THEMedieval Science

o f Weights

(Scientia de Ponderibus)

Treatises Ascribed to Euclid, Archimedes

Thabit ibn Qurra, Jordanus de Nemore
and Blasius o f Parma

E D IT E D
W ith Introductions, English Translations, and
Notes, by j? rneSf M oodj
M arshall Clagett

MADISON
T H E U N IV E R S IT Y OF W IS C O N S IN PRESS
1952

Copyright, 1952, by
THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN
Copyright, Canada, 1952
Distributed in Canada by
Burns & MacEachern, Toronto
Printed in the United States of America
Cushing-Malloy, In c.—Ann Arbor, Michigan
PREFAC E
When Ernst Mach, in 1883, published the first edition of his
monumental work, Die Mechanik in ihrer Entwickelung histor-
isch-kritisch dargestellt, he made no mention of any contribu­
tion to mechanics between the time of Archimedes and that of
Leonardo da Vinci. The corrections and additions which steadily
expanded the Notes to Mach’ s work, in its six subsequent edi­
tions, bear witness to the increase of knowledge concerning the
scientific tradition of the Middle Ages, which has taken place
during the past sixty years. That the philosophical works of A r ­
istotle were studied in minute detail by the scholastic teachers
of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, has long been recog­
nized; but that there also existed, in the medieval period, a tra­
dition of mathematical physics with historical links to the late
Alexandrian school of mechanicians, and to Euclid and Archi­
medes, is less generally known.
The influence of the Alexandrian tradition, and of the Archi­
medean method of demonstrating theorems in mechanics by ge­
ometrical proofs from a few explicit postulates of physical
character, is clearly exhibited in the various treatises “on
weights” associated in medieval manuscripts with the name of
Jordanus de Nemore. Sources of Greek origin, transmitted and
elaborated by Arab intermediaries, are indicated for these
treatises. But the thirteenth century author, or authors, of the
writings ascribed to Jordanus were no mere copyists or com­
pilers, and they made important additions to the materials which
they inherited.
The modern rediscovery of medieval statics, and of the in­
terest and significance of the writings attributed to Jordanus de
Nemore, is primarily due to Giovanni Vailati and Pierre Duhem,
and to the latter more than the former. Vailati’ s brief estimate
of the importance of the treatises entitled De ponderibus and
attributed to Jordanus was included in a paper on the origins of
the concept of virtual work appearing in the Acte of the Acca-
demia of Turin, Volume 23, session of 1897. Vailati pointed out
that not only was the concept of virtual work being used in the
Jordanus treatises but that a directional analysis of force was
being considered for the first time with the consequent correct
analysis of the inclined plane problem. But Vailati’ s analysis
was brief and not widely available so that it remained for Du­
hem to make a more thoroughgoing investigation of medieval
statics. His work, Les Origines de la Statique, whose first vol­
ume was published in 1905, contained a much more complete
v
 PREFACE
study of the Jordanus treatises on weights, and of their Greek
and Arab antecedents. Duhem held that the thirteenth century
author, or authors, of the Jordanus writings discovered and util­
ized the principles of composition of forces, and of virtual dis­
placements, thereby anticipating by some three hundred and fifty
years the achievements hitherto credited to Galileo, Descartes,
and Bernoulli. Duhem's claims have seemed extreme to many
historians of science, and have been vigorously challenged. Yet
the prerequisite for any adequate analysis of the contributions
of Jordanus and his medieval associates, or for sound appraisal
of the merits of Duhem’ s thesis, has so far been lacking. The
texts of Jordanus and of the other auctores de ponderibus have
either not been edited at all, or have been available only in rare
and badly edited early editions or in inadequate editions pub­
lished in learned periodicals not easily accessible. None of
these texts, moreover, has been translated into English, so that
their content has not been accessible at all to the many compe­
tent students of the sciences who do notread Latin.lt is to meet
this need that our editions and translations of the corpus of me­
dieval treatises on weights have been prepared.
While all the works contained in this volume have been edited
directly from manuscript sources, our editions make no claim
to be “critical” in the strict sense. They are based, in general,
on a few manuscript versions which have seemed to represent
the most authentic manuscript traditions, with emendations on
occasion from additional manuscripts or from the earlier edi­
tions. Variant readings are given only to the extent that they
have some bearing on the meaning or interpretation of the texts.
The aim has been to provide intelligible texts authenticated by
at least one (though in most cases, two or three) early and re­
liable manuscript source. Some passages have remained ob­
scure, despite all efforts at emendation. But for the most part
the texts, as established, are mathematically coherent and rea­
sonably clear in their meaning and intent.
The text of the Liber de ratione ponderis of Jordanus de Ne­
more was originally edited as a project in a seminar for grad­
uate students at Columbia University, given under Ernest Moody’s
direction in the Spring Session of 1949. The members of this
seminar, who assisted Moody in collating two of the manuscripts
used as basis of the edition, were M essrs. Raymond Clements,
Arthur Ditzel, and Jason Lewis Saunders. This initial interest
in the material led to the editing of the other Jordanus treatises
and some of their antecedents of the Greek tradition. At this
point Marshall Clagett offered to contribute an edition and
translation of Thabit ibn Qurra’ s Liber karastonis, with an in­
troduction and notes. Subsequently he made additional contribu­
vi
PREFACE
tions to the volume, so that it now appears to be an evenly col­
laborative work.
Our indebtedness to the pioneer research of Pierre Duhem in
this literature of the scientia de ponderibus is manifest on a l­
most every page of our work. We wish likewise to acknowledge
the very kind cooperation of the many libraries who made their
manuscripts, or photographic reproductions of them, available
to us; the names of these libraries appear in our list of Sigla of
Manuscripts and Early Editions. We wish also to acknowledge
our indebtedness to Professor H. Lamar Crosby, of Hollins Col­
lege, for lending photographic reproductions of several manu­
scripts of Bradwardine*s Tractatus de proportionibus velocita­
tum in motibus, of which he has since prepared a full edition
and translation to be published shortly. Further thanks are due
to the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation for fellow­
ships granted to Marshall Clagett which allowed him to collect
photographs of many of the manuscripts used in establishing the
texts included in this volume.
There are some divergences which remain in the manner in
which the two editors have cited variants, but this should not
prove of any difficulty to the reader since in each case the methr-
od employed is clearly apparent. Apology is due the reader for
removing the Variant Readings and Critical Notes to the end of
the volume. This was done to facilitate the electrotyping. It is
nevertheless hoped that the reader will consult the critical dis­
cussions as he reads the various texts. The system of page ref­
erences for the Notes and Variants should make a cumbersome
task as simple as possible.
For the difficult job of typing we owe thanks to M rs. Margaret
Hundt of Madison, Wisconsin.
It is hoped that these texts and their translations will be of
value to students of the history of science, and serve in some
measure to remedy the pitiful shortage of modern editions, and
particularly of English translations, of medieval scientific writ­
ings in this field.
E.A.M .
M.C.
V ll
 T A B L E OF CO N T EN T S

G E N E R A L INTRO D U C TIO N 1

TEXTS

f LIBER EUCLIDIS DE PONDEROSO ET LEVI

ET COMPARATIONE CORPORUM AD INVICEM 21

II LIBER ARCHIMEDIS DE INSIDENTIBUS IN

HUMIDUM (LIBER ARCHIMENIDIS DE
PONDERIBUS) 33

HI LIBER DE CANONIO 55

IV LIBER KARAS TONIS 77

V ELEMENTA JORDANI SUPER DEMONSTRA­

TIONEM PONDERUM 119

VI LIBER JORDANI DE PONDERIBUS 143

VII LIBER JORDANI DE NEMORE DE RATIONE

PONDERIS, 167

VIH TRACTATUS BLASH DE PARMA DE

PONDERIBUS 229

APPENDICES

I A FRAGMENT OF THE ROMAN BALANCE

ATTRIBUTED TO EUCLID 281

H THOMAS BRADWARDINE’ S DISCUSSION OF

PROPOSITION ONE OF THE LIBER DE
PONDERIBUS 285

HI A FOURTEENTH-CENTURY COMMENTARY
ON PROPOSITION ONE OF THE LIBER DE
PONDERIBUS 293

IV A VARIANT FORM OF PROPOSITION EIGHT

OF THE ELEMENTA JORDANI 306

IX
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

VARIANT READINGS 313

SIGLA OF MANUSCRIPTS AND EDITIONS 315

CRITICAL NOTES 345

BIBLIOGRAPHY 431
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
INDEX 435

Part I

by

MARSHALL CLAGETT

Part II

by

ERNEST A. MOODY

x
 PART ONE

Natural science or physics in the medieval Aristotelian clas­

sification of the sciences was a science very broad in scope.^
It treated natural bodies insofar as they undergo movement or
suffer changes. It sought to elucidate the fundamental charac­
ter of matter and form in nature and to clarify the role played
by the four types of causation which Aristotle believed were
operating in nature. If particular emphasis was placed on the
final or purposeful cause throughout the Middle Ages, it is
worth noting that toward the end of the Middle Ages there was
an evident tendency to consider immediate efficient causes as
more knowable. This was particularly true in the mechanics of
local motion.
Since it dealt with the general principles of movement and
change in nature, physics was described as a “general" science.
It included as parts a number of “special" sciences where the
principles were illustrated in some particular kind of body.
Thus alchemy as a special part of physics studied certain chem­
ical changes, some real and some chimerical, that were believed
to take place in metals and other earthly bodies. Optics, astron­
omy and statics were sometimes included as part of physics.
While the general framework for natural science was supplied
by the Aristotelian tradition, the special sciences that were a
part of physics gained greatly from the Hellenistic mathematical
tradition of Euclid, Archimedes, and Ptolemy, a significant num­
ber of whose works were translated into Latin in the twelfth and
thirteenth centuries. This was true of the sciences of optics,
astronomy, and statics'. But it was in the science of statics that
the Hellenistic tradition bore greatest fruit in the thirteenth
century.
The science of statics, known in the Middle Ages as the scien­
tia de ponderibus (science of weights), was the subject of a series
of treatises “on weights," some of which were Latin translations
of earlier works from the Arabic or Greek and some of which
were original products of Latin authors. The presentation of the
texts, translations, and evaluation of the most significant of
these treatises is the object of our volume. For these treatises
constitute an important chapter in the growth of statical inves­
tigation.
The most important of the medieval statical tracts are those
which are attributed to Jordanus de Nemore, or more simply,
Jordanus. These are the texts numbered V-VII in this volume.
And of these tracts the treatise De ratione ponderis (On the

3
 GENERAL INTRODUCTION
GENERAL INTRODUCTION

Nature of Weight) is, as we shall see, by far the most important. increases proportionally as its distance from the fulcrum be­
Jordanus is sometimes identified with Jordanus of Saxony, who cause as it increases its distance from the fulcrum it would
served as Master General of the Dominican Order from 1222. have, if set in motion, a greater velocity. That is to say, it
But there is considerable doubt of this and we can only say that would continually traverse a longer arc in the same tim e.5
he flourished about this time. For a fuller discussion of his life Since, then, the effective weight is increased by the amount that
the reader can consult the special introduction to the text of his the velocity is greater, hence when the actual weights are in­
Elementa de ponderibus. At any rate, Jordanus, whoever he may versely proportional to their “velocities" (i.e., to the arcs trav­
have been, was a mathematician of great skill and considerable ersed in the same time), the effective weights will be the same.
originality, as both his mathematical and physical works reveal. But since in this circumstance the velocities (or arcs) are di­
So far as statics is concerned, he reworked the material which rectly proportional to the arm lengths, the weights will also be
he inherited ultimately from the Hellenistic mechanical tradi­ inversely proportional to the arm lengths. This dynamic argu­
tion, and in doing so he continued and deepened the union of Ar­ mentis more clearly presented in one of the Arabic works com­
istotelian dynamics with Archimedean mathematical statics. posed by Thabit ibn Qurra and called the Liber karastonis. (See
In Part Two of this Introduction and in the special introduc­ text IV, and its notes.) The essential fact is that the principle
tions to the various texts we have gone into the details of the of virtual velocities, in a germinal form, at least, is being used
role played by the earlier statical treatises in the development to account for a fundamental law of statics. The form of the
of statics in general and the Jordanus treatises in particular. principle as understood by the Pseudo-Aristotle and Thabit alike
At this point we should like only to characterize briefly the two would be something like this: In any mechanical system reduc­
main traditions in antique statics: the Archimedean and A r is­ ible to a balance or lever, the ratio of the moving force to the
totelian.^ force of the thing moved is as the inverse ratio of their veloc­
The debt we owe to Archimedes in the foundation of statics is
ities (understood in the sense of their simultaneous areal dis-
well known. His proof of the general law of the lever, which .placements.)^
asserts the inverse proportionality of the weights or forces and
Now a better form of the principle of virtual velocities or
the lever arms on which they are suspended or act, was an in­
displacements would be, say, that the ratio of these forces var­
fluential one in the history of statics. It was a proof that was
ies inversely as their vertical, rectilinear displacements. And
essentially “static," ^ for it appealed to the symmetry in the geo­
it was in this sense that the medieval mechanician Jordanus
metrical representation of the equilibrium of a lever with equal
understood the principle. One of his commentators of the four­
arms supporting equal weights, and equally important for the
teenth century has put the principle in essentially this form:
proof was the symmetrical determination of the center of grav­
What suffices to lift a weight w through a vertical distance h
ity of two or more equal magnitudes, whose centers of gravity
will suffice to lift a weight k*w through a vertical distance h/k
lie on the same line. Archimedean statics depended, above all,
and it will suffice to lift a weight w/k through the vertical dis­
on the determinations of centers of gravity. Demonstrations
tance k*h. (See General Introduction, part two, section III, and
were wholly geometrical in character, theorems being inferred
Appendix III.)
from postulates or axioms in the Euclidian manner.
This expression could then be transformed into the concept of
Less generally known are the somewhat earlier contributions
virtual work, i.e ., the concept of the equality of potential work
to statics of Aristotle and his successors. His was a more “dy­
input to work output in a system in equilibrium, once the con­
namic” approach, which, however, lacked the elegance and math­
cept of work had come to be defined as the product of a force
ematical rigor of that of Archimedes. This dynamic approach
and the distance through which it acts.
finds illustration in the general law of the lever as expressed
Jordanus, then, in the thirteenth century used the better form
in a work entitled Mechanical Problems and attributed to A r is­
of the principle of virtual displacements in terms of vertical
totle (but probably by a later author). The law of the lever is
displacements to demonstrate the general law of the lever in
accounted for in this treatise by the fact that “a longer radius
both the cases of the straight lever (see proposition E.8 or
moves more quickly than a shorter one under pressure of an
Rl.06)and the bent lever (see Rl.08), and also to give an elegant
equal w e i g h t .T h e account is not by any means completely
proof of the inclined plane problem (see Rl.10). At the same
clear, but the substance of his argument is probably as follows.
time, in his proposition regarding the bent lever (Rl.08) Jordanus
The effective weight of any given weight on a balance or lever
clearly recognized that it is the horizontal distance from the
4
5
 GENERAL INTRODUCTION
weight on the end of the bent lever arm to the vertical line run­
ning through the fulcrum that must be employed to determine
the effective power for movement of the suspended weight. Thus
Jordanus seems to have had a deeper insight into the factors
determining the effective force of weights in a lever or balance
system than did the mechanicians who preceded him.
Finally, we should note that Jordanus employs as a fundament­
al notion a principle which he calls “gravity according to posi­
tion” (gravitas secundum situm). This principle essentially held
that the effective weight (or force) along a potential trajectory
inclined to the vertical is measured by the vertical component
of that potential trajectory. In Part Two of the General In­
troduction and in the introduction and notes to the Elementa de
ponderibus, we have discussed Jordanus’ incorrect and correct
usage of this principle. When used correctly it was equivalent
to the modern formulation F = w • sin a where F is the force in
the direction of the inclined plane, w is the free weight of the
weight on the plane, and is the angle of inclination of the plane.
In summary, then, the works of Jordanus demand careful at­
tention in the history of statics, for they seem to utilize the basic
principle of work to prove theorems of statics, foreshadowing
the methods of modern mechanics; they reveal, particularly in
the analysis of the bent lever of Rl.08, a deeper insight into
what is later called static moment; and they give what is essen­
tially a “ resolution” of forces in determining the effective com­
ponent of natural gravity in a constraint system. (See Rl.004,
Rl.005, R1.09 and Rl.lO.) A discussion of these and other contri­
butions of Jordanus has been given in the second part of the
General Introduction and in the notes to the texts themselves.
The treatises attributed to Jordanus and the various other
earlier texts were copied, elaborated, and commented upon in
the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. The best of these works,
the Liber de ratione ponderis, which contains all of the basic
ideas we have attributed above to Jordanus, was published in
1565, and thus was available in print to the early modern mech­
anicians interested in statics. How widely it was read and used
is a matter of dispute, but that it played some part in the rise
of modern statics can hardly be doubted.
Before taking up our texts in greater detail, we might note
finally how the history of this one branch of physics in an early
period illustrates some of the truisms regarding the general
development of science that occasionally escape attention. First
it illustrates the success which emerged when the ordinary
fruits of human experience are analytically abstracted and gen­
eralized to form the first principles of a science. Thus from an
analytic intuition of what is gained and what is lost in the use
6 7
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
of a lever came the general principle of virtual displacements,
which was later further refined as the principle of virtual work.
In the second place, the study of medieval statics illustrates
the significant achievements that could be and were made when
the abstractions and generalizations which served as principles
were given even the most elementary mathematical form, and
further when the logical implications following from the first
principles were themselves developed in the language of quan­
tity. For example, from his initial concept of positional gravity
mathematically expressed—a brilliant intuition of component for­
ces—Jordanus proceeded by the use of the principle of virtual
displacements and the theorems of plane geometry to deduce
correctly a general proposition relating interconnected weights
on oppositely inclined planes to the lengths of those planes. Sim­
ilarly the neat geometrical extension of his first principles led
him to his correct theorem regarding the bent lever. Lastly, our
study of medieval statics reveals the great importance for sci­
entific development of the fact that natural science was an inte­
gral and connected part of the general arts program. As we have
said earlier, the originality and success of Jordanus’ efforts in
i statics stemmed in part from the union of a philosophical ap-
proa<*lL.(that of Aristotle and his successors) with a moreT rlg^-
orous mathematical tradition (that of Euclid and Archimedes).
A student of the arts faculty of a medieval university would al­
most certainly come in contact with both of these traditions in
the course of his study. The junction, then, of the philosophical
and mathematical traditions in statics was but one illustration
of the more general interplay between the two traditions. Most
of us who have investigated the origins of Western science ack­
nowledge this interplay by affirming that the principal fore-
bearers of modern science were in fact the twin traditions of
Greek philosophy and mathematics.
PART TWO
I
The science of mechanics is almost wholly a modern crea­
tion, but like most human achievements it has roots and antece­
dents stretching far into the past. The ancientGreeks, unrivalled
in pure mathematics and in philosophical physics, made only
slight excursions into the field of mechanics. Archimedes, pri­
 GENERAL INTRODUCTION
mariLy a mathematician, applied geometrical demonstration to
the problem of equilibrium and thereby became the founder of
the science of statics. Aristotle, primarily a philosopher, of­
fered somewhat incautious and vague formulations of quantita­
tive relations between distance, time, motive power and re sis­
tance, involved in forced motions and in the free fall of heavy
bodies, and to this extent he was the father of the science of dy­
namics. But what was required, for the achievement of a genu­
ine and successful science of mechanics, was a treatment of the
fertile subject matter of the Aristotelian tradition by men of
mathematical skill working with something of the rigor and clar­
ity which belonged to the tradition of Archimedes. In Galileo
and the other seventeenth century founders of modern physics,
such a combination was achieved in brilliant manner. But the
task had been attempted for three hundred years prior to Gal­
ileo, and much of his path had been prepared for him by the A r ­
istotelian scholastic tradition against which he revolted.^
The mediaeval contributions to mechanics have been brought
to light only in recent years, and primarily through the histor­
ical studies of Pierre Duhem.^ The most striking of these con­
tributions occurred in the fourteenth century, at Paris and at
Oxford. The theory of impetus, developed by Jean Buridan and
his Parisian disciples, yielded an analysis of projectile motions
and of gravitational acceleration which has marked analogies
with the Galilean and Newtonian dynamics. Even earlier, at
Oxford, the disciples of Thomas Bradwardine carried out an
analysis of the kinematic aspects of accelerated movement, in­
volving the concept of instantaneous velocity, which led to the
statement and proof of the fundamental kinematic law relating
distances to times in uniformly accelerated motion. These four­
teenth century contributions, originated and conceived within
the general framework of the Aristotelian physics, constituted
a mechanics in the modern sense of the word, and this mechan­
ics, studied and taught in the universities of northern Italy
throughout the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, and known in
those days as “the doctrine of the moderns,” constituted a half­
way stage between the physics of Aristotle and that of the sev­
enteenth century.^
The mediaeval contribution to statics, found in a group of
treatises “on weights” (De ponderibus), was made in the thir­
teenth century. The significance of the mediaeval “science of
weights” was revealed by Duhem in the first volume of his work
Les Origines de la Statique, published in 1905. As he pointed out,
the mediaeval treatment of the problem of equilibrium, inspired
by a group of anonymous and pseudonymous fragments of late
Greek origin, was essentially an attempt to derive the Archime-
8 9
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
dean principles from more general dynamical foundations drawn
,j from Aristotle. This led to methods of establishing the general
| lever principle on the more powerful principle of work, or of
/ virtual displacements, so that statics became integrated with
dynamics as in modern times. While Duhem's claims may have
been exaggerated, as some recent scholars have contended,^
the texts of the mediaeval scientia de ponderibus, which are
edited in this volume, reveal a most interesting interpenetration
between the mathematical tradition of Archimedes and Euclid,
and the dynamical tradition of Aristotelian physics.
The corpus of writings constituting the “science of weights,"
found in numerous manuscripts of thirteenth, fourteenth and fif­
teenth century origin, consists of three types of treatise. First,
there are works and fragments translated from the Greek or
Arabic. usually ascribed to Euclid or to Archimedes, which show
signs of an origin within the later Alexandrian period of Greek
science. These, include the De ponderoso et levi ascribed to
Euclid, the De insidentibus in humidum ascribed to Archimedes,
a Liber de canonio which generally occurs without indication of
authorship, and a Liber Karastonis edited by the ninth century
mathematician Thabit ibn Qurra. To be associated withThabit’ s
Liber Karastonis is a fragment attributed to Euclid, published
in our Appendix I, which may possibly be the original Causae
Karastonis of which Thabit’ s work is avowedly a revision or
elaboration.
The second group consists of the treatises De ponderibus
ascribed in most cases to the thirteenth century mathematician
Jordanus de Nemore. These appear to have been written by
Christian scholastic teachers in the Latin west, presumably Tn
the earlier part of the thirteenth century. Two of the treatises
may with reasonable certainty be ascribed to Jordanus de Ne­
more: the Elementa super demonstrationem ponderum, which
we distinguish as Version “E ,” and the Liber de ratione pond­
eris (Ve rsion “R "), The third treatise in this group, however,
is almost certainly not by Jordanus, and it does not show any
influence by the writings of Jordanus. It usually bears the title
Liber Jordani de ponderibus, or simply Liber ponderum, and we
have designated it in our collection as Version “P.” Duhem called
this version a “peripatetic transformation” of the Elementa of
Jordanus; but since it shows no trace of influence from this
work, the characterization seems unjustified, and it is more
proper to treat it as an independent .writing.
The third group of works belonging to the mediaeval scientia
de ponderibus consists of a group of “commentaries” or revised
versions of the treatises comprising the second group, mostly
^fou rteen th century authors. In all cases, these versions show
 GENERAL INTRODUCTION
GENERAL IN T R O D U C T IO N
definite dependence on the authentic treatises of Jordanus de
and from this same manuscript Curtze edited the Liber Euclidis
Nemore, either incorporating his texts verbatim, or reworking
de ponderoso et levi, publishing it in 1900 in Bibliotheca Mathe­
them with elaborations. Two of the most common of these later
matica. Finally an edition of Thabit ibn Qurra’ s Liber Karastonis,
versions are represented, in part, by texts edited in our Appen­
by F. Buchner, was published in the Sitzungsberichte der Phys-
dix III and Appendix IV. The first of these is a commentary on
ikalisch-medizinischen Sozietat in Erlangen, in 1922, with a very
the Liber ponderum (Version “P ’’ )by a fourteenth century writer,
interesting analytical introduction.^ The general inaccessibility
which Ftetrus Apianus published as “another commentary" in his
of the learned publications in which these editions are found, as
edition of the Liber de ponderibus printed at Nuremberg in 1533;
well as the fact that they are based on single manuscripts of the
from this we have edited the commentary on Proposition One.
works edited, justifies the inclusion of editions of these treatises
The second of these later versions is the one which occurs in
in our present collection, based on more adequate manuscript
Codex Vaticanus Latinus 2975, under the title Liber Euclidis de material.
ponderibus, from which we have edited the commentary on Prop­
II
osition Eight, dealing with the general lever principle. These
Problems of statics, with which the mediaeval treatises “on
fourteenth century versions are of historical and theoretical in­
weights" are concerned, were dealt with in ancient times by
terest, since they reveal the continuing influence of the work of
Archimedes of Syracuse (ca. 287-212 B.C.) and by the author of
Jordanus in the fourteenth century, and the debates which took
the Mechanical Problems attributed to Aristotle. Although A r­
place over the interpretation of hiis theorems.
chimedes’ authentic writings were translated from Greek into
The Tractatus de ponderibus of Blasius of Parma, written at
Latin by William of Moerbeke, in 1269, the treatises associated
the very end of the fourteenth century, does not properly belong
with Jordanus de Necnflfe show no direct acquaintance with the
to the group of De ponderibus treatises which we have described,
genuine Archimexlean..w-orLs, probably because they were written
since it is not normally found with them in the manuscripts. We
before the latter were translated.^* The indirect influence of
have edited it in full, however, because it represents a utiliza­
Archimedes is discernible, nevertheless, in several of the anon­
tion of the content of the mediaeval “science of weights" by one
ymous and pseudonymous writings which entered into the corpus
of the men who, at the beginning of the fifteenth century, con­
of mediaeval treatises on weights. Of these we shall have more
tributed
- ■ »—•—
to-|%<llpopularizing
fV M
i|
the scientific , tradition , of Oxford
, -
and to say presently.
Paris northern Italy. The treatise of Blasius fuses together,
The Mechanical Problems ascribed to Aristotle, but presum­
in an original ordering, most of the content of the Jordanus
ably written by a member of his school (possibly Strato of Lamp­
treatises along with the theorems of hydrostatics found in the
sacus) in the first half of the third century B .C ., seems to have
De insidentibus in humidum; it is, however, decidedly inferior
been the ultimate source of a number of the theorems in the
to its sources in point of critical handling of the subject matter.
Liber de ratione ponderis of Jordanus de Nemore. Yet we have
Of the eight treatises which are here edited in complete form, no evidence to show that this pseudo-Aristotelian work was ac­
three have never before been printed. These are the Liber de can- cessible to the Latin Middle Ages either in direct translation or
onio, the Elementa super demonstrationem ponderum of Jorda­ even in paraphrases by Arab writers. The presence of these
nus de Nemore (Version “E "), and the Tractatus de ponderibus of
tfieo rems in Jordanus’ work, however, gives reason to suspect
Blasius of Parma. The Liber de ponderibus (Version “P ") was that a mediaeval version or paraphrase of the Mechanical Prob­
edited by Petrus Apianus and printed atNuremberg in 1533, along
lems did exist, even though no manuscript of it has as yet been
with the fourteenth century commentary whose first theorem we discovered.
have edited in our Appendix III. The Liber de ratione ponderis of
Writings of Greek origin dealing with problems of statics,
Jordanus de Nemore (Version “R") was also printed in an early
whichpassed into the mediaeval corpus of treatises on weights,
edition, along with the De insidentibus in humidum attributed to
consisted of the work known as the De canonio, apparently trans-
Archimedes; these were printed by Curtius Trojanus at Venice,
lated directly from the Greek in the thirteenth century, and some
in 1565, from a manuscript which had belonged to Niccolo Tar-
fragments ascribed to Euclid which were probably inherited by
taglia. The texts of both of these sixteenth century editions are
way of Arabic versions. The De canonio consisted of four theo­
full of errors, and copies of them are scarce and inaccessible.
rems dealing with the method of constructing the Roman Bal­
The De insidentibus in humidum was also edited by M. Curtze,
ance, or balance of unequal arms; it assumes, as already proved
from a Dresden manuscript, in Bibliotheca Mathematics (1896);
by Archimedes and others, the general lever principle, and the
10
ll
 GENERAL INTRODUCTION
equivalence of several equal weights evenly distributed on a le­
v e r arm to their sum concentrated at the mean point of their
suspension. Dynamical considerations are not invoked in the
JJt1 canonio, and in this respect, as well as in the mathematical
elegance of its development, it reflects the pure Archimedean
tradition.
The Euclidean fragments, by contrast, reflect the dynamical
approach to the problem of equilibrium characteristic of the
Mechanical Problems of the school of Aristotle. The very brief
treatise known as the Liber Euclidis de ponderoso et levi, which
we have editedas thefirst of the collection, constitutes no more
than a formulation of the most general principles of Aristotelian
dynamics in a deductive manner, deriving five (or in one manu­
script six) theorems concerning the relative speeds with which
heavy bodies fall through a medium, from a set of nine postu­
lates. The basic Aristotelian principle, that the speed of move­
ment varies according to the ratio of motive power to re sis­
tance, is formulated here for the case of free fall of heavy
bodies, with motive power and resistance conceived to be meas­
ured by density or specific gravity. In the other fragment attrib­
uted to Euclid, which we have edited in Appendix I, the Aristot­
elian principle is applied to the case of weights on opposite ends
of a balance beam, in the manner in which this is done by the
pseudo-Aristotelian Mechanical Problems. Since the two arms
of a balance accomplish their movements in the same period of
time, comparisons of their “ velocities" reduce to comparisons
of the distances through which the ends of the balance beam can
move when the beam is rotated on its axis from the horizontal
to the vertical position. Since these distances are proportional
to the lengths of the arm s, the Aristotelian law of motion ac­
quires an inte rpretation, for the case of weights suspended on a
balance of unequal arms, which suggests the law of statical
moment. The Euclidean fragment under consideration gives, as
its first proposition, the following: If a balance is in horizontal
position, then, if its two ends rotate around the axis of support
in the same time, their forces (virtutes) will be in the same
ratio as the lengths of the arcs described by them in that time.
If this is so, it follows that the unequal forces of unequal weights
can be made equal by suspending them on inversely unequal le ­
ver arms. Thus the general lever principle is based, in this
Euclidean fragment, on the Aristotelian dynamical principle in
its special application to weights on a balance.
The Liber Karastonis of Thabit ibn Qurra, which professes to
be a revision of a Greek work entitled Causae Karastonis, may
well be based on the Euclidean fragment just discussed. Thabit
also commences with the Aristotelian dynamical principle, pre-
12
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
sumably understood for the case of the movements of weights
suspended on the ends of a balance beam: “ The ratio of the dis­
tances cut off by two bodies moved in the same tim e," he says,
“is as the ratio of the forces (virtutes) of movement of the bod­
ies which cut off those spaces.” In his second theorem Thabit
proves that the arcs traversed by the ends of the arms of a bal­
ance, in the same time, will be proportional to the lengths of the
arm s. His third theorem states the inverse proportionality of
weights to distances from the axis, in the case of equilibrium;
his proof is drawn from the initial dynamical theorem, and is
very similar to the argument by which the lever principle is e s­
tablished in the pseudo-Aristotelian Mechanical Problems. As
F. Buchner has pointed out, Thabit’ s proof involves a fallacy,
since the Aristotelian dynamical principle asserts proportion­
ality of velocities to ratios of the motive and resistive powers,
whereas the lever principle asserts proportionality of distances
from the axis of suspension to the effective forces exerted by a
given weight.^ But the meaning of “velocity," in the Aristotelian
context, is not that of modern mechanics; as the author of the
Mechanical Problems states, velocity may mean either (a) greats
« r or less distance traversed in the same time, or (b) greater
or less time taken in traversal of the same distance. If under­
stood in the first of these senses, the derivation of the lever
principle from the Aristotelian law of velocities, in application
to the forces of weights in a connected system, might be con­
sidered legitimate.
The subsequent theorems of Thabit’ s treatise develop the
principle that the force exerted by weights distributed along a
lever arm is equivalent to that which is exerted by a weight
equal to their sum, placed at the mean point of their distribution.
This was one of the principles presupposed, without proof, by
the Liber de canonio; Thabit, basing himself on his earlier dy­
namical theorems, provides a demonstration of this theorem.
His next step is to show that a balance beam having uniform
material and thickness, exerts a force by reason of its weight
which is equivalent to the force which would be exerted by an
equal weight suspended at the mid point of a weightless lever
arm of equal length. This leads to his final theorem, equivalent
to the first theorem of the De canonio, which resolves the prob­
lem involved in constructing a Roman Balance; i.e ., how to de­
termine the weight which must be suspended fromthe end of the
shorter arm in order to hold the beam in horizontal equilibrium,
when the ratio of lengths of the two arms is given, and the total
weight of the beam is given. Thabit’ s treatise, as a whole, con­
stitutes an attempt to provide a theoretical foundation for the
theorems of the Liber de canonio, whereby the Archimedean
13
 GENERAL INTRODUCTION
statical laws, which are presupposed without proof in the De
canonio, are derived from the basic axioms of Aristotelian dy­
namics. The general method of this derivation is obviously sug­
gested by the sequence of propositions making up the Euclidean
fragment which we have edited in Appendix I, and which may in­
deed be a translation of the Greek text which Thabit called the
Cause Karastonis, and which he avowedly used as the basis of
his own work. As we shall see, the treatises of Jordanus de Ne­
more follow the pattern of Thabit’s treatise in deriving the stat­
ical theorems from the Aristotelian dynamical axioms, while
introducing some new concepts and methods of considerable
historical and theoretical significance. The ultimate source of
this treatment of statics, however, is the pseudo-Aristotelian
Mechanical Problems; though this work was apparently lost to
the Middle Ages, its content was in large measure conveyed to
the mediaeval auctores de ponderibus and utilized in the devel­
opment of a new science of statics, based on the principle of
work and virtual displacements.
HI
The Elementa super demonstrationem ponderum (Version “ E ")
is assuredly an authentic work of the thirteenth century mathe­
matician Jordanus de Nemore. Jordanus, who taught mathemat­
ics on the Faculty of Arts at Paris in the early part of the thir­
teenth century, is known as author of several very competent
writings in pure mathematics. One of these works, which was
edited by M. Curtze under the title Geometria seu De Triangulis,
was also given the title Filotegni in several mediaeval manu­
scripts. In the Elementa super demonstrationem ponderum, the
author refers, for the proof of several geometrical theorems,
to another work of his own called the Fjlotegni; the theorems in
question turn out to be theorems of the De triangulis of Jordanus
\ de Nemore, so that there seems to be no reason to question the
; authenticity of the Elementa super demonstrationem ponderum
\ as a work of Jordanus.
This work commences with seven propositions, laid down as
postulates, and it then sets forth nine theorems of statics, each
of which is followed by a proof or “commentum." While the in­
ternal evidence seems to warrant the assumption that these
proofs stem from the pen of Jordanus, there are reasons for
doubting that the theorems themselves, or the seven postulates,
were originated by him. For one thing, these same postulates
and theorems occur in the Liber de ponderibus (Version “P "),
with proofs that have nothing in common with those of the E le-
menta of Jordanus, and it seems unlikely that the author of this
treatise should have copied his postulates and theorems from
the work of Jordanus without being in the least influenced by the
14
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
proofs which Jordanus had provided for the theorems. Again,
this Liber de ponderibus (Version “P ”) has a long explanatory
introduction, explaining the meaning of the novel terminology
used in the statement of the postulates, as if this terminology
had not previously been used or known. But if this work had
been no more than a “peripatetic transformation” of the Ele -
menta of Jordanus, as Duhem supposed it to be, its author could
scarcely have presumed its terminology to be unknown and
wholly novel. Finally, we have the testimony of Thomas Brad-
wardine, writing in 1328,that the “author" of the first proposition
of the De ponderibus did not supply a proof of the theorem, and
that the proofs given for it, in the De ponderibus treatises, were
provided by "commentators." Bradwardine reproduces, with
great fidelity, the proof which is found in the Elementa of Jor­
danus, desc ribing it as a proof offered by “one commentator.” ®
These facts suggest that the postulates and theorems of the
Elementa of Jordanus, and of the Liber de ponderibus (Version
“P "), were inherited by the authors of these versions as a bare
set of propositions contained in the pseudo-Euclidean literature
transmitted by the Arabs. Thus the work of Jordanus, in his E l­
ementa super demonstrationem ponderum, was that of a "com ­
mentator” who supplied explanations and proofs of the nine theo­
rems which followed on the seven postulates. So also the work
of the author of Version “P ” may be supposed to be that of a
commentator. Both versions occur in the earliest of our manu­
scripts, and since neither version shows any trace of influence
by the other, it seems likely that they were written at about the
same time, early in the thirteenth century, by two authors work­
ing independently on a set of postulates and theorems which nei­
ther of them originated, but which was accessible to both in
some earlier source.
Let us now consider the new concepts, and methods of proof,
which these thirteenth century treatises on weights introduced.
Ernst Mach, in his Science of Mechanics, distinguishes four
basic principles proper to statics: (l) the general lever principle;
(2) the inclined plane principle; (3) the principle of composition
of forces; and (4) the principle of virtual displacements.9 The
statics of Archimedes, which steered clear of all entanglements
with dynamics, attained only the first of these principles; the
other three, involving dynamical considerations, characterize
modern statics. In the treatises ascribed to Jordanus de Nemore,
however, these last three principles appear, and provide a dy­
namical foundation for the proof of the lever principle. The ini­
tial postulate states that all heavy bodies tend to move directly
toward the center of the earth, and to resist being moved in the
contrary direction. The other postulates then consider how this
15
 GENERAL INTRODUCTION
natural force of a weight is modified when its path of movement,
as constrained by connection in a system such as a balance, de­
viates from that of vertical descent. A body, in such a system,
is then said to be “heavier” or “lighter” (in the sense of exert -
ing greater or less force along its path of possible movement
in the system) in proportion as its path of movement is more
“direct" or more “oblique.” The component of its natural grav­
ity, directed along its path of possible movement, is called its
“positional gravity” (gravitas secundum situm). This component
is calculated by taking an arbitrary segment of its path of pos­
sible descent, “as small as you please,” and determining a pro­
jection of this segment on the vertical; the “positional gravity”
is that fraction of the natural gravity of the weight, equal to the
ratio of the vertical projection to the length of trajectory.
This concept is applied to problems of equilibrium in the fo l­
lowing manner. If two weights, suspended on opposite ends of a
balance beam, are in equilibrium, this is because the positional
gravities of the weights are equal, and equal in such manner
that no advantage in positional gravity could be gained, by either
weight, through any small displacement in either direction. This
would be the case if the equilibrium were unstable; if stable, a
small displacement from the position of equilibrium would re­
sult in a gain in positional gravity for the weight elevated in that
displacement, with the result that the balance would return to
the position of equilibrium. In the Elementa of Jordanus,as well
as in Version “P ” , the error is made of supposing that equal
weights on equal lever arms are in stable equilibrium, and a
plausible but mistaken application of the theory of positional
gravity is given in the proof. But for the most part, this concept
is applied correctly and with ingenuity in the demonstration of
various statical theorems. Its significance lies in the fact that
it involves the idea of a resolution of forces, with an accurate
method of determining the component of the natural gravity of a
weight which is available for production of movement in a con­
straint system.
Since there is no actual movement, in a system which is in
equilibrium, the “positional gravity” of an element of the system
cannot be measured by a finite length of descent along the path
compatible with the constraints, but only by a “virtual" displace­
ment. In Version “P ,” whose prologue introduces the concept of
positional gravity in explanatory manner, the objection is raised
that where there is no motion, there cannot be any “velocity of
descent,” or any determination of positional gravity in terms of
a path of movement which is not actually traversed. The author
of this version replies to the objection by an appeal to the A r ­
istotelian distinction between “natural” and “violent" rest, as
16
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
conditions corresponding to the natural and violent movements
which terminate in these states of rest. Thus the descent of a
weight along the curved trajectory of the lever arm is analyzed
as a constantly changing composition of the “natural" downward
movement of the weight with a “violent" movement due to the
connection with the axis of rotation; when the weight is held in
equilibrium at a point along this curved trajectory, the compo­
sition of “natural” and “violent" factors is defined by the de­
clination from the vertical which would characterize a displace­
ment of the weight along the path compatible with the con­
straints. Jordanus makes it evident that the displacement which
measures the positional gravity is to be understood as an infin­
itely small displacement.
The infinitesimal aspect of the measure of positional gravity
is prominent in the theorems of the Elementa of Jordanus, since
these theorems are concerned with the equilibrium of weights
suspended on a balance beam, where the path of possible move­
ment is curved. The simpler case, of the force required to sus­
tain a weight on an inclined plane, is treated only in the Liber
de ratione ponderis of Jordanus. It is there given a correct and
elegant solution, based on the principle of work. In ancient times
this problem had been treated by Pappus, in an erroneous man­
ner; in the sixteenth century, between the time of Leonardo da
Vinci and Galileo, numerous attempts to solve the problem end­
ed in failure, until Galileo achieved a correct solution.^® Strange­
ly enough, although the De ratione ponderis of Jordanus was pub­
lished during the sixteenth century, the elegant and correct so­
lution of the inclined plane problem, therein contained, was re­
jected,or simply neglected, by the mechanicians of that century.
The principle of work, or of virtual displacements, is at
least implicit in the proofs which Jordanus gives for the gener­
al lever principle and for the inclined plane principle. His ex­
plicit appeal is to the first theorem of the Elementa, which
states that the “velocities of descent,” as among heavy bodies,
are proportional to their weights, and that the “velocities of
ascent" are inversely proportional to the weights. How this theo­
rem is to be interpreted is a matter of no small difficulty. In
the context, the theorem would appear to bear on weights in a
connected system, such as a balance. The term “velocity of de­
scent,” furthermore, is to be understood as the amount of ver­
tical descent accomplished by the weight on the lever arm, in
the time of the movement of the balance beam. Since the amount
of vertical descent which can be accomplished by a weight on
the end of a balance beam, in any given rotation of the beam,
varies as the length of the arm on which it is suspended, it
would seem that the theorem is not concerned to state the pro­
17
 GENERAL INTRODUCTION
portionality of “velocities of descent” to the natural weights of
the heavy bodies being compared, but rather to the forces which
these bodies can exert within the constraint system. The four­
teenth century commentator, whose discussion of this first theo­
rem has been edited in our Appendix III, construes the theorem
very explicitly in the sense of the principle of work, in this
form: What suffices to lift a weight w through the vertical dis­
tance h, will suffice to lift a weight k*w through the vertical dis­
tance h/k, and it will suffice to lift a weight w/k through the
vertical distance k*h. As this commentator points out, it is only
as so construed that the theorem serves to demonstrate the
general lever principle; and since Jordanus invokes this theo­
rem, giving it this sense, in his proof of the lever law, it is to
be presumed that it is in this sense that he intended it to be
understood. The principle is also invoked, in this form , in two
theorems of the De ratione ponderis of Jordanus: in his proof of
the condition of equilibrium of a bent lever, and in his proof of
the inclined plane principle. Duhem's claim, that the statics of
Jordanus is based on the principle of work, would seem at least
defensible.
The chef-d’oeuvre of Jordanus de Nemore, and of the whole
body of mediaeval treatises on weights, is the Liber de ratione
ponderis. Duhem supposed that this work must have been writ­
ten by a “gifted disciple of Jordanus," rather than by Jordanus
himself, because it contains corrections of some of the errors
made by Jordanus in his Elementa. Since there is nothing im ­
plausible in supposing that Jordanus himself came to recognize
the errors of his earlier work, or of the theorems to which his
Elementa had been a commentary, we see no good reason to fol­
low Duhem in denying the authorship of the De ratione ponderis
to Jordanus, when all the known manuscripts expressly attrib­
ute it to him. The work is in four books or parts, and in its first
part it incorporates seven of the theorems of the Elementa,
'with most of their proofs, adding three important new theorems:
on the bent lever, and two on the inclined plane problem,
l’he second book develops a large number of theorems on the
problem of the Roman Balance, elaborating on the material found
In the De canonio. The third book offers six theorems on prob­
lems of equilibrium, which show very marked affinity with pas-
from the Mechanical Problems attributed to Aristotle. It
*r«’ ms likely that Jordanus came across some paraphrase, or
Pr *haps a complete translation, of the Mechanical Problems,
*ml was thereby led to incorporate these theorems in his work.
A considerable number of theorems in the fourth book of the De
HUione ponderis, likewise, bear evident traces of an origin in
M»r Aristotelian Mechanical Problems.
18
GENERAL i n t r o d u c t i o n
The theorems of the fourth book, unlike those of the first
three, deal with problems of general dynamics, attempting to
extend the analysis of weights in connected systems to the prob­
lem of the free movement of heavy bodies in fluid media, to the
problem of the strength of supporting timbers, and to problems
of elasticity of bodies. The immensely more difficult subject
matter may account for the clumsiness of treatment in many of
these theorems; we need not conclude that the work cannot be
by Jordanus, but only that Jordanus showed more daring than
caution in taking on such complex and varied problems of dy­
namics. In any event, there is much in this fourth book to sug­
gest historical continuity between the work of Jordanus and the
developments in dynamics which took place at Oxford and Paris
in the fourteenth century. The concept of impetus appears in
some of the theorems of the fourth book of the De ratione pon­
deris, and the analogy between moment of force relative to an
axis, and impetus (or momentum) determined by acquired vel­
ocity, is suggested.
While the center of interest, in mechanics, shifted from stat­
ics to dynamics in the fourteenth century, the works of the auc-
tores de ponderibus continued to hold interest. The later re­
visions or commentaries, represented by the texts edited in our
Appendix III and Appendix IV, testify to this fact, as does the
discussion of the first theorem of the Liber de ponderibus, by
Thomas Bradwardine, which we have edited in our Appendix II.
Albert of Saxony and John Dumbleton, representing the Parisian
tradition of Buridan and the fourteenth century mathematical
school of Merton College, Oxford, also utilize the work of Jor­
danus de Nemore in the course of their mechanical discussions.
We may remark, however, that it was not those theorems of the
scientia de ponderibus which were primarily concerned with
statics, that interested the fourteenth century mechanicians, but
the dynamical principles from which Jordanus had sought to de­
rive the statical theorems. Thus the first theorem of the Liber
de ponderibus, which was also the first theorem of the Elementa
of Jordanus and, in slightly different form, of his De ratione
ponderis, gave rise to the critical discussions of Bradwardine
and of the commentator whose commentary on this theorem we
have edited in our Appendix III. Jordanus’ elegant demonstration
of the inclined plane principle, and his proofs of the general
lever law and of the condition of equilibrium of the bent lever,
were neglected, or perhaps accepted without comment, by his
fourteenth century successors.
The Tractatus de ponderibus of Blasius of Parma, written
around 1400, indicates a decline and comparative stagnation fol­
lowing on the fruitful period of the middle fourteenth century.
19
 GENERAL INTRODUCTION

