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
The division of triangles sometimes commences from angles, but
sometimes from sides. And that, indeed, which originates from
sides, precedes as known; but that from angles follows as a proper
distribution. For these three angles alone belong to right-lined
figures, viz. the right, the obtuse, and the acute: but the equality
and inequality of sides subsist also in non-rectilinear figures.
Euclid says, therefore, that of triangles, some are equilateral,
others isosceles, and others scalene: for they have either all their
sides equal, or all unequal, or only two equal. And again, that of
triangles some are right-angled, others obtuse-angled, and others
acute-angled. And he defines a right-angled triangle, that which has
one right angle, as likewise an obtuse-angled triangle, that which has
one obtuse angle: for it is impossible that a triangle can have more
than one right, or obtuse angle[178]. But he defines an acute-angled
triangle, that which has all its angles acute. For here it is not
sufficient that it should have only one acute; since, in this case,
all triangles would be acute-angled, as every triangle has necessarily
two acute angles[179]. But, to possess three acute angles, is the
property of an acute-angled triangle alone. But Euclid appears to me to
have made a separate division into angles and sides, from considering
this alone, that every triangle is not also trilateral. For there are
quadrilateral triangles, which are called by mathematicians themselves
(ἀκιδοειδῆ) that is, similar to the point of a spear[180]: but by
Zenodorus (κοιλογώνια) that is, having an hollow angle. For on one of
the sides of a trilateral figure, constitute two right-lines inwardly;
by this means a certain space will be enclosed, which is comprehended
by external and internal right-lines, and which has three angles;
one, indeed, contained by the external lines; but two comprehended by
these and the internal lines, at the extremities in which these lines
are conjoined. A figure of this kind, therefore, is a quadrilateral
triangle. And hence, it does not immediately follow, that because a
figure has three angles (whether they are all acute, or one right,
or one obtuse), we shall find it trilateral; for it may be, perhaps,
quadrilateral. In like manner, you may also find quadrangles having
more than four sides. And therefore, we must not rashly determine the
number of sides from the multitude of angles. But of this enough. But
the Pythagoreans affirm that the triangle is simply the principle
of generation, and of the formation of generable natures. On which
account, Timæus says, that natural reasons, as well as those of the
construction of the elements, are triangular. For they are distant by a
triple interval, are on all sides collective of partible, and variously
mutable natures, are replete with material infinity, and bear before
themselves the conjunctions of material bodies, loosened and free: as,
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