrica, in the translation of Zamberti with
Francisco's commentary, begins (63r) "Ad eundem Emmanuelem
Lusitanorum Regem Francisci de Mello in Euclidis Megarensis specu-
lariam commentaria. Praemissi iam foenoris, princeps clarissime,
priorem partem non qua debui, sed qua potui diligentia inter strepentes
negotiorum occupationes exsolvi ... (ibid.) Euclidis Megarensis specu-
laria Bartholomeo Zamberto interprete. Visum rectam lineam esse, qua
media cuncta extremis correspondent. ..." It ends (lOOv) " ... Specu-
laria Euclidis addito Francisci de Mello commentario explicit.' ,
6. 101r-08r: Francisco's commentary on the medieval De ponderibus
Archimenidis, as published below. Folios 108v-14v are blank.
7. 115r-22v: A text not by Francisco. It is a part of Book I (through
Proposition XII) of De astronomia Gebri (sometimes called the Flores
Almagesti), beginning (115r) "Elementa geometrica ad Astronomiam
necessaria Gebri. Definitiones. Ut incipiamus exponere intentiones
. "
nommum....
Francisco de Mello's version of De ponderibus Archimenidis (which
he calls by the alternate title De incidentibus in humidis) is not merely
a corrected copy like that we have assigned to Andreas Coner. Rather
it constitutes a transformation of the medieval tract into a relatively
complete and coherent work. If the reader will compare Francisco's text
at the end of this section (Text A) with the medieval text as given in
Appendix I, Section 4, he will see that Francisco retained most of the
definitions, postulates and enunciations of the propositions but provided
new proofs to the propositions. However, in retaining the skeleton of
the medieval text he made a series of changes. (1) He eliminated Definition
14 from the medieval text, no doubt because that definition has a strictly
mathematical character that makes it inappropriate for this physical tract.
He was anticipated in this action by Johannes de Muris who also dropped
the definition. (2) Francisco moved two postulates of the medieval text
(Nos. 3 and 6) to the section of definitions where they properly belong
and where they are numbered [14] and [15] in my edition below. (3) He
also moved Proposition 4 to the end of the tract where it was numbered
as "7" and interpreted it in the same way that the scribe of manuscript
p and Johannes de Muris interpreted it, namely as the problem of
determining the partial volumes of the components of a mixture. Francisco
explains what he has done in the text below, lines 190-95: "Before the
preceding conclusion [i.e. his Proposition 4 = De ponderibus, Proposi-
tion 5] a certain problem [Le. De ponderibus, Proposition 4] was customarily
added. We judged that this problem ought to be moved to the end of this
small tract." He further notes that if this problem is moved nothing has
to be changed in it as it exists in some exemplars but that something
has to be added. This addition would be both the problem or lemma of
lines 356-80 and the additional material in his proof of Proposition 7.
In this same note of explanation he remarks that the text of Proposition 4
(=De ponderibus, Proposition 5) has some faults. Perhaps he was referring
to the mistaken citation of Proposition 3 in the part of the exemplars
where Proposition 2 is intended (see below, Appendix I, Section 4, line 120).
(4) Francisco also expunged from the text as a spurious addition a
strictly mathematical proposition, Proposition 7 of the De ponderibus
Archimenidis. He notes that it has been proved in the Arithmetica of
Jordanus and does not contribute to the objective of the tract (see below,
lines 352-55). In fact, Johannes de Muris had once more anticipated
Francisco's move in eliminating this proposition.
In addition to these basic changes in the structure of the medieval
tract, Francisco reworked the proofs of the propositions, adding
appropriate corollaries and lemmas. Although I have analyzed his proofs
in some detail in the commentary below, I can briefly mention here
some of his most important additions. (1) We should first note that
Francisco added a corollary to the first proposition. It states that a body
in any lighter medium weighs more than it does in a heavier one by the
weight of the heavier medium that it displaces, so long as the body is
specifically heavier than the heavier medium. This is a generalization for
any two media of the Principle of Archimedes given in Proposition 1 for
air and water. (2) In the course of Francisco's proof of Proposition 5
(=Proposition 6 of the medieval text), he has added a warning (lines
234-42) that the proof in the medieval text- at least in the exemplars
available to him-is invalid because it falsely assumes that a floating
body has weight in the liquid in which it floats and because it further
implies that a body composed of submergible and non-submergible
components weighs more in a liquid than does the submergible component
alone (see my commentary below, Proposition 5). It is also worth noticing
that in his preliminary discussion at his Proposition 5, Francisco ties
dynamic considerations into hydrostatics, perhaps influenced by Parisian
manuscript b of the medieval De ponderibus Archimenidis (see below,
Commentary, Proposition 5). This then puts him in the line of scholars
who advanced a dynamics based to some extent on hydrostatics, the
line from Oresme to Benedetti (see above, Part I, Chapter 7 and Part Ill,
Chapter 4, Sect. II). (3) Preceding Proposition 6 (=Proposition 8 of the
medieval tract), which gives the basic formula noted above, i.e. VI / V
2
= (Wc - Ws) / (Wg - Wc), Francisco has added two lemmas. The first
one establishes that if Wa / Va = Wc / Vc and Wb / Vb = Wd / Vd, and
if Va = Vb and Wc = Wd, then Wa / Wb = Wc / Wd. The second is an
obvious mathematical lemma: "If equals are subtracted from unequals,
the remainders will be unequal by the same amount [as the original unequal
magnitudes]. " This is an extension of an axiom to Book I of the Elements
in both the Campanus and Zamberti versions by the addition of the phrase
"by the same amount. "16 (4) Francisco also added before his last
Proposition (=Proposition 4 of the De ponderibus Archimenidis) what
he has called a problema or later a lemma. This has two parts: 1. With a
mixture given in magnitude (i.e. volume), to give volumes of the simples
composing the mixture that are each equal to the volume of the mixture.
This is given a trivial mathematical solution. 2. With the weights in air and
water of the mixture given, to give (as before) equal volumes of the
simples composing the mixture. In a sense both of these parts are
comprised in Johannes de Muris' seventh proposition, which he thought
a necessary prelude to the solution of the basic problem of finding the
volumetric components of a mixture.
17
Although the explanation and
solution of Johannes' Proposition 7 has a somewhat different and more
practical tone, I believe it is probable that Francisco had read Johannes'
Quadripartitum numerorum at Paris and that he accordingly added his
problema as the result of that reading. This conclusion is given added
weight by the already noted facts that Francisco eliminated Definition 14
and Proposition 7 of the medieval tract as had Johannes, moved its
Proposition 4 to the end of the text, where it occupied the same relative
position that it did in Johannes' work and that, like Johannes, Francisco
16 For example, in the Elementa (Basel, 1546), p. 3, the axiom in the Campanus version
reads: "4. Et si ab inaequalibus aequalia demas, quae relinquuntur erunt inaequalia."
17 Clagett, The Science of Mechanics, p. 132: "7
a
Quocunque corpore dato sibi equale in
magnitudine alterius generis conveniter (?) assignare. Sit corpus datum ferrum et corpus
plumbi quod volumus adequare. Ponderetur itaque ferrum et plumbum in aere et in aqua,
nota differentiam ponderis utriusque in aere et in aqua. Nam secundum proportionem
unius differentie ad aliam erit proportio fem et plumbi datorum per unam precedentium.
Et tunc si fuerint equalia, habetur intentum. Si autem plumbum minus fuerit, adde, vel si
maius fuerit, deme secundum quod exigunt differentie usquequo differentie sint equates."
interpreted that proposition in terms of finding the partial volumes of the
components of a mixture. When Forcadel later translated Francisco's
commentary, he formally separated the parts of Francisco's problema or
lemma into two separate statements (much as I have done here for the
purpose of this discussion) and each of these statements was rather
misnamed as a corollary. (5) Francisco's introduction of the previously
discussed problema seems also to have some bearing on an original
distinction that he introduced in presenting the proof of his last proposition
(=Proposition 4 of the medieval text). The problem of finding the
individual volumes of the components of a mixture admits of two differing
degrees of solution depending on what is given. If both the magnitude and
the weight of the mixture are given, then the individual volumes can be
determined. But if only the weight of the mixture is given, then only the
ratio of the individual volumes can be given. This is quite clear if we go
back to the discussion immediately following the derivation of Vi / V2
= (Wc - Ws) / (Wg - Wc) which I gave above. It is there evident that
Vi and V
2
can only be determined if their sumV is also known. (6) Finally,
I can point to the statement added by Francisco that relates the objective
of the whole tract to the Archimedean problem described by Vitruvius
(lines 398-99 below). Although Francisco's statement is quite general
(it does not give the title of Vitruvius' work or the Book and Chapter
numbers of the appropriate passage), it constitutes the first explicit linking
of the De ponderibus Archimenidis with the Vitruvian account. Needless
to say, its brevity precludes any distinction between the objective of the
De ponderibus (Le. to find the partial volumes of the components in a
mixture) and that of the account ofVitruvius (i.e. to find the partial weights
of the components in an alloy).
Considering all of the above-noted changes and additions made by
Francisco and the general clarity of his proofs vis-a-vis the proofs of the
original text, we ought to conclude that Francisco's performance was quite
impressive, even if he was anticipated by and depended on Johannes de
Muris' reworking of the De ponderibus Archimenidis. As the reader
examines the proofs below, he will notice that Francisco, unlike the
medieval author, constantly appeals to Euclid's Elements and Data. Such
appeals represent just one aspect of his successful effort to rework and
clarify the medieval proofs. In view of the success of his undertaking,
we can endorse his concluding paragraph (lines 401-07) in which he
presented the work to the king (Don Manue1) as evidence that the king's
support of his studies at Paris was not wasted. From this paragraph we
can conclude that Francisco prepared the work at Paris. This conclusion
is reinforced by the fact that he apparently used several exemplars of the
medieval tract at Paris. I suspect that he at least saw the Parisian
manuscripts a and p of the De ponderibus Archimenidis (see notes 1 and 14
to Text A below) and perhaps also manuscript b. I have also suggested
that he read Johannes de Muris' Quadripartitum numerorum (possibly
the copy in Paris, BN lat. 7190). Francisco's commentary, then, at least in
its inception, dates from the period 1514- 17, though he may have put it
into final form in Portugal.
Although Francisco's work has never before been printed (and so far
as I know its relation to the medieval De ponderibus Archimenidis has
never before been examined), it did become available in a somewhat
embroidered fashion in the French translation of Pierre Forcadel, Le Livre
d'Archimede des pais (Paris, 1565). Forcadel, in the less fastidious
fashion of his day, failed to reveal that his work was almost exclusively
a close rendering of de Mello' s commentary and, as the reader will see
below (Text B), each of de Mello's proofs appears under the rubric of
Forcadel.
Pierre Forcadel was born in Beziers. 18 Little is known of his early life.
Goujet suggests on very slight evidence that Forcadel may have been an
apothecary.19 By his own testimony, Forcadel spent some time in Italy
prior to 1560.
20
With the assistance of Petrus Ramus he was appointed
to the chair in mathematics at the College de France left vacant by Jean
Penna. He occupied this chair from 1560 to 1573, and in all probability
died in 1573 or 1574.
21
In addition to Le Livre d'Archimede des pois
with its supplementary version of his French translation of De ponderoso
et levi attributed to Euclid, Forcadel composed various mathematical
works and French translations of classical and modern authors.
22
is For Forcadel's life, see C. P. Goujet, Memoire historique et litteraire sur le College
Royal de France, Vo!. 2 (Paris, 1758), pp. 64-74; L. A. Sedillot, "Les Professeurs de
mathematiques et de physique generale au College de France," Bullettino di bibliografia e
di storia delle scienze matematiche e fisiche, Vo!. 2 (1869), pp. 424- 27; D. E. Smith, Rara
arithmetica (Boston, London, 1908), pp. 284, 316; J. C. Poggendorff, Bibliographisch-
litterarisches Handworterbuch zur Geschichte der exacten Wissenschaften, Vo!. 1(Leipzig,
1863), c. 772; and J. Mogenet, "Pierre Forcadel, traducteur d'Autolycus," Archives inter-
nationales d'histoire des sciences, No. 10 (1950), pp. 114-28.
19 Goujet, Memoire, p. 66.
20 Ibid., pp. 66-67.
21 Goujet, ibid., pp. 72-73, discusses various dates given for Forcadel's death but con-
cludes that he died in 1573 or the following year; cf. Sedillot, "Les Professeurs," p. 427.
22 Goujet, Memoire, pp. 67-71, gives, in some bibliographic detail, the titles of 14 works
by Forcadel, which I have abbreviated and compared with copies in the Bibliotheque
Nationale: (1) L'Arithmetique (Paris, 1556); (2) Le Second livre de l'Arithmetique (Paris,
1557; Smith, Rara arithmetica, p. 284, gives 1556); (3) Le Troisieme livre de [' arithmhique
(Paris, 1558; Smith and BM Catalogue give 1557); (4) L'Arithmhique par les gects (Paris,
1558); (5) L'Arithmhique entiere et abregee (Paris, 1565); (6) La Description d'un
anneau solaire convexe (Paris, 1569; BN Catalogue gives 1568); (7) Les Six premieres
livres des Elements d'Euclide (Paris, 1564; BN notes ed. of 1566), a translation into
French; and Les Septieme, huictieme et neufieme livres des Elemens d'Euclide (Paris,
1565), a French translation; (8) Deux livres de Proclus du mouvement (Paris, 1565), a
French translation with commentary; (9) Le Premier livre d' Archimede des chose egallement
pesantes (Paris, 1565), a French translation with commentary; (10) Le Livre d'Archimede
des pois, ensemble ce qui se trouve du Livre d' Euclide intitule du leger et du pesant (Paris,
1565), the text edited below; (11) Le Livre de la musique d' Euclide (Paris, 1565), a
French translation; (12) Deux livres d'Autolice, ['un de la sphere qui est meue, et ['autre
du lever et coucher des hoilles non errantes: ensemble le Livre de Theodose des habitations
Turning to Forcadel's translation of De ponderibus Archimenidis, we
should first notice that on the title page he is described as "Ordinary
Lecturer to the King in Mathematics at the University of Paris" (see
Text B below). It will be immediately evident to the reader who examines
the text that follows and compares it with Francisco de Mello's com-
mentary, that Forcadel's version is primarily a literal translation of de
Mello's and includes all of the earlier text except for certain passages in
which de Mello had referred to the deficiencies of the medieval text (see
Text A below, notes 10-11, 13, 15). Beyond that, Forcadel added some
trivial comments to the definitions and postulates. More important, he
doubled the length of de Mello' s proof of Proposition 7 by adding some
comments of his own. In doing so, he refers to the specific passage in
Vitruvius' work (Book IX, Chap. 3) to which de Mello had only referred
in a general way. Furthermore, Forcadel's addition to this proof is couched
in terms of a "crown delivered by the goldsmith." The main purpose of the
addition is to determine the weights of the components ofthe crown, after the
ratio oftheir partial volumes has been determined (see below, my commentary
on this addition to Proposition 7). Thus he has supplemented Francisco's
volumetric determinations and so became the first author to make the ultimate
objective of the tract the determination of the weights of gold and silver in the
crown. Furthermore, in his addition to the proof of Proposition 7, Forcadel
added numerical computations not present in de Mello' s commentary. In this
respect his addition resembles the comments found in the reworked version by
Johannes de Muris where numerical examples play a dominant role.
Forcadel also added another proposition (Proposition 8) which was
entirely his own, namely one that specifically formulated the rule for the
ratio of the components by weight in a mixture, or in short, the rule by
which the crown problem could be solved. This formulation is W1 / W2
= (Fs - F) / (F - Fg), where W
1
and W
2
are respectively the weights
of the components of the mixture and Fs, F, Fg are respectively the
weights of water expelled by equal weights of the lighter substance, the
mixture and the heavier substance. And obviously when one knows the
total weight of the mixture or crown this rule allows us to find the
individual weights of the components. We should point out that Forcadel
had already stressed in his dedicatory preface the importance of his added
proposition and particularly of the fact that it proceeds with equal weights
of the mixture and the simples composing it. Explaining the latter
procedure, he says that he has "done this because, although it is very
difficult to find two bodies of two simples equal [in volume] to an irregular
body composed of some part of each of the simples, it is very easy to find
two bodies of two simple species that are of equal weight with a [third]
(Paris, 1572), French translations (see the article of Mogenet cited in note 18); (13)
L'Arithmhique de Gemme Phrison (Paris, 1560), a French translation; (14) La Practique
de la geometrie d' Oronce Fine (Paris, 1570), a French translation. Smith, Rara arithmetica,
p. 284 also notes L'Arithmetique demonstree (Paris, 1570).
body composed of the two simple species." He then adds "and also
because what I have demonstrated concerning this case is in accord with
the very words of Vitruvius in the third chapter of the ninth Book [of the
Architecture] and with the fashion of accomodating [geometrical
arguments] to arithmetical ones." The identification of his proof with
Vitruvius' is not quite an exact one. True, in both procedures one
plunges in water equal air weights of the mixture and the simple substances
composing it. But in Forcadel' s procedure the weights of the water
expelled are used; in Vitruvius' the volumes of water expelled are used
[so that W
1
/ W
2
= (Vs - V) / (V - Vg)]. Needless to say, (Fs - F) /
(F - Fg) = (Vs - V) / (V - Vg) and thus both procedures lead to the
correct result. The last part of the quotation from his preface given above
is of interest. As in the expansion of the proof of Proposition 7, so in
proof of Proposition 8, Forcadel has recourse to a numerical example in
the fashion of Johannes de Muris and of Forcadel's contemporary
Girolamo Cardano (see above, note 4). This raises the possibility that,
in spite of Forcadel's appeal to Vitruvius, his main source for this extra
proposition was Cardano's account since Cardano too used the weights of
water displaced rather than their volumes. One final word must be said
about Forcadel's knowledge of the medieval De ponderibus Archimenidis
as distinct from Francisco de Mello's commentary. In the preface he
mentions a manuscript of the medieval tract that was communicated to
him by Monsieur Akakia (apparently Martin Akakia, the well-known
translator of Oalen's Ars medica, Lyons, 1548, and many later editions).
We do not know which manuscript it was, but it could have been
manuscript a (Paris, BN lat. 8680A) since the latter manuscript was the
only one we know to have the double title of the work exactly as it was
given by Forcadel. Furthermore, we know that Forcadel followed the
medieval text as well as the text of de Mello' s commentary, since unlike
de MeUo he gives the alternate enunciations for Proposition 7 (=Proposi-
tion 8 of the medieval text) found in all but one copy of the medieval
tract. In giving Forcadel's translation below (Text B), I have also added
his translation of the Liber de ponderoso et levi attributed to Euclid. For
this translation it is evident that Forcadel used the text printed by Johann
Herwagen with Euclid's Elements (Basel, 1537) or one of its reprinted
editions (1546, 1558).
In regard to Francisco de Mello and Pierre Forcadel, there remains
but to mention the texts I have appended to this section. The first (Text A)
is the text of Francisco de Mello' s Commentary, as it appears in the Lisbon
manuscript described above. I have expanded "f' to "ae" everywhere
in the text, converted "ejusdem," "hujus" and like forms to "eiusdem,"
"huius" etc. Francisco sometimes uses "super" (i.e. "sufl") and
sometimes "supra" (Le. "sup") in precisely the same contexts and I
have everywhere followed him in his inconsistency. As usual, I have
punctuated freely as I thought the meaning demanded. The nature of the
paper and ink has produced considerable "print-through" in my photo-
graphs and made some passages difficult to read. Still by using Forcadel's
translations judiciously I have been able to decipher almost all of the
difficult passages. In some places, difficulties remain and I have given
my best guess followed by a question mark. The diagrams, although
not always satisfactory, show a great improvement on those in the
medieval manuscripts. He is not always consistent in maintaining
minuscule letters for weights and magnitudes. I have, however, left the
diagrams as he drew them.
The second document (Text B) presents the translations by Forcadel
of Francisco de Mello's commentary and the Liber de ponderoso et levi
attributed to Euclid. In my text I have changed vocal "v" to "u" and
consonantal "u" to "v." I have also added apostrophes where their
omission in the original might confuse the reader (e.g. "s'ensuit" instead
of "sensuit"). I have also expanded abbreviated words (e.g. "&" to "et",
"quad" to "quand", etc.). Again, I have changed the punctuation as
I saw fit when I thought such changes would aid the reader. Accompanying
Text B is an English translation. Because of the closeness of Forcadel's
rendering of Francisco de Mello's text, this English translation will
serve quite well as a translation of Francisco de Mello' s commentary
(except for the few comments of de Mello omitted by Forcadel). I have
chosen to add the English translation to Forcadel's version rather than
to de Mello's text because of the additional material given by Forcadel.
The figures in Forcadel's translation are oflittle use since they are merely
lines (usually of the same length) to which the letters standing for the
weights are attached. The arguments can easily be followed without the
figures and so I have not repeated the figures in my English translation.
I have appended to Texts A and B a commentary of my own that
attempts to reduce the lengthy verbal proofs of de Mello and Forcadel
to more terse algebraic expressions. I have also attempted there to indicate
the basic differences between the proofs of Francisco de Mello and those
of the medieval De ponderibus Archimenidis given in Appendix I, Section
4 below.
One final effort to render the Liber de ponderibus Archimenidis in the
sixteenth century must be presented and discussed, namely the truncated
Italian version of Niccolo Tartaglia given below as Text C. Tartaglia may
have made the acquaintance of this work in the first editions of Venice,
1518, 1519. At any rate, he certainly must have seen it when he read manu-
script M in about 1539 (see above, Part Ill, Chap. 4, Sect. 11). Indeed he trans-
lated or paraphrased some of the definitions and postulates of the medieval
work in his Quesiti et inventioni diverse (Venice, 1546).23 Later in his
23 Bk. 8, 82v: "Quesito XII. Diffinitione nona. [somewhat like Def. 9 of De pond.] QuelIi
corpi se dicono esser simplicemente equali in gravita, liquali sono realmcnte, di equal peso,
anchor che fusseno di materia diversa. Quesito XIII. Diffinitione decima. [somewhat like
Def. 10 of De pond.] Un corpo se dice esser simplicemente piu grave dun altro quando
I
\
I
Ragionamenti ... sopra la sua travagliata inventione (Venice, 1551),
"Secondo ragionamento," sign. [Div recto]-E [i verso], Tartaglia included
his Italian translation of four of the propositions from the medieval tract
(Le., Propositions 2-3 and 5-6). This is Text C. He omitted all the defini-
tions and postulates, perhaps because of the above-noted definitions and
postulates in his Quesiti. His omission of Proposition 1 of the medieval
work was no doubt occasioned by the fact that it was equivalent to
Proposition 7 of Book I of Archimedes' De insidentibus aquae which
he had already translated and commented on in the preceding ragionamento
(for this text, see above, Part Ill, Chap. 4, Sect. 11). This seems confirmed
by the statement made at the beginning of these four propositions, that
they were additional propositions beyond those of Archimedes (see below,
Text C, lines 1-2) and by the fact that when the original author cited
Proposition 1 of his tract Tartaglia cites Proposition 7 of Archimedes'
work (ibid., Proposition .i., lines 21-22). Tartaglia also omitted Proposi-
tions 4, 7 and 8 of the medieval work. In omitting Propositions 4 and 8,
Tartaglia makes a general comment on determining the components of
a mixture and on the Archimedean crown problem (ibid. , Proposition .iiii.,
lines 33-42) but without giving any rule generated from Propositions 4 and
8. He merely mentions a rule for determining the components of a mixture,
declaring that such a rule based on the last proposition "will be more
certain and less fallacious than that which Vitruvius and other authors
recount Archimedes to have found for recognizing the fraud ofthe artificer of
the golden crown of Hieron: for such a procedure [as the latter] will only
serve in a gross way for a large mass of gold, but with this [new] rule
the fraud could be recognized exactly in [something as small as] a ducat
of gold or even smaller than a ducat." This criticism of the Vitruvian
rule as suitable only for large quantities is the same as that found in
Agricola's account (see above, note 9). As for Tartaglia's omission of
Proposition 7 from the medieval tract, I would suppose that the reason
was the same I proposed for its omission by Johannes de Muris and
Francisco de Mello: It is primarily a mathematical proposition that serves
no apparent purpose in the Liber de ponderibus Archimenidis, at
least in the form in which that work survived.
If the reader will compare Tartaglia's Italian version with the text of
the Liber de ponderibus Archimenidis given in Appendix I, Section 4
che quello erealmente piu ponderoso di quello, anchor che fusse di materia diversa. Quesito
XlIII. Diffinitione XI. [somewhat like Post. 3 of De pond.] Un corpo se dice piu grave dun
altro secondo la specie, quando che la sostantia material di quello epiu ponderosa della
sostantia material de laltro, come che e il piombo dil ferro, et altri simili.... Quesito
XVII. Diffinitione XlIII. [almost = Def. 5 of De pond.] La gravita dun corpo se dice esser
nota quando chel numero delle libre che lui pesa ne sia noto, over altra denomination
de peso.... (85v).... Quesito XXVII. Petitione sesta. [=Post. 1 ofDe pond.] Anchora
adimandamo che ne sia concesso niun corpo esser grave in se medesimo."
-
~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~
below, he will readily discover that for the most part it is quite a literal
translation, except that the endings of the proofs are slightly expanded
and Tartaglia alters or eliminates the internal citations of postulates and
propositions found in the medieval text. Instead he cites primarily two
authorities: (1) Proposition 7 of Archimedes' De insidentibus aquae
(see Text C, Prop. .i., lines 21-22; Prop. .iL, line 13; Prop. .iii., lines 11-12,
20; Prop. .iv., lines 16-17,20) and (2) the first definition of Book VIII of his
own Quesiti (ibid., Prop. .i., lines 18-19; Prop..iii., line 13). In addition
there is one reference to the Elements of Euclid (ibid., Prop. .i., lines 19-20)
and the above-noted general reference to Vitruvius and .. other authors"
in connection with the crown story. Further, we should note that brief
comments of Ricardo (=Richard Wentworth) intrude at the ends of the
first and last propositions, reminding us that the dialogue form is being
used in the Ragionamenti. No doubt Tartaglia used manuscript M as his
source of the work, just as he had used it for his edition of Archimedes'
De insidentibus aquae. But if he did, he corrected it in a number of
places. Since these were careless errors, whose correction was obvious,
he need not have seen another copy, though presumably the first two
editions of Venice, 1518, would have been readily available to him in
Venice. As a matter of fact in Proposition .iv., line 22, he retains the
erroneous reading of k for n, an error that appears only in the two editions
of Venice and manuscript M. I should remind the reader that it was
manuscript M (or a close copy of it) that Tartaglia passed to Curtius
Troianus and from which the latter published in 1565 Jordanus' De
ponderositate, which included the De ponderibus Archimenidis without
title or author specified. The title and author were also missing from the
first two editions. Hence it is not surprising that Tartaglia did not
attribute these propositions to Archimedes but in fact distinguished them
from those of Archimedes, as I have noted above. Finally, I should observe
that Tartaglia's parenthetical addition to line 14 of Proposition .iv.,
indicates a knowledge (and a rejection) of the kind of criticism of Proposi-
tion 6 of the medieval work leveled by Francisco de Mello (see Text A,
lines 234-39), namely that the author has falsely assumed that a floating
body has weight in the liquid. For Tartaglia says that we are to assume g
is the weight in water of floating body e "even though it is, loosely
speaking, less than zero."
My text of Tartaglia's translation of the four propositions from De
ponderibus Archimenidis, given as Text C below, essentially reproduces
the text of 1551 noted above. I have retained the variable orthography
(e.g. both differentia and differrentia are found), commenting only where
the reading might puzzle the reader (e.g. after ambusive in Proposition
.iv., line 14, I have suggested abusive). I have also followed the earlier
printer in his wayward practice of the omission or inclusion of apostrophes
(e.g. both l'acqua and lacqua are found, l'altro and lalfro, etc.) and
accents (e.g. the copula appears both ase ande, the preposition asa anda,
gravita always appears without accent, etc.). I have altered the punctua-
tion slightly and as a result have occasionally capitalized minuscules and
on one occasion reduced a capital letter to a minuscule. Furthermore, in
accordance with my usual practice, I have written the enunciations of the
propositions in capital letters to reflect the fact that they are printed
in larger type in the 1551 edition. Also, I have italicized the letters marking
magnitudes, though they were not italicized in the original edition. Finally,
I have added the marginal specification or summary of the quantities
involved in each of the proofs to the end of the proofs, retaining them in
exactly the form found in the edition even though there the quantities
are specified with capital letters instead of the minuscules of the text.
... ,
101r
A
Archimedis de incidentibus in
humidis cum Francisci de
Mello commentariis
/ Archimedis de incidentibus in humidis cum
Francisci de Mello commentariis
Duplex principiorum genus.
Diffinitiones
5 Quoniam propter naturalem quorundam corporum compositionem non
potuit eorundem per geometriam certa haberi proportio, et quoniam
pretia quorundam quibus emuntur et veduntur debent magnitudinibus
ipsorum corporum proportionari, necessarium fuit per ipsorum pondera
corporum eorum magnitudinum proportionis reperire, ut singulis mag-
10 nitudinibus proportiones suorum ponderum cognitis valeant certa sociari.
[1] Primo igitur instrumenti per quod examinantur ponderum quantitates
ratio danda est. Est enim
1
instrumentum examinis ponderum virgula recta
in cuius media est foramen recipiens perpendiculum cum quo sustinetur
virgula cum ponderibus in extremitatibus ipsius appensis, cum debet
15 ponderis alicuius quantitas per mensuras ponderum deprehendi.
[2] Calc[u1]us est minima ponderum mensura, ad quam omnes mensure
ponderum referantur et sunt eius multiplicia.
[3] Illius corporis ponderi calculi aequari dicuntur, quo corpore in una
extremitate virgulae appenso et calculis in alia, virgula in neutram partem
20 nutum facit.
1 humidum text. (i.e. textus libri de ponderibus Archimenidis)
3 Duplex ... genus non hab. text.
5 naturalem: irregularem text.
6 certa haberi tr. text (sed non in MS p)
9 proportionis: -es text.
9-10 post magnitudinibus hab. text. per (sed hab. pet)
10 post certa hab. text. pretia
17 multiplices text.
1 The use of "enim" seems to indicate that one of the copies of the original text seen
by Franciscus de Mello was manuscript a (Paris, BN lat. 8680A), since that was the only
manuscript at Paris to have that reading (see below, Appendix I, Sect. 4, Var. to line 10).
Note also that Franciscus probably drew his form of the title from manuscript a for
the latter was the only extant manuscript to have the alternate title of De incidentibus
in humidum. Franciscus appears to have generalized the title by changing humidum to
humidis and perhaps changed the sense of incidentibus to that of insidentibus (see above,
Part I, Chap. 7, note 6).
1086
DE MELLO'SARCHIMEDIS DE INCIDENTIBUS 1087
[4] Illius ponderis dicuntur esse calculi, quorum pariter acceptorum
pondus illi ponderi adaequatur.
[5] Scitum pondus est cuius calculorum numerus est scitus.
[6] Corpus naturaliter descendens grave dicitur respectu (?) eorum
25 habent ex natura ascendere.
2
10lv /[7] Duorum gravium unius ad aliud relatio duplici modo considerari
potest: uno modo secundum speciem, alio modo secundum numero-
sitatem.
[8] Secundum speciem, utsi volumus gravitatem auri in specie ad
30 gravitatem argenti comparare; et hoc debet fieri, supposita corporum auri
et argenti aequalitate.
[9] Secundum numerositatem fit relatio unius duorum corporum ad aliud
quando volumus discernere per pondus an massa auri sit gravior quam
massa argenti, cuiusque magnitudinis sint datae massae.
35 [10] Duorum corporum gravius secundum numerositatem dicitur cuius
virgula instrumenti nutum facit, eisdem corporibus in extremitatibus
virg[ul]ae appensis, vel cuius pondus ponderi plurium ca1culorum
aequatur.
[11] Corpora eiusdem generis dicuntur inter quae nulla est substantialis
40 nec accidentalis quoad gravitatem vel levitatem quemadmodum natura
fit differentia ut auri ad aurum comparati et argenti ad argentum, con-
sequenter enim eandem formam elementorumeadem proportio atque mix-
turam (?) quam eadem gravitas et levitas sequitur.
[12] Differentia duorum corporum in magnitudine est magnitudo in qua
45 maius excedit minus.
[13] In pondere vero, pondus in quo gravius excedit levius.
3
[14] Duorum aequalium corporum unum altero gravius esse in specie
dicitur cuius pondus maiori calculorum numero adaequatur.
4
[15] Aeque gravia in specie corpora dicuntur quorum aequalium pondus
so est aequale.
5
26-27 considerari potest tr. text.
30 post supposita hab. text. duorum
32 post relatio hab. text. gravitatis
34 cuiuscumque text.
40-41 nec ... fit non. hab. text.
41-43 consequenter ... sequitur non. hab. text.
48 dicitur non hab. text.
2 This definition is very i i ~ u l t to read. This may account for Forcadel's change. It is
evident that Forcadel read "respectu (1) eorum" as if it were "Ieviora ea quae."
3 Note that the next definition in the original text was omitted by Franciscus, probably
because it was purely mathematical and thus was not thought to be proper for this text.
4 In the original text this was given as Petitio 5. It evidently seemed to Franciscus to
be a definition rather than a postulate.
S This was Petitio 6 in the original text. It too seemed to Franciscus to be a definition rather
than a postulate.
...
Postulata
[1] Nullum corpus in seipso grave esse, ut aqua in aquam (I), oleum
in oleum (I), aer in aerem (I) non est alicuius gravitatis.
6
[2] Omne corpus in aere quam in aqua maioris esse ponderis.
55 [3] Omnia pondera suis calculis proportionalia sunt.
7
[4] Corporum eiusdem generis magnitudinum et ponderum est ordine
eadem sumpta proportio.
8
l02r / Propositio 1a. Theorema primum.
Omnis corporis pondus in aere quam in aqua maius esse per pondus
60 aquae sibi aequalis in magnitudine.
Esto quidema corpus quodcumque [Fig. lII.6.2.1], cuius in aere pondus
sit be. Si igitur a non plus ponderat quam aqua sibi aequalis in mag-
nitudine, non descendet per aquam per 2
m
(! primum) postulatum. Quare
in aere plus ponderat quam in aqua per pondus aquae sibi aequalis in
65 magnitudine. Id quidem necessario concluditur si a in specie fuerit aeque
grave sicut aqua. Si vero levior (I levius) fuerit, non oportet ut in his
appositio intelligatur. Oleum quidem si aqua levius in specie fuerit, non
oportet quod in aere plus ponderet quam in aqua per pondus aquae sibi
aequalis in magnitudine. Si quidema fuerit oleum, et in specie aqua levius,
70 oportet per definitionem a pondus esse minus quam pondus aquae sibi
aequalis in magnitudine. lntelligenda igitur erit conclusio in hisce
corporibus quae specie non sunt minus gravia quam aqua. Atque de
corpore aeque gravi cum aqua satis ostensum est. lain sit a specie gravius
aqua. Descendet ergo a per aquam, atque per definitionem gravioris in
75 specie erit a corpus gravius aqua sibi aequali magnitudine, quae sit d;
pondus autem ipsius a sit bc, quod illud in statera ad aequalitatem
sustineat in aere. Et cum per 2
um
postulatum a corpus in aqua sit levius,
minore igitur pondere ex opposito appenso quam bc, a corpus non faciet
nutum. Sit igitur illud b, atque sit ipsius a pondus universum sive
80 gravitas g h, divisa ad imaginationem in pondus g aequum ponderi ipsius d
aquae, aequalis a corpori aequali in magnitudine; atque reliquum pondus
sit h. Dic0
9
c pondus, quod est excessus ponderis a in aere ad eiusdem
pondus in aqua, aequum esse ponderi d, hoc est g. Quoniam enim b c
56-57 est . . . proportio: eandem esse proportionem text.
6 The use of the accusative forms "aquam," "oleum," and "aerem" was in the original
text, but clearly no motion was intended (the verb used is "esse"). Hence, I altered these
forms in the original text and have added exclamation points here.
7 This was Petitio 5 in the original text.
8 Franciscus refers to this postulate throughout as "the postulate added by us after the
third." He probably so designated it because he changed the form of the original postulate
(Petitio 4) somewhat (see the variant reading for lines 56-57).
9 Note that the restatements of the enunciation in specific terms, always introduced
by Franciscus in the Greek manner with "Dico. . . ," were rendered by Forcadel by
"11 est certain. . . ."
DE MELLO'S ARCHIMEDIS DE INCIDENTIBUS 1089
84 ad aequalitatem sustinet a corpus in aere, est autem ipsius a, g h pondus,
102v est / igitur g h ipsi b c aequale. Rursus quoniam g gravitas sive pondus est
pondus aequum d aquae aequalis aquae (! ipsi a) in magnitudine, igitur
a corpus per aquam non descendet a virtute g, per primum postulatum,
nec enim solum per illud postulatum intelligimus nullum corpus in se ipso
grave esse aut leve sed quod (?) nullum corpus aeque grave in specie cum
90 altero per illud descendet. Oporteret enim tunc ab aequalitatis ratione
actionem provenire. Quare virtus ipsius a in aqua[m] descendendi erit
tantum h pondus, sed in eo situ b tantum pondus ad aequalitatem
sustinet ipsum a, cuius pondus in eo situ est h. Igitur h b pondera aequalia
sunt. Sed totum g h ipsi b c ostensum est aequale. Igitur reliquum g
95 pondus aequum est ipsi c ponderi, hoc est pondus aquae d, aequalis aquae
in magnitudine ipsi a , c ponderi, quod est differentia ponderis a in aere ad
pondus eiusdem in aqua, quod fuit probandum.
Corollarium
Hinc patet quod omne corpus in quocunque leviore plus ponderat quam
100 in graviore medio, si quidem graviore non sit levius, per pondus corporis
sibi aequalis de specie gravioris. Corollarium eodem modo probandum est
sicut et propositio. Inde etiam propositio intelligenda ubi corpus cuius
pondus in duobus mediis inaeque gravibus perpenditur non sit levius medio
gravlOre.
105 Propositio 2
a
. Theorema 2
um
.
Omnium duorum corporum eiusdem sive diversi generis est unius ad
aliud proportio tanquam differentiae ponderis unius eorum in aere ad
pondus eiusdem in aqua ad differentiam ponderis alterius in aere ad pondus
ems In aqua.
110 Sint quaecunque duo corpora a et b [Fig. IIL6.2.2]; a pondus in aere sit
cd, in aqua vero c tantum; ipsius vero b pondus in aere sit e!, in aqua
tantum e. Dieo a ad b eandem rationem esse quae d adf. Quoniam enim
103r ex praemissa a / in aere quam in aqua magis ponderat per pondus aquae
sibi aequalis in magnitudine, est igitur d pondus aquae aequalis mag-
115 nitudine ipsi a, quae sit g; ob id etiam erit! pondus aquae aequalis mag-
nitudine ipsi b, quae sit h. Cum igitur g sit aequalis a et h ipsi b, erit
igitur eadem ratione a ad b quae g ad h per 7
am
5
i
bis repetitam. Sed g ad h
eadem est quae dad! suorum ponderum, cum g et h sint eiusdem generis
magnitudines, per postulatum a nobis additum ad 3
um
19itur per unde-
120 cimam 5
i
eadem est ratio a ad b quae d ad f, quod erat probandum.
Haec etiam, ut vides, est in eisdem corporibus intelligenda et in eodem
modo sicut praemissa,10 et simile corollarium succedet.
107 post proportio hab. aliqui MSS text. (sed non MS a) in magnitudine
10 This clause was omitted by Forcadel in his translation.
125
130
135
103v
141
145
150
155
Propositio 3
a
Theorema 3
um
Si alicuius corporis in duobus liquoribus et in aere fuerint pondera data,

gravitas unius eorundem liquorum ad gravitatem alterius in specie erit
proportio data.
Proportio duorum corporum gravitatis in specie dari dicitur quando _tis
(del.?) duobus aequalibus eorundem generum ponderis unius ad pondus
alterius ratio data erit; dicitur autem in specie dari quia inter quaecunque
duo corpora aequalia diversorumgenerum, cuiuscunque magnitudinis sint,
eorundem gravitatis est eadem ratio sicut inter gravitates quoruncunque
aliorumduorumaequaliumeorundemgenerum. Hoc sic ostendo. Sint enim
a b duo corpora aequalia diversorum generum [Fig. III.6.2.3], afque ob id
inaequalis gravitatis. Sitque pondus a, c; ipsius vero b pondus sit d; sint
rursus g h duo alia corpora aequalia cuiuscunque magnitudinis, g eiusdem
generis cum a, et h, b. Sit pondus g, k; ipsius vero h, I. Dico eandem
esse rationemc ad d quae k adI. Quoniam enima et g sunt eiusdemgeneris,
erit eadem ratio a ad g quae ponderis a ad pondus g, hoc est c ad k per
postulatum post tertium a nobis additum. Ob id etiam erit eadem ratio
/b ad h quae d ad I. Et quoniam a, b sunt aequales et g et h, igitur per
7
am
et 11am 5
i
eadem erit ratio a ad g quae b ad h; atque ob id eadem c ad k
quae d adf. Igitur vicissim per 16
am
Si eadem est ratio c ad d quae k ad
I, quod fuerat probandum.
lam ostenditur propositio. Sit a [Fig. III.6.2.4] quodcunque corpus quod
appendatur in duobus diversis liquoribus aere quidem gravioribus, quibus
etiam a in specie sit gravius; in aere etiam appendatur, eiusque pondus
sit b c data; eiusdem in aqua pondus sit tantum b datum. Sitque eiusdem
pondus in aere d I, in oleo autem tantum d, et utriusque datum. Dico
gravitatis aquae ad gravitatem olei rationem datam esse. Quoniam enim
b c datum est, et eius pars b, igitur per unum postulandorum datorum
Euclidis c reliqua pars data erit. Ob id etiamf datum erit. Quare per 1am
datorum eiusdem ratio c ad I data erit. Est autem per 1am huius et eius
corollarium c pondus aquae aequalis ipsi a in magnitudine,I vero pondus
olei eidem aequalis magnitudine. Igitur per definitionem statim a nobis
praemissam dabuntur aqua et oleum in specie sive gravitatis aquae ad
gravitatem olei in specie ratio data erit. Eodem modo ostendes in
quibuscunque aliis liquoribus corpus utroque gravius appendetur, quod
fuerat probandum.
...
Propositio 4
a
Theorema 4
um
160 Si duorum quorumcunque corporum, ut auri et argenti, pondera in aqua

et in aere data fuerint, eorundem proportiones in magnitudine et in specie
erunt datae.
124 post duobus hab. text. diversis / aere corr. Fran. ex eadem
125 gravitas: gravitatis text.
161 data fuerint tr. text. / post eorundem hab. text. corporum
Sint enim a et b quaecunque duo corpora [Fig. III.6.2.S], atque ipsius
a pondus in aere c d datum, ipsius vero b in aere e f pondus datum, etiam
165 a pondus in aqua aut in quocunque alio aere graviore leviore tamen a
corpore et etiamb sit c pondus tantum datum etiam atque in eodem liquore
l04r b pondus esto e pondus tantum datum. Dico primo a et b rationem / in
magnitudine dari, nam cum c d et ef sint data atque eorundemc et e partes
datae, igitur (ut in praemissa ostendebatur) erit ratio d adf data; differ-
170 entiae ponderis a in aere ad pondus eiusdem in aqua ad differentiam
ponderis b in aere ad pondus eiusdem in aqua. Sed eadem, per 2
am
huius,
est d ad f quae a ad b. Ergo a ad b ratio in magnitudine datur, quod
fuit primo probandum. Dico secundo gravitatis a ad gravitatem b ratio in
specie datur. Sicut enima ad b ita sit c d pondus ad k pondus, quod quidem
175 sit pondus g corporis eiusdem generis cum a corpore, quod per pondera
facile fieri potest. rnde quoniam eadem est ratio c d ad k quae a ad g,
cum sint eiusdem generis magnitudines per postulatum post 3
um
a nobis
additum, igitur cum c d ad k sit eadem ratio quae a ad b, erit per 11 am Si
eadem ratio a ad g quae a ad b. Igitur per 9
am
Si erunt g et b magnitudines
180 aequales. Et quoniam ratio a ad b est datum, est autem eadema ad b quae
c d ad k, igitur c d ad k ratio data erit. Datum est autem c d pondus per
hypothesim, dabitur igitur et k pondus ipsius g per 2
am
datorum Euclidis.
Dabitur igitur ratio k ad ef pondus datum per 1am datorum eiusdem, quae
sunt pondera g et b aequalium magnitudinum eorundem generum cum a
185 et b. Igitur per definitionem in praemissa conclusione positam datorum
a et b specie in gravitate. Igitur etc.
Propositio sa. Problema 1um.
Corpus mergibilis, ut ferri, ad corpus immergibile, ut ad ceram, pro-
portionem in magnitudine et in pondere secundum speciem invenire.
190 Ante premissae conclusioni subiungebatur problema quoddam quod nos
censuimus in cake huius tractatuli reponendum. In omnibus exemplaribus
quae nobis videre contigit-quin etiam in praemissa conclusione-non
nihil mendarum fuerat, quod facile si reposuimus sensu tarnquam in aliis
194 (! aliquibus?) exemplaribus nihil immutato, tametsi meo iudice sit aliquid
l04v addendum / ut paulo post declarabimus.
11
Corpus igitur mergibile in proposito vocatur corpus quod sua virtute
nulloque adminiculo extraneo per aquam aut alium liquorem descendit.
Immergibile contrario (?) intelligendum est, quod sua vi nequaquam per
id medium descendit sed alteri adiunctum, quemadmodum ferrum quidem
200 sua vi per aquam descendit, ligneum vera nequaquam. Quodsi lignum
ferro alligaveris, poterit tanta ferri virtus inesse ut utrumque in aqua
demergatur. Poteris etiam ferrum tantillum tanto ligno alligare ut super
171 aere corr. Fran. ex aqua
11 This paragraph was omitted by Forcadel in his translation. For its significance, see
the introductory discussion above.
..
205
210
215
220
10Sr
225
230
235
240
aquam utrumque enatet, quemadmodum videre promptum cui in anchoris
navium quibus ligna alligantur ad mensuram quandam. Hinc primo patet
quod corpus mergibile velocius descendit si solum demittatur quam si illi
aliquid immergibile adiungatur.12 Cum enim corpus mergibile solitarie de-
fertur, liquor tantum per quam descendit illi motui resilit. Contra vero cum
ei corpus aliquod alligatur immergibile, repugnat etiam immergibilis
corporis natura simul cum liquoris resistentia. Nec tamen aliquam vim
superaddit mergibili corpori cui alligatur. Sed contra eius naturam ab eo
trahitur. Quare necesse est, ut eadem potentia manente, aucta vero re-
sistentia, utrumque corpus tardius feratur quam se solo corpus mergibile
ferebatur.
Secundo sequitur quod adiuncto corpore immergibili corpori mergibili
totius pondus in eo liquore per quem immergibile descendere nequit
minus est pondere mergibilis in eodem liquore. Sit enim a corporis
mergibilis pondus in aere bed [Fig. 111.6.2.6], in aqua vero tantum bc,
et immergibile vero sit h, cuius pondus in aere esto e; totius igitur a h
pondus in aere erit bed e, et dico pondus a h in aqua pondere b c
minus esse. Quoniam enim d est differentia ponderis a in aere et in aqua,
igitur d est pondus aquae aequalis ipsi a in magnitudine per 1am huius, quae
sit f. Et quoniam e est pondus h immergibilis, quod quidem levius est
specie liquore in quo non merget, igitur erit e pondus minus pondere aquae
aequalis ipsi h in / magnitudine, quae sit g, eiusque pondus sit e b. Tunc
quoniamf aqua aequalis est a in magnitudine, et g ipsi h, eritf g aqua
aequalis a h in magnitudine. Quare pondus f g erit differentia ponderis
a h in aere ad pondus eiusdem in aqua per 1am huius; illud autem est e db.
Igitur reliquum pondus a h in aqua est tantum c, quod quidem minus est
pondere bc, quod erat pondus solius a in aqua, quod fuit probandum.
Inde advertendum quod in proposito corpus immergibile vocamus illud
quod levius est eo liquore respectu cuius immergibile dicitur. Nam ubi
fuerit aeque grave in specie nulla erit difficultas in hac propositione
probanda (ut paulo infra sumus dicturi).
Ex iis demum patet demonstrationem huius conclusionis (quae passim
in exemplaribus quae nobis contigerunt ponebatur) invalidam esse, in ea
enim supponitur aliquod pondus esse immergibilis in eo liquore in quo im-
mergi nequit, tamen etiam pondus totius aggregati ex mergibili et im-
mergibili maius esse in eo liquore quam pondus solius mergibilis, cuius
oppositum demonstratum est statim; haec legenti patent. Ubi vero im-
mergibile fuerit aeque grave in specie cum liquore in quo appenditur,
facile ex praemissi corollarii demonstratione ostendes idem pondus esse
solius mergibilis et totius aggregati in eodem liquore.
13
12 Notice that by the use of "velocius," i.e. more quickly, Franciscus expressed the
dynamics more clearly than did Forcadel in his translation where he used "soubdainemement"
(=soudainement) i.e. "suddenly." But see the commentary below, Proposition 5.
13 This paragraph criticizing the demonstration found in the original text was omitted by
Forcadel in his translation.
245
105v
251
255
260
265
270
275
l06r
280
285
lam ut ex demonstratione etiam vulgata claret, supponitur in proposito
datum pondus corporis mergibilis in aere et in aqua. Quare vere (?)
adiicienda textui conclusionis haec conditio, siquidem fuerint utriusque
pondus in aere et in aqua datum, simile mergibilis pondus etiam in aere
et in aqua datum. Nunc probatur conclusio. Sit a corpus mergibile [Fig.
111.6.2.7], cuius pondus in aere sit cd e, in aqua vero tantum sit pondus
cd, et utriusque esto datum. Sit autem b corpus immergibile cuius pondus
in aere sit! datum; erit ergo totius a b pondus c de! datum. / Sit etiam
pondus a b simul in aqua, quod quidem ex 2
0
corollario statim demonstrato
erit minus pondere c d; esto igitur pondus d, atque id datum. Erit igitur
c e ! pondus differentia ponderis a b in aere ad pondus eiusdem in aqua.
Atque ob id c e ! per primam huius erit pondus aquae ipsi a b aequalis
in magnitudine. Sit illa g h divisa in g aquam aequalem a et h aequalem
b; et cum c d sit pondus a in aqua, erit e pondus g aquae, et totum c e f
est pondus g h aquae. Igitur e f est pondus h aquae aequalis ipsi b in
magnitudine. Dico a ad b magnitudine rationemdatam esse. Tunc quoniam
per hypothesim c e ! datum est, datum quidem d, et totum c d e f, igitur
cum! sit datum, erit c e datum, et datum est e quoniam c d e et cd data
sunt per hypothesim. 19itur datum erit c! et datum e. Igitur data erit ratio
e ad c!. Sed e ad c f eadem est ratio quae g ad h per postulatum post
3
um
a nobis additum. Sunt quidem g et h eiusdem generis magnitudines,
earumque pondera c ! et e. 19itur ratio g ad h data erit. Sed eadem est
a ad b quae gad h per 7
am
5
i
ele[mentorum] bis repetitam, aequales etenim
sunt g h ipsis ab. Igitur ratio a ad b in magnitudine datum est, quod fuit
primum probandum.
Dico secundo rationem a ad b in specie dari, fiat enim sicut a ad b ita
c d e pondus ad k pondus [ corporis eiusdem generis cum a. Igitur cum
a et I sint eiusdem generis magnitudines, erit eadem ratio per 3
0
postulato
additum c dead k quae a ad I. Sed eadem est c dead k quae a ad b
per hypothesim. Igitur per 11 am 5
i
eadem erit ratio a ad b quae a ad [.
Erunt igitur b et I aequalia per 9
am
5
i
. Rursus quoniam cd e ad k est sicut
a ad b, est autem ratio a ad b data per priorem partem demonstrationis,
igitur erit ratio c dead k data; et c d e datum per hypothesim. Igitur per
2
am
datorum Euclidis erit k datum, et! datum est per / hypothesim. Igitur
per lam datorum eiusdem ratio k ad! data est, quae est ratio ponderum I
et b aequalium corporum eorundem generum cum a et b corporibus.
Dantur igitur a et b in specie, quod erat secundum probandum.
Ex ultima parte huius demonstrationis sequitur quod, si fuerit duarum
magnitudinum ratio in magnitudine data, pondus autem utriusque earum
etiam datum, erit unius ad alterum ratio gravitatis in specie data.
Lemma primum.
Si fuerint duo corpora eiusdem generis inaequalia et alia duo alterius
generis eisdem vicissim aequalia, erit inter aequalia diversorum generum
ratio eadem ponderum eadem ordine sumpta.
Sint quidem a et c duo corpora eiusdem generis inaequalia [Fig.
111.6.2.8], bet d alterius generis duo alia inaequalia eisdem a et e vicissim
aequalia, ita quod a sit aequum b, e vero ipsi d. Dieo eandem rationem
290 esse ponderis a ad pondus b sicut ponderis e ad pondus d. Esto quidem
ipsius a pondus g; f, b; k, d. Tunc quoniam a et e sunt eiusdem generis
magnitudines, igitur eadem est ratio magnitudinum ad (! et) ponderum per
[post] 3
um
postulatum a nobis additum, hoc est a ad e sicut g et (.' ad)
h. Ob id etiam eadem erit ratio b ad d sicutf ad k. Est autem eadem ratio
295 a ad e sicut b ad d per 7
am
5
i
. Eadem igitur erit ratio g ad h quaef ad k per
11 am 5
i
bis repetitam vicissim; igitur eadem erit ratio g ad f quae h ad
k per 16
am
eiusdem, hoc est ponderum a b et cd, quod fuit probandum.
Lemma 2
um
Si ab inaequalibus aequalia demantur, remanentia eadem excessu