The work is essentially a compilation of the materials found in

the De ponderibus treatises of the thirteenth century, fused with
the hydrostatic theorems of the pseudo-Archimedean De insi­
dentibus in humidum. Blasius of Parma seems to have been
something of a showman, if not a charlatan, more intent on be­
wildering his audience with seemingly paradoxical theorems,
than on clarifying his subject matter and developing it with crit­
ical rigor. I
As a transmitter of the mechanical tradition of the northern
countries to Italy, in the fifteenth century, Blasius is of some
historical importance; for the next flowering of interest in LIBER EUCLIDIS DE PONDEROSO ET LEVI ET
mechanics was to take place in Italy in the sixteenth century,
and the writings of Guidobaldi del Monte, of Jerome Cardan, of COMPARATIONE CORPORUM AD INVICEM
Tartaglia, and of J.-B. Benedetti, show that the work of Jordanus
de Nemore, in the field of statics, was known directly or indi­
rectly to the active mathematicians and physicists of sixteenth
century Italy.^ To what extent these men borrowed from Jorda­
nus, even while they professed to criticize his doctrines and to
substitute the teachings of Archimedes and other newly trans­
lated Greek authorities, is a matter of debate. But the discus­
Edited by
sions of Jordanus* theorems, and the frequent utilization of them MARSHALL CLAGETT
without acknowledgment, testify to the continuing influence and
vitality of the mediaeval science of weights in early modern Introduction, Translation
times. Though Benedetti, Galileo, and the other founders of mod­
and Notes by
ern mechanics professed to follow Archimedes and to reject
Aristotle, the mechanics which they created was conceived in ERNEST A. MOODY
dynamical terms, after the pattern of the Aristotelian tradition,
and not in the rigorous but limited form which characterized
the statics of Archimedes. The method was mathematical, and
inspired.by the Archimedean model; but the subject matter was
physical, owing its scope to the Aristotelian tradition within
which the new physics was born as a rebellious offspring. In
this union of mathematical analysis with Aristotelian physics,
the contributions of the mediaeval auctores de ponderibus, and
of their fourteenth century successors at Oxford and Paris,
played an important part.

20
 INTRODUC TION

Euclid, whose Elements provided the first systematic formu­

lation of Greek geometry, lived at Alexandria around 300 B.C.,
though he probably received his earlier mathematical education
at Athens. His work was posterior to that of Aristotle and
Eudemus, and to that of Plato’s successors in the Academy,
Speusippus and Xenocrates. It was contemporaneous with the
work of Theophrastus and Strato of Lampsacus, the successors
of Aristotle, and a half century earlier than that of Archimedes.
Though Euclid was first and foremost a geometer, he wrote an
important treatise on optics, and is credited with a short work
on musical intervals. Two mechanical treatises were attributed
to Euclid by the Arabs, a “ Book of Euclid on the Balance" extant
only in an Arabic ver sion which F. Woepcke edited and translated
into French in 1851^, and the "Book of Euclid on the Heavy and
Light and on the Comparison of Bodies to each other," which
was translated from Arabic into Latin and thereby conveyed to
the western scholastics.lt is this second treatise which we have
here edited and translated into English.

Whetherthis treatise may proper ly be ascribed toEuclid him­

self is a matter of doubt and conjecture. According to G. Sarton,
it cannot be by Euclid, because its statement of the notion of
specific gravity seems to be too advanced and clear to have been
made prior to Archimedes.^ This argument is scarcely conclu­
sive, however, since it presupposes that Archimedes was the
first to formulate the concept of specific gravity - -which is not
itself established by any conclusive evidence, but rests on the
assumption that no earlier teacher (such as Euclid) had formu­
lated the concept. The further fact, that this treatise formulates
the basic dynamic principle of Aristotle’ s "law of motion" for
freely falling bodies, is likewise inconclusive as a basis for the
claim that Euclid could not have written it. For the only dynam­
ics that had been formulated at all, in the time in which Euclid
lived, was the dynamics of Aristotle. Hence if Euclid did concern
himself with the task of proving theorems of dynamics, by the
geometrical method, from an explicit set of axioms or postu­
lates, it is not improbable that this dynamics should have re -
fleeted the work of Aristotle in that field. These considerations
do not establish the authenticity of the treatise as a work of
Euclid', but they indicate that no solid evidence has been pre­
sented sufficient to determine the question of authenticity one
way or the other.

23
 I N T R O D U C TI ON
The treatise, in any case, was known to the Arabs as early
as the ninth century A .D ., and there is reason to believe that
the Arabic version, from which the mediaeval Latin text was
translated, was prepared by Thabit ibn Qurra, on the basis of a
Greek text accessible to him, in the ninth century.^ Whether or
not the treatise was originally written by Euclid himself, it is
undoubtedly a product of the Greek tradition of Alexandria, re ­
flecting the fruitful alliance between mathematics and physics
which occurred there in the third century B.C.
In form, the treatise follows the pattern of Greek mathematical
works, settingforth nine postulates, on the basis of which it then
proves a number of theorems. In all the manuscripts accessible
to us, the treatise ends with the fifth theorem; in several manu­
scripts we find the statement Explicit quia plus non invenitur de
eo, indicating that the text was considered to be incomplete.
F. Buchner, however, in his study of Thabit ibn Qurra’ s Liber
Karastonis .gives a sixth theorem (in a German translation) found
in a manuscript of the work known to him, but to which we have
not had access. This theorem states that if two bodies of unequal
volume are of equal power in relation to the same medium, then
the body having the greater density will be of lesser volume than
the other. It offers a consistent and appropriate conclusion to
the treatise.
The main burden of the treatise is that of giving an explicit
interpretation of the Aristotelian “ law of motion” as applied to
the case of bodies falling freely through corporeal media, such
that the factors of motive power and resistance are measured
by the densities of the body and of the medium respectively.
Although the motive power, corresponding to the weight of the
body in question, is conceived in scalar fashion such that the
larger the body the greater its power (virtus), the fact that the
body must displace a quantity of the medium proportional to its
own volume, in falLing, entails the consequence that the ratio of
the motive powers of two bodies relatively to the same medium
will follow the ratio of their densities to that of the medium,
irrespective of their volumes. And since the speed of fall is
determined by the ratio of the body’ s power to fall, to the power
of the medium to resist, the speed of fall will also depend on the
ratio of the densities of the body and the medium. Thus, if two
bodies of the same density, but of unequal size or volume, fall
in the same medium, they will fall at the same speed.^
The historical interest of this treatise arises largely from
the fact that Thabit ibn Qurra, in seeking to establish a dynamical
24
DE PONDEROSO
foundation for the statical principle of the lever, adopted the
first theorem of the Liber Euclidis de ponderoso et levi as the
basic principle of his demonstrations, and indeed acknowledged
the close relation between his Liber Karastonis and the work
ascribed to Euclid.-* Thus, in the ninth century of our era, the
Archimedean theorems of statics were grafted on to the dynam­
ical foundation of Aristotle’s “ law of motion,” leading directly
to the fruitful development of mediaeval statics represented by
Jordanus of Nemore, in which the dynamical principle of the
equivalence of work, and the method of virtual displacements,
played a major role.
The Liber Euclidis de ponderoso et levi was printed in the
Latin translation of the works of Euclid, published by Herwagen
at Basel in 1537; it was reprinted in the later editions of Her-
wagen’ s translation, printed at Basel in 1546 and 1558, and it was
also included in David Gregory's edition of Euclid, published at
Oxford in 1747 and in later eighteenth century editions. A French
translation of the treatise, from Herwagen’ s Latin text, was
published in 1565 by Forcadel, at Paris, in conjunction with a
text of the Liber Archimedis de insidentibus in humidum.
M. Curtze, in 1900, reprinted Herwagen’ s text of the work, and
added a version which he had found in a manuscript of the
Dresden library, Cod. Dresd. Db 86 Folio.
The present edition is based on four manuscripts, in addition
to the Dresden text as published by Curtze. The oldest and best
of these manuscripts, on which the present edition is primarily
based, is that of the Bodleian Library at Oxford, Ms. Auct.
F. 5. 28, stemming from the later -thirteenth century. All the
manuscripts present essentially the same version, although two
of them (Cod. Vat. Lat. 2975, and Ms. Bibl. Nat. (Paris) fonds
latin 1 0 2 6 0 ) contain a long fragment, as an interpolation, not
belonging to the treatise. This fragment, which we have edited
in Appendix I, is of great interest in itself, and may possibly
represent the remnants of an Alexandrian treatise used by
Thabit ibn Qurra as basis for his Liber Karastonis.^ In addition
to the three manuscripts mentioned, and to the Dresden text
edited by Curtze, we have used Ms. J. I, 32 of the Biblioteca
Nazionale of Florence, which dates fromthe end of the thirteenth
century. The list of these manuscripts, with their sigla, is given
with the variant readings.
25
 LIBER EUCLIDIS DE PONDEROSO ET LEVI ET
COMPARATIONE CORPORUM AD INVICEM
(Suppositiones)
I (l) Corpora equalia in magnitudine sunt que replent loca equalia.
(2) Et que replent loca inequalia dicuntur diversa in magni­
tudine.
(3) Et que dicuntur grandia in corporibus dicuntur ampla in
5 locis.
(4) Corpora equalia in virtute sunt quorum motus sunt in
temporibus equalibus super loca equalia in eodem aere vel
eadem aqua.
(5) Et que pretereunt loca equalia diversis temporibus dicuntur
10 diversa in fortitudine.
(6) Et quod maius est virtute minus est tempore.
(7) Corpora eiusdem generis sunt quorum equalium virtus est
equalis.
(8) Cum fuerint corpora equalia in magnitudine, diversa in
15 virtute respectu eiusdem aeris vel aque, diversa sunt genere.
(9) Et solidius est fortius.
(Propositiones)
I. CORPORUM QUE TEMPORIBUS EQUALIBUS LOCA PER-
TRANSEUNT INEQUALIA, QUOD MAIOREM PERTRANSIT
LOCUM, MAIORIS ESSE VIRTUTIS.
THE BOOK OF EUCLID CONCERNING THE HEAVY AND
LIGHT AND THE COMPARISON OF BODIES TO EACH OTHER
(Postulates)
(1) Bodies equal in volume are those which fill equal places.
(2) And those which fill unequal places are said to be of differ­
ent volume.
(3) And what are said to be large, among bodies, are said to
be capacious, among places.
(4) Bodies are equal in force, whose motions through equal
places, in the same air or the same water, are in equal times.
(5) And those which traverse equal places in different times,
are said to be different in force.
(6) And that which is the greater in its force, is the lesser in
its time.
(7) Bodies are of the same kind which, if of equal volume, are
of equal force.
(8) When bodies which are equal in volume are different in
force with respect to the same air or water, they are different
in kind.
(9) And the denser body is the more powerful.
(Theorems)
I. OF BODIES WHICH TRAVERSE UNEQUAL PLACES IN
EQUAL TIMES, THAT WHICH TRAVERSES THE GREATER
PLACE IS OF THE GREATER FORCE.

G________________________C
E ___________________ V
For instance, let A and B be such bodies, and let the path
traversed by A be GD, greater than the path traversed by B,
D
which is EV. I will then cut off the segment GZ, equal to EV.
And A will traverse GZ in less time than it traverses GD, as
this diagram (Fig. 1) will show.

(Fig. 1)

20 Ut sint A et B talia, et iter A sit GD maius quam iter B quod

est EV. Resecabo igitur GZ tanquam EV. Et A in minori
tempore GZ quam GD permeabit, ut hec figura docet.

26
27
 DE P O N D E R O S O
II. SI DUORUM CORPORUM EIUSDEM GENERIS FUERIT
UNUM MULTIPLEX ALTERIUS, ET VIRTUTEM ILLIUS
25 VIRTUTIS ALTERIUS SIMILITER ESSE.
A B G E
0 T
(Fig. 2)
Verbi gratia. Sit AG duplum D. Dico ergo quod potentia AG
que est EH dupla sit virtutis D que est T. Ratio: Dividemus AG
secundum multiplicitatem in AB et BG, quorum utriusque
virtus est equalis virtuti D que est T. Ponemus autem EZ
30 virtutem AB, et remanebit ZH, virtus BG. Erit ergo EH
dupla T.
III. CORPORUM EIUSDEM GENERIS IN MAGNITUDINE ET
POTENTIA PROPORTIO UNA.
E ----------------------------- H --------- --------------------
A --------------
G -----------------------
Z --------------- -------------------- T ------------------------------------
(Fig. 3)
Ut A et B. Sit enim potentia A sicut G, et virtus B sit D.
35 Dico ergo quod proportio quantitatis A ad quantitatem B, ut G
ad D; quia sumpto multiplici A quod sit E, et equali virtutis G
quod sit Z, erit Z potentia E. Similiter pones ad B multiplex
H, et ad D virtutem T, et patet multiplicia similia esse.
IV. CORPORA QUORUM UTRUMQUE EQUIPOLLET UNI IN
40 GENERE SUNT EIUSDEM GENERIS.
Quia sumptis equalibus de utroque illi tertio, erunt ipsorum
virtutes equales ad invicem, quia virtuti tertii. Patet etiam
additis, ut si sint minora, per diffinitionem corporum eiusdem
generis.
28
Z H
B --------------
D -----------------------
DE P O N D E R O S O
II. IF, OF TWO BODIES OF THE SAME KIND, ONE IS A
MULTIPLE IN SIZE OF THE OTHER, THEN ITS FORCE WILL
BE SIMILARLY RELATED TO THE FORCE OF THE OTHER.
For example, let AG be double D (Fig. 2). I then say that the
force of AG, which is EH, is double the force of D, which is T.
The proof: Let us divide AG, according to its multiple value,
into AB and BG, each of which has a force equal to the force of
D, which is T. We will however suppose EZ to be the power of
AB; and there will remain ZH, the force of BG. Therefore EH
will be double T.
III. OF BODIES OF THE SAME KIND, THE VOLUMES AND
FORCES ARE PROPORTIONAL.
As for instance A and B (Fig. 3). For let the power of A be
as G, and the power of B as D. I say then that the proportion
of the quantity of A to the quantity of B, is as that of G to D;
because, if we take a multiple of A, which is E, and an equal
multiple of the force G, which is Z, then Z will be the force
of E. In the same way, take H as a multiple of B, and the force
T as multiple of D, and it will be evident that the multiples are
similar.
IV. IF TWO BODIES ARE EACH OF THE SAME KIND AS A
THIRD BODY, THEY ARE OF THE SAME KIND AS EACH
OTHER.
Because, if of each of them parts equal to the third are
taken, the forces of these will be equal to each other, because
equal to the force of the third. Also, if they are added--as
when they are smaller (than the third body). This is evident,
by the definition of bodies of the same kind.
29
 DE PONDEROSO DE P O N D E R O S O

45 V. CUM FUERIT CORPORUM IN MAGNITUDINE ET VIRTUTE V. WHEN THE VOLUMES AND THE FORCES OF SEVERAL
PROPORTIO UNA, ERUNT EIUSDEM GENERIS. BODIES ARE IN THE SAME PROPORTION, THE BODIES ARE
OF THE SAME KIND.

For example, let the proportion of the body A to the body B

(in volume) be as the ratio of the force G to the force D
(Fig. 4). I then say that A and B are of the same kind; because
A B E some body E, of the same kind as A, is equal to the body B
whose force is Z. Therefore B will be to A, as Z is to the
G D Z force of A, which is G. The conclusion is evident from what
has been previously established.
(Fig. 4)
Exemplum: Sit corporum A ad B ut potentiarum G ad D. Dico Here ends the book of Euclid concerning the heavy and light
ergo quod A et B sunt eiusdem generis, quia corpus E generis and the comparison of bodies to each other.
A sit equate corpori B cuius potentia Z. Erit igitur B ad A ut
50 Z ad potentiam ipsius A que est G.

Explicit liber Euclidis de ponderoso et levi et comparatione

corporum ad invicem.
[This is the ending of the treatise, in all the manuscripts known
directly to us. But F. Buchner, in his study of the Liber
Karastonis of Thabit ibn Qurra, quotes (in German translation)
a sixth and final theorem which appears in a manuscript
accessible to him. Buchner’ s German translation of this sixth
theorem is as follows:

“ 6. Von Korpern, welche bei verschiedener Grosse gleich an

Kraft im Verhaltnis zu derselben Luft oder demselberi Wasser
sind, ist der dichtere der an Volumen kleinere.’’ ]

30 31
 II

LIBER ARCHIMEDIS DE INSIDENTIBUS IN HUMIDUM

LIBER ARCHIMENDIS DE PONDERIBUS

Introduction by
ERNEST MOODY and MARSHALL CLAGETT

Text and Translation by

ERNEST A. MOODY

With Additional Variant Readings by

MARSHALL CLAGETT
 IN TRO DUC TION

The medieval, science of weights was concerned, for the most

part, with problems of equilibrium in which the resistance of
the fluid medium was neglected, as in the treatment of weights
suspended from opposite ends of a balance beam. But since it
was generally assumed, within the framework of Aristotelian
dynamics, that the relation between weights on opposite ends of
a balance beam is analogous to that between a heavy body and
the fluid medium which resists its descent, hydrostatics and
hydrodynamic s were conceived as an integral part of the science
of weights, subject to the same general laws of motion and of
equilibrium exemplified in the problem of the lever. The hydro-
dynamic aspect is prominent in the pseudo-Euclidian Liber de
ponderoso et levi, in the fourth book of the De ratione ponderis
ascribed to Jordanus de Nemore, and in the third part of the
Tractatus de ponderibus of BLasius of Parma. It is, of course,
the immediate subject of inquiry in the treatise here edited,
which occurs in the corpus of medieval treatises belonging to
the science of weights, under the title Liber Archimedis de
ponderibus sive de insidentibus in humidum.

The treatise, as preserved in the known extant manuscripts,

is in two main parts. The first part opens with a brief prologue
indicating the utility, for commercial exchange of goods, of a
method for determining the volumes of irregular bodies by
means of their weights. The remainder of this part of the
treatise consists of fourteen definitions designed to make clear
the nature of the weighing instrument - -in this case an equal
armed balance with trays suspended from each en d--, and the
procedures and measures required in weighing an object on such
a scale. Among these definitions are several which make clear
the difference between gross weight and specific gravity, called
respectively gravitas secundum numerositatem and gravitas
secundum speciem.

The second part of the treatise consists of six initial postu­

lates followed by eight theorems. The postulates again define
specific gravity, and they include a statement of the principle
that no body is heavy or light in a medium having the same
specific gravity as the body in question. This postulate is in
contradiction to the statement of Aristotle (De caelo 31lb 6-10)
that air has weight in air, water in water, and earth in earth.
The view of Aristotle had been challenged in antiquity by Ptolemy

35
 INTRODUC TION
and by Simplicius,'- so that we may assume influence from
sources other than Aristotle on the author of the treatise. The
theorems developed in this part of the treatise bear on the prob­
lem of calculating the proportion of volumes of two bodies, by
comparing the weight which each body has in air to the weight
which it has in water; the theorems also show how to calculate
the proportion between the quantities of two elementary sub­
stances in an alloy. The famous “golden crown" problem, whose
solution is said to have caused Archimedes to shout “Eureka"
from his bath tub, appears to be definitely present to the mind
of the author of these theorems.
Who is the author? It can scarcely be Archimedes himself,
for two reasons. First, the treatise contains some statements
(in its first portion) involving dynamic assumptions not attri­
butable to Archimedes - -notably the assumption, involved in
Definition 6, that some kinds of bodies have a “natural motion"
of ascent. Secondly, the proof offered for Proposition I of this
treatise is not the same as the proof given by Archimedes in his
authentic De insidentibus ague for Proposition VII, though the
theorem to be proved is in the two cases identical.
M. C urtze, who published a text of this treatise found in an
early 14th century manuscript, expressed the view that the
treatise was written in the early 14th century by someone who
had access to a translation of the De insidentibus ague made in
the later 13th century, presumably by William of Moerbeke.^
It is indeed established that William of Moerbeke, in 1269, trans­
lated this work of Archimedes , as well as nearly all of his other
authentic t r e a t is e s B u t Curtze’ s conjecture seems implausible
for the same reasons given for rejecting the work as an authentic
work of Archimedes; if this 14th century author had based his
work on that of Archimedes, why did he not use Archimedes’
proof of the basic theorem which he set forth as his first
Proposition? The further question can be asked as to why the
author did not use the form and terminology of Moerbeke’ s
translation if he depended on it for his first proposition.
It is worth noting at this point that one manuscript, BN 7377B,
90r, siglum B, gives an extra proposition which appears as its
second proposition. This proposition notes without proof that a
floating body displaces its weight of water: Omne corpus super­
natans aque occupat in ea locum aque sui ponderis. This is, of
course, es sentially proposition V of the genuine De insidentibus
aque. But its expression is in entirely different terminology
from that of the Moerbeke translation.
That the work stems from a period as early as the thirteenth
century is inferred from the existence of at least three thir -
teenth century manuscripts of the text. It should be noted that
36
DE INSIDENTIBUS
one of th ese (L L ) is the M o e r b e k e autograph of 1269- In this
c o d e x the De insidentibus p r e c e d e s the genuine w ork s of A r c h i ­
m e d e s . It is p ro b a b ly by a d iffe r e n t hand h ow ever. At least the
ca llig r a p h y is l a r g e r and b o ld e r , although th ere is s o m e s i m i ­
la r ity in letter fo r m a t io n between the hands. The a s s o c ia t io n in
this m a n u s c rip t of the De insidentibus with the genuine w orks
of A r c h i m e d e s r a i s e s the q uestion as to wnether M o er b ek e had
not a ls o tr a n s la ted the De in s id e n tib u s . T h is question cannot be
a n s w e r e d c e r t a i n l y , but we a re in clin ed to b e lie v e that M oerbek e
was not the t r a n s la t o r , f o r , as we shall see in a m om ent, the
s e c o n d p art of the t r e a t is e w as p r o b a b ly tran sla ted f r o m the
A r a b i c and it is doubtful if M o e r b e k e knew A r a b i c .^
There is good reason to suspect that the first part of the
treatise has a different origin from the second part. The lang­
uage and technical terminology occurring in the first part is
thoroughly Latin in character, and is closely related to the
language occurring in the brief treatment of weights and meas­
ures given in Book XVI of Isidore of Seville's Etymologiarum
sive Originum Libri X X .5 The technical terms examen, virgula,
calculus, rarely found in 13th century treatises translated from
Greek or Arabic, are common to this treatise and to the work
of Isidore; on the other hand, the terminology of the science of
weights characteristic of treatises having direct Greek or
Arabic sources, is wholly absent from the first part of our
present treatise. Of interest is the use of the term massa, which
occurs in Vitruvius, but which is rarely found in 13th or 14th
century writings. These considerations suggest that the first
part of our treatise stems frorVi the native Latin tradition, repre­
sented by the encyclopedic works of Isidore of Seville, Bede, and
the 12th and 13th century continuators of that native tradition.
Apart from Isidore of Seville, and Vitruvius, we may mention
the Carmen de ponderibus ascribed to Priscian, as a possible
source for this part of the treatise. The hydrostatic balance is
described in this poem, as well as in the anonymous Mappe
clavicula translated by Adelard of Bath.^
As concerns the second part of our treatise, whose language
and character differ considerably from the first part, a different
origin may be supposed. While the “golden crown" problem is
the main concern of this part of the treatise, we cannot suppose
that Vitruvius’ account of the problem and of Archimedes’ solu­
tion provided the author with his theorems. According to Vitru­
vius, Archimedes solved the problem by determining the ratio
of the weights of the gold and silver components of the crown,
from comparison of the different volumes (measured by dis­
placed water) of the crown itself and of masses of pure gold and
silver having equal weight with the crown. In the present treatise,
37
 INT R O D U C TION
DE INSIDENTIBUS

