royal road or labyrinth? valerio's breakthrough in geometry

royal road or labyrinth?
67
Pier Daniele Napolitani · Ken Saito*

ROYAL ROAD OR LABYRINTH ?
luca valerio’s DE C E N T RO G R AV I TAT I S S O L I D O RUM
and the beginnings of modern mathematics
Neither do men put new wine into old
bottles: else the bottles break, and the
wine runneth out, and the bottles perish:
but they put new wine into new bottles,
and both are preserved (Matt. 9.17).
1. Valerio’s Royal Road

1. 1. Valerio and the Restoration of Greek Mathematics
The rediscovery of Greek mathematics, especially of Greek geometry
in the sixteenth century, lies at the basis of many of the conceptual
revolutions of the following century. It is almost impossible to imagine
Galileo without Archimedes, or Descartes without Apollonius and Pap-
pus. It should not be forgotten, however, that this rediscovery was not
a process of some mechanical transmission of ancient mathematical
texts. Reading Archimedes or Apollonius – to say nothing of their trans-
lation and commentary – involved some reinterpretation. The lacunas
and the corruptions in the tradition of the ancient scientific texts, as well
as the distance of almost two thousand years, made conscious effort of
reinterpretation necessary, to a greater or lesser extent. Maurolico took
great liberties with the texts he studied; and the same attitude can be
found even in Federico Commandino, who treated the ancient texts
with far more respect.
The period of rediscovery may be considered to have come to an end
in 1575, the year in which both Maurolico and Commandino died. This
* P.D. Napolitani, Department of Mathematics, University of Pisa, Largo B. Pontecorvo, 5,

I-56127 Pisa, Italy. e-mail: napolita@dm.unipi.it; K. Saito, School of Humanities and Social Scienc-
es, Osaka Prefecture University, 599-8531 Sakai (Osaka, Japan). e-mail: ken.saito@hs.osakafu-
u.ac.jp. This paper was prepared within the scope of the Italian national research project “Storia
delle matematiche in Italia”. The authors would like to thank Rosalba Giomi for various sugges-
tions and for the revision of the text; Tim Mott for linguistic revisions and acute remarks; Enrico
Giusti for the discussions which provided the starting point for the development of some of the
ideas presented here.
Bollettino di Storia delle Scienze Matematiche · Vol. XXIV · (2004) · Fasc. 2

68 pier daniele napolitani · ken saito
date marks the beginning of the assimilation phase, an activity which
soon became increasingly important. The assimilation of Archimedes
involved the completion and the revision of his work; it implied a
methodological reflection on the whole subject of geometry of measure
and its relationship to mechanics. 1 The same may be said, although at
a more complex level, for the geometry of position and the problems
connected with the method of analysis and synthesis.
Luca Valerio was one of the most important figures in this process of
assimilation of ancient geometry. He was born in Naples in 1553, and
entered the Collegio Romano of the Jesuits at the age of 17. There he
attended the academy of mathematics directed by Christopher Clavius;
when he left the Society in 1580, he was already an established math-
ematician, as can be seen from the texts that he wrote in that period,
in particular Subtilium indagationum liber (Rome, 1582). However, it was
only after several years that he succeeded in finding a position worthy
of his talents: in 1600 he obtained the chair of mathematics at the
University ‘La Sapienza’ in Rome, thanks to the protection of Pope
Clement VIII Aldobrandini. And thus, at last, he was able to devote
himself to research. His work, Three Books on the Center of Gravity of Solids
(De centro gravitatis solidorum libri tres, hereafter CGS) was published in
Rome in 1604, and won him a lasting reputation, which continued long
after his death in 1618. 2 Valerio’s reflections on the classics regularly
follow the same pattern, from his early essays of 1582 to his main work:
he takes a demonstrative technique already available (which can often
easily be identified with a technique used by Archimedes) for a particular
case, and then he transforms the specific properties of that particular case
which makes the technique valid, into the definition of a particular class
of figures (so that that same technique is applicable to all the figures of
this newly defined class). This was a completely original approach,
which led to new vistas of mathematical research. Now his approach
deserves further explanation.
1. 2. The Objects and Methods of Classical Geometry

The objects of classical Greek geometry were always particular objects,
1 We refer to the part of the geometry represented by Archimedes’ quadrature and cubature
by the name “geometry of measure,” while we propose the name “geometry of position” for
another important part of classical geometry represented by Apollonius’ Conics.
2 This work won him the friendship and admiration of Galileo, among others, as well as
admission to Federico Cesi’s Accademia dei Lincei. However, during the Copernican crisis of
1616, Valerio left Galileo’s side. For further details about Valerio’s scientific career, see Baldini-
Napolitani 1991.
royal road or labyrinth? 69
given by a more or less axiomatized construction procedure. 1 Euclid’s
axioms allow the existence of straight lines and circles; an implicit
procedure (cutting a given cone with a given plane) allows the existence
of Apollonius’s conic sections. And the aim of geometry was to study
these objects, and determine their properties.
This is totally different from the modern, post-Cartesian attitude. For
us, an ellipse is the locus of the zeros of a particular quadratic equation,
or, in more elementary terms, “the locus of the points such that the sum
of the distances from two fixed points is constant”. The property pre-
cedes the object, which, a priori, might not even exist. For the Greeks,
the ellipse was the object determined by a plane which cuts a cone,
meeting all of its generatrices; this curve therefore existed, but all its
properties were unknown, and needed to be investigated. It is not by
chance that the foci of the ellipse and the hyperbola are introduced by
Apollonius only at the end of the third book of Conics. The object
precedes its properties.
An immediate consequence of this notion of mathematical objects is
that for the Greeks, general objects could not exist. Nothing like our
“curves” existed in classical geometry. Various curved lines existed, of
course – the circle, the conic sections, the conchoid, the cissoid, the
spiral, the quadratrix – but no single conceptual operational category
existed that included all of them. Each of these curves had its own special
procedure that defined it, although of course it is possible that two
curves obtained by means of different procedures could be identified
with each other. For example, the Euclidean circumference could be
identified with the parallel or subcontrary section of a cone; the section
of the cone that produces the ellipse could be identified with the oblique
section of the cylinder. But every curve maintained its identity, its
singularity.
If no general object existed, then general methods could not exist,
either. In Archimedean geometry of measure, there was nothing like our
integral calculus. Integral calculus applies to certain classes of functions,
which satisfy certain conditions. Though we find in Archimedes some
methods for the determination of areas and volumes that recall our own
concepts and techniques, there is a fundamental difference: these meth-
ods are always presented ad hoc, in connection with the kind of problem
to be solved. Thus, the quadrature of the parabola (at least in its
mechanical form) is dealt with in a radically different way from the
1 On this point, see Giusti 1998, in particular the second chapter.

squaring of the circle; the methods developed for the study of spirals are
totally different from those devised for conoids and spheroids, which in
turn are different from those used to determine the ratio of the sphere
to the circumscribed cylinder.
It is usually stated that Archimedes, and the Greeks in general, used
the “method of exhaustion”. Strictly speaking, however, this method did
not exist in Greek geometry, at least as a codified method to compare
areas and volumes. True, a whole series of theorems concerning areas
and volumes by Euclid and Archimedes is based on a common tech-
nique: in order to prove that two figures are equal, they demonstrated
by means of a double reductio ad absurdum that one of the two can
neither be greater nor smaller than the other. This double reduction is
generally obtained by using “known” figures that approximate the given
figure. But as mentioned above, the application of this technique is
subject to wide margins of variability. It should also be added that as far
as we know, only Archimedes was capable of fully exploiting this
technique, and he, too, sometimes encountered considerable difficulty,
as is confirmed by the letter to Dositheus that accompanied his Conoids
and Spheroids. 1
The “method of exhaustion”, then, is a convenient historiographic
label that makes it possible to identify a posteriori certain procedures
having indubitable similarity, but nothing more.
1. 3. Valerio and the Royal Road

The problem Valerio solved in his De centro gravitatis solidorum was that
of determining the center of gravity of all the solids the Renaissance
inherited from Euclidean and Archimedean geometry: sphere, cone,
pyramid, prism, cylinder, polyhedra, paraboloid, hyperboloid, ellipsoid,
and their parts. For brevity, we shall call them “Archimedean solids”.
This seems to be a fairly restricted problem, but it had not yet been
solved, and indeed was one of the problems most widely studied by
mathematicians of the late sixteenth century, partly because it constitut-
ed a necessary component of the completion of Archimedes’ works, who
had only dealt with the centers of gravity of plane figures in those works
1 He writes: “I am sending you... the proofs of the remaining theorems... and of others...
which embarrassed me, though I had already inquired into them many times before, for it
seemed to me that there are some obstacles for their discovery... But subsequently, having
applied myself with greater diligence, I discovered [and proved] the [propositions] that had
embarrassed me”. On the “method of exhaustion” see the interesting comments of B. Vitrac in
Euclid 2001, pp. 237-251.
known at that time. 1 In 1565 Commandino published Liber de centro
gravitatis solidorum (hereafter LCG), which, however, was far from being
satisfactory. Several proofs were flawed, and above all, the most thorny
questions had not even been dealt with: the determination of the centers
of gravity of segments of the sphere and the ellipsoid, and of the center
of gravity of the hyperboloid. Many other scholars dedicated themselves
to this task, including Francesco Maurolico, Simon Stevin, the young
Galileo, and Valerio’s teacher, Clavius. However, their results had either
not been published, or were not generally known. And none of them
had ever arrived at the determination of the centers of gravity of the
hemisphere or the hyperboloid.
One element common to all the sixteenth-century attempts that are
known to us is their substantial adherence to the ancient “classical”
approach: the centers of gravity of the various solids were dealt with case
by case, introducing ad hoc techniques for each solid studied. Valerio
followed a different method. Instead of dealing with the problem of the
determination of the centers of gravity and quadrature case by case, he
constructed an enormous edifice of theorems valid for a whole class of
figures (those he called circa axim and circa diametrum: roughly speaking,
the former is the solid figure generated by rotation around an axis, the
latter the plane figure with an axis of symmetry; see § 2.2, below); into
which he incorporated the techniques of the quadrature and determi-
nation of the centers of gravity of the various particular figures he dealt
with.
This is what we shall call Valerio’s Royal Road (via regia), and the
expression is obligatory, for Valerio himself used this term to refer to
to some of the general theorems that he proved:
But here you will find many things necessary for this research, which should find
their place of their own right in geometry. Especially the first three propositions
of the second book: you will understand that by means of these a large – and
extremely difficult – part of geometry has been set on a royal road by straightforward
and general demonstration. 2
Valerio was thus taking a significant step ahead in departing from
classical mathematics. To anticipate an example we will later discuss in
detail (§ 5.2 and § 5.4), we point out that the determination of the center
1 As is well known, it was only in 1906 that The Method was rediscovered, which contains
results on centers of gravity of various solids.

2 “Sed multa hic nova invenies ita ad praesens institum necessaria, ut per se tamen ipsa in
geometria locum habere debeant, maxime vero tres primi secundi libri propositiones, quippe
quibus magnam, ac perdifficilem geometriae partem demonstratione recta et generali ad viam
regiam redactam esse intelliges” CGS, p. 2. Italics ours.
of gravity of a hyperboloid (as Valerio proudly observes, “attempted by
nobody before”, “antea tentata nemini”), is reduced to the application of
a general theorem regarding the centers of gravity of figures circa axim
and circa diametrum. Valerio was fully aware of this breakthrough in
methodology, 1 which had a considerable influence on the subsequent
development of mathematics, in particular on Cavalieri. And it seems
possible to hypothesize that each of Valerio’s techniques was also ex-
tremely influential, though it is not easy to evaluate their precise signifi-
cance without further study.
However, this was not the only important methodological innovation
of Valerio. A second decisive step was his invention of the method of
exhaustion. We use this term against the common historiography which
ascribes its invention to Eudoxus, and its development to Archimedes.
However, as we shall try to show in § 3, we believe that Valerio should
be credited with the first systematization of this method dealing with
comparison of areas and volumes, codified in the first three theorems
of De centro, and not just assimilation of a more or less standardized
approach or know-how in Greek mathematics.
Another innovation more complex to describe is, we believe, his
quantitative treatment of geometrical objects, which we will discuss in
§ 5. In Valerio’s work one can see the first attempt to separate the
quantitative properties from geometrical figures, and though this was
a step taken with much caution and hesitation, one can find several
examples of his treatment of geometrical figures where they appear to
be parts representing only quantitative properties, and can be assembled
and disassembled according to the needs of the mathematician. Thus
Valerio came close to a complete dissolution of geometric figures into
pure “quantity”, dissociating them from their shapes and spatial arrange-
ments. This was one of his most important innovations, but, at the same
time, it is exactly at this point where we encounter most clearly an
indication of the limitations of his mathematical language and thought,
which, after all, remain within the paradigm of Euclidean theory of
proportion of “classical” mathematics.
1 See, for example, this passage from his letter to Galileo: “I am working on the material of
de pyramide, having already almost finished putting in order that of de centro gravitatis solidorum
in a better form than before, moving away, as usual, from Archimedes’ style; and increasing it
to such an extent that it is necessary for me to divide it into five books.” (“ch’io per me séguito
la materia de pyramide, avendo già quasi rassettata quella de centro gravitatis solidorum in miglior
forma di prima, discostandomi al solito dallo stile d’Archimede, et accresciuta sì, che m’è
necessario partirla in 5 libri.”, Valerio to Galileo, 23 October 1610; in Galilei 1968, vol. X, p.
452. Cf. Baldini-Napolitani 1991, § 2.6 and Appendice, § 8.
1. 4. Previous Studies on Valerio and the Present Contribution

De centro gravitatis solidorum is an extremely complex work. Its complex-
ity is due, first of all, to the fact that in a certain sense it is a work in
progress. As is confirmed by Valerio’s scientific career, he had to hasten
the publication of the book in 1604 to satisfy his protectors, Pope
Clement VIII and his nephew, Cardinal Pietro Aldobrandini: he even
states that he wrote the whole of the third book in only one month,
October 1603. The existence of a previous version of the work consisting
of only two books is confirmed by Valerio himself, though no trace of
this version survives now. 1 This editorial process probably explains the
confused organization of the material. 2 However, a complete analysis
of the logical structure of De centro is not yet available. It should also be
added that Valerio himself was not at all satisfied, and that for the rest
of his life, he dreamed of reorganizing and expanding the material of De
centro into five books, though he never realized the project. 3 Another
difficulty is Valerio’s way of expounding his ideas, and the obscurity of
many of his expressions. References to the propositions used (of his own
book or of other authors) are often lacking, and this makes it difficult
to follow with certainty the development of his reasoning, which is very
often elliptic and over-concise. Since the author himself was not fully
satisfied with his work, it is difficult to evaluate to what extent the
apparent incongruities are due to intrinsic logical flaws, or to the limited
time Valerio had at his disposal.
A complete analysis of the text should also aim to establish the
relationship between Valerio and his sources, in particular Archimedes
and Archimedean mathematics in the sixteenth century. This is an
extremely complicated question, especially in the light of what has been
said above. In some cases it is possible to identify Valerio’s source of
inspiration quite easily in one or another of Archimedes’ techniques; but
many of his proofs have never been analyzed from this point of view.
Compared with this complexity of the work, the studies on De centro
gravitatis solidorum available to us are scanty. They concentrate mainly
on the first three propositions of the second book, in which modern
1 See n. 1 p. 90 below, and the arguments in Baldini-Napolitani 1991, § 2.5.