300 inaequalia erunt.
Sit enim ac maius de [Fig. 111.6.2.9], excessusque ae super de esto be;
l06v auferatur ab ae afaequalis dg. Dico fc excedere ge per be . / Quoniam enim
ae excessus supra de est bc, igitur ab aequalis est ipsi de; est autem af
aequalis ipsi dg, igitur reliquajb aequalia erit ge; ae igitur componitur ex
305 af, jb, bc, quarum af aequalis est dg ,fe maior ge cuius pars jb aequalis
est ge et reliqua be excessus eiusdemfe supra ge.
Propositio 6
a
. Theorema srn.
Si fuerint tria corpora aequalia quorum duo sint simplicia diversorum
generum et inaequalium ponderum, tertium vero corpus ex utriusque
310 simplicium genere mixtum, erit partis mixti quae in ipso est de genere
gravioris ad partem quae in ipso est de genere levioris proportio tanquam
proportio differentiae ponderis mixti ad pondus levioris ad differentiam
ponderis gravioris ad pondus mixti corporis.
14
Est quidem be corpus mixtum ex duobus simplicibus [Fig. 111.6.2.10],
315 puta ex auro et argento, cuius pars b sit de genere gravioris, e vero de
genere levioris. Sit autem a corpus eiusdem generis cum b et aequum ipsi
bc, d vero corpus eiusdem generis cum e et aequum eidem be. Et cum
a sit de genere gravioris et e pars de genere levioris, a vero et b e aequalia,
maius erit pondus a quam pondus be. Sit igitur differentia ponderis a
320 super pondus bc, h. Ob id etiam pondus b c maius erit pondere
d, et (?) sit excessus b e ponderis supra d pondus k. Dieo eandem esse
rationem b ad e quae k ad h. Intelligatur enim b e corpus aequum ipsi a
14 This is the second of the alternate enunciations given in the original text. The only
medieval manuscript of the original text to give a single enunciation was manuscript p
(Paris, BN lat. 7215), and that enunciation was also the second of the alternate enunciations
(see below, Appendix I, Sect. 4, lines 158-65, indicating p's omission of the first of the
alternate enunciations). Therefore, it is certainly possible that p (as well as a) was among
the exemplars consulted by Franciscus.
et eiusdem generis, etiam cf corpus eiusdem generis cumd et illi aequum.
Erit igitur idem pondus a et e b; idem etiam pondus c f et d. Quare erit
325 differentia e b ponderis supra bc, h, differentia autem ponderis b c supra
c !, k. Tunc quoniam e b aequale est ipsi bc, magnitudine dempta com-
muni b, erit e magnitudine aequale corpus ipsi c. Ob id etiam!aequum erit
l07r ipsi b. / Rursus quoniam pondus e b maius e[st] pondere bc, dempto
communi pondere b magnitudinis erit per 2
um
lemma huius excessus
330 ponderis e magnitudinis supra pondus c magnitudinis h differentia. Atque
ob id pondus c cumh aequalia (!) erunt (!) ponderi ipsius e. Eadem ratione
erit k excessus ponderis b magnitudinis supra pondus!, atque ob id pondus
f magnitudinis cum k ponderi b magnitudinis aequale. Cum vero sint e b
eiusdem generis et cf eisdem aequalia vicissim alterius generis, erit per 1urn
335 lemma huius eadem ratio ponderis e ad pondus c, quae magnitudine
aequalia sunt ut probatum est, quae ponderis b ad pondus! magnitudinis
(magnitudine et enim ea probata sunt aequalia). Quare per 7
am
Si cum autem
sit pondus c et h aequum ponderi e, pondus autem! et k ponderi b, igitur
eadem erit ratio h c ponderum ad c pondus quae! k ad! pondus. Divisim
340 igitur per 17
am
Si ele[mentorum] Euclidis eadem erit ratio k ponderis ad! .
pondus quae h ad c pondus. Vicissim ergo per 16
am
eiusdem eadem erit
ratio k ad h quae! ponderis ad c pondus. Cum autem! c sint eiusdem
generis magnitudines, erit eadem ratio ponderum et magnitudinum per
postulatum a nobis post 3
um
additum;! ad c est igitur eadem ratio! mag-
345 nitudinis ad c magnitudinem per 11am Si quae k ad h. Est autem! aequalis
b, atque ob id per 7
am
eiusdem b ad c eadem ratio quae! ad idem c. Igitur
per eandem 11am erit k ad h eadem ratio quae b magnitudinis ad c
magnitudinem. Sunt autem b et c partes de parte simplicium in mixto,
k excessus ponderis mixti supra Rondus levioris simplicium, h vero dif-
350 ferentia ponderis simplicium gravioris ad pondus mixti ex utrisque,
quod intendebamus.
Nec dissimulaverim huic propositioni alteram fuisse praemissam in
numeris. Sed quoniam ea in arithmeticis Jordani ostensa est, nec ad pro-
positum scopum conducit, illam tanquam adulterinam et adiectitiam (!)
355 expunximus. 15
l07v / Problema.
Dato mixto magnitudine aut pondere in aere et in aqua, simplicia eidem
aequalia magnitudine dare.
16
Sit quidem a b mixtum prius datum magnitudine [Fig. 111.6.2.11].
360 Suscipiam eiusdem generis cum a simplici magnitudinem aliquam c. Erit
15 This paragraph was omitted by Forcadel in his translation. For its significance, see
the introductory discussion above.
16 This enunciation, which contains two parts: 1) where the mixture is given in
magnitude and 2) where the weights of the mixture in air and in water are given, is divided
into two separate parts by Forcadel. These are later called by him "corollaries."
igitur per 1am datorum ratio c ad a b data; ita fiat ipsius c ad d mag-
nitudinem eiusdem generis, erit igitur per 9
am
5
i
ele[mentorum] Euclidis d
aequalis ipsi ab; est siquidem eadem ratio c ad a b et ad d. Eodem
modo etiam dabis simplex aequum ipsi a b eiusdem generis cum altera ex
365 simplicibus.
lam rursus sit a [b] pondus in aere et in aqua datum, atque eiusdem
generis cum a accipio c magnitudinem, cuius pondus in aere et in aqua sit
datum, quodcumque illud sit. Hoc enim per divisionem tandem con-
stabit. Et cum ponderaa b et c in aere et in aqua sint data, erunt eorum dif-
370 ferentiae datae. Erit igitur per 2
am
huius ratio c ad a b data, est enim
eadem quae et inter differentias ponderum. Sit igitur c pondus h, fiatque
sicut c ad a b ita h ad d, pondus g magnitudinis eiusdemgeneris
cum c. Erit igitur h ad d eadem ratio quae c ad d (! g) per postulatum a
nobis additum. Igitur eadem quae c ad a b per 11am 5
i
. Quare per 9
am
375 eiusdem erit g aequalis ab. Et sic probabis de alio simplici, quod intende-
bamus. Hinc patet quod si fuerit mixtum pondere datum, erit simplex
ipsi aequum magnitudine datum pondere. Ut enim patuit ex demon-
stratione, erit h ponderis dati ad pondus d, g simplicis aequum ipsi ab,
ratio data. Sed h pondus datum, ut ex hypothesi positum est; igitur
380 p[ondus] d per 7
am
(! 2
am
?) datorum Euclidis datum est.
Propositio 7
a
Problema 2
m
17
In corpore ex duobus mixto quantum sit de unoquoque declarare.
In proposito intelligimus corpus mixturn ex duobus datum esse pondere
384 et magnitudine aut pondere tantum. Siquidem dabitur totum magnitudine
I08r Imixtum et pondere, dabuntur simplicia in eodem existentia magnitudine.
Si tantum pondere detur, dabitur solum ratio eorundem secundum mag-
nitudinem. Sit igitur a b mixtum ex duobus [Fig. 111.6.2.12], cuius pondus
datum a de genere gravioris, b de genere levioris. Atque per lemma
praemissum bis repetitum c de genere gravioris aequi (! aequum) ab, d
390 vero de genere levioris aequum eidem. Dabuntur igitur c et d pondera per
corrogatum eiusdem lemmatis. Igitur dabuntur differentiae ponderumcd
et ab. Sit differentia inter c et ab, h; inter a b et d, k. Erunt igitur k
et h data. Ratio igitur k ad h data erit per 1am datorum Euclidis, ea autem
per praecedentem conclusionem huius est a ad b data. Igitur est ratio a ad
395 b simplicium in mixto a b existentium. Quodsi a b magnitudine detur, per
6
am
datorum, dabit ratio a b ad a et a b ad b. Igitur per 2
am
datorum bis
repetitam dabitur tarn a quam b. Quodsi a b non detur magnitudine,
saltem dabitur ratio totius mixti ad utramque partem simplicium, quod
382 unoquoque: utroque text.
11 This was Proposition 4 in the original text. For the significance of Franciscus' reposi-
tioning of it here at the end, see the introductory discussion above.
intendebamus in hoc toto libello, ut videre est apud Vitruvium lib[rum].
400 Et ob id illam in cake statuimus.
Haec habui, Princeps serenissime, quae tibi velut studiorum nostrorum
praegustamenta offerrem, non quod sperem tamen tibi otium inter tot
amplissimi regni tui occupationes dari, ut illum perlegere possis, sed utsi
quando in haec incideris, aut cuiquam examinanda dederis, intelligas me
40S non omnes operas quas in philosophiae studiis impendi tuis auctus
munificentissimis stipendiis perdidisse, quae hilari animo, qua soles hu-
manitate, suscipias, oro: atque boni consule.
I8
18 This final paragraph constituting a dedication to the King Don Manuel was, of course,
omitted by Forcadel. For its significance, see the introductory discussion above.
B
Pierre Forcadel,
Le Livre d' Archimede des pais
1 / LE LIVRE D'ARCHIMEDE DES POIS, QUI
AUSSI EST DICT DES CHOSES TOMBANTES
EN L'HUMIDE, TRADUICT ET COMMENTE par
Pierre Forcadel de Bezies lecteur ordinaire du Roy es
Matematiques en l'Universite de Paris.
Ensemble ce qui se trouve du Livre d'Euclide intitule du leger
et du pesant traduict et commente par le mesme Forcadel.
A PARIS.
Chez Charles Perier, demourant en la rue
S. lean de Beauvais, au Bellerophon.
1565.
AVEC PRIVILEGE DU ROY.
3 / A MONSIEUR BOUNAUD
SON SINGULIER AMY.
P. F. S.
Monsieur, entre les autres choses que I' on racompte d' Archimede,
pour preuve tres certaine de la force et gentillesse de son esprit, est la
~ o n qu'il inventa de connoistre quand un corps est compose de deux
simples de divers genre, combien y a de grandeur et de pois en icelluy,
de l'un et de l'autre simple genre. Or m'est il souvenu que despuis quelque
temps Monsieur Akakia advocat en la cour, me communiqua un ex-
emplaire, auquel Archimede, ou sy ce n'est luy, un Archimede demonstre
en queUe maniere I' on pourra satisfaire a une semblable question qui
pourroit estre proposee, lequel i'ay traduict et commente a ceUe fin
qu'un chascun puisse iouir d'une tant belle consideration. Et pource que
Archimede s'est contente de demonstrer une telle chose en trois corps
egaux l'un al'autre, desquelz les deux soient simples de divers genre et
l'autre compose des deux simples genres, le me suis employe cl. demonstrer
1098
FORCADEL'S LE LIVRE D'ARCHIMEDE 1099
la mesme chose en trois corps egallement pesans, desquelz les deux soient
simples de divers genre, et le troisieme compose des deux simples genres,
4 ce que i'ay facit / pource que tout ainsi qu'il est tres difficile de
trouver deux corps de deux simples genres egaux aun corps irregulier
compose de quelque partie d'iceux, il est tres facile de trouver deux corps
de deux simples genres, egallement pesans avec un corps compose des
deux simples genres, et aussi pource que ce que i'en demonstre s'accorde
aux propres motz de Vitruve au troisieme chapitre du neufviesme livre,
et a la fal;on de faire accoustumee aux Arithmetiques. I'ay encores
adiouste avec ceste traduction un fragment ou piece du livre d'Euclide
intitule, du leger et du pesant, ce qu' ensemble ie vous presente pour
gage et tesmoignage de m'a bonne volonte en laquelle ie recon-
noistray tousiours, la faveur et amitie que me portes ensemble a ceux
qui font entiere profession des sciences et de la vertu. De Paris ce 25 de
Mars 1565.
5 /LE LIVRE D'ARCHIMEDE DES POIS, QUI AUSSI EST
DICT DES CHOSES TOMBANTES EN L'HUMIDE,
TRADUICT ET COMMENTE PAR PIERRE
FORCADEL DE BEZIES.
Pource que pour la naturelle composition de quelques corps, ne se.peut
pas avoir certaine proportion d'iceux par Geometrie, et pource que les
pois (! pris?) de quelques uns par lesquelz sont acheptes et vendus, se
disent proportioner les grandeurs d'iceux corps, il feut necessaire de
trouver la proportion de la grandeur d'iceux corps, par la proportion des
pois d'iceux. A celle fin que chacunes grandeurs par les proportions
connues de leurs pois puissent obtenir certain pris.
FORCADEL.
Cela est procede de la composition irreguliere de certains corps ou des
corps irreguliers.
DEFFINITIONS.
1.
Premierement doncques est de donner la raison de l'instrument, par
lequel s'examinent les quantites des pois. Doncques l'instrument de
l'examen des pois est une verge droicte, au milieu de laquelle est un trou
recevant une perpendiculaire, avec laquelle se soustient la verge, avec les
6 pois pendus aux extremites d'icelle, quand le pois de quelque quanltite
doibt estre cogneu par les mesures des pois.
FORCADEL.
L'instrument qu'il nous d'escrit est semblable ala balance.
2.
Calcul ou calcule, est la plus petite mesure des pois, alaquelle toutes
les mesures de pois se referent, et le contienent plusieurs fois.
FORCADEL.
Tout ainsi que l'once est la mesure fameuse des pois alaquelle toutes
les autres se raportent comme la livre et ses parties, le cent et ses parties,
le milier et ses parties, et qu'aussi les parties mesmes de l'once se
raportent a l'once, tout ainsi DU semblablement un certain pois, qui
nomme calcul, est pris de luy pour la mesure fameuse des pois.
3.
Les calcules se disent egaller le pois d'icelluy corps, lequel corps pendu
en une extremite de la verge, et les calcules en l'autre, la verge ne pend
plus d'un coste que d'autre.
FORCADEL.
Si dedans l'un des bassins de la balance ya trois pois d'une once et
dedans l'autre quelque corps et pesent egallement, lors les trois onces se
disent egaller le pois ou la pesanteur d'icelluy corps.
4.
Les calcules se disent estre d'icelluy pois, le pois desquelz, estans mis
ensemble, est egal aicelluy pois.
FORCADEL.
Comme 16 onces sont du pois d'une livre, sy les pois de 16 onces
pesent autant comme le pois d'une livre etc. Ou bien 16 onces se disent
estre le pois du corps, lequel estant mis en la balance d'une part et 16
onces de I' autre part pesent egallement.
5.
7 /Le pois se scait duquel le nombre des calcules se scait.
FORCADEL.
Cela s'estent aussi aux parties des calcules.
6.
Le corps descendent naturellement se diet pesant. Et legers ceux
desquelz le naturel est de monter.
FORCADEL.
La terre et l' eau descendent naturellement en bas et par ainsi sont
pesans. Le feu et l'air montent naturellement en haut et par ainsi de disent
legers.
7.
La relation de run cl 1'autre de deux corps pesans se peut considerer
en double sorte, rune sorte selon 1'espece, l'autre sorte selon la numero-
site. Selon respece comme si nous voulons comparer la gravite de ror en
spece cl la gravite de l' argent et ce1a se doibt faire supposee l' egualite des
corps d'or et d'argent. La relation de run de deux corps cl 1'autre selon la
numerosite se faict, quand nous voulons cognoistre par pois, si la masse
d'or est plus grave que la masse d'argent, de quelque grandeur que soient
les masses donnees.
FORCADEL.
Quand nous prenons deux corps de diverse espece egaux toutesfois run
cl 1'autre, et pesent ineguallement, celluy qui est le plus pesant se diet plus
pesant ou plus grave selon I' espece et I' autre plus leger. Mais de deux corps
de diverse espece celluy se diet plus grave selon la numerosite qui pese
plus, et 1'autre se diet plus leger sellon (1) la numerosite; d'ou s'ensuivra
8 que de deux corps de diversee spece egaux run cl / 1'autre, le plus pesant
selon l' espece sera aussi plus pesant selon la numerosite.
8.
Le plus grant de deux corps selon la numerosite se diet, celluy duquella
verge de 1'instrument s'incline, ieeux corps pendus aux extremites de la
verge, ou duquelle pois est egal au pois de plus de calcules.
FORCADEL.
Si en run des bassins de la balance est mis un corps, et en 1'autre un
autre corps, et pesent inegallement, le plus pesant se diet plus pesant
selon la numerosite. Et aussi sy un corps pese 3 onces et un autre pese
4 onces, celuy qui pese 4 onces se diet plus pesant se10n la numerosite.
9.
Les corps se disent de mesme genre entre lesquelz n'est aucune sub-
stantiale ny accidentale difference quant cl la gravite ou legerete, tout ainsi
qu'il est faict de nature, comme l'or compare a l'or, l'argent a l'argent.
Car il s' ensuit la mesme forme des Elemens I la mesme proportion, et
aussi mixtion, tout ainsi comme la mesme gravite ou legerete.
FORCADEL.
Combien que pour le regard des grandeurs toutz les corps soient de
mesme genre, pour le regard des elemens et des corps composes d'iceux,
les uns sont de mesme genre et les autres ne le sont pas, ceux qui sont
de mesme genre sont comme l'or fin a l'or fin, l'argent peur a l'argent
peur etc., car lors it ny a pas aucune substantiale ny accidentale dif-
ference, mais l'or a l'or, l'argent a l'argent auxquelz y aura quelque ac-
cidentale difference ne seront pas de mesme genre, etc.
10.
9 S'ensuit. La difference de deux corps en grandeur, lest la grandeur en
laquelle le plus grand excede le plus petit.
FORCADEL.
Cela se peut entendre de deux corps inegaux de mesme genre ou de
divers genre.
11.
Et en pois, le pois duquelle grave excede le leger.
FORCADEL.
Cecy se peut aussi entendre de deux corps de mesme genre et aussi de
divers genre. Car lors la relation se faict selon la numerosite.
12.
De deux corps egaux l'un se dict estre plus grave d'espece que l'autre,
le pois duquel est egal au plus grant nombre de calcules.
FORCADEL.
Si doncques de deux corps inegaux le plus petit pese plus que le plus
grand, il se pourra desia (! deja) dire plus grand d'espece que la partie
du plus grant qui luy est egale.
13.
Les corps se disent estre egalement grands (! graves) d'espece, desquelz
estans egaux le pois est egal.
FORCADEL.
S'il y a aussi deux corps egaux celluy se diet estre moins grave d'espece
duquelle pois est plus petit, et celluy plus grave d'espece le pois duquel
est plus grand, comme nous avons desia (! deja) diet.
DEMANDES.
1.
Aucun corps n'estre grave en soy mesme, comme l'eau en l'eau, I'huylle
en l'huylle, l'air en l'air n'a poinct aucune gravite.
FORCADEL.
10 / Quelque corps doncques estant de gravite egalle al'air ne descendra
pas en l'air, et estant de gravite egalle a l'huille ne descendra pas en
l'huille, et estant de gravite egalle a l'eau ne descendra pas en l'eau.
2.
Le pois de tout corps est plus grand en l'air que en l'eau.
FORCADEL.
Il est certain que tout corps plus grave que l'air pesera plus en l'air que
en l'eau, car s'il est de la mesme gravite de l'eau pesera plus en l'air
qu' en l' eau et si de plus grande ou plus petite gravite que I' eau, pesera
tousiours plus en l'air qu'en l'eau.
3.
Toutes les pesanteurs estre proportionelles a leurs calcules.
FORCADEL.
S'il y a une pesanteur de 3 onces et une pesanteur de 4 onces, la
raison d'ieelles pesanteurs sera certainement comme 3 a 4.
4.
Des corps de mesme gravite (! genre), estre la mesme proportion des
grandeurs et des pois.
FORCADEL.
Car s'ilz sont egaux les pois d'iceux seront egaux et s'ilz sont inegaux
la raison du plus grant au plus petit sera comme le pois du plus grant au
pois du plus petit et au contraire. D' ou s' ensuivra que des corps de mesme
genre la raison des grandeurs sera la raison des pois.
PROPOSITIONS.
1.
Le pois de tout corps, estre plus grand en I'air que en I'eau du pois de
I'eau qui luy est egalle en grandeur.
11 IFORCADEL.
Soit a quelque corps le pois duquel en l'air soit be. Si doncques a ne
pese non plus que I' eau qui luy est egalle en grandeur, il ne descendra
pas en I'eau ou par I'eau, par la premiere demande. Parquoy pese plus
en I'air que en l'eau du pois de I'eau qui luy est egalle en grandeur.
Et cela se condud necessairement si a est egallement grave d'espece avec
I'eau, et s'il estoit plus leger, la proposition ne se doibt pas entendre
d'icelluy. Car si I'huille estoit plus leger d'espece que l'eau il ne s'en-
suivroit pas qu'il pesast en I'air plus qu'en I'eau du pois de I'eau qui luy
est egalle de grandeur. Sy certainement a estroit huylle et plus leger
d' espece que l' eau, it faudroict que le pois de a feust plus petit que le
pois de l'eau qui luy seroit egalle de grandeur par la derniere def-
finition. Parquoy la conclusion se doibt entendre de ces corps la qui ne
sont pas moins graves d'espece que I'eau, et du corps egallement grave
d'espece avec I'eau est asses demonstre. Maintenant soit a plus grave
d'espece que I'eau. 11 est certain que a descendra par I'eau et que le
corps a sera plus pesant que l' eau qui luy sera egalle de grandeur par
la derniere deffinition. Or que I'eau qui est egalle de grandeur au corps
a soit d et le pois de a soit b c lequel soustiene a en la balance egallement,
et pource que le corps a est de plus petit pois, c'est adire qu'il est plus
leger en I'eau par la 2 demande, estant pendu aI'opposite un plus petit
pois que bc, le corps a ne fera pas d'inclination. Soit doncques icelluy
b et g h soit le pois universel ou gravite d'icelluy corps a divisee par
imagination au pois g egal au pois de l' eau d egalle de grandeur au corps
a, et le pois reste soit h. 11 est certain que le pois c qui est l' exces du
pois a en l'air au pois du mesme corps a en I'eau, est egal au pois b (! d),
c'est a dire ag; car puis que le pois b c soustient en l'air le corps a
egallement et que g h est le pois de a, il s' ensuivra que g h sera egal
ab c par la premiere commune sentence. Derechef pource que la gravite
12 ou poisg est le pois de l'eaud, egalle al'eau de grandeur, il s'ensuivral que
le corps a ne descendra pas par I' eau par la vertu de g par la premiere
demande, car par icelle nous entendons pas seulement aucun corps n' estre
pas grave ou leger en soy mesme, mais aussi qu'aucun corps egalement
grave d'espece avec un autre ne dessendre par icelluy, car il est icy neces-
saire que l'action viene de la raison de I'egalite; parquoy la vertu de
descendre de a en I' eau sera le pois h tant seulement, tout ainsi que en telle
situation le pois b tant seulement soustient icelluy a al'egualite, duquel
le pois en telle situation est h; doncques les pois h et b sont egaux. Et
pource que tout g hest monstre estre egal atout bc, il restera le pois g
egal au pois c par la 3 commune sentence, c'est adire que le pois de l'eau
d egale a l' eau de grandeur a a est egual au pois c, qui est la difference
du pois a en I'air au pois du mesme a en I'eau.
CORRELAIRE.
Et de la est manifeste que tout corps pese plus en quelconque plus
leger qu'en un moyen plus pesant, pourveu qu'il ne soit plus leger que le
plus pesant, du pois du corps a luy egal et de I' espece du plus pesant.
Le correlaire se doibt prouver en la mesme maniere qu' est prouvee la
proposition. D'avantage la proposition doibt estre entendue quand le corps
duquel le pois est considere en deux moiens inegalement graves, n'est
plus leger que le moyen plus pesant.
a
g h
b c
d
2.
De toutz les deux corps de mesme ou de divers genre la proportion
de I'un a l'autre est, comme la difference du pois de l'un d'iceux en I'air au
pois du mesme en l'eau, a la difference du pois de I'autre en l'air au pois
d'icellui en l'eau.
FORCADEL.
13 / Soient deux corps quelconques a et b, et le pois de a en I' air soit c d
et en l' eau c tant seulement, et le pois de b en l' air soit e f et en l' eau tant
seulement e. 11 est certain que la raison de a a best comme d a f; car
pource que a pese plus en I'air que en l'eau du pois de l'eau qui luy est
egale en grandeur par la precedente proposition, et que la difference de
c d a c est d, s'ensuit que d est le pois de l'eau egale de grandeur a a
laquelle eau soit g, et par une mesme raisonf sera le pois de I'eau egale
de grandeur ab, laquelle ean (! eau) soit h. Or la raison de a a best
comme de a a h par la seconde partie de la 7 proposition du 5 livre; par
la premiere partie de laquelle, la raison de a ah est comme de g ah. Parquoy
la raison de a cl best comme de g a h par la 11 proposition du 5 livre,
et la raison de g cl hest comme leurs pois d af par la 4 demande; parquoy
la raison de a a best comme d a f par la 11 proposition du 5 livre. Et
icy comme tu vois l' on doibt entendre les corps n' estre pas de gravite plus
petite que l'eau, mais d'egale ou plus grande, comme en la precedente
proposition. Et semblablement le correlaire succedera.
a
c d
g
b
e f
h
3.
Si les pois de quelques corps sont donnes en deux liqueurs et en I' air:
la proportion de la gravite de I'une d'icelles liqueurs ala gravite de l'autre
en espece sera donnee.
FORCADEL.
La proportion de la gravite de deux corps en espece se diet estre donnee,
quand estans prins deux corps eguaux de mesme genre, la proportion du
pois de l'un au pois de I'autre sera donnee. Et se diet estre donnee en
14 espece, pource que / entre quelconques deux corps egaux de divers genre,
de quelque grandeur qu'ilz soient, la raison de leurs gravitez, est comme
les gravitez de quelconques autres deux corps egaux de leurs genres, ce
qui se monstre ainsi. Soient a et b deux corps egaux de divers genre et par
ainsi seront de gravite inegalle, et le pois de a soit c et le pois de b soit
d. Derechef soient g et h deux autres corps egaux de quelque grandeur
que ce soit, et g soit de mesme genre avec a, et h avec b. Et le pois de
g soit k et de h soit I. Il est certain que la raison de cad est
comme k al. Car puis que a et g sont de mesme genre ilz seront de mesme
gravite et par ainsi la raison de a a g sera comme de c a k par la
quatriesme demande, et pour la mesme cause la raison de b ah sera
comme d af. Et pource que a est egal ab et g ah, raison de c ak
estant telle que de a ag laquelle est comme a ah par la seconde partie
de la 7 proposition du 5 livre; par la premiere partie de laquelle la raison
de a a hest comme b a h, laquelle est comme d aI, la raison de
c ak sera telle que de d aI par la 11 proposition du 5 livre, et par ainsi
la raison de cad sera telle que de k aI par la 16 proposition du 5 livre.
a
c
g
k
b
d
h
f
Maintenant pour demonstrer la proposition, soit a un corps quelconque,
lequel soit pese en deux diverse liqueurs plus graves certainement que
l' air, ausquelles a soit aussi plus grave en espece, et soit aussi pese en
l'air, et son pois en l'air soit donne bc, et le pois d'icelluy en I'eau soit
donne b tant seulement, et soit le mesme pois du mesme a en l'air d I
et en l'huylle soit donne d tant seulement. Il est certain que la raison de
15 la gravite de l'eau ala gravite de I'huylle est / donnee. Car pource que
b c est donne et sa partie b, I' autre partie c sera donnee par la 4 proposi-
tion des choses donnees d' Euclide, par laquelle aussi I sera donne; parquoy
la raison de e af sera donnee par la premiere proposition des choses
donnees. Et e est le pois de l'eau egalle de grandeur aa par la premiere
proposition de ce livre; par le correlaire de laquellef est le pois de l'huylle
egal de grandeur cl a. Parquoy par la deffinition laquelle nous avons escrite
en ceste proposition l'eau et l'huylle sont donnes en espece, c'est adire
que la raison de la gravite de l'eau ala gravite de l'huylle sera donnee en
espece. Tu monstreras le mesme de quelconques autres liqueurs et du
corps plus grave d'espece cl une chascune d'icelles.
a
be
4.
df
Si les pois en l'eau et en l'air de deux corps quelconques, comme
d'or et d'argent, sont donnez, les proportions d'iceux en grandeur et en
espece seront donnees.
FORCADEL.
Car soient a et b deux corps quelconques, et le pois du corps a en l' air
c d soit donne, et le pois de b en l'air soit aussi donne ef. Et le pois de
a en l'eau ou en quelconque autre corps plus grave que l'air, plus leger
toutesfois que le corps a et aussi que b, soit le pois c tant seulement
donne, et aussi en la mesme liqueur le pois de b soit le pois e donne.
Il est certain que premierement la raison de a cl b sera donnee en
grandeur; car puis que c d et e f sont donnes, et aussi que leurs parties
c et e sont donnees, la raison de d cl f sera donnee, comme nous
avons veu en la precedente proposition, c'est cl dire que la raison de la
difference du pois de a en I' air au pois du mesme a en l' eau, ala difference
16 du pois de b en l'air au pois du mesme en l'eau sera donnee. Or la / raison
de d af est comme a ab par la 2 proposition de ce livre; parquoy la raison
de a ab en grandeur est donnee. 11 est certain aussi que secondement la
raison de la gravite du corps a ala gravite du corps b en espece sera
donnee; car soit comme a ab tout ainsi le pois e d au pois k, lequel soit
le pois du corps g de mesme genre avec le corps a, ce que facilement se
peut faire par les pois, lors estant la mesme raison de e d ak comme est
de a ag, puis qu'ilz sont de mesme genre par la 4 demande, il s'ensuivra
que la raison de a cl b sera comme a ag; parquoy les grandeurs g et b
seront egales par la 9 proposition du 5 livre; et pource que la raison de
a ab, est donnee, et que la raison de a cl best comme e d ak, la raison
de e d ak sera donnee; et le pois c d estant donne, il s'ensuivra, que k,
qui est le pois de g, sera aussi donne par la 2 proposition des choses don-
nees, et aussi la raison de k au pois ef donne sera donnee par la premiere
proposition des choses donnees, et les pois k et e f sont les pois des
grandeurs egales g et b des mesmes genres que sont a et b. Parquoy la
raison de a a b en espece sera donnee par la deffinition mise en la
precedente proposition.
g
k
a
c d
b
e f
5.
D'un corps mergible comme le fer, a un corps immergible comme a
la eyre, trouver la proportion en grandeur et en pois selon l'espece.
FORCADEL.
Corps mergible se nomme le corps lequel par sa vertu sans aucune ay
de d'ailleurs descent en l'eau ou autre liqueur ou moien. Et au contraire
le corps immergible est lequel par sa vertu ne descent iamais par icelluy
moyen sans luy en estre adiouste quelqu'autre, ainsi que le fer lequel par
17 sa vertu naturelle descent en l'eau, mais le bois n'y descent / iamais,
mais si tu lies le bois au fer la vertu du fer pourra estre si grande que
I'un et I'autre sera submerge en I'eau. Tu pourras aussi lier si peu de fer
atant de bois que I 'un et l' autre n' agera (! nagera) sur I' eau ainsi qu' on peut
promptement veoir par les ancres des navires, ausquelles I'on lie des bois
a certaine mesure. Et de la premierement est manifeste que le corps
mergible descent plus soubdainemement s'il est mis en l' eau tout seul que
quant il luy est adiouste quelque chose immergible. Car quand le corps
mergible est porte seulla liqueur par laquelle descent luy resiste seulement,
et au contraire quand quelque corps immergible luy est adiouste la nature
du corps immergible ensemble la resistence de la liqueur repugne. Car le
corps immergible n'adiouste pas aucune force au corps mergible auquel est
adiouste, mais il est tire du corps mergible contre son nature!. Parquoy il est
necessaire que demourant une mesme puissance, et la resistence aug-
mentee l'un et l'autre corps ensemble soit porte plus tardement que si le
corps mergible estoit porte seu!. Secondement il s'ensuict que estant
adiouste un corps immergible au corps mergible, tout le pois en icelle
liqueur en laquelle l'immergible ne peut descendre, est plus petit que le
pois du mergible en icelle liqueur; car soit le pois en I' air bed du corps
mergible a et en l' eau b c tant seulement, et le corps immergible soit
h le pois duquel en l'air soit e, il s'ensuivra doncques que le pois de tout
a h en l'air sera bed e et adviendra que le pois de a h en l'eau sera plus
petit que le pois be. Car puis que d est la difference du pois de a en
I'air au pois du mesme a en l'eau, d est le pois de l'eau egalle aa de
grandeur par la premiere proposition de ce livre, laquelle eau soitf, Et
pource que e est le pois en l'air de l'immergible h, lequel est plus leger
d'espece que la liqueur en laquelle n'est pas mergible, il s'ensuivra que le
pois e sera plus petit que le pois de I' eau egalle de grandeur ah, laquelle
eau soit g, et le pois d'icelle soit e b. Maintenant puis que l'eau f est
18 egale aa de grandeur et g est egalle ah, I' eau f g sera egale / aa h de
grandeur par la 2 commune sentence; parquoy le pois de f g sera la dif-
ference du pois a h en I' air au pois du mesme a h en I' eau par la pre-
miere proposition de ce livre. Et le pois def g est e db, d' ou s' ensuivra
que la reste du pois de a h en l'eau est e tant seulement, lequel certaine-
ment est plus petit que le pois be, qui estoit le pois en l' eau de atout seul.
11 faut doncques estre advertis que nous nommons icy corps immergible
celluy qui est plus leger qu'icelle liqueur au respect de laquelle est diet
immergible; car quant sera egallement grave en espece, il n'y aura poinct
de difficulte apreuver ceste proposition, comme nous dirons puis apres.
ah fg
be
d
e
D'avantage 1'0n doibt adiouster ala proposition la condition suivante,
si toutesfois le pois en l' air et en l' eau des deux corps ensemble est
donne, semblablement aussi le pois du mergible en l'air et en l'eau estant
donne. Maintenant sera preuvee la proposition. Soit le corps a mergible,
le pois duquel en I' air soit e d e et en I' eau soit e d tant seulement, et
l'un et l'autre pois soit donne; et le corps b soit immergible, le pois duquel
en l'air soit donne f et ainsi le pois en l'air de tout a b sera donne par la 3
proposition des choses donnees, lequel sera e d e f; semblablement soit
aussi le pois en reau de a b donne, lequel sera plus petit que le pois e d,
comme nous venons de le demonstrer secondement; et soit le pois d et
par ainsi le pois e e f sera donne par la 4 proposition des choses
donnees. Or le pois e e f est la difference du pois a b en l'air au pois du
mesme a b en l'eau, il s'ensuivra done que e e f sera le pois de l'eau
eguale de grandeur aa b par la premiere proposition de ce livre. Soit
19 icelle g h divi/see en l' eau g egale aa, et h egale ab; et comme il soit
ainsi que e d est le pois de a en l'eau, e sera le pois de l'eau g par la
premiere proposition de ce livre, et tout e ef est le pois de l'eau g h;
parquoy e f est le pois de I' eau h egale de grandeur ab. 11 est certain que
la raison de a ab sera donnee en grandeur; car puis que e ef est donne,
et aussi d, semblablement e d e f; parquoy puis quef est donne, e e sera
aussi donne par la dicte 4 proposition des choses donnees, par laquelle e
sera donne, puis que e d e et e d sont donnes, et aussi e f sera donne puis
que e et e f e sont donnes. Si doncques e et e f sont donnes, la raison de
e ae f sera donnee par la premiere proposition des choses donnees; et
comme e a e f la mesme raison est de g a h par la 4 demande de ce
livre, car g eth sont de mesme genre, et par ainsi de mesme gravite, et leurs
pois sont e et c f; parquoy doncques la raison de g a h sera donnee, mais
la raison de a a best comme g a h par la 7 et 11 propositions du 5 livre,
comme nous avons veu, car a et b sont egaux a g et h ; parquoy la raison de
a ab sera donnee en grandeur ou selon la grandeur. Certainement aussi,
la raison de a a b sera donnee en espece, car comme a a b ainsi soit
faict le pois c d e au pois k estant le pois du corps I de mesme genre
avec a. Parquoy puis que a et I sont de mesme genre et par ainsi de
mesme gravite, la raison de c d e a k sera comme a a I par la dicte 4
demande, et si la raison de a a best comme c d e ak, qui est comme
a a I, la raison de a ab sera comme a aI par la 11 proposition du 5 livre;
et par ainsi b et I seront egaux I'un al'autre par la 9 proposition du 5livre.
Derechef, pource que c d e a k est comme a ab et la raison de a a best
donnee par la premiere partie de ceste proposition, il s'ensuivra que la
raison de c d e ak sera donnee par la seconde deffinition des choses
donnees; et pource que c d e est donne, il est certain que k sera aussi
donne par la 2 proposition des choses donnees; et pource que! est donne,
la raison de k a! sera donnee par la premiere proposition des choses
20 donnees, laquelle est telle qu'est la / raison des pois I et b egaux et de
mesmes genre avec les corps a et b; parquoy doncques la raison de a ab
en espece sera donnee. De la derniere partie de ceste demonstration
s' ensuict que si la raison de deux grandeurs est donnee en grandeur et le
pois de toutes deux ensemble est aussi donne, la raison de la gravite de
I'un a l' autre en espece sera donnee.
ab
I
cd
e
!
gh
k
Nous prendrons premierement, pour passer oultre, que si sont deux
corps inegaux de mesme genre, et deux autres d'autre genre egaux a
iceux un chascun au sien, il sera la mesme raison entre les pois des divers
genres prins de mesme ordre. Soient a et c deux corps inegaux de mesme
genre et b et d soient deux corps d'autre genre egaux a a et c un chascun
au sien, c' est assavoir que b soit egal aa et que d soit egal ac. 11 est
certain que la raison du pois de a au pois de b sera comme le pois de c au
pois de d, car le pois de a soit g, le pois de c soit h, et le pois de b soit!,
et le pois de d soit k. Lors pource que a et c sont de mesme genre, et par
ainsi de mesme gravite la raison de a ac sera commeg ah par la 4 demande,
par laquelle pour la mesme cause la raison de bad sera commef a k. Or
puis que la raison de g ahest telle qu' est de a ac, laquelle est comme
a ad par la seconde partie de la 7 proposition du 5 libre; par la premiere
FORCADEL'S LE L/VRE D' ARCH/MEDE 1111
partie de laquelle la raison de a ad est comme bad, laquelle est comme
f ak, la raison de g ah sera comme de f ak par la 11 proposition du
5livre, et la raison de g af sera come h ak par la 16 proposition du 5 livre.
21 a
c
g
h
b
d
f
k
Nous prendrons secondement que si de choses inegales se levent choses
egales les restes seront inegales du mesme exces. Car soit a c plus
grande que d e de l'exces bc, et de a c soit soustraicte a f egale ad g
soustraicte de de, il est certain que f e (! f c) excedera g e de l' exces
be; car pource que b c est I' exces de a cad e, il est certain que a b
est egale ade. 11 restera doncques f b egale age par la 3 commune
sentence, puis que af et d g sont egales, et par ainsif c excedera g e de
l'exces b c duquel a c excedoit ou aexcede de.
f
b
a---------------------c
d-------------
g
6.
e
Si sont trois corps egaux desquelz les deux soient simples de divers
genre, et l'autre mixte de I'un et de I'autre simple genre, et soit run des
simples plus grave que I'autre, la proportion de la partie du mixte qui
est en icelluy du genre du plus grave, ala partie qui est en icelluy du
genre du plus leger, sera comme la difference du pois du mixte au pois du
plus leger, ala difference du pois du plus grave au pois du mixte. Ou bien si
sont trois corps egaux desquelz Ies deux soient simples de divers genre et
22 de pois inegaux, et le trosiesme (I) corps mixte de I' un et / de l' autre simple
genre, la proportion de la partie du mixte qui est en icelluy du genre du
plus grave, ala partie qui est en icelluy du genre du plus leger, est comme la
proportion de la difference du pois du mixte au pois du plus leger, ala
difference du pois du plus grave, au pois du corps mixte.
FORCADEL.
Soit le corps b c mixte de deux simples, comme I' on pourroit pencer
d'or et d'argent, duquella partie b soit du genre du plus grave, et c du
genre du plus leger. Et le corps a soit de mesme genre avec b et egal au
corps beet le corps d soit de mesme genre avec c et egal au mesme
corps be; et comme il soit ainsi que a soit du genre du plus grave et la
partie c du genre du plus leger, et que a est egal cl bc, il est certain que
le pois de a sera plus grave que le pois de be; or que la difference du
pois de a au pois de b c soit h. Pour la mesme cause aussi le pois du
corps b c sera plus grave que le pois du corps d, donc que l'exces du
pois de beau pois du corps d soit k, il est certain que la raison de
b cl c sera comme k cl h. Car soit entendu le corps b e egal cl a et de
mesme genre, et allssi soit entendu le corps cf egal cl d et de mesme genre,
ce sera doncques un mesme pois de a et de e b, et aus si un mesme pois
que le pois de c f et le pois du corps d; parquoy h sera la difference du
pois e b au pois du corps beet k sera la difference du pois beau pois
de c f; et pource que e best egal cl b c de grandeur, ayant soubstraict
la partie commune b, le corps e sera egal de grandeur cl c par la 3 commune
sentence; et par une mesme raisonf sera egal ab. Derechef pource que
le pois de e b est plus grand que le pois de bc, ayant soubstraict le
pois de la grandeur b qui leur est commun, il s'ensuivra que la difference
h sera I' exces du pois de e au pois de c, comme nous venons de le prendre
secondement; et pour cela le pois de c avec h seront egaux au pois du
23 corps e; et par une mesme raison k sera I' exces du pois de I la grandeur
b au pois de f; et pour cela le pois de la grandeur f avec k seront egaux
all pois de la grandeur b et comme il soit ainsi que e et b sont de mesme
genre, et c etf egaux a iceux un chascun au sien sont d'un autre genre,
car c est egal ae etf est egal ab, la ration du pois de e au pois de c, qui
sont deux grandeurs egales, est comme du pois de b all pois de f, ainsi
comme nous venons de le demonstrer premierement. Parquoy puis que
le pois de c avec hest egal au pois de e et que le pois de! avec k sont
egaux au pois de b, la raison des pois h c au pois e sera comme les pois
k f au pois f par la 7, 11, et 22 propositions du 5 livre, et en prenant la
raison di visee la raison de h au pois de c sera comme le pois k au pois
de! par la 17 proposition du 5 livre, c' est a dire que la raison de k all
pois def sera comme h au pois de c, c'est a dire encore que la raison de
k a h sera comme le pois de f au pois de c par la 16 proposition du 5
livre, laquelle raison est comme la grandeur f a la grandeur e par la 4
demande de ce livre, carf et c sont de mesme genre et par ainsi seront de
mesme gravite, doncques la raison de k cl h sera comme le corps! au corps
e; et pource que le corpsf est egal au corps b, la raison def ac sera comme
de b ac par la 7 proposition du 5 livre; parquoy la raison de k ah sera
comme la grandeur b ala grandeur e par la 11 proposition du 5 livre, et
b est la partie du mixte du genre du simple plus grave et c est la partie
du mixte du simple plus leger, k est la difference du pois du mixte au
pois du simple plus leger, et h est la difference du pois du simple plus
grave ou plus pesant au pois du corps mixte.
a
h
ebef
k
d
Nous adiousterons ou prendrons encore que si un mixte est donne de
grandeur, les simples qui luy seront egaux de grandeur seront donnes.
Soit la grandeur du mixte ab donnee, estant prise une grandeur telle qu'on
24 voudra de mesme / genre avec le simple a, laquelle soit donnee comme
c, la raison de c aa b sera donnee par la premiere proposition des choses
donnees, or comme c est aa b ainsi soit c ala grandeur d de mesme genre
avec a, acelle fin que la grandeur d soit egale aa b par la seconde partie
de la 9 proposition du 5 livre. Et par une mesme maniere de faire 1'on
donnera un simple egal aicelle grandeur a b et de mesme genre avec I' autre
des simples.
c
ab d
Si aussi le pois en 1'air et en 1'eau d'un mixte est donne, les simples qui
luy seront egaux de grandeur seront donnes. Soit donne le pois en 1'air
et en I' eau du mixte a b et soit pris le corps c de telle grandeur qu' on
voudra et de mesme genre avec 1'un des simples comme avec a, et le pois
en 1'air et en 1'eau du corps c soit donne, quelconque il soit; et pour ce
que les pois en I' air et en I' eau de a b et c sont donnes, les differences
d'iceux seront donnees par la 4 proposition des choses donnees; et la
raison d'icelles differences sera donnee par la premiere proposition des
choses donnees; et par ainsi la raison de c aa b sera donnee par la 2
proposition de ce livre, qui veut quelle soit selon ou comme les dictes
differences des pois. Or que le pois de c soit h, et comme c est aa b ainsi
soit faict le pois h au pois d, lequel soit le pois de la grandeur g de mesme
genre avec c; et la raison de had sera comme c ag par la 4 demande;
puis la raison de c aa b sera comme c ag par la 11 proposition du 5
livre, et la grandeur g sera egale aa b par la mesme seconde partie de la
9 proposition du 5 livre. La mesme preuve se fera de 1'autre simple, c'est
a dire que par une mesme maniere de demonstrer I' on trouvera une
grandeur egale aa b et de mesme genre avec 1'autre simple. Et de la est
manifeste que, si le pois d'un mixte est donne, le pois du simple egal a
icelluy de grandeur sera donne, car comme nous avons veu en la demon-
25 stration / la raison de c aa best comme had; et pource que h est o n n t ~ le
pois d sera aussi donne par la 2 proposition des choses donnees, et d est
le pois du simple g egal aa b de grandeur.
c
h
7.
ab
d
g
En un corps mixte de deux, declarer combien il y a d'un chascun.
FORCADEL.
Nous devons entendre que le pois du corps mixte soit donne et la
grandeur, ou le pois seulement; car sy tout le mixte est donne de grandeur
et de pois, les simples estans en icelluy seront donnes de grandeur. Et
s'il est donne de pois tant seulement, la raison d'iceux selon la grandeur
sera donnee ou se donnera seulement. Soit doncques a b mixte de deux,
duquelle pois soit donneI et a soit du genre du plus grave et b du genre
du plus leger, et soit c du genre du plus grave a egal aa b par cela que
nous venons de demonstrer, et par cela mesme soit d du genre du plus
leger b egal aussi a ab, il est certain que les pois de c et d seront
donnes par le precedent correlaire, lesquelz soient e et g. Or que la differ-
ence du pois de c au pois de ab, c' est assavoir la difference de e ai, soit
h; et la difference du pois de ab au pois de d, c'est assavoir la difference
de I ag, soit k, il est certain que les differences k et h seront donnees
par la 4 proposition des choses donnees, et la raison de k ah sera donnee
par la premiere proposition des choses donnees; et pource que la raison
de k ahest comme a ab par la precedente proposition, il est certain que
la raison des simples a et b desquelz est compose le mixte sera donnee; et
par ainsi la raison de a b aun chascun simple a et b sera donnee par la
6 proposition des choses donnees, que si la grandeur de a best donnee
26 aussi / a et b seront donnes par la 2 proposition des choses donnees; que,
si la grandeur de a b n' est pas donnee, au moins la raison de tout le
mixte al'une al'autre partie des simples sera donnee.
c
e
h
ab
I
k
d
g
Puis qu'il semble que quiconques a faict ce livre avoulu rendre ala
solution de celle tant belle question proposee ou racomptee de Vitruve
au 3 chapitre du neufviesme livre, nous pencerons que le pois de la cour-
ronne delivree par l'orfebvre feust de 100 onces, pour laquelle nous
prendrons ab, prenant a pour la partie d' or et b pour la partie d' argent.
Puis ayant pence que a b plonge en l'eau, comme se doibt faire aye
faict sortir l'eau 24 onces, pour laquelle nous prendrons aussi c et ayant
pris le corps d d'or pur du mesme pois de a b, et qU'estant plonge en
l' eau face sortir l' eau e 20 onces et considere le corps Id' or pur egal a
ab, puis qu' il est ainsi que la raison de e ac est comme de d aa b par la
2 proposition de ce livre, laquelle est comme d al par la 7 proposition du
5 livre, qui est comme le pois de d au pois de I par la 4 demande, la
raison de e ac sera comme d ai, c'est adire comme le pois de d au pois
del, par la 11 proposition du 5livre; et si 20,24, et 100, et le pois del sont
proportionaux, il est certain que 20 fois le pois de I seront egaux a 24
cents, c'est adire a100 fois 24, par la 19 proposition du 7 livre, et 2 fois
le pois de f seront egaux a 10 fois 24, ou 1 fois le pois de f a 5 fois 24,
c'est adire a120, par la 17 proposition du 7 livre; et par ainsi quand le
pois de a b sera 100 onces, le pois def estant d' or pur et egal aa b sera de
120 onces. Semblablement si le corps g est d'argent pur pesant 1000nces
et plonge en I' eau faict sortir I' eau h 36 onces, et k estant d' argent pur
est egal aab, le pois de k sera 66 onces deux troisiesmes. Nous avons
maintenant les pois des trois corps egauxf, a b et k, lesquelz sont 120,
27 100, et 66/ deux troisiesmes, la difference du plus grand au moyen est 20,
et du moyen au plus petit est 33 un troisiesme. Il s' ensuivra doncques
que la raison de a ab sera comme 33 un troisiesme a20 par la 6 proposi-
tion de ce livre; et la raison de a b a b, c'est a dire de k ab selon la
grandeur, sera comme 53 un troisiesme a20 par la 18 proposition du 5
livre. Et quand 53 un troissiesme (!) donnent 20, il est certain que 66 deux
troisiesmes donneront 25. Ce que nous disons pour avoir plustost faict;
car l' on sait bien que la raison de la grandeur k ala grandeur best comme
66 deux troisiesmes au pois de la grandeur b par la 4 demande de ce livre,
et la raison de b aa sera comme 20 a33 un troisiesme par la 4 proposition
du 5 livre; et derechef la raison de 53 un troisiesme a 33 un troisiesme
sera comme a b aa, c'est a dire encore comme 120 au pois de a, par
tout ce qui ce doibt dire; et quand 53 un troisiesme donnent 33 un
troisiesme, il est certain que 120 donneront 75. Il y aura doncques 75
onces d'or et 25 onces d'argent.
d ab g
- -
100 100 100
20 24 36
-
e c h
f k
-
--
120
8.
Si sont trois corps egalement pesans, desquelz les deux soient simples
de divers genre et le troisiesme soit compose des deux simples genres,
et soit l'un des simples plus grave que l'autre, la raison du pois de la
partie du compose qui est en icelluy du genre du plus grave, au pois de
la partie qui est en icelluy du genre du plus leger, est comme la difference
28 de l'eau I que celluy qui est du genre du plus leger faict sortir al'eau
que le compose faiet sortir, ala difference de I' eau que le compose faiet
sortir aI'eau que celluy qui est du genre du plus grave faict sortir.
FORCADEL.
Soient trois corps egallement pesans a, beet d desquelz a et d soient
simples de divers genre, et soit a plus grave que d; puis soit le corps b c
compose de quelque partie de a, laquelle soit b, et d'une partie de d,
laquelle soit c, et quand le corps a sera mis en l' eau face sortir l' eau
e; quand le corps b c sera plonge en I' eau face sortir l' eau f, et quand
le corps d sera aussi mis en un vase plain (I) d'eau face sortir I'eau g, il
est certain que l' eau g sera plus grande que l' eauf, et l' eauf plus grande
que l'eau e, tout ainsi comme le corps d est plus grand que beet be plus
grand que a. Or que la difference de l' eau g a I' eau j soit l' eau h, et la
difference de l'eauja l'eau e soitk, il est certain que la raison deh ak sera
comme le pois de la partie b au pois de la partie c. Car soit I le pois de
la partie b et m le pois de la partie c, et soit adiouste a la partie b la
partie n de mesme genre pesant autant comme est le pois m. Il est certain
que le pois de n avec I seront egaux aux pois m et I par la seconde commune
sentence, c'est a dire au pois de a par la premiere commune sentence;
et par ainsi le corps b n sera egal au corps a par la 4 demande, et le
corps b n estant plonge en I' eau fera sortir l' eau e; et pour ce que b c faict
sortir l' eauj et que la difference def a e est k, il est certain que la difference
de l' eau que le corps b c fera sortir a l' eau que le corps b n fera sortir
sera I'eau k et en substrayant d'une part et d'autre l'eau que la partie
b feroit sortir, il est certain que la difference de I' eau que la partie c
fera sortir a l' eau que n fera sortir sera l'eau k. Derechef soit adiouste
a la partie c la partie 0 de mesme genre avec d, le pois de laquelle soit
egal a I, il s'ensuivra aussi que le pois de 0 avec I (! m) seront egaux
29 a I m par la seconde commune sentence, c'est I a dire au pois de d par la
premiere commune sentence, et le corps co sera egal au corps d par une
semblable raison, tout ainsi doncques que le corps d faict sortir I' eau g
aussi le corps c 0 fera sortir la mesme quantite et pois d'eau g; et la
difference des eaux que les corps c 0 et b c feront sortir sera I' eau
h, et la difference de I' eau que la partie 0 fera sortir a I' eau que la partie
b fera sortir sera la mesme eau h. Maintenant comme l' eau de 0 est a
I' eau de c ainsi est le corps 0 au corps c par la 2 proposition de ce
livre, et comme le corps 0 est au corps c ainsi est le pois du corps 0 au
pois m par la 4 demande de ce livre, et comme le pois de 0 a m ainsi est
le pois I au pois de n par la 7 proposition du 5 livre et eel., et comme
I au pois de n ainsi est le corps b au corps n par la dicte 4 demande, et
comme le corps best au corps n ainsi est l'eau du corps b a l'eau du
corps n par la 2 proposition de ce livre, et par ainsi la raison de l'eau de
o a l' eau de c sera comme l' eau de b aI' eau de n par la 11 proposition
du 5 livre, et la raison de l' eau de 0 a l' eau de b sera comme l' eau de
c a I'eau de n par la 16 proposition du 5livre, puis apres la raison de I'eau
h a l' eau de b sera comme l' eau k a l' eau de n par la 17 proposition du
5 livre, et la raison de l'eau h a l'eau k sera comme l'eau de b a l'eau de
n par la 16 proposition du 5 livre, laquelle est comme ban par la 2
proposition de ce livre, qui est comme I au pois de n par la 4 demande
desia (I deja) dicte, et la raison de I au pois de nest comme I a m par la
seconde partie de la 7 proposition du 5 livre, qui empechera doncques
que la raison de h ak ne soit comme le pois I au pois m par la 11 proposition
du 5 livre. Si doncques b c est pris pour la couronne pesant 100 onces,
a pesera aussi 100 onces et d pesera semblablement 100 onces, et si g , f et e
sont 36, 24, 20, les dictes differences seront 12 et 4, et la raison de 12
a 4 sera comme le pois de l' or au pois de l' argent qui sont enclos en
be; puis comme 16 est a 4 ainsi sera le pois de 100 onces au pois de
I'argent, c'est assavoir a25 onces, et semblablement comme 16 est a12
30 ainsi seront 100 onces / a75 onces d'or. 11 y aura doncques 75 onces d'or
et 25 onces d'argent. Dieu me face la grace qu'en toute diligence ie puisse
profiter a ceux qui aprennent, et contenter les studieux des sciences
Mathematiques en maintes belles demonstrations, comme i'espere avoir
faict en ceste cy.
a n l m 0 d
-
100 25 b c 75 100
e
f
g
-
-
20 24 36
k h
-
-
4 12
UNE PIECE DU LIVRE D'EUCLIDE INTITULE, DU
LEGER ET DU PESANT, TRADUICT ET
COMMENTE PAR PIERRE
FORCADEL DE BEZIES.
DEFFINITIONS.
1.
Les corps sont d'esgalle grandeur qui remplissent les lieux egaux.
FORCADEL.
Les corps sont egaux desquelz les contenus des lieux qu'ilz occupent
sont egaux, ou lesquelz estans mis en quelque humide, comme il doibt
estre faict, font sortir d'icelluy humide autant I'un comme I'autre.
2.
Les corps sont de diverse grandeur, qui remplissent les lieux non egaux.
FORCADEL.
31 /Ilz seront aussi de diverse grandeur ou de grandeur inegale si les
contenus des lieux qu'iIz occupent sont inegaux, et aussi s'ilz font sortir
de l'humide inegalement.
3.
Les corps se disent plus grans de magnitude, qui sont en plus grand lieu.
FORCADEL.
Ce sont ceux desquelz les contenus des Heux sont plus grans, ou ceux
qui font sortir plus de l' humide sont plus grans de grandeur.
4.
Les corps sont d'egalle puissance, desquelz les mouvemens sont egaux
en temps, [par] air ou eau, moyens egaux, et par egaux intervalles.
FORCADEL.
Quand deux corps descendent en l'air un mesme intervalle, ou d'inter-
valles egaux en un mesme temps ou en temps egaux, lors se disent estre
d'egale puissance etc.
5.
Les corps sont de diverse puissance, desquelz les mouvemens sont
egeux (I) en temps divers.
FORCADEL.
Quand deux corps descendent en l'air un mesme intervalle en temps
inegaux, lors se disent estre de diverse puissance.
6.
Des corps de diverse puissance, celluy se dict estre plus grand de
puissance lequel mouvant prent moins de temps; et plus petit de puissance,
qui employe plus de temps.
FORCADEL.
Cela se refere tousiours aun mesme intervalle et en un mesme moyen.
7.
32 /Les corps sont de mesme genre, lesquelz estans egaux de grandeur,
sont aussi egaux de puissance.
FORCADEL.
Cecy se rend asses manifeste en deux pieces egales d'or et d'argent pur.
8.
Les corps sont de divers genre, lesquelz combien qu'ilz soient egaux de
grandeur, ne sont pas egaux de puissance, et faut qu'ilz meuvent par
un mesme moyen.
--_.
FORCADEVS LE LIVRE D'ARCHIMEDE 1119
FORCADEL.
En prenant deux grandeurs egales dont l'une soit d'or pur et l'autre
d'argent pur, et en faisant semblant de ne les voir ny connistre pas, l'on
les met en un vase plain d'eau l'on experimentera facilement qu'ieelles
seront de divers genre.
9.
Des corps de divers genre, celluy se diet plus puissant, qui est plus
solide.
FORCADEL.
L' or pur se dict estre plus grand de puissance que l' argent pur, pource
qu'il est plus solide que l'argent, c'est adire que l'on pourra prendre une
telle partie d'or au regart de quelque grandeur qu'icelle pesera plus que
la mesme grandeur d'argent, ou comme nous avons veu que un corps d'or
pur pesera plus qu'un corps d'argent pur de la mesme grandeur.
PROPOSITIONS.
1.
Des corps de diverse puissance, celluy qui est meu en plus grand espace,
ha plus de puissance.
FORCADEL.
Soient a et b deux corps de diverse puissance, et les espaces inegaux par
lesquelz sont meus soient c d et ef, desquelz espaces, c d soit le plus grand
par lequel estmeu a, et e f soit le plus petit auquel est meu b. 11 est certain
33 que a a / plus de puissance que b. Car en soubstrayant I' espace e f de
l'espace c d en l'espace c g par la 3 proposition du premier livre, cer-
tainement a passera en moins de temps c g que c d par la 9 commune
sentence, c' est cl dire que a aura passe c g en moins de temps que b n' aura
passe e f; parquoy a sera plus grand de puissance que b par la 6 deffinition
de ce livre.
g
a c-------------- d
f
b e ---------
2.
Des corps de mesme genre, si ieeux sont entr'eux de plusieurs fois, les
puissances d'ieeux seront d'esgal plusieurs fois.
FORCADEL.
Soit le corps a b double au corps c de mesme genre; il est certain que
a b sera double de puissance cl c. Car soit efla puissance de a b et h soit la
puissance de c, et soit divise a b en parties egales ac au poinct d par la 3
proposition du premier livre, etc.; puis que d b et d a sont egaux ac. 11 est
certain que la puissance de d b sera h par la 7 deffinition de ce livre, par
laquelle h sera aussi la puissance de d a. Or en prenant le double de h, qui
soit k, il est certain que k sera la puissance de a b et par ainsi ef et k seront
egaIes, tout ainsi doncques que k seroit double ah aussi ef est double ah;
ou bien soit soustraicte la puissance h de e f, prenantf g egale ah, etf g
sera la puissance de d b ou d a, et g e restera pour la puissance de d a ou
db, laquelle sera egale ag f par la dicte 7 deffinition; parquoy doncques
tout ainsi comme a b est double ac aussi e f est double ah.
d
a-------b
c
g
e------f
h
k
34 /3.
Des corps de mesme genre, la proportion est la mesme et de grandeur et
de puissance.
FORCADEL.
Soient les deux corps a et b de mesme genre, et la puissance du corps a
soit c et du corps b soit d; il est certain que la raison de a ab sera comme
cad; car en prenant a pour une premiere grandeur, b pour une seconde,
c pour la troisiesme et d pour une quatriesme, en prenant le plusieurs fois
tel qu' on voudra de a, I' on prendra le mesme plusieurs fois de c par la
precedente proposition; et en prenant un plusieurs fois tel qu' on voudra de
b l' on prendra aussi le mesme plusieurs fois de d par la precedente
proposition; or que les plusieurs fois egalement de a et c soient e etf,
et de b et d soient g et h; si e est egal ag certainementf sera egal ah par la
7 deffinition de ce livre; et si e est plus grand que g, il est certain que f
sera plus grand que h; semblablement si e est plus petit que g , I' on trouvera
quef sera plus petit que h, ce que se peut prendre en la mesme 7 deffinition;
parquoy doncques la raison de a ab sera comme cad par la 6 deffinition
du 5 livre.
"e-
e
a
b
g
f
c
d
h
4.
Les corps lesquelz sont egaux de puissance aun corps de mesme genre
sont entr'eux de mesme genre, car ostees choses egales ace tiers la, les
vertus d'icelles seront egales pource qu'elles sont egales a la puissance du
tiers.
FORCADEL.
35 Les corps desquelz est une mesme proportion des granJdeurs et des
puissances iceux sont de mesme genre.
Si les puissances des corps a etb sontc etd etlaraisondea ab est comme
cad, il est certain que a et b seront de mesme genre, ce qui est la converse
de la precedente proposition; car en prenant le corps e de mesme genre
avec b et egal a a et que la puissance de e soitJ, la raison deJ a d sera
comme e a b par la precedente proposition, laquelle est comme a ab par
la 7 proposition du 5 livre, laquelle est encore comme cad; parquoy la
raison de J ad sera comme cad par la 11 proposition du 5 livre, est les
puissances c et!des corps a ete seront egales par la 9proposition du 5livre,
et les corps a et e seront de mesme genre par la 7 deffinition de ce livre.
Maintenant il est certain que a et b sont de mesme genre; car si a, e, b sont
egaux l'un a l'autre, la puissance de a sera egale ala puissance de e par la
7 deffinition de ce livre; par laquelle la puissance de b sera egale a la
puissance de e; d' ou s' ensuivra que la puissance de a sera egale a la
puissance de b par la premiere commune sentence, et le corps a sera de
mesme genre avec le corps b par la mesme 7 deffinition de ce livre. Et si
a, e, b sont inegaux, ayant prins de a, e, b trois parties egales, celle de
a acelle de e et celle de b acelle de e, il est certain que la partie de a sera de
mesme genre avec la partie de b etc; la ou ie diray, "car sa grand benignite
dure a perpetuite."
e a
b
FIN.
c
d
J
The Book of Archimedes on Weights, which is also
called On Things Which Fall into a Liquid
Translated and Commented on by Pierre Forcadel of Beziers,
Ordinary Lecturer of the King in Mathematics
at the University of Paris.
Together with that which is found of the Book of Euclid entitled
On the Heavy and the Light, Translated and Commented
on by the same Forcadel
At Paris
At the Shop of Charles Perier, residing on the rue S. Jean de Beauvais, au Bellerophon.
1565
With the Privilege of the King.
The Greetings of P. F. to Monsieur Bounaud,
his Particular Friend.
Monsieur, among the various things recounted of Archimedes as very
certain proof of the force and gentility of his spirit is the technique he
discovered for finding out, when a body is composed of two simples of
different kinds [i.e. species], how much it contains in volume and weight
of each of the simple species. Now I recall that a long time ago Monsieur
Akakia, an advocate in the court, communicated to me an exemplar
in which Archimedes, or, if it is not he, an Archimedean, demonstrates
how one can answer a similar question which would be proposed. I have
translated and annotated this work so that everyone can revel in such a
beautiful treatment. And because Archimedes is contented with demon-
strating this sort of thing for three bodies mutually equal [in volume],
two of which are simples of different species and the third is composed
of two simple species, I have devoted myself to demonstrating the same