Uie reverse method is employed; here the ratio of volume of to which some 13th century editor, familiar with the mathe­
yold to silver in the crown is calculated by comparing the
matical literature translated from Arabic during the 12th and
■//eights of equal volumes of the three bodies. In Proposition IV
earlier 13th century, added a Latin translation from the Arabic
The bodies are weighed successively in air and water, so that
of the postulates, theorems and proofs making up the second
U,e solution is based directly on the Archimedean theorem ex­ part of the work.
pressed in Proposition I, and which is the same as Proposition
It should be noted that Proposition IV which, as we have said,
VII of Archimedes' authentic De insidentibus ague.? If it were
contains the solution of the “golden crown” problem was ex­
i,ijt for the fact that our treatise does not offer the same proof
tracted from the rest of the treatise and circulated independently.
of this initial theorem, that is given in Archimedes’ Proposition
This is not surprising since it contains in brief compass the
'/II, we might suppose that the author of the second part of our basic objective of the treatise itself.
treatise drew directly on Moerbeke’ s translation of Archimedes
The De insidentibus in humidum while probably not as popular
in order to give a rigorous proof of the “golden crown problem”
as the other statical treatises of our volume appears neverthe­
as known by way of Vitruvius and the Latin tradition, but with
less to have exerted some influence on the mechanical tradition
the proof itself based on Archimedes rather than on the indica­
of the middle ages.Fhrt of its influence came from the fact that
tions given by Vitruvius. the Parisian author, Johartnes de Muris, copied and paraphrased
However, it seems much more likely that the second part of
it in his Quadripartitum numerorum composed in 1343. The
the treatise was not composed by a Latin author but rather was
substance of the De insidentibus is included .in a chapter of
a translation from the Arabic. This would seem likely since
Book IV entitled De ponderibus et metallis. ^ This work of
this part of the treatise is very similar to a whole series of Johannes was quite popular in the 14th and 15 th centuries.
works on specific gravity determination which appear in Arabic
The manuscripts used for the establishment of the text of the
and which have been discussed by E. Wiedemann.8 Of these
De insidentibus in humidum are given in the sigla preceding the
Arabic treatises we can point first to the well-known Book of
variant readings. Most important for the text was manuscript A
the Balance of Wisdom by al-Khazini which was published and
but this has been collated with AA, BB, LL, L and X- It ought to
partly translated in the Journal of American-Oriental Society,
be noticed that the proof of Proposition IV was missing in A,
Volume 6, I860. There were also translated among the Arabs
8 8 and Y but that it appears in T,and is independent of the rest
some extracts from Archimedes’ work on floating bodies which of the treatise in JH and Q and in a further manuscript not ex­
were prefaced by a spurious introduction giving a definition of
amined, namely Cod. Amp 1on. F . 37 of the Erfurt Library, folio 58.
specific gravity. This work is entitled in the Arabic On the Heavy
It should be noted, however, that still another variation of the
and the Light.^ Another work worth mentioning is by Samau’al
proof of Proposition IV is included in AA and LL _l6c, and we
ibn Jahja (d. 1174-75) which concerns itself with the same prob­
have given it in the variant readings. But it would appear not to
lem as the De insidentibus, namely, the problem of bodies of
be genuine for it applies the conclusion of a later proposition,
mixed substances.10 Still another treatise of particular interest namely number VII, for the proof.
to our problem is a work entitled in Arabic “A Commentary of
A final note must be made regarding the title of our text.
a European Scholar on the Writing of Plato. It was written
very late (ca. 1480-1500) but it appears to have been based on MS A, probably our oldest extant manuscript, gives in the margin
in a hand different from that of the rest of the manuscript but
the same Islamic tradition as the Latin De insidentibus. Its be­
possibly also of the thirteenth century the two principal alterna­
ginning is interesting: “If a substance is mixed of two known
materials and we wish to know how much of each substance tives: “De ponderibus Archimenidis et intitulatur de incidenti­
bus in humidum." AA (fol. 2v) and LL (fol. lOr) give “Liber de
there is in it, we weigh each of these bodies in air and water.
ponderibus.” A sixteenth century hand added to T_ the title “De
This, of course, is the same method used in Proposition IV of
insidentibus aque. Two editions of our text with Sacrobosco’s
our treatise. Still other works treating the specific gravity
Sphaera, both of Venice, 1518, appear to be without title, as does
problem, which have been discussed by Wiedemann, circulated
the MS copy of Madrid, Bibl. Nac, 9119 (Aa 30), (369r-37lr). A
among the Arabs. ^nch t r an s lati on of the text ha s the title: Le Livre d’Arc hi me de
These considerations, then, suggest the following conclusion.
des pois, etc., Paris, Perier, 1565. The Edition of 1565 (siglum Y_)
The first part of our treatise is a rewriting of a fragment of
i s without title or author. Finally, we can note that Blasius of
native Latin origin, reflecting Vitruvius and Isidore of Seville,
Parma, writing at the end of the fourteenth century, gives us the
38
39
 DE INSIDENTIBUS
title De incidentibus in liquido (see text below, Part III, suppo­
sition one). The conclusion from the evidence at hand, then, is
that both the title De insidentibus in humidum and that of De
ponderibus stem from the thirteenth century, but that the title
De ponderibus is somewhat more popular.
LIBER ARCHIMEDIS DE INSIDENTIBUS IN HUMIDUM
(Proeemium)
l Quoniam propter irregularem quorundam corporum composi­
tionem non potuit eorundem per geometriam haberi certa pro­
portio, et quoniam pretia quorundam quibus emuntur et vend­
untur debent magnitudinibus ipsorum corporum proportionari,
5 necessarium fuit per ipsorum pondera corporum eorum magni­
tudinum proportiones reperire, ut singulis magnitudinibus per
proportiones suorum ponderum cognitis valeant certa pretia
sociari.
(Definitiones)
l. Primo igitur instrumenti per quod examinantur ponderum
10 quantitates ratio danda est. Est igitur instrumentum examinis
ponderum, virgula recta in cuius medio est foramen recipiens
perpendiculum cum quo sustinetur virgula cum ponderibus in
extremitatibus ipsius appensis, cum debet ponderis alicuius
quantitas per mensuras ponderum deprehendi.
15 2. Calculus est minima ponderum mensura, ad quam omnes
mensure ponderum referuntur et sunt eius multiplices.
3. Illius corporis ponderi calculi equari dicuntur, quando,
corpore in una extremitate virgule appenso et calculis in alia,
virgula in neutram partem nutum facit.
20 4. Illius ponderis dicuntur esse calculi, quorum pariter
acceptorum pondus illi ponderi adequatur.
5. Scitum pondus est cuius calculorum numerus est scitus.
6. Corpus naturaliter descendens grave dicitur respectu
eorum que habent ex natura ascendere.
25 7. Duorum gravium unius ad aliud relatio duplici modo potest
considerari: uno modo secundum speciem, alio modo secundum
numerositatem.
8. Secundum speciem est, ut si volumus gravitatem auri in
specie ad gravitatem argenti comparare; et hoc debet fieri,
30 supposita duorum corporum auri et argenti equalitate.
40
THE BOOK OF ARCHIMEDES ON FLOATING BODIES
(Prologue)
Since, on account of their irregular shape, the proportion of
some bodies could not be accurately determined by geometry,
and since the prices of certain things which are bought and sold
need to be proportioned to their magnitudes, it was necessary
to find the ratios of their volumes by means of the weights of
the bodies, so that by knowing their respective volumes through
the proportions of their weights, definite prices could be fairly
determined for them.
(Definitions)
1. First, then, we must explain the instrument by which the
weights are measured. For the instrument of weighing is a
straight bar, at whose mid point there is a hole in which is in­
serted the suspension cord which supports the bar together
with the weights hung at its ends, when the quantity of some
weight is to be determined by measures of weight.
2. A calculus is a least measure of weight, of which all the
measures of weight are multiples.
3. The calculi are said to be equal to the weight of the body
when, if the body is hung at one end of the beam and the cal­
culi at the other, the beam does not incline one way or the
other.
4. The calculi of a given weight are said to be those whose com­
bined weight is equal to that weight.
5. A weight is known, when the number of its calculi is known.
6. A body which naturally descends is called heavy relatively
to those bodies which naturally ascend.
7. The relation of one heavy body to another can be considered
in two ways: in one way, according to specific gravity; in
another way, according to numerical-gravity.
8. It is considered according to specific gravity, as when we
seek to compare the specific gravity of gold to that of silver;
and this should be done on the basis of equal volumes of gold
and silver.
41
 DE INSIDENTIBU S
9. Secundum numerositatem fit relatio gravitatis unius duorum
corporum ad aliud, quando volumus discernere per pondus, an
massa auri sit gravior quam massa argenti, cuiuscumque mag­
nitudinis sint date masse.
35 10. Duorum corporum gravius secundum numerositatem dicitur,
cuius virgula instrumenti nutum facit, eisdem corporibus in
extremitatibus virgule appensis; vel cuius pondus ponderi
plurium calculorum equatur.
11. Corpora eiusdem generis dicuntur, inter que nulla est sub-
40 stantialis differentia; ut auri ad aurum comparati, vel argenti
ad argentum.
12. Differentia duorum corporum in magnitudine, est magnitudo
in qua maius excedit minus.
13. In pondere vero, pondus in quo gravius excedit levius.
45 14. Duarum quantitatum unius ad aliam proportio est tanquam
numeri secundum quem illa communis mensura in ipsa conti­
netur, ad numerum secundum quem continetur in alia.
(Petitiones)
l. Nullum corpus in se ipso grave esse; ut aqua in aqua, oleum
in oleo, aer in aere, non est alicuius gravitatis.
50 2. Omne corpus in aere quam in aqua maioris esse ponderis.
3. Duorum equalium corporum, altero gravius esse specie cuius
pondus maiori calculorum numero adequatur.
4. Corporum eiusdem generis magnitudinum et ponderum eandem
esse proportionem.
55 5. Omnia pondera suis calculis proportionalia esse.
6. Eque gravia in specie corpora dicuntur, quorum equalium
pondus esset equate.
(Propositiones)
I. OMNIS CORPORIS PONDUS IN AERE QUAM IN AQUA MAIUS
EST PER PONDUS AQUE SIBI EQUALIS IN MAGNITUDINE.
60 Sit enim B aqua, pondus aque A si A in aere ponderetur.
Igitur, cum A in aqua nihil ponderet, per petitionem primam,
B in aere ponderabit A in aqua et aque pondus sibi equalis in
magnitudine. Sed A aqua est equalis aque B; ergo A in aere
quam in aqua pondus maius est per pondus aque sibi equalis in
6 5 magnitudine.
Idem etiam patet et de omni alio corpore. Sit enim A corpus
aureum cuius ponderis in aere et in aqua D sit differentia F ;
quod quidem A, si in aquam D paulatim infundatur ita scilicet
42
DE INSIDENTIBUS
9. The weight of one body is compared to that of another,
according to numerical gravity, when we wish to determine,
by weighing, whether a mass of gold is heavier than a mass of
silver, irrespective of the volumes of the given masses.
10. One body is said to be heavier than another, numerically, if
when these bodies are suspended at the ends of the balance
beam, its arm of the balance inclines downward; or, if its
weight is equal to the weight of a greater number of calculi.
11. Bodies are said to be of the same kind, when there is no dif­
ference in their substance - -as of gold compared to gold, or
silver to silver.
12. The difference in volume between two bodies, is the volume
by which the larger exceeds the smaller.
13. But the difference in weight, is the weight by which the
heavier exceeds the lighter.
14. The ratio of one quantity to another is as the ratio of the
number of times that the common measure is contained in it, to
the number of times that this common measure is contained in
the other.
(Postulates)
1. No body is heavy in relation to itse lf--so that water is not
heavy in water, nor oil in oil, nor air in air.
2. Every body is of greater weight in air, than it is in water.
3. Of two bodies equal in volume, the one whose weight is
equal to that of a greater number of calculi, is of greater
specific gravity.
4. Of two bodies of the same kind, the proportion of volumes
to weights is the same.
5. All weights are proportional to their calculi.
6. Bodies are said to be equal in specific gravity, when the
weight of equal volumes of them is equal.
(Theorems)
I. THE WEIGHT OF ANY BODY IN AIR EXCEEDS ITS WEIGHT
IN WATER BY THE WEIGHT OF A VOLUME OF WATER
EQUAL TO ITS OWN VOLUME.
For let B be water, and let the weight of this water be A, if
A is weighed in air. Since then A would weigh nothing in water,
by postulate one, B, if in the air, will balance A in water, plus
a weight of water equal to it in volume. But the water A is
equal to the water B; therefore the weight of A in air is great­
er than its weight in water, by the weight of a volume of water
equal to its own volume.
The same is seen in the case of any other body. For let A be
a body of gold, and let F be thq difference between its weight
43
 DE INSIDEN TIB US
quod eius millesima pars tantum submersa sit, siva octava,
70 necesse est millesimam totius F, sive octava, differentie dif­
ferentiam esse eius scilicet quod est A in aere et A cuius
millesima, vel octava, est immersa in D. Et sic de aliis parti­
bus differentie et submersi corporis. Sed quantum de auro
ingreditur, tantumdem de aqua exit necessario; ita quod octava
75 aque equalis auro egredietur sed (si ?) auri octava in D aquam
immergitur, et sic de aliis partibus. Sitque C tota aqua equalis
A in quantitate et non in pondere, et eius pondus G. Quantum-
cumque ergo erit ex C, de aqua D in qua submergitur A,
tantumdem erunt de partibus ponderis G. Est ergo proportio A
80 auri submersi, ad differentiam F, sicut aque C egresse, ad
pondus G; ergo permutatim. Et sic liquet propositum.
II. OMNIUM DUORUM CORPORUM EIUSDEM SEU DIVERSI
GENERIS, EST UNIUS AD ALIUD PROPORTIO IN MAGNITU­
DINE TANQUAM DIFFERENTIE PONDERIS UNIUS EORUM IN
85 AERE AD PONDUS EIUSDEM IN AQUA, AD DIFFERENTIAM
PONDERIS ALTERIUS IN AERE AD PONDUS EIUS IN AQUA.
Sit unum duorum corporum A, et C aqua ei equalis in magni­
tudine; et pondus illius aque E. Et sit similiter B corpus re­
liquum, et D aqua ei equalis in magnitudine, et F pondus illius
90 aque. Cum igitur, per precedentem, C aqua sit equalis A
corpori, et D aqua sit equalis B corpori, erit proportio A ad B
tanquam C ad D. Et cum C et D sint corpora eiusdem generis,
et E et F sunt eorum pondera, erit E ad F tanquam C ad D, per
quartam petitionem; ergo tanquam A ad B, quod proponebatur.
44
DE INSIDENTIBUS
in air and its weight in water. Then if A is gradually immersed
little by little into the water D, so that only a thousandth part
of it, or an eighth part, is submerged - -then necessarily a
thousandth, or an eighth, part of the whole difference F is the
difference between what A weighs in air and what A weighs
when its thousandth, or eighth, part is immersed in D. And
so it is with each of the other parts of the difference (F), and
of the submerged body. But whatever volume of the gold enters
into the water, an equal volume of the water will be pushed out,
such that an eighth part of the volume of water that is equal to
the gold, will emerge, if an eighth part of the gold is sub­
merged in the water D. And so with the other parts. Now let C
be the whole amount of water that is equal to A, not in weight
but in volume; and let its weight be G. Then whatever parts of
C are pushed out when A is immersed in the water D, there
will be just as many parts of G pushed out. Hence the ratio of
the submerged gold A to the difference F, is as the ratio of the
displaced water C to the weight G; therefore, by alternation,
(the ratio of A to C is as that of F to G). And thus what was
asserted is made clear.
II. OF ANY TWO BODIES, WHETHER THE SAME OR DIFFER­
ENT IN KIND, THE RATIO IN MAGNITUDE OF ONE TO THE
OTHER, IS AS THE RATIO OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
THE WEIGHT OF ONE OF THEM IN AIR AND ITS WEIGHT IN
WATER, TO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE WEIGHT OF
THE OTHER IN AIR AND ITS WEIGHT IN WATER.
Let A be one of the two bodies, and C a volume of water
equal to it in volume; and let E be the weight of that water. And
similarly let B be the other body, and D the water equal to it in
volume, and F the weight of that water. Therefore, by the pre­
ceding theorem, since the water C is equal to the body A, and
the water D is equal to the body B, the ratio of A to B will be
as that of C to D. And since C and D are bodies of the same
species, and since E and F are their weights, the ratio of E to
F is as that of C to D, by the fourth postulate; therefore it is
as the ratio of A to B, which is what was to be shown.
45
 DE INSIDENTIBUS
95 III. SI ALICUIUS CORPORIS IN DUOBUS DIVERSIS LIQUOR­
IBUS ET IN AERE FUERINT PONDERA DATA, GRAVITATIS
UNIUS EORUNDEM LIQUORUM AD GRAVITATEM ALTERIUS
IN SPECIE ERIT PROPORTIO DATA.
Sint duo liquores aqua et oleum, et sit A corpus cuius pondus
100 in aere B et in aqua C et in oleo D (datum est). Ponderabit
itaque magis in aere quam in aqua vel quam in oleo, per
secundam petitionem. Sit E differentia ponderis quam in aere
habet ad id quod in aqua, et sit F differentia ponderis quam in
aere habet ad id quod in oleo. Erunt itaque E et F differentie
105 ponderum aque et olei corporum quorum utrumque est equale
corpori A --p e r primam propositionem. Sit igitur G aqua cuius
pondus est E, et sit H oleum cuius pondus est F. Quoniam
igitur G et H sunt equalia corpora diversorum generum, et E
et F sint eorum pondera data, habemus propositum per ter-
110 tiam petitionem.
IV. IN CORPORE EX DUOBUS MIXTO, QUANTUM SIT IN EO
DE UTROQUE DECLARARE.
Si fuerit aliquod corpus ex duobus mixtum, corporibus notis,
et velimus scire quantum in eo sit de utroque ipsorum, ponder-
115 abimus unumquodque corporum per se, et in aere et in aqua, et
sumemus superabundantiam cuiusque corporis quod habet in
aere ad illud quod in aqua, et has superabundantias seorsum
ponemus. Deinde ponderabimus corpus mixtum, et in aere et in
aqua, et sumemus superabundantiam ponderis quod habet in
120 aere ad illud quod in aqua. Erit ergo proportio levis corporis
quod in mixto corpore est, ad ipsum mixtum, sicut superabun­
dantia ponderis mixti ad superabundantiam corporis levioris.
V. SI DUORUM QUORUMCUMQUE CORPORUM, UT AURI ET
ARGENTI, PONDERA IN AQUA ET IN AERE FUERINT DATA,
125 EORUNDEM CORPORUM PROPORTIONES IN MAGNITUDINE
ET SPECIE ERUNT DATE.
Sint illa duo corpora. A et B; et sit pondus corporis A in
aere, C, et in aqua, E. Et differentia ponderis E ad pondus
C sit G. Et sit pondus corporis B in aere, D; et in aqua, F ; et
130 differentia ponderis F ad D sit H. Et sit I corpus de genere A,
equale corpori B in magnitudine; et sit pondus eius in aere K.
Dico ergo quod A ad B, vel ad I, equalis est proportio que G ad
H --p er primam propositionem. Et est A ad I tanquam C ad K,
46
DE INSIDENTIBUS
III. IF THE WEIGHTS ARE GIVEN, OF SOME BODY WEIGHED
IN TWO DIFFERENT LIQUIDS AS WELL AS IN AIR, THE
RATIO OF THE SPECIFIC GRAVITY OF ONE OF THOSE
LIQUIDS TO THE SPECIFIC GRAVITY OF THE OTHER, WILL
BE GIVEN.
Let the two liquids be water and oil, and let A be a body
whose weight in the air B, and in the water C, and in the oil D,
is given. It will, then, weigh more in air than in water, or than
in o il--b y the second postulate. Let E be the difference between
its weight in air and its weight in water, and let F be the dif­
ference between its weight in air and its weight in oil. Then E
and F will be the differences of the weights of volumes of
water and of oil equal to the volume of the body A --b y the first
theorem. Let the water, then, be G, and its weight E; and let
the oil be H, and its weight F. Since G and H are equal bodies
of diverse species, and since their weights E and F are given,
we have what was asserted--by the third postulate.
IV. IN A BODY MIXED FROM TWO KINDS, TO DETERMINE
HOW MUCH OF EACH KIND IS IN IT.
If there be given some body mixed from two known kinds of
body, and if we wish to know how much of each kind is in it, we
will weigh bodies of each kind, separately, in both air and
water; and we will take the excesses of the weight of each body
in air over its weight in water, and note thqm separately. Then
we will weigh the mixed body in both air and water, and we
will note the excess of its weight in air over its weight in
water. Then the ratio of the quantity of light body present in
the alloy, to the magnitude of the alloy itself, will be as the
ratio of the excess weight of the alloy to the excess weight of
the lighter body.
V. GIVEN THE WEIGHTS IN WATER AND IN AIR OF ANY TWO
BODIES, SUCH AS GOLD AND SILVER, THE RATIOS BETWEEN
THOSE BODIES, IN VOLUME AND IN SPECIFIC GRAVITY,
WILL BE GIVEN.
Let the two bodies be A and B, and let the weight of the body
A in air be C, and in water E. And let the difference between
the weight E and the weight C be G. And let the weight of the
body B in air be D, and in water F; and let the difference be­
tween the weights F and D be H. And let I be a body of the same
kind as A, equal in volume to the body B; and let its weight in
air be K. I then say that the ratio of A to B, or of A to I, is that
47
 DE INSIDENTIBUS
per quartam petitionem, et non est alia quam G ad H. Sed G ad
135 H proportio est scita, quare C ad K proportio est scita. Sed C
pondus est scitum; ergo K pondus est scitum. Et D fuit scitum,
per hypothesim; ergo proportio ponderis K ad pondus D est
scita, quare proportio ponderis corporis A in specie, ad
corpus B in specie, et magnitudinis A ad magnitudinem B pro-
140 portio, est scita--p er tertiam* propositionem. Et sic habemus
propositum.
VI. CORPORIS MERGIBILIS, UT FERRI, AD CORPUS IMMER-
GIBILE, UT CERAM, PROPORTIONEM IN MAGNITUDINE ET
PROPORTIONEM IN PONDERE SECUNDUM SPECIEM,
145 INVENIRE.
Sit A corpus mergibile, B eius pondus in aere, C eius pondus
in aqua, D differentia. Item, sit E corpus immergibile; et con-
iungantur A et E, ita quod A possit secum trahere E ad fundum.
Et sit FG pondus coniuncti in aere, et HI pondus coniuncti in
150 aqua, et KL differentia. Et sit F partiale pondus tanquam B, et
H tanquam C , et K tanquam D. Remanebunt itaque G pondus in
aere corporis E, et I pondus in aqua corporis E, et L differ­
entia. Erit ergo D et L differentiarum proportio tanquam A ad
E proportio corporum--per tertiam propositionem? Et sit M
155 corpus de genere A equale corpori E, et N sit pondus in aere
corporis M; quare corporis A ad E, vel A ad M, proportio est
tanquam proportio differentie D ad L --p e r tertiam* proposi­
tionem. Sed D ad B proportio est scita, quare B ad N est scita;
sed B pondus est scitum per hypothesim; ergo N pondus est
160 scitum. Cum ergo M et E corpora sint equalia diversorum gen­
erum, et N et G eorum pondera sint scita, scita est proportio
ponderum in specie, per quintam petitionem, et eorum propor­
tio in magnitudine est scita; quod proponebatur.
*This really refers to the second theorem; but since the same
confusion occurs in the demonstration of Theorem VI, we may
suppose that the original order of the theorems was one in
which what is here Theorem III, came second, and what is
here' Theorem II, came third.
48
DE INSIDENTIBUS
of G to H --by the first theorem. And A is to I, as C is to K - -
by the fourth postulate; and this ratio is none other than that of
G to H. But the weight C is known; therefore the weight K is
known. And D was known, by hypothesis; therefore the ratio of
the weight K to the weight D is known, and hence the ratio of
the specific gravity of the body A, to the specific gravity of the
body B, and likewise the ratio of the volume of A to the volume
of B, is known--by the third theorem. And thus we have what
was sought.
VI. TO FIND THE RATIO OF THE VOLUMES, AND THE RATIO
OF THE SPECIFIC GRAVITIES, OF A SUBMERSIBLE BODY,
SUCH AS IRON, TO AN UNSINKABLE BODY SUCH AS WAX.
Let A be the submersible body, and let its weight in air be B,
and its weight in water C, and let D be the difference. Again,
let E be the unsinkable body; and let A and E be conjoined in
such manner that A can draw E down with it to the bottom. And
let FG be the weight of this conjoined body in air, and let HI be
its weight in water, and KL the difference. And let F be the
partial weight corresponding to B, and H the partial weight
corresponding to C, and K the partial weight corresponding to
D. There will then remain the weight G of the body E in air,
and the weight I of the body E in water, and the difference L.
The ratio of the differences D and L will therefore be as that of
the bodies A and E --b y the third theorem. Then let M be a
body of the same kind as A, equal in volume to the body E; and
let N be the weight of this body M in air. Then the ratio of the
body A to the body E, or of A to M, is as the ratio of the dif­
ference D to the difference L --b y the third theorem. But the
ratio of D to B is known, and hence that of B to N is known. But
the weight B is known, by hypothesis; therefore the weight N is
known. Since then M and E are equal bodies of diverse species,
and since their weights N and G are known, the proportion of
their specific gravities is known--by the fifth postulate. And
their ratio in volume is known. And this is what was to be
proved.
49
 d e i n s i d e n t i b us
VII. SI FUERINT DUE QUANTITATES INEQUALES, INTER
165 QUAS PONATUR ALIQUA QUANTITAS MINOR UNA ET MAIOR
ALIA, ERIT QUOD FIT EX DIFFERENTIA EXTREMARUM IN
MEDIAM, EQUALE EIS QUE FIUNT EX DIFFERENTIA
MINORUM IN MAXIMAM ET MAIORUM IN MINIMAM PARI­
TER ACCEPTIS.
170 Sint due quantitates, A maior, B minor; C media, que sit
minor A et maior B; differentia A ad C sit D, et differentia C
ad B sit E. Compositumque ex D et E, sit F; eritque F differ­
entia A ad B. Dico quod fit ex F in C equum est ei quod fit ex
E in A cum eo quod fit ex D in B. Sit enim ut ex E in A fiat G;
175 eritque G quantum fit ex E in D, et in C, que sint K et H. Item,
ex D in C fiat L; eritque L quantum quod fit ex D in E, et in B;
que sint N et M. Et quia ex D in E, et E in D, producuntur
equalia, erit K equalis N. Cum igitur G constet ex K et H, sit-
que K equalis N, erit G equate H et N. Addito ergo M utrobique,
180 erunt GM tanquam HN et M; et quia N et M componunt L, erunt
GM tanquam HL; quare patet propositum. Fiebat enim G ex A
in E, et M ex D in B, at vero H ex E in C, et L ex D in C. Et
quia quod fit ex E in C, et ex D in C, est tanquam quod fit ex F
in C, ergo quod fit ex F in C equum est ei quod fit ex E in A
185 cum eo quod fit ex D in B.
VIII. SI FUERINT TRIA CORPORA EQUALIA, QUORUM DUO
SINT SIMPLICIA DIVERSORUM GENERUM ET INEQUALIUM
PONDERUM, TERTIUM VERO CORPUS EX UTRIUSQUE SIM­
PLICIUM GENERE MIXTUM, ERIT PARTIS MIXTI QUE IN
190 IPSO EST DE GENERE GRAVIORIS, AD PARTEM QUE IN
IPSO EST DE GENERE LEVIORIS, PROPORTIO TANQUAM
PROPORTIO DIFFERENTIE PONDERIS MIXTI AD PONDUS
LEVIORIS, AD DIFFERENTIAM PONDERIS GRAVIORIS AD
PONDUS MIXTI CORPORIS.
19 5 Sint duo corpora simplicia A et D, equalia; et mixtum ex eis
50
DE INSIDENTIBUS
VII. GIVEN TWO UNEQUAL QUANTITIES BETWEEN WHICH
THERE IS PLACED SOME QUANTITY SMALLER THAN ONE
OF THEM AND GREATER THAN THE OTHER, THE PRO­
DUCT OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE EXTREMES,
BY THE MEAN, WILL EQUAL THE PRODUCT OF THE DIF­
FERENCE BETWEEN THE SMALLER QUANTITIES BY THE
LARGER, ADDED TO THE PRODUCT OF THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THE LARGER QUANTITIES BY THE SMALLER.
Let there be two quantities, A the greater and B the smaller;
and let C be the middle quantity which is less than A and great­
er than'B. And let the difference between A and C, be D; and
the difference between C and B, E. And let the sum of D and E
be F; then F will be the difference between A and B. I say that
the product of F by C, is equal to the sum of E multiplied by A
and of D multiplied by B. For suppose that the product of E by
A, is G; then G will be equal to the sum of E multiplied by D,
which we will call K, and of E multiplied by C, which we will
call H. Again suppose that the product of D by C is L; then L
will be equal to the sum of D multiplied by E, which we will
call N, and of D multiplied by B, which we will call M. And be­
cause D times E is equal to E times D, K will be equal to N.
Since then G is composed of K plus H, and since K is equal to
N, G will be equal to H plus N. Therefore, if we add M to each
side, G plus M will be equal to H plus N plus M. And because N
Pl us M is equal to L, G plus M will be equal to H plus L. And
thus what was asserted is evident. For G was the product of A
by E, and M was the product of D by B; likewise H was the pro­
duct of E by C, and L was the product of D by C. And because
the product of E by C, plus the product of D by C, is equal to
the product of F by C, therefore the product of F by C is equal
to the product of E by A plus the product of D by B.
VIII. GIVEN THREE EQUAL BODIES, TWO OF WHICH ARE
SIMPLE BODIES OF DIVERSE SPECIES AND OF UNEQUAL
WEIGHT, WHILE THE THIRD IS A COMPOUND OF ELEMENTS
OF THE SAME SPECIES AS THE SIMPLE BODIES, THEN THE
RATIO OF THAT PART OF THE COMPOUND WHICH IS OF
THE SAME SPECIES AS THE HEAVIER BODY, TO THAT
PART WHICH IS OF THE SAME SPECIES AS THE LIGHTER
BODY, WILL BE AS THE RATIO OF THE EXCFSS OF THE
WEIGHT OF THE COMPOUND OVER THE WEIGHT OF THE
LIGHTER BODY, TO THE EXCESS OF THE WEIGHT OF THE
HEAVIER BODY OVER THAT OF THE COMPOUND.
Let the two simple bodies, equal in volume, be A and D; and
51
 d e i n s i d e n t i b u s
BC, equale utrique eorum. Et sit B pars eius de genere A, et
C pars eius de genere D. Et sit A gravius D, et sit E pondus
corporis A, et H pondus corporis D, et FG pondus corporis
BC—ita quod F partiale pondus sit corporis B partialis, et G
200 partiale pondus corporis C partialis. Erit itaque E pondus
maius FG pondere, et FG pondus maius H pondere. Sit et E
pondus maius FG pondere per differentiam I, et FG maius
pondus H pondere per differentiam K. Et sit L. corpus equale B
totiens sumpto quot unitates sunt in IK; et sit M corpus equale
205 C etiam totiens sumpto quot unitates sunt in IK; quare erit L,
ad M tanquam B ad C. Et sit N pondus equale F ponderi
totiens sumpto quot unitates sunt in IK; et sit O pondus equale
G ponderi totiens sumpto quot unitates sunt in IK; quare erit
N ad O sicut F ad G. Et sint P corpus et Q pondus equalia A
210 corpori et E ponderi totiens sumptis quot unitates sunt in K; et
sint R corpus et S pondus equalia D corpori et H ponderi
totiens sumptis quot unitates sunt in I; quare erit P corpus et
R pondus tanquam K differentia ad I differentiam. Item, pro­
portio corporis A ad corpus B partiale, tanquam ponderis E ad
215 pondus F partiale, et tanquam corporis P ad corpus L partiale,
et tanquam ponderis Q ad pondus N partiale. Item, proportio
corporis D ad corpus C partiale, est sicut proportio ponderis H
ad pondus G partiale, et sicut corporis R ad corpus M partiale,
et sicut ponderis S ad pondus O partiale.
[The text, obviously incomplete, ends at this point in the manu­
scripts known to us. In Cod. Dresd. Db 86, edited by Curtze,
the text is immediately followed (without even an indication of
a division between sentences) by part of the proof of the third
proposition of the pseudo-Euclidean treatise De ponderoso et
levi.)
52
DE INSIDENTIBUS
let BC, the body compounded of the same kinds of elements, be
equal in volume to each of the other bodies. And let B be the
part of BC which is of the same kind as A, and let C be the
part which is of the same kind as D, And let A be heavier than
D; and let E be the weight of the body A, and H the weight of
the body D, and FG the weight of the Body BC—in such manner
that the partial weight F corresponds to the part B of the mixed
body, while the partial weight G corresponds to the part C of
the mixed body. Then the weight E is greater than the weight
FG, and the weight FG is greater than the weight H. And let the
difference by which the weight E exceeds FG, be I; and the dif­
ference by which FG exceeds the weight H, be K. And let there
be a body L., equal to the volume of B multiplied by the number
of units of weight contained in I+K; and let there be a body M,
equal to the volume of C multiplied by the number of units con­
tained in I+K. Then the ratio of L to M is as that of B to C. And
let N be a weight, equal to the weight F multiplied by the
number of units contained in I+K; and let O be a weight, equal
to the weight G multiplied by the number of units contained in
I+K. Then the ratio of N to O is as that of F to G. And let a
body P, and a weight Q, be equal respectively to the body A
and the weight E, in each case multiplied by the number of
units contained in K. And let there be a body R and a weight S,
equal respectively to the body D and the weight H, in each case
multiplied by the number of units contained in I. Then the ratio
of the body P to the weight R will be as that of the difference K
to the difference I. Again, the ratio of the body A to the partial
body B, will be as that of the weight E to the partial weight F,
and as the ratio of the body P to the partial weight L, and as
that of the weight Q to the partial weight N. Further, the ratio
of the body D to the partial body C, is as the ratio of the weight .
H to the partial weight G, and as that of the body R to the par­
tial body M, and as that of the weight S to the partial weight O.
53
 Ill

LIBER DE CANONIO

Edited, with Introduction, Translation

and Notes, by

ERNEST A. MOODY
 INTRODUC TION

The Science of Weights, as developed in the mediaeval tra­

dition, had a practical orientation and social importance, as
well as a significance for the theoretical science of mechanics.
Reliable instruments for the weighing of commodities are essen­
tial to any stable economic and social order, so that even in the
darkest period of the Dark Ages there was a social need for
mathematically exact criteria by which weighing instruments
could be constructed and tested for accuracy.
The equal armed balance, or trutina, needs little justification
as an instrument for comparing weights, since it directly exem­
plifies a principle that seems self-evident to the man in the
street. This is the principle embodied in Archimedes' first pos­
tulate, that equal weights suspended on a balance of equal arms
will be in equilibrium. But although the equal armed balance is
adequate for the weighing of small quantities of precious metals,
it is impractical as an instrument for weighing large bodies.
From the earliest times, therefore, the balance of unequal arms
was employed, whereby a small counterweight on the long arm
of the balance would offset a large weight on the shorter arm,
permitting calculation of the large weight on the basis of the
ratio of the length of the longer arm times the counterweight
suspended on it, to the length of the shorter arm times the
weight suspended from it. Thus the principle of statical moment,
or the general law of the lever, had to be invoked as justification
of the balance of unequal arms.
The Liber de Canonio is concerned precisely with the problem
of constructing a Roman balance, of unequal arms, in such man­
ner that its accuracy can be mathematically demonstrated on
the basis of the special and the general lever principles.lt does
not seek to demonstrate these principles themselves, but assumes
them as having been established by “Euclid, Archimedes, and
others” (cf. lines 21-30 of the text). The problem with which the
Liber de Canonio is concerned arises from the fact that the lever
principle, though intelligible as stated for the abstract case of
weights suspended on ideal weightless lever arms, is difficult
to apply to the case where the balance beam has weight of its
own, and where, in addition, we must take account of the weight
of the tray (or hook) attached to- one end of the beam to hold the
object to be weighed. To make this problem clear, we will de­
scribe the Roman balance and the way in which it was used.
The Roman balance was constructed of a symmetrical bar,
divided into two unequal segments at its axis of support. On the

57
 IN T R OD U C T I O N
end of the shorter arm there was attached a tray, or hook, of
sufficient weight to augment the statical moment of the shorter
arm so that it would be equal to that of the longer arm. The body
to be weighed would be placed on this tray, or hung on the hook,
and a movable counterpoise would then be hung on the longer
arm at whatever point would bring the balance into equilibrium.
The weight of the object in the tray <^ould then be calculated from
the product of the weight of the counterpoise and of its distance
from the axis of support. A scale of such weights would be
marked off on the longer arm, so that the weight of the object in
the tray could be read off from this scale according to the po­
sition of the counterpoise.
The problem of constructing such a balance may take several
forms. We might commence by arbitrarily assigning the point of
suspension of the balance beam in such manner that the ratio of
the segments would be a simple fraction such as 3 /2 . In that
case our problem would be to supply the tray, to be hung at the
shorter end, such that it would have just the weight required to
bring the beam into balance when no weight is placed in the tray.
The third theorem of the De canonio states the problem in just
this form. But we might already have a tray of some definite
weight, and wish to know where to divide the beam so as to bring
the arrangement into equilibrium. It is this form of the problem
that is treated in the fourth theorem of the treatise.
The first theorem of the De canonio, which provides the basic
equation required for the solution of the problem in whichever
form it is propounded, may be summarized as follows. Given a
beam of uniform thickness and material, suspended at a point
which divides it into two unequal segments, the weight which
must be suspended at the end of the shorter segment, in order
to balance the weight of the longer arm, will be in the same
ratio to the excess of the weight of the longer arm over the
weight of the shorter arm, as the ratio of the length of the whole
beam to twice the length of the shorter arm. The proof of this
theorem, as well as of the other three, is clear and elegant.
But it presupposes, without establishing, the two Archimedean
principles: (l) the equivalence of two equal weights suspended
on the same arm of a balance, to a weight equal to their sum
suspended at the point midway between them; and (2) the prin­
ciple of inverse proportionality between weights and distances
from the axis of support--i.e., the general lever principle.
The Libe r de canonio, known to us only in the Latin text which
V'e have here edited, is obviously a translation made directly
from a Greek original. The entire vocabulary of the translation
Is taken over from the Greek--the balance beam (in Latin a
virgula or regula) is called a canonium ( V co V in Greek) ;
58
DE CANONIO
when in horizontal position it is said to be parallelum epipedo
orizontis (from t o ininehov , the Greek word for “plane");
the Greek word for triangle ( Tptycovov ) is Latinized as
trigonum, and in one place the word apodixis ( AtcoSe i ^ is )
occurs instead of the Latin equivalent demonstratio. Beyond
this, the elegance of the proofs indicates an author of the Greek
tradition, rather than a Latin or Arab author; and we may
suppose, from the content of the treatise itself, that its Greek
author belonged to the Archimedean school rather than to that
which stemmed from the Peripatetic tradition, since he brings
in no Aristotelian dynamical principles in justification of his
theorems, but only the purely statical principles of Archimedes.
We cannot suppose the treatise to be a work of Archimedes,
or even of Euclid, since it explicitly refers to these authors in
the third person. Duherrl believed it to be closely related to the
Cause karastonis which Thabit ibn Qurra edited from a lost
Greek treatise, in the ninth century; and he conjectured that the
Cause karastonis represented a work by an Alexandrian mathe­
matician named Charistion, who may have been Heriston, the
son of Ptolemy. Since the word “charistion" was employed as
the name of a kind of balance, by the Greeks (the Arab word
karstun being a corruption of this name), there would seem to
be no need to construe “charistion” as the name of a person,
and little evidence to justify Duhem’ s reduction of the name to
that of Heriston. But it does seem likely that our treatise, the
Liber de canonio, represents a Greek work of the later Alex­
andrian tradition, and that the various Arab treatises on the
balance (called Kitab al karstun) were based on this, or on other
similar treatises of Alexandrian origin such as the Cause kara­
stonis which Thabit ibn Qurra edited.
Of somewhat similar character and content to the Liber de
canonio is another treatise, apparently also of Alexandrian
origin, extant in an Arabic version under the title “ The Book of
Euclid on the Balance." This treatise, never translated into
Latin, was edited from an Arabic manuscript by Dr. F. Woepcke,
in 1851, and published with a French translation.^ It is, like the
Liber de Canonio, of an Archimedean character, showing little
influence of the Aristotelian dynamical treatment of statics. It
consists essentially of four axioms, on the basis of which it
gives an elegant demonstration of the general lever principle
which, in form and method, reflects the demonstration of Arch­
imedes. Since this pseudo-Euclidean treatise, even though not
translated into Latin in the Middle Ages, constitutes part of the
background of mediaeval statics as utilized and conveyed by the
Arabs, we will summarize its essential content. The four axioms
may be paraphrased as follows:
59
 INT RO DUC TION
I. When two equal weights are suspended from the ends of a
straight balance beam, such as is of uniform thickness and
material, and is supported at its mid point, the beam will re­
main parallel to the plane of the horizon.
II. Let two weights, equal or unequal, be suspended at the ends
of the beam, and let the latter be supported at whatever point
will dete rmine the beam to hold in horizontal equilibrium with
these two weights attached to its ends. Then if one of the
weights is left in place, and the other is placed at any point on
a line forming a right angle with the beam in such manner
that the weight is attached to the end <*f the beam by a (weight­
less) vertical suspension cord, the beam will still hold in
horizontal equilibrium.
III. If the balance is held in equilibrium by two weights, and
if another weight is suspended at the point of support of the
beam, the latter will remain in equilibrium.
IV. If any number of weights be suspended along the balance
beam, in such manner that it is in equilibrium, then, if Z and
D are two of these weights on the same arm of the balance,
and if Z is moved away from the axis of suspension a certain
distance, while D is moved that same distance toward the
the axis of suspension, the balance will remain in equilibrium.
The last of these axioms obviously supposes the equality of the
weights Z and D. From the axioms the author derives the fo l­
lowing elegant demonstration of the general lever principle.
Let the (weightless) beam AB
be suspended at a point C , such
that CB = 3GA, and let a weight
z be placed at B. What weight
must be placed at A to hold the
beam in equilibrium?
Let CA be prolonged to D, in such manner that AD = 2CA; and
let AD be divided at the point E into two equal segments. Then
CA = AE = ED. Then let a weight be suspended from D, this weight
being equal to ■zL> and let two other weights, each equal to z^, hang
from the point of suspension C. By Axioms I and III, the beam
will be in equilibrium. By Axiom IV, however, we know that we
can move the weight at D to the point E, if at the same time we
move one»,of the weights at C to the point A, without disturbing
the equilibrium. We can then repeat this procedure by moving
the weight which is at E, to A, while at the same time moving
60
DE CANONIO
the other weight at C to this same point A. We will then have,
at the point A, a weight three times as great as the weight z
which is suspended at B; and thus we show that the weight which
must be placed on the arm which is one third as long, in order
to hold the beam in equilibrium, must be three times as great
as the weight hanging from the longer arm. By the same method
we may prove that this relationship holds for any other ratio be­
tween the lengths of the arm s—i.e ., that the weights must be
inversely proportional to their distances from the axis of
suspension.
This demonstration, like that of Archimedes, seeks to derive
the general lever principle from the special principle, the lat­
ter being taken as self-evident or as justified by the principle of
symmetry. No recourse is had to dynamical laws relating forces
to distances or times. In this respect the “Book of Euclid on the
Balance" differs from Thabit ibn Qurra's Liber Karastonis and
from the pseudo-Euclidean fragment (printed infra, Appendix I)
to which Thabit’s work is intimately related. These latter writ­
ings, which were conveyed to the West by Latin translations and
which underlie the treatises on weights ascribed to Jordanus de
Nemore, reflect the Aristotelian dynamical treatment of the
theory of the lever, and thereby stand in contrast to the “Book
of Euclid on the Balance" whose content we have just now de -
scribed. Yet all of these treatises stand in a similar relation­
ship to the Liber de Canonio, since they each seek to supply a
theoretical foundation for what the Liber de Canonio takes for
granted and does not seek to prove—namely, the general law of
the lever. In this sense, the Liber de Canonio functions as the
point of departure for all these other treatises, by presenting
the general lever principle as something which Archimedes,
Euclid, and other ancients had demonstrated, but without indi­
cating how it had been demonstrated by them, or from what more
basic principles. In seeking to supply the missing Archimedean
proof, the mediaeval auctores de ponderibus undertook to derive
the lever principle from Aristotle’s general “law of motion,"
thereby committing themselves to a far more ambitious under­
taking than that which Archimedes had attempted, and involving
themselves in problems whose solution required nothing less
than the discovery and elaboration of what we know as modern
classical mechanics. Ignorance of the De aequiponderantibus of
Archimedes proved, in the long run, a boon to the progress of
mechanic s .
Our text of the Liber de canonio is based primarily on the
version contained in Ms, lat. 8680 A of the Bibliotheque Nationale
at Paris. This manuscript, of late 13th century origin, is one of
the oldest and best of the manuscripts containing the collection
61
 INTRODUC TION DE CANONIO

of mediaeval treatises on weights. As a second good manuscript is being indicated in the text, we use the corresponding small
version of the treatise, we have used the text contained in Cod. letters underlined. Thus, if we speak of “the ratio of ag to gb,"
Vat. Reginensis 1261 of the Vatican Library, which is a well it is the same as if we spoke of “the ratio of the weight of the
written manuscript of the late 14th or early 15th century. Both segment AG to the weight of the segment G B ."
of these texts represent the same version, and give the same
indications of direct translation from a Greek original. There
are, in other mediaeval manuscripts, variant versions of the
Liber de canonio, or of the four theorems and proofs constitu­
ting the work, which appear to be revisions, abridgements, or
elaborations made by Latin “commentators" of the De ponderibus
literature. Most often, these variant versions occur where the
four De canonio theorems are sewed on to the nine theorems of
the Liber de ponderibus ascribed to Jordanus de Nemore, the
resulting whole being then entitled the Liber Euclidis de ponder -
ibus or the Liber Jordani de ponderibus. The manuscripts listed
below, most of which are known to us only from the catalogue
descriptions, contain texts of the De canonio in one or another
of the versions mentioned above.

(1) Paris, Ms. Bibl. Nat, lat. 7378 A (13th century)

(2) Erfurt, Cod. Amplon. F 37, fols. 57-58 (14th
century)
(3) Erfurt, Cod. Amplon. Q 348, fols. 4v-7 (14th
century)
(4) Erfurt, Cod. Amplon. Q 387, fols. 45v-47 (14th
century)
(5) Oxford, Bodleian Library, Ms. Auct. F .5.28,
fols. I07v-109
(6) Oxford, Ms. Corpus Christi Coll. 251, fols.ll-12
(7) Cambridge, Univ. Library Ms. 2327, fols. 152-155
(8) Venice, Bibl. S. Marco Ms. a. 310 (Valentinelli
6), fols. 259-260

In editing our text on the basis of Ms. Bibl. Nat, lat 8680 A and
Cod. Vat. Reg. 1261, we have supplied diagrams such as appear
on the margins of the latter manuscript (the former one having
none), but with such corrections as are necessary to make the
diagrams accord with the indications given in the text itself for
their construction. We have also adopted a convention, with re­
gard to the letters which refer to the diagrams, in order to
avoid an ambiguity which arises from the fact that references
in the text to the balance beam, or to a segment of it, through
the letters on the diagram, sometimes mean length, and some­
times the weight of the segment whose length is marked off by
the letters in question. When the reference is to lengths, we use
Roman capitals, but where it is the weight of the segment that