2 As for the confusion in CGS, see (Passalacqua, 1991), in particular § 4.1. One can add that
there is systematic incongruity of the cross-reference in the second book of CGS, which leads to
the conclusion that the second book of the previous version contained nine propositions less:
proposition II-29 is quoted as II-20; prop. II-43 as II-34; prop. II-32 as II-23. See CGS, Book II,
pp. 55, 56 and 76. 3 See the n. 1 p. 72 above, about the editorial Story of De centro.
scholars have detected an anticipation of the concept of limit, 1 without
trying to locate it in the context of sixteenth-century mathematics, or
in the context of Valerio’s works in his overall career. On the other hand,
one of the authors of the present article has attempted to deal with this
aspect, emphasizing the continuity between Valerio’s early works and
De centro (Napolitani, 1982). However, not even then was De centro
analyzed as a whole.
The only study that has so far attempted an overall reading of Valerio’s
work is Passalacqua’s dissertation. 2 This, however, is a graduate thesis,
and has had a limited circulation. It should be added that Passalacqua’s
excellent paper is mostly dedicated to a description of De centro, though
it offers several interesting suggestions for its interpretation.
We may thus conclude that there is no study based on historiographic
criteria, adequate for a work of such fundamental importance as De
centro gravitatis solidorum. In particular, no one except Passalacqua has
discussed the method Valerio used for the determination of centers of
gravity. 3 The aim of the present article is to fill this void at least in part.
Our intention is not to attempt an overall analysis of De centro, and even
less to perform an overall evaluation of the figure of Valerio as a
mathematician. We limit our aims, rather modestly, to the following:
1. illustrating some of the milestones along Valerio’s Royal Road;
2. giving a clear exposition of the method by which Valerio determines
the centers of gravity;
3. explaining the nature and the significance of some of Valerio’s
general theorems.
Our thesis is that Valerio introduced important changes and novelties
into the mathematics of his time–especially at the methodological level.
He opened up a new road which was to be followed by several others:
notably, Cavalieri, with his theory of indivisibles, and, above all, Des-
cartes with his geometry of curves. Mathematics, as a result, was totally
transformed, and its language and methods have since undergone a
revolution.
But like all the innovators, Valerio is half-way between the old and
and the new. His general methods are mingled with traditional argu-
ments, for reasons which are not clear, at least at first sight. We shall
1 For a discussion of these preceding studies, see Napolitani 1982, pp. 4-8.
2 All’alba della matematica moderna: il “De centro gravitatis solidorum libri tres” di Luca Valerio,
referred to as Passalacqua 1991.
3 Another exception might be represented by the work of Armida Tosi (1957); however, this
is a systematic translation of Valerio’s procedures into the language of integral calculus, and is
heavily influenced by a view of Valerio as a precursor.
therefore try to show that it was the language and the concepts to which
Valerio remained faithful, based as they were on the theory of propor-
tion of classical Greek mathematics, that caused his Royal Road to go
astray in one of those obscure labyrinths mentioned by Galileo in his
Saggiatore.
2. A New Object: Decreasing Figures

2. 1. Center of Gravity: Archimedes and Commandino
As we have seen in the previous section, the center of gravity was a
theme widely studied in the second half of the sixteenth century. In 1565,
Commandino succeeded in determining the center of gravity of the
pyramid and the cone and provided a proof for that of the paraboloid
(or “parabolic conoid”, to use the terminology of the period). However,
for the latter, Commandino (1565) had learned the result from
Archimedes’ Floating Bodies: 1 he had deduced from this text that the
center of gravity of the paraboloid must divide the axis in the ratio 1:2.
Obviously it is much easier to try to demonstrate a known result about
the center of gravity than to attempt to determine it from scratch.
Throughout the sixteenth century, no progress was made in the deter-
mination of the center of gravity of the hyperboloid (hyperbolic conoid),
the hemisphere, or the hemispheroid. 2
These solids–parabolic and hyperbolic conoids and spheroids–were
well-known to those who studied Archimedean geometry: Archimedes
dedicated a whole work to them, Conoids and Spheroids, where he
determined the ratio of the conoid or a part of a spheroid to the cylinder
circumscribed around it. For example, the parabolic conoid is half the
circumscribed cylinder, the hemispheroid is two thirds, etc. However,
he did not treat their centers of gravity in this work (see note 1 p. 71,
above). It would remain to the sixteenth-century mathematicians to
determine the centers of gravity of Archimedean solids; the first neces-
sary step in this direction was the demonstration that their centers of
gravity lie on their axes. All the material necessary for this task could
already be found in Archimedes.
In On Plane Equilibriums (hereafter PE), Archimedes demonstrates that
the center of gravity of a triangle and of a segment of a parabola lie,
1 In the same year, Commandino published his edition of Archimedes’ Floating Bodies from
the same publisher.

2 The young Galileo, too, ventured along this path, but without obtaining any valid results.
Cf. § 4.5, note 1 p. 108 below.

respectively, on the median line and on the diameter. 1 Their proofs are
based on the same idea, which we explain in the case of a triangle.
Inscribe in the triangle T a figure F composed of stepped parallelograms
centered around the median of the triangle. Then we know that:
• The center of gravity of the inscribed figure F lies on the median line.
• The remainder R = T – F may be made as small as one wishes by
making the height of the single parallelograms small enough. 2
The center of gravity of the triangle (PE, I-13).
Suppose now that the center of gravity of the whole triangle T does
not lie on the median, but at the point Q. Let R be the center of gravity
of the inscribed figure F. Since F + R = T, the center of gravity C of the
“remainder” R will lie on the prolongation of the straight line RQ, and
the proportion CQ : QR = T : R holds. As R can be arbitrarily small, (that
is to say, the ratio T : R can be arbitrarily large), and Q is a fixed point
not on the median, the point C will be “expelled” beyond the line GF as
R diminishes. But then the center of gravity of R is outside the triangle,
which is absurd. 3
For the parabola, the construction of the approximating figures is
completely different, but the basic idea of the proof, the “expulsion” of
the center of gravity of the remaining figure, is the same.
1 PE, I-13 and PE, II-4 respectively.
2 This can be shown essentially by using proposition X-1 of the Elements and the so-called
postulate of Eudoxus-Archimedes.
3 For technical details, such as the fact that P is not a fixed point, etc., see the text of
Archimedes.
The center of gravity of the segment of a parabola

in Archimedes (PE II-4).
Thus the two proofs of the On Plane Equilibriums are both based on
the same idea: to demonstrate that the center of gravity of a figure having a
diameter (or an axis) lies on the diameter, it is sufficient to construct approx-
imating figures whose centers of gravity are on the diameter.
This point was surely understood by Commandino. 1 In his Liber de
centro gravitatis he demonstrates that the center of gravity of a pyramid,
a cone, a portion of a sphere or spheroid, and a parabolic or hyperbolic
conoid lies on the axis (i.e., the straight line joining the vertex to the
center of gravity of the base). Commandino began by proving that
starting from these figures, it is possible to inscribe and circumscribe
stepped figures made of cylinders (prisms in the case of a pyramid) in
such a way that the difference between the inscribed and circumscribed
figures may be made arbitrarily small. 2
No doubt Commandino learned the technique of constructing approx-
imating figures for these solids from another work of Archimedes,
Conoids and spheroids, in particular from proposition 19, where Archimedes
constructed approximating figures for three solids to determine their
volumes: two conoids (parabolic and hyperbolic) and the spheroid.
This technique is essentially based on a procedure of the following
kind:
1 Even before Commandino, by Maurolico, probably about 1544, and definitely before 1548.
Cf. Maurolico 1685, aliter of proposition 22 of the second book of De momentis aequalibus.
However, Maurolico’s work was not widely known, and was only published in 1685. On the
extent of its circulation, see Napolitani-Sutto 2001, § 6.
2 LCG Commandino 1565, props. 10-13.
Circumscribe around, and inscribe in, the conoid or spheroid a stepped
figure made up of cylinders. The difference between the circumscribed
and inscribed figures is equal to the cylinder at the base and therefore
this difference may be arbitrarily small, for the height of each cylinder
can be made smaller than any given length. 1
The property that underlies this technique is the “monotonicity” of
the figure in question, that is to say, the fact that the sections constantly
decrease from the base to the vertex. 2
Conoids and Spheroids, prop. 19. The difference between the circumscribed and
inscribed figures is equal to the cylinder at the base.
Having thus obtained his approximating figures, Commandino goes
on to prove that the center of gravity of the cone or of the pyramid (LCG,
prop. 14) and of the parabolic conoid or of a portion of sphere or
spheroid (LCG, prop. 15) lies on the axis, practically repeating the tech-
nique that Archimedes had used for the triangle and the parabola. This
result, though not so difficult to obtain, was important, because it
created a certain link (though by means of rather muddled, tediously
repetitive proofs) between two of Archimedes’ techniques, that of ap-
proximation in Conoids and Spheroids and the one in On Plane Equilibriums
used to prove that the center of gravity lies on the axis.
It may be noted that Commandino was aware of the substantial
identity of the proof techniques, since he repeated the same procedure
1 This procedure is common to all the solid figures with “monotonicity”, and Archimedes in
fact unites the constructions for three figures in one proposition. However, Commandino
repeats this same procedure for each of the figures he considers: pyramid, cone, etc.
2 It is for this reason that the portion of the sphere or spheroid must not be greater than half.
for each of the figures treated. For example, the proof of proposition 13
(approximation of a portion of a sphere) consists of a reference to Conoids
and Spheroids, pointing out that the technique is the same as the one just
used for the cone or truncated cone (propositions 11 and 12). As for the
“expulsion” technique for the center of gravity, after using this to show
that the center of gravity of the cone and the pyramid must lie on the
axis (prop. 14), Commandino writes when he proceeds to study the
conoids and the portion of a sphere or spheroid:
The proof will be similar to the one we have given above for the cone or truncated
cone, in order to avoid useless repetitions of the same things several times. 1
However, although he realized that the proof was the same for all the
figures, he was not at all interested in formulating a general method from
the various individual proofs. He limited himself to the addition of a few
theorems to what Archimedes had already established, in the same way
(as Commandino probably thought or hoped) as Archimedes himself
might have done.
2. 2. Valerio’s Decreasing Figures

There is no doubt that the study of Commandino’s work was one of the
main sources of methodological reflection for Valerio; in fact he con-
firms this himself in the preface to De centro gravitatis solidorum. “I
started,” he affirms, “by trying to repeat Commandino’s work and to see
if I could find other proofs which might lead me not only to do better
than him, but also take me further”. 2
Methodological reflection and the tendency to generalize a proof
technique are constantly present in Valerio. In Subtilium indagationum
liber, one of his early works, he tried to propose a general study of all
convex curves, in order to achieve the squaring of the figures enclosed
by these curves. 3
1 Commandino 1565, prop. 15: “Demonstratio similis erit ei, quam supra in cono, vel coni
portione attulimus, ne toties eadem frustra iterentur.”

2 CGS, preface, p. 1-2: “Huius autem provinciae mihi suscipiendae occasio fuit liber ille iam
pridem editus Federici Commandini urbinatis ... Ego spe magis, ad quam vir ille exarserat
incitatus, quam deterritus lapsu [Commandini], vehementerque dolens geometriae partem
tamdiu desiderari cognitione dignissimam; cum ante exercitationis causa omnium quae propo-
sui solidorum [i.e., cylindri, coni, frusti conici, sphaerae et spaeroidis], excepto conoide paraboli-
co, centra gravitatis aliis viis indagassem; postea non solum parabolici, sed ante me tentata
nemini, hyperbolici conoidis, et frusti utriusque, et hemisphaerii, et hemisphaeroidis et cuiuslibet
portionis sphaerae et spaheroidis ... centra gravitatis adinveni, multa autem ex his duplici,
quaedam triplici via.”
3 As for Subtilium indagationum liber, see Napolitani 1982, pp. 10-38. An anastatic reprint of
this text, with an Italian translation, can be found at pp. 121-71.

The figure of proposition I-22 of De centro (CGS-I, p. 49).
To give an idea of the innovations introduced by Valerio, we shall cite

a relatively simple theorem, proposition 22 of the first book of CGS,
whose proof very probably derives from his methodological reflection
on Commandino’s book mentioned above:
The center of gravity of every figure circa diametrum in alteram partem deficiens lies
on the diameter. 1
We shall first explain what figures circa diametrum (and circa axim) are,
and then see how Valerio transforms Archimedean proof techniques
into his own definition of a new object of study: decreasing (in alteram
partem deficientes) figures.
We have seen that in order to prove that the center of gravity of a
plane figure with a diameter (i.e., a straight line that bisects all the chords
drawn in a given direction) or an axis (i.e., the straight line joining the
vertex of a solid figure to the center of gravity of its base) 2 lies on the
diameter or axis, it is sufficient to obtain an approximation by means of
figures whose center of gravity lies on the diameter or on the axis.
Commandino had made this point quite clear. The natural question to
ask is: “given a figure with a diameter or an axis, what properties should
one suppose in order to be able to construct the necessary approximating
figures?” We have already indicated the answer: a sufficient condition
is “monotonicity”–that is to say, the sections of the figure should
1 CGS, prop. I-22, p. 47: “Omnis figurae circa diametrum in alteram partem deficientis, in
diametro est centrum gravitatis.”

2 As we shall immediately see, Valerio gives a more precise definition of the axis; it passes
through all the centers of the sections by the planes parallel to the base(s).
constantly decrease from the base to the vertex of the figure, the point
where the diameter meets the figure itself.
Valerio had found this answer, a fact which should not be underes-
timated, for it allowed him much greater generality in his demonstration
compared with Archimedes or Commandino. But he also took another
decisive step forward. He transformed a property (monotonicity) which
allowed him to use a certain proof technique into a definition–the
definition of figures “decreasing around a diameter or an axis”–which
automatically guaranteed the existence of approximating figures:
Definition 2. A plane figure circa diametrum is a figure in which a straight line, called
the diameter of the figure, bisects all those lines parallel to a certain straight line,
whose extremities are on the figure itself. 1
Definition 7. If a solid figure can be cut by parallel planes in such a way that all the
sections have a center and are similar to one another, and if a straight line exists
which passes through the centers of the opposite bases which are parallel and
similar to the aforesaid sections (as in the cylinder), or through the vertex and the
center of the base (as in the cone, the hemisphere or the conoid), and passes
through the centers of all the aforesaid sections, [then] let it [the line] be called the
axis of that figure, and the figure itself a solid circa axim. And if the figure has only
one base or two unequal and parallel bases, and [if], of any two aforesaid sections,
the one closer to the vertex (or to the smaller base) is always the smaller, [then]
let it [the figure] be called ‘decreasing circa axim’ (circa axim in alteram partem
deficiens). 2
Having established these definitions, it is quite easy to prove a theorem
of approximation which is valid not just for several definite figures, but
for the whole class of figures that satisfy this definition. Valerio states
this in propositions I-6 and I-11:
Proposition 6. It is possible to inscribe in every figure decreasing around a diameter
(circa diametrum in alteram partem deficiens) a figure composed of parallelograms all
of equal height, and to circumscribe another, in such a way that the circumscribed
figure is greater than the inscribed figure by a smaller area than any given mag-
nitude. In similar [cases] understand [that the given magnitude is] of the same kind
[as the figures]. 3
1 CGS-I, def. 2, p. 3: “Circa diametrum est figura plana in qua recta quaedam, quae diameter
figurae dicitur, omnes rectas alicui parallelas a figura terminatas bifariam dividit”
2 CGS-I, def. 7, p. 4-5: “Si qua figura solida planis parallelis ita secari possit, ut quaecumque
sectiones centrum habeant, et sint inter se similes; aliqua autem recta linea, sive ad centra basium
oppositarum praedictis sectionibus parallelarum et similium – ut in cylindro – sive ad verticem
et centrum basis terminata – ut in cono, hemisphaerio et conoide – transeat per centra omnium
praedictarum sectionum: ea talis figurae axis nominetur; ipsa autem figura solidum circa axim.
Quae si vel unam tantum habeat basim, vel duas inaequales, et parallelas: duarum autem
quarumlibet praedictarum sectionum vertici, vel minor basi propinquior sit minor remotiori;
solidum circa axem in alteram partem deficiens nominetur.”
3 CGS-I, p. 14, prop. I-6: “Omni figurae circa diametrum in alteram partem deficienti, figura
quaedam ex parallelogrammis aequalium altitudinum inscribi potest, et altera circumscribi, ita

