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
For the zodiac itself forms angles, dividing the equinoctial
in two parts, at the vertex of the cutting superficies. And angles
of this kind subsist in a spherical superficies. But of those which
are in planes, some are comprehended by simple lines, others by mixt
ones; and others, again, by both. For in the shield-like figure[155],
an angle is comprehended by the axis, and the line of the shield: but
one of these lines is mixt, and the other simple. But if a circle
cuts the shield, the angle will be comprehended by the circumference,
and the ellipsis. And when cissoids, or lines similar to an ivy leaf,
closing in one point like the leaves of ivy (from whence they derive
their appellation) make an angle, such an angle is comprehended by
mixt lines. Also, when the hippopede, or line familiar to the foot
of a mare, which is one of the spirals, inclining to another line,
forms an angle, it is comprehended by mixt lines. Lastly, the angles
contained by a circumference and a right line, are comprehended by
simple lines. But of these again, some are contained by such as are
similar in species, but others by such as are dissimilar. For two
circumferences, mutually cutting, or touching each other, produce
angles: and these triple, for they are either on both sides convex,
when the convexities of the circumferences are external: or on both
sides concave, when both the concavities are external; which they call
sistroides; or mixt from convex and concave lines, as the lines called
lunulas. But besides this, angles are contained in a twofold manner,
by a right line and a circumference: for they are either contained by
a right line, and a concave circumference, as the semi-circular angle;
or by a right line and a convex circumference, as the cornicular angle.
But all those which are comprehended by two right lines, are called
rectilinear angles, which have likewise a triple difference[156]. The
geometrician, therefore, in the present hypothesis, defines all those
angles which are constituted in plane superficies, and gives them the
common name of a plane angle. And the genus of these he denominates
inclination: but the place, the plane itself, for angles have position:
but their origin such, that it is requisite there should be two lines
at least, and not three as in a solid. And that these should touch
each other, and by touching, must not lie in a right line, as an angle
is the inclination and comprehension of lines: but is not distance
only, according to one interval. But if we examine this definition,
in the first place it appears that it does not admit, an angle can be
perfected by one line; though a cissoid, which is but one, perfects
an angle. And, in like manner, the hippopede. For we call the whole
a cissoid, and not its portions (lest any one should say, that the
conjunction of these forms an angle) and the whole a spiral, but not
its parts. Each, therefore, since it is one, forms an angle to itself,
and not to another.
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