62 63
 l ib e r de can o n io
l Incipit liber de canonio:
I. SI FUERIT CANONIUM SYMMETRUM MAGNITUDINE, ET
SUBSTANTIE EIUSDEM, ET DIVIDATUR IN DUAS PARTES
INEQUALES ET SUSPENDATUR IN TERMINO MINORIS POR-
5 TIONIS PONDUS QUOD FACIAT CANONIUM PARALLELUM
EPIPEDO ORIZONTIS, PROPORTIO PONDERIS ILLIUS AD
SUPERHABUNDANTIAM PONDERIS MAIORIS PORTIONIS
CANONII AD MINOREM, EST SICUT PROPORTIO LONGITU­
DINIS TOTIUS CANONII AD DUPLAM LONGITUDINIS MINORIS
10 PORTIONIS.
hH
A G 0 E B
f ;;p ;j
z R?1
(Fig. I)
Esto enim canonium AB divisum in duas inequales portiones
ad punctum G, et minor portio sit A G, maior vero GB, et
pondus s-uspensum a puncto A sit z . Et sumatur GD equalis ei
que est AG, et manifestum est quod residuum DB est superha-
15 bundantia eius que est GB ad eam que est AG, in longitudine et
pondere. Dico ergo quod proportio ponderis z^ ad pondus porti­
onis DB, est sicut proportio longitudinis AB ad eam que est
AD.
Demonstratio huius rei: Quoniam canonium AD, quando sus-
20 pensum intelligetur a puncto G, nullo in terminis eius pondere
existente, sine dubio parallelum erit epipedo orizontis; et cum
suspensum fuerit ab A puncto pondus z , nutum faciet DA can­
onium in partem puncti A, secundum gravitatem eius quod est
z. Quod ergo facit canonium AD parallelum orizonti, est DB
25 pondus. Et demonstratum est in libris qui de his loquuntur,
quoniam nulla est differentia seu pondus DB sit equaliter ex­
tensum super totam lineam DB, seu suspendatur a puncto
medie sectionis. Ponatur ergo pondus db suspensum a puncto
64
THE BOOK CONCERNING THE BALANCE
Here begins the book concerning the balance:
I. IF THERE IS A BEAM OF UNIFORM MAGNITUDE AND OF
THE SAME SUBSTANCE, AND IF IT IS DIVIDED INTO TWO
UNEQUAL PARTS, AND IF AT THE END OF THE SHORTER
SEGMENT THERE IS SUSPENDED A WEIGHT WHICH HOLDS
THE BEAM PARALLEL TO THE PLANE OF THE HORIZON,
THEN THE RATIO OF THAT WEIGHT, TO THE EXCESS OF
THE WEIGHT OF THE LONGER SEGMENT OF THE BEAM
OVER THE WEIGHT OF THE SHORTER SEGMENT, IS AS THE
RATIO OF THE LENGTH OF THE WHOLE BEAM TO TWICE
THE LENGTH OF THE SHORTER SEGMENT.
Let the beam AB, then, be divided into two unequal segments
at the point G, and let the shorter segment be AG, and the
longer one GB. And let z_ be the weight suspended from the
point A. And let GD, equal in length to AG, be marked off. It is
then evident that the remainder, DB, is the excess of the seg­
ment GB over the segment AG, both in length and in weight. I
say therefore that the ratio of the weight z^to the weight of the
segment DB, is as the ratio of the length of AB to the length of
AD.
The proof of this is as follows: A beam of the length AD, if
understood to be suspended from the mid point G, without any
weight being attached at either of its ends, will undoubtedly be
parallel to the plane of the horizon. And when, from the point
A, the weight z^ is suspended, the beam DA will fall on the side
of A, by reason of the gravity of the weight z. Consequently,
that which holds the beam AD parallel to the horizon, is the
weight of DB. And it has been demonstrated in the books which
speak of these matters, that it makes no difference whether the
weight of DB is equally distributed along the whole line DB, or
whether it is suspended from the mid point of that segment.
Let the weight db, then, be suspended from the point E. Since
the line AE is divided into two unequal parts at the point G, and
since the weight z_ is suspended from the point A and the
weight db from the point E, and since the beam AE is then par­
allel to the horizon, the proportion of the segment EG to the
segment GA will be as the proportion of the weight z_ to the
weight db; as has been proved by Euclid, Archimedes, and
others. And this is the foundation on which all [the proposi­
tions] depend. Now AB is twice EG, and AD is twice AG;
65
 D E C A N ONI O
E. Quoniam, ergo linea AE divisa est in duas inequales porti-
30 ones ad punctum G, et suspensum est a puncto A pondus z et a
puncto E pondus db, et sit parallelum orizonti canonium AE,
erit proportio eius que est EG ad eam que est AG sicut pro­
portio ponderis z ad pondus db; sicut demonstratum est ab
Euclide et Archimede et aliis. Et hec est radix circa quam
35 versantur omnes. Verum AB dupla est eius que est EG, et AD,
que est AG; proportio ergo ponderis z^ ad pondus db, sicut
proportio linee AB ad lineam AD.
II. SI FUERIT PROPORTIO PONDERIS IN TERMINO MINORIS
PORTIONIS SUSPENSI, AD SUPERHABUNDANTIAM PONDERIS
40 MAIORIS PORTIONIS AD MINOREM, SICUT PROPORTIO
LONGITUDINIS TOTIUS CANONII AD DUPLAM LONGITUDI­
NIS MINORIS PORTIONIS, ERIT CANONIUM PARALLELUM
EPIPEDO ORIZONTIS.
Ponatur enim proportio ponderis zX_ ad pondus DB sicut pro-
45 portio eius que est AB ad eam que est AD. Dico quod canonium
AB parallelum est epipedo orizontis. Apodixis huius: Quoniam
si non, necesse est quod in alteram partem nutum faciat, sive
in A sive in B, ponatur primo facere nutum in A. Auferatur
ergo de pondere zl_ tantum quod reliquum faciat AB parallelum
50 epipedo orizontis; et sit_l. Cum ergo solum z pondus suspen­
sum fuerit ab A puncto, erit AB canonium parallelum orizonti.
Et quoniam hoc ita est, erit proportio ponderis z ad pondus DB
sicut proportio linee AB ad lineam AD, sicut superius est dem­
onstratum. Sed posita erat proportio ponderis totius zl ad
55 pondus DB sicut proportio linee AB ad lineam AD; ergo pondus
2^ solum equale est ponderi zl, pars toti, quod est inconveniens;
canonium ergo AB non faciat nutum in A. Ad hunc quoque mo­
dum, AB nutum facere non potest in B, quoniam si faciat nutum
in B, addemus ponderi zl^ tantum pondus quod faciat AB can-
^ onium parallelum orizonti, et hinc ad inconveniens ratiocinati­
onem perducemus, ut ante fecimus. Demonstratum est ergo
66
DE CANONIO
therefore the ratio of the weight z to the weight of DB, is as the
proportion of the line AB to the line AD.
II. IF THE RATIO OF THE WEIGHT SUSPENDED AT THE
END OF THE SHORTER SEGMENT, TO THE EXCESS OF
THE WEIGHT OF THE LONGER SEGMENT OVER THE
WEIGHT OF THE SHORTER ONE, IS AS THE RATIO OF THE
LENGTH OF THE WHOLE BEAM TO TWICE THE LENGTH
OF THE SHORTER ARM, THEN THE BEAM WILL HOLD PAR­
ALLEL TO THE PLANE OF THE HORIZON.
For let the ratio of the weight zl_, to the weight of DB, be as
the ratio of the beam AB to the segment which is AD. I say that
the beam AB is then parallel to the horizon. The proof of this
is as follows: For if this is not so, then it will necessarily fall
on one side or the other, either at A or at B. Let it first be
supposed that it falls on the side of A. From the weight zl_,
then, let there be removed an amount such that the residue
will hold AB parallel to the horizon; and let this subtracted
part be _l. When, therefore, only the weight z is suspended from
the point A, the beam AB will be parallel to the horizon. And
since this is so, the ratio of the weight ss to the weight of DB
will be as the ratio of the line AB to the line AD, as was dem­
onstrated above. But it was assumed that the ratio of the whole
weight zd to the weight of DB, is as the ratio of the line AB to
the line AD; consequently the weight z^ all alone is equal to the
weight zL of which it is a part—and this is absurd; therefore
the beam AB does not fall on the side of A. In this same man­
ner it can also be shown that AB cannot fall on the side of B;
for if it does so, we will add to the weight z]_ a weight sufficient
to make the beam AB hold parallel to the horizon, and we will
carry out the reasoning, from this, to an absurd consequence,
just as we did before. It has therefore been proved that if the
ratio of the weight z^ to the weight of DB, is as the ratio of the
line AB (to the line AD), the beam AB will hold parallel to the
plane of the horizon.
 de canonio
quoniam si ponatur proportio ponderis zl_ ad pondus DB sicut
proportio linee AB [ad lineam AD], erit AB canonium parallel­
um epipedo orizontis.
65 III. ATQUE EX HOC MANIFESTUM EST, QUONIAM SI FUERIT
CANONIUM SYMMETRUM IN MAGNITUDINE ET SUBSTANTIE.
EIUSDEM, NOTUM LONGITUDINE ET PONDERE, ET DIVIDA­
TUR IN DUAS PARTES INEQUALES DATAS, TAMEN POSSI­
BILE EST NOBIS INVENIRE PONDUS QUOD, CUM SUSPEN-
70 SUM FUERIT A TERMINO. MINORIS PORTIONIS, FACIET
CANONIUM PARALLELUM EPIPEDO ORIZONTIS.
Hoc est, ut sumamus superhabundantiam ponderis maioris
portionis ad minorem, et multiplicemus eam in numerum long­
itudinis totius canonii, et productum dividamus per numerum
75 longitudinis duple minoris portionis, et quod exierit est numer­
us ponderis quod, suspensum a termino minoris portionis,
faciet canonium parallelum epipedo orizontis. Verbi gratia,
esto longitudo canonii palmorum 10, et pondus 20 librarum. Et
dividatur in duas portiones inequales, quarum brevior sit du-
80 orum palmorum, et longior octo. Et manifestum est, quoniam
superhabundantia ponderis 8 palmorum canonii ad pondus du­
orum, est 12. Multiplica 12 in 10, qui numerus est longitudinis
canonii, et producentur 120; que dividantur per duplam minoris
portionis, id est 4; exibunt 30; et hic numerus est librarum
85 ponderis quod, suspensum a termino minoris portionis, faciet
canonium parallelum epipedo orizontis; quod propositum erat
invenire.
Z
(Fig. 3a)
Rursum, erat longitudo canonii AB, et minor portio ipsius
AG, et longior GB. Et secetur GD, equalis ei que est AG; et
90 educatur a puncto D canonii, DE equale linee DB; et educatur
linea BZ parallelos ei que est DE. Et copuletur linea AE, et
educatur AE in directo usque contingat canonium BZ;
68
DE CANONIO
III. BUT FROM THIS IT IS EVIDENT THAT IF THERE IS A
BEAM, SYMMETRICAL IN MAGNITUDE AND OF UNIFORM
SUBSTANCE, WHOSE LENGTH AND WEIGHT ARE KNOWN,
AND WHICH IS DIVIDED INTO TWO GIVEN UNEQUAL PARTS,
IT IS STILL POSSIBLE FOR US TO FIND THE WEIGHT WHICH
WHEN SUSPENDED FROM THE END OF THE SHORTER SEG­
MENT, WILL MAKE THE BEAM HOLD PARALLEL TO THE
PLANE OF THE HORIZON.
The method is to take the excess of the weight of the longer
segment over that of the shorter, and to multiply this by the
number representing the length of the whole beam, and then to
divide this product by the number representing twice the length
of the shorter arm; and what results is the number represent­
ing the weight which, if suspended from the end of the shorter
arm, will make the beam hold parallel to the plane of the hori­
zon. For example, let the length of the beam be 10 hands, and
its weight 20 pounds. And let it be divided into two unequal seg­
ments, the shorter of which is 2 hands in length, and the longer
of which is 8 hands. It is then evident that the excess of the
weight of the 8 hands of the beam, over the weight of the 2
hands, is 12 [pounds]. Multiply 12 by 10, which is the number
representing the length of the beam, and the product will be
120; and if this is divided by twice the length of the shorter seg­
ment—namely by 4 —, the result will be 30; and this is the num­
ber of pounds of the weight which, suspended from the end of
the shorter arm, will make the beam hold parallel to the plane
of the horizon. And this is what was to be found.
Again (Fig. 3a), the length of the beam was AB, and its
shorter segment AG, and the longer one GB. Let GD, equal to
AG, be marked off; and from the point D of the beam, draw DE,
equal to the line DB. And draw the line BZ parallel to the line
DE, and draw the connecting line AE, extending this until it
touches the segment BZ; and let the point of contact be desig­
nated by the letter Z. I then say that the weight of the segment
of beam BZ (since BZ is similar in form and material to AB),
is the weight which, suspended from the point A, will make the
beam AB hold parallel to the plane of the horizon. And the
proof of this is thus: For since the triangle ABZ is similar to
the triangle ADE, the ratio of BZ to DE is as the ratio of the
line BA to AD. But DB is equal to the segment which is DE, and
therefore the proportion of BZ to DB is as the proportion of AB
69
 DE C A N O N IO
signeturque contactum littera Z. Dico ergo quoniam pondus BZ
canonii, cum sit BZ simile AB et in forma et materia, est
95 quod, suspensum a puncto A, faciet canonium AB parallelum
epipedo orizontis. Et demonstratio huius: Quoniam enim ABZ
trigonum simile est trigono ADE, erit proportio eius que est
BZ ad DE sicut proportio eius que est linea BA ad AD. Verum
DB est equalis ei que est DE; proportio ergo BZ ad DB sicut
100 proportio eius que est AB ad AD. Sed que est proportio longi­
tudinum, et ponderum. Erit ergo proportio ponderis ad cui
pertinet BZ, ad pondus canonii DB, sicut proportio eius que est
AB, ad AD. Et demonstravimus iam quod quando suspendetur
a puncto A, pondus cuius proportio ad pondus DB [est] sicut
105 proportio eius que est AB ad DA, canonium AB erit parallelum
epipedo orizontis. Pondus ergo canonii BZ est quod, suspen­
sum a puncto A, faciet canonium AB. parallelum epipedo ori­
zontis; quod oportebat ostendere. Et quoniam proportio eius
que est AD, ad DE, est sicut proportio eius que est AB, ad BZ—
110 propter similitudinem triangulorum—, linea vero DB est
equalis linee DE, erit proportio eius que est AD, que nota est,
ad BD, que rursum nota est, sicut proportio eius que est AB,
que etiam nota, ad BZ, que est ignota. Si ergo multiplicemus
DB, secundam videlicet quattuor linearum proportionalium, in
115 AB, tertiam, et productum dividamus per primam, exibit BZ,
quartam; sicut ante demonstravimus.
(Fig. 3b)
Rursum etiam aliter lineam BZ cognoscemus, ita scilicet ut
semper multiplicemus numerum longitudinis DB in seipsum,
et productum dividemus per numerum portionum eius que est
120 AD, et quod exierit addamus ei que est DB; et adunatum erit
numerus portionum eius que est BZ. Et demonstratio istius
rei: Ut trahamus ab E puncto lineam parallelam ei que est DB;
sitque EI. Erunt ergo trigoni ADE et EIZ similes, et propter
hoc erit proportio eius que est IZ, ad DE, sicut proportio eius
125 que est EI, ad AD. Verum linea EI est equalis linee DB, eo
quod DI sit parallelogramum; erit ergo proportio eius que est
IZ ad DB, sicut proportio eius que est DB, ad AD. Sed quad-
70
DE CANONIO
to AD. But the proportion of lengths is as the proportion of
weights. Therefore the weight which corresponds to BZ, is to
the weight of DB, as the ratio of AB to AD. And we have al­
ready demonstrated that when, from the point A, there is sus­
pended a weight whose proportion to the weight of DB is as the
proportion of the length of AB to that of DA, the beam AB will
hold parallel to the plane of the horizon. The weight, therefore,
of the beam-segment BZ is that which, if suspended at the
point A, will make the beam AB hold parallel to the plane of
the horizon. And this is what was to be shown. And since the
ratio of AD to DE is as the ratio of AB to BZ, because of the
similarity of the triangles, whereas the line DB is equal to the
line DE, the proportion of the segment AD, which is a known
quantity, to BD, which is likewise known, is as the proportion
of the segment AB, which is also a known quantity, to BZ, which
is the unknown quantity. If then we multiply DB, the second
member of the four proportional lines, by AB, which is the
third member; and if we divide the product by the first member,
there will result the fourth member BZ, as we proved before.
Again (Fig. 3b), we may determine the line BZ in still an­
other manner, namely, if we multiply the number representing
the length of DB by itself, and divide the product by the number
representing the segment which is AD, and if we add the result
to the length of DB, the sum will be the number representing
the segment which is BZ. And to demonstrate this, we draw
from the point E a line parallel to DB; and let this line be El.
The triangles ADE and EIZ will then be similar, and hence the
ratio of IZ to DE will be as the ratio of El to AD. But the line
El is equal to the line DB, since DI is a parallelogram; and
therefore the ratio of IZ to DB will be as the ratio of DB to AD.
But the square of DB is equal to the product of IZ and AD. When
therefore the square of DB is divided by AD, the result is IZ;
and IZ is the excess of BZ over DB. If therefore this quotient
IZ is added to the line DB, the sum will be the segment BZ,
since DB is equal to BI. And this is what we wished to show.
For example, let us suppose the length of the beam AB to be
10 hands, and its weight 20 pounds; and let us make the shorter
segment 2 hands. The excess of the longer segment over the
shorter one, then, will be 6 hands. We will multiply this by it­
self, and the product will be 36. We divide this by twice the
length of the shorter segment, that is by 4, and the result is 9.
This we add to the excess, which is 6, and the sum is 15. And
this is the length of a beam, of a thickness uniform with that of
the beam AB, which, if suspended from the point A, will make
the beam AB hold parallel to the plane of the horizon. And be­
cause the proportion of the length of the beam AB to the length
71
 DE C AN O N IO
ratum eius que est DB, est sicut multiplicatio eius que est IZ
ad AD. Quando ergo dividetur quadratum eias que est DB super
130 AD, exibit IZ; et IZ est superhabundantia eius que est BZ, ad
DB. Si ergo addetur quod erit ex divisione scilicet IZ super
lineam DB, erunt totum portiones eius que est BZ, eo quod DB
est equalis BI. Et hoc est quod volebamus.
Exempli causa, ponamus longitudinem canonii AB 10 palmor»
L35 um, et pondus librarum 20, et faciamus minorem portionem
palmorum 2. Erit ergo superhabundantia maioris portionis ad
minorem, 6 palmorum. Hanc in seipsam multiplicemus, et
producentur 36. Hec dividamus super duplam minoris portio­
nis, id est 4; et exibunt 9. Hec addamus superhabundantie, que
140 est 6, et erunt 15; et hec est longitudo canonii symmetri mag­
nitudine canonio AB, quod, cum suspensum fuerit ab A puncto,
faciet AB canonium parallelum epipedo orizontis. Et quoniam
proportio longitudinis canonii AB ad longitudinem huius canon­
ii, [est] sicut proportio ponderis ad pondus—quoniam spissitudo
145 una—, longitudo vero canonii AB est palmorum 10 et gravitas
ipsius librarum 20, erit pondus canonii BZ 30 librarum. Et hoc
canonium, vel quod est ei equale secundum pondus, est quod
suspensum a puncto A, faciet AB canonium parallelum epipedo
orizontis. Et hoc est quod demonstrare volebamus.
150 IV. SI FUERIT CANONIUM DATUM LONGITUDINE, SPISSITU­
DINE ET GRAVITATE, ET DIVIDATUR IN DUAS PARTES IN-
EQUALES, FUERITQUE SUSPENSUM A TERMINO MINORIS
PORTIONIS PONDUS DATUM, QUOD FACIAT CANONIUM
PARALLELUM EPIPEDO ORIZONTIS, LONGITUDO UNIUSCU-
155 IUSQUE PORTIONUM DATA ERIT.
Esto enim canonium AB, datum longitudine, spissitudine et
pondere; et dividatur in duas partes inequales, quarum minor
sit AG et longior GB, et suspensio sit G punctum; et suspen­
datur a puncto A pondus e^ datum. Dico ergo quod longitudo
160 illius que est AG erit data.
Et demonstratio huius rei: Fit enim BZ canonium adiunctum
AB, simile ei in spissitudine et equale in pondere ponderi e.
72
DE CANONIO
of this beam, is as the proportion of weight to weight—since the
thickness is the same—, whereas the length of the beam AB is
10 hands, and its gravity 20 pounds, the weight of the beam BZ
will be 30 pounds. And this beam, or a weight equal to it, is
that which, if suspended from the point A, will make the beam
AB hold parallel to the plane of the horizon. And this is what
we wished to show.
IV. IF THE BEAM IS OF GIVEN LENGTH, THICKNESS AND
WEIGHT, AND IF IT IS DIVIDED INTO TWO UNEQUAL PARTS
SUCH THAT A GIVEN WEIGHT, SUSPENDED FROM THE END
OF THE SHORTER SEGMENT, MAKES THE BEAM HOLD
PARALLEL TO THE PLANE OF THE HORIZON, THEN THE
LENGTH OF EACH OF THE SEGMENTS WILL BE GIVEN.
For let AB be the beam, of given length, thickness and
weight; and let it be divided into two unequal parts, the shorter
of which is AG and the longer GB, with the point of suspension
at G. And let the given weight e_ be suspended from the point A.
I say then that the length of the segment AG will be given.
The demonstration of this: Let there be added to AB a beam-
segment, BZ, which is similar to AB in thickness, and which is
equal in weight to the weight e^. Then it is evident that the ratio
of the weight of BZ to the weight of DB, is as the ratio of the
weight e_ to the weight of DB. But the ratio of the weight e_ to the
weight of DB, is as the ratio in length of the line AB to the line
AD; but the ratio of BZ to DB in weight, is the same as the
ratio of BZ to DB in length, since they are similar in thick­
ness and material; therefore the ratio of the length BZ to the
length DB is the same as the ratio of the length AB to the
length AD. And, by alternation, the ratio of the line BZ to the
73
 DE CANONIO
Manifestum est ergo quoniam est ponderis BZ ad DB pondus,
sicut ponderis e^ ad DB pondus. Sed que est ponderis e_ ad DB
165 pondus, est linee AB ad lineam AD in longitudine; sed que est
ponderis BZ ad pondus DB, est longitudinis BZ ad longitudinem
DB, cum sint similes in spissitudine et materia; ergo, que est
longitudo BZ ad longitudinem DB, est longitudinis AB ad long­
itudinem AD. Et permutatim, erit proportio linee BZ ad lineam
170 AB sicut proportio linee BD ad lineam AD; et coniunctim, erit
proportio linee AZ ad lineam AB, sicut proportio linee AB ad
lineam AD; linea ergo AB media proportionalis est linearum
AZ et AD. Verum AZ tota data est, et AB rursum data; erit
ergo linea AD data, et medietas eius que est AG erit data.
175 Verum AG est minor portio eius que est AB; ita AG data est,
quod oportebat ostendere.
Atque hinc nobis manifestum est huius negotium quomodo
vis, ut videlicet multiplicemus semper librarum ponderis quod
suspensum est in minori portione, in numerum portionum can-
180 onii, et productum dividamus per numerum ponderis librarum
canonii, et quod exierit addemus numero portionum canonii.
Deinde multiplicabimus longitudinem canonii in se, et product­
um dividatur per numerum predictum, et eius quod exierit
medietatem accipiemus, et hec est minor portio. Exempli
185 causa, multiplicemus, secundum predictam divisionem, 30, que
sunt numerus librarum ponderis, in 10, que sit numerus pal­
morum longitudinis canonii, et fient 300; et hec dividamus per
numerum librarum ponderis canonii, que sunt 20; et exibunt
15. Hec addamus longitudini canonii, et erunt 25. Deinde mul-
190 tiplicemus 10, que sunt longitudo canonii, in se; et producuntur
100. Hec dividamus per predictam 25, et exibunt 4. Horum
medietatem accipiamus, que sunt 2; et hic erit numerus
minoris portionis. Quod oportebat ostendere.
Explicit liber de canonio
74
DE CANONIO
line AB, will be as the ratio of the line DB to the line AD; and,
by composition, the ratio of the line AZ to the line AB, will be
as the ratio of the line AB to the line AD. Therefore the line
AB is the mean proportional of the lines AZ and AD. But AZ,
as a whole, is given; and AB likewise is given; therefore the
line AD will be given, and its half, which is AG, will be given.
But AG is the smaller segment of the beam AB; and thus AG is
given, which is what was to be shown.
But from this the method is clear to us, for whatever case
you please. Namely, we should always multiply the number of
pounds of the weight which is suspended from the shorter seg­
ment, by the number representing the length of the beam, and
then divide the product by the number of pounds representing
the weight of the beam, and add the quotient to the number rep­
resenting the length of the beam. Then we will multiply the
length of the beam by itself, and divide the product by the num­
ber obtained above, and take half the resulting quotient; and
this will be the length of the shorter segment. Taking the meas­
ures used previously, for instance, we will multiply 30, which
is the number of pounds of the weight, by 10, which is the num­
ber of hands representing the length of the beam, and the pro­
duct will be 300; and we divide this by the number of pounds
representing the weight of the beam, which is 20, and the quo­
tient will be 25. Then we multiply 10, which is the length of the
beam, by itself, and obtain 100. This we divide by the 25 ob­
tained previously, and the quotient is 4. We take half of this,
which is 2, and this will be the number representing the length
of the shorter segment. And this is what was to be shown.
Here ends the book concerning the balance.
 IV

LIBER KARASTONIS

Edited, with Introduction, Translation

and Notes, by

MARSHALL CLAGETT
 INTRODUCTION

I. Authorship
This short but significant work on the Roman baLance is, as
its opening paragraph informs us, not an original work of the
Sabean mathematician Thabit ibn Qurra, but rather is an im ­
proved version of a Greek original.
We deduce from the epistolary introduction that a friend of
Thabit's had come across an Arabic translation of a work en­
titled Cajos£jcji£a^tonis. It is clear from Thabit’ s comments that
the original translation into Arabic was defective and contained
obscure passages. The opinion is ventured by Thabit that the
(■ \ obscurity arises from the changes brought about by translating
( and copying the work. At any rate, Thabit announces his inten­
tion of clarifying the obscure places and of presenting sound
demonstrations.
There has been much discussion of the term “karaston”
(Arabic, qarastun). Its derived meaning in Greek, Arabic, and
) Latin is clearly “Roman balance,” (or balance of unequal arm
lengths) and it is so used in the treatise at hand, particularly in
the concluding section where there is mentioned the “weight of
the karaston" and also “the matter or thing (res) of karastons."
In his analysis of the Liber karastonis Pierre Duhem admits
this meaning of the term, but at the same time attempts to show
that it refers ultimately to aGreek personal name, Charastion.^
l Certainly the first passage he cites from Simplicius^ does not
support this contention, for the latter uses the term for an in­
strument (quite clearly the Roman balance) which he says was
invented by Archimedes on the basis of the “proportionality of
the motive power, the thing moved, and the space traversed."
a' • According to Simplicius it is this instrument to which Archi­
medes referred when he said, “with a point of departure I can
move the earth." Now Duhem points out that the derivation of
this instrument by the dynamic principle of the proportionality
of motive power, thing moved, and the space traversed is pre­
cisely what is done in the treatise on the karaston under dis­
cussion, and that this “dynamic" approach is entirely foreign to
the method of Archimedes. Hence the “inventor" is not Archi­
medes, but rather one Charastion, who may be identical with
the little-known figure, Ariston, to whom Philo of Byzantium
dedicated his works.^ While rejecting Duhem’ s identification of
Ariston and Charastion, Hermann Diels supports the derivation
of the term karaston from a personal name on philological

79
 IN T R O D U C TION
grounds.^ This is certainly as far as we can go, for there is not
a single reference to a work on the balance by any one named
Charastion in antiquity.
Regardless of the identity of the original Greek author of this
•jrork, it is clear from the introduction that the present work
Owes something to Thabit ibn Qurra. Most of the evidence con­
cerning Thabit’ s life and the numerous works he translated and
composed has been carefully collected by that indefatigable stu­
dent of Islamic physics, Eilhard Wiedemann.5 We can content
lOarselves in this introduction with a few remarks concerning
(Thabit’ s life. He was born in the town of Harran between the
•Pper reaches of the Tigris and Euphrates in 835-36 (sometimes
|!ven as 826).^ Some attempt has been made to trace his family
ick to Greek colonists in HarrSn. It is certain that he was a
:mber of the pagan sect of Sabeans located in this city. Thabit
<«ars to have experienced some difficulty with the more orth-
?x members of the sect. It is certain he left Harran and near
fA met up with Muhammad ibn Musa, one of three sons of
t2 who were among the first rank of Islamic mathematicians.
Accompanied Muhammad to Bagdad where he became one of
leading astronomers and translators of scientific works at
Khalif’ s court. Most of the remainder of Thabit’ s life was
•l at Bagdad. He translated and composed numerous works
Schematics, astronomy, geography, music, medicine, phys-
* *rtd meteorology. Attention has been called recently to his
testing, anti-Aristotelian view of gravitation as arising from
■fold attraction of element for like element, and of one el-
, -t for another.^ The ability of Thabit is clearly attested in
rous works which have survived.
fl. The Historical Place of the Liber karastonis
point we have made no attempt to identify the original
Tha bi t ibn Qurra has reworked to give us the present
we must confess that any positive identification with a
author is quite unlikely on the basis of extant evi-
there is no doubt that this work is closely related to
^ <Hher treatises that have a Hellenistic, or at least a
origin.
‘♦nr* In the introductory passage of the Liber karastonis
: IHM thi s work is joined to a Liber Euclidis.8 It is barely
^ fhat this reference is to the Elements of Euclid, for
thr* reader who wishes to understand the Liber kan;
to know about the proportionality of sectors and
iPrtns to direct the reader to the Liber Euclidis
Muition. In support of this reasoning we should note
r ,.
80
LIBER KARASTONIS
that the works dealing with the lever or kindred problems that
are ascribed to Euclid (and which we shall describe shortly)
have no such sections dealing with proportionality of sectors
and lines as such. Be that as it may, there are two works, and
possibly three, attributed to Euclid that are concerned with
some of the same problems as the Liber karastonis. The first
of these, existing only in the Arabic, is called The Treatise
(muq^latun) of Euclid on the Balance.^ Buchner^ sees little
connection of this treatise with the Liber karastonis, but we
must grant the following points of similarity, the first and fourth
of which Buchner seems to have overlooked.
(1) Both contain the particular case of the law of lever—equal
weights at equal distances are in equilibrium. But in the treatise
of Euclid it is given as an axiom^ just as it is in Archimedes’
On the Equilibrium of Planes. ^ In the Liber karastonis it is
proved (as a step toward the general law of the lever) on the
basis of the equality of the power of movement at each extrem­
ity. (See proposition three.)
(2) Both contain the general law of the lever as propositions.
It is the third proposition of the Liber karastonis and the fourth
proposition in the Euclid treatise. But the proof in the Euclid
treatise is on the basis of static considerations, while that in
the Liber karastonis is, as we shall see, based on a dynamic
consideration connected with the equality of the power of move­
ment of the unequal weights which are inversely proportional to
arm lengths.
(3) In the Arabic, but not in the Latin version of the Liber
karastonis, is found a long, rather extraneous fragment which
includes in addition to the special case of the lever with equal
weights at equal distances, a statement to the effect that so long
as the (weightless) suspension rod or cord makes an angle of
90° with the lever arm, the horizontal equilibrium is not dis-
turbed, regardless of how long the cord is. It is clear from
the statements that follow that this also meant to include the
suspension of a weight on the end of a weightless rod which
makes an angle of 90° with the beam—an angle in the horizontal
plane. Both of these ideas—the first concerning the length of the
90° suspension rod and the second regarding the intersection of
such a suspension rod in the horizontal plane—are repeated in
the Euclid work. The first specifically occurs as the second
axiom. The second is utilized in both the first and second prop­
ositions, where the authority seems to be the second a x i o m . ^
(4) This same intrusive passage in the Arabic version also
includes the case where a weightless suspension rod makes an
acute angle in the horizontal plane with the balance line. Thus
if a weight is hung at cl on a weightless rod dlb which intersects
81
 INTRODUCTION
in the horizontal plane the balance line ab in an acute angle at
b, the weight acts as if it were acting at point e_ on the balance
line ab. “While this specific example is not in the Euclid treatise,
the second proposition includes an example that illustrates ex­
actly the same principle and gives a number of suspension lines
in the horizontal plane that make right angles and less than right
angles with one or another of two balance lines. This kind of
analysis of horizontal suspension lines seems peculiar to Euclid’s
^Treatise on the Balance. So it is quite likely that the Euclid
^treatise inspired the intrusive fragment in the Arabic version of
Lthe Liber karastonis.
. A second treatise attributed to Euclid is that which has the
»*tin title of Liber de ponderoso et levi, which text has been in-
Staded in this volume. Both Duhem and Buchner feel certain that
1» to this work that Thabit refers when he says that the Liber
Lf astonis is joined to a Liber Euclidis.^ This view is enhanced
- the lirst place by the fact that some manuscripts of the Euclid
speak of it as being a translation improved by Thabit ibn
"*rra; so the connection of the Sabean mathematician with this
seems to be established.^ But more important, the Liber
'Qnderoso contains a fundamental expression of the peripa-
- law of movement and this law is the point of departure for
proof of the lever in the Liber karastonis. Thus the first
Imposition of the Liber de ponderoso is identical with the first
position of the Liber karastonis. The reader is invited to
Ihe comparison himself.
w ^hr Liber de ponderoso in its most common version does
Contain anything about the lever. But there is an intrusive
l'p*,nt in at least two of the manuscripts of the Liber de pon-
(V*L lat 2975. f. I48r, and BN Fonds latin 10260, f.l38r),
* T'dtr germane to our discussion of the Liber karastonis.
J'lruaive fragment, which may be part of a treatise en-
«'J^ tLiL^uc:Tidis de ponderibus secundum terminorum cir-
P * . l a a l s o appears in another manuscript as an ad-
82
LIBER KARASTONIS
junct to one of the Jordanus t r e a t i s e s . I t is published here in
the appendix and a cursory glance will show that alt of the prop­
ositions that the fragment includes or implies appear in the
Liber karastonis (See Appendix I). The closeness of the propo­
sitions in these two works is shown by the fact that in one ms.
(BN 16649) the fragment of Euclid bears the title Excerptum de
libro Thabit de ponderibus. ^ In view of the close similarities
of the two works, and since this fragment is in rather bad shape
(and Thabit has so described the Cause karastonis) it has oc­
curred to me that perhaps it may be identical with the Cause
karastonis which Thabit has reworked as his Liber karastonis.
If so1, then Thabit has played a major role in revising the earlier
work. The other possibility, of course, is that this work is a
later Arabic or Latin excerpt, as one title suggests.
There is no particular historical evidence to support Duhem’ s
conjecture that these three works attributed to Euclid are
closely tied together and that the Book of the Balance forms a
bridge between the Euclid treatise, De ponderoso and the frag­
ment De ponderibus secundum terminorum circumferentiam.
One further Greek work with which the Liber karastonis may
have some relation is the De canonio which appears as four
propositions usually joined in medieval Latin manuscripts to
the Elementa of Jordanus, and the text of which has been includ­
ed and discussed above. The De canonio is concerned with pre­
cisely the same problem as the Liber karastonis, namely the
problem of the balancing of the Roman Balance. The almost ex­
act correspondence between the third proposition of the De
canonio and the first part of its explanation with proposition
seven and its example in the Liber karastonis raises the possi­
bility that the Liber karastonis was an attempt to reinterpret
the De canonio. If this conjecture were true, it would make the
De canonio the original Cause karastonis. I believe, however,
that the over-all lack of similarity in organization and further
detail makes this conjecture unlikely, and actually much less
likely than that the fragment inserted in the De ponderoso was
the original Cause karastonis.lt should be noted in passing that
the De canonio is much closer to the original Greek terminology
than is the Liber karastonis, and the abundance of Graecisms
raises the distinct possibility that the De canonio was translated
from the Greek into Latin directly rather than through the
Arabic. Its citation of Euclid and Archimedes for proving the
general law of the lever, if genuine, places it after the Equilib­
rium of Planes of Archimedes and the Treatise on the Balance
attributed to Euclid.
The only thing that remains to be said of the historical posi­
tion of the Liber karastonis is that the original inspiration of its
83
 INT RODU C TION
derivation of the law of the lever on the basis of areal displace­
ments is probably the treatise Mechanical Problems attributed
to A r i s t o t l e . T h e r e is no particular evidence that Thabit used
the Mechanical Problems directly. If he did, he clearly ignored
the correct analysis given there of the stability of the lever
supported from above. We must conclude rather that the origin­
al Cause karastonis is connected more directly with one or
more of the treatises already mentioned: with the treatise of
Euclid, On the Balance; with the treatise of Euclid, Liber de
ponderoso; with the fragment of Euclid which we assume to be
the De ponderibus secundum terminorum circumferentiam; or
with the anonymous De canonio.
III. The Manuscript Basis for the Latin Text
of the Liber karastonis
In the introduction to his edition of the Latin translation of the
Liber karastonis, Herr Buchner has discussed the manuscript
tradition of this translation. ^ He sees at least three different
versions represented among the extant manuscripts, but he be­
lieves that all of these versions go back to a single translation.
This original translation may very well be the translation attri-
buted to Gerard of Cremona. A comparison of the Latin ver­
sions with the extant Arabic manuscripts indicates that the o r­
iginal Latin translation was probably made from an Arabic
version not now known.
The first and most important version of the Latin translation
contains the introductory letter and the formal conclusion. This
is represented by the two Paris manuscripts, sigla A and B in
the list of manuscripts given in the variant readings to the text,
as well as by Milan, Florence, and Vatican manuscripts (ab­
breviated U, P, and X). This version is obviously the best and
most complete one and it is substantially this version that is
being reproduced here.
A second group of manusc ripts lacks the introduction and con­
clusion and is represented by the Thorn and Vienna manuscripts
(the first abbreviated as V, the second noted in the Buchner list
reproduced below). But the Thorn and Vienna manuscripts them­
selves differ radically from each other and constitute different
versions. Even so, they stem from version one. Thus the Thorn
manuscript has numerous passages that appear verbatim in the
more complete first version, the same numerical examples are
used, and the same lacunae with respect to the Arabic text are
found in the Thorn and first versions. The Thorn scribe wishes
to abbreviate as much as possible. In doing so the text is occas­
ionally not understandable (particularly in the treatment of the
84
LIBER KARASTONIS
last proposition). The connection of the Vienna manuscript with
the first version is also clear from the identical passages in
numerous places. The editor of this version is more careful in
his mathematical treatment and expresses himself more clearly.
The text of the Liber karastonis here constructed depends
most prominently on the Paris manuscript abbreviated as A be­
low and on the Buchner edition of the Milan manuscript, abbre­
viated U, for they clearly are among the earliest of the manu­
scripts. However in some respects the later Paris (abbreviated
B) and Vatican (abbreviatedX) manuscripts, although not copied
until the sixteenth century, are more carefully done. Thus in
ce rtain pas sages these 16th century manuscripts (l,B) make more
sense than either of the earlier manuscripts (A, U) and I have
often followed their reading. A carelessly omits numerous sen­
tences throughout the text, omits or corrupts the numbers given
in the numerical examples, and confuses the letters used for
lever arms and weights again and again. U, which on the whole
is fairly sound in Buchner’ s edition, omits a few things contained
inX> B. For example, the introductory sentences to the proof of
the sixth proposition (lines 323-328 in our text) which announce
the indirect proof to follow and which clearly go back to an
Arabic version is given inX» B, but not in A, U. Of the two six­
teenth century manuscripts used, X probably the older and
provided the model for B.
The two manuscripts are almost identical, but occasionally B,
after repeating an obvious and misleading reading fromX» will
cross it out and replace it with the correct reading, as if the
scribe had another manuscript available for reference while
copying f r o mh
Although I have given some variant readings from the intro­
ductory and concluding passages published by Steinschneider
from the Florence manusc ript and some readings from the Thorn
manuscript partially published by Curtze, I did not have these
manuscripts at hand, and in no sense of the word have they been
collated with the other four manuscripts. Furthermore, my list
of variant readings for the four principal manuscripts is not
complete, but I am sure contains all but minor variations. I have
often omitted variations in spelling which did not seem essential.
Sometimes peculiarities of one manuscript which are obviously
erroneous have been noted the first time they occur without con­
tinued repetition. Thus in A quodlibet is often used for quidem;
in B existimamus is used for extimamus or estimamus, etc.
Changes in tense and mode have not always been noted when they
are clearly copiest errors and appear correctly in all of the
other manuscripts.
The diagrams varied little from manuscript to manuscript
85
 I N T R O D U C T ION

and no troub le was e x p e r i e n c e d in r e c o n s t r u c t in g th em in doubt­

ful p la c e s f r o m the text i t s e l f .
The manuscripts used in the preparation of this text with
their sigla precede the Variant Readings at the end of the volume.
Other manuscripts listed by Buchner follow:

Basel, Cod Basil. F ll 33, U2v-ll4v 14 c. Badly written.

The Text
Rome, Cod. Coll. Rom. H.C. 93,16c.
Rome, Vat. Cod. R g. Suecorum 1253, 70r-74v.
Paris, BN Fonds Latin 7377 B, 63r-65v, 14c. LIBER KARASTONIS
Paris, BN Fonds Latin 7434, 8lr-83v, 14c. Defective.
Paris, BN Fonds Latin 7310, U2r-I32v. Incomplete.
P a r i s , BN F on d s Latin 16649, (Duhem, O r i g i n e s , 1,75-77).
Paris, Bibl. Mazarine 3642, 13c. (Duhem, Origines, I, 74).
Vienna, NB, IV 57. 5203, I72r-I73v. 15-I6c.

Compare also the German translation of the unpublished Arabic

manuscripts by Eilhard Wiedemann, “Die Schrift ueber den Qua-
astun,” Bibliotheca Mathematica, 3 Folge, vol. 12, Leipzig, 1911-12,
21-39. The sections in the Latin text not appearing in the Arabic
versions are enclosed in brackets [ ].