Proposition 11. For every solid decreasing around an axis, whose base is a circle (or
an ellipse), it is possible to inscribe a figure composed of cylinders (or portions of
a cylinder), all of equal height, and to circumscribe another figure, in such a way
that the circumscribed figure is greater than the inscribed figure by a smaller excess
than any given magnitude. 1
The proof follows the model of the proofs in Conoids and Spheroids and
those of Commandino. Once again, however, we should note Valerio’s
innovation: not only does he provide a unified proof for all that
Archimedes and Commandino had demonstrated, but he also introduc-
es a general theorem regarding a new object–decreasing figures–which
was later to play a principal role in the course of his work. Geometry
used to be concerned with only particular objects; now, for the first time,
classes of curves defined by their property are introduced.
In this manner, he can also easily prove proposition I-22 at a single
blow: every figure decreasing around a diameter has its center of gravity
on the diameter. The theory of decreasing figures introduced by defini-
tions 2 and 7 already has a small, but important corpus of theorems: a
theorem of approximation and a theorem on the position of the center
of gravity.
It may be objected that similar procedures were not totally unknown
to classical geometry; for example, Apollonius had defined the diameter
and the axis for any curve; the works of Archimedes abounds in “gen-
eral” lemmas regarding magnitudes that are not further specified. One
could also refer to the Book V of Euclid’s Elements, which (allegedly)
deals with the theory of proportion of “general” magnitudes. However,
in our opinion, the similarity is only superficial. Apollonius’ diameter of
curves or the theorems and lemmas by Euclid and Archimedes regarding
magnitudes refer to generic objects, not general ones.2 They had always
clearly in mind a few definite objects for which their statements were
intended. Valerio’s theorems (of which we have so far seen only a few
examples) refer, on the contrary, to figures that are defined by a set of
properties, and his results are offered for the purpose of building a theory
on the class of figures he has introduced.
ut circumscripta superet inscriptam minori spacio quantacumque magnitudine proposita. Sem-

per autem in similibus intellige, eiusdem generis.”
1 CGS-I, p. 26, prop. I-11: “Omni solido circa axim in alteram partem deficienti, cuius basis
sit circulus vel ellypsis, figura quaedam ex cylindris vel cylindri portionibus aequalium altitudi-
num inscribi potest et altera circumscribi, ita ut circumscripta superet inscriptam minori excessu
quacumque magnitudine proposita.”
2 For Book V of the Elements, see our discussion below at the end of § 3.
2. 3. A Royal Road in Need of Maintenance Work?

The reader may have noticed that while we spoke of figures “decreasing
around a diameter”, definition 2 of De centro does not contain any
mention of the property of monotonicity. As we have seen, the property
is included in definition 7, regarding figures circa axim, but you will
search in vain for an explicit definition of the figures “circa diametrum in
alteram partem deficientes.” This appears for the first time in the statement
of proposition 6. One might think this is just a slip in exposition, or even
due to some error that occurred during printing, for this is obviously a
key concept which cannot be omitted. The history of the publication of
De centro outlined in § 1.4 could easily account for this absence. Anyway,
this does not create a very good impression. Right at the beginning of
the Royal Road there is a pothole that is a bit too visible. And unfor-
tunately, we will find several more potholes and puddles, even bigger
and dirtier than this one, as we go on.
The reader may also have noticed, for example, that proposition I-22
only speaks of plane figures, decreasing around a diameter. And what
about solid figures decreasing around an axis? The parallel proposition
is stated in its corollary:
I-22, Corollary. From this theorem it follows that if we take a plane or solid figure
with a border whose concavity is wholly directed inwards (cuius termini omnis
cavitas sit interior 1) – its center of gravity will consequently lie inside its border – such
that some part of it, falling short of the whole figure by a smaller shortfall than
any given magnitude, has its the center of gravity on a certain straight line situated
inside the border of the figure, then the center of gravity of the whole figure will
lie on this straight line.
And because (from proposition 11 of this book), in every solid decreasing around
an axis, and having a circle or an ellipse as its base, it is possible to inscribe a figure
composed of cylinders or portions of cylinders, falling short of the aforesaid [whole]
solid by smaller volume than any given magnitude; and the center of gravity of
such an inscribed figure, as well as [that of] circumscribed, is on the axis as will
be clear from the following propositions (maybe this is clear even now for the
thoughtful), it is manifest that the center of gravity of every solid decreasing around
an axis lies on the axis. 2
Again, we find a curious situation. A key theorem regarding decreasing
1 On the concept of cava or cavitas interior in Valerio, cf. Napolitani 1982, pp. 29-30.
2 CGS-I, p. 49, prop. I-22, coroll.: “Ex huius theorematis demonstratione constat omnis figurae
planae, sive solidae, cuius termini omnis cavitas sit interior (atque ideo intra terminum centrum
gravitatis) et cuius pars aliqua esse possit quae, a tota figura deficiens minori defectu quacumque
magnitudine proposita, habeat centrum gravitatis in aliqua certa linea recta intra terminum
figurae constituta, esse in ea recta linea totius figurae centrum gravitatis. Ac proinde, cum per
undecimam huius omni solido circa axim in alteram partem deficienti, et basim habenti circu-
lum, vel ellypsim, figura inscribi possit ex cylindris, vel cylindri portionibus, a praedicto solido
solids is not proved, and the mention of a proof refers us to subsequent
theorems – with a certain attitude of intimidation towards the reader
(“maybe this is clear even now for the thoughtful”). But worse follows.
The corollary mentions an even more general theorem, regarding figures
that have “a border whose concavity is wholly directed inwards”. One
would search for a definition of this term in vain. Those who want to
find something must turn either to Valerio’s Subtilium Indagationum
Liber, or to Archimedes’ Sphere and the Cylinder. What Valerio seems to
mean is that the border of the figure must be convex. Even admitting
this interpretation, however, the proof of the first part of this corollary
(on which that of the decreasing solids depends) does not appear to be
simple at all.
The most disturbing aspect here is the introduction of the concept of
convexity. Among the solids circa axim in alteram partem deficientes Vale-
rio also includes those solids which are subsequently called “bowls”:1
that is to say, solids with a hole inside, created in such a way that the
sections by planes parallel to the base are figures contained by two
concentric figures, for example by two circles.
The most famous example of this kind of figure is the well-known
bowl of Valerio and Galileo, which Valerio uses to investigate the
volume and the center of gravity of the hemisphere, and which Galileo
quotes in his Discorsi of 1638: a cylinder from which the inscribed
hemisphere is detached (see § 5.3, below). Valerio makes frequent use
of such bowls in the second and third books of De centro, applying
corollary I-22 to them, without worrying, however, about the fact that
his bowls are not convex, by definition.
Anticipating our discussion, we may observe that the motivation for
which Valerio included these strange solids in the class of decreasing
figures comes from their quantitative properties (and to be more precise,
deficiens minori spacio quacumque magnitudine proposita: talis autem figurae inscriptae, que-
madmodum et circumscriptae centrum gravitatis sit in axe, ut ex sequentibus patebit (et nunc,
cogitanti, facile patere potest), manifestum est omnis solidi circa axim in alteram partem
deficientis centrum gravitatis esse in axe.”
1 The second part of definition 7 (which we omitted previously) says:
«And by this name we mean also those solids whose sections parallel to the base are – though
not perfectly similar to the base – lacking those figures that are similar to the base and similar
to those whole figures from which it is understood that they [lacking figures] are detached, such
that the whole figure and the detached figure have a common center on a straight line
terminating at the center of the base; let this [line] be called the axis of the solid». (CGS-1, p. 5:
“Quo nomine significari etiam volumus ea solida, quorum quaelibet sectiones basi parallelae
quamvis basi non sint omnino similes, tamen iis figuris deficiunt quae sunt similes basi, ac totis
iis, a quibus ipsae ablatae intelliguntur, ita ut tota figura et ablata habeant commune centrum
in una recta linea ad centrum basis terminata, quae et ipsa talis solidi axis nominetur.”)
A “bowl”. The solid CED has been detached from the cylinder ABCD, with which
it has the axis EF in common. The plane GH, which passes through a point I cuts
two concentric circles from the two solids, and the section of the bowl is the circular
corona GKLH (CGS, I-def.7, p. 5).
from the proportion between the areas of the sections generated by the
planes parallel to the base) and not from their form (convexity or concav-
ity). However, he continued to use classical language, which is primarily
oriented to figures, and not directly to the quantities themselves. We shall
later see that it was this discrepancy between Valerio’s adherence to the
language of classical geometry and the techniques he employed–which
basically take into consideration only quantitative aspects–that made his
Royal Road so tortuous and, in the end, almost impracticable.
As we said in the beginning, it is not our intention to carry out a
profound analysis of the De centro, much less for its first book. But some
other bizarre characteristics are worth mention; for example, the strange
way in which Valerio deals with the triangle and the pyramid.
According to the definitions he gives, the triangle is a figure decreasing
around a diameter (the median). One would therefore expect him to
discuss the center of gravity of the triangle using I-22. Among other
things, the figure in the diagram of this proposition there is actually a
triangle, and the archetype of the proof is based on Archimedes’ proof
for the triangle (see § 2.1). And yet, ne verbum quidem. The proof of the
center of gravity of a triangle is presented in a most ingenious manner,
with acute observations about certain procedures used by Archimedes.
But it seems to have escaped Valerio’s notice that the triangle would
have fallen in the group for which he was developing general theorems.
Even more curious is the case of the pyramid, for which Valerio
excogitated a highly ingenious proof, decomposing the pyramid infin-
itesimally into a sort of Sierpinski’s sponge ante litteram. 1 But in this case
1 An exhaustive analysis of this proposition is in Passalacqua 1991, pp. 30-36.
again, he could easily have proceeded by a general route: it would have
been sufficient to include it among the solids decreasing around an axis
(though definition 7 does not take this into account).
We may imagine a large number of reasons that could account for
these incongruities: from biographical factors, to the situation in the
publication of De centro, to the desire to publish brilliant, ingenious
proofs which would have been obscured by a proof that used a general
method. But we do not embark on a thoroughgoing survey of these and
other possibilities. Suffice it for the time being to have indicated some
instances of the mixture between those two contradictory aspects in
Valerio’s œuvre mentioned at the end of the introduction: on the one
hand, a new methodological approach and the introduction of a new
mathematical object (decreasing figures), and on the other, the survival
of ad hoc proofs, obscurity of exposition, and logical difficulties in the
arrangement of arguments. Suffice it, above all, because we are now
about to enter one of the principal lanes of the Royal Road – the first
three propositions of the second book and their applications.
3. The Invention of the Method of Exhaustion

3. Valerio’s General Theorems
We saw in the preceding section that Valerio introduced the class of
“decreasing figures” and that he proved some general theorems for this
class of figures; in particular, we examined proposition I-22 of De centro.
In this section we shall discuss the first three propositions of the second
book, those which Valerio himself indicated as one of his main contri-
butions (cf. § 1.3, note 2 p. 71); while in the following section we shall
discuss proposition II-32, which shows the essence of his method of
determining the centers of gravity of “Archimedean” solids.
Modern studies, from Bosmans (1913) to Maracchia (1992), have
always tended to see, in these three propositions, an anticipation not
only of the concept of limit, but even of the theorem that the limit of
a ratio is equal to the ratio of the limits. It should be emphasized, first
of all, that all these studies have concentrated almost exclusively on
these propositions, avoiding an overall reading of Valerio’s text, and thus
making a paradoxical situation: there does not exist any work yet which
deals with how the centers of gravity of solids are determined in De centro
gravitatis solidorum. As has been pointed out,1 this has led scholars to
1 Cf. Napolitani 1982, in particular pp. 76-80.

place Valerio’s work in a completely distorted historical perspective.
Detached from the context of the determination of centers of gravity of
solids, one of the most profitable and popular research problems of his
period, Valerio has been turned into a precursor of some of the concepts
of infinitesimal calculus.
Moreover, the substantial decontextualisation of the first three prop-
ositions of the second book has favored a partial, prejudiced reading of
Valerio. In order to avoid this risk, we shall start our examination of
Valerio’s theorems from their use in the course of his own work, trying
to understand their significance in the original context in which their
author conceived them.
3. 2. An Example: the Volume of the Truncated Cone

Let us now consider an example of the application of his general the-
orems. In book III of De centro (proposition III 10), Valerio determines
the volume –as we would call it today–of a truncated cone. More
precisely, in this proposition Valerio obtains the ratio of the circum-
scribed cylinder to the truncated cone in the following way.
Let ABCD (T ) be a truncated cone, of which CD=a is the diameter
of the circle of the greater base, and AB=CF=b that of the smaller base.
Let CG (C ) be a cylinder with a base circle of diameter CD = a, and the
same height DG as the truncated cone.
In algebraic notation, Valerio’s result corresponds to: 1
1
T : C =ab+ (a–b)2 :a2.
3
The volume of the truncated cone (CGS-III, p. 15).
1 Proposition III-10 also contains the cases where the bases are ellipses instead of circles. In
In order to demonstrate this proposition, Valerio first proves that a
similar relationship also holds between a truncated triangular pyramid
and the prism circumscribing it (prop. III-9); he then extends it to a
truncated pyramid with any polygonal base, and lastly, he goes on to
show that this relationship continues to hold also for the truncated cones
and cylinders circumscribing them. It is only in this last stage that II-3
is used, one of the propositions constituting the Royal Road.
Let us now examine this stretch of the Royal Road step by step. In
proposition III-9, similar triangles DEF and ABC are the greater and the
smaller bases of the truncated pyramid, respectively. Let the truncated
pyramid ABC-DEF be T3 and the circumscribed prism DEF-HKC be P3 ;
we will have (making x=DE and y=AB): 1
1
T3 : P3 =xy + (x–y)2 :x2.
3
The corollary of proposition III-9 extends the results to the truncated
pyramids and their circumscribed prisms in general:
1
Tn : Pn =xy + (x–y)2 :x2.
3
this case the cylinder is called ‘portion of cylinder’. Here we shall deal only with the case of circles,
for the sake of simplicity. In the original text, the ekthesis runs like this:
I say that the truncated [cone] AD is to the cylinder or to the cylindrical portion CG, as the
rectangle DCF together with the third part of the square on DF is to the square on CD. (“Dico
frustum AD ad cylindrum, vel portionem cylindricam CG, esse ut rectangulum DCF una cum
tertia parte quadrati DF, ad quadratum CD.” CGS-III, p. 15.
1 CGS-3, p. 11: “Dico frustum BDF ad prisma HKF esse ut rectangulum DEG una cum tertia
parte quadrati DG ad quadratum DE”. We limit ourselves to a brief sketch of the complex proof
of this theorem, which is based on standard techniques of the theory of proportions and on the
decomposition and recomposition of solids. Valerio constructs the triangle GEL, which is
congruent to the triangle ABC, and decomposes the circumscribed prism P3 DEF-HKC into the
following three prisms:
P3,1 : prism HNA-DGM
P3,2 : prism ABC-GEL
P3,3 : prism AGM-CLF
Then P3,3 is equal to a prism P3,4 with the base GML and the height AM (i.e., the same height
as the other prisms). Furthermore, from the similarity of the base,
P3,1 : P3 = DG2 : DE2 = (x – y)2 : x2
P3,2 : P3 = GE2 : DE2 = y2 : x2.
Then, from the equality DEF = DGM + EGL + 2GML we obtain:
P3,4 : P3 = DG · DE2 = (x – y)y : x2.
1
As the truncated prism T3 is equal to P + P3,2 + P3,3, it follows that:
3 3,1
T3 : P3 = (x – y)2 + y2 + (x – y)y : x2 = xy + 1 (x – y)2 : x2.
1
3 3
Proposition III-9 (CGS-3, p. 11).
where x, y always represent two corresponding sides in the bases of the