thing for three bodies of equal weight, two of which are simples of different
species and the third is composed of the two simple species. I have done
this because, although it is very difficult to find two bodies of two simple
1122
species equal [in volume] to an irregular body composed of some part
of each of the simples, it is very easy to find two bodies of two simple
species that are of equal weight with a [third] body composed of the two
simple species, and also because what I have demonstrated concerning
this case is in accord with the very words of Vitruvius in the third chapter
of the ninth book [oftheArchitecture] and with the fashion ofaccommodat-
ing [geometrical arguments] to arithmetical ones. In addition, I have
adjoined to this translation a fragment or piece of the book of Euclid,
entitled On the Heavy and the Light. I present the whole work to you as
a measure and testimony of my good will, in which I shall always recognize
the favor and friendship which inspires me and all who make a complete
profession of science and virtue. At Paris, the 25th of March, 1565.
The Book of Archimedes on Weights, which is also called
On Things which Fall into a Liquid, Translated and
Commented on by Pierre Forcadel of Beziers
Since, on account of the naturaP composition of certain bodies, one
could not determine their certain ratio [as to volume] by geometry, and
since the prices
2
of certain things by which they are bought and sold
are said to be proportioned to their volumes, it was necessary to find the
ratios of their volumes by means of their-weights, so that by knowing their
respective volumes through the ratios of their weights definite prices could
be determined for them.
FORCADEL.
This is the procedure for the irregular composition of certain bodies or
for irregular bodies.
DEFINITIONS.
1.
First, then, we must describe the nature of the instrument by which
quantities of weight are determined. For the instrument by which weights
are determined is a straight bar at whose mid-point there is a hole in
which is inserted a perpendicular [suspension] which supports the bar
together with the weights hung at its ends, when the weight of some
quantity is to be determined by measures of weight.
1 The medieval Latin text had irregularem, which Franciscus de Mello changed to
naturalem.
2 I would suppose that Forcadel intended pris instead of the pois found in the text. Both
the medieval text and that of Franciscus have pretia.
--et
FORCADEL.
The instrument described for us is similar to the balance.
2.
The calcul or calcule
3
is the least measure of weights to which all
measures of weight are referred and of which they are multiples.
FORCADEL.
Just as the ounce is [now] the accepted measure of weights to which all
others are related-like the pound and its parts, the hundred-weight and its
parts, the thousand-weight and its parts and also the very parts of the
ounce are related to the ounce-in the same way a certain weight,
which he calls a calcul is taken by himfor the accepted measure of weights.
3.
The calcules are said to equal the weight of the body when, if the
body is hung at one end of the beam and the calcules at the other,
the beam does not incline to one side or the other.
FORCADEL.
If in one of the pans of the balance there are three one-ounce weights
and in the other there is a certain body and they weigh equally [ i.e. they
balance], then the three ounces are said to equal the weight or the heaviness
of the body.
4.
The calcules of a given weight are said to be those whose combined
weight is equal to that weight.
FORCADEL.
Just as 16 ounces are the weight of one pound if the weight of 16
ounces weighs as much [Le. balances] the weight of one pound. Or better,
16 ounces are said to be the weight of the body when it is placed on
one side of the balance and 16 ounces are placed on the other side and they
weigh equally [Le. balance].
5.
A weight is known when the number of its calcules is known.
FORCADEL.
This also applies to fractions of the calcules.
3 The Latin is calculus. although calcus is also found in the early manuscripts.
6.
A body which naturally descends is said to be heavy. They are said to
be light whose nature is to rise.
4
FORCADEL.
Earth and water naturally descend downward and therefore are heavy.
Fire and air naturally climb upward and therefore are called light.
5
7. [=Med. text 7-9]
The relation of one heavy body to another can be considered in two
ways: in one way, according to species; in the other way, according to
numerosity. [It is considered] according to species as when we wish to
compare the specific gravity of gold to that of silver, and in doing this we
have to assume an equal volume of the gold and silver bodies. The com-
parison of one body6 to another according to numerosity is made when
we wish to determine by weight whether a mass of gold is heavier than a
mass of silver, irrespective of the volumes of the given masses.
FORCADEL.
When we take two bodies of different species that are nevertheless
equal to one another [in volume] and they weigh unequally, that which
weighs more is said to weigh more or be heavier according to species,
while the other is said to be lighter [according to species]. But in the case
of two bodies of different species, that one is said to be heavier according
to numerosity which weighs more, and the other is said to be lighter accord-
ing to numerosity. From this it will follow that if the two bodies of different
species are equal to one another [in volume], the one that is heavier accord-
ing to species is also heavier according to numerosity.
8. [=Med. text 10]
One body is said to be heavier than another according to numerosity,
if, when these bodies are suspended at the end of the beam, its arm of the
beam inclines [downward], or if its weight is equal to the weight of more
calcules.
FORCADEL.
If one of the bodies is placed in one of the pans of the balance and the
other body in the other pan and they weigh unequally [i. e. do not balance],
the one that weighs the more [i.e. whose pan declines] is said to be
4 Notice how Forcadel has obscured the relational aspect of this definition as given in
the Latin, whose literal rendering is: "A body naturally descending is called heavy relative
to those which naturally ascend." I believe that Forcadel made these changes because of
the difficulty in reading Franciscus' text at this point.
S Forcadel is giving here common-place peripatetic views of heavy and light elements.
6 The medieval text had gravitatis here but it was omitted in Franciscus' text.
heavier according to numerosity. And also, if one body weighs 3 ounces
and the other 4 ounces, the one that weighs 4 ounces is said to be heavier
according to numerosity.
9. [=Med. text 11]
Bodies are said to be of the same kind between which there is no substan-
tial or accidentaF difference as to gravity or lightness, just as is found in
nature when gold is compared to gold, or silver to silver. For it [i.e. each]
follows the same form of the elements, the same ratio [of them] and the
same mixture [of them], just as does the same gravity or lightness.
FORCADEL.
In respect to magnitude [i.e. their volumes] all bodies are of the same
kind. But in respect to their elements and to the bodies composed of them,
some are of the same kind and some are not. Those which are of the same
kind are like fine gold compared to fine gold, or pure silver compared to
pure silver, etc. For there is not any substantial or accidental difference
[between the bodies compared]. But when gold is compared to gold, or
silver to silver, and there is some accidental difference between them
Dike the presence of impurities], then they will not be ofthe same kind, etc.
10. [=Med. text 12]
It follows: The difference in volume between two bodies is the volume by
which the larger exceeds the smaller.
FORCADEL.
This can be understood of two unequal bodies of the same kind and
also of different kinds.
11. [=Med. text 13]
And [the difference] in weight is the weight by which the heavier exceeds
the lighter.
FORCADEL.
This can be understood of two bodies of the same kind and also of
different kinds. For the comparison is made according to numerosity.
12. [=Med. text Post. 3]8
Of two bodies equal [in volume] that one is said to be heavier in species
whose weight is equal to a greater number of calcules .
7 Note the addition to the medieval text here made by Franciscus and followed by
Forcadel.
8 As I have noted above, the final definition of the medieval Latin text, which is exclusively
mathematical, had been quite properly omitted by Franciscus. Instead he substituted as
his last two definitions, medieval text Postulates 3 and 6, which obviously struck him as
definitions rather than postulates. Forcadel followed him in these changes.
FORCADEL.
If, then, the smaller of two bodies unequal [in volume] weighs more than
the larger, it could already be said to be greater in species than that part of
the larger which is equal to it [in volume].
13. [=Med. text Post. 6]
Bodies are said to be equally heavy in species when the weight of equal
volumes of them is equal.
FORCADEL.
If there are also two bodies equal [in volume], that one is said to be less
heavy in species whose weight is smaller, and that one is said to be heavier
in species whose weight is greater, as we have already said.
POSTULATES.
1.
No body is heavy in itself, so that water is not heavy in water, nor oil
in oil, nor air in air.
FORCADEL.
Any body, then, that is of equal [specific] gravity with air will not
descend in air, and of equal [specific] gravity with oil will not descend in
oil, and of equal [specific] gravity with water will not descend in water.
2.
The weight of every body is greater in air than in water.
FORCADEL.
It is certain that every body [specifically] heavier than air will weigh
more in air than in water. For if it is of the same [specific] gravity as the
water it will weigh more in air than in water and if it is of greater or lesser
[specific] gravity than the water it will always weigh more in air than in
water.
All weights are proportional to their calcules.
FORCADEL.
If there is a weight of 3 ounces and a weight of 4 ounces, the ratio of
these weights will certainly be as 3 to 4.
--
In the case of bodies of the same kind,
9
the ratio of their volumes is the
same as that of their weights.
FORCADEL.
For if they are equal [in volume], their weights will be equal. If they are
unequal [in volume], the ratio of the larger to the smaller will be as the
weight of the larger to the weight of the smaller, and contrariwise. From
this it will follow that in the case of bodies of the same kind, the ratio of
their volumes will be the ratio of their weights.
Propositions.
1.
The weight of any body is greater in air than in water by the weight of
water equal to it in volume.
FORCADEL.
Let a be a body whose weight in air is b + c. If, then, a does not weigh
more than water equal to it in volume, it will not descend in the water or
through the water, by the first postulate. Therefore, it weighs more in air
than in water by the weight of water equal to it in volume. And this is
concluded necessarily ifa is equally heavy in species as the water. And if it
were [specifically] lighter, the proposition ought not to be understood
[to apply] to it. For if oil were specifically lighter than water, it would not
follow that it weighs more in air than in water by the weight of water
equal to it in volume. If a were definitely oil and specifically lighter than
water, the weight of a would necessarily be less than the weight of water
equal to it in volume, by the last definition. Therefore, the conclusion ought
to be understood for those bodies which are not less heavy in species than
water. And for a body equally heavy in species as water, it has been
sufficiently demonstrated. Now let a be specifically heavier than water.
It is certain that a will descend through the water and that body a will be
heavier than water equal to it in volume, by the last definition. Now let
the water equal to body a in volume be d and let the weight of a be b + c
which equally balances a. And since body a is of less weight, that is to say,
is lighter in water by the second postulate, when a smaller weight is
suspended on the opposite [side of a balance] no inclination of body a will
take place. Then let such a weight be b. And let g + h be the total weight
or gravity of body a, and let g + h be divided by the imagination into
weight g equal to the weight of water d , which is equal in volume to body a .
9 Forcadel's text has gravite but the Latin has generis; and indeed Forcadel's comment
shows that he himself intended genre.
FORCADEL'S LE LIVRE D' ARCHIMEDE 1129
And let the rest of the weight be h. It is certain that weight c, which is the
excess of weight of a in air over the weight of the same body a in water,
is equal to [the] weight [of] d, Le. to g. For, since weight b + c in air
equally balances body a, and since g + h is the weight of a, it will follow
thatg + h = b + c by the first axiom [of Book I of the Elements]. Again,
since the gravity of weight g is equal to the weight of water d, which is
equal to it in volume, it will follow that body a will not descend through
the water as the result of force g, by the first postulate, for by that postu-
late we understood not only that no body is heavy or light in itself but
also that no body of equal specific weight with another will descend in it.
For it is here necessary that the action takes place by reason of equality.
Therefore, the force for the descent of a in the water will be the weight h
alone, just as in such a situation the weight b alone supports or balances
a equally. Accordingly, the weight in such a situation is h. Hence weights
hand b are equal. And because the whole g + h has been demonstrated
to be equal to the whole b + c it will follow that weight g is equal to weight
c, by the third axiom [of Book I of the Elements], which is to say, that the
weight of water d, which is equal in volume to body a , is equal to weight c ,
which is the difference between the weight of a in air and its weight in
water.
COROLLARY.
From this it is manifest that every body weighs more in a [specifically]
lighter medium than in a heavier one by the weight of a body equal to it in
volume and of the species of the heavier [medium], provided that it
[i.e. the initialbody] is not [specifically] lighter than the heavier medium.
The corollary ought to be proved in the same way that the proposition was
proved. Further, the proposition [itself] ought to be understood for cases
where the body whose weight is considered in two media unequally heavy
[in species] is not [specifically] lighter than the heavier medium.
2.
Of any two bodies, whether the same or different in kind, the ratio [in
volume]1 of one to the other is as the ratio of the difference between the
weight of one of them in air and its weight in water to the difference be-
tween the weight of the other in air and its weight in water.
FORCADEL.
Let there be any two bodies a and b and let the weight ofa in air be c + d
and its weight in water c alone, and let the weight of b in air be e +f and
10 Some manuscripts of the medieval text had in magnitudine but Franciscus (and after
him Forcadel) failed to include the phrase. In fact, the usual practice of the original
author was to intend their magnitudes or volumes when one body was compared to another
unless he specified some other basis of comparison.
its weight in water e alone. It is certain that the ratio of a to b [in volume]
is as d tof. For since a weighs more in air than in water by the weight of
water equal to it in volume by the preceding proposition, and since (c + d)
- c = d, it follows that d is the weight of water equal in volume to a,
which water we let beg. By the same reasoningfwill be the weight of water
equal in volume to b, which water we let be h. Now a / b = a / h, by the
second part of the 7th proposition of Book V [of the Elements]. By the
first part of it [i.e. Proposition V.7], a / h = g / h. Therefore, a / b = g / h, by
the 11th proposition of Book V [of the Elements ], and g / h = d /f, by the
fourth postulate. Hence, a / b = d /f, by the 11th proposition of Book V.
And here, as you see, one ought to understand that the bodies not be of
smaller [specific] gravity than water but either of equal or greater [specific
gravity], as in the preceding proposition. And similarly the corollary will
follow.
3.
If the weights of some body are given in two liquids and in air, the ratio of
the gravity of one of these liquids to the gravity of the other will be given
in species.
FORCADEL.
The ratio of the gravities of two bodies is said to be "given in species,"
when, if we take two bodies [mutually] equal [in volume] and of the same
kinds [as the two initial bodies], the ratio of the weight of the one to the
weight of the other will be given. And it is said to be "given in species"
because between any two equal bodies of different kinds, regardless of
what their [equal] volume is, the ratio of their gravities is as the gravities of
any two other equal bodies of their kinds, which is demonstrated as
follows. Let a and b be two bodies equal [in volume] but of different kinds,
and so they will be of unequal [specific] gravity. Let the weight of a be c
and let the weight of b be d. Again, let g and h be two other equal bodies,
whatever their equal volume is, and let g be of the same kind as a , and h as
b. And let the weight ofg be k , and that ofh bef. It is certain that c / d = k /f.
For since a and g are of the same kind, they will be of the same [specific]
gravity. And consequently, a / g = c / k, by the fourth postulate. For the
same reason, b / h =d / f. And because a = band g = h, while c / k =
a / g = a / h by the second part of the 7th proposition of Book V [of the
Elements], and by the first part [of that proposition], a / h = b / h = d If,
thus c / k = d /f, by the 11th proposition of Book V. And so c / d = k /f,
by the 16th proposition of Book V.
Now to demonstrate the proposition, let a be any body weighed in two
different liquids that are definitely heavier than air [according to species]
and than which a is specifically heavier. And let a also be weighed in air,
the weight in air being given as b + c where the weight of a in water is
given as b alone. And let the same weight ofa in air be given as d +f where
the weight in oil is given as d alone. It is certain that the ratio of the
[specific] gravity of the water to the [specific] gravity of the oil is given.
For since b + c is given and its part b is given, its part c will be given,
by the fourth proposition of the Data of Euclid. By the same reasoning,
f will be given. Therefore, the ratio of c to 1 will be given, by the first
proposition of the Data. And c is the weight of water equal in volume to
a, by the first proposition of this book. By its corollary,Iis the weight of
oil equal in volume to a. Therefore, by the definition which we have de-
scribed in this proposition, the water and the oil are given in species, that is
to say, the ratio of the gravity of the water to the gravity of the oil will be
given in species. You will demonstrate the same thing for any other liquids
and any body heavier in species than each of the liquids.
4. [=Med. text Prop. 5]11
If the weights in water and in air of any two bodies, such as gold and
silver, are given, the ratios between these bodies in volume and in species
will be given.
FORCADEL.
For let a and b be any two bodies. And let the weight of a in air be given
as c + d and let the weight ofb in air also be given, as e +f. Let the weight
of a in water (or in any other body [i.e. liquid] heavier than air [according
to species] but [specifically] lighter than both bodies a and b) be given as c
alone. In the same liquid let the weight of b be given as e. It is certain,
first, that the ratio of a to b in volume will be given. For since c + d and
e +1are given, and also their parts c and e are given, the ratio ofd to! will
be given, as we have seen in the preceding proposition. That is, the ratio
of the difference between the weight of a in air and its weight in water to
the difference between the weight of b in air and its weight in water will be
given. Now d 11= a I b, by the 2nd proposition of this book. Therefore,
the ratio of a to b in volume is given. It is also certain, in the second place,
that the ratio in species of the gravity of body a to the gravity of body b
will be given. For a / b = (c + d) I k, k being the weight of body g of the
same kind as body a. This can be easily done by means of the weights
when (c + d) I k = a I g, since a and g are of the same kind, by the 4th
postulate. It will follow that a / b = a / g. Therefore, the volumes of g
and b will be equal by the 9th proposition of Book V [of the Elements].
And because the ratio of a to b is given, and a I b = (c + d) I k, hence the
ratio of (c + d) I k will be given. And weight c + d being given, it will
follow that k, which is the weight of g, will also be given, by the 2nd
proposition of the Data [of Euclid]. And also the ratio of k to the given
weight e +f will be given, by the first proposition of the Data. And the
11 As I have noted above, medieval text Proposition 4 appeared as Franciscus' (and
thus Forcadel's) seventh proposition.
weights k and e + f are the weights of the equal volumes g and b, which
are of the same kinds as a and b. Therefore, the ratio of a to b in species
will be given, by the definition inserted in the preceding proposition.
5. [=Med. text Prop. 6]
To find the ratio in volume and the ratio in weight according to species,
of a submergible body, such as iron, to a nonsubmergible body, such
as wax.
FORCADEL.
A body is called submergible which by its own power, without any
other assistance, descends in water or another liquid or medium. Contrari-
wise, a body is non-submergible which never descends through this
medium by its own force, i.e. without anything else being added to it,
so that iron by its natural force descends in water but wood never descends
in it. However, if you tied wood to iron, the force ofthe iron can be so great
that both will be submerged in the water. You can also tie such a small
amount of iron to a certain amount of wood that both will float upon the
water, as one can immediately see if he ties a certain measure of wood to
the anchor of a ship. Now in the first place it is manifest that the sub-
mergible body descends more suddenly if it is put into the water all by itself
than if something non-submergible has been added to it. For when the
submergible body sinks by itself, only the liquid through which it descends
resists. Contrariwise, when some non-submergible body is added to it, the
nature of the non-submergible body combines with the resistance of the
resisting liquid. For the non-submergible body does not add any force
[for descent] to the submergible body to which it is joined but rather it is
drawn [downward] by the submergible body against its nature. Therefore,
it is necessary that, since the force [for descent] remains the same and the
resistance is increased, both bodies [tied] together sink more slowly than
if the submergible body sinks by itself. Secondly it follows that, when a
non-submergible body is added to a submergible body, all the weight in this
liquid in which the non-submergible body cannot descend is less than the
weight of the submergible body in this liquid. For let the weight in air of
submergible body a be b + c + d and its weight in water only b + c, and
let the non-submergible body be h, whose weight in air we let be e. It will
follow, then, that the weight of the whole a + h in air will be b + c + d
+ e, and it will result that the weight of a + h in water will be less than
weight b + c. For, since d is the difference between the weight of a in air
and its weight in water, d is the weight of water equal to a in volume, by
the first proposition of this book, which water we let bef. And because
e is the weight in air of the non-submergible body h, which is specifically
lighter than the liquid in which it is not submergible, it will follow that the
weight e will be less than the weight of water equal in volume to h, which
water we let be g, and its weight we let be e + b. Now, since waterf is
equal to a in volume, and g is equal to h, water f + g will equal a + h
in volume, by the second axiom [of Book I of the Elements]. Therefore,
the weight off + g will be the difference between the weight of a + h in
air and its weight in water, by the first proposition of this book. And the
weight off + g is e + d + b. From this it will follow that the rest of the weight
of a + h in water is c alone, which is certainly smaller than the weight
b + c, which is the weight in water of a all by itself. It is necessary, then,
to observe that we here call a body non-submergible which is lighter than
the liquid in respect to which it is called non-submergible. For, when it is
equally heavy in species, there will be no difficulty in proving this proposi-
tion, as we shall declare later.
Further, one must add to this proposition the following condition: if in
fact the weights in air and water of the two bodies together are given,
similarly the weights of the submergible body in air and in water are also
given. Now the proposition will be proved. Let there be submergible body
a whose weight in air is c + d + e and its weight in water only c + d, and
both weights are given. And let b be a non-submergible body whose weight
in air is given as f; and so the weight in air of the whole a + b will be
given, by the 3rd proposition of the Data, which weight will be c + d + e
+f. Similarly, let the weight in water of a + b also be given, which
weight will be less than weight c + d, as we shall demonstrate in our
second part, and let that weight be d. Thus weight c + e +f will be
given, by the 4th proposition of the Data. Now the weight c + e +f is the
difference between the weight of a + b in air and its weight in water. It
will follow, then, that c + e +f will be the weight of water equal in
volume to a + b, by the first proposition of this book. Let this volume of
water be g + h, divided into water g equal to a and water h equal to b.
And since c + d is the weight ofa in water, e will be the weight of water g ,
by the first proposition of this book. And the whole c + e +f is the weight
of water g + h. Therefore, c +f is the weight of water h equal in volume
to b. It is certain that the ratio of a to b in volume will be given. For, since
c + e +f is given, and also d, similarly c + d + e +f [is given]. There-
fore, since f is given, c + e is given, by the said 4th proposition of the
Data. Accordingly, e will be given, since c + d + e and c + d are given
and also c +f will be given, since e and c +f + e are given. If, then, e
and c +f are given, the ratio of e to c + fwill be given, by the first propo-
sition of the Data. And e / (c + f) = g / h, by the fourth postulate of this
book; for g and h are of the same kind and consequently of the same
[specific] gravity, and their weights are e and c +f. Therefore, the ratio
ofg to h will be given. But a / b = g / h, by the 7th and 11th propositions of
Book V [of the Elements], as we have seen. For a and b are equal [respec-
tively] to g and h. Therefore, the ratio of a to b will be given in volume or
according to volume. Certainly also, the ratio of a to b will be given in
species. For, the ratio of weight c + d + e to weight k is made to be as
a to b, k being the weight of body l of the same kind as a. Therefore,
since a and l are of the same kind and consequently of the same [specific]
gravity, (c + d + e) / k = a / I, by the said 4th postulate. And, if a / b
= (c + d + e) / k and (c + d + e) / k = a /l, then a / b = a /l, by the 11th
proposition of Book V. Consequently b and I will be equal to one another,
by the 9th proposition of Book V. Again, since (c + d + e) / k = a / b,
and the ratio of a to b is given by the first part of the proposition, it will
follow that the ratio of (c + d + e) to k will be given, by the second
definition of the Data. And since c + d + e is given, it is certain k will
also be given, by the 2nd proposition of the Data. And sincef is given,
the ratio of k to f will be given, by the first proposition of the Data,
which ratio k tof is the same as the ratio of the weights of I and b equal
[in volume] and of the same kinds [respectively] as bodies a and b. There-
fore, the ratio of a to b in species will be given. From the last part of this
demonstration, it follows that, if the ratio of two magnitudes is given in
volume and the weight of both ofthem together is also given, the ratio ofthe
gravity of the one to the other will be given in species.
[Lemma 1]12
In order to continue further, let us first grasp that if there are two bodies
unequal [in volume] but ofthe same kind and two other bodies respectively
equal [in volume] to the first bodies but of another kind, there will be the
same ratio between the weights of the different kinds, taken in the same
order. Leta andc be two unequal bodies ofthe same kind, and letb andd be
two bodies of another kind that are respectively equal to a and c [in
volume], that is, b = a and d = c. It is certain thatthe ratio of the weight of
a to the weight of b will be as that of the weight of c to the weight of d.
For let the weight ofa beg , the weight ofc be h, the weight of b bef and the
weight of d be k. Since a and c are of the same kind and consequently of
the same [specific] gravity, a / c = g / h, by the fourth postulate. Hence,
for the same reason, b / d = f / k. But since g / h =a / c, and a / c =a / d, by
the second part of the 7th proposition of Book V [of the Elements], a / d
being equal to b / d, by the first part of this proposition, and b / d =f / k,
[hence] g / h = f / k, by the 11th proposition of Book V, and g /f = h / k, by
the 16th proposition of Book V.
[Lemma 2]
In the second place, let us grasp that, if equal things are taken away from
unequal things, the remainders will be unequal by the same amount. For
let ac be greater than de by the excess be. And if from ac is subtracted
af equal to dg, which dg is subtracted from de, it is certain that fc will
exceed ge by the excess be. For, since be is the excess of ac over de, it is
certain that ab is equal to de . It will remain, then, thatjb = ge, by the third
12 This and the succeedinglemma were added by Franciscus for use in the next proposition
and were of course translated by Forcadel.
axiom [of Book I of the Elements], since af = dg. And consequently fe
will exceed ge by the [same] excess be by which ae exceeds or has ex-
ceeded de.
6. [=Med. text Prop. 8]13
If there are three bodies equal [in volume]14 of which two are simples
of diverse kinds and the third is a mixture of the two simples, and one of the
simples is [specifically] heavier than the other, the ratio of [1] the part of
the mixture which is of the same kind as the heavier [simple] to [2] the part
which is of the same kind as the lighter [simple] will be as [the ratio] of
[3] the difference between the weight of the mixture and the weight of the
lighter [simple] to [4] the difference between the weight of the heavier
[simple] and the weight ofthe mixture. Or in another way, ifthere are three
bodies equal [in volume] of which two are simples of diverse kinds and
unequal weights and the third body is a mixture of both simples, the ratio
of the part ofthe mixture which is of the same kind as the heavier [simple]
to the part which is of the same kind as the lighter [simple] is as the ratio
of the difference between the weight of the mixture and the weight of the
lighter [simple] to the difference between the weight of the heavier [simple]
and the weight of the mixed body.
FORCADEL.
Let body b + e be a mixture of two simples (e.g., one could think of it
as being of gold and silver); let its partb be of the same kind as the [specifi-
cally] heavier [simple] and its part e of the same kind as the [specifically]
lighter [simple]. And let body a be of the same kind as b and equal [in
volume] to body b + e, and let body d be of the same kind as e and equal
[in volume] to the same body b + e. Since a is of the same kind as the
heavier substance while part e is of the same kind as the lighter substance
and since a is equal to b + e [in volume], it is certain that the weight of a
will be heavier than the weight of b + e. Now let the difference between
the weight ofa and that of b + e be h. By the same reasoning the weight of
body b + e will be heavier than the weight of body d. Thus, if we let the
excess of the weight of b + e over the weight of body d be k, it is certain
that volume b / volume e = weightk / weighth. For let body b + e be equal
to a [in volume] and of the same kind, and also let body e + f be equal to
d [in volume] and of the same kind. Then a will be of the same weight as
e + b, and also the weight of e + f will be the same as that of body d.
Hence, h = weight of e + b - weight of b + e, and k = weight of
b + e - weight of e +f. And since volume of e + b = volume of b + e,
13 As I have noted above, Proposition 7 of the medieval text, which concerns a mathe-
matical operation alone, was quite properly omitted by Franciscus (and thus by Forcadel).
14 The phrase in magnitudine appears in only one copy of the medieval Latin text,
that of Paris, BN lat. 7377B. It was not included by Franciscus and Forcadel.
if we subtract the common part b, volume of e = volume of c, by the third
axiom [of Book I of the Elements]. By the same reasoning, volume of
f = volume of b. Again, since the weight of e + b is greater than the
weight of b + c, if we subtract the weight of magnitude b which is common
to them, it will follow that the difference [in weight] h will be the excess
of the weight of e over the weight of c, as we just assumed in the second
[lemma]. And accordingly, the weight ofc + weighth will equalthe weight
of body e. By the same reasoning, k will be the excess of the weight of
magnitude b over the weight off, and accordingly the weight off + weight
k will equal the weight of magnitude b. And since e and b are of the same
kind and c and!, which are respectively equal to them [in volume], are of
another kind, from the fact that volume c = volume e and volume f
= volume b, the ratio of the weight of e to the weight of c (which bodies
are equal in volume) is as the ratio of the weight of b to the weight off, as
we just demonstrated in the first [lemma]. Therefore, since the weight
of c + weight h = the weight of e, and the weight off + weight k = the
weight ofb, (weighth + weight of c) / weight ofc = (weightk + weight of
f) / weight off, by the 7th, 11th and 22nd propositions of Book V [of
the Elements ]. Subtracting ratios, weighth / weight ofc = weightk / weight
off, by the 17th proposition of Book V; Le., weight k / weight of! = weight
h / weight of c, and weight k / weight h = weight off / weight of c, by the
16th proposition of Book V; and weight of! / weight of c = volume of
f / volume of c, by the fourth postulate of this book, forf and c are of the
same kind and consequently of the same [specific] gravity. Thus weight
k / weight h = volume of bodyf / volume of body c. And since volume of
body f = volume of body b, volume off / volume of c = volume of b /
volume ofc , by the 7th proposition of Book V. Therefore, weight k / weight
h = volume of b / volume of c, by the 11th proposition of Book V, and b
is the [volumetric] part of the [specifically] heavier simple in the mixture
and c is the [volumetric] part of the [specifically] lighter simple in the
mixture, k is the difference between the weight of the mixture and the
weight [of an equal volume] of the lighter simple and h the difference be-
tween the weight of [the same volume] of the heavier simple and the weight
of the mixture.
[Corollary 1]
Let us add, or further grasp, that, if a mixture is given in volume, the
simples [composing it] which are equal to it in volume will be given. Let
the volume of mixture a + b be given. Then we take any volume we wish of
the substance of the same kind as the simple a, and we let it be given as c.
So the ratio c to a + b will be given by the first proposition of the Data
[of Euclid]. Now as c is to a + b [in volume] so there would be an equal
ratio ofc to some volume d where d is of the same kind as a. Hence, volume
d would be equal to the volume of a + b, by the second part of the 9th
proposition of Book V. By a similar method of proceeding, one takes a
FORCADEL'S LE LIVRE D' ARCHIMEDE 1137
simple equal in volume to a + b that is of the other kind of simple substance
[in the mixture].
[Corollary 2]
If, also, the weights in air and in water of a mixture are given, the simples
which are equal to it in volume will be given. Let the weights in air and
water of mixture a + b be given. And let there be taken a body c of any
volume one wishes and of the same kind as one of the simples [composing
the mixture], e.g. of the same kind as a, and let the weights in air and
water of body c be given, whatever its volume may be. And since the
weights in air and water of a + band c are given, their differences will be
given, by the 4thproposition of the Data ; and the ratios ofthese differences
will be given by the first proposition of the Data. And so the ratio of c to
a + b [in volume] will be given, by the second proposition of this book,
which holds that this ratio is according to or is as the said differences of
the weights. Now let the weight of c be h. Then, volume c / volume a + b
= weight h / weight d, where d is the weight of a volume g of a substance of
the same kind as c. And, h / d = volume c / volume g, by the fourth postu-
late. Then, volume c / volume a + b = volume c / volume g, by the 11th
proposition of Book V. And [so] volume g = volume a + b, by the
second part of the 9th proposition of Book V. The same proof will apply to
the other simple, Le., by the same manner of demonstration one will find a
volume equal to that of a + b and of the same kind as the other simple.
And from this it is manifest that, if the weight of a mixture is given, the
weight of the simple equal to it in volume will be given. For, as we have
seen in the demonstration, volume c / volume a + b = weight h / weight d,
and because h is given weight d will also be given, by the second proposi-
tion of the Data, and d is the weight of the simple g equal to a + b in
volume.
7. [=Med. text Prop. 4]
In a body mixed of two [kinds], to determine how much there is of each
one [in it].
FORCADEL.
We ought to understand [in connection with this proposition] that either
the weight and volume of the mixed body are given or just the weight
alone. For if the whole mixture is given in volume and weight, the simples
composing it will [each] be given in volume. But if just the weight [of the
mixture] is given, then only their ratio according to volume will be given
[and not each of their individual volumes]. Hence let a + b be a mixture of
two [kinds] whose weight is given as f, and let a be of the kind of the
[specifically] heavier [substance] and b of the kind of the [specifically]
lighter [substance], and let c be of the same kind as the heavier [com-
ponent] a but equal [in volume] to a + b, by that which we have just
demonstrated. In the same way, let d be of the same kind as the lighter
[component] b but also equal [in volume] to a + b. It is certain that the
weights of c and d will be given by the preceding corollary. Let these
[weights] be e andg. Now since we let the difference between the weight of
c and the weight of a + b. i.e., the difference between e andf, be h, and we
let the difference between the weight ofa + b and the weight ofd, i.e., the
difference betweenfand g , be kit is certain that the differences k and h will
be given. by the 4th proposition of the Data. And the ratio of k to h will be
given by the first proposition of the Data. And since k / h = volume a /
volume b, by the preceding proposition. it is certain that the ratiobetween
the simple components a and b. of which the mixture is composed, will
be given. Consequently, the ratio [in volume] of a + b to each of the
simples a and b will be given, by the 6th proposition of the Data. Hence,
if the volume of a + b is given, [the individual volumes of] a and b will
be given, by the second proposition of the Data. But if the volume of
a + b is not given at least the ratio of the [volume of the] whole mixture to
each part will be given.
Since it seems that whoever has produced this book wished to solve the
beautiful problem proposed or recounted by Vitruvius in the third chapter
of the 9th book [of the Architecture], let us suppose that the weight
of the crown delivered by the goldsmith was 100 ounces, which we assume
to be a + b, taking a for the part of gold and b for the part of silver. Then
a + b is plunged into water (as one ought to do) and it makes 24 ounces of
water flow out, to which water we assign the letter c. Then we take body d
of pure gold having the same weight as a + b, and plunging it into water,
it forces 20 ounces of water, e, to leave. Further, letfbe thought of as a body
of pure gold equal in volume to a + b. Hence, since weight e / weight c
= volume of d / volume of a + b, by the second [and first] proposition
of this book, and volume of d / volume of a + b = volume of d / volume
off. by the 7th proposition of Book V [of the Elements], and volume of
d / volume off = weight of d / weight off by the 4th postulate, [hence]
weight e / weight c = volume of d / volume off; that is, weight e / weight c
= weight of d / weight off. by the 11th proposition of Book V. And if 20.
24, 100 and the weight off are proportionals. it is certain 20 the weight
off = 24100 (i.e. = 100'24). by the 19th proposition of Book VII [of the
Elements]; and 2 the weight of f = 10 24, or 1 the weight off = 524
= 120, by the 17th proposition of Book VII. Consequently, when the
weight ofa + b will be 100 ounces, the weight off, which is pure gold equal
in volume to a + b, will be 120 ounces. Similarly, if body g of pure silver
weighing 100 ounces is plunged into water, it makes 36 ounces of water,
h. leave. And if k is of pure silver but equal [in volume] to a + b. the
weight of k will be ~ ounces. We have now the weights of three bodies
equal [in volume, Le.] f, a + band k. which are 120, 100 and ~
The difference between the largest and the middle term is 20, and that
between the middle and the smallest term is ~ It will follow, then, that
volume of a / volume of b = ~ / 20, by the 6th proposition of this book.
And the ratio of the volume of a + b to the volume of b, Le. k to b in
volume, will be as 53Y3 to 20, by the 18th proposition of Book V. And
when 5 ~ gives 20, it is certain that 6 6 ~ will give 25. Hence, that which we
have sought is as good as done. For one knows well that the ratio of
volume k to volume b will be as 6 6 ~ to the weight of b by the 4th postulate
of this book, and the ratio of volume b to volume a will be as 20 to 33V3,
by the 4th proposition of Book V. Further, 53V3 / 33V3 = volume of a + b /
volume of a = 120/ the weight of a, by everything which one ought to say;
and when 53Y3 gives 33V3, it is certain that 120 will give 75. There will,
then, be 75 ounces of gold and 25 ounces of silver.
8. [Not in Med. text]
Ifthere are three bodies that are equally heavy, two of which are simples
of different kinds and the third is composed of the two simple kinds, and
one of the simples is [specifically] heavier than the other, the ratio of the
weight of the heavier component to the weight of the lighter component
is as [the ratio] of the difference between the [weight of] water expelled
by the body made of the lighter substance and the [weight of] water ex-
pelled by the compound to the difference between the [weight of] water
expelled by the compound and the [weight of] water expelled by the
body made of the heavier substance.
FORCADEL.
Let there be three equally heavy bodies: a, b + c and d, of which a and d
are simples of different kinds and a is [specifically] heavier than d. Then let
body b + c be composed of some part of substance a, which we let be b,
and a part of substance d, which we let be c. When a will be put into water, it
makes water e leave; when body b + c will be plunged into water, it makes
waterfleave; and when body d will also be put into a vase full of water, it
makes water g leave. It is certain that water g will be greater than waterf
and waterf greater than water e, just as body d is larger than b + c and
b + c is larger than a. Now if h = weight of water g - weight of water f,
and k = weight of water f - weight of water e, it is certain that weight
h / weight k = weight of part b / weight of part c. For let I be the weight of
part b, and m the weight of part c. And let there be added to part b a part n
of the same kind [as a] but weighing as much as weight m. It is certain that
the weight of n + weight I = weight m + weight I, by the second axiom
[of Book I of the Elements]; Le., weight of n + weight I = weight of a,
by the first axiom [of Book I of the Elements]. Consequently, the volume
of body b + n = the volume of body a, by the fourth postulate. And
when body b + n is plunged into water, water e will leave. And since
b + c made waterf leave, andf - e = k, it is certain that the difference
t
i
I
'"
i:
L.-.....
between the water which body b + c will make leave and the water which
body b + n will make leave will be water k. And subtracting from both
the water which part b would expel, it is certain that the difference be-
tween the water which part c will expel and the water which part n
will expel will be water k. Further, let there be added to part c a part
o of the same kind as d but whose weight is equal to l. It will follow
also that the weight of 0 + weight m = weight I + weight m, by the second
axiom [of Book I of the Elements], i.e., weight of 0 + weight m = weight
of d, by the first axiom [of Book I of the Elements]. And body c + 0
= body d [in volume], by a similar argument. Just as body d expelled
water g, so body c + 0 will expel the same quantity of water, namely g.
And the difference between the waters which c + 0 and b + c will expel
will be water h, and the difference between that which part 0 will expel
and that which part b will expel will be the same water h. Now water
of 0 / water of c = volume of body 0 / volume of body c, by the second
proposition of this book. And volume of body 0 / volume of body
c = weight of body 0 / weight of body c = weight of body 0 / weight
m, by the fourth postulate of this book. And so weight of 0 / weight
m = weight l / weight of n, by the 7th proposition of Book V, etc. And
weight l / weight of n = weight of body b / weight of body n, by the said
fourth postulate. And volume of body b / volume of body n = water of
body b / water of body n, by the second proposition of this book. And
consequently, water of 0 / water of c = water of b / water of n, by the
11th proposition of Book V. And water of 0 / water of b = water of
c / water of n, by the 16th proposition of Book V. Then next, water
h / water of b = water k / water of n, by the 17th proposition of Book
V. And water h / water k = water of b / water of n, by the 16th proposi-
tion of Book V. And water of b / water of n = volume of b / volume
of n, by the second proposition of this book; and volume b / volume
n = weight l / weight of n, by the fourth postulate already stated; and
weight l / weight of n = weight l / weight m, by the second part of the
7th proposition of Book V. Hence, the ratio of h to k is as that of weight
I to weight m, by the 11th proposition of Book V. If then b + c is taken
for the crown weight of 100 ounces, a will also weigh 100 ounces and
similarly d will weigh 100 ounces. And if g, f and e are 36, 24 and 20,
the said differences [Le. hand k] will be 12 and 4, and [so] the ratio
of 12 to 4 will be the ratio of the weight of the gold to the weight of
the silver contained in b + c. Thus 16/4 = 100 ounces / weight of silver
= 100 ounces / 25 ounces. And similarly 16/ 12 ounces = 100 /75 ounces
of gold. Hence, there will be 75 ounces of gold and 25 ounces of silver.
May God give me the grace to be able with diligence to benefit those
who learn and to satisfy those who are studious in the mathematical
sciences with many beautiful demonstrations, as I hope to have done in
this book.
A Piece of the Book of Euclid entitled
On the Light and the Heavy15
Translated and Commented on by Pierre Forcadel of Beziers
DEFINITIONS.
1.
Bodies are of equal volume which fill equal places.
FORCADEL.
Bodies are equal [in volume] when the contents of the places they
occupy are equal, or when, put into a liquid, as ought to be done, one
expels the same amount of this liquid as the other.
2.
Bodies are of unequal volume when they fill unequal places.
FORCADEL.
They will be of different sizes or unequal in volume if the contents of
the places they occupy are unequal and also if they expel the liquid
unequally.
3.
Bodies are said to be larger in magnitude [i.e. volume] which occupy
greater space. 16
FORCADEL.
Those bodies the contents of whose places are greater, or which
expel more liquid, are said to be greater in volume.
15 The Latin title is De ponderoso et levi. Thus Forcadel in his translation has reversed
the terms ponderoso and levi.
16 Forcadel has changed the sense conveyed by the medieval text, which reads (Moody
and Clagett, The Medieval Science ofWeights , p. 26): "Et que dicuntur grandia in corporibus
dicuntur ampla in locis." The medieval text merely tells us that we use ampla for "places"
where we would use grandia for "bodies." Forcadel assumes that this definition ought
tO,be a supplement to the preceding one., by defining "greater than" when we have a case of
unequal bodies. Forcadel's reinterpretation seems sound for two reasons. The term ampla
is not used again in the treatise, and thus the Latin definition is superfluous. Further-
more, Forcadel's Definition 3 supplements Definitions 1 and 2 in the same way that
Definition 6 supplements Definitions 4 and 5. For in each set of definitions we have
"equality," "inequality," and "greater than" defined. The Latin Definition 3 upsets this
parallelism.
4.
Bodies are of equal force whose movements over equal spaces in equal
media [such as] air or water take place in equal time.
FORCADEL.
When two bodies descend in air the same or equal distances in the
same or equal times, then these bodies are said to be of equal force.
5.
Bodies are of diverse force whose movements are [over] equal [spaces]
in different times. 17
FORCADEL.
When two bodies descend in air the same distance in unequal times
they are said to be of diverse force.
6.
In the case of bodies of diverse force, that one is said to be greater in
force whose movement takes place in less time and that one is less in force
whose movement employs more time.
FORCADEL.
The reference here is always to the same distance [traversed] and in the
same medium.
7.
Bodies are of the same kind which, being equal in volume, are also
equal in force.
FORCADEL.
This is rendered clear enough by the case of two equal pieces of pure
gold or pure silver.
8.
Bodies are of different kinds when, although equal in volume, they
are not of equal force, and it is necessary that they move through
one and the same medium.
17 The medieval text is to be preferred here (ibid.): "Et que pretereunt loea equalia
diversis temporibus dicuntur diversa in fortitudine." It is evident that Forcadel has replaced
the precise expression loca equalia with the ambiguous mouvemens . . . egeux (I).
FORCADEL.
On taking two equal volumes, of which one is pure gold and the other
pure silver, and disguising them so they cannot be seen or recognized,
if one puts [each of] them into a vase full of water, he will easily determine
by experiment that these bodies will be of different kinds.
9.
In the case of bodies of different kinds, that one is said to be the
more powerful which is the more solid [i.e. the denser].
FORCADEL.
Pure gold is said to be of greater force than pure silver because it is
more solid [Le. denser] than the silver; i.e. to say, if one took a part of
gold of any volume, it will weigh more than the same volume of silver, or,
as we have seen, a body of pure gold will weigh more than a body of pure
silver of the same volume.
PROPOSITIONS.
1.
In the case of bodies of diverse force, that one which is moved the
greater distance [in the same time] has more force.
18
FORCADEL.
Let a and b be two bodies of diverse force and let the unequal spaces
through which they are moved [in the same time] be cd and ef, cd being
the greater space through which a is moved and ef the lesser space through
which b is moved. It is certain that a has more force than b. For, on
subtracting space ef from space cd [so that ef coincides with] space
cg by the 3rd proposition of Book I [of the Elements], certainly a will
traverse cg in less time than it does cd, by the 9th axiom [of Book I
of the Elements], Le. to say, a will have traversed cg in less time than
b will have traversed ef. Therefore, a will be of greater force than b,
by the 6th definition of this book.
2.
In the case of bodies of the same kind, if one is a multiple of the
other [in size], its force will be an equal multiple of the force of the other.
IB Again the medieval text is somewhat different (ibid.): "Corporum que temporibus
equalibus loca pertranseunt inequalia, quod maiorem pertransit locum, maioris esse
virtutis." Notice that Forcadel has omitted temporibus equalibus and has added the
phrase Des corps de diverse puissance at the beginning.
FORCADEL.
Let body ab be double body c of the same kind. It is certain that ab
will be double c in force. For let ef be the force of ab and let h be the
force of c; and let a be divided at point d into parts [each] equal to c, by
the 3rd proposition of Book I [of the Elements], etc. Then db and da are
[each] equal to c. It is certain that the force of db will be h, by the 7th
definition of this book. By the same definition, h will also be the force
of da. But, on taking the double of h, which we let be k, it is certain that
k will be the force of ab, and consequently ef and k will be equal. There-
fore, just as k would be double h, so ef is double h. Or better, let the
force h be subtracted from ef, taking fg equal to h, and fg will be the
force of db or da, and ge will remain for the force of da or db, which
ge will be equal to gf by the said 7th definition. Therefore, just as
ab = 2 c, so ef = 2 h.
3.
In bodies of the same kind, the volume is proportional to the force.
FORCADEL.
Let a and b be two bodies of the same kind and let the force of body a be
c and that of body b be d. It is certain that a / b = c / d. For, on taking a
for a first magnitude, b for a second, c for a third and d for a fourth,
and on taking any multiple of a, one will also be taking the same multiple
of c, by the preceding proposition. And on taking any multiple of b, one
will also be taking the same multiple of d, by the preceding proposition.
Now let the equal multiples of a and cbe e andf, and those of band d be
g and h. If e is equal to g, certainly f will be equal to h, by the 7th
definition of this book; and if e is greater than g, it is certain thatf will
be greater than h. Similarly, if e is less than g, one will find that f will
be less than h, by the same 7th definition. Therefore, a / b = c / d, by
the 6th definition of Book V [of the Elements].
4.
Bodies which are [each] equal in force to a [third] body of the same
kind [! Le., which are equivalent in kind to a third body] are of the same
kind as each other. 19 For if we take parts of them [each] equal [in volume]
19 The medieval text reads (ibid., p. 28): "Corpora quorum utrumque equipollet uni in
genere sunt eiusdem generis." At first glance Forcadel's translation seems plausible because
the literal meaning of equipoUet is "equal in force," but the succeeding sentence of
explanation shows that the intent of the proposition is rather that if two bodies are each
of the same kind as a third body, they must be of the same kind as each other. I
think Forcadel was misled by the fact that the proof is based on forces, Le., if we take
equal volumes of the three bodies, those volumes will be mutually equal as to force. Then
since "equal kinds" has been defined on the basis of equal forces for equal volumes, the two
initial bodies must be of the same kind. The original author's intention clearly was to have
a proposition for kind or species that resembles Euclid's first axiomfor magnitudes in Book I
of the Elements. Incidentally, this is the only proposition in either work that Forcadel has
not himself commented on.
to the third body, the forces of these [parts] will be equal [to each other]
because they are [each] of equal force with the third.
5.
Bodies in which there is the same ratio of volume and force are of the
same kind. 20
FORCADEL.
If the forces of bodies a and b are c and d, and a / b = c / d, it is certain
that a and b will be of the same kind, which is the converse of the pre-
ceding proposition [i.e., Proposition 3]. For, on taking body e of the same
kind as b but equal to a [in volume] and letting the force of e be f, f / d
= e / b, by the preceding proposition [i.e. Proposition 3]; and e / b = a / b,
by the 7th proposition of Book V [of the Elements], i.e. e / b = c / d.
Therefore, f / d = c / d, by the 11th proposition of Book V; and the
forces c andf of bodies a and b will be equal, by the 9th proposition of
Book V; and bodies a and e will be of the same kind, by the 7th definition
of this book. Now it is certain that a and b are of the same kind. For,
if a, e and b are equal to one another [in volume], the force of a will be
equal to the force of e, by the 7th definition of this book. By this
same definition, the force of b will equal to the force of e. From this
it will follow that the force of a will be equal to the force of b, by the
first axiom [of Book I of the Elements]; and [so] body a will be of the
same kind as b, by the same 7th definition of this book. And if a, e and
b are unequal [in volume], and if we take from a, e and b three parts
that are equal [in volume], the part from a being equal to the part from e
and the part from b [also] being equal to the part from e, it is certain that
the part from a will be of the same kind as the part from b etc; there is
where I shall say "For His great kindness lasts forever. "21
The End.
20 Notice that Forcadel (or more likely the printer) has omitted numbering the fifth proposi-
tion and has instead included both the enunciation and Forcadel's proof under the rubric
"Forcadel. "
21 In the printed text the la in the last phrase is unaccented. The phrase is puzzling even
with the accent added. I believe it simply means that Forcadel, having indicated the
completion of the proof with his "etc.," believes this is an appropriate place to end the tract
with the common refrain of the Psalms "For His great kindness lasts forever." [See, e.g.,
Psalms 118 and 135.]
l
.........
A Commentary on the Archimedis de incidentibus
in humidis cum Francisci de Mello
commentariis and Forcadel's
Translation of it into French
Definitions
We have already seen that Franciscus eliminated Definition 14 of the
medieval text and replaced it by Postulates 3 and 6 from the medieval
text, which were in fact definitions rather than postulates. Franciscus
added no commentary to the medieval definitions. However, Forcadel
added some rather trivial comments that scarcely need explanation. They
merely indicate that Forcadel had a firm grip on the distinction between
absolute and specific weight. I find rather intriguing Forcadel's statement
in the comment to Definition 9, that "in respect to magnitude all bodies
are of the same kind. " This was to be the underlying assumption of modern
mechanics as it replaced medieval Aristotelian mechanics. Forcadel, it is
true, had no such general purpose in mind, for he made the statement in
order to make perfectly clear the distinction between difference in kind
based on diversity of species and difference based simply on magnitude
or volume. The linguistic changes or elaborations of Franciscus' text
and Forcadel's translation have already been noted in the footnotes to
both these texts.
Postulate 1
This represents the medieval interpretation in non-mathematical terms
of Proposition 3 of the genuine On Floating Bodies of Archimedes.
Forcadel adds beyond the text of Franciscus a comment which generalizes
the postulate by indicating that not only air has no weight in air and
water no weight in water but no body with the same specific gravity as
air has weight in air and no body with the same specific gravity as water
has weight in water. It simply means that no body of the same specific
gravity as a fluid when weighed in that fluid would exert any downward
thrust on a balance arm in that fluid. There was considerable argument in
the Middle Ages over the question of whether a body or element has weight
in its natural place (see Clagett, The Science of Mechanics, pp. 140-42,
145).
Postulate 2
One might have expected Franciscus or Forcadel to have noted that the
"every body" here mentioned must be of greater specific gravity than air,
for in their terms a body specifically lighter than (as well as one equally
light as) air would have no weight in air, that is, it would rise or float in
1146
COMMENTARY ON DE MELLO AND FORCADEL 1147
air and thus exert no downward pressure on a balance arm in air. Perhaps
Forcadel was taking a step toward that consideration by remarking in his
comment that, if the body were of the same specific gravity as water
[where by the first postulate it would have no weight], it would obviously
have greater weight in air [assuming that it had any weight in air).
Postulate 3
This postulate merely holds that weights are proportional to the numbers
of standard measures used to measure them, and thus implies the con-
ventional relationship between qualitative gravity and its specifiable
measure.
Postulate 4
This postulate holds that if S.G.
l
= S.G.
2
, then VI / V
2
= W
l
/ W
2