8^
 LIBER KARASTONIS EDITUS A
T H E B I T FI LI O CORE
(Proeemium)
[Continuet Deus conservationem tuam et multiplicet ex sal­
ute portionem tuam ut non priver ego germano qualis tu es, qui
abstergit mentes cum inquisitione sua et excitat animum ad
speculandum et imprimit scientiam per naturam suam et acuit
5 se per se ipsum et commovet super illud quod expellit assim i-
lationem ab eo et ab eo exponuntur veritates. Legi, O frater,
epistolam tuam in eo quod dixi de speculatione tua in Causis
karastonis cum vestigiis inventis in eo ex figuris demonstratis
super ipsum. Et tu quidem invenisti ea; postquam cessans ab
10 aliis occupatus fuisti in eis et bene excercuisti cognitionem in
eis. Inter ignotum quod non recipiunt mentes et ignotum quod
non verificat experimentum, perpendi ergo frater super illud
super permutationem linguarum interpretum et vicissitudiness
manum scriptorum. Hesitavi ergo cum illo et tu non sanasti ex
15 malitia opinionis animam tuam. Et tu quidem quesivisti a me
expositionem eius conditionibus planis et intensionibus detectis
et viis que appropinquare faciunt a longitudine eius et alleviant
difficultatem eius. Et ego quidem respondebo tibi in eis de eo
quod quesivisti. Et ultime dicam tibi ex eis ubi volueris cum
20 significationibus sufficientibus et demonstrationibus sanis.
Scies ergo locum erroris et unde multiplicatus est adeo donec
forsitan factus est comprehendens et fit communis. Iam sciv­
isti, dirigat te Deus et tui pectoris illuminet intellectum, quod
Cause karastonis derivate sunt ex figuris geometricis. Non
25 ergo sit excusatio ei qui vult eas intelligere a consideratione
earum cum speculatione in pluribus locis illius, sicut cognito
figurarum sectorum et intentionum proportionalitatis eorum et
qualiter est earum assimilatio et cognitio proportionalitatis
linearum in numeris ad invicem. Liber enim noster iste non
30 tollat diversitatem illius et eius expositionis. Hoc autem cap­
itulum innixum est super librum qui nominatur Liber Euclidis.
Qui ergo vult aliquid eius inveniet illic exquisitum. Quia ergo
iam premisimus quod necesse fuit premitti de rememoratione
eius quod convenit ei qui considerat hoc capitulum et intelligit
35 ipsum, tunc incipiamus exponere illud ad quod tendimus et
quod volumus.]
88
THE BOOK OF T H E R O M A N B A L A N C E OF
T H A B I T I BN Q U R R A
(Prologue)
May God continue to preserve you and increase your health
so that I may not be deprived of such a brother as you who
stimulates opinions with his research and excites the mind to
speculation, and who impresses knowledge by his own nature
and sharpens his own wit by himself and who attacks that which
would hinder his assimilation of a subject and who explains the
truths of it.
I have read, O Brother, your letter on that which I have said
regarding your reflection on the Causes of the Karaston with
the traces found therein of the figures demonstrated on the
karaston (Roman balance). You have discovered these things.
After putting aside everything else you have occupied yourself
with them and have thoroughly exercised your thought on them.
Regarding the obscure passages which reason does not sup­
port and which experiment does not verify, I have considered
carefully the obscurity brought about by changes of the lang­
uages of the translators and by the difficulties due to scribal
hands. Hence I have hesitated in this matter and you have not
developed a sound opinion. Indeed you have sought of me an ex­
position of it in plain terms with its intentions revealed and
with ways for abbreviating its long passages and alleviating its
difficulty. I shall respond to your request on these matters and
speak to you at last of those passages you desired, speaking by
means of clear indications and sound demonstrations. You will
know, therefore, the place of error and whence it has multi­
plied until it has, perhaps, become all embracing and common.
You already know—may God guide you and illuminate the
understanding of your heart-^-that the Causes of the Karaston
have been derived from geometric figures. Hence one who
wishes to understand them may not be excused from specula­
tive consideration in many places of such things as the under­
standing of figures, sectors, and their proportionality, and how
they are to be related, and the understanding of the mutual pro­
portionality of lines and numbers. For our book does not take
up the diversity of this matter and its exposition. However,
this chapter has been joined to the book which is called The
Book of Euclid. Hence he who wishes may find there something
which he seeks.
Since we have now premissed that which is necessary for
him who considers this chapter and understands it, let us then
89
 LIBER KARASTONIS
(Propositiones)
I. DICO ERGO QUOD OMNIUM DUORUM SPACIORUM QUE
DUO MOTA SECANT IN TEMPORE UNO, PROPORTIO UNIUS
AD ALTERUM EST SICUT PROPORTIO VIRTUTIS MOTUS
40 EIUS QUOD SECAT SPACIUM UNUM AD VIRTUTEM MOTUS
ILLIUS SECANTIS SPACIUM ALTERUM.
[Et ponam ad illud exemplum. Dico duorum viatorum peram­
bulat unus 30 miliaria et perambulat secundus 60 miliaria in
tempore uno. Et notum est ergo quod virtus motus eius qui
45 perambulat 60 miliaria dupla est virtutis motus eius qui per­
ambulat 30 miliaria sicut spacium quod est 60 miliaria est
duplum spaeii quod est 30 miliaria. Hec est propositio recepta
per se, inter quam et inter intellectum non est medium sep­
arans ea.l
50 II. ET POST HOC DICO QUOD OMNIS LINEA QUE DIVIDITUR IN
DUAS SECTIONES, ET FIGITUR PUNCTUM EIUS SECANS ET
MOVETUR LINEA TOTAPENITUS MOTU QUO NON REDIT AD
LOCUM SUUM, TUNC IPSA FACIT ACCIDERE DUOS SECTOR­
ES. SIMILES DUORUM CIRCULORUM, MEDIETAS DIAMETRI
55 UNIUS QUORUM EST LINEA LONGIOR ET MEDIETAS DIAME­
TRI SECUNDI EST LINEA BREVIOR. ET QUOD PROPORTIO
ARCUS QUEM SIGNAT PUNCTUM EXTREMITATIS UNIUS DU­
ARUM LINEARUM AD ARCUM QUEM SIGNAT PUNCTUM E X ­
TREMITATIS LINEE SECUNDE EST SICUT PROPORTIO LIN-
60 EE REVOLVENTIS ILLUM ARCUM AD LINEAM SECUNDAM.
Cuius exemplum est quod linea AB dividatur in duas se c­
tiones diversas super punctum G, et figam punctum eius G et
movebo super ipsum lineam AB motu quo non redit ad locum
suum et movebo ipsam ad punctum T, et fiet linea TD ipsa
90
LIBER KARASTONIS
begin to expound that which we intend and wish.
(Propositions)
I. I SAY, THEREFORE, IN THE CASE OF TWO SPACES WHICH
TWO MOVING BODIES DESCRIBE IN THE SAME TIME, THAT
THE PROPORTION OF THE ONE SPACE TO THE OTHER IS
AS THE PROPORTION OF THE POWER OF THE MOTION OF
THAT WHICH CUTS THE ONE SPACE TO THE POWER OF
THE MOTION OF THAT WHICH CUTS THE OTHER SPACE.
I posit the following example for this proposition. In the case
of two walkers, one walks thirty miles and the second one
walks sixty miles in the same time. It is noted, therefore, that
the power of the motion of him who walks the sixty miles is
double the power of the motion of him who walks the thirty
miles, just as the space sixty miles is double the space thirty
miles.
This proposition is admitted per se and is immediately evi­
dent to the intellect.
II. THEN I SAY THAT IN THE CASE OF EVERY LINE WHICH
IS DIVIDED INTO TWO PARTS AND FIXED AT THE DIVISION
POINT AND WHERE THE WHOLE LINE IS MOVED WITH A
MOVEMENT NOT DIRECTED TO ITS NATURAL PLACE,
THEN SUCH A MOVEMENT PRODUCES TWO SIMILAR SEC­
TORS OF TWO CIRCLES. THE RADIUS OF ONE OF THESE
CIRCLES IS THE LONGER LINE AND THE RADIUS OF THE
SECOND IS THE SHORTER LINE. AND THE PROPORTION OF
THE ARC WHICH THE POINT OF THE EXTREMITY OF ONE
OF THE TWO LINES DESCRIBES TO THE ARC WHICH THE
POINT OF THE EXTREMITY OF THE OTHER LINE DE­
SCRIBES IS AS THE PROPORTION OF THE LINE WHOSE
REVOLUTION PRODUCES THE ONE ARC TO THE LINE PRO­
DUCING THE OTHER ARC.
An example of this follows: Line AB is divided into two dif­
ferent segments at point G. I fix this point G and then I shall
move the line around point G with a motion by which it does not
return to its original position. I shall move it to point T. Then
91
 LIBER KARASTONIS
65 Linea AB. Dico ergo quod due figure ATG et BDG sunt duo sec­
tores similes duorum circulorum et medietas diametri unius
quorum est AG et medietas diametri secundi est GB et quod
proportio arcus AT ad arcum BD est sicut proportio linee AG
ad lineam GB.
70 Cuius demonstratio est quod punctum G est fixum et quod
linea AB movetur super ipsum, et punctum A iam signavit apud
motum linee AB arcum circumferentie circuli cuius diametri
medietas est AG, qui est arcus AT et punctum B iam signavit
apud motum linee arcum BD, et quoniam in duobus angulis
75 oppositis apud punctum G equalibus est sectio AGT similis
sectioni BGD, ergo proportio arcus BD ad circumferentiam sui
circuli est sicut proportio arcus AT ad circumferentiam sui
circuli, et proportio circuli ex quo est arcus AT ad circulum ex
quo est arcus BD est sicut proportio medietatis diametri unius
80 eorum ad secundum et est AG ad GB. Manifestum est ergo ex
eo quod diximus quod proportio arcus AT ad arcum BD est
sicut proportio AG ad GB. [Non enim est simile illius nisi sicut
si esset linea AB decem et linea AG ex ea quatuor oporteret ut
arcus AT sequeretur arcum BD quoniam AG sequitur GB. Et
85 illud est quod demonstrare voluimus.
Iam diximus in duobus spaciis que secant duo mota in tem ­
pore uno quod proportio virtutis motus unius eorum ad virtu­
tem motus alterius est sicut proportio spacii quod ipsum secat
ad spacium alterum, et punctum A apud motum linee iam se-
90 cavit arcum AT, et punctum B iam secavit etiam apud motum
linee arcum BD et illud in tempore uno. Ergo proportio virtu­
tis motus puncti B ad virtutem motus puncti A est sicut propor­
tio duorum spaciorum que secuerunt duo puncta in tempore
uno, unius ad alterum, scilicet proportio arcus BD ad arcum
95 AT. Et hec proportio iam ostensum est quod est sicut propor­
tio linee GB ad lineam AG. Quando ergo est secundum hoc
exemplum linea GB sex et linea AG quatuor est virtus motus
puncti B quantum virtus motus puncti A et quantum medietas
eius. Hec est propositio manifesta detecta ei qui speculatur
100 eam et vult eam intelligere.
III. CUM ERGO IAM MANIFESTUM EST ISTUD, TUNC DICO
QUOD OMNIS LINEA QUE DIVIDITUR IN DUAS SECTIONES
DIVERSAS, ET EXTIMATUR QUOD LINEA SUSPENDATUR
PER PUNCTUM DIVIDENS IPSAM, ET QUOD DUORUM POND'
^ I:RUM PROPORTIONALIUM SICUT PROPORTIONALITAS
DUARUM PARTIUM LINEE UNIUS AD COMPAREM SUAM
92
LIBER KARASTONIS
the line AB itself becomes line TD. Hence I say that the two
figures ATG and BDG are two similar sectors of two circles.
And the radius of one of the circles is AG and the radius of the
second is GB. And I say that the proportion of arc AT to arc
BD is as the proportion of the line AG to the line GB.
The demonstration of this follows: Point G is fixed and line
AB is moved around it. Point A now has traced by the motion
of line AB an arc of the circumference of a circle whose radius
is AG. This is arc AT. Point B now has traced by the motion of
the line an arc BD. And since by the equality of the opposite
angles at point G, the sector AGT is similar to the sector BGD,
hence the proportion of arc BD to the circumference of its
circle is as the proportion of arc AT to the circumference of
its circle. Then the proportion of the circle of which arc AT is
a part to the circle of which arc BD is a part is as the propor­
tion of the radius of the one circle to the second radius and
thus of AG to GB. Hence it is clear from what we have said that
the proportion of arc AT to arc BD is as the proportion of AG
to GB. Here is a similar numerical example: Let line AB be 10,
and its part AG be 4. Then it would be necessary that arc AT
would follow arc BD, since AG follows GB. And that is what we
wish to demonstrate.
We have already said that in the case of two spaces which
two moving bodies describe in the same time, the proportion of
the power of the motion of one of the moving bodies to the
power of the movement of the other is as the proportion of the
space which the first motion cuts to the other space. And point
A with the motion of the line has already cut AT and point B
with the motion of the line has already cut arc BD, and this in
the same time. Therefore, the proportion of the power of the
motion of point B to the power of the motion of point A is as the
proportion, one to the other, of the two spaces which the two
points describe in the same time, evidently the proportion of
arc BD to arc AT. This proportion has already been shown to
be the same as the proportion of line GB to line AB. Hence in
this example, when line GB is six and line AG is four, the pow­
er of the motion of point B is 3/2 the power of the motion of A.
This proposition is manifest to him who speculates on it and
who wants to understand it.
III. SINCE THIS IS MANIFEST NOW, THEN I PROPOSE (THE
FOLLOWING WITH RESPECT TO) EVERY LINE WHICH IS
DIVIDED INTO TWO DIFFERENT. SEGMENTS AND IMAGINED
TO BE SUSPENDED BY THE DIVIDING POINT AND WHERE
THERE ARE SUSPENDED ON THE RESPECTIVE EXTREMI­
TIES OF THE TWO SEGMENTS TWO WEIGHTS, AND THE
93
 LIBER KARASTONIS
SECUNDUM ATTRACTIONEM SUSPENDITUR UNUM IN
EXTREMITATE UNIUS DUARUM SECTIONUM
ET SECUNDUM IN EXTREMITATE ALTERA, TUNC
110 LINEA EQUATUR SUPER EQUIDISTANTIAM
ORIZONTIS.]
(Fig. 2)
Cuius exemplum est quod linea AB dividitur in duas sectiones
super punctum G, et suspenditur linea ab hoc puncto, et ponuntur
in duobus punctis duarum extremitatum eius duo pondera pro-
115 portionalia utriusque donec sit proportio ponderis suspensi in
puncto A ad pondus suspensum in puncto B sicut proportio linee
BG ad lineam AG. Dico ergo quod linea sit veniens super equi-
distantiam orizontis, ita quod si nos inclinemus punctum A ad
punctum T et elevetur punctum B ad punctum D, sufficiet pon-
120 dusji donec redeat linea AB ad locum suum ex equidistantia
orizontis.
Cuius hec est demonstratio, secabo ex BG longiore quod sit
equale AG breviori quod sit GE. Si ergo suspendantur super
duo puncta A. E duo pondera equalia, equidistabit linea AE o r-
125 izonti, quoniam virtus motus duorum punctorum est equalis,
secundum quod ostendimus, donec si inclinaverimus punctum A
ad punctum T sufficiet cum eo pondus quod est ad punctum A
donec redeat ad locum suum, et sit arcus AT. Et quando permu­
tabimus pondus ex puncto E ad punctum B, et si voluerimus ut
130 linea remaneat super equidistantiam orizontis est nobis nec-
esse ut addamus in pondere quod est apud A additionem ali­
quam donec Sit proportio eius totius ad pondus quod est apud B
sicut proportio BG ad AG. Quoniam virtus puncti B superfluit
super virtutem puncti A per quantitatem superfluitatis BG
135 super AG, secundum quod iam ostendimus, pondus ergo quod
est apud punctum fortioris est minus pondere quod est apud
punctum debilioris secundum quantitatem qua proportionatur
arcus arcui. Cum ergo est apud punctum B pondus et est apud
A pondus secundum et est proportio ponderis _a ad pondus b
140 sicut proportio BG ad AG, equidistat linea ab orizonti.
94
LIBER KARASTONIS
PROPORTION OF THE ONE WEIGHT TO THE OTHER, SO
FAR AS BEING DRAWN DOWNWARD IS CONCERNED, IS
(INVERSELY) AS THE PROPORTION OF THE LINES. (I SAY
THAT IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES) THE LINE IS IN HORI­
ZONTAL EQUILIBRIUM.
An example of this case: Line AB is divided into two seg­
ments at point G and is suspended from this point. There are
placed two weights on the two points of the extremities of the
line, proportional in such a fashion that the proportion of the
weight suspended in point A to the weight suspended in point B
is as the proportion of the line BG to the line AG. Then I say
the line is in horizontal equilibrium, so that if we incline point
A to point T and elevate point B to point D, weight a is suffic­
ient for line AB to return to its place of horizontal equilibrium.
The demonstration of this follow s:^ I cut from BG the long­
er segment an amount equal to AG the shorter segment. This
cut off line is GE. If then, two equal weights are suspended at
points A and E, the line AE will be in horizontal equilibrium,
since the power of motion at the two points is equal as we have
demonstrated. So that if I incline point A to point T, the weight
there suffices for its return to a position of horizontal equilib­
rium through arc AT. And when we change the weight from
point E to point B, and if we wish the line to remain in horizon­
tal equilibrium, it is necessary for us to add something extra
to the weight at A, so that the proportion of its total to the
weight which is at B is as the proportion of BG to AG. Since the
power of the point B exceeds the power of point A by the amount
that BG exceeds AG, as we have shown, hence the weight which
is at the point of the stronger power is less than the weight
which is at the point of weaker power according as is the pro­
portion of arc to arc. Therefore, when there is a weight at
point B and a second weight at point A and the proportion of
weight a^ to weight _b is as the proportion of GB to AG, the line
is in horizontal equilibrium.
95
 LIBER KARASTONIS
[Et ego explicabo tibi illud ut addatur ex intellectu eius. Dico
ergo si esset linea BG sex ex numeris et linea AG quatuor ex
numeris, oporteret ex eis que premisimus ut sit virtus puncti
A due tertie virtutis puncti B. Cum ergo suspenderimus a duo-
145 bus punctis A. B duo pondera equalia, non rectificabit pondus
quod est apud A ex pondere quod est apud B nisi per quantita-
tem virtutis puncti B quod est due tertie. Ergo est pondus a_
non rectificans pondus b. Cum ergo voluerimus ut rectificet
ipsum totum donec remaneat super equidistantiam orizontis,
150 dicemus quod numerus qui rectificat duas tertias eius quando
ponitur super ipsum quantum et medietas eius rectificat totum
ipsius. Est ergo pondus quod est apud A equale ponderi quod
est apud B et medietati equalis eius. Et hec quidem proportio
est proportio BG que est sex ad AG que est quatuor et illud est
155 quod voluimus ostendere.]
IV. OMNIS LINEA QUE DIVIDITUR IN DUAS SECTIONES DIV­
ERSAS, ET SUSPENDITUR LINEA EX PUNCTO SECANTE ET
PONITUR IN UNO DUORUM LATERUM EIUS PONDUS ALI­
QUOD IN PUNCTO EXTREMITATIS EIUS, ET PONDUS ALIUD
160 IN PUNCTO ALIO INTER HANC EXTREMITATEM ET PUNC­
TUM DIVIDENS EX LOCO SUSPENSIONIS, ET PONDUS TER­
TIUM EX EXTREMITATE ALTERA, ET EQUATUR LINEA
SUPER EQUIDISTANTIAM ORIZONTIS, TUNC QUANDO
AGGREGANTUR DUO PONDERA QUE SUSPENDUNTUR IN
165 UNO DUORUM LATERUM, ET PERMUTANTUR DE LOCO SUO
ET SUSPENDUNTUR IN PUNCTO MEDIO EX EO QUOD EST
INTER EA, EQUATUR ILLA LINEA SUPER EQUIDISTANTIAM
ORIZONTIS.
h*
A N T B
G
1 <> 1> 0
o tn ^ u
(Fig. 3)
Verbi gratia, linea AB dividitur in duas sectiones diversas
170 super punctum G, et suspenditur cum hoc puncto ex suspen­
sorio GD, et suspenditur ex eo in latere AG et est punctum A
pondus e, et in latere GB duo pondera equalia, quorum unum est
u cum puncto extremitatis cuius quod est B et pondus aliud m
cum puncto altero in eo quod est inter G et B et est punctum N.
96
LIBER KARASTONIS
I will explain it to you for its further understanding. I say if
line BG were six and line AG were four, it would be necessary
for our premisses that the power of A be two-thirds the power
of B. Hence when we suspend two equal weights from points A
and B, the weight at A will compensate for only two-thirds of
that at B. Hence weight a does not compensate for weight b.
Since, therefore, we wish to compensate for the whole weight
so that the line will be in horizontal equilibrium, we say that
the number which compensates for two-thirds of (the whole
weight at B) when added to the half of itself compensates for
the whole (weight at B). Hence the weight which is at A is equal
to 3/2 that at B. And indeed this proportion is the proportion of
BG which is six to AG which is four, and that is what we wished
to show.
IV. (I SPEAK CONCERNING) EVERY LINE DIVIDED INTO TWO
DIFFERENT SEGMENTS AND SUSPENDED AT THE DIVISION
POINT (WITH THESE ADDITIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES): A
CERTAIN WEIGHT IS PLACED ON THE EXTREMITY OF ONE
OF ITS TWO SIDES. ANOTHER WEIGHT IS PLACED AT AN­
OTHER POINT BETWEEN THIS EXTREMITY AND THE FUL­
CRUM; AND A THIRD WEIGHT IS PLACED AT THE OTHER
EXTREMITY. AND (THE DISTRIBUTION OF WEIGHTS IS
SUCH THAT) THE LINE IS BALANCED IN HORIZONTAL EQUI­
LIBRIUM. THEN WHEN THE TWO WEIGHTS WHICH ARE SUS­
PENDED ON THE ONE SIDE ARE JOINED, MOVED FROM
THEIR FORMER POSITIONS, AND SUSPENDED IN THE POINT
MIDWAY BETWEEN THEIR FORMER POSITIONS, THE LINE
REMAINS IN HORIZONTAL EQUILIBRIUM.
Example: Line AB is divided into, two different segments at
point G and suspended at this point by suspension line GD.
Weight e^ is suspended at point A on side AG. On side GB two
equal weights are suspended, one of them 11 is suspended at the
point of the extremity which is B and the other weight m is sus­
pended at another point along GB which point is N. Then the
97
 LIBER KARASTONIS
175 Equatur ergo linea AB et sit super equidistantiam orizontis. Di­
co ergo quod quando nos diviserimus lineam NB in duas medie­
tates super punctum T et aggregaverimus duo pondera u et m
et permutaverimus ea utraque et suspenderimus cum puncto T
sicut suspenditur k, quod linea AB remanet super istud super
180 quod fuit ex equidistantia orizontis.
Cuius demonstratio est quod duo pondera £*m cum suspend­
untur cum duobus punctis B»N sunt rectificantes pondus e in at­
tractione perpendicularis ad inferiora, et consurgit ter equalitas
ponderis eius super equidistantiam orizontis, et unumquodque
185 eorum rectificat partem ponderis e. Pondus quidem £ rectificat
ex eo quantitatem cuius proportio ad pondus u est sicutpropor-
tio BG ad GA. Et pondus quidem m rectificat illud quod remanet
ex eo, et proportio illius quantitatis que remanet ex eo ad pondus
mes t sicut proportio NG ad GA. Et quando aggregaverimus has
190 duas quantitates, scilicet duo pondera mnx, et aggregaverimus
ea, fiet proportio ponderis e_ totius ad duo pondera m«u aggrega-
ta sicut proportio BG et NG aggregatarum ad duplum GA., et non
dicimus duplum GA nisi quoniam unaqueque duarum linearum BG
etNG est proportionalis secundum singularitatem suam ad GA.
195 Postquam ergo aggregamus duas lineas equales ad GA, duplamus
GA ut compleatur proportio.Et nos quidem iam divisimus NB in
duas medietates super punctum T. Ergo linea TG est medietas
duarum linearum BG et NG aggregatarum, quoniam linea NB est su­
perfluitas eius quod est inter duas lineas, et nos iam divisimus
200 eam super punctum T in duas medietates etposuimus medieta­
tem eius super lineam breviorem, que est linea NG. Ergo sit lin­
ea TG medietas duarum linearum. Ergo proportio TG, que est m e­
dietas duarum linearum BG«NG, ad GA, que est medietas dupli sui,
est sicut proportio ponderis £ ad duo pondera m*£ aggregata. Er-
205 go proportio £ ad k est sicut proportio TG ad GA. Iam ergo mani­
festum est quod duo pondera u*mquando aggregantur et suspend­
untur in puncto medio ex eo quod est inter ea, quod linea remanet
super illud super quod defuit de equidistantia orizontis.
[Et non est illud nisi sicut dico si linea AB sit tredecim et
210 GB ex ea sit tria et GA decem et NG duo et pondus m quatuor,
et pondus u_ quantum ipsum, et pondus £ sit ignotum. Pondus
ergo m rectifat de pondere £ quantitatem, proportio cuius ad
pondus mest sicut proportio NG ad GA et est duo ad decem et
est quinta decem per quantitatem que rectificat pondus met est
215 quatuor quinte unius. Et pondus £ rectificans ipsum, scili­
cet e, rectificat ex ipso quantitatem cuius proportio ad £ est
sicut BG ad GA, quod est tria ad decem, et est tres decime.
Ergo istud quod remanet de pondere £ est tres decime £, quod
est quatuor et illud est unum et una quinta. Ergo pondus £
98
LIBER KARASTONIS
line AB balances and is in horizontal equilibrium. Hence I say
that when we divide the line NB into two halves at point T, join
the two weights u and m, change them both (in position) and
suspend them at point T as a (single) weight k is suspended, the
line AB remains in horizontal equilibrium.
The demonstration of this follows: When the two weights u
and m are suspended in the two points B and N, they are com­
pensating for the weight £ in drawing the beam downward, and
horizontal equilibrium definitely results, and each of the
weights compensates for a part of weight e. Thus u compen­
sates for some part of it. The proportion of this part of £ to
weight £ is as the proportion BG to GA. And weight m compen­
sates for that part which remains of e. And the proportion of
that quantity which remains o f£ to m is as the proportion NG
to GA. And when we join the two quantities together, (and also
the two weights,) i.e ., the two weights m and £, the proportion
of the whole weight £ to the two weights m and u joined be­
comes the proportion of BG and NG joined to twice GA. We say
twice GA only because each of these two lines BG and NG is in­
dividually proportional to GA. Hence, when we join the two lines
equal to GA, we double GA to complete the proportion. And in­
deed we have already divided NB into two halves at point‘T.
Hence line TG is one half of the two lines BG and NG, joined,
since line NB is the excess between the lines and we have al­
ready divided it into two halves at point T and we have joined
one of the halves to the shorter line NG. Hence TG is half of
the two lines. Therefore, the proportion of TG, which is half of
the two lines BG and NG, to GA, which is half of its double, is
as the proportion of weight £ to the two weights m and u joined.
Hence the proportion of £ to k is as the proportion of TG to GA.
Thus it has now become manifest that when the two weights u
and_m are joined and suspended at the midpoint between their
former positions the line remains in horizontal equilibrium.
This would only be so if I say line AB is 13, GB is 3, GA is
10, NG is 2, weight m is 4, weight £ is equal to it (4), and
weight £ i s the unknown. Hence weight m compensates for a
part of weight £. The proportion of this amount of e to weight m
is as the proportion of NG to GA, i.e ., two to ten. It is, there­
fore, one fifth. (And m is four). Hence the quantity which com­
pensates for m is four-fifths of one. And the weight u compen­
sates for a part of £. The proportion of that part of £ to £ is as
BG to GA, which is three to ten or three-tenths. Hence that
which remains of £ is 3/l0 £ and £ is four. Thus that part of e
is one and a fifth. Therefore, the whole of £ by this proportion
is 2. Now the proportion of the whole to m and u joined together
is as the proportion of 5 to twice GA which latter amount is 20.
99
 LIBER KARASTONIS
220 totum per hanc proportionem est duo, et proportio totius est ad
met u aggregata est sicut proportio quinque ad duplum GA,
quod est viginti. Linea vero NB, que est unum, iam divisa est in
duas medietates. Quare sit linea TG duo et medium. Ergo pro­
portio TG ad GA que est decem, est sicut proportio duorum, que
225 sunt pondus e, ad octo que sunt duo pondera m.u aggregat^ et
illud est quod ostendere voluimus.]
V. QUIA IGITUR ISTUD IAM OSTENSUM EST, TUNC DICO
QUOD OMNIS LINEA QUE DIVIDITUR IN DUAS SECTIONES
DIVERSAS, DEINDE SUSPENDITUR LINEA A PUNCTO DIVI-
230 DENTE IPSAM, ET PONITUR IN UNO LATERUM EIUS PONDUS
ALIQUOD,ET IN LATERE ALIO PONDERA EQUALIA,ET
COMPARITATES LINEARUM QUE SUNT SUPER PONDERA
SUNT EQUALES,SICUT LINEA POSTREMA EQUALIS LINEE
PRIME ET SECUNDA SEQUENS POSTREMAM EQUALIS
235 SECUNDE A PRIMA ET ITA OMNIS LINEA SUE COMPAR;
ET EQUIDISTAT LINEA ORIZONTI-TUNC ILLA PONDERA SI
AGGREGENTUR ET SUSPENDANTUR IN PUNCTO MEDIO
VEL EX EO QUOD EST INTER PONDUS PRIMUM ET POST­
REMUM, EQUIDISTABIT LINEA ORIZONTI.
G M L S N B
u q t z
(Fig. 4) k
240 [Exempli causa, linea A dividatur super punctum G, et sus­
pendatur linea ex GDiet ponatur in puncto A pondus e_ et sus­
pendatur ex eo,et ponantur in linea BG quatuor pondera equalia
ex quibus sit pondus in puncto B, et pondus secundum cum
puncto N, et pondus tertium cum puncto L,et pondus quartum
245 cum puncto M. Et linea BN sit equalis linee LM, et pondus sus­
pensum cum puncto B sit z, et pondus suspensum cum puncto
N sit t, et pondus quod est cum puncto L sit q,et pondus quod
est cum puncto M sit u_. Dico ergo quod quando diviserimus
lineam BM in duas medietates super punctum S et permutaver-
250 imus pondera quatuor: _z._t.q. et q et suspendaverimus ea omnia
ex puncto S sicut suspendetur k, quod linea remanebit super
100
LIBER KARASTONIS
In truth NB, which is one, is now divided into two halves. Hence
line TG is 2 - l /2 . Therefore, the proportion TG to GA which is
ten is as the proportion of two, the weight of fe, to eight, the ag-
gregate of the two weights m and_u. This is what we wished to
show.
V. WITH THIS PROPOSITION DEMONSTRATED, I THEN SPEAK
CONCERNING THE CASE OF EVERY LINE WHICH IS DIVID­
ED INTO TWO DIFFERENT SEGMENTS AND SUSPENDED BY
THE DIVIDING POINT (WITH THESE ADDITIONAL CIRCUM­
STANCES): SOME WEIGHT IS PLACED ON ONE SIDE AND (A
NUMBER OF) EQUAL WEIGHTS ARE PLACED ON THE OTH­
ER SIDE WITH EQUAL DISTANCES BETWEEN THE WEIGHTS
SO THAT THE SECOND DISTANCE IS EQUAL TO THE FIRST,
THE THIRD TO THE SECOND, ETC. AND SO THAT EVERY
LINE IS EQUAL TO THE CORRESPONDING ONE. (THESE
WEIGHTS ARE SO ARRANGED) THAT THE LINE IS IN HORI­
ZONTAL EQUILIBRIUM. (THEN I ASSERT THAT) IF THE
WEIGHTS ARE AGGREGATED AND SUSPENDED IN THE MID­
DLE POINT OR IN THE POINT WHICH IS MIDWAY BETWEEN
THE FIRST AND LAST WEIGHTS, THE LINE REMAINS IN HOR­
IZONTAL EQUILIBRIUM.
Example: Let line AB be divided at point G and let it be sus­
pended from GD. Then let there be placed in point A a weight e
suspended therefrom. Let there be placed in line GB four equal
weights: a weight at point B, a second weight at point N, a third
at point L, and a fourth at point M. Let line BN be equal to line
LM . The weight suspended at point B we let be z, the weight at
point N be the weight at point L be q, and the weight at M be
u. I say, therefore, that when we divide the line BM into two
halves at point S and change the position of all the four weights
z^.Lq. and u and suspend them all at point S as one weight k is
suspended,—then the line will remain in horizontal equilibrium.
The demonstration of this is as follows. Point S is the mid-
101
 LIBER KARASTONIS
illud super quod fuit ex equidistantia orizontis.
Cuius demonstratio est quod punctum S est medium linee MR,
Cum ergo nos aggregaverimus duo pondera q.z^ et suspenderi-
255 mus ea cum puncto S,rectificabunt de pondere q quod rectifi-
cant in locis suis ubique fuerint ex linea, secundum quod osten­
dimus, et linea BN est equalis linee LM,et linea BS est equalis
linee SM. Ergo necesse est ut sit SN equalis SL. Cum ergo
permutaverimus duo pondera _t.q et posuerimus ea iterum cum
260 puncto S ad medium quod est inter utraque, rectificabunt illud
que rectificabant in locis suis ex linea, secundum quod iam o s­
tendimus, Manifestum est igitur ex eo quod diximus quod
quando aggregaverimus pondera _z._t.q«q et suspendaverimus ea
cum puncto S, sicut suspenditur k,quod ipsa rectificant de pon-
265 dere e_ illud quod rectificabant in locis suis in quibus erant ex
linea, et quod linea BA remanet equalis super illud super quod
erat ex equidistantia orizontis et illud est quod voluimus
ostendere.
(Pars II)
Iste demonstrationes sunt sic manifeste et cause recte in
270 lineis, non in perpendicularibus. Cum perpendiculares sint ha­
bentes crossitudines et cum suspenduntur absque puncto medio,
est eis quod superfluit ex eis ab equalitate pondus, et non est
illud nisi cum pondere suspenso cum puncto uno linee perpen­
dicularis. Currit ergo cursu linearum proportionalium. Et non
275 superfluit pondus aliquod ex eis super equalitatem nisi cum
pondere continuo vel expanso simplici. Et non currant plures
eorum qui currant in hoc capitulo nisi per hoc, quod ponunt has
demonstrationes quibus elevatur vel statur linee hyarem ex­
amen, sicut lapis cum quo probatur aurum, vel aliquod quod pon-
280 derat quantum alium; in quo ponuntur ea que ponebantur super
perpendiculares habentes crossitudinem. Quod autem facit te
scire quomodo est via ad utendum illo in perpendicularibus
superfluentibus ab equalitate manifestum est et detectum ex
demonstrationibus precedentibus in lineis.]
285 VI. DICO ERGO QUOD QUANDO EXTIMAMUS LINEAM RECTAM
DIVISAM IN DUAS s e c t i o n e s DIVERSAS, e t s u s p e n d a t u r
LINEA EX PUNCTO DIVIDENTE ISTAM,ET SUSPENDATUR IN
UNO LATERUM EIUS ET CUM PUNCTO EXTREMITATIS EIUS
PONDUS ALIQUOD, ET EXTIMAMUS QUOD IN LATERE EIUS
290 ALTERO SIT PONDUS EXPANSUM EQUALIS CROSSITUDINIS
CONTINUUM CUM PUNCTO ILlllUS LATERIS,SECUNDUM
102
LIBER KARASTONIS
point of line MB. When we join the two weights u and z^ and sus­
pend them in point S they will compensate for that part of q
which they compensated for in their former positions, as we
demonstrated (in the previous proposition), and the line BN is
equal to line LM and the line BS is equal to line SM. Hence it
is necessary that SN be equal to SL. When we change the two
weights _t and q and place them ^t point S midway between them,
they will compensate for that which they compensated for in
their former positions, as we demonstrated (in the preceding
proposition). Therefore, it has become clear from what we
have said, that when we aggregate weights _z, _t, q, and u, and
suspend them in point S just as is suspended a single weight k,
they will compensate for that part of q which they compensated
for in their former positions and line BA remains in horizontal
equilibrium. This is what we wished to show.
(Part II)
These demonstrations and the proper causes are thus mani­
fest with respect to lines, but not to beams. When the beams
have thickness, and when they are suspended beyond the middle
point, they have a surplus weight on the longer arm beyond that
part of the longer arm which equals the shorter arm. And this
superfluent weight is like a weight suspended at one point of a
beam line. Therefore the procedure of proportional lines is ap­
plicable. And the superfluent weight is nothing but a simple
continuous expanded weight. A number of the things treated in
this chapter are of concern only because they posit these dem­
onstrations (for cases where) the needle (tongue) of the hyarem
(fork?) line is lifted or balanced as (it is) in the case of a stone
with which gold is tested or of something which weighs just as
much as another. In it (the chapter?) are posed things which
were posed on beams having thickness. That it makes you un­
derstand how to proceed in the case of beams with one arm
longer than the other is manifest and clear from the preceding
demonstrations on lines.
VI. HENCE I STATE THE FOLLOWING: WE IMAGINE A
STRAIGHT LINE DIVIDED INTO TWO DIFFERENT SEGMENTS
AND SUSPENDED AT THE DIVISION POINT. LET SOME
WEIGHT BE SUSPENDED IN ONE OF ITS SIDES AT THE E X ­
TREMITY POINT. AND WE IMAGINE THAT IN THE OTHER
SIDE THERE IS A CONTINUOUS EXPANDED WEIGHT OF
EQUAL THICKNESS AT A POINT OF THAT SIDE AS IN THE
103

LIBER KARASTONIS
ILLUD SUPER QUOD INVENITUR CROSSITUDO IN PERPEN­
DICULARI TRUTINE, ET QUOD ILLA CROSSITUDO RECTIFI-
CAT PONDUS QUOD EST IN EXTREMITATE LINEE DONEC
295 SIT LINEA EQUALIS SUPER EQUIDISTANTIAM ORIZONTIS,
QUOD SI NOS OPINEMUR VEL EXTIMEMUS QUOD LINEA
PORTIONIS HABENTIS CROSSITUDINEM DENUDETUR EX
ILLO PONDERE CONTINUO EQUALIS EXPANSIONIS, ET SUS­
PENDATUR IN PUNCTO MEDIO LINEE PORTIONIS, TUNC
300 LINEA REMANET SUPER ILLUD SUPER QUOD SUNT EQUAL-
ES SUPER EQUIDIST ANTIAM ORIZONTIS,
LIBER KARASTONIS
CASE OF THE BEAM OF THE BALANCE. AND THAT THICK­
NESS COMPENSATES FOR THE WEIGHT ON THE EXTREM­
ITY (OF THE OTHER SIDE) OF THE LINE SO THAT THE LINE
IS IN HORIZONTAL EQUILIBRIUM. (THEN I SAY THAT) IF
WE THINK OR IMAGINE THAT THE LINE OF THE PORTION
HAVING THICKNESS IS STRIPPED OF THAT CONTINUOUS
WEIGHT OF EQUAL EXPANSION, AND THE WEIGHT IS SUS­
PENDED IN THE MIDDLE POINT OF THE LINE OF THE POR­
TION (CONSIDERED), THEN THE LINE REMAINS IN HORI­
ZONTAL EQUILIBRIUM.