truncated pyramid.
Proposition III-10 finally considers the truncated cone T and the cir-
cumscribed cylinder C ; in the truncated cone T, a truncated pyramid
Tn (with base a regular n-gon) is inscribed, and in the cylinder C, a prism
Pn having similar base as that of Tn. The ratio Tn : Pn is known from the
corollary to III-9. The ratio of the corresponding sides x:y is the same
as the ratio of the diameters of the bases of the truncated cone a:b.
Substituting x, y in the corollary to III-9 with a, b, we have
1
Tn : Pn =ab+ (a–b)2 :a2.
3
If we make n sufficiently large, the differences between the truncated
cone and the truncated pyramid inscribed in it (T – Tn), and between the
cylinder and prism (C – Pn) can be made smaller than any given quantity.
As Valerio says:
And both are smaller by less volume (spacio) than any assigned magnitude: the
truncated pyramid inscribed in the truncated [cone] CB than the truncated [cone]
CB, and the prism inscribed in [the cone] CG than [the cone] CG. 1
Given these conditions, the normal method of proof in classical Greek
mathematics would consist of showing that the ratio T : C cannot be
either larger or smaller than ab+ 13 (a–b)2 :a2, by using reductio ad absur-
dum twice. This is the method followed, for example, by Euclid in Book
XII of the Elements to demonstrate that the cone is one third of the
1 CGS-3, p. 17: “Deficit autem utrumque et pyramidis frustum frusto CB inscriptum ab ipso
CB frusto, et prisma ipsi CG inscriptum ab ipso CG, minori spacio quantacunque proposita
magnitudine”.
cylinder of the same base and height (Elements, XII-10), or that two circles
are in the same ratio as the squares on their diameters (Elements, XII-2).
Valerio, however, has no need of this. It is sufficient for him at this
point to quote proposition 2 of the second book:
Through the third proposition of this book [! it should be: “the second of the second
book”] the rectangle [contained by] DC, CF together with the third part of the
square on DF will be to the square on CD, as the truncated [cone] CB to the cylinder
or to the portion of cylinder CG. 1
Thus a proposition which would have required recourse to double
reductio ad absurdum in Euclid and Archimedes (and also in Commandino
and other Renaissance scholars), is proved by a single reference to
Valerio’s general theorem. Le us now examine this proposition and two
others in detail.
3. 3. The First Three Propositions of Book II of De Centro:

An Uniform Method
Proposition II-2, which Valerio invokes to conclude his theorem, is a
generalization of the typical argument of a double reductio ad absurdum
used in classical mathematics. It can be summarized as follows:
Let four magnitudes be given, A, B, C and D; and two other magnitudes, E and F,
which respectively exceed A and B by an excess smaller than any assigned magni-
1 “Per tertiam igitur huius [!], erit ut rectangulum DCF una cum tertia parte quadrati DF ad
CD quadratum ita frustum CB ad cylindrum, vel portionem cylindricam CG.” CGS-III, p. 17.
Note that proposition II-2 of CGS is erroneously quoted as “tertiam huius”, one of the many
indications of a hasty publication, not carefully checked by Valerio. At the end of proposition
II-3, Valerio adds:
«But this proposition did not exist in the few copies which I gave to some people as a gift;
for I elaborated it afterwards, so that the second [proposition] here, in those [copies’] third [proposition],
could be used more easily in those cases where the name of a ratio would have been obscured
by indicating the third and fourth term... Thus the lemma, which was the first proposition, is
no longer necessary for me.”» (“Haec autem propositio in paucis exemplaribus quae dono
quibusdam dederam non extat: posterius enim eam excogitavi, quo secunda antecedens hic, in illis
tertia, facilius serviret iis quibus certae proportionis nomen tertium et quartum terminum
subobscure indicat... Illo autem lemmate, quod prima propositione inscribebatur, nunc ita non
egeo.” Italics ours. CGS-2, pp. 7-8.)
The present proposition II-3, therefore, did not exist initially, and the present proposition II-
2 was numbered as II-3. Furthermore, in the copies he “gave to some people as a gift”, the third
book probably did not exist, either: in fact, at the end of the second book in the extant version,
Valerio explains that he had written it during the month of October 1603 at the request of
Clement VIII and Cardinal Pietro Aldobrandini (CGS-II pp. 91-92). In the extant printed version,
proposition II-3 refers to the case in which two “approximating” magnitudes have a named ratio,
such as 3/2 or any other numerical ratio. Here in the proposition III-17, on the contrary, it is
a ratio between magnitudes (that of a certain area to a square) that is at issue. The proposition
referred to must therefore be proposition II-2 of the extant version, and this error gives us
tude of the same kind as A and B; and let E : F=C : D (E > A, F > B). I say that
A : B = C : D. 1
In the case of proposition III-10, the magnitudes A, B are respectively the
truncated cone and the cylinder circumscribed around it; C corresponds
to ab+ 13 (a–b)2 and D to a2. The magnitudes E and F (in this case smaller
than A and B by a quantity less than any given magnitude) are an
appropriate truncated pyramid (E= Pn) inscribed in the truncated cone
and an appropriate prism ( F= Tn) inscribed in the cylinder.
Valerio gives two proofs of this theorem. The first refers back to
proposition II-1, which differs from II-2 only in that the “constant” ratio
is E:B=F:D, from which he deduces that A:B=C:D.2 We will briefly
illustrate the second (alternative) demonstration. If A:B=C:D does not
hold, then A:B must be either greater or smaller than C:D. Let it be
greater, and let X be a magnitude such that: 3
C: D=A: X
with X > B. Now, from the premise of the proposition, one can take E,
F such that E > A, X > F > B and E:F=C:D. It follows that E:F=A:X,
then alternately (Elements, V-16), E:A=F:X. As E is greater than A, F also
must be greater than X. But F was smaller than X, which is absurd. The
other cases (that the ratio A:B is smaller than C:D or that the magnitudes
E, F are respectively smaller than A and B) are dealt with similarly.
The reader who knows Book XII of the Elements or the work of
Archimedes will recognize a well-known proof technique here. There
is no substantial difference in the proof between this proposition of
interesting information about the genesis of De centro. Unfortunately, no copy of the previous
version has been found. For further information, cf. (Baldini-Napolitani 1991), §§, 2.5-2.6.
1 CGS-2, pp. 4-5: “Propositio II. Si maior, vel minor prima ad una maiorem, vel minorem
secunda, minori utriusque excessu, vel defectu quantacumque magnitudine proposita fuerit ut
tertia ad quartam, erit ut prima ad secundam, ita tertia ad quartam.
Sint quatuor magnitudines A prima, B secunda, C tertia et D quarta; et aliae duae magnitu-
dines E, F una maiores quam A, B minori excessu quantacunque magnitudine proposita eiusdem
generis cum ipsis A, B. Sit autem E maior quam A ad F maior quam B, ut C ad D. Dico esse
A ad B, ut C ad D.”
We have supplied a translation only of the ekthesis, given the extremely elliptic nature of
Valerio’s protasis. Note, however, that the ekthesis is enunciated only for the case in which the
magnitudes E and F are greater than A and B; at the end of the proposition Valerio adds “we
would similarly prove the same if E, F, be set smaller than A, B and proportional as stated” “(idem
autem similiter ostenderemus positis E, F minoribus A, B et proportionalibus ut dictum est)”.
2 In Valerio’s proof of II-1 the lettering is different, for E, F designate other magnitudes in the
proof.
3 We have changed the letters used by Valerio to maintain a uniformity of lettering.
Valerio and the many examples of a double reductio ad absurdum in Euclid
or in Archimedes. 1 From this point of view, there is nothing new in
Valerio’s proof. And there is nothing new, either, in proposition II-3,
which is substantially identical to proposition II-2, except for the fact that
the ratio C:D is substituted by a “named ratio” (nominata proportio): a
ratio that can be expressed in numbers.
Where is the innovation, then? It seems to us that it is in the gener-
alization of a proof technique, transforming it into a uniform method. The
first three propositions of the second book, taken together, make it
possible to deal automatically with all those cases in Greek geometry
where complicated arguments of double reductio ad absurdum was re-
quired to get desired conclusions from the existence of in/circumscribed
figures satisfying certain conditions. Valerio’s method may be summa-
rized in the following terms:
Given two magnitudes A and B, if it is possible to determine the magnitudes E and
F which approximate to A and B respectively, such that the ratio E : F remains
constant, then the ratio A : B will also be the same as the ratio E : F.
Valerio makes a wide use of this principle in De centro: the most famous
case is the determination of the ratio between the sphere and the
circumscribed cylinder (CGS, II-12), praised by Galileo in the “First Day”
of his Two New Sciences (Discorsi intorno a due nuove scienze) published in
1638 and mentioned in almost all subsequent literature. 2 But the cases
of the paraboloid (II-17) and other figures could also be quoted.
As we mentioned in the beginning, modern studies have seen here an
anticipation of the concept of limit, or even a statement of a property
of limit. We rather believe that these propositions of Valerio constitute
the invention of the method that was subsequently called the method
of exhaustion. We have already pointed out in the introduction that,
strictly speaking, we cannot talk about the existence of the method of
exhaustion in Greek mathematics. It is true that similar proof tech-
niques, based on essentially common principles, repeatedly appear in
Euclid and in Archimedes. But these techniques are hardly ever identical.
For example, in proposition XII-2, in order to prove that the ratio
between circles is the same as the ratio of the squares on their radii,
Euclid refers only to their inscribed polygons, whereas in his Measure-
ment of Circle, Archimedes uses both inscribed and circumscribed poly-
gons to prove that the circle is equal to the right-angled triangle with
1 Maracchia illustrates this point very clearly: one of the proofs of proposition II-1 is practically
identical to a part of proposition XII-2 of the Elements. Cf. Maracchia 1992, pp. 274-5.
2 Galileo 1968, VIII, p. 76.
the rectified circumference as its base and the radius as its height. Even
the basic principles are not defined univocally and precisely: Euclid’s
definition in Book V, stating that “magnitudes are said to have a ratio to
one another which are capable, when multiplied, of exceeding one
another” is one matter, but the lemma that Archimedes uses to construct
his approximating magnitudes is quite another.
It may be objected that these are only slight differences, which should
not be exaggerated. However, the really important point is that the
technique to compare areas and solids figures did not belong to an
explicitly formulated theory; it was but a kind of “art”, or “know-how”–
a sort of meta-theorem. The fact is rather that in the corpus of Greek
geometry the Renaissance received from the ancient world, there was
nothing like a method to deal with ratios between the straight and the
curved–a clear, uniform method, based on well-defined principles. Thus
it was one of the challenging tasks for mathematicians of the sixteenth
century to discover the common characteristics in various theorems in
Greek mathematics dealing with quadratures and cubatures. Moreover,
even after such common characteristics had been found, there remained
to be taken the decisive step to unite them into a general principle of
demonstration. The case of Commandino we discussed in the previous
section is instructive to us. What appears to us trivial today, was not so
at all for the geometers around the end of the sixteenth century.
It was Valerio who achieved this step: he raised a series of proof
techniques to the level of a method, which, from Grégoire de Saint
Vincent on, was to be called the method of exhaustion. This seems to
be the characterization that best defines Valerio’s contribution and
locates it in the right context of the history of mathematics. It is to be
emphasized that his method was developed in the framework of the
classical theory of proportion, of which it represents a sort of improve-
ment.
It should not be forgotten that the first three theorems of the second
book should be understood exactly as the general theorems of Book V
of the Elements. There, Euclid had established a whole series of possible
manipulations of ratios and proportions of magnitudes: permutando (or
alternately, V-14), componendo (V-18), ex aequali (V-22), etc. However,
these theorems were not intended to establish a set of operations for
abstract “magnitudes”; they do not form something like the algebra we
possess today. Euclid’s set of theorems was intended to enable necessary
manipulations for ratios and proportions concerning geometric figures. 1
1 For further discussion cf. Saito 2003.
In the language of Greek geometry, every time there is a need to deduce
one proportion from another, one of these manipulations is referred to.
In particular, in highly complex cases, an appropriate series of lemmas
placed at the beginning of a work–as is the case with various writings
by Archimedes–serves to provide a transformation which, if proved in
the course of a theorem, would distort the lines of the proof and confuse
the readers.
We believe that the same analysis can be applied to Valerio’s general
theorems. In the economy of his work, they come to act as “general
lemmas” to be quoted when they become necessary. In other words,
they cannot be interpreted separately from their application, whether
this may be the ratio of the truncated cone to the circumscribed cylinder
or that of the paraboloid to the cone inscribed in it. If these “general
theorems” appear to convey the concept of limit, this may simply mean
that we already know this concept.
It is not our desire here to embark on a long discussion of the foregoing
studies that have seen Valerio as a precursor of concepts of calculus and
analysis. We will limit ourselves to the remark that we do not believe
that the contribution of Valerio can in any way be seen as a development
of a theory that would enable an effective calculation with limits,
understood in the modern sense. His contribution remains within the
classical paradigm, even if it represents an essential contribution to this
paradigm: a general method that makes treatment of the problems of
quadrature and cubature easier and uniform. Rather than a precursor
of limits, Valerio is the inventor of the method of exhaustion.
4. The Method for the Determination

of Centers of Gravity
4. 1. A General Theorem for Centers of Gravity of Decreasing Figures
We have seen how Valerio introduced the two classes of figures circa
axim and circa diametrum, transforming particular properties of certain
figures–the properties which Archimedes and Commandino had used
for their demonstration– into a definition.
If Valerio had stopped at this point–that is, at a re-demonstration of
results already known for particular cases in a general manner–then his
work would not be particularly significant. He would not have added
anything new to existing mathematical knowledge, because the “de-
creasing figures” known at that time were essentially only those solids
and plane figures already studied by Archimedes and his follower,
Commandino; Valerio’s contribution to geometry would have been
purely nominal. Many problems related to the geometry of measure
undoubtedly would have been presented and resolved in a better-
organized manner, but the introduction of general objects would not
have led to any real progress of mathematical knowledge.
This was not the case, however. Valerio’s decreasing figures were not
just a useful label that allowed him to express many known results in
a few theorems. They were also a tool for invention and discovery.
Propositions II-25 to 32 of De centro aim to establish a general method
for the determination of centers of gravity of a particular class of
decreasing figures satisfying certain conditions. This series of theorems
culminates in proposition II-32, in which Valerio proves that if two
figures decreasing around the same axis or diameter (one of which may
well be a solid circa axim, and the other a plane figure circa diametrum,
as Valerio underlines), always have proportional sections when they are
cut by any two planes parallel to the base, then they have the same center
of gravity:
If the bases and any sections which we mentioned [i.e., parallel to the bases] of the
two aforesaid figures around a common axis or diameter (or one [around] a
diameter, the other [around] an axis), are proportional taken two by two, [then]
the center of gravity of both will be the same point on the diameter or on the axis. 1
With this result, Valerio has gone beyond what was known in the corpus
of Archimedean mathematics available in his times. Proposition II-32 of
De centro represents an important result concerning the object that he
has introduced (decreasing figures) and, at the same time, an instrument
to investigate new results: in particular, the determination of the center
of gravity of the hemisphere and, above all, of the hyperboloid.
We will start our examination again with an application of this theo-
rem: the determination of the center of gravity of the paraboloid. This
is a paradigmatic case of the application of the theorem II-32, and prob-
ably gave origin to the theorem itself. Maybe the reader has noticed,
however, that in his statement of prop. 32, Valerio refers to certain
“aforesaid figures” ( praedictae figurae). In fact, Valerio’s theorem is not
universal: he could prove it only for a particular sub-class of decreasing
figures. We shall therefore briefly outline the route which led Valerio to
define this sub-class, and the essence of his proof of II-32.
1 CGS-2, p. 53: “Propositio XXXII. Si duarum praedictarum figurarum circa communem axim,
vel diametrum (vel alterius diametrum, alterius axim), bases et quotcumque sectiones quales
diximus, binae in eodem plano fuerint proportionales; idem punctum in diametro, vel axe erit
utriusque centrum gravitatis.”
4. 2. The Center of Gravity of the Paraboloid