This is obvious since S.G.
l
= W
l
/ V
l
and S.G'
2
= W
2
/ V
2
This explicit
derivation is not stated by Forcadel in his comment, which merely implies
that the postulate holds because it is true in all possible cases, that is
in the cases where the volumes are equal and also in the cases where
they are not equal. This postulate is widely used by Franciscus in
the subsequent proofs and is always referred to as the "postulate added
by us after the third," perhaps because of his removal of the medieval
Postulate 3 to the section containing definitions and his substitution of
medieval Postulate 5 as his third postulate.
Proposition 1
Preliminary considerations and assumptions (lines 61-82). If body a is
specifically lighter than water, the proposition does not apply. If the
specific gravity of a is the same as that of the water, then the proposi-
tion is immediately evident, since it would weigh nothing in water by the
first postulate and an equal volume of water would have the same air
weight. Hence in this case its air weight exceeds its water weight (i.e.
nothing) by the air weight of an equal volume of water, which is what
the proposition holds. Now the following assumptions are to be made for
the cases of bodies specifically heavier than water:
(1) Take a volume of water d equal to the volume of body a.
(2) Let the weight of a in air = b + c (Le., they balance), where b is
the weight of body a in water (i.e., it balances a when a is weighed
in water). [The weight of b must be less than the weight of a in
air by Postulate 2. Thus weight c = weight of a in air minus the
weight of a in water.]
(3) Also let the weight of a in air = h + g, where g is the weight of
volume d of water and h is the rest of the weight of a (and this
is possible to imagine since water is specifically lighter than body
a and equal to it in volume).
Proof (lines 82-97): Now we are to prove that weight c = weight g.
(1) g + h = b + c, by axiom 1 of Bk. I of the Elements, since each
sum is equal to the weight of a in air.
(2) h = b, since g, the weight of water d equal in volume to body a,
by the first postulate would make no contribution to the descent of
a, which descent would consequently be effected entirely by h,
and we noted that b was a's weight in water and thus was also
the measure of the effective force for the descent of a in water.
(3) Hence, g = c, by axiom 3 of Bk. I of the Elements.
I have already remarked above in the introduction to the texts, that
Franciscus added a corollary (lines 98-104) that generalized the proposition
for any body that is specifically heavier than two media of diverse specific
gravity. He noted that it may be proved in the same way that the
proposition was proved.
It should be noticed that in this proof Franciscus has abandoned the
proof in the medieval text that was based on the gradual immersion of a
heavy body with a consequential gradual displacement of the water. Nor
is Franciscus' proof quite like the proof of Archimedes in Proposition 7
of the genuine On Floating Bodies, for instead of taking a specifically
lighter body and joining to it a specifically heavier body (and thus using
Proposition 6 of the genuine text) as Archimedes had done, Francisco
imagines the weight of the body in air to be divided into two different
sets of components. By showing that one of the components of the first
set, namely the body's weight in water, is equal to one of the components
of the second set, namely the effective weight or force for the descent
of the body in water, he concludes that the other component of the
first set, namely the difference between the air and water weights of the
body, is equal to the other component of the second set, namely the air
weight of water equal in volume to the body. Let me finally remark that
some unexplained and hidden assumptions lie behind Franciscus' use of
the second set of components in step 2.
Proposition 2
Assumptions (lines 110-12):
(1) Let there be two bodies a and b.
(2) Let the weight of a in air = c + d, where c is the weight of a in
water.
(3) Let the weight of b in air = e +f, where e is the weight of b in
water.
Proof (lines 112-20):
To prove: vol. a / vol. b = d / f.
(1) d is the weight of a volume of water equal to a in volume, by Prop.
1; similarlyfis the weight of a volume of water equal in volume tob;
and let the volumes of water of weights d and f respectively be
g and h.
(2) vol. a / vol. b = vol. g / vol. h, by the assumed equalities noted
in (1).
(3) vol. g / vol. h = weight d / weight f, by Postulate 4, since the
weights and volumes are all of the same substance, namely
water.
(4) Therefore, vol. a / vol. b = weight d / weight f, by (2) and (3)
together.
The proviso is added (lines 121-22) that the bodies are of the same
kind as in the first proposition. Forcadel spells it out by indicating that
they are not less than but equal to or greater than water in specific gravity.
This proof is the same as the proof in the medieval text, except for changes
in lettering and the citation of appropriate propositions to Book V of the
ELements. Both Franciscus and his predecessor ought perhaps to have said
at the end of the proof that d and f are equivalent to the differences in
air and water weights respectively of a and b, for the enunciation of the
proposition is stated in terms of these differences.
Proposition 3
Preliminary considerations and assumptions (lines 127-48): Franciscus
first adds a definition of a ratio of gravities "given in species." Such
a ratio is so given when, if we take equal volumes of the bodies of differing
species, the ratio of their absolute weights is given. Such a ratio is said
to be "given" (Le. uniquely determined) because if we take any two sets of
a pair of bodies that are equal in volume but differing in species and
where the species of the members of one set are respectively the same
as the species of the corresponding members of the other set, the ratio
of the absolute weights of the bodies of each set is always the same. This
care to define "given in species" gives Franciscus' account a kind of tone
found in the Data of Euclid, where expressions like' 'given in magnitude"
and "given in position" are defined and constantly used. Hence it is not
surprising to find Franciscus citing the Data in the course of his proof.
Franciscus follows the explanation of the definition with assumptions
necessary for the proof:
(1) Let the weight of a in air = b + c, where b is the weight of a in
water.
(2) Let the weight of a in air = d + f, where d is the weight of a in oil.
Proof (lines 148-56): To prove that the ratio of the specific gravity
of water to the specific gravity of oil is given.
(1) C is given because (b + c) and b are individually given; similarly
f is given because (d + f) and d are individually given.
(2) Therefore, C / f is given, by the Data, Prop. 1.
L
(3) But, since c andf are the weights of the same volume of the two
liquids, their ratio is the ratio of the specific gravities of the liquids,
and thus that ratio is given.
The proof is essentially the same as in the medieval text, although the
latter does not have the definition of "given in species" or the reference
to the Data. Franciscus adds a further remark (lines 156-58) that the same
thing can be proved for any other [two] liquids in which a body that is
heavier than each liquid is plunged.
Proposition 4
Assumptions (lines 163-67):
(1) Let a and b be two bodies.
(2) Let the weight of a in air = c + d, where c is the weight of a in
water.
(3) Let the weight of b in air = e +f, where e is the weight of b in
water.
Proof (lines 167-86): To prove first: vol. a / vol. b is given.
(1) d /fis given, by Prop. 3, since (c + d) and (e + f) and their parts
c and e are given.
(2) But d and f are respectively equal to the differences in air and
water weights of a and b.
(3) Hence, by Prop. 2, vol. a / vol. b = d / f.
(4) Therefore, vol. a / vol. b is given, by (3) and (1).
To prove also: spec. grav. a / spec. grav. b is given.
(1) vol. a / vol. b = weight (c + d) / weight k, where k is the weight of
some body g of the same kind as a. (This weight can be found
by the use of Postulate 4.)
(2) And thus (c + d) / k = vol. a / vol. g.
(3) Hence, vol. a / vol. b = vol. a / vol. g.
(4) So, vol. b = vol. g.
(5) (c + d) / k is given because vol. a / vol. b is given.
(6) But (c + d) is given; hence k is given.
(7) Hence, since (e + f) is also given, k / (e +f) is given.
(8) Therefore, spec. grav. a / spec. grav. b is given, sincek and (e + f)
are the weights of equal volumes g and b (which are respectively
of the same kinds as a and b).
The proof is essentially the same as the proof of Proposition 5 of the
medieval text.
Proposition 5
Preliminary considerations and conclusions (lines 190-229): Fran-
ciscus' initial remarks about Proposition 4 of the medieval text and its
removal to the end of the tract have been discussed in the introduction
to the texts above, and I shall say no more about them now. After these
initial remarks, Franciscus then introduces Proposition 5 (=Proposition 6
of the medieval text) with a brief definition and explanation of sub-
mergible and non-submergible bodies and how it is possible to join one
of each together so that the total sinks or does not sink. He then
presents two conclusions: 1. the submergible body descends more quickly
in water when put into the water by itself than when it is joined with a
nonsubmergible body [in such a way that the total sinks]. When alone, it
is resisted only by the medium but when joined it is resisted by a combina-
tion of the resistance of the medium and the nature of the non-submergible
body which makes it tend to ascend in the liquid. The dynamics implied in
this discussion of the descent of these bodies can be embraced by a simple
formula: V a:: (D - R - L), where V is the velocity of descent in the
liquid, D is the force of descent of the submergible body alone, R is the
resistance of the medium to the submergible body and L is the relative
lightness or force of ascent of the non-submergible body. Incidentally,
Forcadel, in translating the first conclusion, renders Franciscus' expres-
sion velocius ("more quickly") by soubdainemement (! soudainement,
"suddenly"), thus leaving the conclusion somewhat ambiguous. Later, at
the end of the discussion of this conclusion, he restores Franciscus' in-
tention by usingplus tardement for Franciscus' tardius where Franciscus
has compared the descent of the joint body with the descent of the sub-
mergible body alone. The dynamics implied in this discussion could well
have been stimulated by Franciscus' reading of the dynamic fragment
added to copy b (Paris, BN lat. 7377B) of De ponderibus Archimenidis
(see above, Part I, Chapter 7, note 12), or one of the medieval accounts
derived therefrom. At any rate, it puts Franciscus among those who, in
some fashion, joined hydrostatics and dynamics, a line of development
that culminated in Benedetti (see above, Part Ill, Chapter 4, Section 11).
2. The second of Franciscus' preliminary conclusions is that the body,
which is composed of submergible and non-submergible bodies in such a
way that it descends, weighs less in the liquid in which it descends than
does the submergible body alone in the same liquid. For the proof of
this conclusion two assumptions are made:
(1) Let the weight of submergible body a in air = b + c + d and its
weight in water = b + c.
(2) Let the weight of submergible body h in air = e.
Then follows the proof of the preliminary conclusion:
(1) The weight of (a + h) in air = (b + c + d + e), from the assump-
tions.
(2) Weight d is the difference between the air and water weights of a ;
and, by Prop. 1, it is also the weight of water equal to a in volume.
Let that water be f.
(3) And because e is the weight of h in air, and h is specifically
lighter than the water, hence weight e is less than the weight of a
quantity of water equal in volume to h, which water we let be g.
And we let weight of g = e + b.
(4) Since vol. f = vol. a and vol. g = vol. h, vol. if + g) = vot
(a + h).
(5) Weight of if + g) = (e + d + b), from (2) and (3).
(6) Hence the weight of (a + h) in water is equal to c alone, by (3),
(4), (5), and Prop. 1.
(7) Therefore, c is less than (b + c), and the conclusion follows
since c is the water weight of the joint body and (b + c) is the
water weight of the submergible body alone.
Franciscus now considers Proposition 5 itself.
Conditions and Assumptions (lines 243-58):
(1) Let the submergible body be a and let the weight of a in air
= (c + d + e) and let the weight of a in water = (c + d), and
both these total weights are given.
(2) Let the non-submergible body be b and let the weight of b in air
=f, and let it be given.
(3) Thus the weight of (a + b) in air = (c + d + e +f), and it is
given by Data, Prop. 3.
(4) Hence, by the second preliminary conclusion, the weight of
(a + b) in water is less than (c + d), and let it be d, which is given.
(5) Then (c + e +f) is given by Data, Prop. 4; it is the difference be-
tween the air and water weights of (a + b).
(6) Hence, (c + e + f) is the weight of water equal in volume to
(a + b), by Prop. 1.
(7) Let the volume of water equal to volume (a + b) be (g + h),
so divided that vol. g = vot. a and vol. h = vol. b.
(8) Hence, e is the weight of water g, by (1) and Prop. 1.
(9) And, since (c + e +f) is the weight of water (g + h), by steps
(6) and (7), and since e is the weight of water g, by step (8), hence
(c +f) is the weight of water h equal in volume to b.
Proof. To prove first (lines 258-67): vot. a / vol. b will be given.
(1) (c + e + f) is given and d is given.
(2) Hence (c + d + e +f) is given.
(3) Sincef is given, hence c + e is given, by the Data, Prop. 4.
(4) Weight e is given since (c + d + e) and (c + d) are given.
(5) Also, (c +f) will be given since e and (c +f + e) are given.
(6) Since e and (c + f) are given, therefore e / (c + f) is given, by the
Data, Prop. 1.
(7) But e / (c + f) = vol. g / vot. h, by Postulate 4, since g and h
are of the same kind (Le. of the same specific gravity) and
their weights are e and (c +f).
(8) Now, vot. a / vol. b = vot. g / vol. h, by condition (7).
(9) Therefore, vol. a / vot. b will be given, by steps (6)-(8).
To prove secondly (lines 268-79): spec. grav. a / spec. grav. b is given.
(1) Let weight (c + d + e) / weight k = vo!. a / vo!. b, k being the
weight of a body I of the same kind as a.
(2) Hence, (c + d + e) / k = vo!. a / vo!. I, by Postulate 4.
(3) Thus vo!' a / vo!. b = vo!. a / vo!. I, and hence vo!' b = vol. I.
(4) Ratio (c + d + e) / k is given, since vo!' a / vo!. b is given by the
first part of the proof.
(5) Since (c + d) is given, hence k is given.
(6) Since! is given by condition (2), the ratio k /! is given.
(7) But k and! are the weights of equal volumes I and b, and 1is of
the same kind as a; therefore, k and! are the weights of
equal volumes of a and b and thus the ratio k / ! is the ratio
spec. grav. a / spec. grav. b, and so the latter is given.
After the proof of this second part of the proposition, Franciscus re-
marks that from this proof it follows that if the ratio of two' 'magnitudes"
(i.e. bodies) is given in volume and the weight of them together is given,
then the ratio of their specific gravities will be given.
As I have already noted in the introduction to the texts, Franciscus
had noted before the proof (see lines 231- 39) that the proof in the medieval
text is fallacious on two grounds. First, it assumes that a non-submergible
body has weight in the liquid in which it does not submerge. Referring
to the proof as given below in Appendix I, Sect. 4, lines 130-31, I would
suppose that Franciscus is objecting to the expression" et! pondus in aqua
corporis E" since E is the non-submergible body in the medieval
proof. Franciscus makes a further charge against the medieval proof,
namely that therein the composite body weighs more in the liquid than
does the submergible body alone, contrary to what he, Franciscus, has
proved in the second of the preliminary conclusions. This charge no doubt
is a reference to the fact that the medieval author indicates that the weight
of the submergible body in water is C (ibid., lines 125- 26), that the weight
of the composite body in water is H + I (line 128), and that H = C
(line 129). One might save the medieval author in respect to both criticisms
by conceiving of I as a negative quantity.
Lemmas
The nature of the two lemmas added by Franciscus as necessary for
his proof of the next proposition has been noted briefly in my introduc-
tion to the texts.
Lemma 1 (lines 283-97) 'concerns four bodies: a, b, c, d. It asserts
that: if (1) spec. grav. a = spec. grav. c and spec. grav. b = spec. grav.
d, and if (2) vol. a = vol. band vo!' c = vol. d, then (3) weight a / weight
b = weight c / weight d. This is obvious because assumption (1) implies
that (4) weight a / vol. a = weight c / vo!. c and (5) weight b / vol. b
= weight d I vol. d. Hence, if we divide equation (4) by equation (5) and
eliminate the equal volumes, then weight a / weight b = weight c / weight
d. Franciscus' verbal proof is longer but is equivalent to this procedure.
Lemma 2 (lines 298-306) asserts that if equals are subtracted from
unequals, the remainders are unequal by the same amount [as the initial
unequals]. It demands no further explanation here.
Proposition 6
Conditions and assumptions (lines 314-21):
(1) Let (b + c) be a body composed of two simples band c; and let
a be of the same substance as part b, and d of the same substance
as part c.
(2) Further, let vol. a = vol. (b + c) and also let vol. d = vol. (b + c).
(3) Since a is composed entirely of the heavier component, hence the
weight of a is greater than the weight of (b + c); and so let h
= weight of a - weight of (b + c).
(4) In the same way, since d is composed of the lighter component,
the weight of (b + c) is greater than the weight of d; and so
let k = weight of (b + c) - weight of d.
Proof (lines 321-51): To prove, vol. b / vol. c = weight k / weight h.
(1) Let vol. a = vol. (b + e), with (b + e) being of the same kind as
a; and let vol. d = vol. (c + f), with (c + f) being of the same kind
as d.
(2) Thus the weight of a = weight of (e + b), and the weight of d
= weight of (c +f).
(3) Hence, h = weight of (e + b) - weight of (b + c), by step (2) and
cond. (3); and k = weight of (b + c) - weight of (c +f), by the
same reasons.
(4) vol. e = vol. c, by step (1), cond. (2), and subtracting the common
part b.
(5) Similarly, vol. f = vol. b, by the same reasons.
(6) Since the weight of (e + b) - weight of (b + c) = h, hence weight
h = weight of e - weight of c, by step (3) and subtracting the
common part b, and appealing to Lemma 2.
(7) Consequently, weight of c + weight h = weight of e.
(8) Similarly, weight off + weight k = weight of b.
(9) Since e and b are of the same kind, and c and f are of another
kind, and vol. e = vol. c and vol. f = vol. b, hence weight of
e I weight of c = weight of b / weight off, by Lemma 2.
(10) Hence, by steps (7) and (8) and the rules of proportions, (weight
h + weight of c) / weight of c = (weight k + weight off) / weight
off
(11) Weight h / weight of c = weight k / weightf, or weight k / weight
off = weight h / weight of c, by the subtraction of ratios.
(12) Hence, by alternation. weight k / weight h = weight off / weight
of c.
(13) But weight of f / weight of c = vol. c / vol. f. by Postulate 4
(c andf being of the same kind).
(14) Hence, weight k / weight h = vol. f / vol. c.
(15) Since by step (6). vol.f = vol. b, hence weight k / weight h = vol.
b / vol. c.
Following this proof, Franciscus adds the comment (lines 352-55) on the
suppression of the mathematical proposition (i.e. Proposition 7) of the
medieval text which I have discussed in the introduction to the texts.
In concluding my commentary on this proof of Franciscus' Proposition
6. I remind the reader once more that it was the central proposition in
the medieval text but that it was accompanied in the medieval text by a
grossly incomplete and unsatisfactory proof. This proof Franciscus aban-
doned, substituting for it the proof I have outlined above. He thus gave
underpinning to the medieval tract which it sorely lacked before (at least
in the version that is now extant).
Problema
I have already commented sufficiently on this problem or lemma, as
Franciscus later calls it, in the introduction to the texts. It sought to find
the volume of each of the substances composing a mixture when either
the volume of the mixture or its air and water weights are given. I
should merely remind the reader that it was converted into two separate
"corollaries" by Forcadel. The lemma is a link between Propositions 6
and 7, since the rule of Proposition 6 as applied to the problem of
Proposition 7 starts with taking equal volumes of the mixture and the
substances of its components. A corollary to the lemma is also given
(lines 376-77), namely that. if the weight of a mixture is given, the weight
of each simple equal to the mixture in volume is given.
Proposition 7
Clarification (lines 383-87). Franciscus notes that the problem can be
considered with two different sets of initial data. Either the weight and
volume of the mixture are given, or just the weight alone. If the weight
and volume are both given, then the actual individual volumetric parts of
the mixture will be given. But if just the weight of the mixture is given,
then only the ratio of the volumetric parts will be given.
Proof (lines 387-99):
(1) Mixture (a + b) is composed of two simples a and b. a being the
specifically heavier substance. First, let (a + b) be given in
volume.
(2) Let the weight of (a + b) be given as f.
(3) Let c be of the same substance as a but of the same volume as
(a + b), by the problem or lemma preceding Proposition 7.
(4) Similarly, let d be of the same substance as b but equal in volume
to (a + b).
(5) The weights of c and d will be given, by the corollary to the
lemma preceding Prop. 7. Let these weights be e and g.
(6) Let h = weight of c - weight of (a + b) = weight e - weightf.
(7) And let k = weight of (a + b) - weight of d = weight f
- weightg.
(8) Then, since weights e, f and g are given, weights k arid h will be
given, by Data, Prop. 1.
(9) Now vol. a / vol. b = k I h, by Prop. 6.
(10) Thus the ratio vo!. a I vol. b is given.
(11) Hence, vo!. (a + b) I a and vol. (a + b) I b are given by Data,
Prop. 6.
(12) Therefore, if vol. (a + b) is given, then each of the individual
volumes a and b is given, by Data, Prop. 2.
(13) But if vol. (a + b) is not given, at least the ratio of the whole
mixture to each part is given, as noted in step (11).
Following the proof, Franciscus in a very general statement (line
399), mentions the account of Vitruvius and so ends his commentary,
except for the dedicatory paragraph to the king. It is at this point that
Forcadel makes the Vitruvius reference more specific and indicates that
the author of De ponderibus Archimenidis must have had the crown prob-
lem in mind. At any rate, he, Forcadel, presents the following example
that first determines the ratio of the partial volumes of the components
of a crown and then the individual partial weights. It thus makes the
objective of Proposition 7, and in a sense of the whole tract, the
same as Vitruvius' account, namely the determination of the partial
weights.
Assumptions and initial procedures:
(1) Let there be crown (a + b), alloyed of gold a and silver b; and let
its weight be 100 ounces.
(2) Let crown (a + b) displace 24 ounces of water, and we let this
water be c.
(3) Let d be pure gold of the same weight as (a + b); and let it
displace 20 ounces of water, and we let this water be e.
(4) Letf be gold equal in volume to (a + b).
Now for the solution of the problem of determining the weights ofa and b:
(1) Weight of e / weight of c = vol. d I vol. (a + b), by Prop. 2 [and
Prop. 1].
(2) vol. d / vol. (a + b) = vol. d I vol.f, by assumption (4) immediately
above.
(3) vol. d I vol.f = weight of d weight off, by Postulate 4.
(4) Therefore, weight of e I weight of c = vol. d I vol.f.
(5) Thus, weight of e / weight of c = weight of d / weight off.
(6) Filling in the numerical weights of e, c and d, the weight of f
is calculated as 120 ounces.
(7) In the same manner as assumption (3) above for gold, we now let
g be silver of the same weight as (a + b); and we let it displace
30 ounces of water, and this water we let be h.
(8) In the manner of assumption (4), we let k be silver equal in volume
to (a + b).
(9) In a series of steps equivalent to (1)-(6), the weight of k is cal-
culated as 66%.
(10) Hence, by Prop. 6, vo!. a / vo!. b = 33
1
/3 / 20.
(11) By the rules of proportion, vo!. (a + b) / vol. b = 531f3 / 20; and
this ratio is also that of vo!. k / vo!. b, since vo!. k = vo!. (a + b).
(12) By Postulate 4, vo!. k / vo!. b = weight of k / weight of b.
(13) Substituting the known values for the ratio of vo!. k / vo!. band
for the weight of k, the weight of b is easily calculated as 25.
(14) Similarly, vo!. (a + b) / vo!. a = vo!. f / vo!. a = 53
1
/3 / 33
1
/3. But
vo!. f / vo!. a = weight off / weight of a. Thus, on substituting
the known values, weight of a = 75.
(15) Therefore, the weight of gold in the crown is 75 ounces and the
weight of silver is 25 ounces.
Notice that in this procedure Forcadel keeps to the spirit of the medieval
tract by first determining equal volumes of the crown, the gold and the
silver, and then determining with Proposition 6 the ratio of the partial
volumes of gold and silver. From this point he can then determine the
weights of gold and silver in the crown. But in the course of first deter-
mining equal volumes of the crown and gold and silver, he posits weights
of gold and silver each equal to the weight of the crown. As he will show
in the next proposition, which he alone added to the tract, he can make
the weight determination by starting directly from equal weights of the
crown and gold and silver without independently determining the ratio of
the partial volumes.
Forcadel's Proposition 8
Preliminary data:
(1) Let there be three equally heavy bodies: a, (b + c), and d, where
(b + c) is a mixture and a and dare simples of the same kinds
respectively as parts band c, and a is specifically heavier than d.
(2) When a is plunged into water it expels water e; similarly (b + c)
expels waterf, and d water g.
(3) Let h = weight of g - weight of f, and let k = weight of f
- weight of e.
Proof: To prove, weight of b / weight of c = weight h / weight k.
(1) Let the weight of part b = l and the weight of part c = m. Add
to b part n of the same kind as a and such that weight of (b + n)
= weight 1 + weight m.
(2) Hence, weight of (b + n) = weight of a.
(3) Thus vol. (b + n) = vol. a, by Postulate 4.
(4) So, when (b + n) is plunged into the water, water e will leave
(see prelim. data 2).
(5) And, since (b + c) expelled water!, and since! - e = k (from
prelim. data 3), hence k = water expelled by (b + c) - water ex-
pelled by (b + n).
(6) Therefore, k = water that would be expelled by c - water that
would be expelled by n, by subtracting the common volume b.
(7) By steps similar to (1)-(6), after we have added to c part 0 of the
same kind as d and such that the weight of (c + 0) = weight
1 + weight m, we can show that h = water that would be expelled
by 0 - water that would be expelled by b.
(8) Water expo by 0 / water expo by c = vol. 0 / vol. C.
(9) Vol. 0 / vol. c = weight of 0 / weight of c = weight of 0 / weight
m, by Postulate 4.
(10) Hence, weight of 0 / weight m = weight 1/ weight of n.
(11) Weight 1/ weight of n = weight of b / weight of h, by Postulate 4.
(12) Vol. b / vol. n = water expo by b / water expo by n, by Prop. 2.
(13) Water expo by 0 / water expo by c = water expo by b / water expo
by n.
(14) Water expo by 0 / water expo by b = water expo by c / water expo
by n.
(15) By subtracting ratios and applying steps (6) and (7), water h / water
expo by b = water k / water expo by n.
(16) By alternation of ratios, water h / water k = water expo by b / water
expo by n.
(17) Water expo by b / water expo by n = vol. b / vol. n, by Prop. 2.
(18) Now, vol. b / vol. n = weight 1/ weight of n = weight 1/ weight
m, by Postulate 4.
(19) Therefore, h / k = weight 1/ weight m. Q.E.D.
With this formulation completed, Forcadel adds a numerical case,
where weight (1 + m), Le. the weight of Crown b + c, is given as 100
ounces. Then g,! and e are respectively 36, 24 and 20, so that h = 12
and k = 4. Hence, weight of b / weight of c = 12/4, and so weight of
(b + c) / weight of c = 16/4. Therefore, with weight of (b + c) equal to
100, weight of c = 25 ounces. \Veight of b is computed in the same way
and is found to be 75 ounces.
I have already commented on the significance of this proposition in
bringing together the Vitruvian tradition of the crown problem with the
medieval tradition ofDe ponderibus Archimenidis , and nothing more need
be said here.
c
Propositions from the Liber de ponderibus
Archimenidis Translated into Italian
by Niccolo Tartaglia
5
D iv r /Quatro altre ingeniose Propositioni (compar honorando)
oltra quelle daUe da Archimede vi voglio in questo
loco narrare demonstrativamente delle quale
la prima e questa.
Propositione prima [=De pond., Prop. 2]
LA PROPORTIONE DE OGNI DUI CORPI GRAVI IN GRAN-
DEZZA, 0 SIANO DE UN MEDESIMO, OVERO DE DIVERSI
GENERI , E SI, COME LA DIFFERENTIA DEL PESO DE LUNO
DE QUELLI IN AERE AL PESO DE QUEL MEDESIMO IN ACQUA,
10 ALLA DIFFERENTIA DEL PESO DEL ALTRO IN AERE AL PESO
DI QUELLO MEDESIMO IN ACQUA.
Sia uno de dui corpi .a. et sia .c. tanta acqua aquel eguale in grandezza,
et il peso di tal acqua sia .e. Et sia simelmente .b. laltero corpo, et .d. sia
I' acqua a quello eguale in grandezza, et .f. sia el peso di quella acqua.
15 Perche adunque, compar carissimo, l'acqua .c. eeguale al corpo .a. in
grandezza et similmente l'acqua .d. eeguale al corpo .b. premutatamente
la proportione del .a. al .b. sara si come del .c. al .d. et la proportione
che edalla acqua .c. alla acqua .d. quella medesima sara (per la prima
19 del.8. di nostri quesiti) del suo peso. e. al peso .f. Adunque (per la .11.
D iv v del quinto di Euclide) la proportione / del peso .e. al peso J. sara si
come del corpo .a. al corpo .b. in grandezza. Et perche il peso .e. (per la
settima del nostro Archimede) vien a esser la differentia del peso del
corpo .a. in aere al peso di quel medesimo in acqua, et cosi il peso J. vien
aesser la differentia del peso del corpo .b. in aere al peso di quel medesimo
25 in a[c]qua, per ilche seguita il proposito.
A. Corpi. B.
C. Acqua. D.
E. Pesi. F.
Ric. Compare, questa e stata certamente una bellissima et utile proposi-
30 tione et demostratione, perche con grandissima facilita se puo cognoscere
l'area corporale de ogni strania forma di corpo, ilche importa assai perche
saria impossibile a poterla investigare ne sapere per i simplici termini di
Geometria. Ni. Cosi e. Ri. Hor seguitati. Ni.:
Propositione ji. [=De pond., Prop. 3]
SE LA PROPORTIONE DEL PESO DE ALCUN CORPO IN DUOI
DIVERSI LIQUORI, ET IN AERE, SARA NOTA, LA PROPORTIONE
1159
DELLA GRAVITA DE LUNO DE QUEI LIQUOR! ALLA GRAVITA
5 DE LALTRO SECONDO LA SPECIE SARA MANIFESTA.
Siano li dui liquori, poniamo acqua et oHo, et sia il corpo .Q. et il
peso di quelIo in aere sia .b. et in acqua .c. et in olio .d. E per tanto pesara
piu in aere cbe in acqua over in olio (per le ragioni adutte da Arcbimede).
Hor sia .e. la differrentia del peso cbe pesa in aera aqueUo cbe pesa in
10 acqua, et sia ancbora f. la differrentia del detto peso cbe pesa in aera a
quello cbe pesa in olio. Hor dico cbe .e. et f. sonno le differentie della
gravita de l'acqua alIa gravita del olio (secondo la specie), et tuUo questo
se verifica per quelli medesimi argumenti adutti sopra la .7. di Arcbimede,
e percbe supponendo cbe .g. sia un corpo di acqua eguale in grandezza al
15 corpo.Q. et cbe il peso di queUo sia .e. Et similmente supponando (!)
cbe .h. sia un corpo de olio eguale in grandezza al medesimo corpo .a.
et cbe il peso di queUo sia f. Adunque percbe li dui corpi .g. et .h. de
genere diversi sono eguali in grandezza, et li loro pesi .e. et f. sono cogniti;
adunque emanifesta la proportione cbe banno fra loro in gravita questi
20 dui corpi over liquori secondo la specie, cbe eil nostro proposito,
A. Corpo. G. H.
B. peso in aere E. F.
E. differrentia
C. peso in acqua
25 F. differrentia
D. peso in olio
Propositione .iii. [=De pond., Prop. 5]
SE LI PESI IN AERE ET IN ACQUA DE DUI QUAL SI VOGLIA
CORPI (PONIAMO DI ORO ET DI ARGENTO) SARANNO NOTI,
LE PROPORTIONI DE QUELLI MEDESIMI CORPI IN GRANDEZZA
5 ET SECONDO LA SPECIE SARANNO NOTE.
E i r /Sianno quelli dui corpi .a. et .b. et sia il peso del corpo .Q. in aere .c.
et in acqua .e. et la differentia del peso .e. al peso .c. sia .g. Et sia il peso
del corpo .b. in aere .d. et in acqua f. et la differentia dil peso f. al
peso .d. sia .h. et sia il corpo .f. del genere del .a. eguale al .b. in grandezza,
10 et sia il peso di queUo in aere k. Dieo adunque cbe la proportione
del .a. al .b. over al .f. eeguale alIa proportione cbe edal .g. al .h. (per
la .7. di Archimede), et la proportione dal .a. al .i. ecome dal .c. al .k.
(per la prima dellibro .8. di nostri quesiti et inventioni diverse), et la pro-
portione del detto .a. al .b. in grandezza non ealtra cbe queUa cbe edal
15 .g. al .h., et la proportione del .g. al .h. enota; adunque et quella che
edal c al .k. sara nota, et il peso .c. enote; adunque il peso .k. sara noto;
et il peso .d. e noto dal presuposito. Adunque la proportione del peso
.k. al peso .d. enota, per laqual cosa la proportione del peso del corpo .Q.
(in spetie) al corpo .b. in specie, et della grandezza del corpo .a. aUa
----------------------
TARTAGLIA'S PROPOSITIONS 1161
20 grandezza del corpo .b. la proportion e nota (per la .7. di Archimede),
e cosi havemo il proposito.
25
A. corpi. B.
C. pesi in aere D.
G. differentie H.
E. pesi in acqua F.
I.
K. peso1Oaere
Propositione .iiii. [=De pond. , Prop. 6]
EGLIE POSSIBILE A RITROVARE LA PROPORTIONE DELLA
GRANDEZZA ET LA PROPORTIONE DELLA GRAVITA SECONDO
LA SPECIE DE DUI CORPI DE QUALI LUNO SIA DI NATURA
5 PIU GRAVE DI LACQUA (COME E IL FERRO) ET LALTRO DI
NATURA PIU LEGGIER DI LACQUA (COME E LA CERA).
Sia .a. un corpo piu grave di l'acqua, et it peso di quello in area (! aere)
sia .b. et in acqua .c. et la differrentia de questi dui pesi sia la .d. Et sia
.e. unaltro corpo men grave di I' acqua, et sia congionto .a. et .e., talmente
10 che .a. possi tirare con si al fondo .e. et sia f[g]. il peso di dui congionti in
aere et .hi. il peso di dui congionti in acqua, et .kl. la differrentia, et sia
f. il partial peso come .b. et .h. come .c. et .k. come .d. Remanerano in
questo modo, che .g. sia il peso in aere del corpo .e. et .i. el peso in acqua
del corpo .e. (anchor che sia ambusive [! abusive] men che nulla) et .l. la
15 lor differrentia. La proportione delle differentie .d. et .l. sara come quella
che edal .a. al .e. in grandezza (cioe le lor aree corporale) (per la .7. di
Archimede). Hor sia .m. del genere di .a. egual in grandezza al corpo .e. et
.n. sia il peso di quello in aere, per laqualcosa la proportione dal corpo
.a. al corpo .e. over dal corpo .a. al corpo .m. ecome la proportione
20 della differrentia .d. alIa differrentia .l. (per la .7. di Archimede). Ma la
proportion del .d. al .b. ecognita, per laqualcosa la proportione del .b. al
.k. (! n) e cognita. Ma el peso .b. e noto per el presuposito. Adunque il
peso .n. sara manifesto. Conciosia adunque che li dui corpi .m. et .e. sono
eguali di grandezza et sonno de diversi generi et li pesi .n. et .g. de quelli
25 sonno cogniti, adunque eglie cognita la proportione di lor pesi secondo la
spetie et la proportione della loro area corporale, cioe della lor grandezza,
epur cognita, come che estato proposito.
Ferro
A. A.E. M.
30 B. pesl m aere F.G. N.
D. Differentie. K.L.
C. pesl m acqua HJ.
Con le evidentie di questa propositione eglie possibile de un corpo misto
E i v de dui corpi differrenti in gra/vita, poniamo di oro et di argento, adechiarire
35 quanto vi sia dentro di luno et quanto di l'altro, laqual regola sara molto
et molto piu certa et men fallace di quella che nara Vitruvio et altri autori
haver trovata Archimede per cognoscer la fraude del artifice neWAurea
corona di Hierone perche tal sua via non servira salvo (che grosso modo) in
una gran massa di oro. Ma con questa se potra conoscere tal fraude
40 pontalmente in un ducato et men de un ducato doro domente che se sia
diligenti nel operare et della pratica; di questo unaltra volta piu particolar-
mente ne diremo. Ric. L'havero molto acaro. Fine del secondo Ragiona-
mento.
b _
Ill. The Problem of Proportional Means
The problem of finding two proportional means between two given lines
was even more widely discussed in the first half of the sixteenth century
than was the crown problem. But in the case of the means problem, I
have found only rare influence of the medieval Archimedean traditions on
these discussions. To show that this is so, I shall recount briefly the main
appearances of the problem in the mathematical literature of the first half
of the century. I discussed earlier the probable medieval sources for
Nicholas of Cusa's consideration of the problem in Part Ill, Chapter 1,
Section I above. But after his time, the sources for succeeding treatments
are almost exclusively one or more of the following: (1) the Greek text
of the pertinent part of Eutocius' Commentary on the Sphere and the
Cylinder of Archimedes (=Archimedes, Opera omnia, ed. Heiberg, Vol.
3, pp. 56-106), (2) Cremonensis' translation of Eutocius' Commentary
done from Greek manuscript A and existing either in its pristine form (MS
Venice, Bibl. Naz. Marc. f.a.327, 14r-24r for the means problem) or in
the version corrected by Regiomontanus (MS Nuremberg, Stadtbibl. Cent.
V.15, pp. 190-200; cf. ed., Basel, 1544, pp. 14-27), and (3) Giorgio Valla's
translation (again from Greek manuscript A) of the same part of Eutocius'
commentary coupled with his translation from an unknown Greek manu-
script of Philoponus' account of the problem in the latter's Commentary
on the Posterior Analytics ofAristotle. These translations of Eutocius and
Philoponus by Valla appeared in his De expetendis et fugiendis rebus
(Venice, 1501), Bk. XIII, Chap. ii (see above, Part Ill, Chapter 2, Section
V). I have already shown that Leonardo da Vinci rendered Valla's
translation of Philoponus' passage into Italian (see Part Ill, Chapter 3,
notes 74 and 76) and that he in all likelihood was familiar with the whole
section translated by Valla from Eutocius.
Of the two translations, Valla's version of Eutocius and Philoponus was
the more influential on mathematicians of the first half of the sixteenth
century, that is, before the publication of Regiomontanus' version of
Cremonensis' translation in 1544 and its subsequent circulation. The
Valla version soon became available to scholars in other parts of Europe.
Thus Omnisanctus Vasarius, a co-editor with Jacques Le Fevre d'Etaples
of the works of Nicholas of Cusa that appeared in Paris in 1514, had
already read Valla. For in a comment on Nicholas of Cusa's account of
the problem of proportional means in the De geometricis transmuta-
tionibus in which Nicholas gave the so-called Platonic solution without
attributing it to Plato, Omnisanctus says: "And this method is identical
with the method of Plato described by Giorgio Valla."1 Four years later
(1518), Heinrich Schreiber (Grammateus) in hisAyn new kunstlich Buech,
1 Ed., Paris, 1514, VoI. 2, 43r: "Et hic modus cum modo Platonis a Georgio Valla
recitato coincidat."
1163
published at Nuremberg, presented an account of the Delian problem that
strongly resembled the first part of the passage from Philoponus-pre-
sumably Schreiber had read Valla's translation.
2
But the most important
German response to Valla's translation was that of Johann Werner, who
with considerable mathematical skill paraphrased and rearranged Valla's
account in his In hoc opere haec continentur ... Commentarius seu
paraphrastica enarratio in undecim modos conficiendi eius problematis
quod cubi duplicatio dicitur (Nuremberg, 1522).3
2 Not paginated, but at sig. [P VIII] verso-Q[I] verso of the volume (cf. L. Olschki,
Geschichte der neusprachlichen wissenschaftlichen Literatur, Vol. 1 [Heidelberg, 1919],
pp. 457-58): "Eyn history von der duplirung Cubi. AIs vor zeytten die jnwoner der jnsel
jn Krichischer sproch delos genannt todlichen worden angefochten von dem pestiletzischen
fiber / seyn sie gangen jn den tempel jres Aptgots Apollo: rath gefragt / ist geantwort
worden jn kaynerlay weysz und gestalt moge solche vorgifftung haben ain endt: allayn es
werde seyn altar gezwispilt oder duplirt (welcher dann auff alle gelegenhait ist gewesen
ainerlay grosz) haben sie gepawet noch einen solchen altar auff den ersten / vormaynendt
mit solchen zwayen altar / seynen begem genug gethan. Aber dennoch ist kayn pesserung
in obemelter kranckhayt erschynen / sunder viI mehr ein ergrosserung oder iiberhandtnem-
ung. Nachdem seyn die yetzgemelten wiederumb ganngen haymsuchendt den aptgot Appol.
und antwort entpfangen also lautent: Ir habt nicht volbracht unnd verendt den willen
meines gebots / sunder allayn gesatzt aynen altar auff den andem jn welchem die hoch
iibertrifft die breyte und lenge und nicht erscheint vorgleichnung zusamen der seitten.
Vorbasz ist zu radt und antwort gebeten der gotlieh maister Plato welches sagen was / yr
jnwoner der inseln Delos habt erziimet die gotter jn dem das jr nicht vorstehent die kunst
Geometriam / aber das zuwissen sollen gefunden werden zwischen zwayen tinien zwo
linien proportionirt zusammen und zu den ausem zweyen / 1n welchen unerkanthen
dingen haben sich bekumert unnd gemiiet viI der haidnischen maistem von welchen allen
ist erklert und jn tag bracht dise nachvolgent demonstration zu suchen die duplation.
"Nym des vasz jn cubicis gefunden tinien welch sey .ab. [Fig. III.6.3.1] geduplirt
wirt .abc. quadrire .ab. und .bc. wirt ain quadrangel .acde. so gezogen werden zwo linien
als .ce. und .ad. geben sie ein durchainanderschneidung jm punet f. Mach lenger die
linien .ac. und .ae. so wirdt .ag. und .ah. Setz ein regel oder linial jn das punct .d. in
steter bewegung hin und her mit ainen ort jn .ag. und mit dem andern tayl jn .ah. jn
solcher maynung das gleich so fern oder weit sey f. von dem punct jn der linien .ag.
als vii oder lang ist vom .f. zum punct jn der tinien .ah. und also sein funden zwo pro-
portionirt linien zwischen .ac. und .ab. mit namen .cl. (! cj) und .ek. und der cubus
welcher entspringent ausz der linien .QC. wirt sich haben zu dem cubum ausz dem .ab.
jn der proportion octupla: und .ac. eubus zu .lc. (! jc) cubum ist jn der proportion
quadrupla und zum cubum .ek. dupla / und als sind funden vir linien zu vierlay cub: als
dann erscheint jn der figur der duplation.
"Ditz kunstlich und seltzan stiick der duplation, triplation etc. gezogen und erforscht
ausz der aller tieffesten / heymlichsten orth unnd endt der Geometrey / sey geschenckt in
sunderhayt alIen scharffsinnigen / welcher handtwerck und iibung ist mit dem circkel /
richtscheyt / und winckelmasz als den wirdigen zu eyner grossern speculation ander ding
dem gemaynen nutz dienendt." I have italicized the letters marking the points. The
diagram was not in the copy I used; presumably it was added by Olschki.
3 Sig. c iiii r-k i r. The tract begins as follows: "Tradituro mihi commentariolum aut
si maius paraphrasim in modos duplicandi cubum, qui Georgio Valla Vicentino interpraete
ad latinos huius aetatis geometras ex Graecia migrarunt, non ab re visum est inprimis
praemittere Eratosthenis quam scripsit super hac re Ptolomaeo (!) regi epistolam, quoniam
in ipsa explicatur qua ratione hoc problema, quod duplicatio cubi dicitur, originem
habuerit, quive graecorum geometrarum primi fuerint idem explicantes absolventesque
THE PROBLEM OF PROPORTIONAL MEANS 1165
Werner's work, published as it was in Nuremberg, was certainly known
to Albrecht Diirer, whether or not he had recourse to it when he took up
the means problem in his Unterweysung der Messung (Nuremberg, 1525).4
problema, quanque huius problematis scientia mortalium generi civiliter ac communiter
viventi in pacebelloque ad conservandam hominum amicitiam atque vicariam bene-
volentiam et iusticiam quae cuique reddit quod suum est, non tantum utilis verum etiam
necessaria ostenditur. Deinde in eadem epistola notatur difficultas quorundam modorum ac
idcirco author commendat suum duplicandi cubi modum a promptitudine et facilitate, quem
postremo duplici conficit ratione primum quidem Geometrica demonstratione. Deinde in-
strumentali constructione qua inter datas duas rectas lineas non tantum binas medias
proportionales, sed quotlibet invenire docet. Eratosthenis autem epistola, commentatione
paraphrastica his a me verbis enarratur.
"Ptolemeo regi Eratosthenes salutem plurimam dicit. Priscum quendam tragicum ac-
cepimus introducere Minoa Glauco sepulchrum excitare volentem, interrogatum qua nam id
formula aedificari mallet, respondisse cubica, cuius capacitas seu area dupla esset eius cubi,
qui quaque versus atque in omni latere centenos obtineret pedes. Architectus igitur
arbitratus unumquodque membrum seu latus duplum esse faciendum hallucinari iure
optimo visus est. Quippe lateribus duplicatis quodlibet planum sic fabricati solidi
quadruplum efficitur, ipsum autem solidum octuplum. A geometris igitur quesitum est quo
nam modo datum solidum in ea similique figura permanens duplicari possit, vocatumque
huiusmodi problema cubi duplicatio. Proposito nanque cubo quaerebant quomodo ipsum
possent duplicem efficere. Omnibus autem aliquamdiu ambigentibus primus Hypocrates
chius percalluit. Si constaret ea scientia qua duabus rectis lineis quarum maior minoris
esset dupla, duae mediae sub continua caperentur proportione futurum esse, ut cubus
duplicetur. Proinde duplicandi cubi difficultas et addubitatio, ipsos mathematicos in aliam non
minorem adduxit devolvitque dUbitationem. Aliquanto autem post aiunt Delios cum ab
oraculo iuberentur aram quandam duplicare, in eandem devenisse dubitationem.
Obiurgante increpanteque in academia Platone geometras, quod censeret esse inveniendum
quod quaesitum foret. Huic se studiosius labori accinxerunt, inveneruntque duabus datis
duas medias esse capiendas, Architas quidem Tarentinus fertur per hemicylindros
propositum hoc invenisse, Eudoxus autem per inflexas lineas. Evenit autem ut hi omnes,
ipsam scientiam de inveniendis inter datas duas lineas rectas duabus sub continua pro-
portione demonstrata quidem ratione descripserint, at ut id sub manum duceretur in
usumque caderet neutiquam assequi potuerunt. Praeter breve quoddam Menechmi, idque
subobscurum. Excogitatum igitur fuit a nobis instrumentum quoddam, quo facilis est ac-
ceptio duarum mediarum sub continua proportione inter datas duas rectas lineas, qua etiam
id demonstravimus, ut duabus datis non binas modo medias quisquam inveniet, sed
quotlibet instituerit. ..." I have made the usual changes of consonantal "u" and vocal
"v", and have in addition altered the punctuation slightly. The first paragraph relates
Wemer's dependency on Valla. The second, which begins the paraphrase, may be compared
with the similar passage from Valla given above in Part Ill, Chap. 2, Sect. V. Wemer
has made considerable expository change in Valla's text throughout. He has also added
pertinent mathematical principles as well as references to Euclid. A mathematical sec-
tion from the two texts may be compared in note 5 below. We should also note that
Wemer had changed the order of presentation of the various solutions. His order is the
following: (1) Eratosthenes, (2) Philoponus and Philo, (3) Apollonius and Hero, (4) Diodes,
(5) Pappus, (6) Porus (Le. Sporus), (7) Plato, (8) Nicomedes, (9) Archytas, (10) Menechmus
(both solutions). For the order followed by Eutocius (and hence Valla), see Volume 2,
36vC-39rG.
4 Sig. N. iiiii r-O iii r. The particular passages that reflect the ancient solutions are
the following: [1) Sig. N iiiii recto: "AIs auf ein zeyt die stat Athenis mit der plag der
pestilentz beschwert, was fragten die burger den Abgot Apollinem rates, wie sie desz
seuchens mochten abkomen. Der antwurdet jn, wenn sie seinen altar zwispalten, wiirden
sie erlost. Also liessen sie ein stein machen der eben so grosz was (! war) als der altar,
legten jn auf den selben. AIs aber die plag nit aufhoren wolt, fragten sie den Abgot wider
wie das ziigieng so sie doch sein geheysz folbracht hetten. Der antwurt jn sie hetten nit
gehandelt wie er sie geheyssen het, sonder hetten den altar gar vill grosser dann noch
einmal gemach. AIs aber jr werckleut nit finden konten wie sie der sach solten thun,
hetten sie der gelerten und in sonders desz philosophen Platonis ratt der leret die, wie sie
zwischen zweyen ungleychen furgebnen linien zwo ander linien die sich vergleychlich
gegen den selben hielten solten finden, dann durch soliches mochten sie den cubum, das
ist ein vierecket corpus wie ein wiirffel, und alle andre ding dupliciren tripliciren, und
fur und fur meeren und vergrossen, die weyl nun solichs ein se[h]r nutze kunst ist und alien
werckleuten dient, auch von den gelerten in grosser geheim und verporgenheyt gehalten
wirt, wil ich die an den tag legen und leren machen, dann ausz diser kunst kan man
puxen und kloken giessen die sich vergrossen und dupliren wie man wil, und doch alweg
ir rechte proporcion auch ir gewicht behalten, desz gleychen kan man durch die fesser,
druhen, mes, reder, zimer, pild und was man haben will vergrossen. Darumb nem ein
yeglicher werckman der acht die weyl die pisz auf disen tag als ich acht in Teutscher
sprach nie beschriben is worden. [2] (Sig. N iiii r-v) Erstlich, setz zwen gleych cubos oder
wiirffel an einander .a.b.c., [Fig. III.6.3.2] die selb leng .a.c. setz aufrecht zu gleychen
winckIen auf ein zwerch lini .d.e. und reysz ausz dem Centrum .c. ein halben cirkel .d.a.e.
Darnach reysz ein gerade lini ausz dem .e. dUTCh das .b. pisz an die 'cirkellini, dahin setz
ein f. Darnach nim ein schmal richtscheyt und zeychen darauf ein mittel puncten, und teyl
von dann auf bede seyten grad mit zifferen, und setz die zal auf ein seyten wie auf die
anderen, das auf yetlicher seyten desz mittel puncten, die erst zal eins an fahe, dann
dnrch (! durch) das richtscheytz bewegung must du finden, die erst lini dardurch die ander
funden wirt zu dem zwifachen cubo. Darnach leg das forgemacht richtscheyt mid der einen
seyten auf den puncten .d. und lasz das stetz daran haften, es schieb sich auf oder nider,
und so du das ander teyl des richtscheyt bewegst, so peleybt mit dem mittel puncten das
richtscheyt albeg auf der lini .a.b.c. und beweg das richtscheyt so lang pisz das du ein
mittel findest zwischen der lini .e f. und des cirkelrysz, und wo das beweglich richtscheyt
durch schneydet die lini .e f. da setz ein .g. und wo es durch schneydet die lini .a.b.c. da
setz ein .h. und wo das egedacht richtscheyt aussen den cirkelrysz riihret da setz ein .i.
Also werden .g.h. und .h.i. zwo geleyche lenge, so ist dann .h.c. die erst gefunden lini,
darausz zufinden ist die seyten des zwifachen cubi. Darnach setz die lini .h.c. und die
seyten von dem einfachen cubo .a.b. zwerchs an einander, darausz wirt .a.h.c. unnd setz
ein cirkel mit dem einen fuez in die mitt .a.c. unnd reysz oben herumb ein halben cirkel
.a .c. Darnach zeuch ausz dem .h. ubersich ein aufrechte lini pisz an den cirkelrysz, da
setz ein .k. Dise lini .k.h. gibt dir ein seyten zu dem zwifachen cubo, wie ich das hernach
hab aufgerissen. . . . [3] (Sig. 0 ii r-v) Noch ist nutz zu wissen einem der ein cubum
ergrosseren wil oder vilfeltigen, wie er zwischen zweyen ungleychen fiirgebnen linien zwo
ander linien die sich vergleyehlieh gegen den selben halten finden soil, also das si sich all
vier vergleyehlich gegen einander halten. Das sueh also. Die zwo fiirgebnen ungleychen
linien seyen .e.b. und .b.g. [Fig. III.6.3.3] die setz bede in den puneten .b. in einen rechten
winekelhacken zusamen. Damaeh zeuch die zwo linien fUr das eck .b., so weit gerad
hinausz als die der bediirffen wirst, pisz auf .d. und .c. Darnach stell zwen rechtwincklich
driangel .g.c.d. des reehter winckel sey .c. der ander dryangel .c.d.e. unnd das .d. sey sein
rechter winekel. Dureh was instrument du das machen solt wirt hemach bescriben. Nun
bewert der Euclides in seinem seehsten buch durch die achten proposition das .c.b. ist
ein mittel lini zwischen .d.b. und .b.g. und .d.b. ist ein mittelIini zwischen .c.b. und
.b.e., daruwb (!) helt sich .g.b. zu .c.b. wie .c.b. zw (! zu) .d.b. und also aueh .d.b.
zu .e.b., dem naeh zwisehen den zweyen fiirgebnen linien .b.g. und .b.e. sind gefunden
die zwo mittelIini .b.c. und .b.d. Aber die zwen egemelten dryangel .g.c.d. und .c.d.e.
maeh' also. Nym ein winckelmesz sam .r.p.q., des gereehter winekel sey .p., und der
seyten eine sam .p.q. nym hol ausz, und in dise mitsteek ein gerad riehtseheyt sam
.f.s., weliches mit der seyten des winckelmes .p.q. albeg ein reehter winekel beleyb, ja
wie das auf U'1d nider bewegt werde, das dennaeht allzeyt .f.s. ein reehte parallel gegen
nn.. -------.....--------------------
der seyten .p.r. des winckelmesz .r.p.q. beleybe. So nun das alles gemacht ist so lege die
seyten .p.r. des winckelmes also auf das sie beriir den puncten .g. also das der gerecht
winckel .p. lige auf der lini .e.c. unnd die ander seyten des winckelmes .q.p. lege auf der
Iini .d.b., da ruck das richtscheyt .t.s. also lang bisz das der winckel .s. sey auf der lini
.b .d. und das richtscheyt .t.s. beriir den puncten .e.; und so das alles geschicht und
aufgerissen ist, dann so wirt .p.r. wie .c.g. und .p.s. wie .c.d. und .s.t. wie .d.e., und ausz
dem wirt kunt und offenbar das die zwen dryangel .g.c.d. und .c.d.e. sind gemacht und
beschriben wie sie an dem anfang sind fiirgenumen. Wie du das in der folgetten figur sihest
aufgerissen. [4] (sig. 0 ii v-O iii r) Noch magst due die egedacht meynung anderst machen
ausserhalb des forbeschribnen instrumentz oder winckelmesz, das also die zwo fargegebne
linien .a.b. und .b.g. [Fig. I1I.6.3.4] sollen wider in einen rechten winckel .b. zusamen
gestossen werden. Oarnach beschleusz follent ein vierecket feld .b.d. des ortstrich sey
.a.g. den teyl mit einem puncten .e. in der mitt von ein ander, unnd die zwo seyten
.d.a. und .d.g. erlenger als weyt das not ist. Oamach leg auf den puncten .b. ein
richtscheyt, also das es hin und her mug geruckt werden, so lang pisz es abschneydet
.d.h. und .d.z., der massen das die lini .e.h. und .e.Z. geleych lang seyen, unnd das das
richtscheyt auf dem puncten .b. Iigent beleyb, das vergiviset der cirkelrysz. Nachfolget
zeuch ein aufrechte Iini .e.t. auf die lini .d.g. also teylet .e.t. die lini .d.g. in zwey
gleyche teyl durch die ander proposition des sechsten buchs Euclidis, darausz folget das
die rechtanglich vierecket figur so gemacht wirt von .t.z. (! dz) und .z.g. mit dem
quadrat der linien .g.t. ist geleych dem quadrat so ausz .t.z. gemacht wirt, *nun auf peden
teylen wirt hinzu geleget das quadrat so ausz .t.e. gemacht ist, dem nach das quadrangel
oder vierecket recht wincklich figur, weliche ausz .d.z. und .z.g. gemacht wirt mit dem
quadrat .e.g. ist geleych dem quadrat so von .e.Z. gemacht wirt. Gleycher weysz auch das
quadrangel oder die recht wincklich figur, weliche ausz den linien .d.h. und .h.a. gemacht
wirt mit dem quadrat von .a.e. gemacht ist, gleych dem quadrat so von der lini .e.h. gemacht
wirt. So nun aber wie yetzund gemacht ist die zwo Iinien .e.h. und .e.Z. geleych sind,
der gleychen auch die zwo linien .e.a. und .e.g. sind gleych. Oarausz folget das die
recht anglich vierecket figur so von .t.z. (! dz) and .z.g. gemacht wirt, ist geleych der recht
anglichen figur mit der inhaltung, weliche von den Iinien .d.h. und .h.a. gemacht wirt (das
ist also zufersten die lini .d.h. wirt zu dem ersten quadrangel fur die langen seyten, und
.h.a. zu den kurtzen genumen, des gleychen die lini .t.Z. (! dz) wirt zu der langen seyten,
und .z.g. zu der kurtzen des anderen quadrangels genumen; also helt der quadrangel .d.h.a.
so vill innen als der quadrangel .d.z.g., das noch weyter zubeweren mach dise quadrangel
zu rechten quadraten. Wie fomen im buchle in der planen in der .31. figur anzeygt ist.)
Aber das das forder also sey, wirt durch die fiinftzehetten proposition des sechsten buchs
Euclidis angezeygt das sich die Iini .dz. halt zu der lini .d.h. wie sich die lini .h.a.
zu der lini .g.z. helt, und wie sich die lini .d.z. hat zu der lini .d.h. also helt sich auch die
lini .g.z. zu der lini .g.b., der geleychen auch die lini .a.b. zu der lini .a.h., dem nach
durch die vierten proposition des sechsten buchs Euclidis die lini .a.b. helt sich zu der lini
.a.h. wie die lini .a.h. zu der lini .g.z. und also auch die lini .g.z. zu der lini .g.b. und
also ist offen war gemacht, das zwischen den zweyen linien .a.b. unnd .b.g. sind gefunden
zwo medieproportionals da sind die zwo lini .a.h. und .g.z. Wie das hernach istaufgerissen."
Where I have placed an asterisk in passage [4], the later edition of 1538 adds the following:
"Oas verste also mach ausz .d.z. und .z.g. ein ablange fierung zu g1eichen winckeln. Oar-
nach mach ein rechtz quadrat ausz .t.Z. so helt das so viI innen als die ablang fierung
.d.z. und .z.g. und das inner so du ein quadrat ausz .t.g. gemacht hinzusetzest, und
ein winkel mit erfullest wie das hemach auff gerissen ist." I have retained Ourer's peculiar
orthography and forms for the most part, adding only an occasional punctuation mark and ital-
icizing the letters marking the various points. Notice that when Ourer, in passages [3] and [4], trans-
lated Johannes de Muris' text (see Part I, Chapter 3), he kept most ofthe latter's references to
Euclid. The section that Diirer placed in parentheses toward the end of passage [4] com-
prises his own comment and is missing from Johannes de Muris' account. I assume that
it was for this reason that Ourer placed it in parentheses. The reader may also find useful
Camerarius' Latin translation of Ourer's section on proportional means, lnstitutiones
geornetricae (Paris, 1532), pp. 158-59, 164-66.
l _
D_
Diirer's treatment gives a brief account of the origin of the problem, in
which he substitutes "Athenians" for "Delians" in the conventional story
of the plague and altar, and three of the classical solutions of the prob-
lem: those attributed by Eutocius to Sporus, Plato, and Hero. Diirer's
principal source for the historical description of the problem's origin must
have been Schreiber's work since there are close linguistic affinities in
the two accounts. His substitution of "Athenians" for "Delians" could
have been a slip of his own or he might have read (or learned from his
intimate friend Pirckheimer) Bessarion' s description of the origin of the
problem where the same substitution was made (see above, Part Ill,
Chapter 2, Section 11, note 20). In presenting Sporus' solution of the
problem, Diirer could have been following any of the three Latin versions
that would have been available to him in Nuremberg: Regiomontanus'
version of Cremonensis (Regiomontanus' manuscript was apparently still
at Nuremberg), Valla's translation and Werner's paraphrase.
5
For the dia-
5 For the sake of comparison with the passage from DOrer's work, I present all three
Latin versions: [1] Regiomontanus-Cremonensis (MS Nuremberg, Stadtbibl. Cent. V.15,
p. 194; cf. ed., Basel, 1544, pp. 19-20): "Modus Spori. Sint due recte date ab, be, quibus
opus est duas medias proportionales invenire [Fig. III.6.3.5]. Ducatur ex b ipsa dbe ad
angulos rectos ad ab; et centro b, intervaIIo autem ba, describatur semicirculus dae; et ab
e ad e iungatur recta, et ducatur ad f; et ducatur ab ipso d recta quedam ita ut gh sit
equalis ipsi hk. Hoc enim fieri potest, et ducantur a punctis g, k perpendiculares ad de,
iste gl, km. Quoniam igitur est sicut kh ad hg ita mb ad bl, et ipsa kh est equalis ipsi hg,
igitur ipsa mb est equaIis ipsi bl; quare et reliqua me ipsi Id. Tota ergo dm est equalis ipsi
le; et propter hoc sicut md ad dl ita le ad me. Verum sicut md ad dl ita km ad gl. Sicut
autem le ad me ita gl ad mn. Rursus, quoniam sicut dm ad mk ita km ad me. Igitur sicut dm
ad me ita quadratum bh (scr. et del. Reg.) db, hoc est quadratum ab ad quadratum hb,
nam db est equalis ipsi ab. Rursus, quoniam sicut md ad db ita le ad eb; item sicut md ad
db ita km ad hb. Sicut autem le ad eb ita gl ad cb. Igitur sicut km ad hb ita gl ad cb; et
permutatim, sicut km ad gl ita hb ad eb. Verum sicut km ad gl ita md ad dl, hoc est dm ad
me, hoc est quadratum ab ad quadratum hb. Igitur sicut quadratum ab ad quadratum hb
ita bh ad be. Sumatur harum hb, be media proportionalis hee x. Quoniam igitur sicut
quadratum ab ad quadratum bh ita hb ad be, verum quadratum ab ad quadratum hb habet
proportionem ab ad bh duplicatam, et hb ad be habet proportionem hb ad x duplicatam,
igitur sicut ab ad bh ita bh ad x. Verum sicut ab (! bh) ad x ita x ad be. Igitur ab ad bh sicut
bh ad x et x ad be. Constat autem quod hec quoque eadem est iIli que a Diode dicta fuit,
et Pappo." [2] ValIa, De expetendis, Bk. XIII, Cap. ii, no pag.: "Ut Porus. Sint datae
duae rectae lineae inaequales ab, be; oportet utique ipsarum ab, be duas medias propor-
tionaIes invenire in proportione continua. Ducatur ex b ipsi ab ad rectos angulos dbe; et
centro b, intervaIlo autem ba, semicirculus describatur dae; et ex e in e recta linea coniuncta
producatur in f; et ab ipso d producatur quaepiam recta linea, ita ut sit aequaIis gh ipsi
hk. Id enim fieri potest, ducanturque ex ipsis g, k in de perpendiculares gl, kmn (! knm).
Quoniam igitur est ut kh ad hg et gm (.' bm) ad bl, aequaIis autem kh ipsi hg, aequaIis igitur
etiam mb ipsi bl. Proinde etiam reIiqua me ipsi Id, et tota igitur dm ipsi le est aequalis;
et ob hoc est, ut md ad dl et le ad hm (.' em) atqui ut md ad dl et km ad gl, ut
autemle ad em etgl adnm. Rursus, quoniam est utdm admk et km adme, ut igiturdm ad me
ita quod est ex dm ad id quod est ex mk, hoc est quod ex db ad id quod est ex bh, hoc est quod
ex ab ad id quod est ex bh, aequalis nanque db ipsi ba. Rursus, quoniam est ut md ad db et le
ad eb; at ut quidem md ad db et km ad hb, ut autem le ad eb et gl ad cb; et ut igitur km ad hb
et gl ad eb; et vicissim, ut km ad gl et he (! hb) ad eb. At ut km ad gl et md ad dl, hoc est
gram given by Diirer (Fig. 111.6.3.2) is marked by letters that resemble
those in all three versions (Fig. 111.6.3.5). Diirer gives only Sporus' method
of finding the proportional means, omitting Sporus' demonstration that
they were indeed the means. I have been able to trace the source for
dm ad me, hoc est quod ex ah (! ab) ad id quod est ex hb. Et ut igitur quod ex
ah (! ab) ad id quod est ex hb et bh ad be. Sumatur ipsarum hb, be media proportionalis
x. Quoniam igitur est ut quod ex ab ad id quod est ex bh et hb ad be, atqui quod est ex
ab ad id quod est ex bh duplam rationem habet quam ab ad bh, at hb ad be duplam habet
rationem quam hb ad x, et ut igitur ab ad bh et bh ad x. Verum ut hb ad x et x ad be. Et ut
igitur ab ad bh et hb ad x et gf (! x) ad be. Manifestum autem quod haec quoque eadem
est cum ea quae a Pappo et Diocle descripta est." [3] Wemer, Commentarius, sig. e iiii r:
"Ut Porus. Datis duabus rectis lineis binas medias proportionales invenire. Sint datae duae
rectae lineae inaequales ab, be; oportet itaque ipsarum ab, be binas medias proportionales
invenire in continua proportione. Ex b ipsi ab ad rectos angulos ducatur dbe; et centro b,
intervallo autem ba, semicirculus describatur dae; et ex e in e recta linea coniuncta pro-
ducatur in f; et ab ipso d producatur quaepiam recta linea, ita ut sit aequalis gh ipsi hk.
Id enim fieri potest, ducanturque ex ipsis g , k in de perpendiculares gl, knm. Quoniam igitur
est ut kh ad hg sic mb ad bl per propositionem ii libri vi elementorum Eudidis. Est autem
per constructionem kh ipsi hg aequalis, igitur etiam mb ipsi bl aequalis, atque ex communi
sententia: 'Si [ab] aequalibus demantur aequalia etc.' reliqua me ipsi dl existit aequalis.
Proinde etiam tota dm ipsi toti le erit aequalis. Ex communi sententia: 'Si aequalibus ad-
dantur aequalia etc.' Et ob hoc est ut md ad dl ita le ad em. Atqui ut md ad dl sic km ad
gl, ut autem le ad em sic gl ad nm. Rursus quoniam est ut dm ad mk sic
km ad me, et ut dm ad mk sic db ad bh; ut igitur dm ad me ita quod ex dm ad id quod
est ex mk, hoc est quod ex ab ad id quod est ex bh, aequalis namque est db ipsi ab.
Praeterea, quoniam est ut md ad db sic le ad eb, at ut md ad db sic km ad bh, ut autem le
ad eb ita gl ad be, et igitur ut km ad bh sic gl ad be; vicissim igitur seu per propositionem
xvi libri v elementorum Euc1idis, ut km ad gl sic hb ad be. At ut km ad gl ita md ad dl, hoc
est dm ad me, hoc est sicut quod fit ex ab ad id quod ex bh. Et igitur ut id quod ex ab ad id
quod ex bh ita bh ad be. Et per propositionem xiii Iibri vi elementorum ipsarumhb, be media
sumatur proportionalis x. Quoniam autem est ut quod ex ab ad id quod ex bh ita hb ad be,
atqui per primum corolarium propositionis xx libri vi elementorum Euclidis 'similes
rectilineae figurae adinvicemin dupla sunt ratione similis rationis laterum,' igitur
quod est ex ab ad id quod ex bh duplam rationem habet quam ab ad bh. Sed quia per
diffinitionem libri v elementorum Euclidis 'Quando tres magnitudines proportionales fuerint,
prima ad tertiam duplicem rationem habet quam eadem prima ad secundam,' igitur hb ad
be duplam habet rationem quam hb ad x. Et ut igitur ab ad bh sic bh ad x. Verum
ut bh ad x et x ad be. Et ut igitur ab ad bh ita hb ad x et x ad be. Inter c1atas igitur duas rectas
lineas ab, be binae mediae proportionales inventae sunt bh, x. Perspicuum denique est quod
datis duabus rectis Iineis binae mediae proportionales a Diode, Pappo et Poro similiter in-
vestigantur, quamvis inter eos in demonstratione sit diversitas. Propter demonstrationis
itaque huius varietatem libuit has tres binarum mediarum proportionalium inventiones sigil-
latim enarrare." In all three passages I have made the usual changes of punctuation and
capitalization. I have also italicized the letters standing for magnitudes in all three versions.
It will be evident to the reader that, although the form of expression differs between the
Cremonensis and Valla versions, there is enough similarity in the choice of words to suggest
strongly that ValIa had his eye on the Cremonensis translation as he prepared his new transla-
tion from Greek manuscript A. The changes made by Wemer as he reproduced the Valla
version are not serious. He did correct a few of the errors in the letters designating
magnitudes found in ValIa's translation. He also added references to Euclid. Students of
Wemer should be interested in knowing that his citations to the text of the Elements
of Euclid are to the translation of Zamberti rather than to the version of Campanus.
b'
Diirer's second and third solutions (those of Plato and Hero), not hitherto
accurately identified. Diirer translated into German Johannes de Muris'
account of those solutions found in the latter's De arte mensurandi and
given above in Part I, Chapter 3. Presumably he used Regiomontanus'
manuscript copy of the medieval work (see above, Part Ill, Chapter 2,
Section 11, note 8). Hence we have here the first clear indication of a
medieval influence on an author treating the means problem in the first
half of the century. This identification of Diirer's treatment with that of
Johannes de Muris decisively disposes of Staigmiiller's suggestion that
Pirckheimer communicated the content of the Greek text of Eutocius or
Hero to Diirer.
6
Less than a decade after Diirer's work, we find Francesco Maurolico
composing in Messina notes on the means problem. These are found in an
autograph manuscript of Rome, Bibl. Naz. Vitt. Eman. S. Pant. 115/32,
44r-v (alternate pag., 42r-v) and 47r-v (alt. pag., 45r-v). 7 I shall give the
crucial parts of these notes before commenting on them. [1] Folio 44r
contains, at the top, the last two-thirds of a simplified form of Pappus'
solution, with the following concluding sentence: "Moreover, this is the
invention of Pappus, and Diocles uses the same way, as does Porus of
Nicea." [2] After drawing a line beneath this statement, Maurolico adds:
, 'Here is to be placed the fourth method of finding two proportional
means, which we have put forth in our speculations, and it is the method
of Hero (then is deleted Apollonius, Philo of Byzantium and Philoponus),
which method is almost the same as the method of Apollonius and Philo."
[3] Still another line is drawn, followed by this note: "There are, in addi-
tion, the methods of Plato, Eratosthenes, and Nicomedes, which we have
6 H. Staigmiiller, Durer als Mathematiker (Programm des Koniglichen Realgymnasiums
in Stuttgart am Schlusse des Schuljahrs 1890/91, Stuttgart, 1891), p. 42.
7 [1] 44r (42r): " ....Est autem inventio Pappi, et hac eadem via utitur Diodes; hac
etiam Porus Nichaeus." [2] Ibid.: "hie ponendus est modus quartus inveniendi duas medias
proportionales, quem posuimus in speculationibus nostris; et est modus Heronis, Apollonii,
Philonis byzantii, et Philoponi (del Maur .), qui modus est idem fere cum modo' Apoi-
ioniCet' Phiion{s." [3fibiJ::" "Superant modi Platonis, Eratosthenis, et Nicomedis,
quos ut minus necessarios dimisimus, contenti quatuor predictis, 30 dec. 1533."
[4] Ibid.: "Sunt igitur quinque modi inveniendi duas medias proportionales, viz., Heronis,
Philonis, Pappi, Architae, et Menechmi. po octob, 1535." [5] Ibid.: .. Item modum a Pla-
tone traditum posuimus in alio Enchiridio." [6] 44v (42v): "INVENTIO PAPPI. Sunto
duae rectae.... Est autem inventio Pappi et hac eadem via utuntur Diodes et Porus."
[7] Ibid.: "Hie ponendus est 4
us
modus inveniendi duas medias proportionales, quem
posuimus in Speculationibus nostris. Et est modus Heronis, Apollonii, Philonis byzantii,
et Philoponi. (del Maur.) Nam modos Platonis, Eratosthenis ei 'Nlc()med"ii,. ut 'superv'aciios
contenti 4
0r
predictis. 30 Dec. 1533." [8] 47r (45r): " ... Estque inventio
Arehytae, ut tradunt Eudemus et Eutocius." [9]Ibid. "po Octob. 1535"; mg.: "Modus ...
Apollonii Pergae (?) ut scribit Io[annes] (n Philoponus, et Philonis byzantii. Philoponus:
tanquam (?) scripsit (?) primo posteriorum." Infer.: "Est hie est modus Apollonii Pergae,
authore Ioanne Philopono, grammatieo Alexandrino, et Philonis byzantii." [10] 47v (45v):
"INVENTIO PAPPI. Sunto duae reetae.... ad periferiam ad signum h." I have capi-
talized all the proper names and expanded "e" to "ae."
dismissed as less necessary, being content with the four methods pre-
viously mentioned. 30th of Dec., 1533." [4] After another line this addi-
tional note appears: "There are, therefore, five methods of finding two
proportional means, viz., those of Hero, Philo, Pappus, Archytas, and
Menechmus. 1st of Octob., 1535." [5] Finally, there is added: "Item: we
have put the method passed on from Plato in another handbook." [6]
Then on the verso of the same folio, the whole of his simplified form of
Pappus' solution is given but with a different set of letters marking the
magnitudes in text and diagrams. It ends much as did note [1] on the recto
of the folio: "Moreover this is the invention of Pappus, and Diodes and
Porus use it." [7] Again, this is followed by a statement similar to that of
note [2] on the recto: "Here is to be placed a fourth method of finding two
proportional means, which method we have placed in our speculations, and
it is the method of Hero (then is deleted Apollonius, Philo of Byzantium,
and Philoponus); for we have neglected the methods of Plato, Eratos-
thenes, and Nicomedes as superfluous, being content with the four meth-
ods previously mentioned. 30th of Dec., 1533." [8] On the top half of 47r
is a part of Archytas' solution, which ends, "And it is the invention of
Archytas, as Eudemus and Eutocius have passed it on." [9] Then below
on 47r Maurolico gives the method of Apollonius (dated 1October, 1535),
with the following marginal note: "The method . . . of Apollonius of
Perga (?), as Johannes (?) Philoponus writes, and of Philo of Byzantium,
just as (?) he wrote (?) [in his commentary] on the 1st [book] of the
Posterior [Analytics]." At the end of the Apollonian method we read
further: "This is the method of Apollonius of Perga, as described by
Johannes Philoponus, the Grammarian of Alexandria, and of Philo of
Byzantium." [10] Finally on the verso of this folio, Maurolico has given
two diagrams related to the solution of Pappus and once more begins
the text of that solution, thus providing the initial part of the proof missing
on 44r. This may be an indication that the original order of the leaves was
altered in binding. Unfortunately, only photographs of the manuscripts
were available to me, so that I could not test this conjecture. Surely some
alteration in Maurolico's original notes has occurred, since the first part of
the solution of Archytas on 47r is missing.
What do these notes tell us about Maurolico's sources? In the first
place, before evaluating the notes, I should remind the reader that
Maurolico was beginning his series of paraphrases of Archimedes in the
early 1530's, as I have said in the preceding chapter. As I indicated
there, it does not appear that Maurolico read the translation of Cremonen-
sis or the Greek text of Archimedes and Eutocius during the preparation
of his paraphrases of 1534 and thus at about the time these notes were
written. His statement in note [1] linking the methods of Pappus, Diodes,
and Porus (Le. Sporus) is of interest because it gives Sporus' name as
"Porus of Nicea." Only Valla's translation (together with Wemer's para-
phrase based on Valla's translation) and Greek manuscript G among the
early manuscripts give the form "Porus." I believe that Valla made the
b
change (even though Greek manuscript A, which he was following, had
"Sporus") because the form "Porus" was given in Eutocius' com-
mentary to Archimedes' On the Measurement of the Circle (see above,
p. 469). Thus it is probable that Maurolico was imitating Valla (or Werner)
in using the form "Porus." We have independent confirmation that
Maurolico had sometime read Valla's work because seven years later in
1540 he refers critically to the passages in Valla's work that contain the
proportional means problem and the succeeding problem on cutting a
sphere in a given ratio.
8
It i1i of interest that when Maurolico com-
posed note [1] he showed that he had also read Eutocius' Commentary
on the Measurement of the Circle, or rather Valla's paraphrase from it,
because in note [1] he gives the full name, "Porus of Nicea," as it exists
only in Eutocius' later work, while all the manuscripts and translations
that mention Sporus or Porus in connection with the proportional means
problem give only the simple name of "Porus" or "Sporus."
A second indication that Maurolico was following Valla's translation is
revealed in note [8], where, after presenting the last part of Archytas'
proof, he notes that it is "ut tradunt Eudemus et Eutocius." In the
Cremonensis translation we find only the phrase "quemadmodum
Eudemus tradit," which follows the Greek text exactly. In Valla' s transla-
tion it appears as "ut tradit Eudemus et Eutocius." Hence, it would
appear that Maurolico took the phrase from Valla, merely changing
"tradit" to "tradunt."
Notes [2], [7] and [9] yield one more hint that Maurolico had his eye
on Valla's section on proportional means. For in all of these notes
Maurolico links Philoponus' account with the methods of Apollonius,
Hero and/or Philo, and only in Valla's section (and Werner's paraphrase
of it) is Philoponus' treatment added to the long account in Eutocius.
Notes [2] and [7] also tell us that Maurolico had placed the Heronian
solution "in our speculations," which is probably a reference to a work he
composed under the title of Speculationes. Such a work is referred to
twice by Maurolico in early lists of his works, once in 1536 in a letter to
Pietro Bemb0
9
and again in 1540 in the preface to his Cosmographia,
which he also addressed to Bembo.
10
I have not found any copy of the
Speculationes.
8 See above, Part Ill, Chap. 5, Sect. 11, n. 7. All of the evidence presented here and in
the preceding chapter indicating Valla as Maurolico's source for Archimedean and Eutocian
material is compatible with the conclusion of J. Mogenet that Maurolico used Valla's De
expetendis et jugiendis rebus in preparing his versions of Autolycus' De sphaera quae
movetur and De ortu et occasU syderum in 1534 ("Pierre Forcadel, traducteur d' Autolycus,"
Archives internationales d'histoire des sciences, No. 10 (1950), pp. 114-28).
9 F. Guardione, "Francesco Maurolico nel secolo XVI," Archivio storico siciliano, anno
20 (1895), p. 38: "Speculationes multas, ubi inter caetera, demonstramus latus octogenj
Iineam esse minorem, dodecagonj vero latus Apotomen, circulo inquam, rationalem habente
diametrum inscriptorum, et alia complura."
10 Cosmographia, sig. a iiii v: "Speculationes mathematicae nostrae: in quibus circa
Iinearum symmetriam: circa optica et catoptrica, circa determinationes maximarum
aequationum in deferentibus planetarum, et alias questiones, multa discutiuntur."
It is of further interest that in 1533 Maurolico intentionally passed
over the solutions of Plato, Eratosthenes, and Nicomedes, according to
notes [3] and [7]. But note [5] claims that the Platonic solution has been
placed in another handbook, but where this exists I do not know. In note
[4] he mentions other solutions, namely those of Archytas and Menech-
mus, and part of Archytas' solution is given in note [8]. Thus, in these
notes, Maurolico presents the substance of three basic solutions. The
first is that of Pappus, Diocles, and Porus (i.e. Sporus) in notes [1],
[6] and [10], the second is that of Archytas in note [8] and the third that of
Apollonius, Hero, Philo, and Philoponus in note [9]. But later Maurolico,
in his Praeparatio ad Archimedis opera (completed in 1550 and thus after
the publication of the editio princeps of Archimedes of 1544), included all
of the proofs given by Eutocius and Philoponus (see Part Ill, Chapter 5,
Text A, Props. XXVI-XXXII).
Shortly after Maurolico's initial efforts to treat the means problem,
Girolamo Cardano, in his Practica arithmetice et mensurandi singularis
(Milan, 1539), gave a brief description of the solution attributed by
Eutocius to Philo, with some change in the lettering,u Cardano does not
mention Philo's name but he does designate the problem of the duplication
of the cube as the thema Platonis, perhaps a reference to the account of
11 Cap. 67, sect. 34, sig. QQ ii verso-Q. iii verso: "Quodsi velles extrahere radicem
cubicam, gratia exempli de 8, scias quod dictum est in capitulo quadragesimosecundo,
regula sexigesimasecunda, quod cum fuerint quattuor numeri continue proportionales ab
unitate secundus est radix cubica quarti. Sit igitur linea c.d 8 [Fig. III.6.3.6], cuius volo
radicem cubicam. Quia igitur est 8, divide earn in 8 partes aequales quarum una sit
c.a; igitur c.a est unitas. Et ita si c.d fuisset 10 cuius voluissem accipere radicem cubicam,
dividerem c.d in 10 partes aequales cuius una esset c.a, essetque c.a unitas, et ita semper
invenio unitatem. Erigo igitur c.e aequalemc.a unitati perpendiculariter super c.d et produco
d.e et divido d.e per aequalia, et in eius media facto centro circumscribo trigono c.d.e
circulum, ut vides, qui necessario pertransibit per punctum c eo quod angulus c rectus est.
Deinde protra[h]am e.j aequidistantem c.d et producam eam multum extra versus h, et
producamf.d in directo multum versus g, ut vides, eritque quadrilaterum c.d.e.j rectorum
angulorumex vigesimanona et quadragesimasecunda primi euclidis. Et hoc dieo ut cognoscas
an bene protraxeris dictas lineas. Deinde pone regulam super punctum c, circumvolvens
earn tantum quod mensurando a puncto h ad punctumc aequet linee a puncto b ad punctum
g. Cumque hoc inveneris circumvolvendo regulam circa punctum c, produces lineam h.c.g,
eritque e.h radix cubica c.d, eo quod quattuor linee c.d et d.g et e.h et e.c sunt continue pro-
portionales et e.c est unitas; igitur secunda quantitas, que est est h.e, est radix cubica
quarte, que est c.d, quod erat probandum. Et ex hoc si quis tibi ponat unam lineam
puta a.b [Fig. III.6.3.7] et dicat invenias aliam lineam per hanc que fatiat (! faciat) cubum
ut pote duplum aut triplum cubo ipsius a.b, ut fuit in themate platonis, pone quod semper
a.b sit 1; eius cubus igitur est 1; et quia volo cubum duplum, igitur ille cubus erit 2. Ac-
cipienda igitur est linea b.c, que erit dupla ad a.b et iungemus eas ad rectos angulos ut
prius et producemus a.c et circumscribemus circulum. Deinde circumvolvendo regulam
super punctum b, fatiemus (! faciemus) b. e aequalemj.g. Cumque hoc fuerit producta linea
e.b.g.j, habebimus a.e radicem cubam (! cubicam) b.c, ex qua facto cubo proveniet cubus
duplus ad cubum factum ex a.b. " I have altered punctuation and capitalization somewhat
and made the usual changes in consonantal "u" and vocal "v". Cardano's account of the
Philonian method is a free one and the lettering on the figures seems to be completely his
own and does not agree with any of the known versions of the solution.
the Delian origin of the problem given by Philoponus and translated by
Valla. A possible medieval source for Cardano's description of Philo's
solution may have been available to him in Leonardo Fibonacci'sPractica
geometrie (see Volume 1, pp. 658-64). At about the same time as
Cardano's treatment, Tartaglia briefly mentioned the problem in a passage
dated 1540 that appeared in his Quesiti et inventioni, a passage I have
discussed above (see Part Ill, Chapter 4, Sect. 11, note 17). Then in the
same year as the publication of Cremonensis' translation (1544), the
problem was treated incorrectly on the basis of the Platonic solution by
two authors: Michael StifeP2 and Oronce Fine.
I3
I shall discuss in the
12 Michael Stifel, Arithmetica integra (Nuremberg, 1544), 119r-20r. The substance of
Stifel's erroneous proof with its refutation is given below in note. 14.
13 Oronce Fine, Quadratura circuli, tandem inventa et clarissime demonstrata (Paris,
1544), pp. 3-8: "Problema primum. Datis duorum quadratorum lateribus, quorum alterum
circa, alterum vero intra oblatum describitur circulum: binas medias lineas rectas, sub
eadem ratione continue proportionales invenire.
"Ad construendam confirmandamque circuli quadraturam, a nobis tandem (utinam
faeliciter) excogitatam: necessum est in primis, oblatis duorum quadratorum lateribus,
quorum alterum dato sit inscriptum circulo, alterum vero circunscriptum, binas medias
lineas rectas, in eadem ratione continue proportionales reddere notas. Qua ratione autem
mathematica, id problema dissolvatur: ex nemine valuimus integre deprehendere. Quanvis
enim plaerique philosophi ac Mathematici (Graeci potissimum) ut iIlud explicarent problema,
quod cubi duplicatio dicitur, diversis et subtilibus admodum investigationibus (quas omnes
Georgius Valla Placentinus, capite secundo libri quarti suae Geometriae citat, et summatim
interpretatur) ostendere conati sint, qualiter inter duas quasvis inaequales lineas rectas, duae
mediae lineae rectae sub eadem ratione continue proportionales obtineantur. Nullam
tamen illorum offendimus inventionem, quae alicuius instrumenti mechanici non utatur
adminiculo, et proinde quae aperta suspitione, vel inexcogitabili difficultate carere videatur.
Ne igitur infirmis adniteremur fundamentis, et mathematicam simul atque suscepti negotii
violaremus integritatem: novum ac fidissimum modum investigandi eiuscemodi lineas pro-
portionales tibi demum excogitavimus.
"Sit igitur latus quadrati circa datum circulum descripti ab [Fig. III.6.3.8], eius vero
quadrati latus quod in eodem circulo descriptum est bc: inter quae duo latera, operae-
pretium sit binas medias lineas rectas sub eadem ratione continue proportionales in-
venire. Constituantur in primis ipsa ab et bc latera, ad rectum angulum qui sub abc, et
centro b, intervallo autem ba, circulus describatur adef, [Fig. III.6.3.9] per tertium
postulatum geometricum. Utraque postmodum ab et be, in continuum directumque pro-
ducatur: donec ad puncta d, e, f, in circunferentiam ipsius applicentur circuli. Erunt
igitur ae et df, eiusdem circuli dimetientes: in eius centro b, ad rectos sese invicem
dirimentes angulos. Dividatur consequenter reliqua pars semidiametri bf, hoc est, recta cf,
proportionaliter: tali quidem ratione, ut tota fe ad maius illius segmentum, a puncto e
versus f comprehensum, eandem habeat rationem, quam idem segmentum ad reliquum,
hoc est, secundum rationem habentem medium et duo continuatae proportionis extrema:
per trigesimam sexti elementorum. Hoc autem iuxta ipsius trigesimae propositionis
traditionem, fiet in hunc modum. Describatur ex ipsa ef, [Fig. III.6.3.1O] quadratum efg,
per penultimam primi ipsorum e1ementorum, dividaturque latus eg bifariam in puncto h,
per decimam ipsius primi. Producatur deinde recta he versus i, et connectatur recta hf.
Ipsi tandem hf, aequalis secetur hci: ac ipsi ci, aequalis ek, per tertiam eiusdem primi
elementorum. Nam ek erit media proportionalis, ad quam tota fe earn habet rationem,
quam eadem ck ad reliquam partem /if, per ipsius trigesimae sexti demonstrationem. Erit
ergo bk, [Fig. III.6.3.9] secunda linea proportionalis. Connectatur itaque recta ek, quae
producta in directum et continuum attingat circuli quadrantem al!, in puncto l. Deinde,
connexa al recta, ipsi el, per punctum c, parallela ducatur mn, per trigesimam primam
primi elementorum, quae secet eandem al in puncto m, semidiametrum vero be in puncto
n, erit enimbn tertia proportionalis. Secetur postmodum a semidiametro bd, ipsi bk aequalis,
per tertiam ipsius primi, sitque iUa br. Et connectatur recta mr, quae secet dimetientem
ae in puncto 0, atque ar recta, quae in directum continuata attingat circunferentiam
ipsius circuli in puncto s. Tandem connectantur es et nr lineae rectae, et reliqua, ut in
ipsa continetur figura.
"His in hunc modum constructis, rectus erit in primis uterque et qui ad I et qui ad s
continetur angulus, per trigesimamprimam tertii elementorum, uterque enim consistit in
semicirculo. Rectus similiter erit angulus amn, aequalis siquidem est interiori et opposito
ad easdem partes qui ad I, per vigesimamnonam primi ipsorum elementorum. Insuper,
quoniam ab ipsi be est aequalis, atque br ipsi bk, et qui circa b consistunt anguli
invicem aequales, nempe recti. Bina ergo triangula abr et ebk habent duo latera duobus
lateribus aequalia alterum alteri, et angulos sub aequis lateribus contentos invicem aequales.
Basis itaque ar basi ek et reliquus angulus bar reliquo bek atque reliquus arb reliquo bke,
per quartam primi elementorum est aequalis. Recta igitur linea ae, incidens in as et le lineas
rectas, efficit alternos angulos invicem aequales, similiter et ipsa rk. Parallela est itaque as
ipsi le, per vigesimamseptimam ipsius primi elementorum, et ipsi consequenter mn itidem
parallela, per trigesimam eiusdem primi. In parallelas autem as et le, recta incidens al
efficit interiores et ad easdem partes angulos ale et lar duobus rectis aequales, per
vigesimamnonam ipsius primi elementorum. Atqui rectus est angulus ale; rectus est igitur
et angulus lar. Haud dissimiliter ostendetur angulus les esse rectus. Et proinde al ipsi es
parallela est, per vigesimamoctavam eiusdem primi elementorum. Rectangulum est igi tur,
atque parallelogrammum, ipsum ales quadrilaterum. Caeterum, quoniam ar, ipsi mn est
parallela, et in illas incidunt an et mr, angulus igitur arm alterno rmn est aequalis, necnon
et angulus anm alterno nar, per ipsam vigesimamnonam primi elementorum. Anguli
praeterea, qui circa 0 verticem sub aor et mon continentur, sunt, per decimamquintam
eiusdem primi, invicem aequales. Aequiangula sunt itaque aor et mon triangula, et quae
circum igitur aequales angulos sunt latera invicem proportionalia, et similis rationis quae
aequalibus angulis latera subtenduntur, per quartam sexti eorundem elementorum. Sicut
igitur ao ad or, sic no ad om. Similis ergo rationis sunt ao et on, atque ipsa ro et om
latera. Praeterea, cum sit ut ao ad or sic no ad om, et qui sub aom et nor continentur anguli,
sunt per decimamquintam primi elementorum invicem aequales. Triangula igitur aom et nor
habent unum angulum uni angulo aequalem, et quae circum aequales angulos latera
reciproce proportionalia. Aequum est itaque triangulum aom ipsi triangulo nor, per
decimamquintam sexti elementorum. Et quoniam bases am et nr, in aequalibus triangulis
aequales subtendunt angulos, similis igitur coguntur esse rationis. Atqui ao et on, necnon
ro et om, similis quoque sunt rationis, est enim ut ao ad or, sic no ad om; proportionalia
itaque sunt, eorundem triangulorum aom et nor latera. Et proinde ipsa triangula sunt
invicem aequiangula et aequales habent angulos sub quibus eiusdem rationis latera sub-
tenduntur, per quintam sexti elementorum. Nam sicut in triangulis aequiangulis similis
rationis sunt quae aequalibus angulis latera subtenduntur, per quartam ipsius sexti: sic in
triangulis quorum latera sunt proportionalia similis rationis latera aequales versa vice sub-
tendunt angulos. Angulus itaque amo ipsi om, atque reliquus mao reliquo onr est aequalis.
In rectas ergo lineas am et nr, rectae incidentes lineae an et mr efficiunt alternos
angulos invicem aequales. Parallela est igitur nr, ipsi am, atque ipsi es itidem parallela,
per vigesimamseptimam et trigesimam primi elementorum. Parallelogrammum est itaque ip-
sum amnr quadrilaterum; aio quod et rectangulum. Anguli enim qui ad puncta a et m
continentur recti sunt; et qui ex opposito igitur consistunt anguli am et mnr sunt recti, per
trigesimamquartam ipsius primi elementorum. Utrunque igitur ales et amnr, ac ipsum con-
sequenter etnv quadrilaterum, parallelogrammum est, atque rectangulum. Et proinde
triangula am et me rectangula sunt; et qui ad n et r puncta consistunt anguli recti.
Quod in primis oportuit demonstrasse.
"His praeostensis, aio br et bn lineas rectas esse medio loco sub eadem ratione continue
next section at greater length the efforts by both of them to solve the
problem of the quadrature of the circle. Both of the authors erred in
thinking that simple compass constructions will obtain to produce the Pla-
tonic figure by which the means problem may be solved. I am not sure
where Stifel had seen the Platonic solution; perhaps it was in Cusa's work,
which he definitely knew, or in Diirer's work. On the other hand, Fine
mentions Valla's passage which includes Plato's among the various solu-
tions of the problem. Furthermore, as I shall show in the next section,
Fine owned the autograph manuscript of Johannes de Muris' De arte
mensurandi and no doubt also saw the Platonic solution of the problem
there included. But all of these correct solutions available to him did not
prevent Fine from committing grievous geometrical errors.
The accounts of Stifel and Fine were immediately disputed by a former
student of Fine, Jean Borrel, who produced his confutations in his Opera
geometrica et juris civilis (Lyons, 1544), which included an unsatisfactory
solution of his own.
14
Fine's treatment was also refuted in a detailed and
proportionales, inter ipsa ab et be supradictorum quadratorum latera: sicut quidem ab
ad br, sic eadem br ad bn, et ipsa bn ad be. Cum enim triangulumam sit (uti nuper ostensum
est) rectangulum, et ab angulo recto qui ad r. in basin an demissa perpendicularis br, est
igitur ipsa br, media proportionalis inter ipsius basis segmenta ab et bn. per corollarium
octavae sexti elementorum. Sicut igitur ab ad br sic eadem br ad ipsam bn. Rursum
quoniam triangulum me l;st itidem rectangulum, et ab angulo recto qui ad n in basim re
demissa perpendicularis bn. est igitur eadem bn, media proportionalis inter ipsius basis
segrnenta rb et be, per idem corollarium octavae sexti elementorum. Sicut ergo br ad bn
sic eadembn ad be. Atqui praeostensum est, ut ab ad br, sic eadembr ad bn. Et sicut igitur.
per undecimam quinti elementorum, ab ad br sic ipsa bn ad be. Datis ergo binis quadratorum
lateribus ab be, quorum alterum in dato circulo, alterum in dato circulo, alterum vero circa
descriptum est: duas medias lineas rectas, sub eadem ratione continue proportionales
invenimus, scilicet br atque bn. Quod faciendum in primis susceperamus." I have altered
the punctuation extensively, italicized the letters used for geometrical magnitudes, and
made the usual changes of consonantal "u" and vocal "v". I have also omitted the corollary
and further considerations of proportional means that are as faulty as the long passage that
I have included. For a brief discussion of Fine's treatment ofthis and the other classic Greek
problems of this nature, see R. Ross, Studies on Oronee Fine, Dissertation, Columbia
University, 1971, Chap. 7, pp. 222-66. Ross would soften the hostile judgment usually
delivered on Fine's geometrical knowledge by stressing its impact on geometrical studies
in France (and particularly at Paris) in the sixteenth century. But certainly when viewed in
comparison with the work of acute geometers like Regiomontanus, Maurolico, Nunes, and
Commandino, Fine's geometrical ineptness is painfully clear. This will be particularly evident
in my discussion of his efforts to present and modify the Archimedean determination of TT in
the next section.
14 Borrel's criticism of Fine's solution of the means problem is not a detailed one (p. 45):
"BUT. Videmus hie authorem non probare vestigationes iIIas, quae per organa mechanica
fiunt, quibus mathematicam (ut ipse loquitur) integritatem violari putaL Itaque posteaquam
novum suum (ut ait) modum, ac fidelissimum ducentis ferme versibus inculcans et in-
farciens occultavit potius quam demonstravit, nihilominus tamen, vel oblitus propositi, seu
magis ludificatione quadam circulatoria, id aperte facit ad finem problematis, quod in
principio damnaverat." His criticism of Stifel's solution is more detailed (pp. 65-67): "Ad
problema Stifelii Confutatio. Hoc insuper problema tractavit Stifelius Germanus, in libro
cui titulum fecit, Arithmetica integra.... Ipsum ergo problema, sensum rei potius quam
devastating manner in Portugal by the Jewish mathematician Pedro Nunes
in a work entitled De erratis Orontii Finaei (Coimbra, 1546).15 Nunes'
authoris verba sequutus ita propono. DatumcubumP duplicare [Fig. III .6. 3.11]. Disponantur
duae lineae rectae LA et KC, sese decussantes angulis rectis ad signum B, et uni ex
lateribus dati cubi P ponatur aequalis BA. Quaequidem secetur aequaliter in partes octo,
quae dicantur esse pedes, et ipsius lateris BA duplum fiat linea BC. Cuius dimidium BD
secetur per aequalia in signo E. Et BE per aequalia, in puncto F. Et iterum FE per
aequalia, in puncto I. Haec autem per aequalia sectio quater repetita, nihil aliud est
quam in linea BC signare tres pedes lineae BA, qui sunt BI. Et centro quidem I, spatio
vero IC, describatur semicirculus CLK. Item super linea LA describatur semicirculus
LGKA. Et ex linea KB describatur cubus R. Dicit Stifelius cubum R esse duplum dati
cubi P. Item si ex linea BL fiat cubus, erit etiam duplus ad cubum R. Huius propositi
demonstrationem dixit author esse facilem ex ipsa figura, intelligenti propositionem
Euclidis nonam sexti. Quod non est verum simpliciter, si non et corollarium accedat
trigesimae tel'tiae primi solidorum, et etiam 37 eiusdem. Sed ita fieri solet ut facilitatem
inscitiae praetendamus. Talis autem demonstratio sic erit. Quoniam enim lineaBK est media
proportionalis inter duas lineas BA et BL. Item ipsa BL media proportionalis inter duas
lineas KB et BC. Est igitur sicut BA ad BK ita BK ad BL. Et sicut BK ad BL ita
BL ad BC. Ipsae igitur quatuor lineae BA, BK, BL, BC sunt proportionales continue. Quare
sicut prima BA ad quartam BC subdupla est, ita et cubus descriptus ex prima BA, qui est
P, ad cubum descriptum ex secunda, qui est R, subduplus est. Quare et cubus R cubi P
duplus. Et etiam cubus si fuerit descriptus ex linea BL cubi R duplus. Quod oportuit fecisse.
Haec autem demonstratio, quamvis recta sit, et ex geometricis principiis legitime procedat,
inest tamen illi vitium illud quod ab Aristotele dicitur ljJw6oypaQ;7I/L0I 7Tpi r1}'> all.r,(J,>.
Habet enim descriptio falsum id, quod peripheria semicirculi super linea LAB non transit per
terminum K. Unde cum non possit dicilineaBK media proportionalis interlineasBA etBL. Ex
hoc demonstratio tota corruit et nulla est. . . ." In presenting his own solution (pp.
62-65), he declares that contrary to Philoponus' observation that a solution of the problem
cannot be had from Euclid's Elements, such a solution can be devised: "Cum autem visis
postea super hoc scriptis aliorum, intelligerem negotium tOtum in hoc consistere, ut inter
duas quae dantur lineas rectas, invenirentur aliae duae proportionales continue. Quod
primum omnium animadvertisse fertur Hippocrates. Coepi mecum ipse diligenter inquirere,
num et istud per elementa dari posset. Nam et obiurgat Philoponus Euclidem, quod duabus
rectis lineis datis unam tantum mediam, et non etiam duas proportionales continuas
docuerit invenire, tanquam si Philoponus ipse, vel alius quisquam, elementum huiusmodi
legitime tradidisset. Quanquam etiam non concedo Philopono, ut hoc omnino vere dicatur
in Euclidem. Nam et ex ipsius elementis talis inventio constat."
15 Nunes' splendid critique, in which he demolishes Fine's purported geometrical con-
struction of the Platonic figure, comprises six long refutations (reprehensiones) and
occupies pages 9-27. It immediately follows the complete text of Orontius' solution
(pp. 3-7), and an accurate presentation of the modus Platonis (pp. 7-9). Of these refutations
I shall give only the first part of the first reprehensio, in which Nunes points out the
first geometrical error of Fine (pp. 9-10): "Orontium Finaeum [h ]allucinatum esse circa
inventionem duarum mediarum proportionalium, ob ignorantiam elementorum geo-
metricorum sexti libri Euclidis. Caput tertium. Reprehensio prima. Repetita Orontii Finaei
demonstratione cum sua figuratione, ut apertius earn confutemus, verbum verba re-
spondebimus. Igitur concedimus quadrilaterum ales [Fig. 111.6.3.9] parallelogrammum esse
atque rectangulum. Praeterea fatemur bina triangula aor et mon aequiangula esse, et
proinde quae circum aequales angulos sunt latera proportionalia, et similis rationis quae
aequalibus angulis latera subtenduntur, velut quarta propositio libri sexti elementorum
ostendit. Et idcirco sicut ao ad or sic no ad om; similis ergo rationis sunt ao et on, atque
ro et om, ipsorum triangulorum aor et mon, latera. Nec dubitamus angulos qui sub aom et
nor continentur aequales esse. Simul etiam confitemur triangula aom et nor, quae unum
critique includes a correct exposition of the Platonic method and reveals
that Nunes was familiar with (1) the whole account of Eutocius (probably
from the Cremonensis translation printed in Regiomontanus' version in
1544), (2) Valla's translation, and (3) the paraphrase by Johann Werner.
16
Nunes' criticism seems to have had no effect on Fine, for in the greatly
expanded treatment of the problem published in his posthumous work De
rebus mathematicis hactenus desideratis libri IIII (Paris, 1556), we again
see Fine attempting a geometrical rather than mechanical construction of
the Platonic figureY
Borrel and Nunes were not the only mathematicians to criticize Stifel's
and Fine's solutions of the means problem. Tartaglia also took part in this
criticism in his General Trattato, Part IV (Venice, 1560).18 In this discus-
angulum uni angulo ad verticem aequalem habent, et latera circum ipsos aequales angulos
reciproce proportionalia aequalia esse, quod secunda pars 15 sexti Euclidis demonstrat.
Caetereum quum infert, quoniam bases am et nr, in aequali bus triangulis aom et nor,
aequales subtendunt angulos, similis igitur coguntur esse rationis, hoc negamus consequi.
Et quum addit, ao et on, nec non ro et om, similis sunt rationis, quoniam sit ut ao ad or
sic no ad om, sane concedimus proportionalia esse et similis rationis ipsa latera in similibus
triangulis aor et mon, hoc enim iam fuerat ostensum. Sed ex hoc perperam colligit
proportionalia esse triangulorum aom et nor latera. Quod pro vero cum recepisset, deinde
licuit inferre per quintam sexti elementorum, ipsa triangula aom et nor aequiangula esse,
et tandemconcludere quadrilaterumamnr parallelogrammum esse atque rectangulum: in quo
multis modis culpandus est Orontius. . . ." Then follows the detailed account of Orontius'
errors.
16 Ibid., p. 9: "Runc Platonis modum et reliquorum quoque philosophorum Eutocius
Ascalonita tradidit super secundo libro de sphaera et Cylindro Archimedis, et Georgius
Valla in opere illo magno expetendorum ac fugiendorum. Novissime autem vir eruditus
Ioannes Vernerus Norumbergensis eos omnes modos multo lucidius enarravit."
17 On Ir Orontius repeats his earlier statement that the ancient authors had not found a
sure (i.e. non mechanical) way of solving the means problem: "Qua ratione mathematica
hoc dignissimum ac utile problema dissolvatur, nemo hactenus sufficienter tradidisse videtur:
tametsi Graecorum quamplurimi, non aspernandi philosophi atque mathematici, ut illud
explicarent problema, quod cubi duplicatio dicitur, variis ac subtilibus admodum inventis,
easdem lineas proportionales tentarint (!) exprimere. Quemadmodum ex Eutocio Ascalonita
Archimedis interprete, et Georgio Valla Placentino, qui singulorum exposuerunt
adinventiones, colligere haud difficile est. Nullus siquidem eorundem Graecorum authorum
offendetur, qui in disquirendis eiuscemodi lineis proportionalibus, viam aliquam certam
obtinuerit.... Nos igitur praefatas lineas rectas inter datas extremas continue propor-
tionales (ne mathematica simulatque suscepti negotii violetur integritas) via hactenus a
nemine tentata . . . conabimur reddere notas. " Then on 17r- v, Fine once more presents a
faulty method of geometrically constructing the Platonic figure very much like his earlier
effort.
18 On 19r-v, Tartaglia summarizes Fine's method and refutes it on the basis of its
geometrical errors. Ris critique is encapsulated in the margin of 19v: "11 fondamental errore
di Orontio e, che le due base am et nr non e necessario esse della medesima pro-
portione di lati, come conchiude in parole, ne che il triangolo aom sia simile al al (n
triangolo ron nelle due !inee nr et am esser equidistanti, ne il quadrilatero amnr esser
parallelogrammo rettangolo, ne li duoi angoli am et me esser reUi, etc." On 21v-22r,
Tartaglia recounts the method of Stifel and tersely concludes: "Dellaqual sua sciocca con-
clusione molto mi stupisco, perche per piuvie si puo conoscere, che tai 2 linee ka et la
non sono tal qual paiono al senso, ne manco il mezzo cerchio bgl descritto sopra il
sion Tartaglia demonstrates familiarity with ValIa's account. 19 Later in
Part V of the work, Tartaglia translated into Italian the whole of
Eutocius' passage on the means problem, and it can be shown that the
translation was made from Cremonensis' version rather than that of Valla
or Moerbeke.
20
These then are the principal treatments of the means problem in the
first half of the century and, as I asserted in the beginning, they show
virtually no assured medieval influences except that of Johannes de Muris
on Diirer. One final observation is pertinent. There is no trace in these
accounts of Pappus' Mathematical Collection, which contained Hero's
and Pappus' own solution of the problem.
21
IV. The Quadrature of the Circle and
Kindred Problems
The most popular Archimedean problem in the sixteenth century, as in
the fifteenth, concerned the quadrature of the circle and its complementary
rectification of the circumference of the circle. In describing the various
treatments of this problem in the first half of the century, we are faced with
a most difficult question as to which of many possible versions of On the
Measurement of the Circle lies behind a particular treatment-whether
the source was medieval or from the Renaissance, or a combination of
both. We have already seen how Maurolico composed a version of On the
Measurement of the Circle that in all likelihood was influenced by one or
another medieval version of that work. We have also examined Coner's
corrections of the translation by William of Moerbeke and the fate of that
translation in Tartaglia's collected edition of 1543. Let us now examine
other less clear-cut evidences of the continuation of medieval traditions.
diametro bi non transisse per il ponto k anchor che cosi ne pare al senso, et che
tutte queste nostre oppositioni siano vere cosi si manifesta...." The refutation that
follows is based on assigning numbers and showing that the numbers calculated for the
lines are not continually proportional.
19 Ibid., 20r: "Et cosi non solamente fu trovato da essequir tal problema da detti nostri
antichi in circa 12 varii modi, come si trova registrato in Giorgio Valla, et in Archi-
mede, ma anchora da molti altri modemi. . . ." On 20v, Tartaglia lists the names of
the authors of various solutions and includes therein "Parmenion discepolo di Apollonio
Pergeo," which he undoubtedly took from Valla's work.
20 The collection of solutions occupies folios 44r-50r. I have checked the Italian transla-
tion against the Latin texts of Moerbeke, Cremonensis and Valla, and find that it is in most
complete agreement with the text as found in Cremonensis, although Tartaglia no doubt also
looked at Valla occasionally. It is of further interest that Tartaglia does not add the passage
from Philoponus that Valla had translated.
21 Pappus Alexandrinus, Collectionis quae sllpersllnt, Book Ill, 21-27, Book VIII, 26,
ed. of F. Hultsch, Vo!. 1 (Berlin, 1875), pp. 54-68; Vo!' 3 (1878), pp. 1070-72.
r
Early in the century, Charles de Bouelles (or Bovelles) (ca. 1479-1553)
was the firs t in a line of French mathematicians to concern themselves with
quadrature problems. Charles de Bouelles was a student of Jacques Le
Fevre d'Etaples, and several short works by de Bouelles were published
with Le Fevre's Introductio in libros arithmeticos divi Severini
Boetii ... (Paris, 1503).1 Among those works of de Bouelles are two that
bear on our investigation: Liber de circuli quadratura (85r-87v) and
Liber cubicationis sphere (87v-89v).2 They only dimly and imprecisely
reflect Archimedean knowledge but they demand study for their kinematic
approach to problems of quadrature, an approach reflective on the one
hand of the generative geometry of Gerard of Brussels' Liber de motu
and Nicholas of Cusa's De mathematicis complementis and on the other
of the unrolling technique evidenced in the paradox of the Wheel of
Aristotle.
1 In hoc libro contenta epitome compendiosaque introductio in libros arithmeticos divi
S. Boetii [by J. Le F.]; adiecto familiari commentario (J. Clichtovei) dilucidata. Praxis
numerandi (J. Clichtovei). Introductio in geometriam sex libris distincta (C. Bovilli). Liber
de quadratura circuli (C. Bovilli). Liber de cubicatione sphere (c. Bovilli). Perspectiva
introductio (C. Bovilli). Insuper astronomicon [by J. Le F.] (Paris, 1503). Reprinted in
1510. An edition (perhaps of Strasbourg) in about 1507 contains an epitome of de Bouelles'
Geometria but not his De quadratura circuli and De cubicatione sphere, which are the
object of my study here. These two tracts were also published in G. Reisch's Margarita
philosophica nova (Strasbourg, 1515). The De quadratura circuli was included in Pedro
Sanchez Ciruelo's Cursus quattuor mathematicarum artium liberalium (Paris, 1516) sign.
[E vi verso-E vii verso]. For other geometrical tracts, see de Bouelles' Quo volumine
continentur: Liber de intellectu. Liber de sensu. Liber de nichilo. Ars oppositorum. Liber
de generatione. Liber de sapiente. Liber de duodecim numeris. Epistole complures.
Insuper mathematicum opus quadripartitum: De numeris perfectis. De mathematicis rosis.
De geometricis corporibus. De geometricis supplementis (Paris, 1510). In his Manuel du
librairie, Vo!. 4 (Paris, 1860), c. 1188, J. C. Brunet mentions a Geomhrie en franr.;,oys.
Cy commence le Livre de l' art et science de Geometrie etc. (Paris, 1511), composed by
de Bouelles, which Brunet calls the earliest printed geometry in French. I have not seen
this work, but Brunet says that it "ought to be" a translation of the Introductio in
geometriam of 1503. It appears to have been reprinted in 1514 (I have not seen this edition
either). Brunet distinguishes it from the Livre singulier et utile, touchant l' art et practique
de geomhrie (Paris, 1542). This latter work was revised and published in Paris in 1547 as
Geometrie practique. This is the edition I have used below. There were many editions of
the Geomhrie practique: 1551, 1555, 1566, 1605, and 1608. I should also call attention to
the posthumous Geometricum opus duobus libris comprehensum (Paris, 1557). For a not
very satisfying effort to appraise his philosophy, see J. Dippel, Versuch einer systematischen
Darstellung der Philosophie des Carolus Bovillus, nebst einem kurzen Lebensabrisse
(Wurzburg, 1565). Much more satisfactory is the recent study of Joseph M. Victor, Charles
de Bovelles (1478-1553): An Intellectual Biography, Dissertation, Columbia University,
1971. As I shall indicate below, there is scarcely any change in de Bouelles' basic
geometrical ideas from the first work to the last.
2 The Introductio in geometriam was completed 25 November, 1501, as we learn from
its colophon (84v: "Geometrici introductorii sexti et ultimi libri finis. Editi anno domini
millesimo quingentesimo primo: vicesima quinta novembris"). Hence it seems likely that the
De quadratura circuli and the De cubicatione sphere, which follow the Geometria, were
written between that time and 1503 when the whole volume was published.
QUADRATURE PROBLEMS 1181
As evidence of de Bouelles' kinematic techniques, I shall quote 20 of
the 27 propositions of his Liber de circuli quadratura:
3
3 Ed. 1503, 85r-86v: "Quadra. cir. Caroli Bovilli Samarobrini liber de circuli quadratura.
1. Si linea recta, nullo suorum punctorum fixo, tota equaliter in pIano moveatur, necessarie
suo motu parallellogrammum describet [Fig. 111.6.4.1]. Ea vero equaliter movetur: cum
neque ad dexteram neque ad sinistram a medio declinat. 2. Quodsi ut prius recta linea
mota secundum suiipsius quantitatem feratur ducitur in seipsam, eritque descriptus eius
quadratus [Fig. 111.6.4.2]. 3. Si recta linea, altero suorum extremorum fixo, moveatur, ea
fixo circumducitur extremo, circulum aut circuli portionem eodem motu describens, cuius
circunferentiam reliquum extremum sua latione producit [Fig. III.6.4.3]. 4. Quodsi recta
linea hoc pacto circa alterum suorum extremorum delata unius recti anguli spacio
circumducatur, quartam circuli partem quadrantemve describet. Si vero duorum rectorum
spacium, conficiat semicirculum. Si trium, tres circuli quadrantes. Si denique totum
spacium (quod quattuor rectis est equale), perfectum circulum suo motu absolvet [Fig.
III.6.4.4]. 5. Recta linea, alteri suorum extremorum fixo, quantumlibet circumducta, quod
ex ea in rectam lineam arcui revolutionis equalem ducta producitur ei quod ex eius
revolutione fit est duplum [Fig. III.6.4.5]. De recta linea arcui revolutionis equali et ipso
revolutionis arcu, seu circunferentia aut eius parte, ob equalitatem eadem est ratio. 6. Unde
manifestnm (! manifestum) est, quicquid fit ex circuli semidiametro in medietatem cir-
cunferentie sive in lineam rectam medietati circunferentie equalem, esse parallellogrammum
qui dato cireulo necessario est equalis, et cuius minus latus est ipsius circuli semidiameter,
maius vero eius circunferentie medietas. 7. Rursus parallellogrammus ex ductu quarte
partis diametri circuli dati in totam circunferentiam, aut quarte partis circunferentie in totam
diametrum factus eidem circulo est equalis. Qui vero fit ex ductu totius diametri in
circunferentie medietatem, aut totius circunferentie in semidiametrum circulo eidem est
duplus. Qui autem ex tota diametro in totam circunferentiam, aut tota circunferentia in
totam diametrum, necessario eidem circulo quadruplus esse comprobatur [Fig. 111.6.4.6].
(85v) 8. Si dati parallellogrammi non quadrati inequalium laterum medium proportionale
sumatur, erit quod ex eo in se ducto fit quadratum dato parallellogrammo equale [Fig.
III.6.4.7]. 9. Datis duabus lineis inequalibus, si simul addantur, atque super totam ex
utrisque coniunctam semicirculo descripto, et rursus a puncto communis additionis
utriusque recta perpendiculari ad circunferentiam extensa, erit huiusmodi perpendicularis inter
propositas lineas media proportionalis [Fig. III.6.4.8]. 10. Circulus super lineamrectamaut planam
superficiem consistens, eandem in solo puncto contingit [Fig. III.6.4.9]. 11. Circulus si super
planam superficiem equaliter in rectum moveatur, secundum rectamlineam movebitur, quam suo
motu eius cireunferentia describit, eidem circunferentie equalem. 12. Circulus super rectam
lineam equaliter latus inter lineas equidistantes mo(86r)vetur, cuius centrum rectam lineam
mediam describit utrique extremarum equidistantem. 13. Circulo equaliter super rectam
lineam delato, quodlibet eius punctum (preter centrum) ad lineam motui subieetam
secundum circuli arcum (quadrante minorem) deprimitur aut ab ea sursum elevatur [Fig.
III.6.4.1O]. Solum vero centrum (quod nusquam a medio discedit, nec elevatur aut
deprimitur) nullum suo motu describit areum sed lineam rectam. 14. Circuli equaliter super
rectam lineam delati nullum punctum preter centrum rectam suo motu lineam describit.
IS. Si circulus super rectam lineam consistens a puncto contactus equaliter super earn
moveatur quousque eandem iterum in eadem sui puncto contingat, erit recta linea utrisque
mutuorum contactuum punctis intercepta toti eius circunferentie equalis, in quam eodem
motu ducitur dati circuli diameter [Fig, 111.6.4.11]. 16. Quo fit ut si linea recta (quam
perfecta revo1utione tota dati circuli circunferentia absolvit) in eius diametrum ducatur,
nascetur parallellogrammus dato circulo quadruplus; quem totum idem circulus suo motu
pertransit, duobus eius semicirculis hincinde ex utraque parte extra parallellogrammum
relictis. 17. Dimidia circuli super rectam lineam revo1utio spacium absolvit eidem circu10
duplum, qui est parallellogrammus ex ductu recte linee dimidie eius circunferentie equalis

