The philosophical and mathematical commentaries of Proclus on the first book of Euclid's elements (Vol. 1 of 2) : $b To which are added, A history of the restoration of Platonic theology, by the latter Platonists: And a translation from the Greek of Proclus's Theological elementsProclus
Philosophy
The philosophical and mathematical commentaries of Proclus on the first book of Euclid's elements (Vol. 1 of 2) : $b To which are added, A history of the restoration of Platonic theology, by the latter Platonists: And a translation from the Greek of Proclus's Theological elements
Proclus
Euclid. Elements; Platonists
It was not agreeable to the ancient philosophers to establish a plane
species of superficies; but they considered superficies in general,
as the representative of magnitude, which is distant by a twofold
interval. For thus the divine Plato[149] says, that geometry is
contemplative of planes, opposing it in division to stereometry, as
if a plane and a superficies were the same. And this was likewise the
opinion of the demoniacal Aristotle[150]. But Euclid and his followers
consider superficies as a genus, but a plane as its species, in the
same manner as rectitude of a line. And on this account he defines a
plane separate from a superficies, after the similitude of a right
line. For he defines this last as equal to the space, placed between
its points. And in like manner, he says, that two right lines being
given, a plane superficies occupies a place equal to the space situated
between those two lines. For this is equally situated between its
lines; and others also explaining the same boundary, assert that it
is constituted in its extremities. But others define it as that to
all the parts of which a right line may be adapted[151]. But perhaps
others will say, that it is the shortest of superficies, having the
same boundaries; and that its middle parts darken its extremities; and
that all the definitions of a right line may be transferred into a
plane superficies, by only changing the genus: since a right, circular,
and mixt line, commencing from lines, arrive even at solids, as we
have asserted above; for they are proportionally, both in superficies
and solids. Hence also, Parmenides says, that every figure is either
right, or circular, or mixt. But if you wish to consider the right in
superficies, take a plane, to which a right line agrees in various
ways; but if a circular receive a spherical superficies; and if a
mixt, a conic or cylindric, or some one of that genus. But it is
requisite (says Geminus) since a line, and also a superficies is
called mixt, to know the measure of mixture, because it is various.
For mixture in lines, is neither by composition, nor by temperament
only: since, indeed, a helix is mixed, yet one part of it is not
straight, and another part circular, like those things which are
mixed by composition: nor if a helix is cut after any manner, does
it exhibit an image of things simple, such as those which are mixed
through temperament; but in these the extremes are, at the same time,
corrupted and confused. Hence, Theodorus the mathematician, does not
rightly perceive, in thinking that this mixture is in lines. But
mixture in superficies, is neither by composition, nor by confusion;
but subsists rather by a certain temperament. For conceiving a circle
in a subject plane, and a point on high, and producing a right line
from the point to the circumference of the circle, the revolution of
this line will produce a conical superficies which is mixt. And we
again resolve it into its simple elements, by a parallel section: for
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account