Let us consider a triangle and a paraboloid (parabolic conoid). In the
figure, the triangle ABC indicates the triangle itself, while the parabola
ABC indicates the paraboloid, the solid generated by rotating the parab-
ola ABC around its diameter BD. We already know (prop. I-22) that the
center of gravity of the triangle is situated on the median, and that of
the paraboloid is on its axis, and therefore both lie on the same straight
line BD.
The center of gravity of the parabolic conoid (CGS-2 p. 75).
Now let the triangle and the paraboloid be cut by two planes parallel
to the base of the paraboloid: the sections of the triangle will be d1 =NP and
d2 =GK, and the corresponding sections of the paraboloid will be S1 and
S2, the circles MQ and FL, respectively. It is easy to verify that 1
S1 :S2 =NP : GK =d1 :d2.
Now it would be easy to conclude from this proportionality between the
sections that the centers of gravity of the paraboloid and the triangle
must coincide. In fact, if one considers stepped approximating figures to
both the triangle and the paraboloid (made of parallelograms and cyl-
inders, respectively), the proportionality of the sections guarantees that
the centers of gravity of both approximating figures must coincide, and
consequently, it is possible, by means of the standard techniques of
1 The circles S and S are to each other as the squares of their radii (Elements, XII-2), and the
1 2
radii are the ordinates of the parabola MQ and FL, so that those squares are to each other as
the abscissae BO and BH (Conics, I-20). From the similarity of the triangles NBP and GBK it
follows that BO is to BH as NP is to GK. Therefore, S1 : S2 = NP : GK = d1 : d2.
double reductio ad absurdum, to deduce that the centers of gravity of the
triangle and the paraboloid must coincide, too.
This is what Maurolico had done. 1 Around 1565, he discovered that
it was possible to deduce, from the proportionality of the sections of the
triangle and of the paraboloid, the coincidence of their centers of grav-
ity; and since the center of gravity of the triangle is known, that of the
paraboloid can be determined. The center of the triangle is situated at
1 of the axis; in modern terms, it would be sufficient to show that the
3
sequence of the centers of gravity of the approximating figures of the
paraboloid “converges” at this point. Maurolico demonstrated that the
sequence of the centers of gravity of the inscribed (or circumscribed)
approximating figures is monotonic, and that the point situated at 13 of
the axis represents the upper (or lower) limit of this sequence, by
showing that the distance between the center of gravity of the approx-
imating figure and this point is 61 of the height of the individual cylin-
ders that make up the approximating figure (parallelograms in the
approximating figure for the triangle). Of course, this proof of “conver-
gence” depends heavily on the fact that the center of gravity of the
approximating figure for a triangle (or paraboloid) can easily be deter-
mined, which in turn depends on the specific property of the triangle
(or paraboloid): the in/circumscribed parallelograms (or cylinders) form
an arithmetic progression. It is not easy, however, to generalize a proof
of this kind.
Galileo, too, in his Theoremata de centro gravitatis solidorum written in
1587-88, followed a similar procedure, although the connection between
the triangle and the paraboloid was much less explicit. 2
Thus the fact that the triangle and paraboloid have the same center
of gravity was not an absolute novelty in Valerio’s time. 3 In any case,
the central concern of our investigation is not so much whether he knew
about these results a priori or discovered them in the course of his own
research, but rather that from this topic he developed a theory and a
completely new method for the determination of centers of gravity.
Valerio’s fundamental idea can be summarized as follows:
1 For a detailed analysis of the works of Maurolico on this subject, cf. Napolitani- Sutto 2001.
2 Galileo’s Theoremata was published in 1638 as an “Appendix” to his Two New Sciences. In Le
Opere di Galileo Galilei, the Edizione Nazionale by A. Favaro, they are placed in Volume I, pp.
179-208, following the chronological order of their composition.
3 As for the hypotheses concerning the problem of whether Valerio knew the works of
Maurolico on this subject, see Napolitani-Sutto 2001, § 7.

To find the center of gravity of a decreasing figure F1, find another figure F2 such
that the sections of F1 and F2 are proportional. Then, the center of gravity of F1 will
coincide with that of F2.
This is a recognition of a general theorem about the centers of gravity
of decreasing figures, that gave rise to theorem II-32 of CGS. However,
attempting to apply this theorem presents an immediate difficulty. In the
case of the paraboloid, it is relatively easy–by making use of the prop-
erties that characterize a parabola–to demonstrate the convergence of
the sequence of centers of gravity of approximating figures at the center
of gravity of the paraboloid. Furthermore, it is possible to reach this
result from a precise calculation of the distance between the center of
gravity of the approximating figures and a point which a posteriori must
be the center of gravity of the paraboloid.
But in general cases, the point of convergence is not determined,
either a priori or a posteriori, nor is it possible to trace precisely the
behavior of the sequence of centers of gravity of the approximating
figures. The problem was by no means easy for Valerio, all the more
because it was presented in the framework of classical mathematics;
using the language of the theory of proportion, a direct approach was
challenging, if not altogether impossible. We shall now try to illustrate
how Valerio succeeded in working out his solution.
4. 3. The Material to Start With

Even if we have just used modern terms like “convergence”, “sequence”
and others (and, for the sake of clarity and simplicity of our exposition,
we shall continue to do so), it is worth remembering that there is nothing
even remotely similar to our concept of convergence of a sequence in
the language of the theory of proportion. At any rate, there is nothing
formalized or codified in a doctrinal corpus that makes it possible to face
the problem of how the centers of gravity of approximating figures
approach that of the approximated figure. Indeed, as we have tried to
show in § 3, some of Valerio’s results can be seen as the first attempt
to formalize and codify the know-how by which the Greeks evaluated
areas and volumes, which we today call the “method of exhaustion”.
In order to understand the significance of the problem Valerio was
facing, it is well to turn to the work of his predecessors: Commandino
and Archimedes. We have already seen that some of Valerio’s general
theorems–in particular theorem I-22 (cf. § 2)–derive from proof tech-
niques already known to them. In the present case, what material was
provided to Valerio from his predecessors?
Let us start with Commandino, who was undoubtedly one of his
sources of inspiration. In the preface to his De centro Valerio states that
he took the opportunity to set right Commandino, who, after finding
the center of gravity of various solids, had ruined his work on the
parabolic conoid “due to a flaw in his reasoning (syllogismi iactura)”. 1
Commandino deals with the proof of the center of gravity of the
parabolic conoid at the end of his treatise, in propositions 28 and 29. In
prop. 28, he wants to prove that it is possible to in/circumscribe a
stepped figure approximating a paraboloid in such a way that the center
of gravity of the approximating figure is as close as desired to the center
of gravity of the paraboloid. 2
Commandino’s proposition 28 (LCG c. 41r)
His proof is as follows. Let P be the parabolic conoid with vertex b, on

whose axis its center of gravity e is situated. Let a length g be fixed, and
let H (h, in the figure) be a solid such that eb: g= P : H. Let an approx-
imating figure C be circumscribed in such a way that C – P < H , and let
k be its center of gravity. We want to prove that ek < g. As Commandino
says, let us suppose ab absurdo that ek ≥ g. Then, because
C P eb
> =
C −P H g
and by assumption that ek ≥ g,
1 CGS, Introduction: “Huius autem provinciae suscipiendi occasio fuit liber ille iam pridem
editus Federici Commandini ... [in quo] cilyndri, et coni, et frusti conici centrum gravitatis
ostendisset ... conoide parabolico tentato syllogismi iactura operam perdidisset.”
2 Commandino 1565, pp. 40v-41r: “Data quaelibet portione conoidis rectanguli, abscissa plano
ad axem recto, vel non recto, fieri potest, ut portio solida inscribatur vel circumscribatur ex
cylindris, vel cylindris portionibus, aequalem habentis altitudinem, ita ut recta linea, quae inter
centrum gravitatis portionis et figurae inscriptae, vel circumscriptae interiicitur, sit minor
quaelibet recta linea proposita.”
eb eb
≥ ,
g ek
it follows that
C eb
> .
C −P ek
From this, separando, we have:
C − (C − P ) P eb − ek
= > .
C −P C −P ek
Commandino at this point tacitly supposes that the point k is situated
above e and therefore eb > ek, so that eb − ek = kb :
P kb
> .
C −P ek
Then it is easy to conclude: let a length x be taken such that
P x
= .
C −P ek
It is obvious that the length x must be greater than kb for this proportion
to hold; if a point ᐉ is taken on the axis of the conoid above the point
k such that the distance 冷k–ᐉ冷 is equal to x, this point will fall above the
vertex b, that is, outside the conoid, because x > kb. From the above
proportion (P : C – P =x:ek) and the law of the lever, this point must be
the center of gravity of C – P, since k and e are the centers of gravity of
C and P respectively. However, it is impossible for the center of gravity
of C – P to fall outside the conoid.
What is interesting in this proof is Commandino’s assumption that the
centers of gravity of the approximating figure C always fall above the
center of gravity of the conoid P. This is by no means justified, but it
is equivalent to assuming that the sequence of the centers of gravity of the
circumscribed approximating figures has an upper limit. 1 It is quite possible
that Valerio was thinking of this proof when he wrote that Commandino
had wasted his efforts, and had fallen foul of a “flaw in his reasoning”. 2
1 More precisely, the (value of) abscissa kb has an upper limit, which is a “lower” limit in the
position of the center of gravity as a point in the figure.

The case of inscribed approximating figures is dealt with in a similar manner, again with the
tacit assumption that their centers of gravity fall below the center of gravity of the conoid, or
in other words, that the sequence has a lower limit.
2 It might be thought that the object of Valerio’s criticism is proposition 29, in which
Another no less important point is that Commandino does not use in
his proof any property of the paraboloid other than the possibility of its
being approximated by stepped figures made up of cylinders. Therefore,
Commandino’s proof can be seen as the first step to elaborate a general
theorem about the centers of gravity of decreasing figures, independent-
ly of specific properties of particular figures, while the route to follow
had been indicated by Archimedes, in the second book of his On Plane
Equilibriums.
As we have seen in § 2.1, Archimedes determines the center of gravity
of a segment of a parabola in this work. He constructs inscribed approx-
imating figures (polygons inscribed “canonically” [gnōrimōs] in the seg-
ment of a parabola) and then he proves the following:
1. The center of gravity of the segment of the parabola is an upper bound
for the sequence of the centers of gravity of the approximating figures,
in the sense that they are always situated “below” the center of gravity
of the segment (PE, II-5).
2. The center of gravity of the segment of the parabola is the supremum
(least upper bound) of this sequence, in the sense that it is always
possible to construct an approximating figure whose center of gravity
is distant from the center of gravity of the parabolic segment by less
than any given distance (PE, II-6).
It should be noted that in proving the former, Archimedes also demon-
strates that the centers of gravity of the approximating figures form a
decreasing monotonic sequence, in the sense that if the number of sides
of the polygon inscribed gnōrimōs is increased, the center of gravity
always “rises”, and he uses this fact (which is quite trivial in the case of
the parabola and its approximating polygons) to establish the conclu-
sion.
Commandino tries to determine the center of gravity of the conoid in a somewhat clumsy
manner. In fact, he claims that he has proved that by doubling the number of cylinders inscribed
in, and circumscribed around, the conoid, the centers of gravity of the inscribed and circum-
scribed approximating figures draw closer to the center of gravity of the conoid. He supplies
the proof only for the case where there are 2 or 4 cylinders, limiting himself to the comment
that the general case can be dealt with in the same manner (eodem modo). However, the matter
is not so simple as Commandino claimed (or wished) to be: the calculation of the general case
following Commandino’s method is extremely complicated. Valerio does not follow this path,
though, as we have seen in the previous section; his problem is to demonstrate that the
proportionality of the sections as confirmed in the case of the triangle and the parabolic conoids
is enough to establish the coincidence of the centers of gravities of the decreasing figures in
general (we will see this in § 4.4). We believe, therefore, that the “flaw in reasoning” that had
struck Valerio should rather be sought in the logical flaws of Commandino’s proof of prop. 28,
a proof which was presented as an important component in order to obtain the result that he
was trying to achieve.
Thus the material available at the end of the sixteenth century was rich
enough to allow Valerio to try to prove in general the convergence of
the centers of gravity of the approximating figures to the center of
gravity of the figure.
4. 4. The Determination of a Subclass of Decreasing Figures

and the Proof of Theorem II-32 of De centro
The problem faced by Valerio, who was aided by the material described
above, can therefore be summed up as follows: to determine suitable
conditions for the following properties:
• the sequence of the centers of gravity of the approximating figures
circumscribed around a given decreasing figure is monotonic ;
• the center of gravity of the figure is an upper bound of this sequence ;
• the sequence of the centers of gravity converges at the center of
gravity of the figure.
In more intuitive and less modern language, the problem can be de-
scribed in following terms. Firstly, it is hypothesized that every time the
number of the small figures that make up the circumscribed approximat-
ing figure is “doubled” (or in other words, the height of the cylinders
or parallelograms of which it is composed is halved), its center of gravity
“descends” towards the base. Secondly, it is necessary to show that the
center of gravity of the given decreasing figure always remains “below”
the center of gravity of any one of its approximating figures.
If these two results can be demonstrated, starting from appropriate
hypotheses, it is then easy to show that a circumscribed approximating
figure can be found, whose center of gravity is arbitrarily close to the
center of gravity of the decreasing figure whose center of gravity is to
be determined. One only has to apply the techniques of Archimedes
contained in the second book of his Plane Equilibria or those developed
by Commandino for the parabolic conoid. Then theorem II-32 can be
proved easily.
We do not intend to go into the details of Valerio’s complicated
procedure here; we shall limit ourselves to an indication of how he may
have arrived at the determination of a (sufficient) condition which
guarantees the convergence a priori. 1
1 The reconstruction we present is based on an analysis of propositions II-26 to 29, in which
Valerio proves the “monotonicity” of the sequence of the centers of gravity of the figures
approximating a decreasing figure. We have to admit that this is a fairly free reconstruction; it
goes without saying that, in line with the style of the mathematics of the period, Valerio does
not supply any indication about the heuristics that led him to this result.
The condition of convergence of the centers of gravity of approximating figures