1. If the whole of a straight line is moved evenly [Le. in a motion of translation
so that it is always parallel to itself] in a plane with no point at rest, it will
necessarily describe a parallelogram [Le. rectangle] by its motion. Indeed it
is moved evenly when it inclines neither to the right nor to the left of the
center.
4
[See Fig. III.6.4.I.]
in ipsius diametrum productus. 18. Circuli secundum quartam sue circunferentie partem
super rectam lineam revolutio spacium pertransit dato circulo equale, qui est parallello-
grammus ex ductu diametri in lineam rectam quarte parti sue circunferentie equalem
productus. 19. Punctum revolutionis quarte partis circunferentie circuli super rectam lineam
in eadem linea invenire. Sit circulus datus abed, cuius centrum e, super rectam lineam
fg consistens, et eandem in puncto d contingens [Fig. III.6.4.12]. Ducatur in eo bed
diameter linee fg perpendicularis, que extra circulum (d versus) quantumlibet in rectum
extendatur. Deinde ducatur et alia diameter aee priori diametro perpendicularis. He due
diametri datum circulum in quattuor quadrantes equales dividunt, pariter et totam eius
circunferentiam in quatuor arcus equales. Dividatur igitur semidiameter ed in quattuor
partes equales, qua (ut prius positum est) extra circulum in rectum producta. Sumatur
ex ea extra circulum unius quarte mensura, que sit dh. Ducanturque linee ha et he, quas
manifestum est esse equales. Et secundum utriusque quantitatem, facto h centro,
describatur circuli arcus linee fg in duobus punctis f et g occurrens. Hec igitur quesita
erunt puncta quibus puncta a et c (moto utrumlibet super lineam fg circulo) occurrent.
Erit enim arcus eg puncti e ad lineam fg declinatio, quem suo motu describet, mini me
ab eo discedens priusquam ad g pervenerit. Similiter et altera ex parte arcus af declinatio
erit puncti a, a quo quidem pun(86v)ctum a priusquam sit in f minime discedet. Et linea
recta dg arcui de, recta vero df curve da necessario erit equalis. Et recta totafdg medie
circunferentie adc. . . . 24. Ex his dato quocunque circulo facile est equalem eidem
assignare quadratum. Sit enim ut prius in 19 circulus abcd [Fig. 111.6.4.13], et eadem
hypothesis per quam lineam dg rectam curve de quarte circunferentie parti constat esse
equalem. Educatur a puncto g recta gm super (corr. f. 96r ex per) lineamfg perpendicularis
et toti diametro bed equalis. Ducaturque linea bm paralleUogrammum perficiens, qui sit
bdgm. Hie paraUellogrammus dato circulo abed est equalis, quia fit ex eius diametro
bd in Iineam dg quarte circunferentie parti equalem, cuius maius latus est diameter bd,
minus vero recta dg, inter que per nonam [Propositionem] sumatur latus proportionale, quod
sit dp. Manifestum est quod fit ex dp in se esse quadratum parallellogrammo bdgm equalem;
quare et circulo abcd." I have altered the punctuation freely, and have made the usual
change of consonantal "u" to "v" and vocal "v" to "u". Since the form "circunferentia"
is occasionally written out, I have expanded all the abbreviated instances to include "n"
instead of "m". As usual I have italicized the letters indicating points. These letters are
missing in the diagrams for Propositions 19 and 24. I have added them from the text and
the diagrams given for the same proofs in the Geomhrie practique (Paris, 1547),
32v-37v.
4 The first seven propositions are all kinematic ones embracing the generation of
rectangles by the movement of straight lines parallel to themselves or the generation of
circles by the rotations of their radii. The most detailed treatment of this kind of
generative geometry lay in the thirteenth-century Liber de motu of Gerard of Brussels (see
Clagett, "The Liber de motu of Gerard of Brussels and the Origins of Kinematics in the
West," Osiris , Vo!. 12 [1956], pp. 73-175). The first proposition of Gerard's tract covers the
kinematics of the first seven propositions of de Bouelles, since it is concerned with equating
spaces traversed by lines moving in translation with those traversed by rotating lines (ibid.,
pp. 112-21; see also the English translation of the proposition in Clagett, The Science of
Mechanics in the Middle Ages, pp. 187-89). Similar conclusions are found in Nicholas of
Cusa's De mathematicis eomplementis (in Opera, Vo!. 2 [paris, 1514], 2nd. pag. 70v-71r),
where the configuration technique of Nicole Oresme is used to illustrate the relationship
of surfaces described respectively by a line moving in translation and an equal line moving
2. If a straight line, moved as before, is transported through a distance equal to
itself, it is [as if it were] multiplied by itself, and its square will be described.
[See Fig. III.6.4.2.]
3. If a straight line, one of whose extremities is at rest, is moved, it rotates
about the fixed extremity and describes a circle or a sector of a circle by
the same motion, and the other extremity produces by its motion the
circumference of the circle. [See Fig. III.6.4.3.]
4. If a straight line moved in this way about one of its extremities, rotates
through the space of one right angle, it will describe a quarter part of a circle
or a quadrant; if through the space of two right angles, it produces a semi-
circle; if three, three quadrants of a circle. Then if it rotates through the
whole space [equal to four right angles], it will complete the entire circle by
its motion. [See Fig. III.6.4.4.]
5. If a straight line, with one of its extremities at rest, rotates as much as you
like, the product of it and a straight line equal to the arc of revolution is
double that [sector] which arises from its revolution. There is the same,
equal ratio between the straight line equal to the arc of revolution and the
arc of revolution itself, regardless of whether the arc is the circumference
or a part of it. [See Fig. III.6.4.5.]
6. Therefore, it is evident that the product of the radius of a circle and half its
in rotation: "Lineam figuravi: motus puncti concipio, quae si recta fuerit, tunc si uno eius
termino fixo manente movetur, hie motus rectae per triangulum orthogonium figuratur. Ut
si ab linea movetur a stante, motus figuratur per triangulumabe. Si enim motus b est ut latus
be, tunc sic proportionaliter omnia puncta dabilia; puta, si d est punctus medius, tunc
de est motus d et de latus est medium ad be. Si vero ab recta movetur aequaliter in a sicut
in b, motus configuratur per duplicem orthogonium sive quadrangulum abed, omnia enim
puncta dabilia aequaliter moventur. Si vero a movetur similiter et b sed inaequaliter, hoc
fieri potest infinitis modis et unica figura non poterit configurari. Ex prima configuratione
motus lineae rectae cuius unus terminus manet fixus sequuntur ista, scilicet quod
superficies quae est mensura motus lineae quae ex revolutione lineae oritur habet lineam
curvam peripherialem quae ex puncta b exoritur et superficiem circularem quae ex linea
ab provenit, quod si inab quemcunque punctum signaveris, puta in medio qui sitd, peripheria
ex d erit se habens ad peripheriam ex b sicut in configuratione de latus ad be latus, sunt
enim peripheriae mensurae motus punctorum. Unde necesse erit omnem semidiametrum ad
circurnferentiam eandem tenere mensuram. Deinde quia superficies ex motu semidiametri
super peripheriam constituitur et una est omnium semidiametrorum ad peripherias habitudo,
illa erit habitudo superficierum quae potentiarum semidiametrorum. Quare superficies circuli
habens semidiametrum ut quatuor ad superficiem illius quae habet semidiametrum ut
2 quadrupla est. . . . Ex secunda configuratione motus lineae aequaliter in omnibus punctis
motae sequitur quod superficies quae ex tali motu constituitur dupla est ad illam quae
ex primo motu. Quare si semidiameter movetur secundo motu super eadem peripheria
super qua primo motu mota est, oritur superficies dupla ad primam. Unde necesse erit quod
multiplicatio semidiametri in semiperipheriam aequetur superficiei circulari." I have altered
the punctuation, italicized the letters indicating points, and have made the usual changes of
consonantal "u" and vocal "v". Note that the passage ends with a statement of
Archimedes' conclusion for the area of a circle (also see below, note 19). For a discussion
of this passage in the context of Oresme's configuration system, see my Nieole Oresme
and the Medieval Geometry of Qualities, pp. 466-67. Although we cannot be sure that
de Bouelles read Gerard of Brussels' Liber de motu, I should think that there is little
doubt that he had read Nicholas of Cusa, since he mentions Nicholas of Cusa by name later
(see below, note 15). We should also remember that de Bouelles' teacher and friend Ja\,;ques
Le Fevre edited the 1514 edition of Nicholas of Cusa's works.
r
L _
h
circumference or a straight line equal to half its circumference is a parallel-
ogram [i.e. rectangle] which is necessarily equal to the given circle; and its
lesser side is the radius of the circle while the greater side is half the
circumference.
5
7. Further, the parallelogram [i.e. rectangle] produced by the multiplication of
a quarter part of the diameter of the given circle and the whole circumference,
or by a quarter part of the circumference and the whole diameter, is equal
to the same circle. That which arises from the multiplication of the whole
diameter and half the circumference, or of the whole circumference and the
radius, is double the same circle. But that which arises from the product of
the whole diameter and the circumference, or of the whole circumference and
the whole diameter is proved necessarily to be quadruple the same circle.
[See Fig. 111.6.4.6.]
8. If a mean proportional is assumed between the unequal sides of a parallel-
ogram [i.e. rectangle] that is not a square, that which arises from the
multiplication of it [the mean proportional] by itself is a square equal to the
parallelogram.
6
[See Fig. III.6.4.7.]
9. If two given unequal lines are joined together [in a straight line] and if a
semicircle is described on the whole line made by the juncture of these two
lines, and if from their common point of juncture a perpendicular is extended
to the circumference, the perpendicular of this kind will be the mean propor-
tional between the proposed lines. [See Fig. 111.6.4.8.]
10. A circle standing on a straight line or a plane touches the same in a single
poinV [See Fig. III.6.4.9.]
11. If a circle is moved on a plane sutface evenly and directly, it will be moved
through a straight line which the circumference describes by its motion and
which is equal to that circumference.
8
12. A circle borne evenly along a straight line is moved between two parallel
lines. Its center will describe a middle straight line parallel to each of the two
limiting lines.
13. With any circle borne evenly on a straight line, any point of it (except the
center) is either depressed along an arc of a circle (less than a quadrant) toward
the line subjected to motion or it is elevated upward away from it. 9 [See
5 Proposition 6 reflects Proposition I of Archimedes' On the Measurement of the Circle,
and Proposition 5 the corollary to it mentioned by Hero and included in Gerard of Cremona' s
translation from the Arabic (see Vo!. I, pp. 5 and 32).
6 Propositions 8 and 9 concern the conversion of a rectangle to a square by finding a
mean proportional between the sides ofthe rectangle with the method shown in Propositions
11.14 and VI.13 of Euclid's Elements. Such a conversion was often made a part of the
various medieval versions of the De mensura circuli (see Vo!. I, p. 62).
7 The remaining propositions concern themselves with the technique of rolling a circle
on a line or a plane and the consequent quadrature of the circle.
8 Compare Volume 1, pages 166-67 for medieval traces of this rolling procedure.
9 These points do not trace arcs of circles that are less than a quadrant arc as de Bouelles
suggests but rather curves now designated as prolate cycloids or trochoids. When the
points are on the circumference of the circle, simple cycloids are traced. The parametric
equations for any trochoid are x = a 0 - b sin 0 and y = a - b cos 0, with a the radius of
the roUillB eircle, a-the--distancefrOffi t h ~ ~ l t e r of the circle to the point describing the
trochoid and 0 the arc (in radians) subtended by the -arc which has contacted the fixed
line in getting to the point under consideration. In the case of the simple cycloid, b = a,
I
L
Fig. 111.6.4.10.] Only the center (which never descends from the middle,
being neither elevated nor depressed) describes no arc by its motion but a
straight line.
14. In the case of a circle borne evenly on a straight line, no point except the
center describes a straight line by its motion.
15. If a circle standing on a straight line is moved evenly upon it from the point
of contact until it touches it again in the same point [of the circumference],
the straight line intercepted between both points of mutual contact will be
equal to the whole of the circle's circumference. [See Fig. 111.6.4.11.] By
the same motion the diameter of the given circle is led into [i.e. multiplied
by] the circumference.
16. Accordingly, if the straight line (which the whole circumference of the given
and the equations become x = a (0 - sin 0) and y = a (1 - cos 0). As seen in Fig.
111.6.4. l1A, OX, the distance between successive touchings of the fixed line by P, is equal
to the circumference of the circle, and hence the cycloid's apparent use in rectifying the
circumference of the circle. It might be argued (but incorrectly, I believe) that when de
Bouelles called the curve "an arc of a circle (less than a quadrant)" he was groping toward
the non-circularity of the curve. In fact, I believe he was merely trying to distinguish its
curvature from that of the circle which the point describes about the center of the rolling
circle. There is considerable controversy over the first serious investigations of this curve
by Roberval, Torricelli, and others (see H. Bosmans, "Pascal et les premieres pages de
I'Histoire de la roulette," Archives de philosophie, Vo!. 1 [1923], pp. 92-112). The
consideration of this curve was tied to the investigation of the paradox of the wheel of
Aristotle presented in Chap. 24 of the Aristotelian Mechanica. The history of this paradox
has been superbly treated by I. E. Drabkin, "Aristotle's Wheel: Notes on the History of a
Paradox," Osiris, Vo!. 9 (1950), pp. 162-98. We often see the erroneous view expressed
that Nicholas of Cusa had considered the cycloid or at least had produced a straight line
equal to the circumference of the circle by rolling a circle on a line: see Drabkin, p. 175;
Montucla, Histoire de mathematiques (see above, Part Ill, Chap. 1, Sect. I, note 18); M.
Chasles, Apen;.u historique sur I' origine et le developpement des methodes en geometrie
(Paris, 1875), p. 529. But in fact Nicholas of Cusa did not investigate the cycloid or even
use the unrolling technique to rectify the circumference. The error of thinking that he did
arose from a shortpaperofJohn Wallis, "11. An Extractofa Letter from Dr. Wallis, of May 4,
1697, concerning the Cycloeid known to Cardinal Cusanus, about the year 1450; and to
Carolus Bovillus about the year 1500," Philosophical Transactions, Vo!. 19 for the years
1695-97 (1698), pp. 561-66. On the basis of a faulty drawing in the Oxford manuscript of
Nicholas of Cusa's De mathematicis complementis, Wallis was led to believe that the
semicircular figure given was a cycloid (see Fig. III.6.4.1l B). But if one considers
the correct figure (see Fig. 111.6.4. 11 C), which appears in Nicholas of Cusa's
Quadratura circuli (see Nikolaus von Cues, Die mathematischen Schriften, transl. of
J. E. Hofmann, p. 61) as well as in his De mathematicis complementis (ibid., p. 87), and
reads the accompanying texts, he will see the true nature of the semicircular figure. For, in
fact, Nicholas intends a true semicircle (see Fig. III.6.4.11C; the letters in brackets appear
in the figure as given in the De mathematicis, those without brackets in the figure given
in the Quadratura circuli). Line rq is the radius of the original circle, rs is half its circum-
ference. The rectangle rstq is thus equal to the circle. Line sx is equal to radius rq. Curve
rvx is a semicircumference constructed on rx as a diameter (with y as its center). Hence,
sv is the mean proportional between rs and qr, and thus square svza is equal to rectangle
rstq and so to the circle. Hence, the purpose of constructing semicircumference rvx is to
find the mean proportional, as in Euclid, VI. 13. It has nothing to do with the generation
of a cycloid by a rolling technique (see Hofmann's translations, p. 220, note 37,
where he points out Wallis' error and gives further literature).
..
circle completes by its entire revolution) is multiplied by its diameter, a
parallelogram [i.e. rectangle] is produced which is quadruple the given circle.
The same circle traverses by its motion the whole parallelogram, with two
semicircles being left over, one on each end, outside of the parallelogram.
17. The half revolution of the given circle on the straight line completes a space
double the same circle. This space is a parallelogram [i.e. rectangle]
produced by the multiplication of the straight line equal to half its circum-
ference and its diameter.
18. The revolution of a circle on a straight line through a quarter part of its
circumference traverses a space equal to the circle. This space is a parallel-
ogram [i.e. rectangle] produced by the multiplication of the diameter and
a straight line equal to a quarter part of its circumference.
19. To find in the same straight line the point of revolution of the quarter part
of the circumference on the straight line. 10
Let there be a given circle abed, with center e, standing on straight linefg
and touching the same straight line in point d. [See Fig. 111.6.4.12.] Let the
diameter bed be drawn perpendicular to line fg and extended indefinitely
outside of the circle in the direction of d. Then let another diameter aee
be drawn perpendicular to the preceding diameter. These two diameters divide
the given circle into four equal quadrants. They also divide the whole
circumference into four equal arcs. Then let the radius ed be divided into four
equal parts, this radius having been extended outside of the circle as we posited
before. Then from the extension outside of the circle let there be taken a
quarter measure dh. Then draw ha and he, which evidently are equal. Then
with h as a center let an arc of a circle be drawn according to the radius ah
(or its equal he), this arc meeting line fg in points f and g. These, therefore,
are the desired points at which a and c will meet line fg when the circle is
rolled in each direction on line fg. For arc eg will be the [path of] the
declination of point e to line fg , deviating from it not at all until it arrives at g. 11
Similarly, in the other direction arc af will be the declination of point a,
from which arc point a does not deviate before it arrives in f. And the
straight line dg will necessarily be equal to arc dc, and straight line df to
curve da. And the whole line fdg [will be equal] to half the circumfer-
ence ade . ...12
10 This proposition is repeated in de Bouelles' Geometrie practique (Paris, 1547), 33r-v.
11 Notice that here again de Bouelles calls the cycloidal paths (of points a and c) "arcs,"
implying that they are circular. Of course he could have meant that these circular arcs cg
and af (drawn with h as the center) only approximate the actual paths but he nowhere
suggests this. I think we must conclude (as I said in note 9) that he thought the paths of
points on the circumference of the rolling circle to be circular.
12 This rectification leads to 'TT = v'W: For since he = 5 and ac = 4 (both being given),
he = Y4T = hg; then dg = '\t'4l=1 = v'4O = 2 v'W: But 'TT = 4 dg / 8 = v'IQ. Another
geometrical construction leading to the same approximation was given by de Bouelles in
his posthumously published Geometricum opus (Paris, 1557), 92v. Incidentally, in the same
work, de Bouelles again declares that Archimedes failed to find the quadrature of the
circle (3v): "Archimedes Syracusanus adeo in Geometria exceIluit, ut machinis Geometrica
arte confectis, Marco Marcello Syracusas obsidenti multis diebus obstiterit. Quem tandem
inopinato casu capta urbe a milite caesum, honorifico mausoleo sepeliri iussit. Idem
Archimedes in inventione quadraturae circuli multum laboris impendit, nee tamen invenire
valuit. Quae tamen nunc inventa nostrae aetatis homines minime fefellit." Two other
24. From these [various propositions] it is easy to assign a square equal to a
given circle.
For, as in [Proposition] 19, let there be a circle abed [see Fig. III.6.4.13]
and let the hypothesis stand by which straight line dg is made equal to curved
line de, which is a quarter part of the circumference. Let a straight line gm
be drawn from point g perpendicular to fg and equal to the whole diameter
bed. And let" line bm be drawn to complete the parallelogram bdgm. This
parallelogram [Le. rectangle] is equal to the given circle because it arises
from the product of the diameter of the circle bd and line dg equal to a quarter
part of the circumference. The larger side of the parallelogram is the
diameter bd, the smaller the straight line dg. Between these lines we take
a proportional mean by the ninth [proposition], namely dp. It is evident that
from [the multiplication of] dp by itself a square arises that is equal to a
parallelogram bdgm and therefore to circle abed. 13
These, then, are the essential propositions which reveal de Bouelles'
techniques. As I have indicated in note 4, it seems likely that he learned
from Nicholas of Cusa (and perhaps also from Gerard of Brussels) to
describe a rectangle by the translation of a straight line always parallel
to itself and a circle by the rotation of a radius. Beginning with
Proposition 8, de Bouelles begins to employ the rolling technique by
which a circumference is unrolled on a straight line. The curve described
by any point in the circle except the center is not investigated; true,
he loosely and incorrectly speaks of the sections of such curves as arcs
geometrical constructions leading to approximations for 1T are presented in Propositions 11
and 12 of de Bouelles' Geometrie practique, Chap. IV, 36r-37r. These too are given as
if they were exact methods: "11. Se au tour d'un vrai quarre on produit un cercle
circunscript audict quarre, tous les lignes droictes produictes dedens ledict quarre de
chascun angle au milieu des costes opposites sont necessairement esgalles a la quarte partie
de la circunference dudict cercle. . . . Et a este ceste proposition inventee ceste annee
a ma requeste par un de mes amis nomme Maistre Achaire Barbel natif de Ham et
demourant audict lieu, fort ingenieux a inventions nouvelles servantes a la Geometrie. Et par
ceste proposition se peust facilement quadrer tout cercle, et aussi circuler tout vrai quarre.
12. Pour resouldre toute ligne droicte proposee en un quadrant, c'est a dire en la quatriesme
partie de la circunference d'un cercle. Nous avons asses monstre comment le quadrant
d'un cercle, c'est a dire la quatriesme partie de la circunference, se doibt resouldre en
une ligne droicte: maintenant fault donner rart du contraire, c'est a scavoir comment une
ligne droicte se pourra resouldre en un quadrant de cercle. Soit doncques la ligne droicte
proposee AB [Fig. III.6.4.I2A]. le fai un angle droict nCE, comprins par les lignes nc et
CE, de quantite incertaine: lequel angle ie parti en deux par la ligne CL. Puis ie divise
la ligne proposee AB en trois; et en chascune ligne de l'angle droict nCE, depuis le
poinct C, ie note une tierce, comme CF et CG: lesquelles seront deux tierces de la ligne
AB. Puis ie tire la ligne FG, divisant la ligne CL sur le poinct H. Puis ie prens une ligne droicte
esgalle aux trois lignes CF, CG et CH, laquelle (ou sa pareiUe) ie mets entre les lignes de
I'angle droict nCE, tellement qu'elle soit equidistante a la ligne FHG, et soit ladicte ligne
IK, sur laquelle du centre C (qui est le coing de I'angle droict propose) ie produis l'arc
ILK, lequel sera quadrant d'un cercle, et sera esgal a la ligne assignee AB." Punctuation
is slightly changed; consonantal"u" and vocal "v" altered as usual. Compare the comments
on one of de Bouelle's practical constructions in N. Tartaglia's General Trattato, Part IV,
(Venice, 1560), 22r- v.
13 Cf. Geometrie practique, 35r-v.
of a circle (see note 9). Needless to say, the mature geometrical treatment
of such trochoids or cycloids had to wait for over a century. His use of the
unrolling technique leads de Bouelles in Proposition 19 to the determina-
tion of a straight line equal to one quarter of the circumference of the
rolling circle. His method is, of course, an approximative one, although
he presents it as if it were leading to an exact rectification. Borrel was
later to point out that de Bouelles' approximation of 11' falls ouside of the
Archimedean bounds and indeed Borrel was so scornful of de Bouelles
that he compared him with "a cowherd contemplating his cart. "14 It is
of interest that de Bouelles' geometrical construction yields the approx-
imation of 11' as VIO (see note 12), that is, the approximation that
was popular among the Indians and Arabs (see above, Part Ill, Chap. 2,
Sect. 11, note 40).
We can ask where de Bouelles learned his unrolling technique. He
composed his work too early to have discussed this technique in France
with Leonardo da Vinci, who, we recall, was much attracted by it (e.g. see
above, Part Ill, Chap. 3, note 10). But de Bouelles could have known
such a technique through the medieval traces of the paradox of the wheel
of Aristotle first found in the Mechanical Problems attributed to Aristotle
and repeated in the Mechanica of Hero (see Vol. 1, pp. 166-67). But if
we take de Bouelles at his word, the use of unrolling in quadrature was
his own discovery. He recounts this discovery in his Geometrie
practique :15
14 J. Buteo, De quadratura circuli libri duo (Lyons, 1559), pp. 152-58: "Annos ab hinc
circiter quindecim Carolus Bovillus, aedito libro lingua nostra Gallica, cui est titulus de
Geometria, inter alia operis huius nugamenta quaestionem quoque nostram duobus modis
absolvit, ut ipse quidem affirmat. Nullum enim a1iud habet demonstrandi genus. Quem vix
etiam confutatione dignum putabam, nisi me movisset, quod opus ipsum vulgo recepi
viderem, et etiam ab Orontio, omnium in Geometricis aetate nostra celebratissimo,
probari....(154) Haee est demonstratio Bovilli, digna certe bubulco plaustrum suum
speeulante. . . ." Then follows a refutation of de Bouelles' principal method of rectification
(Proposition 19 above) and in addition the determination of a quadrant equal to a given
straight line (Proposition 12 of Chap. IV of the Geometrie practique, see note 12 above).
15 Geometrie practique, 32v-33r: "Plusieurs le temps passe ont park de la quadrature
du eercle, et ont prins grand peine pour la trouver: ce qu'ils n'ont faiel. Arehimedes
Syraeusan et Euclides Megarensis y ont expose du temps, et n'y ont gueres profite. Aristotle
en ha escript, disant qu'elle se pouoit trouver, et n'estoit encores trouvee: dont it ha incite
plusieurs a ce faire. Mais ils ne 1'0nt sceu trouver, ne inventer. Un Geometrien nomme
Brauardin, en ha faiet un petit traiete, cuidant l'avoir bien inventee. Mais il y ha grand
faulte, et visibile abus en son propos. Tellement que par sa quadrature, fauldroit que I'arc
fust esgal a sa chorde, ce qui est impossibile. Car chascun scait que rarc est plus long que
sa corde, quelque petit qu'il soil. Un petit devant nostre temps, le Reverendissime
Cardinal nomme Nicolaus de Cusa la bien trouvee et mise par eseript en son livre, ia
soit que pour ce faire il ait use et procede par aucuns moiens estranges aux Geometriens.
Car il ha use de dimensions infinies, lesquelles un Geometrien ne cognoist, et ne
confesseroit iamais estre possibles. Nonobstant, son invention est bonne et approuvee,
tant par raison que par experience. Aussi pareillement avons prins peine de la trouver par
autre moien, et n'avons este frustrez de nostre labeur. Car nous estant une fois sur le petit
kllllllllilll.. _
I
l