(Fig. 5) f An example of this is as follows: Line AB is divided into two

Cuius exemplum est quod linea AB dividitur in duas sec­ different segments at point G from which dividing point it is
tiones diversas super punctum G,et suspendetur linea ex isto suspended. There is placed in point A a suspended weight r^ and
puncto dividente ipsam,et ponitur in puncto A pondus suspen­ on line DB which is a part of GB a simple, continuous, fixed,
305 sum ex eo quod est pondus r, et in linea DB ex linea GB pondus weight, uniform throughout just as is the thickness of the beam
simplex fixum continuum in toto sui secundum equalitatem s i­
of balance. The segment with thickness is DBUE and it compen­
cut est crossitudo perpendicularis trutine, et crossitudo est sates for r^ in producing the horizontal equilibrium of AB. I say
DBUE, et rectificat pondus r_ ad equalitatem AB super equalita­ that if we strip line DB of the thickness DBUE and we aggre­
tem orizontis. Dico ergo quod si nos denudemus lineam DB de gate it at the point in the middle of the line DB, at H point, as a
310 crossitudine DBEU et aggregemus eam cum puncto in medio (separate) weight_t is suspended there, AB will remain in hor­
linee DB super H punctum, sicut suspenditur _t, remanebit AB izontal equilibrium.
super illud quod fuit de equidistantia orizontis. The demonstration of this is as follows: Suppose it were not
Cuius demonstratio est quod non. Suspendimus pondus _t et
as we have said, i.e ., we suspend weighty equal to thickness D
est pondus equale grossitudinis DBEU, tunc est linea super
BEU and then the line is not in horizontal equilibrium. Hence
1 1 'i Ulud non est linea super illud quod diximus de equidistantia or-
one of the two sides will be more inclined downward than the
tzontis. Erit ergo unum duorum laterum linee AB declivius ad
other side. Assume the declination is on the A side, if it is pos­
Inferiora quam latus alterum. Sit ergo illud quod declive est ex
sible. If we wish to balance the weight (at A), it will be neces­
n,'o duorum late.rum illud quod est in parte A ,si possibile est;
sary to make some addition to weight _t. Let this be the addition
Pfgo si voluerimus equare pondus erit nobis necesse ut adda-
of weight_L Now let us take from the portion DBEU a part of
in pondere _t additionem aliquem. Sit ergo additio huius
the line DB which would decrease the line DH with multiples of
lu»nde ris J_, et accipiamus de portione DBEU partem linee DB
line BH. This is possible, since when we take out of line BD a
T 1'* minueret lineam DH cum multiplicibus linee BH,et illud
commensurable equal part, it is possible to restore BD with
'htldrtn possibile est, quoniam quando accipimus ex linea BD
multiples of the part. Hence let that part be BS. Then the line
Inflem cqualem multiplicibus possibile est ut redeat. Sit ergo
BH is divided equally with the line BS and similarly DH is divi­
Mtn p.*\rs BS; ergo linea BH dividitur cum equalitate BS et sim -
ded equally with the line BS. Let the divisions be: line BS, line
'*'* dividitur DH cum equalitate BS linee, et sint divisiones
105
104
 LIBER KARASTONIS
LIBER KARASTONIS
lituri BS et linea SQ et linea QH et linea HF et linea FO et linea
SQ, line QH, line HF, line FO, and line OD. And the portion hav­
QD.et separetur portio habens crossitudinem cum lineis que
ing thickness is divided with lines which cut it into equal parts.
secan t eam super partes equates, que sunt BU, SK, QN, FP, OI,
These lines are BU, SK, QN, FP, OI, DE. Hence the portion SU
DE. Portio igitur SU est equalis portioni DI in pondere et in
is equal to portion DI in weight and in simple width, i.e ., line
duobus spaciis simplicibus, scilicet, linea DO et linea SB sunt
DO and line SB are equal and the weight of each of these two
equnles et pondus unius earum est par suo compari a puncto
segments is equal to the other corresponding part an equal dis­
loci medii. Si ergo extimemus quod portio DO denudetur ex
tance from the middle point. Hence if we imagine that (line)
portione DI et suspendatur pondus huius portionis ex puncto O,
portion DO is stripped of the weight of (material) portion DI and
rectificabit ex pondere r_ partem maiorem quam rectificabat
the weight of this portion DI is suspended from point O, it will
cum erat expansum super DO, quoniam suspensorium eius tan-
compensate for a greater part of weight r^ than it compensated
.tum erit longinquius a suspensorio G quam reliqua portio DI,et
for when it was expanded over DO since its line of suspension
portio SU ex portione perpendicularis habentis crossiciem, si
will be farther from the line of suspension at G than the rest of
jregetur et suspendatur cum puncto S, rectificabit ex pondere
DI. And if the portion SU from the segment of the beam having
partem minorem quam rectificabat cum erat fixa vel simplex
thickness is aggregated and suspended at point S, it will com­
;pansa,quoniam eius suspensio tunc erit propinquior suspen­
pensate for a smaller part of _r than it compensated for when it
dio G quam reliqua portio SU et omni quidem puncto porti-
was fixed or a simple expanded weight, since its suspension
‘ s DI ex portione SU est compar in pondere et spacio. Cum
will be closer to the line of suspension at G than the rest of the
go denudatur BS ex crossitudine SU et DO ex crossitudine
portion SU. And at every point of the portion DI there is (a
#et aggregantur pondera utriusque, et suspendimus ea cum
strip) equal in weight and length to one at the corresponding
Cto medio ex eo quod est inter ea, quod est punctum H ,rec-
point in portion SU. When, therefore, BS is stripped of thick­
cant secundum quod rectificabant in loco eorum ubi erant ex
ness SU and DO is stripped of thickness DI and the weights of
•situdine linee. Et declaratur ex hoc quod quando denuda-
both are aggregated and we suspend them at the middle point H
* portiones OP, QK ex crossitudine sua, et aggregantur illa
which is between them, they compensate for just what they com­
pondera et permutantur ex loco eorum et suspenduntur in
pensated for in their former positions as part of the thickness
medio, rectificant quod rectificabant in locis suis ubi erant
of the line. It is clear from this that when we strip portions OP
fOSsitudine portionis, et similiter crossitudo duarum por-
and GK of thickness and the two weights are aggregated, their
?m HN, HP, cum denudatur crossitudo earum a linea FG et
indatur cum puncto medio ex eo quod est inter eas, et est positions changed, and they are suspended in the middle point,
they compensate for what they compensated for in their former
tum H,rectificant etiam quod rectificabant in locis suis
positions as part of the thickness of the portion. Similarly, when
a^ f4r't ex crossitudine duarum portionum. Manifestum est
the thickness of portions HN and HP is stripped from the line
Tue exposuimus quod istarum portionum quando aggre-
FG, and suspended in their middle point, nftmely H, they also
t pondera et denudantur a linea DB et suspenduntur, sicut
compensate for what they compensated for in their former po­
^*dltur pondus _t,quod ipsa equant illud quod equabant cum
sitions as part of the thickness of the two portions.
** fxpansa super lineam, et pondus _t est equale portioni
It has become clear from these things which we have exposed,
; *^#ctificans eam in attractione perpendicularis ad infer-
^«Fgo pondus _t^ plus est quam pondus portionis DB et ve - that when weights are aggregated and stripped from line DB
and suspended as a single weight t that they will balance what
fectificans in attractione perpendicularis. Et portio
they balanced when they were fixed and expanded over the
j 'r *bit pondus r_ suspensum ex puncto A. Ergo pondus
line, and weight_t is equal to portion DB and compensates for it
***1 plusquam pondus r_. Vero pondus _t, secundum quod
drawing the beam downward. Hence a weight _t plus is more
. fmi<», rec(;ificans est pondus crossitudinis portionis DB
I *1 in' pondere. Et crossitudo DB rectificat r. Ergo than the portion DB and more strongly compensates in drawing
the beam downward. And portion DB will compensate for
rectificans pondus r. Iam ergo ostensum est quod
weight t_ suspended at point A. Hence the weight _t plus ^ com­
iW quando denudatur a linea DB et aggregatur et
*** * urn puncto medio ex eo quod est inter duo puncta
pensates for more than the weight r_, for the weighty we have
made such as to compensate for the weight of the thickness of
^ ,' t' i,isccundum quod ostendimus, ex equidistantia
portion DB, and it is equal to it in weight. But the thickness of
^Uflrans pondus r,et'illud est quod declarare
DB compensates for r. Hence it has now been demonstrated
106
107
 LIBER KARASTONIS
voluimus.
VII. [POSTQUAM IGITUR IAM OSTENSUM EST ISTUD, TUNC
375 DICO QUOD OMNIS LINEA QUE DIVIDITUR IN DUAS SEC­
TIONES DIVERSAS,SI SUSPENDATUR EX PUNCTO DIVI­
DENTE IPSAM,ET PONATUR IN UNO LATERUM EIUS ET IN
PUNCTO EXTREMITATIS EIUS PONDUS ALIQUOD, ET IN
LATERE EIUS SECUNDO PORTIO PERPENDICULARIS
380 PLANA CONTINUA SECUNDUM EQUALITATEM, ET SECUN­
DUM QUOD OSTENDIMUS SUPER QUAM SIT PERPENDICU­
LARIS TRUTINARUM IN PARTE UNA ILLIUS LATERIS FIXA
IN EO, ET EQUIDISTAT LINEA ORIZONTI, QUOD PROPORTIO
PONDERIS SUSPENSI EX PUNCTO EXTREMITATIS LINEE AD
385 PONDUS PORTIONIS PERPENDICULARIS FIXE IN QUADEM
PARTE LINEE EST SICUT PROPORTIO LINEE QUE EST
INTER SUSPENSORIUM ET INTER PUNCTUM MEDIUM POR­
TIONIS HABENTIS CROSSICIEM AD LINEAM SECUNDAM.
(Fig. 6)
Exempli causa, linea AB sit divisa in duas sectiones diversas
390 super punctum G, et suspendatur ex puncto G, et ponatur in
puncto A pondus e^ suspensum ex eo, et in parte linee BG pondus
fixum planum equalis'continuitatis secundum illud super quod
sunt perpendiculares trutinarum. Et sit illud portio RBQD et
rectificet pondus e^ in attractione perpendicularis,et dividatur
395 longitudo portionis habentis crossitudinem in duas medietates
super punctum U. Dico ergo quod proportio ponderis <2 est ad
pondus portionis habentis crossitudinem sicut proportio linee
GU ad GA.
Cuius hec est demonstratio quod pondus RBQD est pondus
400 simplex, et non est nisi cum pondere suspenso cum puncto uno
linee RB. Et iam ostendimus quod,cum denudatur linea RB ex
crossitudine portionis RBQD et .pondera aggregate suspendun­
tur cum puncto medio linee RB, et illud est punctum U, et quod
108
LIBER KARASTONIS
that when the thickness DB is stripped from the line DB, aggre­
gated and suspended in the mid-point between the points of D
and B, then AB remains, as we demonstrated, in horizontal
equilibrium, compensating for weight r. This is what we wished
to make clear.
VII. HAVING DEMONSTRATED THIS, THEN I STATE THE
FOLLOWING: LET ANY LINE BE DIVIDED INTO TWO DIF­
FERENT SEGMENTS AND SUSPENDED IN THE POINT DIVI­
DING IT. LET THERE BE PLACED IN THE EXTREMITY OF
ONE SIDE SOME WEIGHT. ON ITS SECOND SIDE PLACE A
PORTION OF A BEAM OR LEVEL BEAM CONTINUOUS AND
UNIFORM IN THE DEMONSTRATED MANNER OF A BEAM OF
BALANCES. (THE WEIGHT ARRANGEMENT IS SUCH THAT)
THE BEAM IS IN HORIZONTAL EQUILIBRIUM. THEN I SAY
THAT THE PROPORTION OF THE WEIGHT SUSPENDED AT
THE POINT OF EXTREMITY OF THE LINE TO THE WEIGHT
OF THE (MATERIAL) PORTION OF THE BEAM FIXED ON A
CERTAIN PART OF THAT LINE IS AS THE PROPORTION OF
THE LINE WHICH IS BETWEEN THE FULCRUM AND MIDDLE
POINT OF THE PORTION HAVING THICKNESS TO THE SEC­
OND LINE.
Example: Let line AB be divided into two different segments
at point G, and suspended from point G. Let there be suspended
at A a weight e. And in the part of the line BG let there be a
level, fixed weight of equal continuity as are the beams of bal­
ances. Let that portion be RBQD and let it compensate for
weight e^ in drawing the beam downward. Let the length of the
portion having thickness be divided into two halves at point U.
I say, therefore, that the proportion of the weight e^ to the
weight of the portion having thickness is as the proportion of
line GU to GA.
The demonstration of this follows. The weight of RBQD is a
simple weight and it is like a single weight suspended at one
point on line RB. We have just demonstrated that when we strip
line RB of thickness of the portion RBQD and the weights of its
parts are aggregated and suspended at middle point of line RB,
109
 LIBER KARASTONIS
linea remanet super illud super quod fuit ex equidistantia ori-
405 zontis,et quod pondus suspensum cum puncto U erit rectificans
pondus e. Extimamus ergo quod portio RBQD illa habet pondus
suspensum cum puncto U. Erit ergo tunc proportio ponderis
ad pondus portionis sicut proportio linee GU ad lineam GA, Et
non est exemplum illius nisi esset sicut linea BG octo ex nu-
410 meris et GA tria et linea RB sex, nam linea GU erit quinque et
erit proportio ponderis e_ ad pondus portionis habentis cro ssi-
tudinem sicut proportio linee GU ad GA. Cum ergo est pondus
e,verbi gratia, unum, est pondus portionis equale et duabus ter­
tiis, et illud est quod ostendere voluimus.]
415 VIII. PONAMUS AUTEM NUNC SERMONEM NOSTRAM SUPER
PERPENDICULAREM GROSSAM EQUALEM ET QUALITER
SIT USUS HARUM DEMONSTRATIONUM IN EA. DICO IGITUR
QUOD QUANDO EST PERPENDICULARIS RECTA EQUALIS
CROSSITUDINIS ET SUBSTANTIE, ET SUSPENDITUR PERPEN-
420 DICULARIS CUM PUNCTO IPSIUS NON SUPER MEDIUM, ET
VOLUMUS SCIRE QUALITER ACCIPIAMUS QUANTITATEM
PONDERIS, QUOD, CUM SUSPENDETUR CUM EXTREMITATE
SECTIONIS BREVIORIS EX DUABUS SECTIONIBUS PERPEN­
DICULARIS EQUATUR SUPER EQUIDISTANTIAM ORIZONTIS,
425 TUNC NOS SCIMUS PONDUS ILLIUS PERPENDICULARIS ET
SCIMUS LONGITUDINEM EIUS ET LONGITUDINEM CUIUS­
QUE DUARUM SECTIONUM EIUS. ET ACCIPIAMUS SUPER­
FLUUM QUOD EST INTER DUAS SECTIONES, ET MULTIPLI­
CABIMUS IPSUM IN PONDUS PERPENDICULARIS, ET DIVIDI-
430 MUS QUOD AGGREGATUR SUPER LONGITUDINEM PERPEN­
DICULARIS. QUOD EGREDITUR EX DIVISIONE EST ILLUD
PONDUS SUPERFLUITATIS QUE EST INTER DUAS SECTIO­
NES,ET EST PORTIO PERPENDICULARIS SUPERFLUENS
SUPER EQUALITATEM. DEINDE ACCIPIMUS HUIUS PORTI-
435 ONIS PONDUS ET MULTIPLICAMUS IPSUM IN LONGITUDI­
NEM PERPENDICULARIS, ET QUOD AGGREGATUR DIVIDI­
MUS IPSUM SUPER DUPLUM SECTIONIS BREVIORIS DUARUM
SECTIONUM PERPENDICULARIS. QUOD ERGO AGGREGATUR
EX DIVISIONE EST QUANTITAS QUE, CUM SUSPENDITUR
4 3<> CUM EXTREMITATE SECTIONIS BREVIORIS DUARUM SEC­
TIONUM PERPENDICULARIS,EQUATUR PONDUS EIUS SUP­
ER EQUALITATEM ORIZONTIS.
110
LIBER KARASTONIS
i.e ., at point U, the line remains in horizontal equilibrium and
the weight suspended at U compensates for e. Hence we imag­
ine that the portion RBQD has a weight which is suspended at
point U. Therefore the proportion of weight e^ to the weight of
the portion is as the proportion of line GU to line GA.
A numerical example would be if the line BG is eight and GA
is three; and the line RB is six, for the line GU will be five.
The proportion of weight to the weight of the portion having
thickness will be as a proportion of line GU to line GA. When,
therefore, weight e^ is, for example, one, it is equal to one and
two-thirds the weight of the portion. And that is what we wished
to prove.
VIII. NOW WE POSE OUR DISCUSSION ON THE UNIFORMLY
THICK BEAM SHOWING HOW THESE DEMONSTRATIONS ARE
UTILIZED FOR IT. I SPEAK OF A STRAIGHT BEAM OF UNI­
FORM THICKNESS AND SUBSTANCE SUSPENDED BY A
POINT NOT IN THE MIDDLE. WE WISH TO KNOW HOW TO
FIND THE QUANTITY OF THE WEIGHT WHICH, WHEN IT IS
SUSPENDED ON THE END OF THE SHORTER OF THE TWO
SEGMENTS OF THE BEAM, KEEPS THE BEAM IN HORIZON­
TAL EQUILIBRIUM. IN THIS CASE, WE KNOW THE WEIGHT
OF THE BEAM AND WE KNOW ITS LENGTH AND THE
LENGTH OF EACH OF ITS TWO SEGMENTS. WE TAKE THE
EXCESS OF THE LONGER OVER THE SHORTER SECTION.
WE MULTIPLY IT BY THE WEIGHT OF THE BEAM, AND WE
DIVIDE THE PRODUCT BY THE LENGTH OF THE BEAM.
THAT WHICH RESULTS FROM THIS DIVISION IS THE WEIGHT
OF THE EXCESS OF THE ONE SEGMENT OVER THE OTHER
SEGMENT, i.e ., THE PORTION OF THE BEAM BEYOND
EQUALITY (ON EACH SIDE OF THE FULCRUM). THEN WE
TAKE THE WEIGHT OF THIS (EXCESS) PORTION AND WE
MULTIPLY IT INTO THE LENGTH OF THE BEAM. THE PRO­
DUCT WE DIVIDE BY TWICE THE LENGTH OF THE SHORT­
ER SEGMENT OF THE BEAM. THE RESULT OF THIS DIVI­
SION IS THE QUANTITY WHICH, WHEN SUSPENDED ON THE
EXTREMITY OF THE SHORTER OF THE TWO SEGMENTS,
WILL PRODUCE HORIZONTAL EQUILIBRIUM.
Ill
 LIBER KARASTONIS
(Fig. 7)
Cuius exemplum sit ut extimemus lineam AB perpendicular­
em rectam equalis crossitudinis et substantie,et suspenditur
1445 cum puncto ipsius non super ipsius medium,quod sit punctum
G, et sit linea GB longior linea GA. Volo igitur scire quanta sit
quantitas ponderis quod,cum suspenditur cum puncto A, equatur
pondus AB super equidistantiam orizontis. Dividamus ergo ex
GB quod sit equale GA et remanet DB. Dividamus ergo ipsum
No in duas medietates super punctum U. Dico ergo quod quando
multiplicamus longitudinem DB in pondus totius perpendicular­
is et dividimus quod aggregatur super longitudinem perpendi­
cularis, tunc quod egreditur ex divisione est pondus portionis
DB,et quando multiplicamus pondus DB in longitudinem perpen­
dicularis, et dividimus quod aggregatur super duplum sectionis
niinoris, tunc quod egreditur ex divisione est quantitas que,
Cum suspenditur ex puncto A,equatur perpendicularis AB super
Equidistantiam orizontis.
Cuius hec est demonstratio. Linea AB est perpendicularis
•qualis crossitudinis, non addit partis pondus mensure vel cu-
kUi eius super partem secundam equalem illi, et linea GD est
Equalis linee GA in pondere suo et sua longitudine, et punctum
^ punctum medium ex eo quod est inter A et D. Quare
eorum rectificat secundum et perpendicularis DB est
E»ipf» |-nuitas super equalitatem. Cum ergo volumus, dicimus
i l'voportio cubiti vel mensure DB ex cubito BA sicut pro-
?: punderis DB ex pondere BA. Ergo multiplicatio linee
pondus BA divisa super cubitum AB est pondus DB,et
'id quidem non est nisi sicut si esset linea AB decem et
^ ^ A(1 duo, et GD erit equalis ei, et DB residua, et est pondus
Ep*M\dlrularis AB quod est duodecim,et perpendicularis AD
^ * 111 lione perpendicularis est sicut linea cui non est pon-
perpendicularis DB est cum pondere continuo linee AB.
os^en^ rnus cluod linea dividitur in duas sectiones
I' suspenditur ex puncto dividente ipsam,et in porti-
pondus planum fixum in eo,et in puncto quod est in
112
LIBER KARASTONIS
The example of this follows: We imagine a line AB which is a
straight beam of uniform thickness and substance.lt is suspend­
ed on other than its mid-point. The point of suspension is G.
The line GB we let be longer than the line GA. Hence I wish to
know how much is the quantity which when suspended at point A
will balance the weight of beam AB in horizontal equilibrium.
Hence we take from GB a segment equal to GA and DB remains.
Then we divide this DB into two halves at point U. I say, there­
fore, that when we multiply the length DB into the weight of the
whole beam, and we divide the product by the length of the
beam, then that which results from the division is the weight of
DB. And when we multiply the weight of DB into the length of
the beam and divide the product by twice the shorter section
(2GA), then the result of this division is the quantity which,
when suspended from point A, balances beam AB in horizontal
equilibrium.
The demonstration of this follows: The line AB is a beam of
equal thickness. The weight of one part of the length or meas­
ure is no more than that of another part equal to it. And line
BD is equal to line GA in weight and length. Point G is the mid­
dle point between A and D. Henfce each of the beam segments
GA and GD compensates for the other. The beam segment DB
is the excess beyond the equality (of GA and GD). Hence when
we wish, we say that the proportion of the length or measure of
DB to the length AB is the same as the proportion of the weight
of DB to the weight of AB. Hence the multiplication of line DB
into the weight of AB divided by the length AB is the weight of
DB. Numerical example: Suppose line AB is 10, line GA two,
and line GD will be equal to GA. Line .DB will be the remainder
(six). The weight of the beam AB is 12. That part of the beam
AD, so far as drawing the beam downward is concerned, is like
a line which has no weight and beam segment DG is like a con­
tinuous weight on line AB. We have already demonstrated in the
case of a line divided into two different segments and suspended
113
 l i b e r k a r a s t o n i s
extremitate pondus secundum suspensum ex eo, et quod, quoniam
duo pondera sunt in rectificatione, proportio ponderis extrem­
itatis ad portionem est sicut proportio linee que est inter sus-
480 pensorium et inter punctum medium portionis ad lineam secun-
am que sequitur pondus. Notum est igitur ex eo quod ostendi­
mus quod proportio ponderis quod suspenditur cum puncto A,ut
sit rectificans pondus portionis DB, ad pondus portionis DB est
equalis proportioni linee GU ad GA. Quoniam U est punctum
485 medium linee DB et linea GU est medietas linee AB, quoniam
DB est superfluitas eius quod est inter duas sectiones, et iam
divisimus eam in duas medietates et addimus medietatem eius
super lineam breviorem, ergo linea GU est medietas totius
linee,et proportio eius ad GA est sicut proportio totius linee ad
490 duplum linee GA. Ergo cum multiplicamus pondus DB in longi­
tudinem linee AB, et dividimus quod provenit super duplum GA,
illud quod egreditur ex divisione est ipsum pondus quod recti -
ficat pondus superfluitatis perpendicularis donec remanet equa­
lis super equidistantiam orizontis.
(F inalis)
495 [Iam ergo expositum est tibi frater quod iuvat te ad laborem
mentis et abiuvat ab opere cogitationis et sanat te ex lumine
veritatis et facit te consequi studium anime. Et quoniam vol­
umus artem karastonis in perpendiculari equali, noti cubiti
et ponderis, et iam scivimus per demonstrationes quas osten-
500 dimus quanta sit quantitas ponderis quod cum suspenditur cum
extremitate sectionis brevioris equatur pondus illius perpendi­
cularis super equidistantiam orizontis. Tunc possibile est ut
ponamus illud pondus consequens punctum extremitatis sectio­
nis brevioris aut in lance cum suspensione eius aut cum addi-
505 tione ponderis super ipsam. Quare fit perpendicularis tunc
quasi linea cui non est pondus. Deinde divisimus lineam longi­
orem propter illud quod volumus ex sectionibus a parte pro­
portionis ad sectionem minorem. Erit ergo quod ponderat pon­
dus generati karastonis apud omnem sectionem eius notum
^ secundum proportionem predicte rememorationis in lineis. Et
possibile est iterum ut sciatur pondus lancis ad rectification -
em perpendicularis equalis super equidistantiam orizontis,
secundum illud super quod est res karastonum hodie. Erit ergo
illud augmentum in ponderatis et currit pondus generati in sec-
^ ' tionibus secundum proportionalitatem predictam. Et erit addit-
114
LIBER KARASTONIS
from the point dividing it, and where a level fixed weight is on
the extremity of one segment and a second weight is suspended
on the other side, that since the two weights are such that they
compensate each other, the proportion of the weight on the one
extremity to the (weight of the continuous expanded) portion (on
the other segment) is as the proportion of the line joining the
fulcrum and the middle point of the (expanded) portion to the
second line (joining the fulcrum and the point) where the weight
is. It is noted therefore from what we have shown that the pro­
portion of the weight which is suspended at point A so that it
compensates for the weight of portion DB to the weight of the
portion DB is equal to the proportion of line GU to GA. Since U
is the middle point of line DB and line GU is half of line AB be­
cause line DB is the excess of the longer over the shorter seg­
ment and we have already divided it into two halves and added
one of these halves to the shorter segment of the beam, hence
line GU is half of the whole line and the proportion of it to GA
is as the proportion of the whole line(AB) to twice line GA.
Therefore, when we multiply the weight of DB into the length of
line AB and divide the result by twice GA, that which results
from the division is the weight which compensates for the ex­
cess of the beam so that it remains in horizontal equilibrium.
(Conclusion)
Now I have exposed that which can help in your travail of the
mind, aid yt>u in the task of understanding, make you sound in
the light of the truth, and m^ke you follow the zeal of the soul.
And since we desire to expose the art of the karaston of uni­
form beam, and of known length and weight, we have already
learned by demonstrations how much is the quantity of the
weight which, when it is suspended at the extremity of the
shorter segment, will balance in horizontal equilibrium the
weight of the beam. Then it is possible for us to place that
weight at the point of the extremity of the shorter segment,
either as a scale in suspension or as an additional weight on
the scale. Hence the beam becomes like a line which has no
weight. Then we divide the longer line into segments having a
known proportion to the shorter segment. Hence there will be a
weight which balances the weight of the Roman balance formed
at every section. This weight depends on the (line) proportion-
ality, as mentioned above regarding lines. It is possible, then,
to know the weight of a scale which compensates for a uniform
beam and keeps it in horizontal equilibrium, according to the
matter of Roman balances today. It will, therefore, be an aug­
ment to the things weighed, and it takes care of the weight of
115

LIBER KARASTONIS
io in p on d eratis co n s e q u e n s in om ni s e c tio n e e o r u m . Hanc i g i ­
tur a r t e m adiuvant d e m o n s tr a t io n e s et v e r i f i c a t i p s a m e x p e r i ­
mentum . Cum e r g o u teris ex eis i llo quod d e te rm in a v im u s , et
i n t e ll e x e r i s ex d e m o n str a tio n ib u s e o r u m illud quod p r e m i s i -
520 mus, extrah et te a te r m in o h es ita tion is et d e te g e t te ab e r r o r e
a s s im il a t i o n is et f a c ie t te v i d e r e lo c u m rectitu d in is et f a c ie t te
c o g n o s c e r e c a s u m e r r o r i s . Finitus e s t l ib e r k a r a s to n is editus
a Thebit f il io C o r e . ]
I i
fs
116
LIBER KARASTONIS
(the b e a m ) f o r m e d into s e g m e n ts a c c o r d i n g to the a f o r e s a i d
p r o p o r t i o n a l it y . T h e r e w ill be a co n s e q u e n t addition to things
w eigh ed in e v e r y s e c tio n of su ch b a l a n c e s . T h e r e f o r e d e m o n ­
stra tion s a s s i s t this a rt and e x p e r im e n t v e r i f i e s it. Thus, when
you make use o f that w h ich we have d e te r m in e d and have under­
stood the d e m o n s tr a t io n o f that w h ich we have p r e m i s s e d , you
w ill be f r e e d f r o m the bonds of lim itation and r e m o v e d f r o m
the e r r o r of a s s im il a t i o n and you will be made to see the c o r ­
r e c t p o sitio n and to understand the o c c u r r e n c e of e r r o r . The
b o o k o f k a r a s to n , ed ited by Thabit, son of C o r a , has b een
com pleted.
117
 V

ELEMENTA JORDANI SUPER

DEMONSTRATIONEM PONDERUM

Edited, with Introduction, Translation

and Notes, by

ERNEST A. MOODY
 I N T R O D U C TION

The treatise here edited, under the title Elementa super dem­
onstrationem ponderum, is the one work, out of many versions
of treatises on weights ascribed by mediaeval manuscripts to
Jordanus, which offers strong internal evidence of authenticity
as a work by the thirteenth century mathematician Jordanus de
Nemore (or Nemorarius). The text contains references to an­
other treatise called the Philotegni, which the author cites as
his own work. These references indicate certain geometrical
theorems, used in the proofs of the Elementa, as having been
established in the Philotegni. But in each case, the theorems in
question turn out to occur in the geometrical treatise, De trian­
gulis, of Jordanus Nemorarius, which Curtze edited from a
Dresden manuscript in 1887. The identification of the Philotegni
with Jordanus’ De triangulis has also been confirmed by margin­
al notations found in some early manuscripts.^ Thus we may
feel fairly confident that the author of the Elementa Jordani
super demonstrationem ponderum was Jordanus Nemorarius,
the well-known thirteenth century mathematician.
The relation of this authentic work of Jordanus, to the numer­
ous other treatises, or versions of treatises, bearing the title
Liber de ponderibus, produced in the Latin West during the thir­
teenth or fourteenth centuries and ascribed either to Jordanus
or to Euclid, is extremely difficult to determine. There is some
ground for the conjecture that the seven postulates and nine
theorems presented in the Elementa Jordani, and which occur
in most of the other versions of the De ponderibus treatises,
were not originated by Jordanus but were inherited by him as a
set of propositions supposedly derived from Euclid. If this is
correct, the role of Jordanus was that of a “ co m m e n ta to ri.e .,
of supplying the proofs of these inherited theorems. Similarly,
the authors of the other versions found in the manuscripts, such
as contain these same postulates and theorems, were likewise
“commentators” in the same sense—in most of the versions,
their own commentaries were clearly based on the proofs de­
veloped in the Elementa Jordani, though in one version (whose
text is edited as the next of our collection, under the title Liber
Jordani de ponderibus) there is no evidence of such a connection.
While it is fairly certain that the Elementa super demonstra­
tionem ponderum was written by Jordanus Nemorarius, the
mathematician, there has been a prolonged controversy over
the question of whether Jordanus Nemorarius was the same per­
son as Jordanus de Saxonia, the Master-General of the Dominican

121
 INTRO DUC TION
Order from 1222 to 1237. The belief that they were the same
person is founded on a statement occurring in the Chronicle of
the Order of Preachers, written in the early years of the four­
teenth century by Nicolaus Trivet. Trivet stated that in 1222, at
the third general Chapter of the Order of Preachers, the suc­
cessor to St. Dominic, as Master General, was elected. This man,
according to Trivet, was “Brother Jordanus,of the Teutonic na­
tion, from the diocese of Mainz.” He then added that this Brother
Jordanus had formerly been outstanding in the secular sciences,
especially mathematics, at Paris; and that he had written a book
on weights, and another one De lineis datis. Having been con­
verted by the preaching of Brother Reginald, Jordanus entered
the Dominican Order on Ash Wednesday, 1220, “while the Brothers
were chanting that Antiphonal Immutemur habitu." Such was
Trivet’ s entry in his Chronicle, providing the basis for the iden­
tification of Jordanus Nemorarius with Jordanus of Saxony.^
While Trivet’ s statement clearly asserts that the Dominican
Master General was Jordanus the mathematician, there are
strong reasons against acceptance of his testimony. First of all,
while there are many references to Jordanus of Saxony in the
official archives of the Church and of the Dominican Order, the
name Nemorarius is never once given to him in these documents.
Secondly, the writings known to have been written by Jordanus
of Saxony consist only of letters, sermons, Biblical glosses, and
a commentary on Priscian’ s grammar; none of these writings
gives any indication of the mathematical interests and know­
ledge distinctive of Jordanus Nemorarius.^ Finally, if we may
trust the subscription found in one of the manuscripts of Jorda­
nus Nemorarius, we must suppose that he was teaching mathe­
matics at Toulouse at some date later than 1229; for it is here
said, “And let this which I have said suffice for the instruction
of the students at Toulouse” (et ad instructionem Tholose stu-
dentium sufficiat hec dixisse). Now it was not until 1229 that
Toulouse had a university; it came into being in that year as a
result of the emigration of students and teachers from Paris
consequent on the “great dispersion” which closed that univer­
sity from 1229 to 1231. Hence if Jordanus Nemorarius was teach­
ing mathematics at Toulouse in 1229 or later, he would scarcely
have been the same person as Jordanus of Saxony, whose time
was then being devoted to his responsibilities as Dominican
Master General, and who died in 1237 on his way back from a
visit to the Holy Land.^
The importance of this question lies not so much in the mat­
ter of whether Jordanus Nemorarius was the Dominican Master
General, as in the bearing it has on the dating of the writings of
Jordanus the mathematician. For if he was in fact the Dominican
122
ELEMENTA JORDANI
Master General, his work would have to be dated very early—
probably prior to 1220. If however he was not the same person,
and was teaching mathematics at Toulouse after 1229, his works
may have been written considerably later than 1220, and their
composition may have extended over a considerable period of
years. This would help to resolve a problem which ledDuhem to
conclude that Jordanus Nemorarius could not have been the au­
thor of the Liber de ratione ponderis which is ascribed to him
by nearly all the known manuscripts. Duhem’ s only basis for this
contention was the fact that the De ratione ponderis replaced two
erroneous theorems of the Elementa Jordani, dealing with the
bent lever, by a new theorem which contradicted the assump­
tions made in the earlier ones. But if considerable time could
have elapsed between the date when Jordanus composed the Ele­
menta, and the time when the De ratione ponderis was written,
this change could easily be explained as consequent on Jordanus’
own progress and self-criticism . For this reason we have chosen
to accept the testimony of the manuscripts, which indicate that
the De ratione ponderis was a work of Jordanus de Nemore, and
to reject Duhem’ s claim that this work must have been written
by a gifted disciple of Jordanus, otherwise unidentified, on whom
he bestowed the anachronistic title of “precursor of Leonardo.”^
The seven postulates and nine theorems, stated and supplied
with proofs in the Elementa Jordani, seek to provide a general
theoretical foundation for the theorems on the Roman balance
which occur in the Liber de canonio. The ninth and last theorem
of the Elementa, which utilizes the general lever principle to
prove that a material lever arm, of uniform thickness and den­
sity, has the same statical moment as a weight equal to it which
is suspended at the mid point of an ideal lever arm of the same
length, leads directly to the first theorem of the De canonio.
The Elementa Jordani thus bears the same relation to the De
canonio, as the Cause Karastonis edited by Thabit ibn Qurra;
in both cases, the statical assumptions used in the theorems on
the Roman balance are given a foundation of generalized nature,
resting on postulates of a dynamical character. The general dy­
namical theory underlying this development is, for Jordanus as
it was for Thabit, that which stems from Aristotle’ s Physics
and from the pseudo-Aristotelian Mechanica. But in the Elementa
Jordani, as well as in the other treatises on weights produced
in the Latin West and involving the same seven postulates and
basic theorems, there is introduced a new concept not found in
the earlier literature. This is the concept of “positional gravity”
(gravitas secundum situm), which is the component of the force
of a body’s natural gravity, directed along whatever path of move­
ment the body can take as constrained by its connections with
123
 IN T R O D U C TION
ELEMENTA JORDANI
other bodies in a single system. Positional gravity is measured
mediaeval Latin writers, or even to the Arabian authors whose
by that fraction of the body’ s natural weight determined by the
works in this field were accessible to the Latins. The work of
deviation from the vertical of its path of displacement; this
Jordanus, and especially the treatise De ratione ponderis which
“obliquity” in turn is measured by the ratio of the vertical pro­
is ascribed to him, indicates that there must have been some
jection of a small descent along the oblique path, to the length
channel by which the ideas of the pseudo-Aristotelian Mechanica
of the corresponding oblique descent. The application of this
were conveyed to Jordanus or his contemporaries; but what this
concept of positional gravity to problems of equilibrium involves
channel may have been, we cannot determine in the light of such
the general principle that the force by which one weight can bal­
knowledge as is so far available to us.
ance another, on a lever or pulley system, varies according to
The present edition of the Elementa super demonstrationem
the amount of vertical descent which it can accomplish through
ponderis, which is the first edition of that work to be printed, is
a movement compatible with the constraint system. Similarly,
based on three good manuscripts, two of which date from the
the resistance offered by the other weight, on the opposite arm
late 13th century. Of these, the best is Ms. Auct. F.5.28 of the
of the balance or at the other end of the pulley arrangement, de­
Bodleian Library at Oxford, which contains a copy of the Ele-
pends on the amoifnt of vertical ascent which would be involved
menta Jordani on folios 109v-U0v. This manuscript also contains
in a movement compatible with the constraints.
another text, on folios 125v-l33v, which is of the De ratione pon­
Associated with this notion of positional gravity is the general
deris of Jordanus, but into which the copyist worked texts of all
principle of work, which we may express in this form; What can
the theorems of the Elementa, either as additional theorems, or
lift a weight W through a given vertical distance H, can lift a
as variant texts for the theorems common to the two works.
weight k«W through a height H/k, or a weight W /k through a
While we have not regularly utilized this second occurrence, in
height k*H. It is this principle which is invoked by Jordanus to
the Bodleian manuscript, of the text of the Elementa Jordani, we
prove the general law of the lever, in his eighth theorem; and
have compared it carefully with the first text given in this man­
since he there invokes it as something demonstrated in a pre­
uscript, and have found it to conform almost verbatim with the
vious theorem (which could only be the first theorem), we must
latter.
presume that his first theorem is to be interpreted in the sense
Our second early manuscript is Ms. J.I.32 of the Biblioteca
of this principle of work. One of the later mediaeval commen­
Nazionale of Florence, which stems from the late 13th century.
taries on Jordanus’ first theorem, which we have reproduced in
This text conforms closely to that of the Bodleian manuscript,
our Appendix III, offers a forceful argument in favor of this in­
except for a few short omissions, due to homoioteleuta, and a
terpretation of the theorem, indicating that where the theorem
few slips of the copyist’ s pen. The third manuscript is the one
states that the “velocities of descent” of two bodies are propor­
which was known to Pierre Duhem, Ms. lat. 10252 of the Biblio-
tional to their “weights,” the meaning is that the effective force
theque Nationale at Paris, in which the Elementa Jordani occurs
of a weight in a lever system depends on the distance of ver­
on folios I40v-142v. The copy was made by Arnold of Brussels,
tical descentwhich it can accomplish through a given movement
in the year 1464, and is apparently from a good archetypal man­
of the system. So understood, the theorem is an enunciation of
uscript. Though it contains numerous minor errors, and is in­
the principle of work, and not (at least primarily) a statement
ferior to our two other manuscripts, its readings indicate the
that the speed with which a body falls freely toward the earth is
same original text, and show no divergencies of importance.
proportional to its natural gravity.
The diagrams which we have supplied are based on those given
Most of the nine theorems of the Elementa Jordani have an
in the Oxford and Paris manuscripts, the Florence manuscript
ancestry in the Greek and Arabic writings dealing with the prob­
having no diagrams; some small corrections were required in or­
lem of the balance. These affiliations are indicated in our notes.
der to bring the diagrams into literal conformity with the specifi­
But it will be observed that the principles invoked in the proofs,
cations of the text for their construction. As was done in our edi­
and the methods of proof, are in large degree original—due
tion of the Liber de canonio, and as will be done in the other Jor­
either to Jordanus himself, or to some source accessible to him
danus treatises edited in this volume, we have used Roman capi­
but unknown to us. Of all the ancient sources known to us, the
tal letters for those references to the diagrams which indicate
pseudo-Aristotelian Mechanica seems to come nearer to sug­
lengths or positions, and small underlined letters for those ref­
gesting the ideas employed by Jordanus in this work; but we
erences which indicate the weight of the corresponding segments
have no evidence to show that the Mechanica was known to any
of balance beam, or which indicate weights suspended. We have
124
125
 INTRODUC TION

also adopted a decimal notation for the numbering of the postu­

lates and theorems, prefixing the letter “E M to these numbers
as an indication that the text in question is from the Elementa
Jordani; in this way reference in our Notes, to the theorems
which occur in more than one work edited in this volume, is fa­
cilitated. In the present text, the postulates are numbered E.Ol
to E.07, and the theorems E.l to E.9.
The Sigla of our three manuscripts, used in constituting the
The Text
text, are as follows:
ELEMENTA JORDANI
Q = Oxford, Bodl. Library M s.Auct.F.5.28, fols.l09v-H0v
M = Florence, Bibl. Naz. Ms. J.I.32, fols. 47v-48v
C = Paris, Bibl. Nat., Ms. lat. 10252, fols. I40v-I42v

Other manuscripts containing texts of the Elementa Jordani,

known to us by personal report or through manuscript cata­
logues, include the following:

(1) Oxford, Bodleian Libr. M s. Digby 174, fol. 174-I74v

(2) Florence, Bibl. Naz. Ms. J.I.30, fols. 7-8
(3) Erfurt, Cod. Amplon. Q 387, fols. 44v-45r^
(4) Rome, Cod. Vat, lat. 3102, fol. 30v ff.; here the
Elementa Jordani occurs as Part One of the
De ratione ponderis.
(5) Paris, Bibl. Mazarine, Ms. 3642, fol. 12; only the
beginning and end of the treatise are found here,
since a leaf of the manuscript was apparently
lost.
(6) Cambridge, M s. Trinity College 0.2.5, fols. I82r-I83v
(7) Oxford, Ms.Corpus Christi College 251, fols. 10r^-l2r^;
here the proofs of the Elementa Jordani are given
as the commentary of “Alardus."
(8) Oxford, Ms. St. John’ s College 188, fols. 5Zr~53r_
(13th century)

126
 E L E M E N T A JORDANI SUPER
DEMONSTRATIONEM PONDERUM
(Suppositiones)
l E .01 Omnis ponderosi motum esse ad medium.
E .02 Quod gravius est, velocius descendere.
E .03 Gravius esse in descendendo, quando eiusdem motus ad
medium rectior est.
5 E .04 Secundum situm gravius esse, quando in eodem situ m i­
nus obliquus est descensus.
E .05 Obliquiorem autem descensum, in eadem quantitate m i­
nus capere de directo.
E .06 Minus grave aliud alio secundum situm, quod descensum
10 alterius sequitur contrario motu.
E .07 Situm equalitatis esse equidistantiam superficiei
orizontis.
(Propositiones)
E.l INTER QUELIBET GRAVIA EST VELOCITATIS IN DE­
SCENDENDO ET PONDERIS EODEM ORDINE SUMPTA PRO-
15 PORTIO, DESCENSUS AUTEM ET CONTRARII MOTUS PRO­
PORTIO EADEM SED PERMUTATA.
Sint pondera a_ maius et b minus; et
descensus a sit ab A in C, et alterius
a B in D. Dico itaque quod proportio
20 a ad b, que AC ad BD. Sin autem vel m i­
nor vel maior universaliter. Atqui si mi­ F e
nor, posito quod augmentum a_ super b sit
e, et augmentum AC super BD sit F, T B"
cum sit proportio a_ ad b minor quam
25 AC ad BD, erit a ad e^ maior proportio a <► (>^
quam AC ad F. Sed F est descensus e,
quia propter e^ proficit a_ super b_
secundum F. Sequitur ergo hic con­
trarium, quoniam maior proportio
F 0
30 ponderum quam descensuum. Simili­
ter, posito quod sit maior, sequitur
eam esse minorem. Eadem est ratio
in motibus contrariis, quoniam in
contrarium minus movetur quod grav-
35 ius, posito quod e_ sit augmentum (F ig.E .l)
128
T H E E L E M E N T S OF J O R D A N U S
ON T H E D E M O N S T R A T I O N OF W E I G H T S
(Postulates)
E_j(H The motion of every weight is toward the center (of the
world).
-^»0^ That which is heavier descends more rapidly.
EL03 It is heavier in descending, when its motion toward the
center is more direct.
£*P4 ^ heavier positionally, when, at a given position, its
path of descent is less oblique.
^»05 A more oblique descent is one in which, for a given dis­
tance, there is a smaller component of the vertical.
E»06 A weight is less heavy positionally than another, which is
caused to ascend by the descent of the other.
i?»-?,7 The position of equality is that of equidistance of the beam
to the plane of the horizon.
(Theorems)
EJ. THE PROPORTION OF THE VELOCITY OF DESCENT,
AMONG HEAVY BODIES, IS THE SAME AS THAT OF WEIGHT,
TAKEN IN THE SAME ORDER; BUT THE PROPORTION OF
THE DESCENT TO THE CONTRARY ASCENT IS THE IN­
VERSE PROPORTION.
Let a be the greater weight, and b the smaller one; and let a
descend from A to C, and let b^ descend from B to D. I then say
that the proportion of the weight a to the weight b is as that of
the length AC to the length BD. For if not, it will universally be
either greater or less. But if it is less, let us suppose the ex­
cess of a s weight over that of la to be e_, and the excess of the
distance AC over the distance BD to be F. Then, since we have
assumed that the proportion of a to b is less than that of AC to
BD, the proportion of a to e will be greater than that of AC to
F . But F is the distance of descent corresponding to e, since it
is by reason of e^ that the weight surpasses the weight b
according to the distance F. From this, therefore, there~fol-
lows the opposite of what was assumed; because the proportion
of the weights is greater than that of the distances of descent.
And if we should assume the proportion of the weights to be
greater than that of their descents, it would follow in the same
way that it is less. The same reasoning applies in the case of
the contrary motions of ascent, by assuming e^ to be the excess
b_ s lightness over that of ja, because the body which is
129
 ELEMENTA JORDANI ELEMENTA JORDANI

levitatis b super a. heavier is the one which will ascend less.

E .2 CUM EQUILIBRIS FUERIT POSITIO EQUALIS, EQUIS
PONDERIBUS APPENSIS, AB EQUALITATE NON DISCEDET;
ET SI AB EQUIDISTANTIA SEPARETUR, AD EQUALITATIS
40 SITUM REVERTETUR.
E.2 WHEN THE BEAM OF A BALANCE OF EQUAL ARMS IS
IN HORIZONTAL POSITION, THEN, IF EQUAL WEIGHTS ARE
SUSPENDED FROM ITS EXTREMITIES, IT WILL NOT LEAVE
THE HORIZONTAL POSITION; AND IF IT SHOULD BE MOVED
FROM THE HORIZONTAL POSITION, IT WILL REVERT TO
IT.