to the center of gravity of a decreasing figure.
Consider a figure F around which the approximating figure P * com-
posed of P1* and P2* is circumscribed. If the heights of each of P1* and
P2* are halved, another approximating figure P will be obtained, which
is composed of P0, P1, P2 and P3. P1* is thus replaced by P0 +P1, and P2* by
P2 +P3. If one wants the center of gravity of P to be “lower” than that
of P *, it is sufficient that the upper part taken away from P * to obtain
P is proportionally larger than the lower part that is taken away. From
this intuitive fact, it is possible to deduce a sufficient condition for the
convergence.
It is clear that the center of gravity of P0 +P1 is lower than that of
P1* (because the latter is situated on the line that separates P0 and P1, and
the former will have to be below it, for P1 > P0 ). And similarly, the center
of gravity of P2+P3 will be lower than that of P2*. Now, the center of
gravity of P * is the point that divides the line joining the centers of
gravity of P1* and P2* in the ratio P2*:P1*; and the center of gravity of P is
the point that divides the line joining the centers of gravity of (P0 +P1) and
(P2 +P3) in the ratio (P2 +P3):(P0 +P1). Since the centers of gravity of
(P0 +P1) and (P2 +P3) are below those of P1* and P2*, we may hope that also
the center of gravity of P will be lower than that of P *. For this to
happen, it is sufficient for the ratio (P2 +P3):(P0 +P1) to be greater than
the ratio P2*:P1*. This latter ratio is the same as P3 :P1, so that we have
(P2 +P3):(P0 +P1) > P3 :P1.
Alternately (cf. Elements V-14), and separando (V-17), 1
P2 :P3 > P0 :P1,
1 Though the propositions for the manipulation of ratios in the Elements are not proved for
inequalities of ratios, these manipulations preserve the inequalities, too. Pappus explicitly proves
this at the beginning of the propositions in Book VII of the Collection, and Campanus added the
proofs of these inequalities at the end of his edition of Book V.
that is,
P0 :P1 < P2 :P3.
Then, since the figures Pi (cylinders or parallelograms) are of equal
height, they will be in the same ratio as their respective bases Si.
Therefore, the relation between the figures Pi carries over to that be-
tween the bases Si, which are the sections of F taken at equal distances;
so that:
S0 :S1 < S2 :S3.
One can easily see that this latter condition regarding four sections is
equivalent to the following one, which consists only of three sections
at equal distances:
Sm :Sµ < Sµ :SM,
Sm in which Sm, Sµ and SM designate the smallest, medium and largest
sections respectively. 1
This result can be expressed as follows:
For every group of three equidistant sections of a decreasing figure, the ratio of
the smallest section to the medium one must be smaller than that of the medium
to the largest one.
Assuming that this condition is satisfied (II-29), Valerio is now able to
demonstrate that the sequence of centers of gravity of approximating
figures circumscribed to a decreasing figure descend monotonically:
Prop. II-29 (Summary): Given a decreasing figure circa axim or circa diametrum,
whose sections are such that, if three equidistant sections are taken, the ratio of
the smallest section to the medium one is smaller than that of the medium to the
largest one, it is possible to circumscribe an approximating figure around it, whose
center of gravity is closer to the base than any other [assigned] approximating
figure. 2
1 Suppose that for each group of four sections the property under examination holds. Let three
sections, Sm, Sµ, and SM be given. Taking a section σ1 at the midpoint between Sm and Sµ and a
section σ2 at the midpoint between Sµ and SM, we will obtain, from the condition of four sections:
Sm : σ1 < Sµ : σ2
and that
σ1 : Sµ < : σ2 : SM
hence, ex aequali,
Sm : Sµ < : Sµ : SM
as desired. The converse is obvious. It should be observed that there is no explicit proof in
Valerio of the equivalence of the property for the groups of four and that of the groups of three,
even if, in the proof of theorem II-29, he passes from a consideration of three sections to four
sections.
2 CGS, p. 47: “Datae figurae circa diametrum vel axim in alteram partem deficienti super basim
Modern readers would expect here an explicit definition of a sub-class
of decreasing figures by Valerio himself, which satisfies this additional
condition, and for which he develops his new method for the determi-
nation of the centers of gravity (II-32, see below). However, Valerio does
not give a name to this sub-class; we shall call it the class of “mµM figures”,
for the sake of the convenience. 1
Proposition II-30 establishes that the center of gravity of an approx-
imating figure must always fall “above” the center of gravity of an
mµM figure, thus correcting the logical flaw Valerio had found in Com-
mandino. Now Valerio has no difficulty, in II-31, in demonstrating that
the sequence of the centers of gravity of the approximating figures
circumscribed around an mµM figure has the center of gravity of the
figure as its supremum (least upper bound): 2
It is possible to circumscribe around every said [mµM] figure a figure composed
of cylinders, ... or parallelograms, in such a way that the distance from its center
of gravity to the center of gravity of the said figure is smaller than any assigned
length. 3
The proofs of propositions 30 and 31 closely follow the lines of
Archimedes’ PE, II-6, and Commandino’s Liber de centro gravitatis, prop-
rectam lineam vel circulum, vel ellipsim, cuius figurae basis et sectiones omnes parallelae
segmenta aequalia diametri intercipientes ita se habeant, ut quarumlibet trium proximarum
minor proportio sit minimae ad mediam, quam mediam ad maximam, figura quaedam ex
cylindris, vel cylindri portionibus, vel parallelogrammis aequalium altitudinum circumscribi
potest, cuius centrum gravitatis sit propinquius basi quam cui uslibet datae figurae, qualem
diximus quae praedictae figurae circa diametrum vel axim circumscripta sit”.
We have preferred here to offer a paraphrase rather than a faithful translation of this complex
enunciation. We shall not dwell on the full proof of this proposition, expounded in (Passalacqua,
1991), pp. 91-6. We shall limit ourselves here to the observation that in order to conclude, Valerio
makes use of a series of lemmas proved in preceding propositions, where he considers levers
loaded with various sets of weights.
1 In modern terms, Valerio’s condition is equivalent to requiring that the figure be “logarith-
mically convex”. If f (x) is the monotonic function that defines the figure, Valerio’s condition
can be translated into the requirement that ∀ x and for fairly small values of ⑀, the following
must hold:
f ( x − ⑀) f ( x)
< ,
f ( x) f ( x + ⑀)
or, taking the logarithm of f,
log f ( x − ⑀ ) + log f ( x + ⑀ )
< log f ( x ).
2
This means that the function f (x) must be concave.
2 We continue to suppose an abscissa that goes “down” on the diameter (or axis) starting from
the vertex (cf. note 1 p. 100).

3 CGS, p. 51-II: “Omni praedictae figurae, figura quaedam ex cylindris, vel cylindri portionibus,
vel parallelogrammis aequalium altitudinum circumscribi potest, cuius centri gravitatis distantia
a praedictae figurae centro gravitatis sit minor quantacumque longitudine proposta”.
osition 28. Thus they do not contain any interesting novelties. It should
be emphasized once again, however, that what in Archimedes was a
process of reasoning adapted to the particular case of the parabola, here
becomes a general theorem, valid for all mµM figures.
Having organized his basic material, Valerio can finally proceed to the
proof of II-32, which generalizes the paradigmatic case of the paraboloid
and the triangle: given two mµM figures, decreasing around the same
axis or the same diameter, if the sections of these figures are proportion-
al, then the figures will have the same center of gravity.
Proposition II-32 (CGS-2 p. 53).
The proof is simple. Let the two figures be G and T. The center of
gravity G of G will be situated on their common axis. It is to be proved
that G is also the center of gravity of T. If, ab absurdo, this were not true,
let us suppose that it is situated at another point, H, which will fall either
above or below the point G. If it falls higher, take a figure G * circum-
scribed around G, whose center of gravity K is distant from G by less
than GH (II-31); therefore K will be situated under H. Let an approximat-
ing figure T * of T be constructed, which is “homologous” to the one
just constructed, i.e., T * is made of cylinders (or parallelograms) of the
same height of those circumscribed around G. Since the cylinders (or
parallelograms) of T * and G * are as their bases, that is, as the sections
of T and G which are always proportional by the premise of the prop-
osition, T * and G * will have the same center of gravity K. 1 But then the
1 This result is guaranteed by a lemma, proposition II-25, which states that if there are two
series of magnitudes along a straight line, which are, taken two by two, proportional and have
center of gravity of T *, the approximating figure of T, would be situated
below H, the presumed center of gravity of T : this is impossible, because
it conflicts with proposition II-30. The case in which the center of gravity
L of the figure T falls below G is treated in similar way.
Before closing our examination of this proposition, we emphasize
once again that, even if we have often used a modern terminology, we
do not mean to imply that the concepts of sequence (progression),
monotonicity, and convergence are present in Valerio–even less in
Archimedes. These are concepts that are extremely useful in order to
explain the general lines of certain procedures of Archimedes or Valerio,
but they are not to be confused with what these authors actually prove.
What we can interpret today in terms of the convergence of sequence
of centers of gravity, were but lemmas introduced in order to reach a
precise goal for them, and not lemmas for proving theorems about
sequences. Archimedes wanted to reach a particular result: he intended
to demonstrate that the centers of gravity of similar segments of the
parabola are similarly placed, and hence to deduce the position of the
center of gravity of the segment of a parabola. Valerio’s intention was
more general: he wanted to obtain a theorem that would allow him,
starting from appropriate premises, to determine the position of the
center of gravity of one figure from that of another figure. However, a
formalized theory of convergence of sequence, and the concept of
sequence itself as a recognizable mathematical object, were alien to
these two mathematicians.
4. 5. Beyond the Pillars of Hercules

Theorem II-32 will prove to be an extremely powerful instrument in the
hands of Valerio: it enables him to determine the centers of gravity of
“all” the solids: “many of these in two ways, some in three ways” [“multa
autem ex his duplici, quaedam triplici via”, as he proudly proclaims in the
preface to De centro (p. 2)]. Here we mean by “all the solids” what we
call “Archimedean solids,” in particular conoids and spheroids and their
segments.
The application of II-32 is very simple. Let us take II-41, the proof of
the center of gravity of parabolic conoid we briefly sketched in § 4.2.
the center of gravity in common, then the two series of magnitudes have the common center
of gravity. (CGS-II-25, “Si sint quotcumque magnitudines, et aliae illis multitudine aequales,
binaeque sumptae in eadem proportione, quae commune habeant centrum gravitatis, centra
autem gravitatis omnium sint in eadem recta linea; primae et secundae tanquam duae magni-
tudines commune habebunt centrum gravitatis.”)
First, Valerio demonstrates that the triangle and the parabolic conoid are
two decreasing figures of the mµM class. Secondly, he shows that the
sections of the triangle and the conoid are proportional. And at this
point, les jeux sont faits: the conditions of proposition II-32 are satisfied,
and he only has to apply it to obtain the result: the center of gravity of
the parabolic conoid is the same as that of the triangle, so that it divides
the axis in the ratio of 2:1.
For Renaissance geometry, the center of gravity of the parabolic
conoid was a sort of extrema Thule: nobody, not even Maurolico –
probably the greatest mathematician of the XVI century – had proceed-
ed beyond it. Furthermore, the result was already known from
Archimedes’ Floating Bodies, and this work had guided Commandino in
his unsuccessful attempt to devise a convincing proof. Valerio goes well
beyond these Pillars of Hercules: he easily succeeds in determining
centers of gravity which were wholly unknown in the mathematics of
his period: in particular, that of the hemispheroid and – above all – that
of the hyperbolic conoid (hyperboloid) which is undoubtedly one of the
most difficult results in the classical-Renaissance mathematics. 1
1 The only other attempt known to the authors of the present article to determine the center
of gravity of the hyperboloid in the Renaissance period was that of the young Galileo, who wrote
to Guidobaldo del Monte on July 16, 1588:
« On another occasion, I will send you the proof that in obtuse-angled conoid [=hyperboloid], the
center of gravity divides the axis in the following way: the part towards the vertex has to the remaining
part the same ratio as the sum of the axis and the double of the annex the axis has to the sum of the annex
to the axis and one third of the axis. » (“Un’altra volta gli manderò dimostrato che in conoide
obtusangulo centrum gravitatis axem ita dividit, ut pars ad verticem ad reliquam eandem habeat rationem,
quam composita ex axe et dupla ad axem adiectae habet ad compositam ex adiecta et tertia parte axis.
(Galilei 1968), X, p. 36. The italics are in this edition).
The result that Galileo communicates to Guidobaldo is, however, wrong: at least if “annex
to the axis” (adiecta ad axem) is taken to mean the line between the vertex and the center of
the hyperbola, that is, half of the latus transversum of the hyperbola in classical language, as was
the standard usage of the term. Archimedes had presented the result for the hyperbolic conoid
in his Method (proposition 11, without supplying any kind of proof, though) in these terms: “The
center of gravity of a segment of an obtuse-angled conoid is situated on its axis, at the point which
divides the axis in such a way that its part towards the vertex has, to the remaining part, the
ratio which [the sum of] three times the axis and eight times the annex has to [the sum of] the
axis of the conoid and four times the annex of it”. However, the Method was unknown before
its rediscovery by Heiberg in 1906.
It is worth mentioning en passant that Galileo repeatedly stated that he had given up the idea
of publishing his early work, Theoremata, because “some time later, he ran across the book of
Luca Valerio, a prince of geometers, and saw that this resolved the entire subject without
omitting anything; hence he went no further, though his own advances were made along quite
a different road from that taken by Valerio.” (“incontratosi, dopo alcun tempo, nel libro del Sig.
Luca Valerio, massimo geometra, e veduto come egli risolve tutta questa materia senza niente
lasciar in dietro, non seguitò più avanti, ben che le aggressioni sue siano per strade molto diverse
da quelle del Sig. Valerio. Galilei 1968, VIII, . 313; at the end of the “Fourth Day”. English
translation by S. Drake in Galileo, Two New Sciences, Madison 1974. p. 260.) It may be conjectured
that one of the things he read in the book of “a prince of geometers” which convinced him to
However, as we shall see, there are quite a few obscurities in the use
that is proposed of II-32. Here the Royal Road tends to get lost in a maze.
We shall try to explore this – and to understand the cause for this
phenomenon – in the following section.
5. The Dissolution of Form