!
!
I
I
t
i
i
!
Several people in times past have spoken of the quadrature of the circle and have
taken great pains to find it but have not done so. Archimedes the Syracusan and
Euclid of Megara
16
have expounded it in their time without profit. Aristotle has
written of it, saying that it could be found but was not yet found; 17 he stimulated
several people to try to do so but they have not known how to find or discover it.
A geometer named Bradwardine has produced a short tract on it, believing he
had truly discovered it. But his solution has a great flaw in it and there is evident
abuse in his proposal. For by his quadrature it would be necessary that an arc
be equal to its chord, which is impossible, because everyone knows that an arc
is longer than its chord, however small the arc may be. Just before our time, the
most reverend cardinal named Nicholas of Cusa did indeed find it and wrote it
down in his book, but in order to accomplish it he used, and proceeds by, certain
means foreign to geometers. For he used infinite dimensions, which a geometer
does not recognize and would never concede to be possible. Nevertheless, his
discovery is good and approved by both reason and experience. So, in the same
way, we have taken pains to find it by another method and we have not been
frustrated in our labor. For once when I was on the Petit Pont in Paris, watching
the wheels of a carriage turning upon the pavement, there came to me an
apparent and easy way to achieve my objective. It is evident that, when a wheel
has made a complete turn on the level street, the straight line on which it has made
the complete turn is equal to the circumference of the said wheel. Accordingly,
it only remains to find the exact points where the quadrant of the wheel, its half
and the entire wheel meet the pavement in order to find a straight line equal to
each of those parts of the circumference and to the whole circumference-for
without this method one cannot find the quadrature of the circle. I returned to
my lodging and with the aid of a compass and a rule I easily found, on a brass
table, what I was looking for. . . .
This account is also of interest for de Bouelles' conclusion that Archimedes
did not succeed in his quadrature effort. This seems to give weight to my
pont de Paris, en regardant les roes d'un chariot toumans sur le pave, me surveint visibile
et facile occasion de venir a fin de mon intention. 11 est notoire, quand une roe ha faiet un
tour entier sur le plat pave, que la ligne droicte sur laqueHe elle ha faict un tour entier
est esgalle a la circunference de ladicte roe. Parquoi ne restoit plus, que de trouver les
certaines ineidences des poincts du quadrant de la roe, et de la moitie, et de la roe entiere
sur le pave, a fin que par ce moien 1'0n peust trouver une ligne droicte esgalle aux
parties de la circunference, et aussi a toute la circunference; sans lequel moien, ne se
pouoit trouver la quadrature du cercle. Moy retoume au logis, a l'aide du compas et de la
reigle, trouvai sur une table d' arain ce que ie cerchoie facilement, comme nous le declairerons
ci apres plus au long."
16 I do not know which version of the De mensura circuli de Bouelles saw. Possibly it was
one of those versions that circulated without Proposition 3 (see Vo!. 1, Chap. 3). At least,
he seems to say that Archimedes did not accomplish rectification. But he may have reached
this last opinion because Archimedes only determined the bounds between which 'TT falls,
while de Bouelles (wrongly) feels that he himself has determined an exact rectification.
I do not know what de Bouel1es means when he speaks of Euclid's having expounded
quadrature. This may merely mean that Euclid made a start toward relating squares and
circles in Book XII of the Elements. It should also be noted that de Bouelles was following
a very common view of the sixteenth century in identifying Euclid the geometer with the
philosopher Euclid of Megara.
17 See Vo!. 1, pp. 607-08 for the passage in Aristotle's Categories Ob).
b
earlier conclusion that de Bouelles was presenting his own quadrature
as exact, rather than as a mere approximation, since he contrasts it with
all of the other efforts mentioned. To which treatise of Bradwardine he is
referring I do not know. Since he speaks of its being on quadrature and its
being a short tract, I would suppose he was referring to the Versio vaticana
of the De mensura circuli, which was, on at least one occasion, appended
to Bradwardine's Geometria (see Vo!. 1, pp. 370-89). The only
difficulty with this supposition is that the Versio vaticana does not rest
on the assumption that an arc is equal to its chord. Nor does Bradwardine' s
short discussion of quadrature in the Geometria itself rest on such a
fallacious assumption (see Vo!. 1, pp. 33-35). It could be that de Bouelles
intended by his reference the tract on quadrature attributed to Campanus
in the manuscripts (see Vo!. 1, Appendix I, Sect. 3) but published with
Bradwardine's Geometria by Pedro Sanchez Ciruelo in Paris, 1495.
Ciruelo does not claim it for Bradwardine but says that it is by Ha
certain religious of the Franciscan Order." Although that tract does
not explicitly assume that a chord is equal to its arc, it is of interest that
Ciruelo, who was a contemporary of de Bouelles' at Paris, later criticized
it precisely on this ground.
17a
Presumably, de Bouelles' reference to the
use of infinite dimensions by Nicholas of Cusa was to the latter's use of
the concept of the isoperimetric circle, where the circle is considered as
if it were a regular polygon of an infinite number of sides (see above,
Part Ill, Chapter 1, Section I, note 15).
The same kinematic approaches are revealed in de Bouelles' Liber
cubicationis sphere where the conclusions are presented in a fashion
similar to those employed in the tract on quadrature. These approaches
work well enough for the cylinder, but fail miserably when applied to the
sphere. Again I give enough of the tract to reveal its flavor:
18
17a Ciruelo, Cursus quattuor mathematicarum artium liberalium (Alcala, 1516), sign.
[E vi verso]: "Iste bonus religiosus [i.e. auctor tractatus] erat auditor tantum et non
doctor in geometria: ut discursus eius nums (! nimis) falsigrafus ostendit: qui totus fundatur
in secunda conclusione que falsa est: ut pote includens oppositum prime petitionis quantum
ad secundum partem eius: que habet quod inter quelibet duo puncta linea recta est
brevissima omnium a1iarum: secunda vero hec conclusio supponit quod inter eadem duo
puncta linea curva et linea recta sint equales: nam dividit per circinum circunferentiam
circuli in 22 partes equales: deinde eodem circino non variato numerat in rectum totidem
partes: inferens quod ilia linea recta et ilia curva sint equales: quia equali numero
mensurantur ab eodem circino non variato: quod tamen falsum est quia quelibet talis
mensura circini plus accipit de linea curva quam de recta: ergo in eodem numero
mensurarum circini linea curva erit maior linea recta: quare suus discursus potius est
sillogismus ignorantie quam scientie: quia procedit ex oppositis principiorum geometrie:
eundem etiam deffectum habuit demonstratio archimedis superius in fine tertii libri posita:
sed differunt quia alter eorum vult quadrare circulum quoad superficiem: alter quoad lineam:
nam utrumque simul impossibile est ex capitulo de isoperimetris." While the tract of
Campanus is a trivial one, as I indicated in Volume One, still it is not open to the precise
criticism given by Ciruelo; and certainly Archimedes' treatment is not.
18 Ed. of 1503, 87v-89v: "Caroli Bovilli Samarobrini Liber cubicationis sphere. 1. [Q]uod
circulus est in planis, hoc in solidis est sphera; et quod in iIIis quadratus, in his est cubus;
et quod ad planam figuram linea, ad solidam est superficies. 2. Si parallellogrammus super
planum equaliter (nullo suorum extremorum fixo) moveatur, suo motu corpus rectangulum
et equidistantium laterum absolvet. 3. Quodsi idem parallellogrammus quadratus fuerit qui
sue coste longitudine equaIiter super planum (nullo fixo eius extremo) ducatur, erit totum
corpus descriptum eius quadrati cubus. 4. Si vero paraUellogrammus circa aIiquam suarum
linearum immobiliter fixam ducatur, eius motu columna aut columne portio fiet, cuius axis
erit latus parallellogrammi fixum, extremas vero eius bases latera paraUellogrammi opposita
axi cotermina describent, et extremam eius orbicularem superficiem latus eiusdem
paraIlellogrammi circumductum axi oppositum. 5. Plana superficie alicui suorum extremorum
fixo, quantumlibet circumducta, quod eius revolutione describitur corpus eius quod eadem
superficie in superficiem planam orbiculari superficiei (prioris revolutionis) equaIem ducta
describitur est medietas. 6. Quo fit ut cuiusvis paraIlellogrammi columna rotunda ei quod
ex eodem paraIlellogrammo in columne semiperiferiam aut ex duplo paraIlellogrammo in
semiperiferie medietatem ducto nascitur est equaIis. Quod vero ex priori parallellogrammo
in periferiam eiusdem columne totam aut ex duplo paraIlellogrammo in eius semiperiferiam
fit eidem columne est duplum. Quod autem ex duplo parallellogrammo in totam periferiam
nascitur ducto toti columne quadruplum comprobatur [Fig. III.6.4.14]. 7. ParaUeUogrammus
qui alicui suorum extremorum fixo circumductus rotundam columnam describit est eius
columne semidiameter, duplus vero parallellogrammus tota diameter, cuius circunferentia
(que et periferia dicitur) est tota orbicularis superficies eandem columnam cum basibus
utrisque circumdans; circunferentie vero medietas (que et semiperiferia) est eius superficiei
dimidium. 8. Si rotunde columne circunferentia pIano insistat, erit mutuus contactus
utriusque linea recta axi ipsius columne equalis. (88r) 9. Si super planum equaliter
rotunda moveatur columna, necesse est inter superficies equidistantes earn moveri, cuius
axis aliam planam superficiem mediam suo motu describet utrique extremarum super-
ficierum equidistantem et equalem [Fig. III.6.4.15]. 10. Mota hoc pacto super planum
equaliter rotunda columna, singule eius linee axi equidistantes (preter axem) ad subiectum
motui planum declinant aut sursum ab eo elevantur, suaque depressione aut elevatione
orbiculares superficies describunt quarta parte circunferentie columne necessario minores.
Solus vero axis nusquam a medio aut deprimitur aut elevatur; sed equaliter in rectum
fertur, superficiem non orbicularem sed planam suo motu describens. 11. Si rotunda columna
quarta dumtaxat sue circunferentie parte super planum equaliter torqueatur, superficiem
planam suo motu absolvet eidem quarte sue circunferentie parti equalem, media vero parte
in girum ducta erit absoluta plana superficies medie eius circunferentie equalis. Quodsi
perfecta fuerit columne super planum revolutio, erit tota plana superficies ea revolutione
absoluta toti circunferentie columne equalis. 12. Rectam lineam revolutionis quarte partis
circunferentie columne, item et medie, et consequenter totius circunferentie in pIano,
invenire [Fig. III.6.4.16]. Inveniantur per 19 et 20 quadrature propositiones puncta
revolutionis basium date columne, scilicet quarte partis circunferentie et medie et totius.
Sunt enim columne rotunde bases duo circuli. His vero punctis inventis, ducantur ab
eisdem recte linee axi date columne in piano equidistantes. He enim linee sunt que
proponuntur. 13. Planam superficiem quarte parti circunferentie rotunde columne, deinde
et medie et denique circunferentie toti, equalem assignare. Inventa linea revolutionis
quarte partis circunferentie columne rotunde, erit superficies plana ab ea ad lineam prioris
contactus quarte parti circunferentie columne equalis. Et eo (88v) pacto cetere superficies
facile perquirantur. 14. Cuiuslibet sphere et sue columne maximi circuli sunt equales.
Huius quidem bases, illius vero diametri. 15. Evoluta equaliter super planum (quarta sue
circunferentie parte) columna rotunda, tota eius diameter in superficiem planam revolutioni
subiectam (quarte sue circunferentie parti equalem) ducitur, corpus parallellogrammum
describens eidem columne equale, cuius longitudo est suarum basium diameter, latitudo
vero qUarta sue circunferentie pars. Et crassities totius sue diametri axis. 16. Eadem vero
columna secundum partem sue circunferentie mediam super planum equaliter delata, eius
itidem diameter in planam superficiem (dimidie eius circunferentie equalem) ducitur,
parallellogrammum corpus toti columne duplum describens. 17. Quodsi eadem columna
rotunda perfecta revolutione super planum ducatur, ducitur eius diameter in planam
1. What the circle is among plane figures, the sphere is among solids; and what
the square is among the former, the cube is among the latter; and what the
relation is of a line to a plane figure, the same is the relation of a surface
figure to a solid.
2. If a parallelogram [i.e. rectangle] moves evenly on a plane (with neither of
its extremities at rest), it traces by its motion a right-angled parallelepiped.
19
superficiem toti eius circunferentie equalem, parallellogrammum iterum describens corpus
eidem columne quadruplum. 18. Date rotunde columne cuius axis quarte sue circunferentie
parti equatur equalem cubum assignare. Sumatur inter basium date columne diametrum et
eius axem (per nonam quadrature) recta linea utrique proportionalis, que in seipsam ducta
quesiti cubi quadratum efficiet. Hie igitur quadratus in seipsum ducatur et nascetur inde
quesitus cubus date columne equalis. 19. Sphera super pI anamsuperficiemconsistens eandem
in solo puncto contingit. 20. Puncta revolutionum circunferentie sphere super planum,
sive quarte partis sive medie sive totius, ut et puncta revolutionum circuli aut linee
revolutionum rotunde columne, Iicet investigare. 21. Si sphere super planum consistentis et
eandem in puncto contingentis, puncto revolutionis quarte circunferentie partis invento,
ad ipsum a puncto contactus recta linea extendatur, erit secundum eius quantitatem
circulus in eodem piano ductus medie orbiculari sphere superficiei (que est et eius
semiperiferia) equalis. 22. Si sphera super planum equaliter in rectum moveatur, erit sui
motus spacium columna rotunda cuius basis ipsius sphere diametro equalis. Sphere diameter
est circulus eidem concentricus, earn in duo equalia dividens, cuius circunferentia est in
circunferentia sphere. 23. In concava rotunde columne superficie posita sphera, eandem
secundum sue diametri circunferentiam undiquaque contingit. 24. Si sphera super planum
secundum rectam, unius quadrantis revolutione moveatur, ducitur eius diameter in rectam
lineam quarte circunferentie sphere parti equalem, eo motu rotundam columnam
describens date sphere equalem, cuius utreque bases ipsius sphere diametro equantur, eius
vero axis linee recte (quarte parti circunferentie ipsarum basium et totius diametri sphere
equali) est equalis." I have made the same sort of changes here as in the citations from the
De quadratura circuli (see above, note 3). There are fourteen more propositions on the
sphere (containing many errors) but I have given sufficient propositions to indicate de
Bouelles' procedures.
19 The methods of generating parallelepipeds by a movement of translation of a rectangle
and cylinders by rotating rectangles about one of their sides that are used by de BoueIles
in Propositions 2-7 are embraced in the second book of Gerard of Brussels' Liber de motu
(ed. of Clagett, pp. 127-28). In the De mathematicis eomplementis (ed. cit. in note 4),
7lr- v, Nicholas of Cusa also makes brief reference to the generation of cylindrical surfaces
by the rotation of right angles. For example, if base line ab or right angle abe described a
circle about a, line be would describe a cylindrical surface ["Nam constat columnam
rotundam cuius altitudo est ut semidiameter basis habere duplam superficiem basis. Nam
linea quae basim efficit movetur uno puncto eius terminali stante, a1io circurnferentiam
describente, et illamet columnarem superficiem constituit per motum aequalem utriusque
terminalis puncti super eadem circurnferentia basis, ut ex abe angulo recto super a
circumvoluto describitur basis per ab et per be duplex superficies Cylindrica quia be
aequalis ab aequaliter in b e punctis terminalibus movetur.... Palam ex his si circum-
ferentialis linea circuli in rectam redigeretur et duceretur in ipsam semidiameter,
superficies quadrangula quae surgeret dupla foret ad circularem cuius erat circurnferen(71v)tia.
Nam haec ductio motus esset ubi limbo terminales puncti aequaliter moverentur. Sed
constitutio circuli ex motu eiusdem lineae, altero puncto stante, oritur. Recte igitur dictum
est a multis quod ductio seu muItiplicatio semidiametri in semicircumferentialem lineam
efficit superficiem aequalem circulo. "]. The "duplex superficies Cylindrica" simply means
the surface of a right circular cylinder. "Duplex" is used as it was in the passage quoted
in note 4 for "double right angle or rectangle." Notice that in this passage Nicholas of
Cusa returns to the basic idea of the generation of a circle to justify Archimedes' formula
for the area of a circle.
3. If the parallelogram is a square and if it is moved evenly on a plane through
a distance equal to the length of its side, the whole body described will be
the cube of this square [face].2o
4. If the parallelogram [i.e. rectangle] is rotated about one of its lines [i.e. sides]
which is fixed, by its motion it produces a column [i.e. cylinder] or a sector
of a column, the axis of which will be the fixed side of the parallelogram,
while the opposite sides coterminous with the axis will describe the bases of
the column, and the side of the parallelogram opposite the axis will describe
the orbicular [i.e. lateral] surface [of the column].
5. The body described by the rotation of a [rectangular] plane surface about
one of its extremities [i.e. sides] is one-half the body described by the [same]
plane surface if it moves [in translation always parallel to itself] through
a plane surface equal to the orbicular [i.e. lateral] surface of [the body
produced by] rotation.
21
6. Accordingly, the round column [i.e. cylinder] of any parallelogram [i.e.
rectangle] is equal to the product of the same parallelogram and the
semicircumference [of the base] of the column or to the product of the double
parallelogram and half the semicircumference. That which arises from the
product of the prior [single] parallelogram and the whole circumference of the
same column or from the product of the double parallelogram and the
semicircumference of the column is double the same column. But that which
arises from the product of the double parallelogram and the whole circum-
ference is proved to be quadruple the whole column. [See Fig. III.6.4.14.]
7. The parallelogram [i.e. rectangle] which by its rotation about one of its sides
as a fixed axis describes a round column [Le. cylinder] is the "radius" of the
column, while the double parallelogram is the whole "diameter" [of the
column]. The "circumference" of the column (which is also called its
"periphery") is the whole orbicular [i.e. lateral] surface surrounding the
same column along with its two bases, while half the circumference (which
is also called the semiperiphery) is half that surface.
22
8. If the circumference [i.e. lateral surface] of a round column [i.e. cylinder]
stands on a plane, the mutual contact of both of them is a straight line equal
to the axis of this column.
23
9. If a round column [i.e. cylinder] is moved evenly on a plane, it is necessary
20 My translation is literal. What de Bouelles means is that a cube is produced by the
motion in translation of one of its square faces through the distance of one of its edges.
21 What is obviously meant here is that, if the rectangle which, by its rotation about
one of its sides, produced a cylinder is instead moved in a motion of translation always
parallel to itself through a distance equal to the circumference of the base of the cylinder,
it will generate a body with twice the volume of the cylinder. Thus let the plane surface
equal to the lateral surface of the cylinder have an altitude equal to a and a base equal to
21Tr, while the generating rectangle has an altitude of a and a base of r. If we rotate the
generating rectangle, it produces a cylinder with a volume of a1Tr
2
; but if we let it move in
translation over a plane surface equal to the lateral surface of the cylinder, it will move
through a distance 21Tr producing a rectangular parallelepiped with a volume 2a1Tr
2
22 By analogy with the terminology of the circle, de Bouelles calls the rectangle which
generates a cylinder by rotation the "radius" of the cylinder. Similarly a section of the
cylinder passing through its axis (de Bouelles' "double parallelogram") is called the
"diameter" of the cylinder. Finally the lateral surface of the cylinder is named its
"circumference. "
23 From this point on de Bouelles applies the rolling technique to cylinders and spheres.
h.
that it be moved between parallel smfaces. Its axis will describe, by its motion,
another median, plane surface equal and parallel to the limiting surfaces. [See
Fig. 111.6.4.15.]
10. With the round column [i.e. cylinder] moved on a plane evenly in this way,
the individual lines parallel to the axis (but excepting the axis) will incline
toward the plane subject to the motion or will be elevated away from it, and
by their depression or elevation they describe orbicular surfaces that are
necessarily less than a quarter part of the circumference [i.e. lateral surface]
of the round column. But the axis alone is never depressed from or elevated
above the median; rather it is carried along evenly in a straight line and
by its motion it describes a surface that is not orbicular but is plane.
24
11. If a round column [i.e. cylinderJis rolled along a plane through only a quarter
part of its circumference [i.e. lateral surface], it will, by its motion, trace
a plane surface that is equal to a quarter of its circumference [i.e. lateral
surface], while if it gyrated through a half it will have traced a plane surface
equal to half its circumference [i.e. lateral surface]. And if a full revolution
of the column is completed on the plane, it will have traced by that revolution
a total plane surface equal to the whole circumference [i.e. lateral surface]
of the column.
12. To find in the plane the straight line of the revolution of a quarter part of the
circumference [i.e. lateral surface] of the column [i.e. cylinder] and also the
line of the half and consequently of the whole circumference [i.e. lateral
surface]. [See Fig. 111.6.4.16.]
First let us find by [Propositions] 19 and 12 ofthe Quadrature [a/the circle]
the points of revolution of the bases of the round column, namely those of
the quarter of the circumference, of its half and of its whole. For the
bases of the round column are two circles. With these points found, straight
lines are drawn between the same [points on each base], lines that are parallel,
in a plane, to the axis of the given round column. These are the lines
which are proposed.
13. To assign a plane surface equal to a quarter part of the circumference
[i.e. lateral surface] of a round column [Le. cylinder], then one equal to a half
of it and finally one equal to the whole of the circumference [i.e. lateral
surface].
With the line of the revolution of a fourth part of the circumference
[i.e. lateral surface] found, the plane surface between it and the initial line
of contact will be equal to a quarter part of the circumference [Le. lateral
surface] of the round column. Other surfaces are easily sought out by this
same method.
14. The maximum circles of any sphere and its round column [i.e. cylinder] are
equal. Indeed these circles are the bases of the one and the diameter of the
other.
2
:>
24 This is completely symmetrical with his treatment of the circle. In this case, the lines
parallel to the axis describe, when the cylinder is rolled, cycloidal surfaces (although de
BoueIles thought them to be cylindrical surfaces), that is, surfaces such that any section
perpendicular to the axis of the cylinder is a prolate cycloid. Needless to say, if any of
the lines parallel to the axis lies in the lateral surface of the cylinder, the above-noted
section is a simple cycloid. The axis itself describes a plane surface.
25 The "diameter" of a sphere is, for de BoueIles, a great circle that divides the spheres
15. With a round column [i.e. cylinder] rolled evenly along a plane through a
quarter part of its circumference [i.e. lateral surface], if its whole diameter
[i.e. double parallelogram or generating rectangle] is transported [in a motion
of translation always parallel to itself] through the plane surface produced by
the rotation of a quarter of its circumference [i.e. lateral surface], a
[rectangular] parallelepiped equal to the same round column is described.
Its length is the diameter of [each of] the bases of the column, its width is
a quarter part of [each of] their circumferences and its depth is the axis of
the whole diameter [i.e. generating double parallelogram).
16. With the same round column [i.e. cylinder] rolled evenly along a plane through
half of its circumference [i.e. lateral surface], if its diameter [Le. generating
double parallelogram] is transported [in a motion of translation always
parallel to itself] through the plane surface equal to one-half of its circum-
ference [Le. lateral surface], a [rectangular] parallelepiped double the whole
round column is produced.
17. And if the same round column [i.e. cylinder] is rolled along a plane through
a complete revolution, and if its diameter [i.e. generating double parallel-
ogram] is transported [in a motion of translation always parallel to itself]
through the plane surface equal to its whole circumference [Le. lateral surface],
once more a [rectangular] parallelepiped is produced, this one quadruple the
same round column.
18. To assign a cube equal to a round column [i.e. cylinder] whose axis is equal
to a quarter part of the circumference [of its base].
Let the mean proportional be taken between the diameter [of each] of the
bases of the given round column and the axis of the round column (and this
is done by the ninth [Proposition] of the Quadrature [of the Circle]). Then
let this mean be multiplied by itself, and the square [face] of the cube is
produced. Then this square is multiplied by itself [i.e. by its side], and thence
arises the cube we seek that is equal to the given column.
26
19. A sphere standing on a plane touches the same in only one point.
20. It is permissible to investigate the points of revolution of the circumference
of a sphere on a plane-whether of the quarter part, the half or the whole,
just as it is to investigate the points of revolution of a circle or the lines
of revolution of a round column.
into two halves just as the diameter of a circle divides it into two halves. See below,
Proposition 22, for de Bouelles' definitions.
26 Here de Bouelles has made a serious error in taking only a single mean between the
diameter of the cylinder's base and its altitude. The correct procedure is to convert the
cylinder to a rectangular parallelepiped by squaring its base. Then the rectangular
parallelepiped with square base is converted to a cube by taking two mean proportionals
between the side of the base and the altitude. If the altitude is greater than the side of the
base, the smaller of the two means is the edge of the desired cube. But if the side of the base
is greater than the altitude, the larger mean is the edge of the cube. In de Bouelles'
treatment, the edge is erroneously reckoned as v'dCT4, while it ought to be {Id (c / 4)2. It
could be that de Bouelles hastily read the correct procedure given by Nicholas de Cusa
in his De geometricis transmutatianibus (see above, Part Ill, Chap. I, Sect. I note 10) and
saw that at the beginning Nicholas instructed the reader to take a single mean proportional
in converting the cylinder to a rectangular parallelepiped but somehow forgot
Nicholas' further instruction to take two mean proportionals when converting the
parallelepiped to a cube.
21. If a straight line is drawn between the point of contact of a sphere with the
plane on which it stands and the determined point of the revolution of a quarter
part of its circumference, then a circle produced in the same plane according
to the magnitude of the line will be equal to half the orbicular [i.e. curved]
surface of the sphere.
27
22. If a sphere is moved on a plane evenly along a straight line, the space
[i.e. figure] produced by its motion will be a round column [i.e. cylinder]
whose base is equal to the diameter [i.e. bisecting great circle] of the
sphere. The "diameter" of a sphere is a circle that has the same center with
it and divides the sphere into equal parts; its circumference is in the
circumference of the sphere.
23. A sphere placed in the concave surface of a round column [i.e. cylinder]
touches the same [i.e. cylinder] throughout the circumference of its diameter
[i.e. the sphere's bisecting great circle].
24. If a sphere is moved on a plane along a straight line by revolving through
a quadrant, the diameter [i.e. its bisecting great circle] is led through a straight
line equal to a quarter part of the circumference of the sphere, describing
by that motion a round column [i.e. cylinder] equal to the given sphere; each
of the bases [of the cylinder] are equal to the diameter [i.e. bisecting great
circle] of the sphere and the axis [of the cylinder] is a straight line equal
to a quarter part of the circumference [of each] of these bases and of the
diameter [i.e. bisecting great circle] of the sphere.
28
These last propositions reveal how essentially ignorant de Bouelles was
of On the Sphere and the Cylinder. They also reveal, as I have said, that
he was unable to visualize in any useful way the rolling of a sphere to
produce an adequate formulation for the volume of a sphere, since it led
him to the incorrect result that V = (1T'2r 3/2). I have tarried over him so
long for two reasons: (1) he appears to have been the heir to the medieval
kinematic tradition of Gerard of Brussels, and (2) his works that reveal
the erroneous geometry just described were extraordinarily popular (see
note 2 above) and must have given the beginning student of geometry in
the sixteenth century a distorted picture of the fruits of Archimedean
geometry. And so, while his kinematic approach was an interesting but
abortive adumbration of later trends in geometry, his fallacious results
had to be swept aside in the course of the century as the Archimedean
corpus became firmly established in even the most elementary mathe-
matical circles.
27 This is a literal translation of de Bouelles' Latin. It thus seems to mean that the circle
to be constructed would be equal to 7T(C I 4)2 instead of 27Tr
2
, which would be the actual
surface area of a hemisphere. I suppose that it is possible that de Bouelles might have
meant by the straight line drawn between the initial point of contact and the point of revolution
of the quarter part of the circumference the chord between the two points on the
circumference of the rolling sphere. That chord is equal to r Vf. Hence a circle constructed
with that chord as a radius would be 27Tr
2
This would mean that de Bouelles knew the
correct formulation for the surface area of the sphere.
28 Cf. the somewhat clearer statement of the proposition in the Geometrie practique,
45v-46r. In any case, both expressions of the proposition lead to the erroneous conclusion
that the volume of a sphere is equal to ~ /2 rather than to 47Tr
3
13.
.....-------------------------------
In the same year that de Bouelles' two short tracts on squaring the
circle and cubing the sphere were published, Luca Gaurico published his
Tetragonismus id est circuli quadratura etc. (Venice, 1503). I have
already mentioned in Section I of Chapter 4 that Gaurico' s work
included William of Moerbeke' s translations of On the quadrature of the
Parabola (15r-28r) and On the Measurement of the Circle (28v-3lr).
I also noted that these were the first texts of Archimedes to appear in
print. But I have not yet described the two other parts of Gaurico's
Tetragonismus, namely the tract on quadrature attributed to Campanus
(3r-14v) and the remarks that Gaurico labels as De quadratura circuli
secundum Boetium (31r-32r). Before discussing these two additional
tracts, I should observe that in his preface, dated at the University of
Padua, 15 Kalendas Sextiles, 1503, Gaurico gives an account of quadrature
based on Aristotle, Boethius, and the commentary of Simplicius to Aristotle's
Categories.
29
The tract attributed to Campanus has already been
published in Volume One (pages 581-609) on the basis of the manuscripts.
It will be recalled that I was most reluctant to assign this miserable tract
to such a good geometer as Campanus. Indeed it might be suggested that
29 Tetragonismus, 2r-v: "Lucas Gauricus Iuphanensis ex regno neopolitano mathematicae
studiosis. S.D. Circuli quadraturam quam Aristoteles in eo ipso qui de categoriis liber
inscribitur capite de ad aliquid: et secundo priorum capite vigesimoquinto, ac primo
elencorum capite octavo, nec non primo phisicorum, tex. com[m]ent. 11 ac plerisque etiam
aliis in locas affirmavit scibilem quidem esse nondum tamen scitam. Nunc iam tandem
superioribus paulo ante seculis a Campano atque Archimede adinventam ac perfectissime
traditam et in compendium brevissime redactam habetis. Mirandum sane opus ut pote
nunquam aliis antea temporibus ita cognitum. Nam et si Sextus pythagoreus, Licomedes
itemque Boetius severinus fateantur circuli tetragonismum adinvenisse: possunt tamen cum
Brisone, Hippocrate et Antiphonte atque Aristotelicis connumerari quomab ipsorumfontibus
nihil fere veritatis de re tanta potuerit ullo pacto ad posteros pervenire. Quamvis multa ab
his et presertim ab ipso Boetio (ut ipsemet gloriatur) copiosissime dicantur fuisse
conscipta. Sed parcendum est c1arissimorum virorum nominibus. Accusandi quidem posteri
qui divinos multorum labores negligentius curaverunt. Nam si omnia fideliter custodita
fuissent que a sapientissimis priscorum temporum viris litterarum memoriae traddita fuerant,
nihil certe reliquum esset quod nostris temporibus incognitum haberetur. Sed ut ad
propositum revertamur, inter ceteros mathematicae disciplinae professores Campanus atque
Archimedes per se quidem uterque satis laudatus, adhuc mihi maxime laudandus occurrit qui
quod alii antiquissimi priscae etatis doctores olfecerunt tantummodo, horum alter fortassis
perfectissime complevit aut saltim posteris indagandae veritatis viam aperuit, non etenim
inventis addere difficile est. Campani igitur atque Archimedis de tetragonismo circuli
demonstratio, quoniam ad nostras manus pervenit, nullatenus (ut avari in thesauris solent)
supprimendamexistimavi. Sed uti liberales consueverunt visum est omnia in medio proposita
cum aliis habere comunia. Vale. Dautum (I) in almo studio Patavino. 1503. 15. Kalendas
sextiles." The references that surely were taken from Simplicius are those to Sextus
Pythagoreus and to Licomedes (see Vol. 1, page 608). The latter is particularly important
as an indicator since AVKOJLT,SOV" is an error found only in the Greek manuscripts of
Simplicius' Commentary on the Categories (ed. of C. Kalbfleisch, Berlin, 1907, p. 192,
line 20). The correct reading was probably EAtKOEtSOV". I have altered the punctuation
slightly and capitalized all ofthe proper names not capitalized in Gaurico's text. I have made
the usual changes of consonantal "u" to "v". Similar changes have been made in the
passages cited in the next two footnotes.
Gaurico showed an evident lack of mathematical taste in publishing this
work alongside the two works of Archimedes, or at least in adding
comments to this text but not to those of Archimedes. I leave aside the
elementary comments of Gaurico, and concentrate on the historical
comment to the second conclusion. This is labeled "On the ratio of a
circle [Le. circumference] to a diameter according to Ptolemy and
Archimedes." It reads:
30
Ptolemy, the prince of astronomers, in the sixth of the Mathematical Constitu-
tion [i.e. the Almagest] has demonstrated that the circle [i.e. circumference] has
to its diameter the ratio [using sexagesimal fractions] 3; 8, 30 has to one, for 3;
8,34 to one is approximately 3
1
/7, while 3; 8, 27 to one is approximately 3
1
/71. The
ratio of 3; 8, 30 lies between these ratios. Now Archimedes the Syracusan, as
Valla says, and as will be evident in his [i.e. Archimedes'] third book [I proposi-
tion] of On the Quadrature of the Circle, has attempted by means of spirals and
curved lines to demonstrate that the circle has to its diameter a ratio of less than
3117 but greater than 3
10
/71. Or you say that it is less than 2217 and greater than
[3 and] 1/71 . And he wishes the orbicular line [sic; should be the area of the
circle] to have the same ratio to the square of the diameter as 11 has to 14.
This comment was drawn in substance from Giorgio Valla's De
expetendis et fugiendis rebus published only two years earlier (see Part
Ill, Chap. 2, Sect. V, pp. 468-69). It will be noticed on examining Valla's
text that Gaurico has carelessly copied the passage, substituting" orbicular
line" for "circle," although Valla had distinguished them. The result was
a patent error on Gaurico' s part. We should also notice that in referring
to the "third book" instead of "third proposition" of Archimedes' On the
Quadrature of the Circle, Gaurico repeated the error made by Pacioli
in his Summa of 1494 (see above, Part Ill, Chap. 2, Sect. IV, note 42).
The short piece which Gaurico entitledDe quadratura circuli secundum
Boetium is an embroidery of the comments of Boethius on the passage in
Aristotle's Categories to the effect that the quadrature of the circle is
knowable but not yet known (see Volume I, page 607). Gaurico says:31
30 lbid., 5r: "De proportione circuli ad diametrum secundum Ptholomeum et
Archimedem. Ptholomeus astronomorum princeps in sexto mathmaticae constitutionis
demostravit circulum ad ipsius dimentientem habere proportionem quae est 3 ad (! et) 8 et 30
ad unum: nam 3.8.34 ad unum ad triplam sexquiseptimam proxime accidunt, sed 3.8.27 ad
unum similiter triplam adiectis deam (! decem) septuagesimis septimis, inter quas est
proportio 3.8.30 ad unum. Archimedes vero syracusanus, ut inquit Valla, et ut patebit
in suo tertio libro de circuli quadratura, per helitas (I) incurvasque lineas molitus est
demostrare circulum ad ipsius diametrum habere proportionem minorem tripla sex-
quiseptima, maiorem vero decem septuagesimis primis quod est supra triplicatam diametrum
ex 71 partibus decem. Sive dicas minorem quam 22 ad 7 et maiorem quam 71 unitatum
decem. Voluitque orbicularem Iineam ad id quadratum quod ex diametro constituitur habere
proportionem communem quam 11 ad 14."
31lbid., 31r-32r: "De quadratura circuli secundum Boetium. Boetius in commento libri
predicamentorum super ilIo passu Aristotelis ubi dicit quod quadratura circuli erat scibilis
sed nondum scita. Et tempore Boetii erat hoc inventum et subdit quod cum alicui circulo
equum quadratum constituitur in quadraturamcirculi informam redigatur. Hoc habito videtur
And in the time of Boethius this [i.e., the quadrature of the circle] was
discovered and he adds that when a square is constructed equal to some circle
this formally constitutes the quadrature of a circle. With this accepted, it
seems to me that to square a circle is to find exactly the side of the square
equal in content with a given circle.
Then follows a brief method for finding the side of such a square, a
method which occurred to him Hin this year" (i.e. 1503?). Underlying the
method is the assumption that 'TT' = 3lf7. He takes the diameter AB with 14
unit parts [see Fig. III.6.4.17], erects a perpendicular at the juncture of
the eleventh and twelfth parts, the perpendicular DE, which extends to
the circumference. This perpendicular is the mean proportional between
the segments AD and DB and thus is equal to V33. Line EA is drawn
and is obviously equal to v'154, which is the side of the square equal
to the circle. But, he continues, the method followed by all geometers
or arithmeticians who want to know the area of the circle (but not to
construct its square) is to multiply one-half its diameter by one-half
its circumference, or its whole diameter by one-fourth its circumference.
In either case, the area of the circle with a diameter of 14 and circum-
ference of 44 is 154. The whole construction is identical to that found in
the late medieval Practica geometrie, which I have treated in Part 11,
Chap. 3, Sect. Ill, n. 22.
It is not clear how widely used was this little volume of Gaurico. It
could be that the few remarks on quadrature made by Raphael Maffeius
Volaterranus published only three years after Gaurico owe something to
Gaurico's texts, but for the most part Maffeius' remarks come almost
directly out of Pacioli's Summa.
32
We have already seen how Maurolico
mihi quod quadrare circulum sit invenire costam quadrati equalis continentie cum circulo
dato punctualiter. Ad quam inveniendam post demonstrationes factas, de hac materia brevem
quae mihi occurrit hoc anno faciam, quae talis est [Fig. III.6.4.17]. Faciam itaque 15 puncta
equedistantia super unam lineam rectam intercipientem 14 spacia et super punctum medium
describam circulum cuius circunferentia transibit supra duo puncta extrema. Diametri ergo
huius circuli erunt 14 spacia. Et haec linea, scilicet diameter circuli, sit ab, punctus vero
medius sive centrum circuli sit c. Apuncto vero d intersecante 11am partemet 12
am
incipiendo
ab a ducam lineam ortogonaliter sive perpendiculariter ad circunferentiam in puncta e et
haec linea est radix 33, quod est 6 (!).... Linea vero ad est radix de 121 cum sit 11.
Modo 121 et 33 constituunt 154. Erit ergo linea tertia istis duabus, scilicet ae, radix 154,
et costa quadrati equalis continentiae cum dicto circulo. Et sic habetur quadratura circuli,
sive quadratum equale circulo in continentia, quod idem est. Hic etiam modus omnibus
geometricis et arithmeticis volentibus scire quanta sit area dicti circuli, sed non quadrant
(I), triplant enimdiametrum et addunt septimam partemeius et hunc circunferentiam. Deinde
accipiunt medietatem diametri et medietatem circunferentie et multiplicant adinvicem: ex
mUltiplicatione resultante habetur area iterclusa (! inclusa) in dicto circulo; vel accipiunt
totam diametrum et quartam circunferentiae. Verbi gratia, diameter dicti circuli est 14; ter
14 et septima ipsius constituunt 44; medietas circunferentie erit 22, diameter vero 7; modo
septies 22 constituunt 154. Vel accipe totam diametrum, scilicet 14, et quartam circun-
ferentie, scilicet 11; idem resultabit, quia tantum valet."
32 Raphael Maffeius Volaterranus, Commentariorum rerum urbanorum libri XXXVIII
(Rome, 1506), Bk. XXXV, 493r: "Ignotum tamen noscibile Irrationale quidem et alogum
reworked and Tartaglia republished Gaurico's texts of the two
Archimedean works. It will suffice now to add that the French physician
Jean Fernel seems to reflect one of those medieval Archimedean texts
published by Gaurico in his (Le., Fernel's) Monalosphaerium (Paris,
1526).33 When Johann Wemer, one of Regiomontanus' successors at
non est set nobis rninime comprensum aut manifestum multorum enim ignota ratio nec
deprensa adhuc horninibusque tamen deprendi potest ut tetragonismus idest circuli
quadrature ratio quam licet Archimedes posterique in ea invenienda elaboraverint non tamen
penitus eius rationem consecuti sunt. ... (494r) [designated incorrectly as CCCCLXXXVI.
bis! ] . . . Quadratura vero circuli quam Tetragonismum vocat nondum antiquis reperta
quamquam Aristoteles dicat eius scientiam posse reperiri. Et patrum nostrorum memoria
Raimundus Matheseos peritissimus in ea invenienda multum laboris consumserit. Nostra
vero tempestate Presul quidam transalpinus vir doctissimus ei rei librum dicavit quem Petrus
lea medicus Spoletinus Marco Barbo Cardinali S. Marci monstravit. Archimedes super
hoc etiam separatim librum conscripsit citra tamen rei perfectam investigationem. Dixit
enim eius peripheriam maiorem esse Tripla Sesquioctava et minorem Tripla Sesquiseptima;
posteri vero dimensi sunt Diametrum ad peripheriae Tertiam et septimam totius partern,
que dimensio pausillum variat, ut ait Ptolomaeus, ex quo evenit ut non cognita perfecte
ratione Diametri circuli neque etiam eius quadratura inveniri possit, quod si nondum circuli
quadratura reperta longe difficillima erit Sphaerae dimensio et eorum corporum que ad
Spheram tendunt." Punctuation is slightly changed: I have left the capitalization as in the
edition. For the pertinent passage of Pacioli's Summa from which Maffeius has borrowed
much of this account, see above, Part Ill, Chap. 2, Sect. IV, note 42.
33 Ed. cif., 34v-35r: "Septima regula. Circuli semidiameter in medietatem circunferentiae
ducta, aream dat circuli. Aliter, diametro in se ducta, productum per 11 multiplicabitur,
totusque numerus si per 14 distribuatur, quotiens circuli aream praebebit. Operationis
prioris demonstratio duas supponit propositiones ab Archimede Syracusano amplissime pro-
batas: quas petitionum loco hic referam. Prior est. Omnis circulus aequalis est triangulo
rectangulo cuius alterum latus quod circa rectum angulum est aequatur semidiametro,
reliquum vero lineae circulum continenti. Secunda, ornnis circuli perimeter tripla est
diametro et adhuc septima parte diametri propinquissime excedit. Namsi diameter 71 partium
esset, circunferentia illam ter contineret et plures quam decem illarum partium. Nec tamen
decem cum septima parte unius, quum sint septima pars diametri. Caeteros autem
videbis triplam sesquiseptimamproportionem circunferentiae ad diametrum assignare, quasi
id discrirninis parvifaciant. His expositis, operationis rationem facillimum est exprimere.
Esto igitur AB circulus in centro C cuius diameter 14 pedum comperta sit [Fig. III.6.4.18].
Statuatur praetereaBD linea circuli huius perimetro aequalis, quae 44 pedum erit ex secundo
supposito. Tunc si BC in BD ducatur per 4 regulam quadranguli CBDE superficies 308
pedum emerget. Ergo ex ductu BC in BG medietatem BD, triangulus BCD medietas dati
quadranguli 154 pedum nascetur, quod areae circulari ex supposito primo est aequale. Hinc
patens est dati circuli aream aequalem esse tetragonismo BCFG sub medietate perimetri
et medietate diametri contento. Rursus eandem aequalem esse parallelogrammo BDIH, qui
fit ex ductu BI, quartae partis diametri, in BD circunferentiam, ac tandem ABKL paral-
lelogrammo, ex ductu AB diametri in BL, quartam partem circunferentiae, producto, totus
circulus aequalis esse comprobatur. Quare BAD parallelogrammum, ex ductu diametri BA
in circunferentiamBD consurgens, toti circulo quadruplum censetur, et BCDE eidemduplum.
Posterioris operationis ratio aliam supponit Archimedis propositionem, in eo Iibro cui tetra-
gonismus nomen est, copiose affatimque demonstratam, quae his verbis continetur.
Omnis circulus ad id quadratum quod ex ductu diametri in se fit, proportionem habet quam
II ad 14. Hac igitur supposita, habitudinetur* circulus ABCD [Fig. 111.6.4.19], cuius dia-
meter AC ut prius 14 sit pedum; iis in se ductis, quadratum ABCD conficitur 196 pedum.
Ut demum circuli superficies habeatur, investigandus est numerus qui earn servet propor-
tionem ad quadratum quam II ad 14. Constitutis idcirco ad id tribus numeris, quadratum
h.---------------------------------
\,
Nuremberg, treats of quadrature at about the same time, his account
does not rest on Gaurico. But still his roots were medieval, for in citing
Archimedes' On the Measurement a/the Circle, Werner compresses into
one the alternative titles found in the two traditions of Gerard of
Cremona's translation from the Arabic: "De mensura seu quadratura
circuli. "33a
Gaurico's operation with 'TT as 31J7 is, of course, a commonplace in the
196 per 11 multiplico. Consurgentemque numerum 2156 per 14 distribuo, ac relinquetur
in quotiente circuli superficies 154 pedum, quae earn habet rationem ad 1% quam 11 ad
14...." Again I have altered the punctuation somewhat and expanded to "ae".
The key to my conclusion that it was the translation by Williarn of Moerbeke of On the
Measurement of the Circle (perhaps in Gaurico's edition) that Femel consulted is Femel's
use of habitudinetur (indicated above by an asterisk). So far as I know, the only time
that this word had been used before Femel (certainly in the context of the quadrature
problem) was by William in his translation (see Volume 2, 22vl). I have suggested Gaurico
as the source, for it is unlikely that Femel had seen either manuscript 0 or manuscript
M of William's translation. It could be, however, that he saw, at Paris, Johannes de
Muris' autograph copy of the De arte mensurandi (which Oronce Fine acquired at about
this time). The De arte mensurandi included the first proposition of William's translation
of On the Measurement of the Circle (with the crucial habitudinetur) in the hybrid quad-
rature tract which Johannes had added to his work (see Part I, Chap. 5). I think it also
very likely that Femel read the account of quadrature found in Bradwardine's Geometria,
for there are a number of verbal similarities in the two discussions (see Vo1. 1, p. 34n).
Incidentally, a later passage of the Monalosphaerium (36r) asserts that a sphere is Uht of
the cube of its diameter (a proposition reminiscent of Proposition Xof the medieval De curvis
superjiciebus) and that the surface of a sphere is equal to the product of its diameter and
its circumference (reflecting Proposition VI of the De curvis superjiciebus): "Sexta regula.
Sphaerici corporis diameter in se cubice ducta, quadratum corpus efficit sphaerico maius.
Cubum hunc per 21 distribue ac rursus quotientem per undecim multiplicans, sphaerici
corporis quantitatem simul et capacitatem procreabis. Ut si diameter sphaere septem pedum
fuerit, ex eius cubica mUltiplicatione sic, septies 7 septies, 343 pedes proveniunt. Hoc per
21 distribuo, quotiensque reperitur 16 pedum Y3 cum; quos statim ut per undecim multi-
plicavero, 179 pedes cum % orientur, qui sunt propositi sphaerici corporis capacitas.
Eiusdem autem corporis convexi, quae sphaerica est superficies, diametro in circunferentiam
ducta proficiscitur. Nam si diameter septem pedum est, eius circunferentia 22 pedum
iudicabitur, quibus in se ductis, 154 pedum erit tota superficies...... That Feme! was
familiar with other medieval manuscript texts is confirmed by reading his De proportionibus
libri duo (Paris, 1528), which is heavily dependent on the medieval theory of proportio
proportionum developed by Bradwardine, Oresme and others (see E. Grant's edition of
Nicole Oresme'sDe proportionibus proportionum etc. [Madison, Wise., 1%6]). Grant, how-
ever, does not mention Femel's dependence on the medieval theory.
33a Johannes Wemer: In hoc opere continentur: ... Commentarius seu paraphrastica
ennaratio in undecim modos conjiciendi eius problematis quod cubi duplicatio dicitur
(Nuremberg, 1522) sign. h [I] verso: .. Appendix septima. Omnis quadratus ad circulum sibi
inscriptum proxime rationem habet quam xiiii ad xi. Sit ergo datus quadratus abc, eique
inscriptus circulus def, cuius. dimetiens df, centrum g. Et quia iuxta demonstrationem
Archimedis de mensura seu quadratura circuli totius circumferentiae circuli ad suum
dimetientem paulo minor est quam xxii ad vii, et quod sit sub semidiametro circuli
eiusque dimidia circumferentia aequum est areae circuli, igitur area circuli def tripla est
quadrati ipsiusfg semidiametri superpartiens septimam unam quadratifg semidiametri per
propositionem primam sexti libri Elementorum Euclidis...." Wemer's proposition is
merely the inverse of Proposition 2 of On the Measurement of the Circle.
h
antiql"- medieval, and Renaissance practical manuals, as I have stressed
again again in this work. It remains prevalent in the many manuals
composed after Gaurico's time. I shall make no effort to enumerate them
all, even for the first half of the sixteenth century. I can point to the
considerations found in Francesco Feliciano da Lazisio, Libro di
arithmetica et geometria speculativa et practicale (Venice, 1526),34
whose main source was probably Pacioli' sSumma. Another such manual,
with similar considerations, was Pietro Cataneo's, Le Practiche delle
due prime matematiche (Venice, 1546).35 Before giving his calculations,
Cataneo introduces the irrationality of the ratio of curved to straight
lines by references to Euclid and Archimedes:
On the quadrature of the circle and how it cannot be completely found. Proposi-
tion XV. Next [we treat] the method of approximating the area or quadrature
of circular surfaces or bodies, because in regard to such figures their quadrature
cannot be completely [i.e. exactly] found since a curved line cannot be compared
to a straight line. And hence Euclid, the Chief and Prince of Mathematicians,
did not wish to speak of it, inasmuch as in all of his demonstrations he
wished to be able to adduce his proofs with their complete solutions. But since
Archimedes knew that quadrature of the circle could not be done without
approximation, he was the first who found the true method of approximation
which has up to now been observed by the ancients and the modems. We shall
demonstrate it by various diverse examples. Hence we shall say: "There is a
circle whose diameter is 16, and one requires its area or quadrature." Proceed
as follows: multiply the diameter, 16, by itself, and 256 will result. From this
take 11/14 by multiplying the said 16 (! 256) by 11 and dividing the result by 14, and
the [final] result will be 201117.
About the same time, Michael Stifel, in an appendix to Book 11 of his
Arithmetica integra (Nuremberg, 1544), starts with a basic conclusion that
underlies the consideration of isoperimetric surfaces-' that the circle is
34 See particularly folios nr-v. There is no point in quoting the Italian text since it
resembles Pacioli's Summa so closely. er. the various practical calculations involving
'TT as 3
1
17 in the earlier manual of the Dominican Juan de Ortega, Suma (1) de arithmetica,
geometria practica utilissima (Rome, 1515), 107v-14v. There is no mention of Archimedes.
35 The 1546 edition was not available to me. In the edition of Venice, 1559, nr, the
passage runs: "De la quadratura del circulo e come quella non si puo trovar perfettamente,
Proposition XV. Seguendo appresso il modo dello approsimarsi a l'area 0 quadratura de le
superficie e corpi circulari pero che di queUe non si puo trovar perfettamente la loro quad-
ratura per non esse comparata la linea curva a la linea retta e pero Euclide capo e prencipe
de matematici non ne volse parlare come quello che di tutte le sue dimostrationi voleva
poter addure la vera prova de la perfetta lor solutione, ma conosciuto da Archimede non
si poter far senza l'approssimamento di tal quadratura del circulo fu il prima che trovasse
il vero modo di tale approssimamento il qual modo e da gl'antichi e da i modemi e stato
fino adesso osservato ilquale per varii e diversi esempi dimostraremo. Onde diremo eglie
il circulo che il suo diametro e 16. Si domanda la sua area overo quadratura, fa cosi:
multiplica 16 diametro in se et fara 256, del quale piglia li 11/14 multiplicando il detto 16
(! 256) per II et quel che fa partendo per 14 et veranne 2011/1 .." Punctuation altered;
consonantal "u" and vocal "v" are changed in the usual way.
QVADRATVRE PROBLEMS 1203
a polygon with an infinitude of sides-and constructs thereon an argument
in which he completely rejects the quadrature of what he calls the
mathematical circle, settling for the quadrature of the physical circle:
36
36 Michael Stifel, Arithmetica integra (Nuremberg, 1544), 224r-26r: "Appendix libri
secundi de quadratura circuli. Ad Adolphum a Glauburgk Francofordiensem, iuvenem
magnae spei. S. Disputationem meam hanc Geometricam (id est, ad Arithmeticam non
pertinentem) de Quadratura circuli, superaddidi, iussu viri, cui deberem et corpus et animam,
si fieri posset, ut homo merito hominis tanta deberet. Earn disputationem tibi mi Adolphe
nuncupare volui, quod videam te non solum Physicis, sed et Mathematicis rebus avidissime
studere, sequestratis bestiis illis malis, quae et pietati et artibus sunt infestae, avaricia,
ambitione, invidia etc. Cum enim mihi pulchrum esse videatur, pulchras mathematum specu-
lationes, talibus animis prodere, pulchrius esse certo scio, tarn pulchras mentes, omnibus
artium studiosis, in exemplum proponere. 1. Disputaturi de Quadratura circuli, observent
esse distinctionem inter circulum physicum et circulum mathematicum. 2. Observent etiam
earn quaestionem, a Philosophis veteribus motam, esse de circulo mathematico, non de
physico. 3. Circulus physicus est imago quaedam circuli mathematici. 4. Triangulus est poly-
goniarum omnium prima. 5. Omnium polygoniarum ultima est circulus. 6. Recte igitur
describitur circulus mathematicus esse polygonia infinitorum laterum. 7. Mathematici itaque
circuli circumferentia nullum recipit numerum, neque rationalem neque irrationalem. 8. Ante
circulum mathematicum sunt omnes polygoniae numerabilium laterum, quemadmodum ante
numerum infinitum sunt omnes numeri dabiles. 9. Restat igitur circulum circino factum
non esse mathematicum. 10. Tunc autem circulum dabis mathematicum, postquam dederis
numerum infinitum: idque volunt illi qui angulum contingentiae affirmant esse minorem
infinitis angulis rectilineis. 11. Infinitus numerus sicut ad res non contrahitur, si etiam
guttas maris imagineris toti coelo maioris: sic circulus mathematicus non contrahitur ad
materiam, etiam si omnium aurifabrorum totius orbis terrarum opera et industria esset
parata polita et complanata. 12. Neque rationalem proportionem, neque irrationalem, habet
circumferentia circuli mathematici ad suam diametrum. 13. Ut certissimum sit, quadraturam
circuli mathematici excedere rationem calculationis humanae. 14. Si autem quaestio est de
quadratura circuli physici, frustra tanta triumphi prodamatione iactamus earn quadraturam
esse aliquando inventam, quasi hac inventione ingens aliquod et insolitum aeditum fuerit
miraculum. 15. Licet Euclides et Ptolemaeus uti cogerentur circulis multifarie, tamen
ubique prudentissime atque doctissime declinaverunt quaestionem proportionis pertinentis
ad quadraturam circuli, id est, proportionis circumferentiae circuli ad suam diametrum.
16. Ut (exempli gratia) dum Euclides propositione octava sui duodecimi pronunciaret de
proportione columnarum ad pyramides suas, caute et erudite exclusit columnas pyra-
midesque rotundas. 17. Tanti viri exemplum secutus est Ptolemaeus, dum partes diametri
circuli divideret in partes 120 inter se aequales, et circumferentiam in partes 360 inter
se quidem aequales, sed partibus diametri inaequales. 18. Haberet quidem circulus rationem
quadrationis suae, si possibilis esset cognitio proportionis circumferentiae ad suam
diametrum. 19. Ex multiplicatione enim semidiametri in semicircumferentiam produceretur
area quadranguli aequalis circulo ilIi dato. 20. Relinqueretur autem nihil amplius faciendum,
quam quod medium proportionale inveniendum esset inter duo latera quandranguli illius
inaequalia. Hoc enim medium esset costa quadrati circulo aequalis. 21. Unde constat
quadraturam circuli nihil aliud esse, quam constitutionem quadrati aequalis circulo dato.
22. Sed aequalitas ilIa non est referenda ad circumferentias, referenda vero est ad areas
figurarum. 23. Inventio autem aequalitatis istius praesupponit numerum aliquem repraesen-
tantem longitudinem circumferentiae circuli praecise, sive rationalem sive irrationalem, qui
neutro modo est dabilis. 24. Unde sequitur primo impossibile esse, ut assignetur proportio
circumferentiae circuli ad diametrum suam, aut semicircumferentiae ad semidiametrum. 25.
Secundo sequitur impossibile esse, ut inveniatur medium proportionale inter semidiametrum
circuli et semicircumferentiameius. 26. Sequitur tertio impossibile esse, ut quadretur circulus
mathematicus. 27. Ineruditi ferendi sunt, si ista impugnaverint, cum talia sint quae pietati
nihil conferant aut adimant. 28. Tamen eruditi sentient haec eadem et Euclidem et
Ptolemaeum sensisse.
"De quadratura circuli physici. I. Possibile est, et factu facile, ut sumpta proportione
a1iqua propinqua inter semidiametrum et circumferentiam circuli physici, quadretur circulus
ille, ita ut quadratio ilia satisfaciat sensibus. 2. Possibile (inquam) est, ut dentur duae
laminae areae, aeque spissae, fusaeque ex eadem mixtura, quarum a1tera sit circularis,
reliqua vero habeat figuram quadrati: et ut in utraque sit pondus unum et idem, ambaeque
percussae, unisonum reddant. 3. Proportio ilia rationalis circumferentiae ad diametrum,
cuius autorem ferunt esse Archimedem (id est, tripla sesquiseptima) miram rei propin-
quitatem habet, adeo videlicet, ut quadratura circuli secundum earn facta sensus iudicium
fallat. 4. Ut faciente diametro circuli partes 28, faciet costa quadrati circulo illi aequalis
v'6i""6. Hoc est,
integra
24
minuta
49
secunda
9.
5. Proportio vero ilia irrationalis inventa a Nicolao de Cusa, de qua Ioannes de monte
regio disputat, admodum vicina est proportioni rationali Archimedis. 6. Faciente enim
diametro circuli 28, faciet costa quadrati aequalis circulo iIIi (secundum proportionem
istam irrationalem Vv'129654 + v'64827. Hoc est,
integra
24
minuta
47
secunda
33.
7. Si (inquiunt) ex semidiametro circuli dati atque chorda quadrantis eius directe coniunctis
fiat diameter a1terius circuli, erit triangulus aequilaterus eidem maiori circulo inscriptus,
isoperimeter circulo dato.
"Quod argumenta physica nihil faciunt pro quadratura circuli mathematici. 1. Nihil faciunt
qui questionem a Philosophis motam de Quadratura circuli filo aut circino tentat (! tentant)
exolvere. 2. Frustra laborant, quotquot se calculationibus fatigant, pro inventione quad-
raturae circuli, quocunque tandem modo aut medio hoc fiat. 3. Chordae arcuum sumptorum
de circulis dan possunt sub numeris rationalibus aut irrationalibus praecise. 4. Quae vero
dantur sub numeris irrationalibus praecise non possunt dari sub numeris rationalibus
praecise. 5. Proportiones vero chordarum ad arcus suos, neque sub rationalibus neque sub
irrationalibus numeris, dari possunt. 6. Cum numeri irrationales, secundum Euclidem, non
sint numeri, manifestum est proportiones irrationales esse proportiones tanquam numeri ad
nonnumerum sub numero. 7. Manifestum est etiam proportionem circumferentiae circuli
ad diametrum, atque arcuum ad chordas suas, esse vel tanquam numeri ad non numerum
sub non numero, vel tanquam non numeri sub numero ad non numerum sub non numero.
8. Argumentum hoc physicum est, si sic colligas: Dabile est quadratum circulo dato maius,
et dabile est quadratum circulo eidem dato minus, ergo dabile est quadratum illi eidem
circulo aequale. Non sequitur. 9. Sicut non sequitur: Dabilis est numerus rationalis minor
hoc numero irrationali V9OQO - v'16200000, ut est ille sequens,
integra
70
minuta
32
secunda
3.
Et dabilis est numerus rationalis eidem numero irrationali maior, ut est iste rationalis,
integra
70
minuta
33
secunda
3.
Ergo dabilis est numerus rationalis eidem numero irrationali aequalis. 10. Physica argumenta
in rebus mathematicis plaerunque fallunt. 11. Si physica argumenta in rebus mathematicis
fallunt, multo magis fallunt argumenta et physica et mathematica in rebus divinis. 12.
Corpus esse perfecte sphaericum videtur quidem mihi implicare contradictionem. Sed
scriptura sacra habet, 'Non erit impossibile apud Deum omne verbum.' 13. Orbes coelorum
......_-----------------------------_.
t
1. Let those who would argue about the quadrature of the circle observe that there
is a distinction between the physical circle and the mathematical circle.
2. Let them also observe that this question [concerning quadrature] was raised
by ancient philosophers in regard to the mathematical circle and not to the
physical one.
3. The physical circle is a certain image of the mathematical circle.
37
4. The triangle is the first of all polygons.
5. The last of all polygons is the circle.
6. The mathematical circle is correctly described as a polygon with an infinitude
of sides.
7. And so the circumference of a mathematical circle receives no number, be it
rational or irrational.
8. Preceding the mathematical circle are all the polygons of numerable sides,
just as before the infinite number are all givable numbers.
9. Therefore, it remains that a circle made by a compass is not mathematical.
10. Then you will give [an exact] mathematical circle [only] after you have given
an infinite number. And this is what those wish who affirm that an angle of
contingence is less than the infinitude of rectilinear angles.
11. The infinite number is not reducible to [physical] things even if you imagine
[all the] drops in a sea larger than the whole universe. In the same way the
mathematical circle is not reducible to matter even if the matter were polished and
planed by the work and industry of all the goldsmiths of all the lands of the earth.
12. The circumference of the mathematical circle has neither a rational nor an
irrational ratio to its diameter.
13. Thus it is most certain that the quadrature of the mathematical circle goes
beyond the nature of human calculation.
14. But if the question is concerned with the quadrature of the physical circle, we
boast in vain, with such a proclamation of triumph, that the quadrature has
sometimes been found, as if some great and unaccustomed wonder has been
wrought by this discovery.38
15. Although Euclid and Ptolemy are forced to use circles in many places, yet
everywhere they quite prudently and wisely avoid the question of the ratio
pertinent to the quadrature of the circle, i.e., the ratio of the circumference
of the circle to its diameter. 39
sunt opera manuum Dei: ideo negare non audeo, eos habere rationes circuli mathematici
absolute. Sed de his omnibus suo loco in Geometria mea dicam latius. Finis." The punc-
tuation has been considerably altered. The usual change of consonantal "u" to "v" has
been made. I have altered Stife1's sign for a square root Vg to the conventional sign.
For the life and works of Stifel, see J. E. Hofmann, "Michael Stifel: Leben, Wirken und
Bedeutung fur die Mathematik seiner Zeit," Sudhoffs Archiv, 9. Heft (1968), pp. 1-42.
Hofmann gives a brief analysis of Stifel's appendix on quadrature, pp. 27-29.
37 Perhaps Stifel had in mind a kind of Platonic distinction between an image (L8wAOV)
and the real circle (WTO<; 0 KVAO<;) something like the distinctions outlined in the Platonic
Seventh Letter (342a-e), although Stife1's ground for the distinction of the mathematical
from the physical circle, that a mathematical circle is a polygon with an infinitude of sides,
is surely not Platonic.
38 Stife1 could have been aiming this barb at anyone of several people who boasted of
having squared the circle, e.g. de Bouelles or Oronce Fine.
39 It is strange that Stifel included Ptolemy along with Euclid in view of the former's
remarks in the Almagest (see above, Part Ill, Chap. 2, Sect. 11, note 39). But perhaps
16. For example, while Euclid in XII.8 [of the Elements] gives an enunciation
for the ratio of columns to their pyramids, he carefully and wisely excluded
round columns and pyramids [Le. cylinders and cones].
17. Ptolemy has followed Euclid's example [of prudence] when he divides the
diameter of the circle into 120 mutually equal parts and the circumference into
360 parts mutually equal but unequal to the parts of the diameter.
18. Indeed the circle could be squared if it were possible to know the ratio of
the circumference to its diameter.
19. For from the product of the radius and the semicircumference would be
produced the area of a rectangle equal to the given circle.
20. Nothing further would remain to be done than to find the mean proportional
between the two sides of the rectangle, since this mean would be the side of the
square equal to the circle.
21. Whence it is clear that the quadrature of the circle is nothing but the
construction of a square equal to the given circle.
22. But this equality is not to be referred to circumferences but to the areas of
figures.
23. Now the finding of this equality presupposes some number that precisely
represents the length of the circumference, whether it be rational or irrational;
but such a number is not givable in either way [i.e. rationally or irrationally].
24. Whence, it follows, in the first place, that it is impossible for the ratio of
the circumference of a circle to its diameter to be assigned, or [similarly the ratio]
of the semicircumference to the semidiameter.
25. Secondly, it follows that it is impossible to find the mean proportional between
the semidiameter of a circle and its semicircumference.
26. Thirdly, it follows that it is impossible to square the mathematical circle.
27. Those who attack these things [i.e. conclusions] are [merely] to be designated
as uneducated, since such things add or detract nothing for piety.
28. However, the educated will realize that Euclid and Ptolemy also perceived
these same things.
On the Quadrature of the Physical Circle
1. It is possible, in fact, easy, when one has assumed some approximate ratio
between the radius and the circumference of a physical circle, to square that circle
in such a way that that square satisfies the senses.
40
2. It is possible (I say) to give two laminated areas, equally thick and prepared from
the same material, of which one is circular and the other has the figure of a square,
and both of which weigh the same and give out the same sound when struckY
3. That rational ratio of circumference to diameter of which they say Archimedes
was the author (i.e., 3
1