Equilibris dicitur quando
a centro circumvolutionis
brachia regule fuerint equa-
lia. Sit ergo centrum A et
45 regula BAC, appensa b et c_.
Circumducto ergo circulo
per B et C, cuius in medio
inferioris medietatis sit E,
manifestum est quoniam de-
50 scensus tam b quam c_ est
per circumferentiam versus
E; et quia eque obliquus est
inde descensus, cum sint
eque ponderosa, non muta-
55 bit alterutrum.
Ponatur item quod sub­
mittatur ex parte B, et a s ­
cendat ex parte C. Dico quo­
niam’ redibit ad equalitatem,
60 quia minus obliquus descen­
sus est ab C ad equalitatem
quam a B ad E. Sumantur
enim deorsum arcus equales
quantilibet, qui sint CD et
65 BG; et ductis lineis ad equi-
distantiam equalitatis que
sint CZL et DMN, item
BKH, GYT, demittatur orto-
gonaliter descendens diam-
70 eter que sit FRZMAKYE;
eritque ZM maior KY. Sump­
to enim versus partem super­
iorem arcu CX, qui sit equa-
lis CD et BG, et ducta ex
75 transverso linea XRS, erit RZ minor ZM—sicut declaratum est
in Philotegni. Et quia RZ est equalis KY, erit et ZM maior KY.
Et cum sit ZM quod capit ex directo arcus CD, et KY quod
A balance is said to be of equal arms, when the arms of the
F balance beam, measured from the axis of rotation, are equal.
Let the axis, then, be A, and the beam BAC; and let the sus­
pended weights be lj and c. If then we describe a circle through
B and C, the mid point of its lower half being at E, it is evident
that the descent of both b and £ will be along the circumference
of the circle, toward E. And since the descents along these
paths are of equal obliquity, therefore, since b and £ are equal
weights, neither of them will change position.
Let it now be supposed that the balance is depressed on the
side of B, and elevated correspondingly on the side of C. I say
that it will revert to the horizontal position. For the descent
from C toward the horizontal position is less oblique than the
descent from B toward E. For let there be taken equal arcs of
arbitrary length below C and B, and let these be CD and BG;
and let the lines CZL and DMN be drawn parallel to the hori­
zontal, and likewise the lines BKH and GYT; and let fall, ver­
F tically, the diameter FRZMAKYE. Then ZM will be greater
than KY, because if an arc CX, equal to CD and to BG, is taken
in the direction of F, and if the line XRS is drawn horizontally,
then RZ will be smaller than ZM—as was shown in the Philo- _ t
tegni. And since RZ is equal to KY, ZM will be greater than
KY. And since ZM is the component of the vertical correspond­
ing to the arc CD, and KY the vertical component correspond­
ing to the equal arc BG, the descent from C is less oblique
than from B, and therefore c_ is heavier in its more elevated
position, than b. Therefore it will revert to the horizontal
position.
(Fig.E.2b)

130 131
 ELEMENTA JORDANI
ELEMENTA JORDANI

capit BG equalis, minus obliquus est descensus a C quam a B,

et ideo in altiori situ gravius est c quam b. Redibit ergo usque
80 ad equalitatem.

E .3 CUM FUERINT APPENSORUM PONDERA EQUALIA, NON

E .3 WHEN EQUAL WEIGHTS ARE SUSPENDED FROM A BAL­
FACIET NUTUM IN EQUILIBRI APPENDICULORUM ANCE OF EQUAL ARMS, INEQUALITY IN LENGTH OF THE
INEQUALITAS. PENDANTS BY WHICH THEY ARE HUNG WILL NOT DISTURB
* THEIR EQUILIBRIUM.

Sit regula ABC, centrum Let the balance beam be ACB, its axis at C, the pendants AD
85 C, et appendicula AD et BE, and BE, with BE the longer; and let the suspended weights be d_
longius autem BE; appensa and e^. Then draw the perpendicular CZY as long as you please,
d et e. Descendatque CZY
and draw DZ and EY parallel to the beam of the balance. Then,
ortogonaliter quantumlibet,
with centers at Z and Y, let quarter circles be described
et ductis DZ et EY equi- through D and E; and since DZ and EY are equal, the quarter
90 distantibus regule, et posi­ circles will also be equal. And because the descent of d and e
tis centris in Z et Y circum­
is along their circumferences, and because d and e are of equal
ducantur quarte circulorum weight, and their descent of equal obliquity, they will be of
per D et E. Et quoniam DZ equal positional gravity. Therefore the balance beam will not
et EY sunt equates, erunt move one way or the other.
95 et quarte circulorum That their descent is along these paths, is shown in this way.
equales. Et quia per illo r­
Let a semicircle be drawn around C, as a center, with radius
um circumferentias est
equal to BC or to AC; and let A fall to M, and B to N. And from
descensus d et e, cum eque
M and N, to the circumferences of the quarter circles, draw
ponderosa sint d et e, et
the lines MX and NH parallel to CZ. I say that MX is equal to
100 eque obliquus descensus, AD, and that NH is equal to BE. For AD and BE are equal to
in hoc situ eque gravia
CZ and CY, and MX and NH are likewise equal to them, because
erunt. Non ergo mutabit (F ig.E .3)
of the equality of the circles—as we have established in the
hinc vel inde regula.
Praeexercitamina. And for this reason, since A and B descend
Quod autem per illas sit illorum descensus, sic constat. De-
always along this semicircle, the weights d_ and <£ likewise de­
105 scribatur enim semicirculus circa centrum C, secundum quan­
scend through the quarter circles drawn. And this is what was
titatem B et A, et demittatur A in M, et B in N; descendantque
to be proved.
ab M et N ad circumferentias quartarum, linee MX et NH
equidistantes C Z. Dico quod MX equatur AD, et NH equalis BE.
Sunt enim AD et BE equales CZ et CY, atque ipsis etiam
110 equales sunt MX et NH propter circulorum equalitatem—sicut
constituimus in Preexercitaminibus. Et hac ratione, cum
semper descendant A et B per hunc semicirculum, descendunt
etiam d qt £ per descriptas quartas. Et hoc erat demonstran­
dum.

132

133
 ELEMENTA JORDANI ELEMENTA JORDANI

115 E A QUODLIBET PONDUS, IN QUAMCUMQUE PARTEM AB E .4 IN WHICHEVER DIRECTION A WEIGHT IS DISPLACED

EQUALITATE DISCEDAT, SECUNDUM SITUM FIT LEVIUS. FROM THE POSITION OF EQUALITY, IT BECOMES POSI­
TIONALLY LIGHTER.

Huius demonstratio est The proof of this is such as was given previously. For let
qualis in antepremissa. Sit the balance beam be ACB, its axis at C, and let the circle
enim regula ACB, centrum ADBE be described around C in such manner that A and B are
at the position of equality, with D above and E below. Drawing
1 2 0 C, et circumducatur circu­
lus ADBE, ut sint A et B in a diameter vertically from the top to the bottom of the circle,
statu equali, et D supra et let equal arcs, as small as you please, be taken beneath D and
E inferius. Perpendicular - A and E. For these determine the obliquity of descent in the
iter diametro de supra de­ more immediate vicinity; and let them be DH and AZ and EG.
Then, parallel to AB, draw the lines DKL, HMN, ZFP, ERS,
125 orsum ducta, resecentur
arcus equates sub D et A et and GXY. It is then plain that KM is less than CF, and that RX
E quantulumque parvi; illi is also less than CF; and from this the theorem follows.
enim propinquius indicant
descensus obliquitatem; et
130 sint DH, A Z, EG. Et trans­
eant linee equidistantes AB,
que sint DKL, HMN, et ZFP
et ERS et GXY. Palam ergo
quod KM minor CF, et (Fig. E .4)
135 etiam RX minor est eadem. Et inde sequitur propositio.

E .5 SI BRACHIA LIBRE FUERINT INEQUALIA, EQUALIBUS E.5 IF THE ARMS OF THE BALANCE ARE UNEQUAL, THEN,
APPENSIS, EX PARTE LONGIORE NUTUM FACIET. IF EQUAL WEIGHTS ARE SUSPENDED FROM THEIR EXTREM­
ITIES, THE BALANCE WILL BE DEPRESSED ON THE SIDE
OF THE LONGER ARM.

Sit regula ACB, et sit AC
longior quam CB. Dico quod,
140 appensis equalibus ponderi­
bus que sint a et b, declina­
bit ex parte a. Demissa enim
perpendiculari DECFG, circa
centrum C circinentur duo
145 semicirculi hinc inde, DAG
et EBF. Ab scindantur que
circa B arcus parvi equales,
et pertranseat corda HLM;
equalis etiam ei collocetur
150 ex transverso equaliter ex
parte A, que sit ZYX. Fiet-
que arcus ZAX minor arcu
HBM, sicut demonstravimus
Let the balance beam be ACB, and let AC be longer than CB.
I say that if equal weights are suspended at A and B, the bal­
ance will be depressed on the side of A. For let the perpendic­
ular DECFG be drawn, and around the center C let two sem i­
circles be described, DAG on one side and EBF on the other.
Then take two small equal arcs on each side of B, and draw the
chord HLM; also draw a chord equal to it on the semicircle on
the side of A, letting this chord be designated by ZYX. Then the
arc ZAX will be smaller than the arc HBM, as we have proved “
in the Philotegni. Since the arc BM is greater than the arc AX,
and its component of the vertical is the line LM, equal to YZ
which is the component of the vertical in the arc AX, therefore
the descent from B through M is more oblique than the descent
from A through X . The weight a, therefore, is positionally
heavier than the weight b. And this is what we had to show.
(Fig. E .5)

134 135
 ELEMENTA JORDANI ELEMENTA JORDANI

in Philotegni. Cum sit ergo arcus BM maior arcu AX, et LM

|65 linea est id quod capit de directo, equale YX quod sumitur
ab AX, obliquior est descensus ab B per M quam ab A per X.
Gravius itaque secundum situm est a quam b. Et hoc debuimus
ostendere.

E .6 CUM UNIUS PONDERIS SINT APPENSA, ET A CENTRO E .6 WHEN EQUAL WEIGHTS ARE SUSPENDED AT UNEQUAL
160 MOTUS INEQUALITER DISTENT, SI REMOTIUS SECUNDUM DISTANCES FROM THE AXIS, AND IF THE LONGER ARM IS
DISTANTIAM PROPINQUIORIS AD DIRECTIONEM ACCESSE­ BENT UNTIL ITS END IS AT THE SAME DISTANCE FROM
RIT, ALIO NON MOTO, SECUNDUM SITUM ILLO LEVIUS THE VERTICAL (THROUGH THE AXIS) AS THE END OF THE
FIET. SHORTER ARM IS, AND IF THE LATTER REMAINS UN­
MOVED, THEN THE WEIGHT ON THE LONGER ARM WILL
BECOME POSITIONALLY LIGHTER THAN THE OTHER
Sit ut prius ACB regula, WEIGHT.
165 et CB longior quam AC. Et
a C demittatur perpendicu­ Let the balance beam, as before, be ACB, with CB longer
laris CED, et circumducatur than AC. And from C drop the perpendicular CED, and draw the
quarta A Z, et portio circuli quarter circle A Z, and also draw the arc of a circle, BFMG, in
BFMG donec linea FG, equi- such manner that the line FG, parallel to AB, is twice the
170 distans AB, sit tanquam du­ length of AC. If then we connect C and F, the weight b in the
plum AC. Applicante ergo position F will be lighter than the weight a in its position. For
C cum F , erit b^ in situ F let a semicircle be constructed on the line FEG, and on this
levius a. Super lineam s i­ semicircle take an arc FH, equal to the arc AL. If then the line
quidem FEG statuatur HMN is drawn, the arc FM will be greater than the arc FH.
175 semicirculus, et in eo sit Now draw the line GMT, and the arc FM will be similar to,
arcus FH equalis arcui AL. though greater than, the arc FT. Hence it will also be greater
Ductaque linea HMN, erit than the arc FH, and hence greater than the arc AL. Yet they
arcus FM maior arcu FH. have an equal component of the vertical^ therefore the smaller
Et transeat linea GMT; arc is more direct, and a descent on it is less oblique; conse­
180 eritque arcus FM similis a r­ quently a^is heavier than is b^ in the position F. And this is
cui F T , quo cum sit maior, what we wished to prove.
erit et maior FH; maior
ergo AL. Equaliter autem
capiunt de directo; qui (F ig.E .6)
ergo minor, est directior, et m inus obliquus per ipsum descen-
Sus; gravius ergo est a quam b in situ F . Et hoc est quod
voluimus.

E j7 EQUIS PONDERIBUS IN EQUILIBRI A P P E N S IS, SI E Q U A -
I.IA SINT A P P E N D IC U L A , A L T E R U M A U T E M C IR C U M V O L -
1*0 D R IL E E T A L T E R U M SEC U N D U M R E C T U M A N G U L U M F I X -
QUOD IN C IRC UM VO LU BILI A P P E N D IT U R GRAVIUS EST
SEC U N D U M SITU M .
E.7 IF EQUAL WEIGHTS ARE ATTACHED TO EQUAL ARMS
BY PENDANTS OF EQUAL LENGTH, BUT SUCH THAT ONE
OF THESE PENDANTS CAN ROTATE ON THE LEVER ARM
WHILE THE OTHER IS RIGIDLY ATTACHED AT RIGHT
ANGLES TO ITS ARM OF THE BALANCE, THEN THE WEIGHT
ATTACHED TO THE MOVABLE PENDANT WILL BE POSI­
TIONALLY HEAVIER THAN THE OTHER WEIGHT.

136 137
 ELEMENTA JORDANI ELEMENTA JORDANI

Sit regula ACB, et appen­
dicula AD et BE; appensa
05 quoque ci et ej et AD circum-
volubile, et BE fixum. Trans'
eatque ypotenusa CE. De­
scripto ergo circulo circa C
secundum E, qui sit HEZ,
100 cuius diameter sit perpendi-
culariter descendens HCZ,
manifestum quoniam trans­
itus e_ erit in eius circum­
ferentia. Constat ergo quod
205 eque grave est e appensum
in hoc situ, super CBE, ac
si appenderetur super
ypotenusam CE, quia tunc
esset idem transitus. Sed
210 appensum ad CE in hoc
situ levius esset quam A, ut
premissum est, quare et
secundum CBE levius erit. Et hoc fuit demonstrandum.
Let the balance beam be ACB, the pendants AD and BE, and
the suspended weights d and e_; and let the pendant AD be the
movable one, and BE the fixed one. And draw the hypothenuse
CE. If then a semicircle HEZ is described through E around
the center C, whose vertically descending diameter is HCZ, it
is evident that the movement of e_ will be along its circumfer­
ence. Therefore it is seen that the weight which is attached to
CBE is of equal positional gravity as it would be if it were
attached to the hypothenuse CE; because it would have the
same path of movement. But the weight attached to CE would
be lighter in this position, than the weight hung from A—as was
shown previously; and thus it will also be lighter when attached
to CBE. And this is what was to be proved.
(F ig.E .7)

E .8 SI FUERINT BRACHIA LIBRE PROPORTIONALIA PON-
215 DERIBUS APPENSORUM, ITA UT IN BREVIORI GRAVIUS
APPENDATUR, EQUE GRAVIA ERUNT SECUNDUM SITUM
APPENSA.
E.8 IF THE ARMS OF A BALANCE ARE PROPORTIONAL TO
THE WEIGHTS SUSPENDED, IN SUCH MANNER THAT THE
HEAVIER WEIGHT IS SUSPENDED ON THE SHORTER ARM,
THE SUSPENDED WEIGHTS WILL BE OF EQUAL POSITIONAL
GRAVITY.

Sit ut prius regula ACB, appensa a_ et b; sitque proportio b ad Let the balance beam be ACB, as before, and the suspended
a tanquam AC ad BC. Dico quod non nutabit in aliam partem weights a and b; and let the proportion of la to a_ be as the pro­
regula. Sit enim ut ex parte B descendat; transeatque in obliqu­ portion of AC to BC. I say that the balance will not move in ei­
um linea DCE, loco ACB, et appensa d ut a et e ut b, et DG ther direction. For let it be supposed that it descends on the
linea ortogonaliter descendat, et EH ascendat. Palam quoniam side of B; and let there be drawn a line DCE obliquely through
trianguli DCG et ECH similes sunt, quare proportio DC ad CE ACB; and let a weight equal to a^ be suspended at D, and a
que DG ad EH. Atqui DC ad CE sicut b^ ad a_; ergo DG ad EH weight equal to b at E. And let the line DG be drawn vertically
downward, and the line EH vertically upward. It is then evident
that the triangles DCG and ECH are similar, so that the pro­
portion of DC to CE is the same as that of DG to EH. But DC is
to CE as b is to a; therefore DG is to EH as b is to a. Now sup­
pose CL to be equal to CB, and let _l be equal in weight to bj and
draw the perpendicular LM. Since then LM and EH are shown
to be equal, DG will be to LM as b is to a, and as is to a. But
as was proVed, a and_[ are inversely proportional to their con­
trary (upward) motions. Therefore, what suffices to lift a to D,
would suffice to lift_l_ through the distance LM. Since therefore
1_ and b are equal, and LC is equal to CB,_l_is not lifted by b;

138 139
 ELEMENTA JORDANI
225 sicut b ad a. Sit igitur CL equalis CB, etj^ equum in pondere ad
_b; et descendat perpendicularis LM. Quia igitur LM et EH con­
stat esse equales, erit DG ad LM sicut b ad a_, et sicut_l ad a.
Sed ut ostensum est, a et JL^eque se habent ad contrarios motus
alternating. Quod ergo sufficit attollere a in D, sufficiet attol-
230 lerej^ secundum ML. Cum ergo appensa sint equalia_L et b, et
LC equale CB,J_non sequitur b motu contrario, neque ^ se q u i­
tur b, secundum quod proponitur.
E .9 SI DUO OBLONGA UNIUS GROSSITIEI PER TOTUM SIMI­
LIA, ET PONDERE ET QUANTITATE EQUALIA, APPENDAN-
235 TUR ITA UT ALTERUM DIRIGATUR, ALTERUM ORTOGONA-
LITER DEPENDEAT, ITA ETIAM UT TERMINI DEPENDENT­
IS ET MEDII ALTERIUS EADEM SIT A CENTRO DISTANTIA,
SECUNDUM HUNC SITUM EQUE GRAVIA FIENT.
Sint termini regule A, B; centrum C; et appensa, quod quidem
240 dirigitur secundum situm regule ad equidistantiam orizontis,
sit ADE, cuius medium D; et alterum dependens BG. Sit item
BC tanquam CAD. Dico quod ADE et BG in hoc situ eque gravia
sunt.
(Fig. E .9)
Ad huius evidentiam dicimus quod si regula ex parte A sit ut
245 CE, et appendantur in A et E duo pondera equalia, que sint z^ et
y_; et duplum utriusque appendantur ad B, quod sit x^, erit etiam
in hoc situ xl tanquam z^etji in pondere. Sint enim x et JL^dimi­
dia eius; eritque ponderis x ad pondus z tanquam EC ad CB, et
item pondus _l ad pondus _y in hoc situ sicut AC ad CB. Itaque
140
ELEMENTA JORDANI
and, as was asserted, will not be lifted by b.
E.9 IF TWO OBLONG BODIES, WHOLLY SIMILAR AND
EQUAL IN SIZE AND WEIGHT, ARE SUSPENDED ON A BAL­
ANCE BEAM IN SUCH MANNER THAT ONE IS FIXED HORI­
ZONTALLY TO THE END OF ONE ARM, AND THE OTHER IS
HUNG VERTICALLY, AND SO THAT THE DISTANCE FROM
THE AXIS OF SUPPORT, TO THE POINT FROM WHICH THE
VERTICALLY SUSPENDED BODY HANGS, IS THE SAME AS
THE DISTANCE FROM THE AXIS OF SUPPORT TO THE MID
POINT OF THE OTHER BODY, THEN THE SUSPENDED
WEIGHTS WILL BE OF EQUAL POSITIONAL GRAVITY.
Let A and B be the ends of the beam, C the axis, and let the
weight fixed horizontally to the beam be ADE, its mid point D;
and let the other weight, which hangs, be BG, And let BC be
equal to CAD. I say that the weights ADE and BG, in this posi­
tion, will be of equal heaviness.
To make this evident, we say that if the beam, on the side of
A , were as long as CE, and if there were suspended at A and E
two equal weights z^ and y, and if a weight double each one of
these, xl, were suspended from B, then in this position also xl
would be equal in heaviness to z and y. For let its halves be x
andjj then the weight x will be to the weight z, as BC is to CE;
and the weighty will be to the weighty, in this position, as BC
is to CA. Hence the proportion of xl^ to z^plus_y, in this position,
will be the same as the proportion of EC plus AC to twice BC.
But because twice BC is equal to EC plus AC, jd will likewise
; be equal in positional weight to z plus_y. For this reason,
| therefore, since all the parts of GB are of equal weight, in this
position, and since any two parts of ADE, equidistant from D,
are equal in weight to two equal parts of BG, it follows that the
* whole of ADE is equal to the whole of BG (in positional weight).
| And this is what needed to be proved.
Here end the Elements of Jordanus on the demonstration of
weights.
141
 ELEMENTA JORDANI

250 erit xl ad z et_y, in hoc situ, proportio que EC et AC ad duplum

BC. Sed quia duplum BC est tanquam EC et AC, erit et jd
equate :z e ty in pondere in hoc situ. Hac ergo ratione, quoniam
omnes partes BG pondere sunt equales in hoc situ, et quelibet
due partes ADE, equaliter a D distantes, sunt in pondere
255 equales duabus partibus equis BG, sic ergo totum toti. Et hoc
est quod oportuit demonstrare.

Expliciunt elementa Jordani super demonstrationem ponderum. VI

LIBER JORDANI DE PONDERIBUS

with Another Commentary
(Version “P ")

Edited, with Introduction, Translation

and N otes by

ERNEST A, MOODY

i
■ * * tf» S '* * -i

142

f
 INT RODUC TION

The version of the Liber Jordani de ponderibus which folLows

is the one which Petrus Apianus offered as the presumably o r­
iginal version, in the edition published at Nuremberg in 1533.
It consists of an explanatory prologue followed by seven postu­
lates and thirteen theorems accompanied by rather short indi­
cations of proof. The last four of the theorems are those of the
De canonio, though the proofs given for them show no influence
of those found in the treatise of this title which is so unmistak­
ably a translation from a Greek original. The seven postulates
and first nine theorems, likewise, are practically identical with
those of the Elementa super demonstrationem ponderum of Jor-
danus de Nemore. Yet there is not the slightest trace of any in­
fluence of the proofs which Jordanus gave for these nine theo­
rems, so that it seems unlikely that the author of this version
derived the postulates and theorems from Jordanus’ own trea­
tise, or that he was Jordanus himself.
What gives special interest to this version is its prologue,
which introduces the concept of “positional gravity" (gravitas
secundum situm) as a new notion, and with full consciousness of
the novelty of the term. One would have expected Jordanus to
have supplied some such introduction to his own treatise, if he
had been the originator of this concept and of the theorems in
which it occurs. Duhem, apparently eager to exhibit Jordanus as
the originator of the new ideas and methods in statics which are
contained in the whole group of De ponderibus treatises produced
in the Latin West, called this other version “a Peripatetic trans­
formation of the Elementa Jordani."^- But in view of the fact that
this version shows no dependence at all on the Elementa Jordani
in its proofs of the theorems, and contains an introductory ex­
planation of the ideas involved-in the theorems, which is entirely
absent from the Elementa Jordani, it seems inappropriate to
call this a “transformation" or a “commentary" on the work of
Jordanus. It has as much claim, indeed, to being the original
Liber de ponderibus as does the Elementa Jordani; and we could
regard the latter work as a mathematician’ s “transformation"
of this version, with as much plausibility as is possessed by
Duhem’ s contention that this version is a “Peripatetic trans­
formation" of the work of Jordanus.
These circumstances suggest that the seven postulates and
the nine theorems to which Jordanus supplied proofs in his Ele­
menta were not originated by Jordanus, but were inherited by
him from an earlier source which was independently accessible

145
 INTRODUC TION
to the author of this so-called “Peripatetic commentary.” Du-
hem mentions a manuscript of the Biblioth&que Nationale at
Paris (M s. lat. 7Z15) which contains a long series of propositions
ascribed to Euclid, stated one after the other without any
p *
proofs. These propositions include the postulates and theorems
of the Elementa Jordani, the four theorems of the De canonio,
and those of the pseudo-Euclidean De ponderoso et levi and De
speculis. If we should suppose that it was in this bare form that
the postulates and theorems of the Liber de ponderibus were
originally received by both Jordanus and the author of the so-
called “Peripatetic commentary,” the complete independence of
the two versions with respect to their proofs and with respect
to the prologue which occurs in one version and notin the other,
would be accounted for. And if these propositions had been orig­
inally received as of Euclidean origin, this circumstance would
account for the fact that many manuscripts attribute the Liber
de ponderibus, and particularly the postulates and firstnine theo­
rem s, to Euclid. The majority of manuscripts, to be sure,
ascribe the work, in most of its versions, to Jordanus; but since
Jordanus’ proofs were unquestionably superior to those of the
“Peripatetic” version, and were utilized in most of the other
variant versions composed in the fourteenth century, the habit
of treating the work as primarily the work of Jordanus de Nemore
is explained and in large measure justified.
Confirmation for this conjecture of an earlier pseudo-Euclid-
ean origin for the seven postulates and nine theorems of the
Liber de ponderibus is supplied by statements of Thomas Brad-
wardine, in the Tractatus proportionum which he composed in
1328.^ In discussing the first theorem of the De ponderibus,
Bradwardine says that the “author” did not offer any principles
to prove the theorem. He then discusses two forms of proof
which he says were given by “commentators.” The first of these
proofs is identically that of the Elementa Jordani, and the second
is a somewhat similar proof which occurs in another version
directly dependent on the work of Jordanus. This indicates that
for Bradwardine the contribution of Jordanus was that of a com­
mentator on an original Liber de ponderibus whose author had
failed to supply demonstrations for his theorems.
Whether the Elementa Jordani was an earlier or a later “com­
mentary” on this set of postulates and theorems, than the so-
called “Peripatetic commentary" here edited, cannot be deter­
mined. Both works occur in manuscripts of approximately equal
date, stemming from the thirteenth century, and neither version
exhibits any trace of influence by the other. There is only one
circumstance that tempts one to believe that the “Peripatetic”
version might be the earlier of the two. This is the fact that it
146
LIBER DE PONDERIBUS
contains a prologue which introduces the novel expression grav­
itas secundum situm as a new technical term, whereas the Ele­
menta Jordani provides no such introductory discussion and
appears to take the terminology for granted. In any case, the
explanatory prologue of the “Peripatetic version" serves to place
the new ideas and terminology of the De ponderibus treatises in
a recognizable historical context, providing a link with the tra­
dition of Aristotelian dynamics and with the treatments of stat­
ical problems found in Thabit ibn Qurra’ s Liber Karastonis.
As Duhem points out, there is a marked affinity between por­
tions of the prologue of this version (lines 14-33 of our text) and
a paragraph in the first question of the Mechanical Problems
attributed to Aristotle.^ The Aristotelian text reads as follows;
Now if of two objects moving under the influence of the
same force one suffers more interference, and the other
le ss, it is reasonable to suppose that the one suffering the
greater interference should move more slowly than that suf­
fering less; which seems to take place in the case of the
greater and less of those radii which describe circles from
the centre. For because the extremity of the less is nearer
the fixed point than the extremity of the greater, being at­
tracted towards the centre in the opposite direction, the ex­
tremity of the lesser radius moves more slowly. This hap­
pens with any radius which describes a circle; it moves
along a curve naturally in the direction of the tangent, but
is attracted to the centre contrary to nature.-*
As this passage indicates, the movement of a weight suspended
at the extremity of a lever arm is dynamically determined by a
composition of two forces—one the downward “natural” force of
gravity, and the other the “violent” force which constrains the
weight to move along the curve instead of descending vertically.
It is this notion that is developed in the prologue of the Liber de
ponderibus, as basis for the further development of the notion
of “positional gravity" as a composite of “natural" and “violent”
factors determining a weight which is at rest in a constraint
system. The conception of natural and violent rest, as well as
of natural and violent motion, is also found in Aristotle; the sixth
chapter of Book V of the Physics treats of it. The obvious depend­
ence of the explanatory prologue of the Liber de ponderibus on
these Aristotelian ideas, as underlying the dynamical interpre­
tations to be given to the concepts of gravitas in descendendo
and gravitas secundum situm, reveals the historical connection
between the statics of Jordanus and the earlier Aristotelian tra­
dition. At the same time, this explanatory preface makes it quite
147
 IN T R O D U C TION
clear that the postulates and theorems of the treatise bear on
the movements and forces of weights as connected in a con­
straint system such as a balance, and not on their movements
of free fall. This is a crucial consideration in the interpretation
of the first theorem of the treatise, and consequentially of the
important eighth theorem, in whose proof of the general lever
principle Jordanus makes use of the first theorem as an enun­
ciation of the principle of work.
While the prologue to this version is of great historical and
theoretical interest, the proofs offered for the theorems them­
selves are of a very slight and inadequate nature, lacking the
mathematical precision and conclusiveness characteristic of
the Elementa Jordani. Whether the author of this version orig­
inated the prologue as well as the brief proofs, or derived the
prologue from an earlier source along with the postulates and
theorems themselves, is a matter of conjecture. We may only
remark that some of the later versions of the Liber de ponder­
ibus, such as the one contained in Cod. Vat, Lat. 2975 and there
ascribed to Euclid, insert discussions in their proofs which
vaguely reflect the statements made in the first paragraph of
the prologue of the “Peripatetic" version, although the proofs
themselves reflect those of Jordanus and not those of this other
version.lt is therefore possible that the introduction constituted
a' separate original text, not always found in association with the
rest of the “Peripatetic commentary.”
The basis of our edition of this text is the copy contained in
Codex Vaticanus Latinus 2185, in which the work occurs on fols.
27v-28r under the title Tractatus magistri Jordani de ponderibus.
A second manuscript, Codex Vaticanus Palatinus 1377, fols. 19r-
20v, provides a text of this same version but lacking the intro­
ductory prologue. Finally, the edition of Petrus Apianus, Nurem­
berg 1533, contains this version in complete form , although un­
der each of the theorems there are added proofs taken from a
later fourteenth century version, introduced in each case by
Apianus as “another commentary” (aliud commentum). Duhem
was acquainted with this “Peripatetic” version through the Apia­
nus edition, and also through an extremely poor and illegible
copy found in M s. Bibl. Nat, lat. 7378 A, at Paris. We have not
used this Paris manuscript, due to its poor condition, nor have
we been able to utilize the group of manuscripts in the Amplon -
ian collection at Erfurt which contain copies of the work. While
our text, as constituted from the two manuscripts accessible to
us, and from the Apianus edition, leaves much to be desired at
certain points, it is still a considerably better text than that of
Ihe earlier edition, and is representative of two fourteenth cen­
tury manuscript copies.
148
LIBER d e p o n d e r i b u s
To distinguish the postulates and theorems of this version
from those of the other versions, we have prefixed the letter “P ”
to the numbers representing the postulates and theorems. The
seven postulates are numbered P.OOl to P.007, and the thirteen
theorems P.01 to P.13.
Other manuscripts, known to us through catalogue descrip­
tions or by personal report which appear to contain copies of
the version here edited, include the following:
(1) Erfurt, Cod. Amplon. F 380, fols. 59“60. Later 14th
century.
(2) Erfurt, Cod. Amplon. Q 325, fols. 188-191. Later 14th
century.
(3) Erfurt, Cod. Amplon. Q 376, fols. 143-150. Dated ca.
1349. The incipit, “Cum scientia de ponderibus..,”
is that of the version here edited; but the treatise
seems to be followed by the De ratione ponderis of
of Jordanus, followed in turn by an isolated theorem
from the Philotegni of Jordanus, with the explicit
on fol. 150: “Explicit quartus liber Jordani de
ponderibus.”
(4) Erfurt, Cod. Amplon. Q 385, later 14th century. The
incipit is that of our version, “Cum scientia de
ponderibus..,” but the desinit, “...non transiliit extra
arcum abc,” occurs only in the version included by
Apianus as his second commentary, near the end of
Proposition I.
(5) Plagens, Ms. 126, Cpl (824) 236, fols. 153-I57v. 15th
century.
(6) Escorial, Cod, lat. N. II. 26, fols. 33r-v.
149
 LIBER J O R D A N I DE P O N D E R I B U S
(CUM COMME NTO)
(Proeemium)
I Cum scientia de ponderibus sit subalternata tam geometrie
quam philosophic naturali, oportet in hac scientia quedam phil­
osophice, quedam geometrice probari. Primo oportet scire
quod brachium descendendo in libra a summo in deorsum de-
5 scribit circulum, cuius circuli semidiameter est semper equa-
lis brachio libre. Secundo oportet ostendere quod maior arcus
eiusdem circuli est magis curvus minore, et quod talis in
minore plus curvatur quam in circulo maiore. Primum proba­
tur, quia minus de corda, que est linea recta, respondet pro-
10 portionaliter arcui maiori, quam minori; non enim arcui duplo
respondet corda dupla, sed minus ea. Secundum patet sic, quia
si sumantur de circulo maiori et minori arcus equaies, corda
arcus maioris circuli longior est.
Propterea possum ex hoc ostendere, quod pondus in libra
15 tanto fit levius, quanto plus descendit in semicirculo. Incipiat
igitur mobile descendere a summo semicirculi, et descendat
continue. Dico tunc quod, cum maior arcus circuli plus con­
trahatur recte linee quam minor, casus gravis per arcum
maiorem plus contrariatur casui gravis qui per rectam fieri
20 debet, quam casus per minorem arcum. Patet ergo quod
maior est violentia in motu secundum arcum maiorem, quam
secundum minorem; alias enim non fieret motus magis con­
trarius. Cum ergo apparet plus in descensu adquirendum im ­
pedienti, patet quia minor erit gravitas secundum hoc. Et quia
25 secundum situationem gravium sic fit, dicatur gravitas secun­
dum situm in futuro processo.
Ita enim, sillogizando de motu tamquam motus sit causa
gravitatis vel levitatis, potius per motum magis contrarium
concludimus causam huiusmodi contrarietatis esse plus con-
30 trariam, id est, plus habere violentie. Quod quidem grave de­
scendat, hoc est a natura; sed quod per lineam curvam, hoc est
contra naturam, et ideo iste descensus est mixtus ex naturali
et violento. In ascensu vero ponderis, cum ibi nihil sit secun­
dum naturam, debet argui sicut de igne, quoniam nihil natura-
35 liter ascendit. De igne enim arguitur in ascensu, sicut de gravi
in descensu; ex quo sequitur quod grave, quanto plus sic ascend­
it, tanto minus habet de levitate secundum situm, et sic plus
habet de gravitate secundum situm.
Sed diceret aliquis forte, quod non oportet propter predicta
40 grave in portione circuli inferiori fieri secundum situm levius,
150
THE B O O K OF J O R D A N U S ON W E I G H T S
(WITH A C O M M E N T A R Y )
(Prologue)
Since the science of weights is subalternate both to geometry
and to natural philosophy, certain things in this science need to
be proved in a philosophical manner, and certain things in a
geometrical manner. It should be known, first of all, that the
arm of a balance, in descending from its uppermost to its low­
est position, describes a circle whose radius is always equal
to the arm of the balance. Secondly, we must show that a long­
er arc of the same circle is more curved than a shorter one;
and also that an arc (of given length) is more curved, in a
smaller circle, than in a larger circle. The first statement is
proved, because a proportionately shorter chord—which is a
straight line—cor responds to the longer arc, than that which
corresponds to the shorter one; for to an arc which is double
another, there does not correspond a chord of double length,
but one of less than double length. The second statement is evi­
dent in this manner: if equal arcs are taken on a greater
circle, and on a smaller one, the chord of the arc of the great­
er circle is longer.
From this I can then show that a weight on the arm of a bal­
ance becomes lighter, to the extent that it descends along the
sem icircle. For let it descend from the upper end of the sem i­
circle, descending continuously. I then say that since the long­
er arc of the circle is more contrary to a straight line, than is
the shorter arc, the fall of the heavy body along the greater
arc is more contrary to the fall which the heavy body would
have along the straight line, than is a fall through a shorter
arc. It is therefore clear that there is more violence in the
movement over the longer arc, than over the shorter one;
otherwise the motion would not become more contrary (in di­
rection). Since it is apparent that in the descent (along the arc)
there is more impediment acquired, it is clear that the gravity
is diminished on this account. But because this comes about by
reason of the position of the heavy bodies, let it be called posi­
tional gravity in what follows.
For in reasoning in this way about motion, as if the motion
were the cause of heaviness or lightness, we conclude, from
the fact that a motion is more contrary (in direction), that the
cause of this contrariety is more contrary—that is, that it con­
tains a greater element of violence. For if a heavy body de­
scends, this occurs by nature; but that its descent is along a
151
 LIBER DE PONDERIBUS
quia ponatur non esse motura sed quietem; tunc nihil contrar­
ium nature acquiritur. Sed contra hoc arguitur sic: Possibile
fuit hanc quietem esse terminum motus intrinsecum, sicut a l-
bationis albedo; cum igitur motus non contrarientur nisi quia
45 termini eorum contrariantur, et equalis est proportio quietum
inter se et motuum inter se, per locum a proportione sequitur
tantam esse contrarietatem in quiescendo sicut in movendo. In
termino enim cuiuscumque motus intrinseco, viget tota natura
in actu que in motu fuit quasi in potentia, secundum quam fie-
50 bat contrarietas sive oppositio. Grave igitur in portione circuli
inferiori, sive moveatur sive quiescat, levius est secundum
situm.
Atque eodem sillogismo necesse est pondus gravius esse
quodam modo, et velocius descendere, quod movetur in circulo
55 maiori; quia, ut prius probatur, minus obliquatur quam in c ir­
culo minori, et per consequens minus habet violentie. Quia ig­
itur minus distat descensus in circulo maiori a descensu natu­
rali qui est per rectam lineam, quam qui est in circulo minori,
dicatur descensus rectior, id est plus tendens ad rectitudinem;
60 atque in circulo minori, ob rationem oppositam, obliquior de­
scensus. Quia vero superius dictum est, in quiete esse contra­
rietatem sicut in motu, potest esse dubitatio: quia in eodem
situ ubi est illa dependentia quietis obliquitatis potest esse de­
pendentia rectitudinis, sicut si lapis suspendatur in tecto do-
65 mus in loco ponderis quod pendet in libra. Sed dicendum ad
hoc, quod varietas violentie facit varietatem quietis secundum
formam, quod est manifestum ex variatione motuum ad quie­
tes. Eadem enim violentia fit totus ad quietem motus, et ipsa
quies; sicut patet ex predictis; unde idem forte sit locus quie-
70 tum naturaliter diversarum.
Istis igitur notis, sequuntur suppositiones libri Ponderum.
Et dicuntur suppositiones, quia per istam scientiam non debent
probari, sed supponi. Probantur tamen ex dictis, que indigent
probatione, sicut post apparebit. Sunt igitur suppositiones
75 septem.
LIBER DE PONDERIBUS
curved path, is contrary to its nature, and hence this descent
is compounded of the natural and the violent. But since, in the
ascent of a weight, there is nothing due to its nature, we have
to argue as we do in the case of fire, because nothing ascends
by nature. For we reason concerning the ascent of fire, as we
do concerning the descent of a heavy body; from which it fol­
lows that the more a heavy body ascends, the less positional
lightness it has, and therefore the more positional gravity.
But someone may perhaps say that a heavy body ought not, on
account of what has been said, to become lighter in position, in
the lower part of the circle; because we are not supposing it to
be in motion, but at rest—and in that case nothing contrary to
its nature is being acquired. But we argue against this as fol­
lows: It was possible that this condition of rest was the term ­
inus ad quern intrinsic to a movement, just as whiteness is the
intrinsic terminus ad quern of the process of becoming white.
Since therefore movements are only contrary to each other,
insofar as the end conditions to which they are directed are
contrary, and since the states of rest are related to each other
in the same way that the corresponding states of motion are re­
lated, it follows—by the argument from proportionality—that
there is as much contrariety in states of rest, as in the move­
ments. For it is in the terminal condition of a movement that
there is realized in actuality that complete nature which, in the
movement, was as if in a state of potentiality; and according to
that state there arose the contrariety or opposition. Therefore
the heavy body, in the lower position on the circle, whether it
be in movement or at rest, is positionally lighter.
But by the same reasoning it follows that a weight, if moved
along a greater circle, will in a certain way be heavier, and de­
scend faster; because, as was proved before, its movement is
less oblique than in a smaller circle, and consequently involves
less violence. Since then the path of descent along the greater
circle is nearer to the natural descent which occurs along the
straight line, than is the descent which takes place along a
smaller circle, it may be called a straighter descent—that is,
one which more nearly approaches to straightness. But in the
smaller circle, for the converse reason, it may be called a
more oblique descent.
Since however it was said above that there is contrariety in
rest, just as in movement, a doubt may arise: because, in the
very same position in which there is a condition of rest rela­
tive to the oblique path, there can be a condition of rest in re­
lation to the straight path—just as if a stone were suspended on
the roof of a house instead of the weight which hangs on the
arm of a balance. But to this it may be replied, that the type of
153
 LIBER DE PONDERIBUS
(Suppositiones)
P.001 Prima est hec: OMNIS PONDEROSI MOTUM ESSE AD
MEDIUM.
P.OQZ Secunda: QUANTO GRAVIUS EST, VELOCIUS DESCEND­
ERE.
8° P.003 Tertia: GRAVIUS ESSE IN DESCENDENDO, QUANTO
EIUSDEM MOTUS AD MEDIUM EST RECTIOR.
P.Q04 Quarta: SECUNDUM SITUM GRAVIUS ESSE, QUANTO IN
EODEM SITU MINUS OBLIQUUS EST DESCENSUS.
P.005 Quinta: OBLIQUIOREM AUTEM DESCENSUM, MINUS
85 CAPERE DE DIRECTO IN EADEM QUANTITATE.
P.006 Sexta: MINUS GRAVE ALIUD ALIO ESSE SECUNDUM
SITUM, QUANTO DESCENSUM ALTERIUS SEQUITUR CON­
TRARIO MOTU.
P.007 Septima: SITUM EQUALITATIS ESSE EQUIDISTANTIAM
90 SUPERFICIEI ORIZONTIS.
Omnes autem suppositiones sunt satis manifeste per pre-
dicta, et ideo iam propositiones prosequi licet. Et dicuntur pro­
positiones, quia proponuntur ut probentur. Sunt igitur proposi­
tiones tredecim.
(Propositiones)
95 P.Ol Prima est hec: INTER QUELIBET DUO GRAVIA EST
VELOCITATIS IN DESCENDENDO PROPRIE, ET PONDERIS,
EODEM ORDINE SUMPTA PROPORTIO; DESCENSUS AUTEM,
ET CONTRARII MOTUS, PROPORTIO EADEM SED
PERMUTATA.
100 Commentum huius propositionis: Dicitur proprie, ut exclu­
dantur omnes velocitates quoquomodo preter naturam acqui-
154
LIBER DE PONDERIBUS
violence is what formally determines the type of rest; and this
is evident through the differences among the movements to­
wards the states of rest. For it is by the same violence that
the whole movement toward the condition of rest occurs, and
that the rest itself occurs—as is clear from what has been said;
and thus the place of naturally diverse types of rest may be the
same place.
Now that these things have been noted, the postulates of the
Book of Weights follow. And they are called postulates because
they need not be proved, but only assumed, by this science. But
it is from the things which have been stated that the statements
which require proof, are proved—as will appear later. There
are, then, seven postulates.
(Postulates)
P.001 The first is this: THE MOVEMENT OF EVERY HEAVY
BODY IS TOWARD THE CENTER (OF THE WORLD).
P.002 The second: THE HEAVIER THE BODY IS, THE FASTER
IT DESCENDS.
P.003 The third: A BODY IS HEAVIER IN DESCENDING, INSO­
FAR AS ITS MOVEMENT TOWARD THE CENTER (OF THE
WORLD) IS MORE DIRECT.
P.004 The fourth: A BODY IS POSITIONALLY HEAVIER, INSO­
FAR AS ITS DESCENT, IN THAT SAME POSITION, IS LESS
OBLIQUE.
P.005 The fifth: A DESCENT IS MORE OBLIQUE WHICH, FOR
THE SAME DISTANCE, PARTAKES LESS OF THE VERTICAL.
P.006 The sixth: ONE BODY IS LESS HEAVY IN POSITION
THAN ANOTHER, INSOFAR AS IT MOVES UPWARD IN CON­
SEQUENCE OF THE DESCENT OF THE OTHER.
P.007 The seventh: THE POSITION OF EQUALITY IS THAT
OF EQUIDISTANCE TO THE PLANE OF THE HORIZON.
All these postulates are sufficiently evident, from what has
been said; and so we may now take up the propositions. And
they are called propositions, because they are propounded so
that they may be proved. There are, then, thirteen propositions.
(Theorems)
P.01 The first is this: BETWEEN ANY TWO HEAVY BODIES,
THE PROPER VELOCITY OF DESCENT IS DIRECTLY PRO­
PORTIONAL TO THE WEIGHT; BUT THE PROPORTION OF
DESCENT AND OF THE CONTRARY MOVEMENT OF ASCENT
IS THE INVERSE.
The commentary of this proposition: The word ‘proper’ is
used, so as to exclude all velocities acquired otherwise than by
155
 LIBER DE PONDERIBUS
LIBER DE PONDERIBUS