5. 1. Bomarzo Park
Valerio’s method for the determination of the center of gravity of a
figure can thus be summed up as follows:
• selection of a figure whose center of gravity is known, or at least can
be determined, and whose sections are proportional to those of the
figure whose center of gravity is sought ;
• proof that these figures belong to the mµM class ;
• application of theorem II-32 and reduction of the unknown center of
gravity to that of the known figure.
Availing himself of this method, Valerio not only found outstanding
results, as mentioned above, but he also moved away from the realm
of classical mathematics. He developed, at least partially, a far more
quantitative way of conceiving the relationships between figures than
classical mathematics had ever done. However, almost frightened by his
own audacity, he then provided alternative proofs, which were, in his
opinion, “more natural” (magis naturalis). The swing between radical
innovation and fidelity to the classical paradigm is perhaps one of the
main reasons for the obscurity of a large part of Books II and III of De
centro, and the difficulty in their reading.
No doubt this is not the only reason: we have already mentioned the
problems involved in the editorial process of the book, which was
printed in two editions without careful revision by its author (see § 1.4,
above). In particular, the third book was added to the first two in the
autumn of 1603, which explains at least one of the peculiarities in this
book. In proposition III-5, Valerio proves that every convex figure is an
mµM figure in our terms. This practically exempts him (or is presumed
to exempt him) from proving that the figures that he considers (for
example, the hyperboloid) belong to the mµM class. However, in spite
of this proposition, Valerio (in the second book, above all) presents
complex, laborious arguments to prove that the figures at issue are mµM
figures.
abandon his research in this field was the determination of the center of gravity of the hyper-
boloid: Valerio’s result in fact refuted what Galileo thought he had demonstrated.
Here we shall concentrate on the problem of his alternative proofs for
the center of gravity of hyperboloid, which seem to us a retrogression,
though he regards them “more natural”.
Before we start our examination of these proofs, we should remember
the taste of Valerio’s time, in which people admired wonder, repetition,
and complexity. At Bomarzo, near Viterbo, there is a famous park which
was built by the Orsini family in the sixteenth century. Walking along
its avenues one suddenly encounters grotesque statues, monsters, grot-
toes, and labyrinths. Valerio’s De centro – and in particular the third
book – is a bit like this beautiful and disturbing garden; yet its most
interesting parts, those which introduce innovations, seem to have been
forgotten by later historians. The aim of the present section is to extend
an invitation and offer a sort of visitors’ guide, to explore its complexity
in more detail.
5. 2. A Monster: the First Demonstration

of the Center of Gravity of the Hyperboloid
Let us start with an analysis of proposition II-43, which deals with the
center of gravity of hyperbolic conoid; this is perhaps the most difficult
problem concerning the solids of rotation of conic sections, and offers
a good example of the significance and the limitations of Valerio’s
general theorem:
Let ABC be a hyperboloid, generated by the rotation of the hyperbola
ABC about the axis BD. Let BE be the latus transversum of the hyperbola.
From the property of the hyperbola, for any point S on the curve, the
following proportion holds (cf. Apollonius, Conics, I-21):
SQ2 :BQ ×QE =CD2 : BD ×DE =constant.
We explain Valerio’s proof in algebraic terms. This is a choice that might
imply a certain lack of faithfulness to the subject of Valerio, but it has
the advantage of making certain essential points easier to understand,
at least for us modern readers, who are not so familiar with the language
of the theory of proportion.
Let BD=a, BE=b, and imagine a system of coordinates whose origin
is B. Let k be the constant ratio in the symptom of the hyperbola. The
equation of the hyperbola is
y2 =kx (b+x),
which is equivalent to:
y2 =kx2 +bkx.
The center of gravity of the hyperbolic conoid (CGS-2 p. 79).
Now, the left-hand side, y2, is proportional to the circle-section of the

hyperboloid by a plane like SZ parallel to the base (in modern notation,
the circle SZ has area πy2). The right-hand side, on the other hand, can
be separated into two parts: kx2, which is proportional to the square of
the abscissa BQ (= x), and bkx, which is proportional to the abscissa itself.
Now it is possible to construct two figures, a cone and a paraboloid,
whose sections are respectively proportional to these two parts of the
right-hand side of the equation.
Taking any point M on AD, and letting MD=p, describe a parabola
passing through M, with axis BD and vertex B; the equation of this
parabola MBN will be
p2
y2 = x.
a
Then consider a triangle BKD, where the point K is taken on the line
AD such that MD2 :DK2 =BE:BD=b:a). The equation of the cone C
obtained by rotating this triangle around the axis BD is:
p2 2
y2 = x .
ab
Similarly, rotating the parabola generates a paraboloid P.
If we cut all these solids of rotation (the hyperboloid I, the cone C and
the paraboloid P ) by a plane SZ which is parallel to the base (and
therefore perpendicular to the axis), the sections that are obtained will
be circles; we designate them by Cir (I), Cir (C) and Cir (P), respectively.
It can then easily be shown that: 1
abk
Cir (I)= (Cir (C)+Cir (P)).
p2
This relation holds for any circles of section generated by any plane such
as AC, parallel to the base. Since the ratio abk is constant, for any two
p2
sections obtained by parallel planes such as αζ and SZ, the ratio between
circles Cir (I) is the same as the ratio between the sums of the circles
Cir (C)+Cir (P). Therefore, it follows from II-32 that the center of gravity
of the hyperboloid I is situated at the same point as the center of gravity
of the figure C + P, the cone C and the paraboloid P put together.
As the centers of gravity and the magnitudes (volumes) of the cone
and the paraboloid are already known, it is easy to determine the center
of gravity of the hyperboloid I using the law of lever. 2 Of course,
Valerio’s arguments and conclusion are expressed in the language of
the theory of proportion without any symbolism or algebraic formulas,
and therefore they are much more complicated (e.g., see the quotation
of Valerio’s enunciation in note 2 p. 112-113). Valerio indeed introduced
a series of lemmas so that he could manage the situation more easily.
What appears to be the most interesting point in this proof is not his
alleged use of infinitesimals, because he does not use infinitesimals at all
in this proposition. Those arguments concerning the convergence of the
centers of gravity of approximating figures are treated once and for all
1 In fact, Cir (C) + Cir (P) = π

Fp x
2p2 p2 I
x = π x ( b + x ) and Cir (I) = πkx (b + x).)
2 +
H ab
a ab K
2 To be precise, as we designate the length of the axis BD common to the three figures by
a, the center of gravity of the paraboloid is situated at 2/3a, and that of the cone at 3/4a
(measured from the vertex). And from the construction of C and P, it is easily confirmed that
C : P = a : 3/2b.
in proposition II-32, and encapsulated therein; they do not appear here
in proposition II-43, which we are examining (they should not reappear
any more, as long as II-32 is valid; but we must not forget that we are
in Bomarzo Park). The central point, in our opinion, is the dissolution
of the hyperboloid into two figures whose centers of gravity are known,
and the ratio of whose volumes is known. What is even more striking
is that the center of gravity of the hyperboloid I is linked to the center
of gravity of an impossible solid, a true monster: the sum of the cone
C and the paraboloid P, which partially overlap each other. This object,
C + P, is not a normal solid that can exist in the common sense of the
term and in the spatial intuition of classical geometry; furthermore, the
cone and the paraboloid are determined in a purely formal manner,
starting from a decomposition of the symptom of the hyperboloid into
two terms. In this sense, these solids are more instruments than geomet-
rical figures that possess existence of their own. They are pieces that can
be reused.
Here the object of interest shifts from geometrical figures as such,
which possess a form and position, to their quantitative properties and
relationships between them, or better, to the relationship between their
sections.
As we mentioned in the beginning of this section, Valerio seems to
be scared by his own audacity. We have just seen his determination
of the center of gravity of the hyperboloid, using the “monster” C + P ;
he goes so far as to theorize this procedure in a special corollary to
proposition II-32, in which he states that the theorem just proved
maintains its validity even if, instead of considering single figures of the
mµM class, one considers their sum. But then in Book III, we find some
complications, for Valerio proposes an alternative proof as a “more
natural” – magis naturalis – one in which not only are monsters avoided,
Therefore, the center of gravity of P + C (which coincides with that of the hyperboloid I )
will be situated at a point x, such that
x − 2 a : 3 a − x = C : P = a : 3 b.
3 4 2
Hence it is then relatively easy to reach the conclusion of Valerio’s enunciation of proposition
II-43: “The center of gravity of a hyperbolic conoid is a point that can be found – if the axis
is divided into twelve parts – in the fourth part starting from the base, which divides the said
fourth part in such a way that the part nearer to the base is to the remaining [part], as 3/2 of
the latus transversum [b] of the hyperbola that generates the [hyperbolic] conoid is to the axis
of the conoid [a].” (“Omnis conoidis hyperbolici centrum gravitatis est punctum illud, in quo
duodecima pars axis ordine quarta ab ea, quae basim attingit, sic dividitur, ut pars basi propin-
quior sit ad reliquam, ut sesquialtera transversi lateris hyperbolas, quae conoides describit ad
axim conoidis.” CGS, II-p. 78)
but so is theorem II-32. However, before examining this alternative, let
us have a look at another technique he uses in order to determine
centers of gravity.
5. 3. Bowls and Other Oddities: the center of Gravity of the Hemisphere

Let us continue, for the sake of simplicity, to use algebraic language.
Valerio deals with the center of gravity of the hemisphere in proposition
II-33. 1
Consider a hemisphere H generated by the rotation of the circle
x2 =r2 –y2 (0 ≤ x ≤ r)
and a cone C generated by the rotation of y=x around the y-axis, whose
base circle is opposite of that of the hemisphere. Let K be the cylinder
circumscribed around C and H. If we cut these three solids by an
arbitrary plane P perpendicular to the axis, the radius of the section of
H is x, that of the circumscribed cylinder K is r, and the radius of the
section of the cone is y. It is easy to show that the section of the cone
(a circle of radius y) is always equal to the section of the “bowl” S, the
solid figure obtained by taking away the hemisphere H from the cylinder
K. Therefore C and S will have the same center of gravity. The center
of gravity of the cone is known, and that of the cylinder is known, too.
And since K = H + S, we can easily deduce that the center of gravity of
the hemisphere divides the axis in the ratio of 5:3, using the law of the
lever.
This proposition could have been a model of simplicity, like the one
for the parabolic conoid (II-41), if Valerio had not reintroduced, for some
reason which remains to us completely obscure, approximating figures
of the cone and the hemisphere, dwelling on prolix arguments in order
to show that the figures in question are of the type mµM.
Apparently not satisfied by this proof, Valerio provides two other
proofs in Book III, including also the hemispheroids in the enunciation.
One is proposition III-31, which is essentially the same as the one we
1 Valerio had already introduced his famous bowl to determine the volume of the hemisphere
in proposition II-12. We do not repeat this well-known proposition, partly because it is essentially
contained in Valerio’s arguments of its center of gravity in II-33. It should be observed, however,
that the studies that have occasionally dwelt on proposition II-12 to create the image of a Valerio
as a precursor of infinitesimal calculus generally have not appreciated the fact that this deter-
mination of volume, like others found in De centro, is in a certain sense a sort of by-product of
the method for the determination of centers of gravity in II-32, a proposition that has never been
studied with the attention that it deserves.
have just seen, except that the treatment is by far in good order. The
other, exposited as aliter to III-31 is more interesting to us.
The bowl to determine the center of gravity of the hemisphere.
Hemisphere in De centro.
Approximating figures to the cone and to the bowl are constructed (CGS, II-33).
Given the hemisphere ABC generated by the rotation of x2 =r2 –y2,

Valerio considers two parabolas, one (P1) with axis AD and vertex A
(curve ARB), the other (P2) with axis CD and vertex C (curve CSB), both
passing through the point B. Designating the radius of the hemisphere
by r, the equation of P2 will be:
r 2 − y2
x= .
r
Consider the plane figure F enclosed by P1 and P2. It can immediately
be seen that the ratios between the circle-sections of the hemisphere H
and the line-sections of F parallel to the x-axis (AC) are proportional, for
example, Cir (KH):Cir (LM)=PQ:RS, etc. Consequently, the hemisphere
and F have the same center of gravity. To determine the center of gravity
of the bizarre “parabolic triangle” F, Valerio divides it into triangle ABC
and the remaining figure which consists of two parabolic segments ARB
and CSB. The center of gravity of the latter is determined in III-23, using
the second book of Archimedes’ PE.
The second proof of the center of gravity of the hemisphere (III-31, aliter).
Valerio’s investigation of the center of gravity of the hemisphere

confirms what we stated about the hyperboloid: the figures tend to
dissolve into their purely quantitative aspect. The introduction of the
parabolic triangle F is completely ad hoc: even if this is not such a
monster as the sum of the conoid and the cone, it is nonetheless a bizarre
object, and strange for eyes that are accustomed to the regular figures
of classical geometry, defined by a uniform procedure of construction.
Its role is, once again, purely quantitative, even if the proof was intended
to gain admiration of the reader by successfully comparing two things
as different as a solid sphere and a plane figure delimited by parabolas.
At the same time, the introduction of the bowl can be interpreted as
an attempt to moderate this dissolution of the shape, and of the geomet-
ric object defined by a procedure of construction, in honor of a more
classical point of view. The bowl is, in a certain sense, a natural object:
it “exists” and it can be determined by a single procedure of construction.
True, the proof depends ultimately on the identification of a quantitative
relationship that is crucial for the argument: the sections of the cone are
equal to the difference between the sections of the cylinder and those
of the hemisphere. But here, this relationship can be interpreted in a
more natural way, easier to express by a “natural” solid conforming to
the classical paradigm.
5. 4. Where Does the Royal Road Lead?
The process of “naturalization” or “geometrization” of the quantitative
relationships is even more evident in the alternative proofs for the center
of gravity of the hyperboloid. Clearly dissatisfied by the monstrous solid
that he introduced in Book II, Valerio not only proposes another solution
in Book III, but also goes so far as to add an appendix dedicated
exclusively to a solution of this problem in a “more natural way”.
Apparently, the aims of this triplication of the proof were to eliminate
the need to make use of monstrous figures, and to give a solution
conforming to the paradigm of classical geometry.
In proposition III-39, the center of gravity of the hyperboloid is deter-
mined by reducing it to the determination of the center of gravity of a
parabolic triangle. Consider the segment of hyperboloid ABC, with the
axis having length s=BD, generated by the rotation around the x-axis
(BD) of the hyperbola with its vertex at its origin and the latus transver-
sum 2a=BE:
y2 =k2x2 +2ak2x.
Then the segment contained by the base AC and two parabolas AOB
and CPB symmetrically arranged in respect to the axis x,
y=± u (k2x2 +2ak2x),
has the same center of gravity as the segment of hyperboloid on the
x-axis, for any constant u.
Valerio constructs these parabolas so that they pass through the same
points A and C as the hyperbola, at the base AC of the segments of
hyperboloid. 1 He calls the figure T contained by symmetric parabolas
Hyperboloid and parabolic triangle in prop. III-39

