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
therefore, subsist together with one diameter, yet there will never be
infinite diameters, although they may be infinitely assumed. Hence,
there can never be doubles of infinites; but the doubles which are
continually produced, are the doubles of finites; for the diameters
which are always assumed, are finite in number. And what reason can be
assigned why every magnitude should not have finite divisions, since
number is prior to magnitudes, defines all their sections, pre-occupies
infinity, and always determines the parts which rise into energy, from
dormant capacity?
DEFINITION XVIII.
A SEMI-CIRCLE is the Figure contained by the Diameter, and that
Part of the Circumference which is cut off by the Diameter.
DEFINITION XIX.[173]
But the CENTRE of the Semi-circle, is the same with that of
the Circle.
From the definition of a circle Euclid finds out the nature of the
centre, differing from all the other points which the circle contains.
But from the centre he defines the diameter, and separates it from the
other right lines, which are described within the circle. And from
the diameter, he teaches the nature of the semi-circle; and informs
us, that it is contained by two terms, always differing from each
other, viz. a right-line and a circumference: and that this right-line
is not any one indifferently, but the diameter of the circle. For
both a less and a greater segment of a circle, are contained by a
right-line and circumference; yet these are not semi-circles, because
the division of the circle is not made through the centre. All these
figures, therefore, are biformed, as a circle was monadic, and are
composed from dissimilars. For every figure which is comprehended by
two terms, is either contained by two circumferences, as the lunular:
or by a right-line and circumference, as the above mentioned figures;
or by two mixt lines, as if two ellipses intersect each other (since
they enclose a figure, which is intercepted between them), or by a
mixt line and circumference, as when a circle cuts an ellipsis; or by
a mixt and right-line, as the half of an ellipsis. But a semi-circle
is composed from dissimilar lines, yet such as are, at the same time,
simple, and touching each other by apposition. Hence, before he defines
triadic figures, he, with great propriety, passes from the circle to
a biformed figure. For two right-lines can, indeed, never comprehend
space. But this may be effected by a right-line and circumference.
Likewise by two circumferences, either making angles, as in the
lunular figure; or forming a figure without angles, as that which is
comprehended by concentric circles. For the middle space intercepted
between both, is comprehended by two circumferences; one interior,
but the other exterior, and no angle is produced. For they do not
mutually intersect, as in the lunular figure, and that which is on
both sides convex.
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