h) is a remarkable approximation, indeed so much so that a
quadrature of the circle proposed on its basis deceives the judgment of the senses.
4. Thus if we make the diameter of the circle 28 parts, the side of a square equal to
the circle will be v'6I6, i.e. 24 integers, 49 minutes, and 9 seconds.
42
he would have considered Ptolemy's remarks to refer only to the approximate quadrature
of a physical circle.
40 This sounds not unlike Albert of Saxony's remarks on quadrature ad sensum (see
Vol. 1, pp. 410, 412).
41 Compare Nicholas of Cusa's discussion in the De staticis experimentis (see above,
Part III, Chap. 1, Sect. I, note 26).
42 His approximation is about .00652 too small.
~ _ ......._----------------
5. Now the irrational ratio described by Nicholas of Cusa and disputed by
Johannes Regiomontanus is quite close to the rational ratio of Archimedes.
43
6. Ifwe make the diameter of the circle 28, then the side of the square equal to the
circle (fOlloWint the irrational ratio [proposed by Nicholas of CusaJ) will be
vi V129654 + 64827, i.e. 24 integers, 47 minutes and 33 seconds.
7. If (they say) from the radius of a given circle added directly to the chord of its
quadrant the diameter of a second circle is produced, then the equilateral triangle
inscribed in the larger circle will be isoperimetric with the given circle.
That Physical Arguments are of No Avail for the
Quadrature of the Mathematical Circle
1. Those who attempt to solve the question ofthe quadrature of the circle proposed
by the philosophers by means of a thread or compass accomplish nothing.
44
2. They labor in vain to achieve quadrature, however many calculations they tire
themselves with, or by whatever way or means they use.
3. Chords of arcs that are taken from circles can be given precisely in terms of
rational or irrational numbers.
4. Those chords which are given precisely in terms of irrational numbers cannot be
given precisely in terms of rational numbers.
5. But the ratios of chords to their arcs can be given in terms neither of rational nor
irrational numbers.
6. Since, according to Euclid, irrational numbers are not [actually] numbers, it is
manifest that irrational ratios are like those of a number to a non-number that is
under [the species of] number. 45
7. It is also manifest that the ratio of the circumference of a circle to the diameter
and of arcs to their chords [or rather, of the diameter to the circumference and
chords to their arcs] is either like that of a number to a non-number that is not under
[the species of] number [i.e. an infinite number] or like that of a non-number that is
under [the species of] number to a non-number that is not under [the species of]
number.
46
8. There is a physical argument that goes as follows: A square greater than a given
circle can be given and a square less than the same circle can be given; therefore, a
square equal to the same circle can be given. This does not follow.
9. [It does not follow] just as the succeeding argument does not o o w ~ We can give
43 This method as described by Regiomontanus (and outlined here below in Proposition
7) is given above, Part Ill, Chap. 2, Sect. 11, note 32. The complex radical in Proposition
6 is equal to 7 V3(V3 + V6).
44 The mention of the use of afilum ("thread") in quadrature reminds us of the remarks
on the bending of a filum sericum ("silk thread") into a circumference found in the
medieval Corpus Christi Version of On the Measurement of the Circle (see Vo!' 1, p.
170, line 10).
45 This comment shows how far Michael Stifel had departed from the ancient view of
number. His "irrational number"'(e.g. V2) he here converts to the ancient view of number
by calling it a "non-number under [the species of] number."
46 Because of his view that a circle is a polygon with an infinitude of sides, Stifel now
introduces the idea that the circumference could only be represented by a "non-number
that is not under [the species of] number." It is not under the species of number because
it requires infinity and infinity is not representable by number but only by a "non-number
that is not under the species of number." To clarify Stifel' s view, let us call such a non-
number "n",". Then two ratios of the kinds suggested here might be 5/noo and v'2in(X"
neither of which Stife! would have thought to be possible.
a rational number less than the irrational number v'9000 - y'16200000
[=70.53423] and this rational number can be 70 integers, 32 minutes, and 3 seconds
[=70.534166 ... ]; we can also give a rational number greater than this same
irrational number, namely 70 integers, 33 minutes, and 3 seconds [= 70.55083];
therefore, we can give a rational number equal to the same irrational number.
10. For the most part, physical arguments are fallacious in mathematical matters.
11. If physical arguments are fallacious in mathematical matters, how much more
fallacious are both physical and mathematical arguments in divine matters.
12. A perfectly spherical body seems to me to imply a contradiction. But the
Sacred Scripture has: "For nothing shall be impossible with God" [Luke 1:37].
13. The orbs of the heavens are works of the hands of God; therefore, I dare not
deny that they have perfectly the nature of a mathematical circle. But of all these
matters I shall speak further in their [proper] place in my [work on] geometry.
The knowledge of Archimedes reflected in this short tract is meager.
His statement that the area of the circle is equal to the product of the
radius and semicircumference is, of course, the substance of Proposition 1
of On the Measurement of the Circle, to which he adds the common
supplement that such a rectangle can be converted to a square by finding
the mean proportional between the sides of the rectangle. Furthermore,
he assigns to Archimedes the approximation of TT' as 3
1
17, which he calls
a "remarkable approximation." Such Archimedean knowledge was, as I
have often said, thoroughly and widely embedded in the tradition of the
medieval practical manuals that culminated in Pacioli's Summa. But
Stifel's approach to quadrature was not essentially Archimedean. It
depended basically on his distinction between mathematical and physical
circles. No doubt such a distinction reflected the Platonic tradition. But
Stifel's grounding of that distinction on the idea that the mathematical
circle is a polygon with an infinite number of sides probably arose from
considering the various tracts on isoperimetric figures or Nicholas of
Cusa's so-called isoperimetric circle. Quadrature, according to Stifel,
depends on the possibility of assigning a number (either rational or
irrational) to the circumference as well as to the diameter. But since the
mathematical circle is to be "correctly described as a polygon with an
infinitude of sides," the circumference cannot be represented by a
number, be it rational or irrational. Hence the quadrature of a mathe-
matical circle is impossible. In accepting the physical quadrature, Stifel
not only reports the Archimedean approximation of TT' as 3
1
/7 (without,
however, mentioning Archimedes' determinations of the bounds between
which TT' must lie) but he also determines the approximation implied in
one of Nicholas of Cusa's constructions. In doing so, he mentions
Regiomontanus' refutation, and so it is clear that he had read the collection
of quadrature tracts appended to the 1533 edition of Regiomontanus' De
triangulis omnimodis (see above, note 43). His conclusion that it is possible
to effect a physical quadrature that satisfies the senses reminds us of
Albert of Saxony's similar remarks on quadrature ad sensum (see above,
note 40). Finally, we can observe that his suggestion that physical
quadrature can be accomplished because we can have a circular plate
t
and a square plate of equal thickness and uniform material that weigh
the same suggests that he had read Nicholas of Cusa's De staticis
experimentis (see above, note 41). Stifel's arguments were accurately
translated into French and rebutted by Simon Du Chesne de Dole in his
Quadrature du cercle (Delf, 1584), a work that lies outside the limits of my
study.
I discussed at some length the views on quadrature expounded by the
first of the line of French mathematicians to study quadrature in detail,
namely Charles de Bouelles, and I briefly mentioned the remarks of Jean
Fernel. Now I should like to discuss the sundry treatments of quadrature
by their widely popular contemporary Oronce Fine (perhaps better written
as Fine, i.e. without accent?). Fine was born in Briancon, 20 Dec., 1494.41
His father was a well-known natural philosopher and physician. Fine
came to Paris and studied at Oresme' s old college, the College de
Navarre, where he taught mathematics privately in 1516. Later he taught
publicly in the College de Maitre Gervaise. It was apparently there
that he acquired the autograph copy of Johannes de Muris' De arte
mensurandi, BN lat. 7380, from the bursar of that college in a book
exchange.
48
There is conclusive evidence, as we shall see below, that
Fine used this manuscript. In 1531 he was appointed professor of
mathematics at the College Royal, in which position he remained until his
death in 1555. Throughout his whole career his interest in geometry was
intense but with rather unhappy results, as we shall see. Among
geometrical problems, that of the quadrature of the .circle most attracted
him. Hence it played an important part in several of his geometrical
works: Protomathesis (Paris, 1532; a separate title page for the section
on geometry [De geometria libri duo] is dated 1530), Liber de geometria
practica (Strasbourg, 1544), Quadratura circuli (Paris, 1544), De re et
praxi geometrica libri tres (Paris, 1555; translated into French by Forcadel
and published in Paris, 1570 and 1586) and the posthumous De rebus
mathematicis hactenus desideratis (Paris, 1556).49
47 See L. Gallois, De Orontio Finaeo gallico geographo (Paris, 1890) and above all the
excellent study of R. Ross, Studies on Oronce Fine, Dissertation, Columbia University,
1971. a. D. Hillard and E. Poulle, "Oronce Fine et l'horloge planetaire de la Bibliotheque
Sainte-Genevieve," Bibliotheque d'humanisme et Renaissance: Travaux et documents, Vol.
33 (1971), pp. 311-51; L. Am. Sedillot, "'Les Professeurs de mathematiques et de physique
generale au College de France," Bullettino di biliografia e di storia delle scienze mate-
matiche e fisiche, Vol. 2 (1869), pp. 363-64, with the sources noted there and particu-
larly C. P. Goujet, Memoire historique et litteraire sur le College Royal de France, Vol.
2 (Paris, 1758), pp. 3-14; L. Thomdike, A History of Magic and Experimental Science,
Vol. 5 (New York, 1941), pp. 285-86. There are some divergencies in the dates of events
in Fine's life given in these accounts and in the details of a prison term. All that we can
say concerning the latter is that Fine was almost certainly in prison toward the end of
1524 and the beginning of 1525 (see Ross, p. 20).
48 For the statement of Fine concerning his acquisition of MS BN lat. 7380, see above,
Part I, Chap. 4, note 3.
49 In the front matter of this posthumous work, there is a long partially biographical
poem . 'Vita et tumulus Orontii, per Antonium Mizaldum." I have mentioned here only
Fine's geometrical works that bear on the quadrature problem. Without detailing his exten-
Of the many efforts Fine made to accomplish quadrature by the
determination of 'TT, I shall limit myself to three that more or less purport
to follow Archimedes. But before examining these methods, I must present
the evidence that Fine made use of the autograph copy of Johannes de
Muris' De arte mensurandi in his possession. In Chapter XXXIII of
Book II of the geometrical section of the Protomathesis, Fine repeats
Johannes' misuse of Archimedes' On Conoids and Spheroids to determine
the volume of what he calls a "curvilinear oval rhombus" (and which
Johannes named an "arcuate rhombus," i.e. the solid formed by the
rotation of a segment of a circle about its chord):50
And there is the curvilinear figure of a rhombus which we not improperly can
call an oval. Its measure is seen to arise in another way. Let the given curvilinear
oval rhombus be DEFG [see Fig. I1I.6.4.20], whose major axis is EG and whose
minor axis DF is perpendicular to the former. Therefore, the plane of the circle
whose diameter is straight line DF will bisect the rhombus. Now the cone whose
base circle is DF and whose apex is E is one-half of half of the curvilinear
rhombus DEFG-by Archimedes in the book On Spheroids and Conoids. You
will conclude the same thing for the remaining cone placed opposite it. Therefore,
the whole conchoidal rhombus [i.e. the figure formed from the two cones] is half
the whole oval rhombus. And, in the manner just suggested, measure the
rhombus arising from the two cones and double that measure. The result is the
complete volume of the given oval rhombus. Archimedes was accustomed to
call a rhombus of this sort a spheroidal rhombus. . . .
It will be evident to the reader who turns to Chapter 10 of the De arte
sive bibliography, we perhaps should note his In sex priores libros geometricorum ele-
mentorum Euclidis (Paris, 1536; 1544; 1551) and his De mundi sphaera sive cosmographia
(Paris, 1542; 1551; 1555; in French, 1551). He was also the editor of Peurbach's Theoricae
novae planetarum (Paris, [1515]; 1525; 1534), G. Reisch's Margarita philosophica (Basel,
1523; 1535; 1583), and C. Caelestinus' De his quae mundo mirabiliter eveniunt etc. (Paris,
1542), and other works. For the many works edited and composed by Fine, see Gallois,
De Orontio Finaeo, pp. 71-78; and more recently the article by D. Hillard and E. Poulle
cited in note 47. The latter authors also list further works in manuscript. An Italian transla-
tion of Fine's works was made by Cosimo Bartoli and Ercole Bottrigaro: Opere di Orontio
Fineo Delfinato (Venice, 1587). There was a Spanish translation: Los Dos libros de la
geometria practica de Orontio Fineo, executed by Pedro Juan de la Estanosa and Jeronimo
Giniva in 1553 and extant in manuscript (see F. Picatoste y Rodriguez, Apuntes para
una biblioteca cientifica espanola del siglo XVI [Madrid, 1891], p. 88).
50 Protomathesis, 97r: "Est et rhombi figura curviIinaea, quam ovalem possumus haud
indecenter appellare: quae sub dimentionem alio videtur incidere modo. Sit datus rhombus
ovalis curvilinaeus DEFG [Fig. III.6.4.20], cuius maior axis EG, minor autem DF cum
priori orthogonalis. Planum igitur circuli, cuius dimetiens recta DF, dividet ipsum rhombum
bifariam. Conus autem, cuius basis circulus DF, vertex E, subduplus est (per Archimedem
in libro de sphaeroidalibus et conoidalibus) ipsius dimidii rhombi curvilinaei DEFG: idemque
iudicato de reliquo cono ex adverse collocato. Totus ergo rhombus conoidalis totius ovalis
rhombi subduplus erit. Metire itaque rhombum ex duobus conis resultantem veluti nunc
admonuimus, et productam mensuram duplica: colligetur enim universa dati rhombi ovalis
crassitudo. Archimedes autem huiuscemodi rhombum sphaeroidale corpus appellare con-
suevit." This account was essentially repeated by S. MOnster, Rudimenta mathematica
(Basel, 1551), pp. 64-65.
mensurandi (see above, Part I, Chap. 6), that Fine has used the comment
of Proposition 22 for his citation of the title of Archimedes' work and for
his statement that Archimedes called such a body spheroidal. For the
actual formula to determine the volume he used the comment to Proposi-
tion 23. One might argue, I suppose, that Fine conceived of his oval
rhombus as a true spheroid rather than as a body generated by the rotation
of a circular segment about its chord. But this cannot be so, since he
immediately after this passage speaks of EDG as an arc. Incidentally,
it is surprising that in these later remarks Fine does not employ the
formula of Proposition 22 of the De arte mensurandi for determining the
surface of his oval rhombus. Instead he suggests multiplying the length
of the arc EDG by half the circumference of the circle whose diameter
is DF, which is also incorrect. 51
We are now prepared to examine the effort of Fine in the Protomathesis
to present Archimedes' determination of 7T. 52 In enunciating the proposi-
51 Ibid.: "Quod si eiusdem rhombi volueris habere superficiem, ita facito. Multiplica arcum
EDG in dimidiam circumferentiam circuli, cuius diameter recta DF: vel ducito totam
circunferentiam in dimidium eiusdem arcus."
52 Ibid., 85v-89r: 1. "Placet autem consequenter demonstrare circunferentiam ad circuli
diametrum, iuxta vulgatum ipsius Archimedis inventum, rationem habere minorem tripla
sesquiseptima, maiorem tamen tripla superdecupartiente septuagesimasprimas: hoc est,
circunferentiam ter continere diametrum, et paulo minus septima, sed plus octava ipsius
diametri parte. Id enim studiosis omnibus admodum gratum futurum arbitramur: turn quia
subtilissima videatur inventio, turn etiam quod in usum recepta sit ab omnibus.
"2. [Mg. Demonstratio primae partis.] Primum itaque sic ostendemus. Sit descriptus,
circa centrum A, circulus BCD (Fig. 111.6.4.21]: quem recta linea EF contangat in puncto
B, per 17 tertii elementorum Euclidis; a contactu autem B, recta quaedam linea BD ad
rectos excitetur angulos, per 11 primi: haec enim per A centrum transire cogetur, ex 19
tertii eiusdem Euclidis. Accipiatur postmodum arcus subtendens latus haexagoni circuli
semidiametro aequale, per corolarium 15 quarti, sitque BC. Hic autem arcus BC discindatur
bifariam, per 30 tertii, recta quidemAE. Triangulum ergo rectangulum eritABE, cuius latus
AE duplum est ipsius EB. Secetur enim BF aequalis ipsi BE, per 3 primi: et con-
nectatur AF, per primum postulatum. Quoniam BE ipsi BF est aequalis, communis autem
AB: duae igitur AB et BE duabus AB et BF sunt adinvicem aequales, et aequales com-
praehendunt angulos, nempe rectos. Basis igitur AE basi AF est aequalis, et reliqui anguli
reliquis angulis, sub quibus aequalia subtenduntur latera, per 4 primi. Angulus itaque BAE
angulo RAF est aequalis, similiter et angulus AEB angulo AFB. Atqui angulus BAE tertia
pars est anguli recti (capit enimtertiampartemipsius quadrantis, qui rectum metitur angulum)
et angulus igiturBAF tertiam recti partem compraehendet: quapropter et uterque reliquorum
angulorumAEB et AFB, atque totus EAF angulus, duobus tertiis eiusdem recti coaequabitur,
omnis namque trianguli tres anguli duobus rectis sunt aequales, per 32 primi. Aequiangulum
igitur est triangulumEAF, per primam communem sententiam, quapropter et aequilaterum.
Ipsa pOITO EF dupla est ipsius EB, et AE igitur eiusdem EB dupla est, per conversam
sextae communis sententiae.
"3. [Mg. Prima anguli divisio.] His praeostensis, dividatur angulus BAE bifariam, per
9 primi: recta quidem AG. Quam igitur rationem habet EA ad AB, eam habet et EG ad
GB, per 3 sexti. Et coniunctim igitur, sicut EA et AB ad ipsam BA, sic EB recta ad
partem BG, per 18 quinti. Et vicissim quoque, per 16 eiusdem quinti, sicut quidem EA
et AB ad BE, sic AB ad BG. Et quoniam quadratum ex AE aequum est duobus quadratis
quae ex AB et BE, per 47 primi, si tollatur quadratum ipsius BE a quadrato quod ex EA,
bn
relinquetur quadratum ipsius AB, cuius radix erit eiusdem AB longitudo. Qualium ergo
partium AE fuerit 22, ipsa EH erit 11, et BA 19 cum 1!I9 partis. Nam 22 in sese ducta,
faciunt 484, et 11 per sese itidem multipIicata, restituunt 121, quae dempta a 484, relinquunt
363, quorum radix 19 et !J19. Atqui 19 cum 1/19 ad 11 maiorem rationem habent quam solus
numerus 19 ad eundem numerum 11, per 8 quinti. Et AB igitur ad BE potentia maiorem
videtur obtinere rationem quam 19 ad 11, et consequenter ratio EA et AB coniunctarum
ad EB maior quam adgregatum ex 22 et 19, utpote 41, ad 11. Et ipsius quoque AB ratio ad
BG maior erit quam praefati numeri 41 ad 11, cum sit eadem, quae ipsarum EA et AB ad
BE. Et coniunctim igitur, per 18 quinti, composita ex AB et BG ad BG maiorem rationem
habebit quam 41 et 11 simul ad 11. Ponatur itaque AB 41, et BG 11; igitur quadrata quae
fiunt ex AB et BG ad ipsius BG quadratum maiorem rationem habebunt quam producta
ex 41 et 11 quadrata ad quadratum quod ex 11. Quadratis autem quae ex AB et BG, aequum
est quadratum quod ex AG, per 41 primi, et ipsorum 41 et 11 quadrata simuI iuncta, hoc
est, 1681 et 121, conficiunt 1802. Ergo quadratum quad (! quod) ex AG ad quadratum
ipsius GB maiorem rationem habet quam 1802 ad 121. Sicut autem quadrata, sic se habent
et eorum Iatera, et econtra: latus porro quadrati 1802 invenitur 42 et 19/42 . Relinquitur ergo
manifestum, AG ad GB potentia maiorem observare rationem quam 42 et 19/42 ad 11.
"4. [Mg. Secunda anguli partitio.] Dividatur consequenter angulus BAG bifariam recta
AH, per eandem 9 primi. Erit itaque ratio GA ad AB eadem, quae GH ad HB, per 3
eiusdem sexti. Et coniunctim igitur, sicut GA et AB ad BA, sic quidem GB ad BH, per
18 quinti. Et vicissim per 16 eiusdem quinti, sicut composita ex GA et AB ad BG, sic et
AB ad BH. Sed demonstratum est AG ad GB potentia maiorem rationem habere quam
42 et 19/42 ad 11, et AB data est 41. Igitur ratio GA et AB ad BG maior est quam adgregati
ex 41 et 42
19
/42, ut pote 83 et 19/42 , ad 11. Et per consequens ipsius AB ad BH ratio maior
itidem erit quam eorundem 83 et 19/42 ad 11. Et coniunctim itaque, per 18 ipsius quinti,
composita ex AB et BH ad BH maiorem rationem habet quam 83
19
/42 ad 11. Ponatur
itaque rursum AB 83
19
/42, et BH 11; tunc quadrata quae fiunt ex AB et BH ad quadratum
ipsius BH maiorem rationem observabunt quam producta ex 83
19
/42 et 11 quadrata ad quad-
ratum eorundem 11. Porro quadratis quae ex AB et BH aequum est quadratum quod ex
AH, per 47 primi, quadrata vero ex 83
19
/42 et 11, utpote, 69642121 et 121, conficiunt simul
iuncta 7085%1. Ergo quadratum quod ex AH ad quadratum ipsius HB maiorem rationem
habet quam 7085
2
121 ad 121. Radix autem ipsorum 7085
2
/21 est 84 et 1/6 fere, evidens itaque
relinquitur, AH ad HB potentia maiorem observare rationem quam 84 et 1/6 ad 11.
"5. [Mg. Tertia divisio anguli.] Rursum, dividatur bifariam angulus BAH, per 9 eiusdem
primi, recta videlicet AI. Erit itaque respondenter HA ad ipsamAB ratio eadem, quae HI ad
IB, per eandem 3 sexti. Et coniunctim rursum, per 18 quinti, sicut HA et AB ad BA, ita
HB ad BI. Et vicissim quoque, per 16 eiusdem quinti, sicut HA et AB ad BH, sic AB
ad eandem BI. Demonstravimus autem, AH ad HB potentia maiorem observare rationem
quam 84 et 11& ad 11, et AB data est 83 cum 19/42 , BH vero 11. Ratio itaque HA et AB ad
BH maior est ratione compositi ex 83
19
/42 et 84
1
/6, scilicet 168
8
/13, ad 11. Et ipsius quoque
AB ratio ad BI maior quam 168
8
/13 ad 11, cum sit eadem que HA et AB ad BH. Igitur
et composita exAB etBI ad ipsamlB maiorem rationem observat quam habeant 168
8
1t3 ad 11,
per 8 quinti. Sit ergo rursum AB 168
8
/13, et BI 11. Quadrata igitur quae ex AB et BI ad
quadratum ipsiusBI maioremrationem habebunt quam simul iuncta ex 168
8
!I3 et 11 quadrata
ad quadratum eorundem 11. Atqui ex AB et BI quadratis aequum est quadratum ipsius
AI, per 47 primi, et quadrata ex 168
8
/13 atque 11, videlicet 28431 fere et 121, componunt
28552. 19itur quadratum quod ex A! ad ipsius IB quadratum maiorem rationem habet quam
28552 ad 121. Unde si radix eorundum 28552 tandem extrahatur, ea erit 169 (minus tamen
%38, quae non curabis). Ex quo concluditur AI ad IB potentia maiorem observare rationem
quam 169 ad 11.
"6. [Mg. Quarta anguli partitio.] Angulus tandem BA! dividatur bifariam, per 9 primi,
recta quidem AL. Ergo per 3 sexti, lA ad ipsam IB ratio erit velut IL ad LB. Et composita
quoque ex lA et AB ad BA, sicut IB ad BL, per 18 quinti; atque vicissim per 16 eiusdem
quinti, sicut quidem lA et AB ad BI, sic AB ad BL. Ostensum est autem, quod A! ad IB
potentia maiorem rationem servat quam 169 ad 11, AB autem posita est 168
8
/13, etBI rursum
11. Ergo ratio lA et AB ad BI maior est quam 337
8
/15 (quod est compositum ex 168
8
1t3
et 169) ad 11. Quapropter et ipsius AB ad BL ratio potentia maior itidem esse videtur
quam sit ratio 337
8
/13 ad eadem 11.
"7. [Mg. Recollectio praedictorum in demonstrationis conclusionem.] His ita deductis,
quoniam trianguli ABE, angulus BAE tertia pars recti monstratus est anguli, erit igitur
idem angulus BAE quatuor rectorum angulorum pars duodecima. Quapropter et angulus
BAG ipsius BAE dimidius, erit eorundem quatuor rectorum pars vigesimaquarta. Et
consequenter angulus BAR, dimidius eiusdem BAG, pars erit quadragesimaoctava quatuor
rectorum angulorum. Necnon angulus BA!, ipsius BAH dimidius, eorundem quatuor rectorum
erit nonagesimasexta pars. Seccetur (1) itaque BM ex recta BF ipsi BL aequalis. Angulus
igitur BAM aequalis erit angulo BAL, per 4 primi; unde totus LAM toti BAJ erit respond-
enter aequalis, per primam communem sententiam. Angulus itaque LAM praedictorum
quatuor rectorum pars erit nonagesimasexta; quapropter subtensa LM erit latus multanguli
nonaginta sex laterum. circa datum circulum descriptio Et quoniam demonstratum est, AB
ad BL potentia maiorem rationem habere quam 337
8
/13 ad 11, ipsius autem AB dupla est
dimetiens BD, atque ipsius BL dupla est LM; igitur ratio dimetientis BD ad LM potentia
maior erit quam 337
8
/13 ad 11. Et conversim igitur LM ad BD diametrum minorem rationem
observat quam 11 ad 337
8
/13. Itaque si 11 nonagesies sexies accipiantur, colligetur ambitus
ipsius multanguli circa datum circulum descripti, partium quidem 1056. Fit igitur, ut ratio
totius ambitus circunscripti multanguli ad diametrum BD minor sit quam 1056 ad 337
8
/13.
Atqui numerus 1056 ter continet 337
8
/13, et praeterea 43
2
/13, quae non faciunt eiusdem
numeri 337
8
/13 septimam partem (ea enim est 48
3
/13). Cum igitur circunferentia circuli
minor sit ambitu circunscripti multanguli, a fortiori eiusdem circuli circunferentia ad
proprium (!) diametrum rationem observabit minorem tripla sesquiseptima. hoc est, ter
continebit diametrum. et paulo minus septima ipsius diametri parte, quod demonstrare
oportebat.
"8. [Mg. Secundae partis demonstratio.] Quod autem circunferentia ad circuli diametrum
rationem observet maiorem tripla superdecupartiente septuagesimas primas, hoc est, ter
diametrum compraehendat, et paulo plus octava eiusdem diametri parte, ita demon-
stratur. Sit descriptus circa centrum A, circulus BCD (Fig. IlI.6.4.22], cuius diameter BD,
coapteturque a puncto D versus C latus hexagoni intra eundem circulum descripti, per 1
quarti, quod percorollarium 15 eiusdem quarti semidiametro estaequale. Connectaturdeinde
BC, per 1 postulatum. Rectus erit igitur angulus BCD, per 31 tertii, et angulus CBD tertia
pars recti. Nam arcus CD est magnitudo duorum tertiorum unius recti, capit enim quad-
rantis; quapropter si AC recta produceretur, angulus CAD, qui ad centrum, duobus tertiis
unius recti esset aequalis: sed is duplus esset eius qui ad circunferentiam, utpote, CBD
eundem arcum habentis, per 20 tertii. Igitur angulus CBD est Y3 anguli recti; unde reliquus
BDCangulus recti compraehendet. Quoniamautem angulus qui ad C rectus est, quadratum
igitur quod ex BD aequum est duobus quadratis quae ex BC atque CD, per 47 primi. Ea
propter subtracto ipsius CD quadrato ab eo quod fit ex BD, relinquetur quadratum ipsius
BC, cuius radix erit eiusdemBC longitudo. Ponamus exempli gratiaBD partium 30; igitur CD
erit 15 partium similium, est enimBD ipsiusDC dupla, per corollarium 15 quarti. Si ducantur
itaque 30 in sese, fient 900; ex 15 autem per sese multiplicatis proveniunt 225, quae subducta
de 900 relinquunt 675, ipsius BC quadratum. Radix porro quadrata eorundem 675 admodum
propinqua est 26. At quoniam 26 per se multiplicata producunt 676, qui quidem numerus 676
praefatum numerum 675 unitate superat. Igitur BC potentia minorem rationem habet ad
CD quam 26 ad 15.
"9. [Mg. Prima anguli divisio.] His in hunc modum praeostensis, dividatur angulus CBD
bifariam, per 9 primi, recta quidemBE, rectam CD in punctoF intersecante, et connectatur
DE, per I postulatum. Sunt itaque bina triangulaBCF et BED invicem aequiangula, quoniam
angulus BCF aequus est anguloBED, nam uterque rectus, per 31 tertii; angulus praeterea
CBF angulo FBD aequalis, uterque enim dimidius est ipsius anguli CBD; et re1iquus igitur
BFC reliquo BDE est aequalis, per 32 primi. Aequiangula igitur sunt triangula BCF et
BED; et quae circum aequales angulos latera proportionalia, per 4 sexti. Sicut igitur BC
ad CF, sic BE ad ED. Et quoniam angulus CBD recta BE divisus est bifariam, fit ut quam
L
rationem habet DB ad BC, eam servet et DF ad FC, per 3 sexti. Et coniunctim igitur,
per 18 quinti, sicut DB et BC ad CB, sic DC ad CF. Atque vicissim, per 16 eiusdem
sexti, sicut quidem DB et BC ad CD, sic BC ad CF. Atqui BC ad CD paulo minorem
habere rationem quam 26 ad 15 nuper ostendimus; et BD posita est 30, qualium CD 15;
pOITO 30 et 26 conficiunt 56. Et composita igitur ex DB et BC ad CD minorem rationem
observat quam 56 ad 15; et BC consequenter ad CF minorem itidem rationem obtinebit
quam idem numerus 56 ad 15. Sed quemadmodumBC ad CF, ita monstravimus BE ad ED; et
BE igitur ad ED minorem rationem habebit quam 56 ad 15, per 11 quinti. Coniunctim
etiam BE ED ad ipsam DE minorem rationem habebunt quam 56 et IS simul ad 15,
per 18 eiusdem quinti. Si posuerimus itaque BE 56, et ED 15, quadrata quae fiunt ex BE
et ED ad quadratum ipsius DE minorem consequenter rationem observabunt quam ex 56
et 15 producta quadrata ad quadratum ipsorum 15. POITO quadratis quae ex BE et ED
aequum est quadratum quod ex BD, per 47 primi, quadrata vew ex 56 et 15, utpote, 3136
et 225, componunt 3361, quorum radix quadrata 58, minus tamen 3/116 quae minime curanda
sunt. Igitur quadratum ex BD ad quadratum ipsius DE minorem relinquitur habere rationem
quam 3361 ad 225, et ipsa BD ad DE longitudine minorem identidem observare rationem
quam idem numerus 58 ad IS.
H 10. [Mg. Secunda partitio anguli.] Dividatur consequenter angulus DBE bifariam, per 9
primi, recta quidem BG, quae secet ipsam DE in puncto H, et connectatur DG, per 1
postulatum. Bina igitur triangula BEH et BGD esse rursum adinvicem aequiangula, ex
predictis facile colligitur; atque angulum qui ad E angulo qui ad G itidem aequalem, nempe
rectum recto. Igitur per 4 sexti, sicut BE ad EH, sic quidem BG ad GD. Et quoniam
angulusDBE rectaBG bifariamdiscinditur, quamergo rationem obtinetDB adBE, eam servat
et DH ad HE, per 3 sexti. Et coniunctim igitur, sicut DB et BE ad EB, sic DE ad EH,
per 18 quinti; atque vicissim per 16 eiusdem, quemadmodum DB et BE ad ED, sic BE ad
EH. Monstravimus autem, BD ad DE minorem habere rationem quam 58 ad 15; data quoque
est ipsa BE 56, qualium ED 15, ipsa pOITO 58 et 56 simul iuncta efficiunt 114. Igitur com-
posita ex DB et BE ad ED minorem rationem habet quam sit ratio 114 ad 15. Quapropter
et BE ad EH minorem itidem rationem obtinebit quam 114 ad 15. Ut autem BE ad EH,
ita BG ad GD se habere deduximus; et BG igitur ad GD, per 11 quinti, minorem
similiter rationem ohservabit quam numerus 114 ad 15 numerum. Et coniunctim quoque
per 18 quinti, BG et GD ad ipsam DG minorem consequenter rationem habebunt quam
114 et 15 simul ad eundem numerum 15. Detur itaque BG 114 et GD 15; quadrata igitur
quae fiunt ex BG et GD ad quadratum ipsius DG minorem rationem habebunt quam producta
ex 114 et 15 quadrata ad quadratum eorundem 15. Quadratis autem quae ex BG et GD
aequatur quadratum ipsiusBD, per 47 primi. Quadrata rursum ex 114 et 15, videlicet 12996
et 225, conficiunt 13221, quorum radix quadrata 115, minus 4/230 quae prorsus negligenda
sunt. Concludendum igitur, quadratum ex BD ad quadratum ipsius DG minorem observare
rationem quam 13221 ad 225; atque eandemBD ad ipsamDG longitudine minorem respond-
enter habere rationem quam 115 ad praefatum numerum 15.
"11. [Mg. Tertia anguli divisio.] Angulus rursum DBG, per eandem 9 primi, bifariam
dividatur, recta scilicet BI, quae secet DG in puncto L; connectaturque DI, per idem 1
postulatum. Clarum est rursum, bina triangula BGL et BID fore invicem aequiangula, et
angulum qui ad G angulo qui ad I consequenter aequalem. Igitur sicut BG ad GL, sic BI
ad ID, per 4 sexti; et per 3 eiusdem, quam rationem habet DB ad BG, eam servat et DL
ad LG. Et coniunctim rursum, ut DB et BG ad ipsam GB, ita DG ad GL, per 18 quinti;
atque vicissim per 16 eiusdem quinti, sicut quidemDB etBG adGD, sicBG adGL. Ostensum
est autem BD ad DG minorem habere rationem quam 115 ad 15; posita est item BG 114,
qualium GD 15; ipsa vero 115 et 114 composita efficiunt 229. Igitur composita ex DB et
BG ad ipsam GD minorem rationem habet quam 229 ad 15; et BG consequenter ad GL
minorem pariter videtur servare rationem quam 229 ad 15. Sicut autem BG ad GL, ita BI
ad ID se habere monstravimus; ergo BI ad ID minorem rationem obtinebit quam idem
numerus 229 ad 15, per 11 quinti. Et coniunctim quoque, per 18 eiusdem, BI et ID ad
ipsam DI minorem tandem rationem habebit quam 229 et IS simul ad ipsa 15. Constituatur
ergo BI 229, et ID rursum 15; composita igitur ex BI et ID quadrata et quadratum ipsius
DI minorem iterum rationem observabunt quam ex 229 et 15 provenientia quadrata ad
quadratum eorundem 15. Ipsis autem quae ex BI et ID quadratis aequatur quadratum ipsius
BD, per 47 prirni; et quadratum ex 229 est 52441, quod una cum 225 ef'ficit 52666 numerum,
cuius radix 229 et fere. Relinquitur itaque manifestum, quadratum ex BD ad quadratum
ipsius DJ minorem obtinere rationem quam 52666 ad 225; et consequenter eandem BD ad
ipsam DJ longitudine minorem habere rationem quam ad ipsa 15.
"12. [Mg. Quarta partitio anguli.] Subdividatur tandem angulus DBJ bifariam, per 9
eiusdem primi, recta videlicet BM, quae secet DI in puncto N; connectatur quoque DM,
per I postulatum. Iterum ergo sequetur bina triangulaBIN etBMD esse invicem aequiangula,
et angulum qui ad I angulo qui ad M rursum aequalem. Unde per 4 sexti, quemadmodum
BI ad IN, ita BM ad MD; et per 3 eiusdem sexti, quam rationem habet DB ad BI, earn
servat et DN ad NI. Et coniunctim per 18 quinti, sicut composita ex DB et BJ ad IB, sic
DI ad IN; atque vicissim ut DB et BJ ad ID, ita BI ad IN, per 16 eiusdem quinti. Atqui
relictum est, BD ad ipsam DI minorem habere rationem quam ad 15; BI autem data
est 229, qualium ID IS, porro una cum 229 ef'ficiunt Et composita igitur ex
DB etBI ad ID minorem rationem habet quam ad 15. Quapropter ABI ad IN rninorem
similiter videtur habere rationem quam ad 15. Ut autemBI ad IN. itaBM ad ND; ergo
BM ad MD minorem consequenter rationem obtinebit quam ad 15, per 11 quinti.
Et coniunctim igitur per 18 quinti, BM et MD ad ipsam DM minorem tandem rationem
observabunt quam et 15 simul ad eundem numerum 15. Et quadrata rursum ex BM
et MD ad quadratum ipsius DM minorem respondenter rationem habebunt quam
ad 15, est enim quadratorum eadem ratio quae ipsorum laterum. Ex BD autem productum
quadratum aequum est duobus quadratis ipsarumBM et MD, per 47 prirni. Igitur quadratum
quod ex BD ad quadratum ipsius DM minorem pariter rationem obtinebit quam ad
15; et per consequens recta BD ad DM minorem tandem rationem longitudine servabit
quam idem numerus ad praefatum numerum 15. Et conversim demum, ipsa MD ad
DB maiorem rationem habebit quam 15 ad
"13. [Mg. Conclusio demonstrationis ex praedictis.] Cum igitur angulus CBD sit Y3 recti,
subtendens arcum CD sextam circunferentiae partem, erit arcus DE, dimidium ipsius CD,
eiusdem circunferentiae pars duodecima; et DG, dimidium ipsius DE, pars vigesimaquarta;
et consequenter arcus DI, dimidium ipsius DO, pars quadragesimaoctava; atque tandemDM,
eiusdemDI medietas, pars ipsius circunferentiae nonagesimasexta. Quapropter subtensaDM
erit latus multanguli % laterum intra eundem circulum descriptio Unde si 15 per %, vel
econtra, multiplicentur, consurget ambitus eiusdem inscripti multanguli, partium quidem
1440. Igitur ambitus ipsius inscripti polygoni maiorem rationem habebit ad diametrum BD
quam 1440 ad A fortiori igitur circunferentia circuli, quae maior est ambitu eiusdem
inscripti polygoni, ad ipsum (I) diametrum maiorem rationem obtinebit quam 1440 ad
Continent autem 1440 ter et praeterea quae sunt plus modico quam
1/71 eorundem faciunt enim solummodo 64
8
/23, et per consequens plus octava diametri,
quae est 57*. Colligitur itaque circunferentiam ad circuli diametrum rationem habere
maiorem tripla superdecupartiente septuagesimas primas, hoc est, ter continere diametrum,
et plus octava ipsius diametri parte, quod oportuit demonstrasse." I have made many
punctuation changes (mainly to delete commas and to convert colons to more appropriate
punctuation marks). I have also made the usual changes in "u" and "v". Furthermore,
I have omitted the superfluous diagrams illustrating proportions. I have included the
whole proposition to illustrate the possible relationships between it and the proposition
given by Johannes de Muris, which Fine almost certainly examined in his copy of the
De arte mensurandi. Although he altered the Archimedean numbers given by Johannes,
he appears to have borrowed from the latter the idea of giving specific headings to
delineate the various bisections of the central angle. He may also have taken
his use of the lower bound of 3Y8 from lohannes' account. However, since he also gives
the Archimedean lower bound in his original enunciation, he may well have constructed
his enunciation from another source (e.g., from Jacobus Cremonensis' translation of
On the Measurement of the Circle, where the Archimedean bound is given in the enuncia-
tion but where 3Y8 has been added to the end of the text; see Appendix IV, Section 1
tion Fine indicates that it is according to the "common discovery of
Archimedes himself," that the circumference has to the diameter a "ratio
less than 3
1
/7 yet greater than 3
1
/71, i.e., the circumference contains the
diameter three times and a little less than one-seventh but more than one-
eighth its diameter." It will be immediately noticed that in the second
part of the enunciation Fine has altered the lower bound to 31Js, just as
Johannes de Muris had done in Chapter 6 of his De arte mensurandi
(see above, Part I, Chap. 4), possibly one more bit of evidence that
Fine had used his copy of the De arte mensurandi. But as Fine presents
the proof he abandons the Archimedean numbers presented quite
accurately by Johannes, substituting smaller numbers of his own. In doing
so, he makes the same crucial mistake that Fibonacci and Pacioli had
made before him. He is not careful in the first part of his proof to use
approximations for square roots that fall short of the actual values, a
procedure he had to follow to produce a sound demonstration (see
above, Part Ill, Chap. 2, Sect. IV, text following note 40). For example,
he starts off by assuming 19
1
/19 as an approximation for V363. Now if
we convert both these numbers to decimal notation, we get 19
1
/19
= 19.05263 and V363 = 19.05256. Hence the approximation that Fine
used was greater than the actual value rather than less as it should have
been. Similarly, Fine employed 19
1
/19/11 as an approximation for v'3:
Converting these numbers to decimal notation, we get 19
1
/19/11 = 1.7320574
and V3 = 1.7320508. So once more, Fine has used an approximation
greater than the actual value when he should have used one that was less.
Other similar errors are made. 53 He often commits the blunder of assuming
that the ratio of lines is the same as the ratio of their squares. This is the
only circumstance that allows him to conclude (with the numbers he has
used) that the ratio of circumference to diameter is greater than 3
1
/71, when
actually the bounds he gives are both less than 3
1
/71. Fine's bounds are
1056/337
8
/13 (=3.12782) and 1440/458Y2 (=3.14068). But not only are both
bounds less than 3
1
/71 (=3.14085), in spite of the enunciation with which
he began the determination, but his lower bound is greater than his upper
bound! We thus would end up with the utter absurdity that the perimeter
of the inscribed regular polygon of 96 sides is greater than the perimeter of
the circumscribed regular polygon of 96 sides. It is little wonder that this
account was severely criticized by both Pedro Nunes and Jean Borre1.
54
[Al). But if he took the 3J.1l bound and the over-all organization from Johannes, he may
have added the Archimedean bound from the enunciation as it appeared in Gaurico' s version
of the Moerbeke translation, or even from Femel's discussion, which he must certainly
have known.
53 For example, it will be noticed that in the first division of the angle he takes 42
19
/42
as his approximation for v'1802, his approximation again being one that is greater than
the true value. Similarly, in the third division of the angle Fine uses 169 as an approxima-
tion for v'28552, once more an approximation that is greater than the true value. See
Nunes' criticism in the next note.
54 See Pedro Nunes' De erratis Orontii Finaei (Coimbra, 1546). In the preface, Nunes
l_...__ _
indicates that he would have admonished Fine thirteen years earlier (i.e. shortly after 1532
when the Protomathesis appeared) to give his discovery more deliberation before publish-
ing it but that he decided that this was the responsibility of one of Fine's colleagues in
Paris: "Quem [Le. Orontium] ego iam ante annos tredecim, per literas admonere statueram,
ut consultius et maturius inventa sua probaret, ante quam foras emitteret. Sed mutavi con-
silium, quoniam id magis eorum officium esse putavi, qui in eadem urhe, in qua idem
Orontius mathematicas publice docet. ..." Nunes' specific criticism of Fine's representa-
tion of the Archimedean determination of the bounds of 7T is worth quoting in part (pp.
43-44): "Cap. XII. Reprehensio Nona. Cum enim in opere illo sub quod protomathesin
appellavit, rationem circunferentiae ad diametrum tripla sesquiseptima minorem iuxta
vulgatum Archimedis modum demonstrandum suscepisset, ideo erravit ratiocinando,
quoniam putavit nil interesse, si pro veris ac praecisis radicibus paulo maiores caperentur.
Cepit igitur in prima anguli divisione 42
19
/42 pro radice quadrata numeri 1802, cum tamen
praecisa radix paulo minor sit ipsis 42
19
/42. Ostenderat autem quadratum quod fit ex linea
angulum centri dividente, rectumque subtendente, maiorem habere rationem ad quadratum
contingentis lineae quam 1802 ad 121; quare conclusit lateris ad latus maiorem esse rationem
quam 42
19
/42 ad 11, sed parum scite. Erit enim ipsorum laterum ratio maior ea quam praecisa
radix numeri 1802 habet ad 11, et proinde maior ea ratione quam quicunque numerus
eadem praecisa radice minor habet ad 11. Sed ab his non sequitur ut maior etiam si ea
ratione quam 42
19
/42 habent ad 11, neque aliunde constat. Ed idcirco Archimedes ad
colligendum rationem circunferentiae ad diametrum minorem esse tripla sesquiseptima
semper accipit numeros praecisis radicibus minores, quemadmodum ad ostendendum quod
huiusmodi ratio maior sit tripla super decupartiente septuagesimas primas semper accipit
numeros praecisis radicibus maiores. Eundem errorem commisit in tertia anguli divisione,
quoniam accepit 169 pro quadrata radice numeri 28552, cum praecisa radix eiusdem numeri
paulo minor sit ipsis 169. Alia eius errata quantum attinent ad hanc demonstrationem,
leviora sunt, sed hominis tamen qui definitiones poshas in initiis Iibrorum Euclidis ignorare
videatur. Putat enim quae ratio est duarum linearum longitudine, eandem esse et potentia
quod saepius inculcat. Et id fere genus est quod secunda parte demonstrationi inservit,
ad concludendum cum Archimede rationem circunferentiae ad diametrum maiorem esse
tripla super decupartiente septuagesimas primas . . ." Nunes follows with a detailed exposi-
tion of Fine's error in reaching the Archimedean conclusion. For Borrel's criticism, see his
De quadratura circuli libri duo (Lyons, 1559), pp. 88-92: "(p. 88). . . . Quod autem dicit,
plus octava ipsius diametri parte, istud est vere corrumpere limitem minorem, hoc est,
longius ab altero ponere.... (p. 89).... Sed huic loco prorsus est inepta atque ridicula
talis expositio, et quae propositum corrumpat authoris. Post haec autemprosequitur Orontius
demonstrationemfaciens modis eisdem et principiis quibus Archimedes, sed tanta prolixitate
verborum, ut propositum fere decuplaverit .... Et immutare quaedam temere, sicut hic
numeros immutavit, ne non aliquid sui videretur afferre, ex quo turpiter erravit propositioni
concludens contraria. Dicit enim in conclusione prima circumferentiam polygoni circun-
scripti laterum %, et multo magis circunferentiam circuli, ad diametron rationem habere
minorem quam 1056 ad 337
8
/13, hoc est, in minimis numeris, quam 416 ad 133. Sed huiusmodi
ratio 416 ad 133 minor est tripla superdecupartiente septuagesimas primas, hoc est, quam
223 ad 71, ut apparet (p. 90) ex apposita formula. Ipsa igitur circuli circunferentia ad
diametron rationem habet minorem tripla superdecupartiente septuagesimas primas. Non
habet autem sed maiorem, sicut ostendit Archimedes. Ipsa igitur circuli perimetros ad
diametron rationem non habet minorem quam 416 ad 133. Falsa est igitur Orontii conclusio,
contrariaque proposito. Quod sit etiam absurda, sic patet. Quoniam enim secundum
Orontium perimetros circa circulum descripti polygoni laterum % ad circuli diametron
rationem habet minorem tripla superdecupartiente septuagesimas primas. Sed perimetros
intra circulum descripti polygoni laterum 96 ad circuli diametron rationem habet maiorem
tripla superdecupartiente septuagesimas primas, sicut demonstravit Archimedes. Polygonon
igitur descriptum intra circulum maius est polygono descripto circa circulum eundum, pars
toto, quod est absurdum. Ex istis igitur apparet quam, praepostere sit ab Orontio factum,
qui maiorem Archimedis limitem citra verum et infra minorem alterum disponat. Post haec
So, Fine's exposition of what he claims to be the Archimedean procedure,
popular as it was, proved to be one more obstacle to the reader trying
to understand Archimedes.
Equally unsatisfactory was Fine's later effort in the Quadratura circuli
of 1544 to prove Archimedes' conclusion in a different way. 55 In his
autem, in conclusione secunda vult Orontius, peripheriam circuli ad diametrum rationem
habere maiorem quam 1440 (p. 91) ad 5 8 ~ hoc est, quam 2880 ad 917. Sed huiusmodi
ratio 2880 ad 917 minor est tripla superdecupartiente septuagesimas primas, ve1ut indicat
apposita formula. Ambo igitur limites ab Orontio dati sunt minores vero. Sed ab Archimede
limites, alter quidem maior vero, et alter minor positi sunt, sicuti res exigebat. Ex hoc
praeterea sequitur absurdum, hoc modo. Quoniam enim secundum Orontium in conclusione
priori, perimetros polygoni laterum 96 circa circulum descripti ad diametron rationem habet
minorem quam 416 ad 133, in hoc vero perimetros polygoni laterum totidem descripti intra
eundem circulum rationem ad diametron habet maiorem quam 2880 ad 917. Sed ratio 2880
ad 917 maior est ratione 416 ad 133, sicut patet ex formula. Polygonon igitur descriptum
intra circulum maius est polygono descripto circa eundem circulum, pars toto. Quod est
absurdum. Ipse igitur Orontius dum Archimedem magis ducere quam sequi voluit, foede
corrupit utrumque limitem, rationum numeros, contradictione sibi (p. 92) magna depravando."
55 O. Fine, Quadratura circuli tandem inventa et clarissime demonstrata. De circuli
mensura et ratione circunferentiae addiametrum demonstrationes duae. De multiangularum
omnium et regulariumfigurarum descriptione (Paris, 1544),32-42. Since this long proposi-
tion is not truly Archimedean in spite of Fine's assertions, I shall give only the highlights:
(p. 32) "De ratione circunferentiae ad circuli diametrum, Propositio secunda. (p. 33)
Circunferentiam circuli ad eius diametrum rationem habere tripla sesquiseptima minorem,
maiorem autem tripla sesquioctava. 1. Hoc praestantissimum Archimedis inventum de
ratione circunferentiae ad circuli diametrum, quemadmodum et proximum de ipsius circuli
area: longe faciliori, magisque succincta, atque fida demonstratione, quam fecerit idem
Archimedes, vel iUius sequaces, conabimur redere manifestum.... (p. 35).... atque
duplum ipsius bo fore latus poligoni aequilateri et aequianguli circa praefatum circulum
descripti, cuius latera sunt numero 384. . . . MUltiplicentur itaque 980 per 384, resultabunt
376320: tantus est ambitus eiusdem poligoni. Duplentur insuper ipsae 59998 partes ab,
consurgent totius diametri partes 119996, quae triplatae conficient partes 359988. Atqui
376320 partes continent semel359988, et praeterea 16332, quae non faciunt septimam partem
ipsorum 119996, nam ea est 17142 et 217. Habet igitur ambitus ipsius poligoni ad diametrum
rationem tripla sesquiseptima minorem. Et quoniam circunferentia circuli minor est ambitu
eiusdem circunscripti poligoni, a fortiori igitur eadem circunferentia ad ipsum diametrum
rationem habet tripla sesquiseptima minorem.... (p. 36).... Secunda vero pars,
utpote, quod eadem circuli circunferentia ad diametrum rationem habet tripla sesquioctava
minorem (! maiorem), haud dissimili via demonstrabilis est. ... (p. 38).... Ipsum ergo
poligonum [i.e., ambitus poligoni] se habet ad diametrum ut 376320 ad 120000. Sed numerus
376320 continet 120000 ter, utpote 360000, et praeterea 16320, quae superant ipsorum 120000
octavam partem, nam ea est 15000. Ratio itaque 376320 ad 120000 maior est tripla sesqui-
octava. Praefatum ergo poligonum [Le., ambitus poligoni] ad diametrum rationem habet
tripla sesquioctava maiorem. Ipsius autem poligoni lateribus maior est circunferentia circuli
in quo saepius expressurn describitur poligonum. A fortiori igitur eadem circunferentia cir-
culi ad ipsum diametrum rationem habet tripla sesquioctava maiorem. Quod susceperamus
ostendendum.
"Corollarium 1. Non habet ergo circunferentia circuli ad diametrum rationem tripla
superdecupartiente septuagesimas primas (ut asserit Archimedes) maiorem.... Corol-
larium 2. Ratio tripla sesquiseptima magis accedit ad veram rationem circunferentiae ad
diame (p. 39) trum quam tripla sesquioctava.... Corollarium 3. Praecisior adhuc est ratio
tripla superbipartiens quindecimas (ut 3 ad 1 et 2/15) ipsa ratione tripla sesquiseptima....
enunciation the Archimedean lower bound of 3
1
/71 is dropped entirely
and 3
1
18 is substituted. Instead of using regular polygons of 96 sides (as
Archimedes had done), Fine employed polygons of 384 sides (i.e. polygons
arising from two further bisections of the central angle). But the technique
he now employed was to use a table of sines (presumably the one he
published in his Protomathesis) to find the length of the inscribed and
circumscribed perimeters. In doing so, he once more violated the
Archimedean procedures of approximation. The result is, that while his
use of polygons of 384 sides ought to have led to bounds that lay within
the Archimedean bounds of 3
1
17 (=3.14286) and 3
1
/71 (=3.14085), such was
not the case. For his upper bound was 376320/119996, i.e. 94080129999
(=3.13610), and his lower bound was 376320/120000, i.e. 392/125
(=3.13600). Confident that his bounds were correct, he added a corollary,
saying that the ratio of circumference to diameter is not greater than 3
10
/71.
It was this corollary that moved Borrel to compare Fine with a puppy
yapping at a lion.
56
Corollarium 4. (p. 40) Area itaque circuli ad circunscriptum quadratum rationem fere habet
quam 11 ad 14, ad inscriptum autem quadratum quam 11 ad 7. . . ." Again I have made
the usual changes in punctuation and consonantal "u" and vocal "v".
56 Borrel's critique of Fine's second depravatio of Archimedes occurs in the aforecited
De quadratura circuli libri duo, pp. 92-106, from which I shall quote only a few remarks
(pp. 100-01): "Ex his itaque patet nescio quas istas sinuum tabulas quibus nititur author,
vel esse depravatas ab ipso, vel non intellectas. Cui tarn praeposterus error adeo placet
in hoc libro, ut in Archimedis reprehensionem aperte prorumpat, his verbis: 'Non habet ergo
circunferentia circuli ad diametron rationem tripla superdecupartiente septuagesimas primas,
ut asserit Archimedes, maiorem.' Hoc autem Archimedes non verbis asserit, sed legitima
demonstratione probavit, cui contradicere, nisi falsam ostendas, arrogantiae stultae plenum
est. Et ex hoc Orontius videtur catalus (quod aiunt) allatrare leonem." Nunes also criticized
Fine's second method of presenting the Archimedean proof in De erratis Orontii Finaei,
ed. cit. , p. 39 (following Nunes' presentation of the first half of Archimedes' proof): "Demon-
stratio vero quam ad hoc concludendum Orontius adducit propositione secunda sui libri
[de quadratura circuli] per numeros elicitos ex tabula sinuum, constat Archimedis non
esse, quod et ipse fatetur, sed prestantiorem esse affirmat ea quam fecerit idem Archimedes.
Interrogandus igitur esset Orontius, vere ne illa sua demonstratione concluderit (!) rationem
circunferentiae ad diametrum minorem esse tripla sesquiseptima, an non? Si concludit, cur
igitur aseruit (!) tripla sesquiseptima maiorem esse adversus Archimedem? Si putat non
concludere, cur earn in medio afferebat? praestaret enim propriam authoris demon-
strationem recensere, et vitium eius indicare.... (p. 43, following the second half of
Archimedes' proof) .... Caeterum Orontius quum in circulo describeret polygonum 384
laterum aequalium, per numeros depromptos ex tabula sinuum rectorum concludit adversus
Archimedem, rationemcircunferentiae ad diametrumminoremesse tripla superdecupartiente
septuagesimas primas. De quo iterum interrogandus esse hic Pariensis academiae mathe-
maticus. Putet ne verum concludisse (!) an secus? Si verum concludit, cur igitur asseruit
rationem circunferentiae ad diametrum maiorem esse tripla sesquiseptima? minora sunt enim
decem septuagesimae primae parte septima. Sed si falsum, quid opus erat falsa illa argu-
mentatione? cum praesertim ea non sit Archimedis. Aut quomodo erit Archimedis demon-
stratione praestantior? quemadmodum affirmat. Praeterea quanvis ambitus illius polygoni
laterum aequalium 384 ter contineret diametrum et partem minorem decem septuagesimis
primis, non propterea inferendum erat circunferentiam circuli ter continere diametrum et
minus decem septuagesimis primis, maior est enim circunferentia circuli ambitu polygoni,
..
A third effort by Fine to reproduce the Archimedean procedure was
included in his posthumously published De rebus mathematicis of 1556,
a work whose subtitle makes the extraordinary claim Quibus inter
caetera, circuli quadratura centum modis et supra, per eundem Orontium
recenter excogitatis, demonstratur. As we would expect, such a claim is
scornfully denied by BorrelY Now the only one of these more than one
hundred methods pertinent to our account is the one that uses the general
Archimedean procedure. It constitutes the first proposition of Book !I.
58
non aequalis, neque minor. Inaequalium autem magnitudinum maior ad eandem, maiorem
habet rationem quam minor, ex octava quinti Euclidis. Et propterea indocte concrudit,
rationem circunferentiae ad diametrum minorem esse tripla superdecupartiente septuagesi-
mas primas." It was this proof that was also the object of Maurolico's sharp condemna-
tion (F. NapoH, "Scritti inediti di Francesco Maurolico," Bullettino di bibliografia e di
storia delle scienze matematiche e fisiche, Vo!. 9 [1876], p. 30): "Neque hac tempestate
Orontius Phineus tot ineptias super eadem re temere profudisset: qui postquam nescio quas
falsas inducit demonstrationes, ex tabula sinus recti, dum discutit periferiae ad diametrum
rationem, pueriliter errat in calculo, et errorem imputat Archimedi. 0 ridiculum caput, non
reprehensione aut contumelia, sed servili scutica dignum. 0 vere Phineum et Phineo
caeciorem. Succurrite viri literati et veritatis amatores: consulat Academia lutetiana tantis
ignorantiae tenebris."
57 De quadrarura circuli libri duo, ed. cir., pp. 186-87: "Cum mihi iam pervenisset operis
concepti liber ad umbilicum, finemque laboris adesse putarem, ecce subito, tanquam re-
viviscens Orontium, quem fato functum nuper audiveram, negotium ex insperato redinte-
gravit. Ingens enim huius argumenti volumen, titulo Rebus Mathematicis hactenus desyder-
atis, aedendum testamento reliquit. Ad quod (sicut in proemio testatur epistola) totum
septennium indefesso labore consumpserat, cuius maximam paTtern, imo pene totum,
exhibuit quadratura circuli modis plusquarn centum inculcata, unde certo coniicere dedit,
quanta nominis cupiditate f1agraverit, ut hanc inventi sibi gloriam usurparet. ... Huius
autem nunc multiplicis quadraturae falsitatern praeterire silentio, vereor ne mihi disputa-
tionem hanc multum iam, diuque versanti, vel approbatio quaedam tacita, aut certe re-
fellendi desperatio confessa possit ascribi. Si vero modos omnes tanta multitudine par-
ticulatim discutere pergam, erit mihi longo supra modum processu cum Cretensi (ut dicitur)
Cretissandum, unde negotium maius quam operae praetium studiosus lector habebit. Si enim
crambe bis posita (veteri proverbio) mors est, quid plus quam centies reposita fiet?"
58 O. Fine, De rebus mathematicis hacrenus desideratis libri IIlI (Paris, 1556), Bk. n,
29r-33r. Again I give only highlights of the exposition: "Propositio I. Quam rationem
habeat circunferentia circuli ad diametrum consequenter investigare, rectamve lineam eidem
circunferentiae aequalem, ex ipso colligere diametro.... (30r) Quod ratio circunferentiae
ad ipsius circuli diametrum est maior tripla decupartiente septugesimas primas.... Sit
enimab, vel QC, semidiameter partium 60, qualium videlicet totus diameter est (30v) partium
120, quarum partium quaelibet in minuta sexagenaria solito more distributa subintelli-
gatur. ... (31v) Porro si partes 3 et minuta 55,34,53,34 ipsius hI multiplicentur per
%, consurget ambitus ipsius polygoni regularis, partium 376 et minutorum 55,49,42,24.
Et proinde ambitus eiusdem polygoni regularis laterum 96, et in dato circulo descripti, ad
ipsius circuli diametrum eam videtur habere rationem quam partes 376 et minuta 55,49,42,24
ad partes 120. Atqui praefatus semidiameter (I diameter) circuli triplicatus efficit partes
360; et 1/71 eiusdem diametri conflciunt partes 16 et minuta 54,5,55 (nam 1/71 primum
diametri 120 partium habet partem 1 et minuta 41,24,35,30); quae simul iuncta reddunt
partes 376 et minuta 54,5,55. Haec autem minora sunt eodem ambitu polygoni minutis
1,43,47,24. Inaequalium porro quantitatum maior ad eandem quantitatem maiorem rationem
habet quam minor, per octavam quinti elementorum. Ambitus propterea ipsius pentagoni
Unlike his second effort, this method does produce bounds that lie within
the Archimedean bounds. He abandons the Archimedean form of specify-
ing whether the approximations for line lengths are more or less than the
true values. In short, he uses approximations as if they were true values.
He begins his calculations with a diameter of 120 parts (in the Ptolemaic
manner) and the sexagesimal systemof noting fractions is used throughout.
In the first part, he determines the length of the perimeter of an inscribed
regular polygon of 96 sides as 376; 55, 49, 42, 24. If we convert this to
decimal notation and divide it by the diameter, 120, we produce a lower
bound that is approximately equal to 3.14109. This is greater than 3
1
/71. In
the second part, with the diameter again equal to 120, he finds the perimeter
of a circumscribed regular polygon of 96 sides to be 377; 5, 16, 32, 0,
which, if we again convert this to decimal notation and divide it by 120,
gives an upper bound of approximately 3.14240. This is indeed less than
the Archimedean upper bound of 3
1
17. It is also evident that 'TT, which
is approximately equal to 3.14159, does lie within Fine's bounds. At any
rate, Fine has, by this third method, justified the Archimedean bounds.
Finally, at the end of the proposition, he takes the mean between the
Archimedean bounds and concludes that the circumference has a ratio to
the diameter of 3
11
/78. In taking such a mean, he is following the practice
that Ptolemy, and after him, Fibonacci, employed.
My discussion of Fine's efforts has shown that he had very little
understanding of the refinements of Archimedes' proof. The undeniable
popularity of his work must have done much to spread an inadequate view
(t polygoni) regularis laterum 96, et in dato circulo descripti, ad ipsius circuli diametrum
maiorem rationem habet tripla decupartiente septuagesimas primas. Et cum circunferentia
ipsius circuli eodem ambitu inscripti polygoni sit maior, eadem propterea circunferentia
ad ipsum (!) diametrum maiorem, a fortiori rationem obtinere videtur eadem tripla de-
cupartiente septuagesimas primas. Quod in primis demostrare fuerat operae pretium.
. 'Quod ratio eiusdem circunferentiae ad ipsius circuli diametrum minor est tripla ses-
quiseptima.... (32r).... Praefatus igitur ambitus circunscripti polygoni regularis
habentis latera 96 ad circuli diametrum earn videtur habere rationem, quam partes 377 et
minuta 5,16,32 ad partes 120. Atqui triplatus diameter partium 120 efficit partes 360; et
septima pars ipsius diametri est 7 partium similium et minutorum 8,34,17,8; quae simul
iuncta conficiunt partes 377 et minuta 8,34,17,8. Haec autem superant ambitum eiusdem
circunscripti polygoni minutis 3,17,45,8. Idem (32v) igitur ambitus circunscripti polygoni
regularis habentis latera 96 rationem habet ad circuli diametrum tripla sesquiseptima
minorem. Et quoniam circunferentia ipsius circuli minor est ipso ambitu eiusdem circun-
scripti polygoni, a fortiori itaque praefata circunferentia circuli rationem habet ad ipsum
(!) diametrum tripla sesquiseptima minorem. Quod secundo loco demonstrandum
susceperamus.
"Circunferentiam circuli ad ipsum (t) diametrum rationem habere triplam undecupartien-
tern septuagesimas octavas. Ex supradictis tandem colligitur rationem circunferentiae
circuli ad ipsum (!) diametrum inter ipsam triplam decupartientem septuagesimas primas
et triplam sesquiseptimam de necessitate versari.... (33r).... Ter igitur diameter una
cum 11178 ipsius diametri conficiunt rectam lineam aequalem circunferentiae dati circuli, qua
ratione vix speramus a quopiam mortalium posse dari fideliorem. De hac igitur haec sint
satis. "
of at least this aspect of Archimedean mathematics. But at the same time
his views proved a stimulus for the first accurate account in print of
Proposition 3 of On the Measurement of the Circle by the Jewish-
Portuguese scholar Pedro Nunes (not Nufies) of Alcasar de Sol (1502-78),
the professor of mathematics at Coimbra.
59
In his De erratis Orontii
Finaei (Coimbra, 1546), Nunes not only criticized Fine's first two methods
of representing Archimedes (plus other geometric treatments of Fine), as
we have seen, but he published the Archimedean proof of Proposition 3
of On the Measurement of the Circle, corrected on the basis of calcula-
tions found in Eutocius' commentary. 60 The source he probably used
for the text of Archimedes and that of Eutocius was the editio princeps
of Basel, 1544. At least he used the translation of those works by Jacobus
Cremonensis (see the end of note 60). I have already mentioned that the
previously printed texts of Proposition 3 (Le. Gaurico' s text of 1503 and
Tartaglia's reprinting of it in 1543) reflected the serious numerical errors of
the Greek text of Greek manuscript A, although, to be sure, the corrected
numbers circulated in the various manuscript versions of Gerard of
Cremona's translation of On the Measurement of the Circle from the
Arabic and also in Coner's corrections to William of Moerbeke' s auto-
graph copy of his translation of the Archimedean works. I must also
underline the fact that in Nunes' criticism of Fine's first method (see
above, note 54), he revealed himself as the first Western author (except
perhaps Regiomontanus) to understand or, at least, to explain the
nuances of Archimedes' use of approximations which had eluded
Fibonacci, Pacioli, and Fine, all of whom had fashioned caricatures of
the Archimedean proof. Consequently, Nunes deserves an honored place
among the students of Archimedean mathematics in the first half of the
sixteenth century.
I have also often mentioned the critical remarks of Jean Borrel
(Joannes Buteo) a canon regular of the order of St. Anthony, who was
born at Charpey near Romans in the Dauphiny in 1492 and died at Canar
59 R. Guimanies, Sur la vie et l'oeuvre de Pedro Nunes (Coimbra, 1915); D. E. Smith,
History of Mathematics, Vol. 1 (New York, 1958), pp. 348-49; L. Thomdike, A History of
Magic and Experimental Science, Vol. 5, pp. 292-93.
60 De erratis Orontii Finaei, ed. cit., pp. 35-43. The only numerical error is the constant
repetition in the second part of the proof (p. 41) of the number 728 (where the correct
number is 780). This is obviously a printer's error, since all the other calculations are correct
and the first few times the number is given correctly as 780. At the beginning of the
proposition (p. 35) he calls attention to the fact that the demonstration is Archimedes' and
that he is following Eutocius' explication: "Demonstratum est hoc ab Archimede in libro
de circuli dimensione, et ab Eutocio satis explicatum in hunc fere modum. . . ." At the
end (p. 43) he reveals quite clearly that he is using the Cremonensis translation, since
he says that Archimedes infers the ratio of circumference to diameter to be greater than
3
1
/8, which was not in the Greek text but was in the Cremonensis translation: "Quoniam
vero una octava minor est decem septuagesimis primis, ex hoc infert Archimedes circun-
ferentiam ad diametrum rationem habere minorem tripla sesquiseptima, sed maiorem tripla
sesquioctava. "
or also near in 1572.
61
He is said to have studied under
Fine at Paris.
62
If he must have quickly lost any respect for his teacher
as his multiple and savage attacks on Fine suggest. Such attacks began
in his Opera geometrica et juris civilis (Lyons, where he attacked
one of Fine's methods of quadrature given in the Quadratura circuli
of 1544. He then returned to the attack at greater length in his De
quadratura circuli libri duo (Lyons, 1559). This was a long work that was
meant to summarize and evaluate all of the historical methods of quadra-
ture down to his own time. The first book contains a collection of
quadratures from Greek antiquity, including those of Antiphon,
Hippocrates of Chios (i.e., his quadrature of lunes), a corrected transla-
tion of Archimedes' On the Measurement of the Circle (with, however,
some numerical errors still remaining),63 a translation of Eutocius'
Commentary on the Measurement of the Circle, his own (i.e. Borrel's)
commentary on the Archimedean tract, and a discussion at the end of
Ptolemy's determination of the measurement of the circle. The second
book takes up all the succeeding determinations of the value of 7r with
which Borrel was familiar: the value of 7r as VIO attributed to the
Arabs, that found in the quadrature tract attributed to Campanus, five
methods of quadrature of Nicholas of Cusa, one proposed by Diirer two
of Joachim Fortius Ringelbergius,64 two of de Bouelles, Fine's corruptions
of the Archimedean determination plus other methods of Fine (including
a republication of his 1544 confutation of Fine). It is evident, then, that
Borrel's work constitutes a substantial history of the problem of quadra-
ture, including the principal antique, medieval, and Renaissance efforts.
He carried out the project that perhaps Hector Ausonius about the same
time had hoped to do. 65
61 B. Boncompagni, "Intomo ad un trattato di aritmetica del P.D. Smeraldo Borghetti
Lucchese, etc.," Bullettino di bibliografia e di storia delle scienze matematiche efisiche, Vol.
2 (1869), pp. 257-69, with the sources indicated there.
62 Ibid., p. 269.
63 Borrel's corrected translation occupies pp. 24-32 of his De quadratura circuli libri duo.
The two numerical errors occur on page 27, where 349281 is written instead of 349450,
and 591 instead of 5911/8.
64 Joachim Fortius Ringelbergius has not been mentioned elsewhere in my volumes. He
composed a tract entitled Chaos mathematicum that appears in his Opera (Lyons, 1531).
It contains two trivial quadratures (pp. 485-86), which Borrel refutes in his De quadratura
circuli libri duo, pp. 150-52.
65 In his notebook Adversaria mathematica de circuli quadratura (MS Milan, Bibl.
Ambros. D. 220 Inf., Ir), Hector Ausonius lists the various quadrature tracts (perhaps with
the intention of discussing them, although he merely says that they should be consulted):
"Scopus Geometricus Est Circuli Tetragonismus. Propter quem oportet videre haec quae
sequuntur omnia: Primum-Decimum Euclidis Graece et Latine. Secundum-Regulas
algebre. Tertium-Tetragonismum Hippocratis chii. Quartum-Tetragonismum Apolonii.
Quintum-TetragonismumArchimedis. Sexto-Tetragonismum Nicolai Cusani. Septimo-
Tetragonismum .Modemorum: Orontii et aliorum. Octavo-Tetragonismum Raymundi.
Nono-Iudicium fere (?) veri tetragonismi." I have added the dashes and periods to the
various items. This page bears a date of 1554.
Borrel's work makes an ideal stopping point for my investigation
of the possible influences of the medieval Archimedean traditions and
their mixture with the Renaissance traditions. This is not to say that
many accounts in the tradition of the medieval practical manuals did not
continue to be published during the rest of the century and even later, but
only that after 1560 the serious treatment takes a different turn and many
authors undertake to calculate TT to a large number of places.
66
By this time Archimedes' technique and proof were generally understood
and the impeccable Latin version of Commandino of 1558 with all of the
correct numbers was to serve as a point of departure (see Appendix
IV, Section 3).
66 Among the many works of the next hundred years or so that treat of the quadrature
of the circle or the determination of 11', we can mention the following: Jacobus Peletarius
(Jacques Peletier), Commentarii tres: J. De dimensione circuli etc. (Basel, 1563); Simon Du