1
1 In our algebraic language, this condition is satisfied if u = .
k s 2 + 2as
and the straight line AC a “parabolic triangle”. Thus, also in this case,
the determination of the center of gravity of T is linked to the center
of gravity of parabolic segments. By means of somewhat complex
proofs, he divides this segment into triangle KBL (lines BK and BL are
tangents to the parabolas at the vertex B) and the remaining parabolic
segments, then from the centers of gravity and areas of these figures he
determines the center of the whole segment, which coincides with that
of the hyperboloid.
Once again this is a case of “instrumentalization”: also the parabolic
triangle T is an oddity (note that it is not even a convex figure).
However, its introduction makes it possible to avoid a recourse to the
sum of the paraboloid and the cone partially overlapping each other.
But Valerio is not yet satisfied. At the end of the third book, he writes:
And at this point, we would have arrived at the end of the third book, but for the
fact that when the printing of the second book was already finished, another more
natural road to the center of gravity of the hyperbolic conoid occurred to me. This
(it should be included in the second book, but I will expound it now, among the
seven propositions of the following appendix) proves the conclusion by dividing
the aforesaid conoid into a parabolic conoid with the same vertex and axis, and
the remaining solid figure, without [recourse to] the composite [figure] from two
circumscribed figures made of cylinders. 1
In short, this solution uses a bowl: this time a paraboloid is to be
hollowed out inside the hyperbolic conoid. Let I be the hyperboloid
created by rotating the hyperbola
y2 =k2x2 +2ak2x
about the x-axis (BD). Then the parabola
y2 =2ak2x
will generate a paraboloid P with the same vertex and axis as I. If we
use S to indicate the hyperbolic-parabolic bowl obtained by removing
the paraboloid P from the hyperboloid I, then S will be equal to the cone
C generated by the rotation of y=kx around the x-axis. It would be quite
1 CGS-III, p. 79: “Et hic huius tertii libri finis esset, nisi, secundo iam impresso, alia quaedam
via magis naturalis me ad conoidis hyperbolici centrum gravitatis reduxisset. Ea igitur, in

secundum librum alias inserenda, nunc in sequenti appendice septem propositionibus exposita,
per sectionem praedicti conoidis in conoides parabolicum eodem vertice et circa eundem axim,
et reliquam figuram solidam, absque composito ex duabus figuris circumscriptis, quae ex
cylindris componuntur, propositum concludat.
Note that in the sentence “absque composito ... componuntur” Valerio refers to the corollary
to II.32, which provides the theoretical basis for using the “monster” (paraboloid + cone)
introduced in II.43.
The hyperbolic-parabolic bowl in the Appendix: Paraboloid GBH is taken away

from hyperboloid ABC.
easy to prove that the three figures at issue belong to the mµM class, and
that consequently, applying II-32 to them, C and S have the same center
of gravity. Then, since I = S + P and the centers of gravity of S and P are
known, one could easily determine the center of gravity of I, for it is
possible to determine the ratio P : S.
This is, at least, the proof that we might expect from our knowledge
of proposition II-32. But it is not at all what we find. On the contrary,
what is employed here to obtain the ratio P : S is the method of exhaus-
tion developed at the beginning of the second book; then there appear
the demonstrations concerning approximation of paraboloid and hyper-
boloid (Appendix, prop. 4 and 5), though they are already generally
demonstrated in I-11. Lastly, in proposition 6, in order to determine the
center of gravity of the hyperbolic-parabolic bowl S, Valerio, wishing to
avoid recourse to proposition II-32, seems to refer to a proposition of
Book I (prop. 38) which is not applicable here, for it is explicitly stated
for convex figures. 1
Now we have enough reason to be perplexed. Here not only has the
use of monsters been eliminated, as well as the use of figures as demon-
1 We say ‘Valerio ... seems’ because the quotation that Valerio provides is generic: “from what
we demonstrated in Book I” (“ex iis igitur quae in primo libro demonstravimus”). However, we
do not enter into details of this highly obscure proof. An analysis of proposition I-38 can be found
in (Passalacqua 1991), pp. 70-71.
strative instruments, but it is the whole methodological structure of De
centro that is tottering. The Royal Road peters out into a “more natural”
one (via magis naturalis), which is very similar to the paths followed by
Archimedes and Euclid long time ago.
6. A Dead End?
6. 1. Significance and Limitations of Valerio’s Geometry
We have just seen that Valerio’s Royal Road seems to fade out into
nothing, in a multiplication of theorems, techniques, and obscure cross-
references. No doubt this is one of the reasons why Valerio did not enjoy
the celebrity of a Cavalieri, and he has always been the victim of partial,
or distorted readings and interpretations, even among his contemporar-
ies. 1 Yet, on the other hand, his work had a far greater influence than
might appear at first sight. Let us try to sum up briefly what we have
discovered in our reading of De centro:
• Valerio was the first to break with the Greek model of the mathemat-
ical object : he introduces, and uses, classes of figures defined by one
or more properties, to prove theorems that are more general and
productive (in particular theorem II-32);
• he invented the method of exhaustion, codifying in a series of general
theorems, the classical technique to establish quantitative relation-
ships between geometric figures. For the first time, the conditions to
use that know-how of Euclid and Archimedes were formulated in a
explicit way;
• in theorem II-32, he introduces ante litteram one of the techniques (the
so-called second method of indivisibles) which Cavalieri later codified
in his Geometria;
• he treated some basic figures as pieces that could be assembled and
re-used, although with the limitations of the language of classical
geometry.
Each of these contributions was to have a considerable influence on his
contemporaries. But, as we have tried to illustrate, Valerio seems to
draw back before the potential consequences of the novelties that he
himself introduces. It is clear, for example, that the results he obtained
to prove II-32 could easily be translated into a general theorem about
the ratios between two figures: Cavalieri’s principle. Valerio could have
1 As regards the renown and the destiny of Valerio’s work, see Napolitani 1982, § 4.2, pp.
80-85.
taken this step without any effort; he had at his disposal the material,
the techniques, and the methodological know-how to do so. But he did
not. His quadrature and cubature (hemisphere, paraboloid, hyperbolic-
parabolic bowl and yet others) are performed without making use of any
“Valerio’s principle”, but are treated in a classical manner (even if he uses
his method of exhaustion introduced at the beginning of Book II).
We have also seen that he was perfectly capable of dealing with
triangles and parabolas, cones and paraboloids, as if they were instru-
ments or “parts” to “assemble” more complicated figures. However, it
is nonetheless true that Valerio did not have at his disposal the necessary
expressions to carry out the “instrumentalization” of the figures com-
pletely. He did not possess a language that corresponded precisely to the
“instruments-figures”, and had to express the results of the division of
the symptom of the hyperbola in terms of two real solids, the paraboloid
and the cone, that occupy their places in the same three-dimensional
space. They were still geometric magnitudes, not yet abstract quantity.
This caused a problem, that of a figure composed of two figures partially
superimposed, which is just incidental for us, but created a serious
obstacle for him, an unsurmountable difficulty in his language of the
classical mathematics.
We have chosen to express Valerio’s results in algebraic language. We
hope that this choice has not been misleading. In fact, all three proofs
that he proposes for the center of gravity of the hyperboloid are alge-
braically equivalent; they are all based on the same idea of splitting the
equation of a hyperboloid into two terms, if not to say that they are
reduced to a single demonstration. Geometrically, however, they are
not the same thing at all. The monstrous figure, in which a cone and
a paraboloid are united, is one thing; an elegant hyperbolic-parabolic
bowl is quite another. And the required techniques are different – often
wildly different – if one treats the case by the classical theory of propor-
tion. Indeed, Valerio was a classical geometer. Even if he was a contem-
porary of Viète, he was not even remotely influenced (like many other
Italian mathematicians of his generation and the next) by the revolution
that the French mathematician was introducing into geometry: the
creation of a sort of union between the abstract manageability of num-
bers and the ease of representation of geometric magnitudes. Between
the use of a general theory and an elegant demonstration à la grecque,
he ended up by preferring the latter. Ultimately, it was Valerio’s classical
mentality that prevented him fully elaborating and expoliting the more
innovatory aspects of his work.
6. 2. New Wine into Old Bottles: Valerio’s Inheritance

However, if we turn to the person responsible for the direct continuation
of Valerio’s work – Bonaventura Cavalieri – we cannot but be caught
by the same sensation. In Cavalieri, all the aspects of Valerio’s work we
have noticed above are repeated and amplified: indeed, they are devel-
oped to a much higher level of abstraction. In particular, the process of
instrumentalization of the figure, which appears in Valerio with hesita-
tion and even with confusion, is raised to the level of a method, or a
system. The concept of “all the lines” of a figure, a new mathematical
object introduced as a class of magnitudes distinct from that of the
figures themselves, made a great contribution to the attempt to extract
and generalize quantitative relationships between figures. 1
But also in Cavalieri it is possible to see, at least in part, the same
phenomenon we have described of Valerio. The classical language of the
theory of proportion is suitable to describe figures with fixed positions
and with positional relationships with other figures. It was not a lan-
guage devised to express abstract relationships between magnitudes,
independent of their position. Cavalieri’s insistence for this conceptual
framework let his geometry become extremely complex and obscure,
as with Valerio. It is no wonder that Cavalieri is renowned for the
difficulty of his works.
There is another aspect to be taken into consideration. We stated
several times that Greek geometry does not deal with general objects.
This implies a drastic limitation of the objects of geometry, and conse-
quently of the problems to be solved. Valerio’s De centro had practically
exhausted everything that was available on the mathematical market at
that time regarding centers of gravity. Cavalieri’s Geometria discussed
practically all the problems of squaring and cubing, conquering even the
new Keplerian solids, parabolas of a higher order, and bizarre problems
like the determination of the center of gravity of a body with variable
density. In a word, the language of the classical theory of proportion
could no longer develop general problems suitable for the general
methods that had been introduced. The way to these methods had been
opened by Valerio, and Cavalieri proceeded further ahead: but then little
remained to be done. The introduction of ars analytica into geometry
was to break this wall; it was not so long before Descartes opened a
practically infinite new world for mathematicians, by identifying the
1 On this subject, see Giusti 1980 and Andersen 1984.

curves with their equations. The Greek model of geometry was abol-
ished once and for all.
It is difficult, however, to imagine Cavalieri and Descartes without
Valerio, to imagine their radical innovations without the methodolog-
ical novelties of De centro gravitatis solidorum. In conclusion, we could say
that Valerio put some good new wine into an old goatskin. In itself, this
is not a wise thing to do: new wine should be put into new goatskins,
for it bursts the old ones. But in this specific case, it was not so bad that
the new wine burst the old wineskin: in other words, the impact of
Valerio’s work provoked a crisis in the rigidity of the classical paradigm,
and helped to create the conceptual context that was to lead to the birth
of modern mathematics.
References
Andersen, Kirsti (1984), Cavalieri’s Method of Indivisibles, «Archive of History of
Exact Sciences», 31, pp. 291-367.
Baldini-Napolitani (1991), Baldini, Ugo and Napolitani, Pier Daniele, Per una
biografia di Luca Valerio. Fonti edite e inedite per una ricostruzione della sua carriera
scientifica, «Bollettino di storia delle scienze matematiche», 11, fasc. 1, pp. 3-157.
Bosmans, Henri (1913), Les démonstrations par l’analyse infinitésimale chez Luc Valerio,
«Annales de la Société Scientifique de Bruxelles», 37, pp. 211–228.
Clavius, Christoph (1992), Corrispondenza. Edizione critica a cura di Ugo Baldini
e Pier Daniele Napolitani, Dipartimento di Matematica dell’Università di Pisa.
Commandino, Federico. Liber De centro gravitatis solidorum, Bologna, Alessandro
Benacci.
Euclid (2001), Les Elements, traduction et commentaire par B. Vitrac, vol. IV, Paris,
P.U.F.
Galilei, Galileo (1964–68), Le opere di Galileo Galilei, nuova ristampa dell’edizione
nazionale, 20 vols., Florence, Giunti Barbera.
Giusti, Enrico (1980), Cavalieri and His Method of Indivisibles, Rome, Cremonese.
Giusti, Enrico (1998), Ipotesi sulla natura degli oggetti matematici, Turin, Bollati-
Boringhieri. (French translation: La naissance des objets mathémathiques, Paris,
Ellipses, 2000.)
Maracchia, Silvio (1992), Luca Valerio matematico linceo, in La matematizzazione
dell’universo. Momenti della cultura matematica tra ’500 e ’600, Assisi, Edizioni
Porziuncula, pp. 253–302.
Maurolico, Francesco (1685), Admirandi Archimedis Syracusani monumenta omnia
mathematica, quae extant, ... ex traditione doctissimi viri D. Francisci Maurolyci,
Palermo, “apud Cyllenium Hesperium”.
Napolitani, Pier Daniele (1982), Metodo e statica in Valerio, «Bollettino di storia
delle scienze matematiche», 2, fasc. 1.
Napolitani-Sutto (2001), Napolitani, Pier Daniele and Sutto, Jean-Pierre, Francesco
Maurolico et la détermination du centre de gravité du paraboloïde, «SCIAMVS», 2, pp.
187-250.
Passalacqua, Lorena (1991), All’alba della matematica moderna: il De centro gravitatis
solidorum libri tres di Luca Valerio, Tesi di Laurea (relatore P.D. Napolitani),
Università degli Studi di Pisa, Academic Year 1991-92.
Saito, Ken (2003), Phantom Theories of pre-Eudoxean Proportion. «Science in Con-
text», 16, pp. 331-343.
Tosi, Armida (1957), Il De centro gravitatis solidorum di Luca Valerio, «Periodico
di Matematica», S. IV, 35, pp. 189-203.
Valerio, Luca (1582), Subtilium indagationum liber primus seu quadratura circuli et
aliorum curvilineorum, Rome, Francesco Zannetti.
Valerio, Luca (1604), De centro gravitatis solidorum libri tres, Rome, Bartolomeo
Bonfandini.

royal road or labyrinth? valerio's breakthrough in geometry

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

royal road or labyrinth? valerio's breakthrough in geometry

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

royal road or labyrinth?

Pier Daniele Napolitani · Ken Saito*

1. Valerio’s Royal Road

* P.D. Napolitani, Department of Mathematics, University of Pisa, Largo B. Pontecorvo, 5,

Bollettino di Storia delle Scienze Matematiche · Vol. XXIV · (2004) · Fasc. 2

1. 2. The Objects and Methods of Classical Geometry

1 On this point, see Giusti 1998, in particular the second chapter.

1. 3. Valerio and the Royal Road

results on centers of gravity of various solids.

1. 4. Previous Studies on Valerio and the Present Contribution

1 See n. 1 p. 90 below, and the arguments in Baldini-Napolitani 1991, § 2.5.

2. A New Object: Decreasing Figures

the same publisher.

Cf. § 4.5, note 1 p. 108 below.

The center of gravity of the triangle (PE, I-13).

The center of gravity of the segment of a parabola

2. 2. Valerio’s Decreasing Figures

portione attulimus, ne toties eadem frustra iterentur.”

this text, with an Italian translation, can be found at pp. 121-71.

The ﬁgure of proposition I-22 of De centro (CGS-I, p. 49).

To give an idea of the innovations introduced by Valerio, we shall cite

diametro est centrum gravitatis.”

quaedam ex parallelogrammis aequalium altitudinum inscribi potest, et altera circumscribi, ita

ut circumscripta superet inscriptam minori spacio quantacumque magnitudine proposita. Sem-

2. 3. A Royal Road in Need of Maintenance Work?

3. The Invention of the Method of Exhaustion

1 Cf. Napolitani 1982, in particular pp. 76-80.

3. 2. An Example: the Volume of the Truncated Cone

The volume of the truncated cone (CGS-III, p. 15).

Proposition III-9 (CGS-3, p. 11).

where x, y always represent two corresponding sides in the bases of the

3. 3. The First Three Propositions of Book II of De Centro:

4. The Method for the Determination

4. 2. The Center of Gravity of the Paraboloid

The center of gravity of the parabolic conoid (CGS-2 p. 75).

Maurolico on this subject, see Napolitani-Sutto 2001, § 7.

4. 3. The Material to Start With

Commandino’s proposition 28 (LCG c. 41r)

His proof is as follows. Let P be the parabolic conoid with vertex b, on

position of the center of gravity as a point in the ﬁgure.

4. 4. The Determination of a Subclass of Decreasing Figures

The condition of convergence of the centers of gravity of approximating ﬁgures

the vertex (cf. note 1 p. 100).

Proposition II-32 (CGS-2 p. 53).

4. 5. Beyond the Pillars of Hercules

5. The Dissolution of Form

5. 2. A Monster: the First Demonstration

The center of gravity of the hyperbolic conoid (CGS-2 p. 79).

Now, the left-hand side, y2, is proportional to the circle-section of the

1 In fact, Cir (C) + Cir (P) = π

5. 3. Bowls and Other Oddities: the center of Gravity of the Hemisphere

The bowl to determine the center of gravity of the hemisphere.

Given the hemisphere ABC generated by the rotation of x2 =r2 –y2,

Valerio’s investigation of the center of gravity of the hemisphere

Hyperboloid and parabolic triangle in prop. III-39

via magis naturalis me ad conoidis hyperbolici centrum gravitatis reduxisset. Ea igitur, in

The hyperbolic-parabolic bowl in the Appendix: Paraboloid GBH is taken away

6. 2. New Wine into Old Bottles: Valerio’s Inheritance

1 On this subject, see Giusti 1980 and Andersen 1984.

You might also like