Chesne de Dole, Quadrature du cercle (Delf, 1584); J. Falco, De circuli quadratura (Valencia,
1587); J. Scaliger, Cyclometrica elementa duo (Leyden, 1594); Appendix ad cyclometrica
sua (Leyden, 1594); A. Romanus (Adriaen van Roomen) , Ideae mathematicae etc. (Antwerp,
1593); In Archimedis circuli dimensionem expositio et analysis. Apologia pro Archimedae
ad ... J. Scaligerum. Exercitationes cyclicae contra J. Scaligerum, O. Finaeum et R.
Ursum in decem dialogos distinctae (Wurzburg, 1597); F. Vieta, Munimen adversus nova
cyclometrica, in Opera mathematica (Leyden, 1646); J. Christmann, Tractatio geometrica
de quadratura circuli in decem capita distributa (Frankfurt, 1595); L. van Ceulen, Van den
circkel (Delf, 1596); De arithmetische en geometrische fondamenten (Leyden, 1615); T.
Gephyrander, Quadratura circuli nova etc. (Unna or Dortmund, 1608); Consideratio nova
in opusculum Archimedis de circuli dimensione etc. (Dortmund, 1609); P. Cataldi, Trattato
della quadratura del cerchio (Bologna, 1612); P. Lansbergius, Vindiciae Archimedis sive
elenchus cydometriae novae (Paris, 1616); Cydometriae libri duo, published in his
Triangulorum geometriae libri quatuor (Middelburg, 1663; the preface of the cyclometric
work is dated 1616); W. Snell, Cydometricus (Leyden, 1621); G. L. Froben, Cydometria etc.
(Hamburg, 1627); C. S. Longomontanus,Rotundi inplanoseu circuli absoluta etc. (Amster-
dam, 1644); and C. Huygens, De circuli magnitudine inventa (Leyden, 1654).
CHAPTER 7
The Medieval Traditions of
Archimedes in the Renaissance:
A Retrospective Summary
1. Textual Developments
In 1558 one of the two best students of Greek mathematics in the
Renaissance, Federigo Commandino of Urbino, as he published his
translation and explication of several of Archimedes' works, stated with
great awe that "with respect to geometry no one of sound mind could
deny that Archimedes was some God." (See Archimedis opera non nulla
[Venice, 1558], *2v.) Then later in 1565 he declared that he had been
prompted to undertake the explanation of several works of Archimedes,
"not by arrogance or by the hope of empty glory" but "by the honest
desire to benefit studious men.... For it has always been my opinion
that a mathematician who has not studied the works of Archimedes ac-
curately ought scarcely to be called a mathematician. For such a mathema-
tician [who does not know Archimedes] would be harassed by an ignorance
of many things without which mathematical disciplines would have to be, in
a certain way, imperfect and inchoate." (See above, Part Ill, Chap. 4,
Sect. Ill, Text A, Proem.) His senior contemporary, Francesco Mauro-
lico of Messina, the second great student of Greek mathematics in the
first three quarters of the sixteenth century, who had composed perceptive
versions of most of Archimedes' works, expressed the same high respect
and admiration for his great Sicilian compatriot of yesteryear.
Seven of the eight works that so impressed these Renaissance
scholars were briefly described by Maurolico as follows (ibid., Chap. 5,
Text A, Proem):
First in order of Archimedes' works is TCW KVKAov i.e., The Measure-
ment of the Circle, in which he demonstrates that a circle is equal to the right
triangle one of whose sides about the right angle is equal to the radius of the
circle and the other to the circumference. In the second place is to be put the work
7TP'i Ulpatpcn Kat KVAtvSpoV, Le., On the Sphere and the Cylinder, [addressed]
to Dositheus, in which he demonstrates that the surface of a sphere is quadruple
1225
its maximum circle and that a cylinder of the same width and axis as the
sphere is 3/2 the sphere; and he demonstrates [there] other things concerning seg-
ments of a sphere. From this [work] it has been seen that Archimedes gained for
himself so much glory (as he was the first of all to have demonstrated this
important matter in geometry) that a sphere and a cylinder were ordered engraved
on his tomb. Cicero mentions that this tomb was found by him among
thickets while he was traveling in Sicily. Third in order we place the work 7Tept
laopp07TtKWV, i.e., On Things Weighing Equally (=On the Equilibrium of
Planes), in which he presents the rule for finding the centers of gravity of recti-
linear, plane figures ....The fourth will be (I) i.e.,
The Quadrature of the Parabola, where he demonstrates that a parabola is 4/3 the
rectilinear triangle of the same base and altitude. In the demonstration he uses
both the doctrine of On the Equilibrium [of Planes] and geometrical argu-
ment. .. .In the fifth place follows the work 7Tept ALKWV ypa/L/Lwv, i.e., On
Spiral Lines, where he demonstrates that certain straight lines tangent to the
spiral are equal to the circumferences of circles; also that the spiral of first
revolution is one-third part of its circle; that the second spiral is to its circle
as seven is to twelve, and so on. For since the circles are in the proportion of
the square numbers, these spirals are in the proportion of regular hexagons....1
put sixth in order the book 7Tept KWVoet{)E:WV Kat mpatpot{)E:WIJ, i.e., On Conoidal
and Spheroidal Figures, which he also sent to the aforementioned Dositheus. In
it he demonstrates many things concerning the mutual proportion of circles and
ellipses; also that a parabolic solid is 3f2 its cone, and other [propositions] con-
cerning the proportion of both hyperbolic and spheroidal solids to their respective
cones. Indeed these are most acute discoveries and are worthy of such genius.
The seventh is The Sandreckoner addressed to King Gelon. Its title offers more
to admire than the book itself does to ponder. There are many things in it con-
cerning the size of the earth and the celestial luminaries for which blame must be
imputed to the times [in which they were written] rather than to the philosopher,
since in that age such things were not yet adequately perceived.
The eighth work, On Floating Bodies, not mentioned by Maurolico but
the object of the attention of Niccolo Tartaglia and Commandino, was a
brilliant work that was concerned with the conditions of stability of
spherical and paraboloidal segments that are placed in a fluid of lesser
specific gravity than the segments.
Now the most general and obvious question that presents itself to the
historian is "how did these various works of Archimedes become so well
known to the mathematicians of the sixteenth century that the latter were
able to evaluate Archimedes so highly?" A superficial and immediate
answer is readily at hand if one merely lists the most important steps in
the progressive publication and treatment of Archimedes' works between
1503 and 1565. (1) In 1503 the well-known astrologer Luca Gaurico pre-
pared at Padua and published in Latin at Venice a work under the title of
Tetragonismus that included a series of texts on quadrature. Among them
were included two works of Archimedes: On the Quadrature of the
Parabola and On the Measurement of the Circle. (2) In 1534 the above-
mentioned Francesco Maurolico reworked with great mathematical skill
three of Archimedes' works: On the Quadrature of the Parabola, On the
RETROSPECTIVE SUMMARY 1227
Measurement of the Circle, and On the Sphere and the Cylinder. Again
the texts were in Latin. (3) The publication in 1543 at Venice by the
autodidact Niccolo Tartaglia of four works of Archimedes in Latin: On
the Equilibrium of Planes, On the Quadrature of the Parabola, On the
Measurement of the Circle and Book I of On Floating Bodies. (4) The
publication at Basel in the next year (1544) by Thomas Gechauff
Venatorius of the Greek text of the first seven works noted above with a
Latin translation, accompanied by the Greek text and Latin translation of
the known Archimedean commentaries of Eutocius. (5) The preparation
(but not publication) between 1547 and 1549 of a second set of three
Archimedean works in Latin by Maurolico: On the Equilibrium of
Planes, On Spiral Lines, and On Conoids and Spheroids. To these he added
a remarkable introduction to his earlier version of On the Sphere and the
Cylinder. This introduction was completed by Maurolico in 1550 under
the title Praeparatio ad Archimedis Opera. (6) The publication by the
Aldine Press of Venice in 1558 of Commandino's Latin translations of
several of Archimedes' works, with commentaries. These works were On
the Measurement of the Circle, On Spiral Lines, On the Quadrature of
the Parabola, On Conoids and Spheroids, and The Sandreckoner. (7)
Finally, the publication in 1565 of two different Latin versions of On
Floating Bodies, the one from Tartaglia's papers by Curtius Troianus
at Venice, and the other a brilliant reconstruction of the work by Com-
mandino at Bologna.
The singling out of these seven steps from among the whole complex of
Archimedean use in the sixteenth century was not particularly difficult.
But more difficult was the historical investigation of what lie,s behind these
steps, i.e., the assessment of which medieval and Renaissance tradi-
tions contributed to each of these events. It was this investigation and
assessment that concerned me in this volume. It is my hope that my in-
vestigation has revealed how complicated was the transmission of this
branch oflearning from the ancient world to Western centers in the Middle
Ages and the Renaissance.
The Edition of Gaurico
Now let us return to the first event, Gaurico's publication of two Archi-
medean works in 1503 (see Part Ill, Chap. 4, Sect. I). This was the first
printing in any language of the complete texts of any work of Archimedes.
The distinguished Danish student of Archimedes J. L. Heiberg noted as
early as 1890 that these two Latin texts (far from being Renaissance
translations) were in fact part of an extensive corpus of Archimedean
translations executed at Viterbo in 1269 by the Flemish Dominican
William of Moerbeke. Heiberg's conclusion was made possible by the dis-
covery in the Vatican Library of the holograph manuscript of William of
Moerbeke's translations: MS Vat. Ottobonianus lat. 1850, by Valentin
Rose in 1881. This is the manuscript I have designated as MS 0 in my
edition of Moerbeke' s translations in Volume Two. But in spite of the fact
that this manuscript was quite probably in the possession of the Bishop of
Padua at the time that Gaurico published his edition of the two works
noted above, Gaurico did not, as Heiberg believed, use this manuscript.
Rather he used a poor copy made from 0 in Italy in the late fifteenth
century that is now in the Biblioteca Nacional at Madrid, a manuscript
I have designated as MS M. That Gaurico used MS M rather than MS 0
I have easily demonstrated since Gaurico's text includes dozens of M's
readings that diverge from O. Two significant points concerning Gaurico' s
edition emerged from my investigations. The first is the obvious point that
the initial Archimedean translations printed were medieval, in fact the
translations of William of Moerbeke edited in Volume Two. This prompts
me to say a word about Moerbeke's translations. Though his name is not
on the Ottobonian manuscript, Rose's original suggestion that the transla-
tions included in that manuscript were made by the celebrated Dominican
translator has been amply confirmed by a close study of the translating
techniques and vocabulary employed (Vo!. 2, Part I, Chap. 1, Sect. Ill).
The complete Index verborum for the Archimedean translations at the
close of Volume Two, which includes the Greek equivalents, has been
compared with similar Indexes compiled by Minio-Paluello and other
scholars for other known translations of Moerbeke. The comparison has
shown with little room for doubt that Moerbeke was indeed the translator.
The manuscript dates several of the translations as 1269 and it was no
doubt executed at Viterbo, where the Papal court sojourned and where
Moerbeke made many of his translations. The examination of Moerbeke's
Archimedean translations revealed that Moerbeke used two Greek manu-
scripts, which we now designate as Greek manuscripts A and B (V01.
2, Part I, Chap. 2, Sect. I). This detail had more significance than first
expected. Manuscripts A and B were mentioned in the catalogue of the
Papal library of 1311 and manuscript B in that of 1295. Both manu-
scripts were almost certainly acquired from Charles of Anjou when he
came into possession of Manfred's library, most likely after the battle of
Benevento in 1266. Manuscript A contained all of the works of Archi-
medes translated by Moerbeke except On Floating Bodies. It also con-
tained the three known commentaries on Archimedes by Eutocins of
Ascalon. Manuscript Bapparently contained mainly the mechanical works
of Archimedes and provided Moerbeke with a collatable copy of On the
Equilibrium of Planes and On the Quadrature of the Parabola. It also
contained On Floating Bodies, not in manuscript A. Greek manuscript B
dropped out of history after its use by Moerbeke and its mention in the
1311 catalogue, but manuscript A survived into the Renaissance and all the
extant Greek manuscripts were made from it directly or indirectly save
manuscript C, a Byzantine palimpsest identified in Constantinople in 1906.
The history of Greek manuscript A in the fourteenth century is unknown
(see Vo1. 2, Part I, Chap. 2, Sect. I), but it was certainly in Rome in
1450 where it was used by the humanist Jacobus Cremonensis to con-
struct a new translation of the Archimedean works (see Vol. 3, Part Ill,
Chap. 2, Sect. I). It was copied twice before being acquired by Giorgio
Valla about 1490. It was copied at least once while in the possession of
Valla and stayed in his library until his death in 1500 when it was bought
by Alberto Pio di Carpi. It remained in that part of the Carpi library that
passed to his nephew Rodolfo Pio (where a copy was made from it in 1544
at Rome, its last known use). It appears to have been in the Pio library
until 1564 when Rodolfo died. After the dispersal of Rodolfo Pio's books,
nothing is heard of the manuscript. The point of this brief summary is to
emphasize that this crucial manuscript served as the chief source of the
Greek Archimedean corpus in the Middle Ages, in the Renaissance and
(indirectly through copies made from it) in modem times. But back to
Moerbeke's autograph, Latin manuscript O. Its history from the time that
Moerbeke composed it in 1269 to 1450 is uncertain. But it may have been in
France in the 1340's (perhaps in Avignon or Paris-see Part I, Chap. 1,
note 6) and it was almost certainly in Rome in 1450 when Jacobus
Cremonensis made his new translation since Jacobus, in some places of his
translation, clearly depended on the translation of Moerbeke (Part Ill,
Chap. 2, Sect. I) and there is no evidence at all that any complete copy
had been made from it this early. After further years of uncertain loca-
tion, manuscript 0 was probably acquired by Pietro Barozzi, Bishop of
Padua from 1487 to 1507, passing from his estate in 1508 to Andreas
Coner, a scarcely known German cleric in Venice (ibid., Chap. 4, Sect. I).
Its later history until it came into the Vatican library has been traced
and it need not be reviewed here (see ibid., Sect. Ill, notes 24 and 25). I
merely suggest here that it was during the time that it was owned by
Barozzi that manuscript M was copied from it, for manuscript M was
evidently available to Gaurico in Padua or Venice when he prepared his
short edition of 1503. This brings me to the second important point
concerning the Gaurico edition, namely the fact that manuscript M with
its manifold errors was the source of Gaurico' s equally defective edition
of the two Archimedean works (ibid., Sect. I). In the edition diagrams
were erroneous, letters in the text were wrongly printed, the enunciations
or statements of propositions were made parts of the proofs and parts of
the proofs were on occasion raised to the status of enunciations, and so on.
Thus Gaurico's publication of 1503 would appear to have been an in-
auspicious beginning for the history of the printed texts of Archimedes.
Maurolico's First Efforts
But from the effort to correct error truth often arises, particularly
when the corrector is an accomplished scholar, and this brings me to the
consideration of the second event in the history of Archimedean scholar-
ship in the sixteenth century. On 23 July, 1534, the Sicilian cleric
Francesco Maurolico completed a Latin version of Archimedes' On the
Quadrature a/the Parabola from what he calls "a very corrupt exemplar"
(see Part Ill, Chap. 5, Sect. Ill). Since Maurolico was of a Greek family
and had been trained in Greek mathematics, one might suppose the corrupt
copy to have been a Greek manuscript which he translated and para-
phrased. Such was not the case. Systematic analysis of Maurolico's text
has revealed three points of increasing specificity: (1) his corrupt exemplar
was in fact a copy of William of Moerbeke' s translation; (2) further, the
exemplar must have been in the tradition of manuscript M rather than in
that of Moerbeke's autograph manuscript 0; and (3) finally the exemplar
was indeed Gaurico's edition of 1503. My analysis was based on a compari-
son of the enunciations and diagrams of the propositions in Maurolico's
version with those in manuscripts 0, M and the edition of Gaurico. The
texts of the proofs were of little use for the comparison since Maurolico
provided paraphrases of Archimedes' proofs rather than literal copies.
The procedure then was first to show the almost exact agreement of the
enunciations in Maurolico's version with those in Moerbeke's translation,
then to demonstrate that Maurolico generally follows manuscript M in its
readings that diverge from 0 and most specifically with Gaurico' s readings
where they further diverge from manuscript M. Without recapitulating the
examination of Maurolico's version, I wish merely to say in this summary
that Maurolico presented a highly accurate and cogent version, correcting
the errors he found in Gaurico' s text and skillfully paraphrasing the
rather lean Archimedean proofs. In doing so, he made occasional reference
to Apollonius' Conic Sections, thereby demonstrating a mastery of that
brilliant work. The overall conclusion drawn from my examination of this
work in the context of the problem of its sources was that once more
the Greco-Latin medieval tradition of Archimedes has played the dominant
role. Now on 19 August and 10 September of that same year of 1534
Maurolico completed at Messina versions of Archimedes' On the Meas-
urement of the Circle and On the Sphere and the Cylinder. The first of
these is a work that is considerably expanded beyond the three proposi-
tions found in Archimedes' work. For the Archimedean propositions them-
selves it has been shown that Gaurico's edition of Moerbeke's translation
provided the source. Analysis of some of Maurolico's other propositions
showed that they were rooted in another medieval Archimedean tradition,
that of the translations made from the Arabic. It is likely that Maurolico
consulted a manuscript copy of a fourteenth-century version of
Gerard of Cremona's twelfth-century translation of On the Measurement
of the Circle from the Arabic, a version I published in Volume One (page
390). But it was also observed that Maurolico established his own
originality by the addition of propositions and lemmas that went beyond
the medieval version. Incidentally, a close study of the whole range of
Maurolico's notebooks has convinced me that, in spite of his relative isola-
tion in Messina, Maurolico possessed a substantial collection of medieval
mathematical manuscripts.
Turning now to his version of On the Sphere and the Cylinder, again
we find great dependence on the medieval traditions. In fact his work is not
"
-
i"
RETROSPECTIVE SUMMARY IDI
primarily a version of Archimedes' work despite its title. Rather it is a
beautifully constructed expansion of the medieval work known under the
title Liber de curvis superficiebus, attributed to an Englishman John of
Tynemouth, but probably translated from the Greek in the early thirteenth
century. The significance of the treatise is that in order to prove Archi-
medes' main conclusions of On the Sphere and the Cylinder it used a form
of the exhaustion method of proof that differs markedly from that of Archi-
medes. This form of proof used in the Liber de curvis superficiebus had
its origin in Proposition XII.I8 of the Elements of Euclid. Maurolico
called this divergent method the "easier way" because it permitted a more
succinct demonstration than the method of Archimedes. In his Praeparatio
of 1550 Maurolico singled out the presuppositions of the "easier way" as
follows (Part Ill, Chap. 5, Text A, Proem):
In the work On the Sphere and the Cylinder I have used an easier way [than
Archimedes']. Lest anyone judge that I postulated in it principles that are not to
be conceded when I suppose that to any surface there exists some equal spherical
or conical smface or some surface of a spherical segment-or an equal conical or
cylindrical surface of a given altitude, we shall demonstrate these principles here
[i.e., in the Praeparatio, Propositions XX, XXII, XXIII, XXV]. In addition [we
shall demonstrate] that with two surfaces given, there exists a surface similar to
one of the given [surfaces] and equal to the other [in Proposition XXI]; and that
with two solids given there exists a solid similar to one of the given [solids]
and equal to the other [in Proposition XLII]. Since it is necessary for the demon-
stration of this last proposition [i.e., actually first for Proposition XXXIII and
consequently for Propositions XLI and XLII] to find two mean proportionals, we
shall treat this problem out of the tradition of the old philosophers [in Propositions
XXVI-XXXII], as the above-mentioned Eutocius wrote in his commentaries
[On the Sphere and the Cylinder).
Whether Maurolico had also read the genuine On the Sphere and the
Cylinder by 1534 when he composed his tract using the "easier way" is
a moot question too complex to recapitulate (but see Part Ill, Chap. 5,
Sect. Ill). Interestingly enough Maurolico's reworking of the medieval
tract, which in 1534 he did not distinguish from the genuine work of
Archimedes, may have influenced the French mathematician Legendre in
the preparation of his EIemens de geometrie of 1794 where the latter uses
the same technique to prove Archimedean propositions (ibid., Text C,
Corn. to Props. II, IV, VI, X, XXV). Hence, though the De curvis super-
ficiebus in its original form was not published until my text of it in Volume
One, nevertheless it survived in Maurolico's work and in the works of
those geometers who had read him. Finally, in connection with this early
interest of Maurolico in Archimedes, we can point to a series of notes
dated 1533 and 1535 concerning the problem of finding two proportional
means between two given lines (see ibid., Chap. 6, Sect. Ill, note 7). The
major Greek solutions of that problem were given in Eutocius' Com-
mentary on the Sphere and the Cylinder. While the latter was available in
Greek manuscripts as well as in the translations of William of Moerbeke
-
and Jacobus Cremonensis, a new translation of the section on proportional
means had been made by Georgio Valla from Greek manuscript A which,
as I have said, he owned (ibid., Chap. 2, Sect. V). This translation
was published in 1501 in his gigantic (and quite influential) De expetendis
et fugiendis rebus. This new translation served as the basis of Maurolico' s
notes of 1533 and 1535 just as it had served as the basis of a detailed
refashioning of the means problem by the German mathematician Johann
Werner in 1522 (ibid., Chap. 6, Sect. Ill, note 3). Thus Valla's translation
with its reworking by Werner and Maurolico constitutes a minor Renais-
sance effort independent of the medieval Archimedes.
Tartaglia's Edition of Moerbeke's Translations
Such is not the case of the third of the key events in my outline of
Archimedean mathematics in the Renaissance, namely, the publication in
1543 of four of William of Moerbeke's Latin translations of Archimedes
by Niccolo Tartaglia (ibid., Chap. 4, Sect. 11). Tartaglia's career differs
markedly from those of the other Renaissance mathematicians I am con-
sidering. He had no formal education but was almost completely self-
taught. Unlike Maurolico he knew little or no Greek. This lack of human-
istic background explains in part the poorness of the edition. A second
explanation for the unsatisfactory nature of the edition lies in the un-
satisfactory sources he used for the text. As I have already noted, the
edition contained four of Moerbeke's translations. The first two were
merely taken over with almost no change from Gaurico's edition of
1503. It is clear that in the case of these two works Tartaglia simply
handed the printer a copy of Gaurico' s work with an occasional correction
of the text and diagrams indicated. The other two works, namely, On the
Equilibrium of Planes and On Floating Bodies, Book I, were taken from
Latin Manuscript M that Tartaglia seems to have seen for the first time
in Venice in 1539. There are several interesting points that can be made
concerning this edition. In the first place, Tartaglia's introduction
leaves a false impression that Tartaglia had himself made the translation
from a defective Greek manuscript (ibid., note 23).
But this cannot be supported. Even granted that the canons defining
plagiarism were not so strict in the Renaissance, his apparent claim that
he was rendering a Greek copy when in actuality he was publishing the
medieval translation of William of Moerbeke, not only with surprisingly
little change but with many of the patently absurd readings found in the
Gaurico edition and in manuscript M, seems of doubtful honesty in any
age. Interestingly enough, Tartaglia seems to have backed away from his
claim by 1551 when he published an Italian translation of Book I of On
Floating Bodies, for he says in the proem, in reply to a request from
Count Antonio Landriano to see the original Greek text of On Floating
Bodies and of the works "put into light" (i.e. published) by Tartaglia,
that this request was no doubt inspired by the obscurity of expression
"in the said translation" (ibid., Text of the Ragionamenti, Dedication).
He thus appears to disassociate himselffrom that translation. He goes on to
say that he has sought to save the Count the difficult task "of seeking
out such an original Greek text, which will perhaps be found to be more
obscure and more incorrect than the said Latin translation," by under-
taking an Italian translation and commentary. Here he seems to imply that
he himself has not seen the Greek text nor is he claiming to have translated
it. One would suppose that the excitement of reading manuscript M ini-
tially led him to magnify his role in presenting the text to the public.
There has been some exaggeration in estimating the influence of Tar-
taglia's edition. In fact, a search of the mathematical literature of the
next half-century reveals that this edition was quoted only rarely. But it
can be shown that his publication of Book I of On Floating Bodies did
play some role in the development of a hydrostatic theory of the speed
of falling bodies, a theory developed by Giovanni Battista Benedetti and
adopted by Galileo early in his career.
The Editio princeps of 1544
Far more popular with later mathematicians was the Editio princeps of
the Greek texts of Archimedes and Eutocius, with accompanying Latin
translations, published in Basel in 1544. With this edition, Renaissance
scholars had for the first time a readily available copy of virtually the
whole corpus of Archimedean works. The Greek text was based on a
manuscript now at Nuremberg (Heiberg's Greek MS no. 14) that can be
shown to be a copy made from Greek manuscript A in the 1460's. The
Latin translation was basically that prepared by Jacobus Cremonensis in
1450. However, the actual Latin manuscript used for the edition was an
autograph of Regiomontanus which contained manifold corrections by the
brilliant young German mathematician (see Part Ill, Chap. 2, Sect. 11).
Hence, at first glance it appears that the publication of 1544 was the
first Archimedean event which was wholly a product of Renaissance
scholarship without the influence ofthe medieval traditions of Archimedes.
But closer analysis shows that this is not entirely true. If we examine the
Greek text we find that it and its source, the Nuremberg manuscript,
include in the text of On the Equilibrium ofPlanes a number of interesting
interpolations not in Greek manuscript A from which the Nuremberg MS
was copied. These interpolations arose from rendering readings (nay in
some cases, whole paragraphs) of Moerbeke's Latin translation back into
Greek (see ibid., Chap. 4, Sect. I, note 1). We know that this is so because
these are readings that had been taken by Moerbeke from Greek manu-
script B long since lost by the time of the Renaissance. That is, these
readings did not appear in Greek manuscript A. Furthermore, as Heiberg
has shown, the nature of the language of these interpolated readings be-
speaks their origin in the Latin text.
Now let us turn to the Latin translation of Jacobus Cremonensis before
its correction by Regiomontanus. We first see that, though this was a new
effort to render Archimedes' works from Greek manuscript A, it never-
theless reflected in a number of passages the medieval translation of
William of Moerbeke (ibid., Chap. 2, Sect. I). In addition to the presence
of phrases and sentences that are identical in a verbatim fashion with
those of Moerbeke, we find that Jacobus followed Moerbeke in some of
the latter's errors or in readings that had their origin in Greek manuscript
B, available only to Moerbeke. Hence neither the Greek text nor the Latin
translation in the 1544 edition is a pure Renaissance effort. Though I have
been convinced by my analysis that Jacobus Cremonensis did consult
Moerbeke's text on occasion, it is evident to me that he did not sys-
tematically and thoroughly consult it, since had he done so he would have
avoided errors of his own. For the most part, Jacobus Cremonensis cor-
rectly rendered passages where Moerbeke had committed flagrant errors.
But at the same time, he himself often committed errors that Moerbeke
had avoided. Each translation has its advantages and disadvantages, as I
suggested in Part HI, Chap. 2, Sect. I.
I have said that the Latin translation appearing in the edition of 1544 was
taken from Regiomontanus' corrected version of Jacobus Cremonensis'
translation. Regiomontanus' interest in Archimedes reflects a pattern
similar to that found in the career of other fifteenth-century figures like
Nicholas of Cusa, Piero della Francesca, and Luca Pacioli. This pattern
is one of an early interest in the medieval Archimedean texts followed
by a later concern for Renaissance materials. During his earlier days in
Vienna, that is between 1450 and 1461, Regiomontanus became acquainted
with manuscripts of works influenced by translations from the Arabic. I
shall briefly describe these early interests of Regiomontanus in the second
part of my summary below. Regiomontanus' Viennese period was followed
by a fruitful stay in Italy from 1461 to about 1465 where he became a
member of Cardinal Bessarion's household, learned Greek and introduced
himself to the Greek text of Archimedes in the form of Bessarion's per-
sonal copy, Greek manuscript E, and to the earliest (if not the autograph)
copy of Jacobus Cremonensis' translation, which was also in Bessarion's
collection (see Part HI, Chap. 2, Sect. H). In brief, the Italian sojourn
brought Regiomontanus into contact with what we might call Renaissance
sources. In particular, between 1462 and 1464, he set out to emend and
correct the translation of Jacobus Cremonensis. We possess the autograph
copy of Regiomontanus' version, the manuscript I have designated V,
which is now at Nuremberg. Regiomontanus' corrections, additions, and
comments are quite extensive. Among the marginal additions, we find
Greek words, phrases, sentences, and whole paragraphs copied from Greek
manuscript E. These various kinds of corrections and readings must total
several hundred. Indeed, one must suppose that the manuscript con-
stituted the preliminary work for the text of and commentaries on Archi-
medes that he listed among his works to be published. Unfortunately,
his early death in Rome in 1476 at the age of forty prevented him from
completing any such project. Incidentally, it was only the actual textual
changes and not the marginalia that were later incorporated into the edi-
tion of 1544. Without commenting any further on the use he made of his
Archimedean knowledge, I must say only that his early death cut off a
very promising beginning in the study of Archimedes. Such is the story of
the 1544 edition of Basel. That edition was widely read and was one of
three most frequently cited collections of the works of Archimedes in the
next two hundred years. To some extent, it influenced all subsequent work
on Archimedes.
Maurolico's Archimedean Texts of 1547-50
Thus it provided the Greek text to Francesco Maurolico when he
undertook to complete his Archimedean versions between 1547 and 1550,
the fifth event I mentioned at the beginning (Part Ill, Chap. 5, Sect. Il
and Ill). As I noted, Maurolico produced paraphrases of On Spiral Lines
and On Conoids and Spheroids, paraphrases that were most perceptive.
He also entirely reworked Archimedes' On the Equilibrium of Planes,
presenting the subject in four books rather than in two as Archimedes
had. The most notable achievement of this work was his addition of Book
IV on the centers of gravity of solid bodies, whose ultimate objective
was the determination of the center of gravity of a paraboloid of revolu-
tion. This part was entirely original with Maurolico since Archimedes'
work was concerned only with the centers of gravity of plane figures.
Incidentally, I might add that Maurolico had no knowledge of the pre-
liminary steps in determining the centers of gravity of solids taken by
Leonardo da Vinci a generation before or of the extraordinary proofs of
Archimedes himself that appear in his On the Method, of which there is
no trace in the Middle Ages or the Renaissance or indeed until 1906 (when
Heiberg discovered that the Greek text of this lost work of Archimedes
was included in manuscript C). Now since I have attempted to stress the
importance of the medieval tradition on these various events, I should
remind the reader that Maurolico in 1550 composed his Praeparatio ad
Archimedis opera which consisted of a collection of propositions that
supplied a foundation to his 1534 version of On the Sphere and the
Cylinder, itself an expansion of the medieval Liber de curvis superjiciebus
of John of Tynemouth (see Part Ill, Chap. 5, Sect. Ill, Text A). I believe
that Maurolico felt impelled to write this Introduction because the edition
of 1544 had made him acutely aware of the differences in technique be-
tween the genuine tract of Archimedes and the medieval De curvis super-
ficiebus. Unfortunately, Maurolico's collection of Archimedean works, so
penetrating and subtle, was not published until 1685 and so its immediate
influence was minor and exercised only in the correspondence that
Maurolico had with Commandino (ibid., Chap. 4, Sect. Ill, note 17).
b
The Translations of Commandino of 1558
I started this account with a reference to the unbounded admiration
expressed by Federigo Commandino for the works of Archimedes. I note
now that the last two events which have been singled out are primarily
concerned with the activity of the distinguished mathematician of Urbino
(Part Ill, Chap. 4, Sect. Ill). Though Commandino's first Archimedean
work, his collection of translations and commentaries published at Venice
in 1558, is the one event in no way rooted in the medieval traditions
of Archimedes, still I believe it can be shown that Commandino's interest
in composing the work was stimulated by a request made to him by
Cardinal Cervini (before the latter became Pope Marcellus 11 briefly in
1555) to prepare cogent versions of two works that appeared in William
of Moerbeke's autograph. These were Moerbeke's translations of Archi-
medes' On Floating Bodies and of Ptolemy's De analemmate, both of which
were available and known only through Moerbeke's translations. Com-
mandino accepted this charge and Cervini accordingly provided him with
a copy of these works which I have identified with a Barberini manuscript
still in the Vatican library. It was quickly apparent to Commandino that
to do a proper job on Archimedes' On Floating Bodies, it was necessary
to master the Archimedean corpus (and indeed the Conic Sections of
Apollonius as well). Apparently, Commandino must have been dissatisfied
with the quality of the Editio princeps with its accompanying Latin
translation of Jacobus Cremonensis. At any rate, he decided to retranslate
and provide commentaries to those works that had not been commented on
by Eutocius and/or which were in a particularly bad state. Thus he pre-
pared translations of and commentaries to On Spiral Lines, On Conoids
and Spheroids, and The Sandreckoner (none of which were accompanied
by Eutocian commentaries), and On the Measurement ofthe Circle, which,
though provided with a commentary by Eutocius, was highly defective in
both the Greek text and the Latin translation of the 1544 edition. In order
to complete his translation and commentaries he sought out in Venice
Greek manuscript E (that is, Bessarion's copy) which was then in the
Biblioteca Marciana that had been founded on the basis of Bessarion' s
gift of his manuscripts to the Venetian Republic in 1468. Commandino's
translations were far superior to those of Jacobus Cremonensis. They
reveal Commandino' s already deep knowledge of Greek mathematics and
his great respect for the text itself. His method of working contrasts
strongly with that of his predecessor, Maurolico. The latter was concerned
primarily with the neatest and the best mathematical way to prove Archi-
medes' conclusions. Ifthis meant adding corollaries or lemmas, or expand-
ing the argument beyond the bare text, or rearranging the propositions,
or even using methods that differed from those of Archimedes, so be it.
Commandino, on the other hand, paid the most scrupulous attention to
the text itself, emending it as economically as possible. Any further
considerations beyond the text he left to his commentaries. This work of
Commandino almost immediately became the authoritative version and
treatment of the particular works included and indeed continued to be so
until comparatively recent times.
The 1565 Versions of On Floating Bodies
Having produced these translations, Commandino turned to the task set
him by Cervini, namely the production of a comprehensible version of
William of Moerbeke's translation of On Floating Bodies (Part Ill,
Chap. 4, Sect. Ill, Text A). The task had been made formidable by the
deplorable state of the Moerbeke translation. That state was not entirely
the result of Moerbeke's lack of understanding of this work (though that
lack is plain) but also the result of the nature of Greek manuscript B,
which, as Moerbeke himself continually notes in the margin of his auto-
graph, contained figures that were false and corrupt and many dozens of
errors in the letters designating the magnitudes. Moerbeke did as well as
could be expected of someone whose knowledge of mathematics when he
began the translations could not have been extensive. I must remind the
reader that On Floating Bodies is a marvelously contrived work which
cannot be completely understood without a knowledge of conic sections.
Book Il comprises propositions concerning the stability or instability of
various floating right-paraboloidal segments that are let down into a fluid
at an inclined position. This book is a geometrical tour de force that has
no known antecedent in antiquity and no successor until Commandino.
Hence, Commandino's complete and accurate reconstruction accom-
panied by a perceptive commentary is worthy of the highest praise. In
view of this beautiful reconstruction, it is not surprising that it immedi-
ately made obsolete the version of On Floating Bodies taken from the
defective manuscript M by Tartaglia. Recall that the first book of the
latter was published in 1543 (ibid., Sect. II). This first book together with
the second was published from Tartaglia's papers by Curtius Troianus in
the same year as Commandino's version, that is, 1565. All succeeding
versions of the work (until 1881) were based on Commandino' s work. It is
fitting that I have ended my account of the key events of the treatment of
Archimedean texts in the first three quarters of the sixteenth century with
the works of Commandino. The texts of Archimedes were now essentially
complete and ready to play their not inconsiderable role in mathe-
matics, as succeeding mathematicians developed methods ofinfinitesimals
to solve the same and similar problems, and as mechanicians admired
and imitated his subtle use of geometry in mechanics.
summary to this point has shown that in the course of the prepara-
tion and publication of Archimedean texts in the sixteenth century the
medieval traditions played a dominant role in five of the seven crucial
events, a minor role in the sixth and a possible, indirect, causative
role in the seventh, even as the direct consultation of the Greek text and
the Renaissance translations grew and prospered.
-------------------------------
11. The Use of the Archimedean Texts
So far in this retrospective survey I have emphasized the complex pat-
terns evident in the preparation and publication of the Archimedean texts
themselves. Similar patterns have emerged from my investigation of the
mathematical works of medieval and Renaissance scholars in which Archi-
medean problems were considered. As early as the fourteenth century,
Johannes de Muris incorporated into his works some of Archimedes' con-
clusions that were available to him in the form found in the translation of
William of Moerbeke. In Part I of this volume I have shown that the
French mathematician made some use in his Quadripartitum numerorum
and De arte mensurandi of the following texts in that translation: On the
Measurement o/the Circle, On the Sphere and the Cylinder, On Conoids
and Spheroids, On Spiral Lines, and Eutocius' Commentary on the Sphere
and the Cylinder. Johannes showed himself to be a keen mathematician,
who, for the most part, used his sources with skill, and, indeed, if he is
the author of the hybrid Circuli quadratura which he included in the eighth
chapter of his De arte mensurandi (see above, Part I, Chap. 5), he can
be credited with having produced the first commentary on Archimedes'
On Spiral Lines. In the demonstration of Proposition 4 of the Circuli
quadratura (=Prop. 7 of On Spiral Lines) it is perceptively noted that
the neusis required for the proof may be solved by means of a conchoidal
instrument, thus showing a knowledge of the passage of Eutocius' Com-
mentary on the Sphere and the Cylinder in which that instrument is
described. This is particularly remarkable for a medieval mathematician,
since the author of this note was applying this instrument to a problem not
immediately identical with that for which it was recommended by Euto-
cius. Furthermore, in relating propositions from On Spiral Lines to the
question of the quadrature of the circle, this tract's author was the first
Western author to make such an association. Other authors were later to
make the same association, e.g., Nicholas of Cusa (Part Ill, Chap. 1,
Sect. I, notes 5 and 14) and Giorgio Valla (ibid., Chap. 2, Sect. V).
It was perhaps this hybrid tract (or Moerbeke's translation of On Spiral
Lines itself) that introduced Nicole Oresme to the geometrical nature of a
spiral line. Oresme was to integrate this knowledge into his configuration
doctrine (see Part I, Chap. 7, note 21). Similarly, this tract was the
probable source of Giovanni Fontana's introduction of spiral movement
into the kinematic discussion found at the end of his De trigono balistario
of 1440 (see Part 11, Chap. 4, Sect. 11, added text, Props. 10-13).
It is also noteworthy that Johannes de Muris in his De arte mensurandi
included from the translation of William of Moerbeke three of the solu-
tions of the problem of finding two mean proportionals between two given
lines (see Part I, Chap. 3). The solution of this problem is crucial for the
transformation of solids, and Johannes so used it in further propositions
involving such transformations (ibid., note 5). It was perhaps under
f:
L__.....
lIIIIIIIiiiI
_
Johannes' influence that Nicholas of Cusa in his De geometricis trans-
mutationibus of 1445 presented the so-called Platonic solution of the prob-
lem and used it for similar transformations (see Part Ill, Chap. 1, Sect. I,
notes 6 and 10). Though Leonardo da Vinci later took much of his knowl-
edge of the solution of the means problem from Valla's translation of
Eutocius and Philoponus rather than from Johannes de Muris' account (see
Part Ill, Chap. 3, notes 73, 74 and 76), he apparently was imitating
Nicholas of Cusa' s treatise when he undertook to compose the tract on the
transformation of solids that exists in Codice Forster I and was begun in
1505 (ibid., notes 70 and 71). Finally, I should observe that Albrecht Diirer
drew two of the three solutions of the means problem that he presented in
the Unterweysung der Messung of 1525 from Johannes de Muris' tract,
while the third he took from Regiomontanus' version of Jacobus Cre-
monensis' translation, or from Valla's translation, or from Werner's para-
phrases of the latter translation (see Part Ill, Chap. 6, Sect. Ill, notes 4
and 5).
Thus it is clear that Johannes de Muris' use of William of Moerbeke's
translations was in the main intelligent and historically significant. How-
ever, such was not always the case. Johannes misused Moerbeke's transla-
tion of On Conoids and Spheroids as the authority for the determination
of the surface and volume of a solid generated by the rotation of a circular
segment about its chord (see Part I, Chap. 6, added text, Props. 22-24),
a figure that Johannes called an "arcuate rhombus" and Kepler later a
"lemon" (citrii mali figura). This erroneous use of On Conoids and
Spheroids was repeated much later by the French mathematician Oronce
Fine in hisProtomathesis of 1532 (see Part Ill, Chap. 6, Sect. IV, note 50),
Fine having owned the autograph copy of Johannes' work.
Johannes de Muris was not unique in his use of Moerbeke' s translations
in the fourteenth century. I have already noted Nicole Oresme's interest
in the spiral, which may have come indirectly from the Moerbeke transla-
tion through the hybrid Circuli quadratura or more directly from a copy of
the translation itself. Furthermore he did consult Moerbeke' s translation
of On FLoating Bodies. As the result of this consultation, Oresme appears
to have been the first of a series of authors to fuse the conclusions of the
genuine tract On FLoating Bodies with the conventional treatment of the
motion of falling bodies (see Part I, Chap. 7, notes 3 and 5). Others that
made the same move to join Archimedean hydrostatics with the con-
ventional dynamics were L. B. Alberti (Part Ill, Chap. 1, Sect. I1, note 2),
N. Tartaglia (ibid., Chap. 4, Sect. I1, note 44 and the added text of the
Ragionamenti, Proem), and G. B. Benedetti (ibid., notes 45 and 48).
Moerbeke's translation of On FLoating Bodies was also the source of a brief
comment by Oresme's junior contemporary Henry of Hesse (see Part I,
Chap. 7, note 33), while Moerbeke's translation of On the Equilibrium of
PLanes could have influenced the author of an Archimedean-type proof of
the law ofthe lever that seems to have been composed in the late thirteenth
or early fourteenth century (see ibid., Chap. 8). I have designated this
latter proof as Archimedean because it is based entirely on symmetrical
considerations rather than on the dynamical ones that are characteristic of
the more prevalent statical texts attributed to Jordanus de Nemore.
The attention given by fourteenth-century authors to the translations of
William of Moerbeke did not seriously diminish the use of Archimedean
texts from the Arabic andpre-Moerbeke Greek traditions, nor the use of
Archimedean formulas that derived from the Latin gromatici veteres and
were included in practical manuals. Even Johannes de Muris, the author
who most extensively used the translations of William of Moerbeke, in
his presentation of Proposition 3 of On the Measurement of the Circle
shows the probable influence of Gerard of Cremona's translation of that
work (ibid., Chap. 4), as well as the gromatic formulas (ibid., note 1).
Furthermore the many practical manuals of the late twelfth, thirteenth,
fourteenth, and fifteenth centuries that have the formulas of the gromatici
veteres as their starting point show sporadic but increasing influence of the
early Archimedean tracts, namely one or another version of Gerard of
Cremona's translation of De mensura circuli, his translation of the Verba
filiorum of the Banii Miisa, and the Liber de curvis superficiebus that
probably rests on some Greek original (see Part Il, Chap. 3, Sects. Il
and Ill). For example, the Liber de inquisicione capacitatis figurarum,
a manual of the fourteenth century, cited both the Verba fiUorum and
the Liber de curvis superficiebus as its authorities for Archimedean
propositions, while it maintained the terminology and in one case an in-
correct formula from the earlier Latin manuals (see ibid., Sect. Ill, note 18,
Prop. 26). Similarly Philippus Elephantis' Mathematica, written in the middle
of the fourteenth century, also depended in the case of formulas for the
surface of a sphere, a cylinder and a cone on the Liber de curvis super-
ficiebus. At the time that the Archimedean tracts were being used by
various authors in the fourteenth century they were also being repeatedly
copied and elaborated. Thus Gerard of Cremona's translation of De
mensura circuli was reworked many times (Vol. 1, Chaps. 3 and 5; Vol. 3,
Part Il, Chap. 1 and Appendix I, Sect. 2). The Verbafiliorum appeared
in an abbreviated version (Vol. 1, p. 236, MS T) and the Liber de curvis
superficiebus was expanded (ibid., pp. 520-57). Indeed one exp<mded
version of that text seems to have been available to Francesco Maurolico
in the sixteenth century when he composed his reworked version of that
medieval text (see Part III, Chap. 5, Sect. Ill).
The influence of these three earlier Archimedean tracts continued into
the fifteenth century. Giovanni Fontana, who owned the best manuscript of
Gerard of Cremona's translations of De mensura circuli and the Verba
filiorum, obviously knew both of these works, and furthermore he specif-
ically cited Proposition 8 of the Liber de curvis superficiebus without,
however, giving the title of the work (see Part II, Chap. 4, Sect. 11, note 7).
We have already seen that Nicholas of Cusa was influenced by the me-
dieval traditions before Nicholas V sent him the Archimedean translation
of Jacobus Cremonensis in about 1452 (Part Ill, Chap. 1, Sect. I). After
that time the new translation was a more significant influence on him. As
I have said in Section I of this chapter, the Archimedean knowledge dis-
played by a number of fifteenth-century scholars exhibited a similar
pattern, namely, an earlier interest in the medieval texts followed by some
knowledge of the new translation. Thus Regiomontanus during his early
Viennese period became acquainted with the De mensura circuli in the
Gordanus Version (ibid., Chap. 2, Sect. Il, note 4) and the Verba
filiorum, the latter in an indirect form from Leonardo Fibonacci' s Practica
geometrie (ibid., note 13), and directly from some manuscript of it (see
ibid. , note 8). Regiomontanus also apparently had a manuscript of
Johannes de Muris' De arte mensurandi (see ibid., notes 8 and 12). In his
De quadratura circuli dedicated to Toscanelli, Regiomontanus directly
cited the Verba filiorum under the title of the Libellus trium fratrum
(ibid., note 38). Regiomontanus' De quadratura circuli was composed after
he had come to Italy. It suggests a rather more profound consideration of
rational bounds between which 'TT must lie. Indeed by the time that he wrote
this work he had no doubt completed his revision of Jacobus Cremonensis'
translation of the works of Archimedes. As I have already indicated in
the first section of this survey, Regiomontanus' revision of Cremonensis'
translation, which he executed largely on the basis of Bessarion's Greek
manuscript, revealed Regiomontanus as the most acute interpreter of
Archimedes in Latin before the sixteenth century. Only the brevity of his
life prevented Regiomontanus from establishing a sound base for Archi-
medean studies like that achieved by the works of Maurolico and
Commandino in the sixteenth century.
Regiomontanus' contemporary Piero della Francesca illustrates in the
same way as the German mathematician those fifteenth-century authors
who derived their early Archimedean knowledge from medieval tradi-
tions and their later knowledge from Jacobus Cremonensis' translation.
Thus Piero's early Trattato d' abaco, in its knowledge of the Archi-
medean formulas, shows the influence of the medieval handbooks of
geometry and/or the medieval Archimedean tracts, and especially of
Leonardo Fibonacci's Practica geometrie (see Part In, Chap. 2, Sect.
Ill, notes 5-14). But Piero's later De quinque corporibus regularibus
indicates that some time after composing the Trattato he had studied
Jacobus Cremonensis' translation, apparently in a copy at Urbino (ibid.,
notes 26-32). For the most part, Piero in both treatises treated the
Archimedean problems in the way that they were considered in the
medieval geometrical handbooks: the formula was stated and then fol-
lowed by a numerical example. It is only in the later treatise that Archi-
medes is regularly cited as an authority. But in one spectacular case in
the De quinque corporibus regularibus, Piero departed from the simple
procedure of the handbooks by including a demonstration. This occurs
in the case of the proposition which declares that the volume of the com-
mon segment of two perpendicularly intersecting cylinders is that of its
circumscribing cube (ibid., note 59). This proposition had its origin in
Archimedes' On the Method (ibid., note 61) and was repeated without
demonstration by Hero in his Metrica. But both works were apparently
unavailable to Renaissance scholars. Hence the source of Piero's knowl-
edge of this proposition remains a profound puzzle. Piero' s imaginative
but obscure proof was in all likelihood his own and differed from the kind
of demonstration that Archimedes must have included (Archimedes' proof
is missing in the extant version of the text of On the Method in Greek
manuscript C). It is of some interest that Piero's proof depended on
propositions drawn from Archimedes' On Conoids and Spheroids and On
the Sphere and the Cylinder, both of which he had read in the Urbino
copy of Jacobus Cremonensis' translation.
Also puzzling was Piero's knowledge of Pappus' treatment of Archi-
medean semiregular solids (ibid., notes 40-54). Though no Latin transla-
tion of the appropriate section of Pappus' work can be attested before
Commandino's translation a century later and though the Greek manu-
script from which all Renaissance copies of the Collectio were derived
cannot be surely located before the sixteenth century, there is some evi-
dence of the existence of this manuscript in Italy from at least 1311
(ibid., notes 55 and 56). Thus it is possible that some acquaintance of
Piero with a knowledge of Greek saw this manuscript and provided Piero
with the relevant passage. Whatever the source of Piero's knowledge of
semiregular solids, his account of them in De quinque corporibus
regularibus became generally available when Luca Pacioli published under
his own name an Italian version of this work as an appendix to his Divina
proportione (Venice, 1509). This latter version introduced Western
mathematicians to the comprehensive treatment of such solids.
Beyond his plagiarism of Piero's De quinque corporibus regularibus,
Luca Pacioli played a further role in the transmission of Archimedean
knowledge. His Summa de arithmetica, geometria, proportioni et pro-
portionalita (Venice, 1494) was written primarily under the influence of
medieval traditions. He repeated from Leonardo Fibonacci's Practica
geometrie much of the Archimedean material that his medieval predeces-
sor had taken from De mensura circuli and above all from the Verba
filiorum (see Part Ill, Chap. 2, Sect. IV). In so doing, Pacioli showed con-
siderable ineptness. Not only did he share Leonardo Fibonacci's lack of
understanding of Archimedes' techniques of approximation in determining
7T but he obscured the very idea that 7T ought to lie between rational
bounds. Furthermore, Pacioli was extremely careless and unperceptive in
reproducing the various propositions of the Verbafiliorum from Fibonac-
ci's summary of them. Indeed he omitted entirely the crucial Proposition
XIII of the Verbafiliorum without which Proposition XIV concerning the
surface of a sphere could not be proved. In addition to his use of
Fibonacci's Practica geometrie, there is evidence that he directly con-
sulted some version of the De mensura circuli (ibid., note 42), the
Opuscula varia of Nicholas of Cusa (ibid., note 43) and the Liber de curvis
superficiebus (ibid., end of note 58). Though Pacioli was evidently not
.:.-----------------------
familiar in a thorough way with the corpus of the genuine works of
Archimedes, he did attempt (with disastrous results) to paraphrase and
rework Archimedes' demonstration of the measure of the surface of a
sphere as it existed in Proposition 1.31 (=Gr 1.33) of Cremonensis'
translation of On the Sphere and the Cylinder (ibid., note 58). Thus
Pacioli's work reflects fleetingly the common practice offollowing an initial
use of the medieval Archimedes by a later attention to the Renaissance
translation. On the whole, Pacioli' s work constituted a stumbling block
in the way of a proper understanding of Archimedes, and particularly so
because it was widely popular during the first half of the sixteenth
century.
Pacioli's famous associate and friend, Leonardo da Vinci, was also in-
fluenced by both medieval and Renaissance traditions of Archimedes. He
appears to have known some version of the De mensura circuli (Part Ill,
Chap. 3, notes 9-11) and in all likelihood the Liber de curvis superficiebus
(notes 23-30), as well as Renaissance works based on medieval works,
such as the Compilatio of Leonardo of Cremona, the De geometricis
transmutationibus of Nicholas of Cusa and the Summa de arithmetica
of Pacioli. In explicating these various sources Leonardo took a tack that
distinguished his approach, namely the application of a kind of infinitesimal
method that conceived of the circle as resolvable into an infinitude of
small triangles and the sphere into an infinitude of small pyramids (see
ibid., notes 12 and 30). In addition to having read these medievally
oriented sources, Leonardo certainly examined manuscripts of the gen-
uine works of Archimedes, apparently in the translations of both William
of Moerbeke and Jacobus Cremonensis. Though he did not make extensive
use of these translations, he seems to have directly consulted both
translations of On the Equilibrium of Planes (ibid., rubrics [3] and
[4]). In doing so, he evidently shifted from an early dynamic approach to
statics that he had derived in great part from the medieval scientia de
ponderibus to one that sought in statics the key to finding centers of
gravity. I hasten to add, however, that he largely abandoned the elegant
demonstrations found in Archimedes' work, substituting for them a
compendious, heuristic approach based on the law of the lever. Still this
approach led him to some entirely original discoveries concerning the
centers of gravity of solids (ibid., notes 59-61, 64), a subject not fully
explored until the works of Maurolico (1547) and Commandino (1565).
Leonardo also appears to have consulted Eutocius' Commentary on the
Equilibrium of Planes, perhaps directly in either Moerbeke's or Cremo-
nensis' translation and almost certainly in the long extract on propor-
tional means translated by Georgio Valla. At any rate, he translated into
Italian from Giorgio Valla's De expetendis et fugiendis rebus (Venice,
1501) the latter's version of the means problem as given in Philoponus'
Commentary on the Posterior Analytics (Part Ill, Chap. 4, note 74). As
I have already said, Leonardo's interest in the means problem was
no doubt stimulated by his intention of completing a work on the trans-
formation of solids. While Leonardo's treatment of such problems shows
little interest in the formal procedures of Greek geometry, it does re-
veal unusual visual acuity.
Not all of the works of the late-fifteenth and sixteenth centuries demon-
strate dependence on both medieval and Renaissance sources for their
knowledge of Archimedes. For example, Valla's enormous De expetendis
et fugiendis rebus, which I have just mentioned, depended for its
knowledge of Archimedes almost exclusively on Greek manuscript A
(with perhaps some attention to Jacobus Cremonensis' translation). Thus
we find in it no attention to the medieval Archimedes.
On turning to the knowledge of Archimedes displayed by mathemati-
cians of the first half of the sixteenth century, I must first reiterate that
I found it convenient to discuss the development of the texts themselves
in the first part of the survey and to include in this second part a dis-
cussion of those Archimedean problems that other mathematicians less
interested in presenting the whole texts thought it important to consider.
The attention given by these latter mathematicians to two of these key
problems, the nature of spiral lines and the finding of two mean pro-
portionals between two given lines, shows little medieval influence (see
Part Ill, Chap. 6, Sects. I and Ill). A notable exception has already
been mentioned in this survey. It was Albrecht Diirer's inclusion in his
Unterweysung der Messung (Nuremberg, 1525) of Johannes de Muris'
account of the solutions of the means problem attributed to Plato and
Hero (ibid., Sect. Ill, note 4). In the cases of the two other principal
Archimedean problems, however, medieval influences were significant:
the crown problem and the problem of quadrature (ibid., Sects. 11 and IV).
In regard to the crown problem, the medieval influence came from
the pseudo-Archimedean Liber de ponderibus Archimenidis of the thir-
teenth century and its reworking by Johannes de Muris in the fourteenth
(see Appendix I, Sect. 4). Some correction of the thirteenth-century
tract was made early in the sixteenth century, apparently by Andreas
Coner, who, the reader will recall, owned the autograph manuscript of
Moerbeke's translation of the works of Archimedes. This manuscript in-
cluded, before the genuine works of Archimedes, the medieval Liber de
ponderibus Archimenidis. The chief objective of the medieval tract was
the determination of the partial volumes of the components of an alloy.
As can be seen by consulting the text of this tract in Appendix I, Sec-
tion 4, it contained many ambiguities. These were removed by the
Portuguese scholar Franciscus de Mello, who was a student at Paris be-
tween 1514 and 1517 and who composed an Archimedis de incidentibus
in humidis cum commentariis either at Paris or after his return to Portugal.
In this work Franciscus replaced the medieval proofs of the Liber de
ponderibus Archimenidis by a relatively clear commentary of his own (see
Part Ill, Chap. 6, Sect. Ill, Text A). Furthermore, he took a significant
step forward by linking the Liber de ponderibus Archimenidis with
Vitruvius' account of the crown problem (ibid., Prop. 7). This linkage
was made stronger by the French mathematician Pierre Forcadel, who
translated Franciscus' work into French and published it in 1565. Forcadel
expanded the ending of the tract by including a final proposition in
which he specifically formulated a rule for the determination of the ratio
of the partial weights of the components of an alloy, that is, a rule for
solving the crown problem (ibid., Text B, Prop. 8). The medieval text
also exerted some influence on Niccolo Tartaglia, who may have seen it
in one of the two Venetian editions of 1518 and 1519 and who certainly
saw it in Latin manuscript M about 1539. Tartaglia translated some of
its definitions and postulates in his Quesiti et inventioni diverse (Venice,
1546) (see ibid., note 23) and four of its propositions in his Ragiona-
menti . . . sopra la sua travagliata inventione (Venice, 1551) (see ibid.,
Text C).
Finally we should observe the medieval influences on expositions of the
most popular of all Archimedean problems, the quadrature of the circle
with the related questions of the rectification of curved lines and the cubing
of the sphere. Turning to the school of French mathematicians, we first
notice the rather inept procedures of Charles de Bouelles (see Part Ill,
Chap. 6, Sect. IV). His kinematic approach to the generation of curvilinear
and curviplanar figures represented an interesting continuation of the
procedures used in the thirteenth-century De motu of Gerard of Brussels
and in Nicholas of Cusa's De mathematicis complementis. Though the
French mathematician correctly understood the substance of Proposition
I of Archimedes' De mensura circuli and its principal corollary con-
cerning the area of a sector of a circle that was included in Gerard of
Cremona's translation ofthat tract, de Bouelles' beliefthat he had achieved
exact rectification of the circumference by his unrolling of the circum-
ference on a plane was quite naIve (ibid., note 12). Further, his treatment
of the volume of a sphere by similar methods was hopelessly erroneous
(ibid., note 28). The popularity of de Bouelles' tracts once more illustrates
the difficulties that faced the unwary student of Archimedean mathe-
matics in the early sixteenth century.
Though somewhat more sophisticated in his understanding of geometry
than de Bouelles, his fellow countryman Oronce Fine produced equally
disastrous results when he touched on Archimedean geometry. Fine
owned Johannes de Muris' De arte mensurandi, which included some of
the best treatment of Archimedean problems in the Middle Ages, but
unfortunately Fine paid little attention to the sound parts of the medieval
tract. In fact, he extracted therefrom Johannes' erroneous use of On
Conoids and Spheroids to determine the volume of an oval rhombus
(ibid., note 50). Furthermore, though Johannes' treatise contained a full
and almost completely correct exposition of Archimedes' determination of
'TT, Fine repeatedly presented incorrect determinations, showing all the
while a woeful lack of understanding of Archimedes' techniques of ap-
proximation and indeed of elementary geometry itself (ibid., notes 52,53,
55 and 58). Hence it is not surprising that Fine was attacked on all sides.
4 ~
The'most acute and learned of the critics was the Portuguese mathe-
matician Pedro Nunes. In his De erratis Orontii Finaei (Coimbra, 1546),
Nunes not only corrected the errors of the French mathematician
but revealed himself as the most penetrating student of Archimedes'
techniques of approximation yet to write in Latin (ibid., notes 54, 56 and
60). More strident (but less subtle) were the criticisms of Jean Borrel,
an apparent student of Fine, who criticized briefly the latter's methods
of quadrature in 1544 and then returned to a more complete attack in
his De quadratura circuli libri duo (Lyons, 1559) (ibid., notes 54 and
56). Borrel's work of 1559 was an effort to summarize and evaluate all
of the historical methods of quadrature. It reveals some knowledge of
medieval efforts at quadrature and a more thorough knowledge of
Renaissance treatments (ibid., notes 63 and 64).
Such then were the patterns of Archimedean studies among the
mathematicians of the first half of the sixteenth century. As in the case
of the preparation of Archimedean texts delineated in the first half of this
survey, we have seen here an eclectic use of both the medieval and
Renaissance traditions of the great Syracusan mathematician. Citation and
use of medieval sources greatly declined after the publication of the
editio princeps in 1544 and Commandino's translations in 1558, except
perhaps in the practical manuals whose contents show the continued in-
fluence of Pacioli's Summa. Under stimulus of the widening circulation
of the actual texts of Archimedes, mathematicians began increasingly to
develop the new methods of infinitesimals that I alluded to at the end of
Part I of this survey. At the same time they turned in ever increasing
numbers to more detailed and elaborate calculations of 'TT' (ibid., note 66).
And so the medieval Archimedes faded into insignificance.
F

ClagettArchimedesIIIPart3 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ClagettArchimedesIIIPart3 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ARCHIMEDES

in the Middle Ages

(Cf. Pacioli's repetition of these propositions in his Summa, Il, 69v.)

602 ARCHIMEDES IN THE MIDDLE AGES

608 ARCHIMEDES IN THE MIDDLE AGES

700 ARCHIMEDES IN THE MIDDLE AGES

SI A PUNCTO EXTRA CIRCULUM DUAE LINEAE DUCANTUR

SECTOR CIRCULI AEQUALIS EST TRIANGULO RECTANGULO

CIRCULUS SUPER LATUS TRIGONI RECTANGULI ANGULO

Si alicuius corporis in duobus liquoribus et in aere fuerint pondera data,

160 Si duorum quorumcunque corporum, ut auri et argenti, pondera in aqua

Si ab inaequalibus aequalia demantur, remanentia eadem excessu

1182 ARCHIMEDES IN THE MIDDLE AGES

You might also like