site. Prima pars patet, quia cum velocitatis proprie precisa

nature. The first part of the theorem is evident, for since the
causa sit pondus, patet quod ad multiplicationem ponderis se­
precise cause of the proper velocity is the weight, it is appar­
quitur velocitatis multiplicatio. Secunda pars patet, quia eadem
ent that multiplication of weight entails multiplication of veloc­
105 est proportio descensus et ascensus, sed contrarie sumitur
ity. The second part is clear—namely, that the descents are
proportio hic et ibi, propter quod dicitur permutata. Sicut enim
proportional to the ascents, though here the proportion is re­
se habet in descensu pondus, ita se habet aliud pondus in
versed and is therefore called the inverse proportion. For as
ascensu, quia eiusdem proportionis est distantia gravis in de­
one weight is related in its descent, so the other weight is re­
scendendo a puncto in circulo superiori, sicut ascensus in in-
lated in its ascent, because the distance through which a weight
110 feriori; eadem igitur est proportio, sed permutata. Oportet
descends from a point in the upper part of the circle, is the
enim, quanto illud istud excedit, tanto istud illo excedi; et per
same as that through which the weight in the lower part of the
consequens, quanto illud quod est gravius descendit, tanto
circle ascends; hence the ratio is the same, but in the inverse
levius motu contrario illud sequitur.
order. For it is necessary that by as much as the one weight
exceeds the other, by so much the other is exceeded by it; con­
sequently, to the extent that the heavier one falls, to that extent
is the lighter one raised.
P.02 Secunda propositio: CUM FUERIT EQDILIBRIS POSITIO
P.02 The second proposition: WHEN A BALANCE OF EQUAL
115 EQUALIS, EQUIS PONDERIBUS APPENSIS, AB EQUALITATE
ARMS IS IN HORIZONTAL POSITION, THEN IF EQUAL
NON DISCEDET; ET SI AB EQUIDISTANTIA SEPARETUR, AD
WEIGHTS ARE SUSPENDED, IT WILL NOT LEAVE THE HOR­
EQUALITATIS SITUM REVERTETUR.
IZONTAL POSITION; AND IF IT IS MOVED FROM THE HORI­
ZONTAL POSITION, IT WILL RETURN TO IT.
Commentum: Primum patet, quia sunt eque gravia. Secundum
The commentary: The first part is evident, because the
patet per quartam suppositionem. Vocatur autem ad illud situs
weights are equally heavy. The second is clear from the fourth
120 idem, circulus idem, ut patet per predicta.
postulate. The position is called the same, in this connection,
when the circle is the same, as is clear from what has been
said.
P.03 Tertia propositio: CUM FUERINT APPENSORUM POND­
P.03 The third proposition: WHEN THE WEIGHTS SUSPENDED
ERA EQUALIA, NON FACIET MOTUM IN EQUILIBRI APPEN-
ARE EQUAL, INEQUALITY OF THE PENDANTS WILL NOT
DICULORUM INEQUALITAS.
DISTURB THE EQUILIBRIUM.
Commentum: Non debet hic sumi inequalitas appendiculorum
The commentary: Inequality of the pendants is not to be un­
125 pro pondere, sed pro longitudine. Probatur sic: Si fiat motus
derstood here as inequality of weight, but of length. The proof
in una parte, igitur pars alia est minus gravis, per supposi­
is thus: If downward movement occurs on one side, then the
tionem secundam; sed positum est prius, appensorum esse
other side is less heavy—by the second postulate. But it was
pondera equalia; ergo.
assumed at the beginning that the weights suspended are equal;
therefore, etc.
P.04 Quarta propositio: QUODLIBET PONDUS, IN QUAMCUM-
P.04 The fourth proposition: IN WHICHEVER DIRECTION A
130 QUE PARTEM AB EQUALITATE DISCEDAT, SECUNDUM
WEIGHT DEPARTS FROM THE POSITION OF EQUALITY, IT
SITUM FIT LEVIUS.
BECOMES POSITIONALLY LIGHTER.
Commentum: Manifestum est hoc per suppositionem quartam.
The commentary: This is evident, by the fourth postulate.
P.05 Quinta propositio: SI FUERINT BRACHIA LIBRE INEQUA-
P.05 The fifth proposition: IF THE ARMS OF THE BALANCE
LIA, EQUALIBUS PONDERIBUS APPENSIS, EX PARTE LONCr
ARE UNEQUAL, THEN, IF EQUAL WEIGHTS ARE SUSPEND­
135 IORIS FIET MOTUS.
ED, THE BALANCE WILL FALL ON THE SIDE OF THE
LONGER ARM.
156
157
 LIBER DE PONDERIBUS
Commentum: Brachia inequalia longitudine, pondere vero
non. Probatur sic: Ex parte longioris describitur circulus
maior, et sic patet, per suppositionem tertiam, quod pondus
secundum situm est gravius.
14° P.Q6 Sexta propositio: CUM UNIUS PONDERIS SINT APPENSA,
ET A CENTRO MOTUS INEQUALITER DISTENT, ET SI RE­
MOTIUS SECUNDUM DISTANTIAM PROPINQUIUS ACCESSE­
RIT AD DIRECTIONEM, ALIO NON MOTO, SECUNDUM SITUM
ILLO LEVIUS FIET.
145 Commentum: Centrum motus dicitur hic punctus in brachio
libre circa quem, brachia libre vertuntur. Si igitur unum pondus
ponderat in brachio plus distanti a puncto illo, isto alio pend­
ente in alio brachio, et sint eque gravia, si tunc remotius ap­
propinquat ad equidistantiam moto appendiculo ad situm equal-
150 em, quod prius in remotiori parte fuit eque grave, nunc est
levius; quia nunc a se ipso quam prius est levius, quia obliqui­
or est descensus. Est enim semicirculus minor, quem nunc
facit.
P.07 Septima propositio: EQUIS PONDERIBUS IN EQUILIBRI
155 APPENSIS, SI EQUALIA SINT APPENSA, ALTERUM AUTEM
CIRCUMVOLUBILE ET ALTERUM SECUNDUM RECTUM
ANGULUM FIXUM, QUOD IN CIRCUMVOLUBILI APPENDI­
TUR GRAVIUS ERIT SECUNDUM SITUM.
Commentum: Circumvolubile dicitur, quando perpendiculum
160 potest habere declinationem plus largam quam brachia libre,
ut fit quando in circulo pendet. Secundum angulum rectum fix­
um dicitur, quando nullam contingit esse declinationem appen-
diculorum nisi secundum brachium, et est in situ equalitatis
inter brachium et appendiculum angulus rectus. Probatur sic:
165 Sint appensa equalia, ut vult positio, in pondere licet non in
longitudine. Tunc illud quod est circumvolubile maiorem circu­
lum constituit in casu, quia plus declinat propter circumvolu­
tionem; et sic pondus ibi gravius est secundum situm cum eius
descensus sit rectior.
170 Ista propositio fuit inventa ex quodam experimento facto ad
probationem propositionis secunde. Cum enim aliquis voluit
experiri an ita esset, posuit in equilibri pondera equalia cuius
appendentia erant filo composita; ideo motum habuerunt a
158
LIBER DE PONDERIBUS
The commentary: The arms are assumed to be unequal in
length, but not in weight. The proof is thus: On the side of the
longer arm a greater circle is described, and thus, by the
third postulate, it is clear that the weight is positionally
heavier.
P.06 The sixth proposition: WHEN EQUAL WEIGHTS ARE SUS­
PENDED AT UNEQUAL DISTANCES FROM THE CENTER OF
MOVEMENT, AND IF THE LONGER ARM IS BENT SO THAT
ITS END IS AT THE SAME DISTANCE FROM THE VERTICAL
AS IS THE SHORTER ARM, THEN, IF THE LATTER REMAINS
UNMOVED, THE WEIGHT ON THE LONGER ARM WILL BE­
COME LIGHTER POSITIONALLY THAN THE OTHER WEIGHT.
The commentary: The center of movement is here called the
point between the arms of the balance, around which the arms
rotate. If then one weight hangs on the arm which is more dis­
tant from that point, while the other weight hangs on the other
arm, and if they are equally heavy, then if the more distant one
is brought to the same distance through moving the lever arm
to a position at equal distance, the weight which in the more
distant place was equally heavy, is now lighter; because now it
is lighter than it itself was previously, since the path of its de­
scent is more oblique. For the semicircle which it now de­
scribes is smaller.
P.07 The seventh proposition: IF EQUAL WEIGHTS ARE SUS­
PENDED FROM EQUAL ARMS, BY EQUAL PENDANTS, AND
IF ONE QF THE PENDANTS IS FREE TO SWING WHILE THE
OTHER IS RIGIDLY FIXED AT RIGHT ANGLES, THE WEIGHT
WHICH IS HUNG ON THE FREELY SWINGING PENDANT IS
POSITIONALLY HEAVIER.
The commentary: The pendant is said to be free to swing,
when it can have a wider declination than the arm of the bal­
ance, as happens when it hangs in the circle. It is said to be
fixed at right angles, when there cannot be any declination of
the pendant independent of that of the lever arm, and when, in
the position of equality, there is a right angle between the pend­
ant and the arm of the balance. The proof is thus: Let the pend­
ants be equal in weight, as was supposed, even though not in
length. Then the arm which can swing freely will describe a
greater circle on its descent, because it has a greater declina­
tion on account of the rotation; and thus the weight there is po­
sitionally heavier, since its path of descent is straighter.
This theorem was discovered from a certain experiment
made in order to prove the second theorem. For when someone
wished to find out by experience whether that theorem was true,
159
 LIBER DE PONDERIBUS
brachiis alienum etiam, propter appendiculorum flexus. Incog-
175 nitis experimentum fallax, quare experiens veritatis irrisor
esset. Accepto tamen casu quod secundum equidistantiam a
medio motus, propter appendicula, ex terminis brachiorum lin­
ee sic describuntur, utrumque intelligit quod prius nescivit—
quod est, quia preter mutationes brachiorum alii non essent
180 flexus; ex hoc enim conclusit secundum rectos angulos idem
contingere, cum motus brachiorum similiter contingit.
P.08 Octava propositio: SI FUERINT BRACHIA LIBRE PROPOR­
TIONALIA PONDERIBUS APPENSORUM, ITA UT IN BREVIORI
GRAVIUS APPENDATUR, EQUE GRAVIA ERUNT SECUNDUM
185 SITUM APPENSA.
Commentum: Si pondus gravius tantum valeat in termino
breviori, quantum brachium libre longius in suo loco, et sim i­
liter pondus minus in breviori tantum, dico sic valent secun­
dum situm; quia non erant sic secundum naturam, necessario
190 erunt pondera secundum situm equalia, quia pondus et brach­
ium hic valet per oppositum totum reliquum, quapropter neu­
trum pondus declinat, sicut patet propositione prima huius.
P.09 Nona propositio: SI DUO OBLONGA UNIUS GROSSITIEI
PER TOTUM SIMILIA PONDERE ET QUANTITATE EQUALIA
195 APPENDANTUR, ITA UT ALTERUM ERIGATUR ET ALTER­
UM ORTHOGONALITER DEPENDEAT, ITA ETIAM UT TERM­
INI DEPENDENTIS ET MEDII ALTERIUS EADEM SIT A
CENTRO DISTANTIA, SECUNDUM HUNC SITUM EQUE
GRAVIA FIENT.
^00 Commentum: Unum pondus secet brachium transversans eius
longitudinem sicut crux; aliud pondus dependeat descensu ver­
so, et sit terminus illius in equali distantia a centro motus
cum medio alterius, quia sicut illius extremum plus a centro
distat, ita istius medium. Probatur: quia sicut gravitas natura-
1 Us est equalis utrobique, per positum, similiter et violentia,
M"ia semicirculi sunt equales, ergo eque gravia secundum
16 0
LIBER DE PONDERIBUS
he placed equal weights on a balance, attaching them by pend­
ants made of thread; consequently they had a movement inde­
pendent of that of the arms of the balance, because of the flexi­
bility of the pendants. To the unversed the experiment is de­
ceptive, causing the experimentor to be derisive of the truth.
But if we suppose the case where lines, representing the pend­
ants, are drawn in this way from the extremities of the lever
arms according to equal distances from the axis, he under­
stands each of the things which he previously ignored—which is
because there will not be any flexible movement except when
there is a movement of the arm s. For he had concluded, from
this, that the same would occur with the pendants fixed at right
angles, because the movement of the arms takes place in the
same manner.
P.08 The eighth proposition: IF THE ARMS OF THE BALANCE
ARE PROPORTIONAL TO THE WEIGHTS SUSPENDED, IN
SUCH MANNER THAT THE HEAVIER WEIGHT IS SUSPENDED
ON THE SHORTER ARM, THEN THE SUSPENDED WEIGHTS
WILL BE OF EQUAL POSITIONAL GRAVITY.
The commentary: If the greater weight on the shorter arm
balances the longer arm in its place, and if the lesser weight
similarly balances the shorter arm, I say that they are thus in
balance by reason of position. Since they would not be thus by
nature, the weights will of necessity be equal by reason of po­
sition; because the weight and the arm on one side balance all
the rest on the opposite side, on which account neither of the
weights is depressed—as is evident by the first proposition of
this treatise.
P.09 The ninth proposition: IF TWO OBLONG BODIES, OF SIM­
ILAR THICKNESS THROUGHOUT, AND EQUAL IN WEIGHT
AND LENGTH, ARE SUSPENDED.IN SUCH MANNER THAT
ONE IS FIXED DIRECTLY ON ONE ARM, WHILE THE OTHER
HANGS AT RIGHT ANGLES, AND SO THAT THE DISTANCE
FROM THE AXIS TO THE POINT FROM WHICH THE VERTI­
CALLY SUSPENDED BODY HANGS IS THE SAME AS THE DIS­
TANCE FROM THE AXIS TO THE MID POINT OF THE OTHER
ARM, THEN THEY WILL BE OF EQUAL POSITIONAL
GRAVITY.
The commentary: Let one of the weights transect the arm
like a cross, and let the other weight hang from the end of the
arm, along its path of descent. And let that end be at the same
distance from the axis of support, as is the mid point of the
other body, so that the mid point of this body is just as far
from the axis as is the end of the other arm. The proof: The
natural gravity is the same for each body, as was assumed; and
 LIBER DE PONDERIBUS
situm sunt appensa.
P.IO Decima propositio: SI FUERIT CANONIUM SYMMETRUM
MAGNITUDINE ET SUBSTANTIE EIUSDEM, DIVIDATURQUE
210 IN DUAS PARTES INEQUALES, ET SUSPENDATUR IN TERM­
INO MINORIS PORTIONIS PONDUS QUOD FACIAT CANONIUM
PARALLELUM EPIPEDO HORIZONTIS, PROPORTIO POND­
ERIS ILLIUS AD SUPERHABUNDANTIAM PONDERIS MAIORIS
PORTIONIS CANONII AD MINOREM, EST SICUT PROPORTIO
215 TOTIUS LONGITUDINIS CANONII AD DUPLAM LONGITUDI­
NEM MINORIS PORTIONIS.
Commentum: Canonium hic idem est quod brachium libre,
quia est regula. Symmetrum est proportionabile—id est brach­
ium equale brachio. Magnitudine et substantie eiusdem, id est,
220 in quantitate et pondere. Et parallelum est equidistans epypedo,
id est, superficiei. Probatur sic: Sit equilibra cuius brachia
sint eque longa et omnino equalia, et in omni parte eque gros­
sum sit utrumque, et eque grave. Sit gratia exempli longitudo
uniuscuiusque sex palmorum, et tollantur post hoc de uno quat-
225 tuor palmi. Manifestum itaque quoniam brachium longius est
gravius triplici gravitate, sicut etiam longius gravius dicitur
naturaliter; quia brevius habet tantum duos palmos. Sicut pal­
mi, petra pro ponderositate cuiuslibet. Appendatur igitur pond­
us sex petrarum ad terminum brevioris partis. Et arguitur
230 sic: Illud pondus facit canonium parallelum epipedo orizontis,
sicut patet; quia cum linea recta perpendicularis erecta fuerit
a superficie plana orizontis ad canonium constituit angulos rec­
tos, manifestum est, propositione septima primi Euclidis, can­
onium fore parallelum epipedo orizontis. Sed si altera pars
235 esset gravior alia, eam sequeretur aliud canonium motu con­
trario, ut patet suppositione sexta; ergo eque graves sunt par­
tes alterutrius secundum situm. Quod si sic est, tunc si aliquid
addatur ponderi, tunc minor erit canonii inclinatio. Sicut illa
propositio probatur geometrice, ita possunt omnes proposition-
240 es premisse probari per proportionem illarum linearum et
angulorum suorum constructorum.
P.ll Undecima propositio: SI FUERIT PROPORTIO PONDERIS
IN TERMINO MINORIS PORTIONIS SUSPENSI AD SUPERHAB-
162
LIBER DE PONDERIBUS
the violence is likewise the same, because the semicircles are
equal; therefore the weights are equally heavy in position.
P.IO The tenth proposition: IF THERE IS A BEAM OF UNI­
FORM SIZE AND OF THE SAME SUBSTANCE, AND IF IT IS
DIVIDED INTO TWO UNEQUAL PARTS, AND IF AT THE END
OF THE SHORTER SEGMENT THERE IS A WEIGHT SUCH AS
WILL HOLD THE BEAM PARALLEL TO THE PLANE OF THE
HORIZON, THEN THE RATIO OF THAT WEIGHT, TO THE EX­
CESS OF THE WEIGHT OF THE LONGER SEGMENT OF THE
BEAM OVER THAT OF THE SHORTER SEGMENT, IS THE
SAME AS THE RATIO OF THE LENGTH OF THE WHOLE
BEAM TO TWICE THE LENGTH OF THE SHORTER SEG­
MENT.
The commentary: A beam (canonium) is here the same as the
arm of a balance, because it is a straight rod. Uniform (sym­
metrum) means proportional—that is, that the arm is equal to
the arm in size, and is of the same substance, i.e ., in quantity
and weight. And parallel means equidistant from the plane—i.e.,
from the surface. The proof is thus: Let there be a balance
whose arms are of equal length, and equal in all respects; and
let each arm be equally thick and equally heavy in each part.
For example, let the length of each arm be six hands; and then
let four hands be cut off from one of the arms. It is then evident
that the longer arm is three times as heavy, just as the longer
arm is said to be naturally heavier; because the shorter arm
has only two hands of length. Let there be as many stones (pet­
ra) measuring the weight of each arm, as there are hands.
Then let a weight of six stones be suspended from the end of
the shorter arm. We then argue thus: This weight makes the
beam parallel to the plane of the horizon, as is evident; be­
cause, since a straight line drawn perpendicularly from above,
to the plane of the horizon, makes right angles with the beam,
it is evident by the seventh proposition of the first book of
Euclid that the beam is parallel to the plane of the horizon. But
if one side were heavier than the other, the other arm of the
beam would be lifted upward by it, as is clear from the sixth
postulate; therefore the parts on each side are of equal position­
al gravity. And if this is so, then if anything is added to the
weight, the inclination of the beam will be less. Just as this
proposition is proved geometrically, so all the propositions
stated above, as premises, can be proved by the proportion of
those lines and of their constructed angles.
P .ll The eleventh proposition: IF THE RATIO OF THE WEIGHT
SUSPENDED AT THE END OF THE SHORTER ARM, TO THE
163
 LIBER DE' P O N D E R I B U S
UNDANTIAM PONDERIS MAIORIS PORTIONIS AD MINOREM,
245 SICUT PROPORTIO LONGITUDINIS TOTIUS CANONII AD
DUPLAM LONGITUDINEM MINORIS PORTIONIS, ERIT CAN-
ONIUM PARALLELUM EPIPEDO ORIZONTIS.
Commentum: Prius probatum est quod ad equidistantiam
canonii a superficie orizontis oportet esse pondus iam dictum.
250 Ex quibus sequitur conversa, scilicet quod talis equidistantia
semper fit tali pondere, quia si non sit equidistantia, sequitur
quod que equantur pondere non equantur. Prius enim ostende­
bam brachio longiori pondus in situ coequari vel correspond-
ere; igitur, per suppositionem sextam, neque brachium pondus
255 neque pondus brachium sequitur motu contrario.
P.12 Duodecima propositio: ATQUE EX HIS MANIFESTUM EST
QUONIAM SI FUERIT CANONIUM SYMMETRUM MAGNITU­
DINE ET SUBSTANTIE EIUSDEM, NOTUM LONGITUDINE ET
PONDERE, ET DIVIDATUR IN DUAS PARTES INEQUALES
260 DATAS, TANTUM POSSIBILE ERIT NOBIS INVENIRE PONDUS
QUOD, CUM SUSPENSUM FUERIT A TERMINO MINORIS
PORTIONIS, FACIET CANONIUM PARALLELUM EPIPEDO
ORIZONTIS.
Ista propositio satis patet ex predictis.
265 P.13 Decimatertia propositio: SI FUERIT CANONIUM DATUM
LONGITUDINE, SPISSITUDINE ET GRAVITATE, ET DIVIDA­
TUR IN DUAS PARTES INEQUALES, FUERITQUE SUSPEN­
SUM A TERMINO MINORIS PORTIONIS PONDUS DATUM QUOD
FACIET CANONIUM PARALLELUM EPIPEDO ORIZONTIS,
270 LONGITUDO UTRIUSCUIUSQUE PORTIONIS DATA ERIT.
Commentum: Probatur sic: Longitudine totius canonii nota,
et pondere noto, pone pedem circini in centro medii motus, et
constitue circulum super minorem portionem que secabit, per
diffinitionem circuli, partem equalem de brachio longiori.
275 Parti autem relique equatur portio ablata a termino ubi pendet
pondus, quia ex hac exceditur brachium brachio. Unde habetur
quesitum.
Explicit tractatus de ponderibus magistri Jordanis.
164
LIBER DE PONDERIBUS
EXCESS OF THE WEIGHT OF THE LONGER ARM OVER
THAT OF THE SHORTER ARM, IS AS THE RATIO OF THE
WHOLE LENGTH OF THE BEAM TO TWICE THE LENGTH
OF THE SHORTER ARM, THEN THE BEAM WILL BE PARA­
LLEL TO THE PLANE OF THE HORIZON.
The commentary: It has already been proved, that to hold the
beam parallel to the plane of the horizon, there must be a
weight such as ha's been determined. And from this the con­
verse follows, namely, that such equidistance is always brought
about by such a weight; because if it were not, it would follow
that things which are equivalent in weight are not equivalent in
weight. For I showed before, that the weight in its position is
equal to the longer arm, or corresponds to it; therefore, by the
sixth postulate, the weight is not lifted by the arm, nor the arm
by the weight.
P.12 The twelfth proposition: AND FROM THIS IT IS EVIDENT,
THAT IF THERE IS A BEAM SYMMETRICAL IN MAGNITUDE
AND OF THE SAME SUBSTANCE, WHOSE LENGTH AND
WEIGHT ARE KNOWN, AND IF IT IS DIVIDED INTO TWO GIV­
EN UNEQUAL PARTS, IT IS POSSIBLE FOR US TO DETER­
MINE HOW GREAT A WEIGHT WILL, WHEN SUSPENDED
FROM THE END OF THE SHORTER ARM, HOLD THE BEAM
PARALLEL TO THE PLANE OF THE HORIZON.
This theorem is sufficiently evident from what has been said.
P.13 The thirteenth proposition: IF THERE IS A BEAM OF GIV­
EN LENGTH, THICKNESS AND WEIGHT, AND IF IT IS DIVID­
ED INTO TWO UNEQUAL PARTS, AND IF A GIVEN WEIGHT
SUSPENDED FROM THE END OF THE SHORTER SEGMENT
HOLDS THE BEAM PARALLEL TO THE PLANE OF THE HOR­
IZON, THEN THE LENGTH OF EACH OF THE SEGMENTS
WILL BE GIVEN.
The commentary: This is proved as follows: The length of
the whole beam being known, and its weight being known, you
place the point of a compass on the center of the axis of motion,
and you describe a circle through the shorter arm which will,
by the definition of a circle, cut off an equal segment of the
longer arm. But the part cut off from the end of the longer arm
is equal to the remainder where the weight hangs; because it is
by this that one arm exceeds the other arm. Hence what we
were seeking, is established.
Here ends the treatise on weights of Master Jordanus.
165
 VII

LIB E R JORDANI DE N EM O R E DE RATIO NE PONDERIS

E dited, with Introduction, Translation

and N otes by

ERNEST A , MOODY

with the a ssista n ce of

R A YM O N D C L E M E N T S , ARTH U R D IT Z E L ,
A N D JASON LEW IS SAUNDERS

I
£
4
 I N T R O D U C TI ON

The work which bears the titLe Liber Jordani de ratione pon­
deris (or ponderum), in a number of manuscripts dating from
the thirteenth century, was described by Pierre Duhem as “one
of the most important” works with which the history of mechan­
ics has to deal.'' While this may be an exaggerated statement,
it is true that this treatise is the most impressive and interest­
ing of the writings which belong to the mediaeval science of
weights.
The treatise is in four books, or parts, containing a total of
forty-five theorems with their demonstrations. At the beginning
of the first book we find an initial statement of the same seven
postulates that are found in the Elementa Jordani. Seven of the
theorems of the earlier work are also included in this first
book, four of them having verbally identical proofs, and two of
the others having substantially identical proofs. The theorems
of the earlier work which are omitted in this treatise are the
two erroneous ones on the bent lever—E .6 and E J , Replacing
them is a new and entirely correct theorem on the bent lever,
with an elegant demonstration. The last two theorems of this
first book of the De ratione ponderis have no precedent in any of
the earlier mediaeval statical treatises; they give to this work
: its highest mark of distinction, since they develop, in a wholly
correct and mathematically elegant manner, the first valid so­
lution of the problem of the force required to hold a weight in
equilibrium on an inclined plane. The Greek mathematician,
Pappus, had attempted to solve this problem, offering an ingen­
ious but erroneous solution. Most of the sixteenth century math­
ematicians, including those who showed acquaintance with the
work of Jordanus, adopted the solution of Pappus—no doubt be­
cause the authority of a Greek outweighed that of any “modern"
mathematician in their minds. Galileo, who resolved the prob­
lem correctly as the thirteenth century author of the De ratione
ponderis had done, has traditionally been credited with the first
discovery of the correct solution of the inclined plane problem.
Since the truth is accessible to all, he may well have discovered
this solution without help or suggestion from his mediaeval pre­
decessor; but the mediaeval solution was accessible to Galileo’ s
generation, nevertheless, in the edition of the De ratione ponderis
published at Venice in 1565 by Curtius Trojanus, from a manu­
script which had belonged to Niccolo Tartaglia.
The second book of our treatise contains twelve theorems on
the problems involved in construction of the Roman Balance, •

169
 INTRODUCTION
reflecting the De canonio. The author appears to take pleasure
in contriving the greatest variety of formulations of what is
essentially the same problem. Some development is given in
these theorems to the problem of calculating the effect of sev­
eral weights placed at different points on one arm of the mater­
ial balance beam, perhaps under the influence of Thabit ibn
Qurra’ s Liber karastonis. From the theoretical point of view,
this second book adds nothing new to the older tradition; but it
is of interest because of its use of some fairly advanced alge­
braic procedures in the development of the proofs.
The third book, containing six theorems belonging to statics,
makes some important contributions. The conditions determin­
ing stable and unstable equilibrium are correctly stated and
proved, thereby correcting the error involved in the second part
of E.2 (though this erroneous theorem is still retained in the
first book of the De ratione ponderis). A theorem on the bent
lever (R3.01) bases its proof directly on the law of statical mo­
ment, rather than on the notion of positional gravity and prin­
ciple of work as had been done in the bent lever theorem of the
first book (R1.08). Several of the theorems of this third book
show striking affinity to certain passages of the Mechanical
Problems attributed to Aristotle, as is the case also with num­
erous theorems in the fourth part of the treatise. Though no
mediaeval translation of this Aristotelian work is now known,
the presence of these theorems in the De ratione ponderis gives
sure indication that some parts of the Mechanical Problems were
known, either in a direct translation or through an accurate in­
termediary channel, in the thirteenth century.
The problems treated in the fourth book of the De ratione
ponderis are of a very different type from the statical problems
with which the first three books are concerned. Its seventeen
theorems seek to extend the methods of mathematical analysis
and proof, previously restricted to the statical problems of
weights on lever arm s, to such difficult questions as the move­
ments of heavy bodies through resistant fluid media, variations
of pressure with depth in liquids, the effect of acquired velocity
in augmenting the force of a weight or projectile, and the prob­
lem of elasticity. As might be expected of such an ambitious
undertaking, the theorems and proofs involve numerous errors
and frequent obscurities. Yet they contain some insights and
ideas of potential fertility, and some ingenious efforts to extend
the mathematical method of statics to the obscure and complex
phenomena whose dynamical analysis far surpassed the techni­
cal capacities and theoretical equipment of thirteenth century
mechanics.
The historical interest of this fourth book is very great, not
170
DE RATIONE PONDERIS
only because of the relation of so many of the theorems to an­
cient sources which were supposedly inaccessible to the earlier
thirteenth century, but because the dynamics developed in this
book constitutes something of a connecting link between the
qualitative Aristotelian physics, dominant in the thirteenth cen­
tury, and the new treatments of motion in quantitatively formu-
lable terms associated with the Parisian and Oxford schools of
the fourteenth century. One part of the ancestry of the so-called
“impetus dynamics” of Buridan and his school, which Duhem
heralded as the beginning of modern mechanics, is found in this
treatise—indeed, the word impetus is employed (in R4.15 and
R4.17), though more often the author speaks of “impulsion" (im ­
pulsio) . The meaning attached to these terms is that of a dynam­
ic factor of “violence’' which modifies the natural force due to
the weight of a body. It is conceived on the analogy of the con­
straint force which .modifies the natural downward force of a
weight, in a statical system, making it “heavier" in the position­
al sense. Whereas “positional gravity" is a modification of nat­
ural gravity due to connection of a weight with an axis of rota­
tion, “impulsion” or “impetus" is a modification of natural grav­
ity due to an acquired velocity. The association of these two
concepts is found in the work of Galileo himself, who uses the
terms impeto and momento in both senses—sometimes in the
sense of statical moment, and sometimes in the sense of mo­
mentum (mv).^
Was Jordanus de Nemore the author of this treatise? Pierre
Duhem held this to be doubtful, basing his contention on the fact
that the De ratione ponderis contains theorems on the bent lever
and on the problem of stable and unstable equilibrium which
contradict theorems of the presumably authentic Elementa Jor­
dani. On this ground Duhem regarded the De ratione ponderis
as the work of a gifted disciple of Jordanus, whom he called
“the precursor of Leonardo."^ Duhem's conjecture, in itself
sufficiently feeble, is refuted by all the external evidence, and
his argument is disposed of without great difficulty as long as
we may assume that a fewyears elapsed between the time when
Jordanus composed his Elementa and the time he wrote the long­
er and more original De ratione ponderis.
The external evidence in favor of Jordanus’ authorship is the
unanimous attribution of the treatise to Jordanus by all the ex­
tant manuscripts so far identified.^ It is further substantiated
by the fact that the texts offered in the various manuscript
copies are remarkably in accord in their readings, indicating a
single author. Finally, we have almost contemporary testimony
cf Jordanus’ authorship of the De ratione ponderum, in the list
of books written by Richard Fournival—a man who was already
171
 INTRODUCTION
dead in 1260.^ In the face of this evidence, it would seem un­
reasonable to attribute the work to a completely unknown “dis­
ciple of Jordanus," as Duhem has done.
The fact that the De ratione ponderis replaces the two erron­
eous theorems on the bent lever, of the Elementa, with a new
and correct theorem, indicates only that Jordanus came to see
that these two theorems were erroneous. It is not unusual for a
good mind to make progress, and to recognize and correct past
mistakes—as Galileo did time and again. And if, as we have sug­
gested, the Elementa Jordani was written only as a “comment­
ary” to supply proofs for the set of propositions inherited as a
Liber ponderum ascribed to Euclid, the presence of the two
erroneous theorems in the Elementa Jordani is more easily
understood. There would seem to be no reasont therefore, to
question the authenticity of the De ratione ponderis as a work
of Jordanus de Nemore.
The present edition of the De ratione ponderis rests on four
good manuscript copies, three of which stem from the late thir­
teenth century. The best, and probably the earliest of these
manuscript copies are those of Ms.' lat. 8680 A of the Biblio­
theque Nationale at Paris, and of Ms. Auct. F .5.28 of the Bod­
leian Library at Oxford; our text gives preference in most read­
ings to these two manuscripts. Ms. Harleian 13 of the British
Museum, also presumed to be of thirteenth century origin, offers
a less careful copy of the work, and contains a substantial num­
ber of omissions due to homoioteleuta. Codex Vaticanus Regin-
ensis 1261, apparently of late fourteenth or early fifteenth cen­
tury origin, affords a well written and reliable text in close con­
formity with the versions of our base manuscripts, but it con­
tains several interpolations which clearly do not belong to the
original work. The edition published by Curtius Trojanus at
Venice in 1565, under the title Jordani Opusculum de ponderos-
itate, has been used in supplementary manner; it represents a
good manuscript tradition, so that its readings, apart from the
printer’ s errors, can be given some weight.
Because of the greater length of the treatise, we have provided
the variant readings and explanatory notes separately for each
of the four books. The lines of the text are numbered continu­
ously for each book, and we have used the decimal notation, with
the letter “R” prefixed, for the postulates and theorems. The
numeral following on the initial letter “R ,” and preceding the
decimal point, indicates which of the four books the proposition
belongs to, and the numerals following on the decimal point in­
dicate the proposition (postulate or theorem) within the book in
question. The seven postulates, which occur at the beginning of
Book I, are numbered Rl.OOl to Rl.007, the theorems of Book I
172
DE RATIONE PONDERIS
are numbered R1.01 to Rl. 10, those of Book II R2.01 to R2.12,and
so on. We have also followed the convention, used in our text of
the Elementa Jordani, of using underlined small letters for those
references to the diagrams which are intended to indicate
weights, and Roman capitals for those references which indicate
positions or lengths. The diagrams themselves, which corre­
spond closely to those found on the margins of our manuscripts,
have been constructed on the basis of the indications given by
the text itself, thereby eliminating such small errors as occur
in the marginal diagrams of the various manuscripts.
The sigla of our four manuscripts, and of the edition, are as
follows;
A = Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale Ms. lat. 8680 A, fols.
6v-llv; 13th century.
H = Vatican City, Cod. Vat. Reginensis 1261, fols. 50r-
55v; I4th-15th centuries.
^ = London, British Museum, M s. Harleian 13, fols.
I33v-I40r; late 13th century.
Q = Oxford, Bodleian Library, Ms. Auct. F .5.28, fols.
125v-133r; 13th century.
Y = Jordani Opusculum de ponderositate, Nicolai
Tartaleae studio correctum. Venetiis, apud
Curtium Trojanum. 1565.
Other manuscripts which contain all or part of the De ratione
ponderis, known to us by personal report or by indications of
manuscript catalogues, include the following;
(1) Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale Ms. lat. 7378 A ; a 13th
century copy, but carelessly and illegibly written.
(2) Cambridge, University Library, Ms. 2327 (Mm. III. 11),
fols. I39r-I44r; 15th century.
(3) Escorial, Cod, lat. N. II. 26, fols. 34r-43r.
(4) Vatican City, Cod. Vat. Lat. 3102, fols. 30v-37r; this
contains only Books II-IV of the De ratione ponderis,
preceded by the Elementa Jordani.
(5) Erfurt, Cod. Amploniensis F .37, fols. 53-56; 14th
century. The catalogue prepared by Schum indicates
that on these pages are contained “Quinque libri
Jordani de ponderibus;” we merely conjecture that
the four books of the De ratione ponderis are in­
cluded, the fifth perhaps being the Elementa Jordani.
173
 DE RATIONE PONDERIS
(6) Erfurt, Cod. Amploniensis Q.376, fols. 143-150; L4th
century. This text commences with the incipit of
the prologue, “Cum scientia de ponderibus," found
in our version “P” ; but the desinit, as indicated by
Schum’ s catalogue, suggests that the four books of
the De ratione ponderis are contained in these
folios, since it is stated, “Explicit quartus liber
Jordani de ponderibus."
J O R D A N I DE N E M O R E
L I B E R DE R A T I O N E P O N D E R I S
PARS PRIMA
(Suppositiones)
1 Rl.OOl Omnis ponderosi motum esse ad medium, virtutemque
ipsius esse potentiam ad inferiora tendendi et motui contrario
resistendi.
Rl.002 Quod gravius est, velocius descendere.
5 Rl.003 Gravius esse in descendendo, quanto eiusdem motus
ad medium rectior.
R1.004 Secundum situm gravius esse, cuius in eodem situ
minus obliquus descensus.
Rl.005 Obliquiorem autem descensum, in eadem quantitate
10 minus capere de directo.
Rl.006 Minus grave aliud alio secundum situm, quod descensum
alterius sequitur contrario motu,
Rl.007 Situm equalitatis esse equalitatem angulorum circa
perpendiculum, sive rectitudinem angulorum, sive equidistant -
15 iam regule superficiei orizontis.
(P ropositiones)
Rl.Ol INTER QUELIBET GRAVIA EST VIRTUTIS ET PONDER­
IS EODEM ORDINE SUMPTA PROPORTIO.
Sint pondera a^b et c, levius c. Descendatque ab in D et c in
E; itemque pellatur ab sursum in F, et c^ in H. Dico ergo quod
20 AD ad CE sicut ab ponderis ad pondus; quanta enim virtus
ponderosi, tanta descendendi velocitas. Atqui compositi virtus
ex virtutibus componentium componitur. Sit ergo a equale c_,
que igitur virtus a eadem et c . Si ergo proportio ab ad c_ minor
quam virtutis ad virtutem, erit similiter proportio ab ad a
25 minor proportio quam virtutis ab ad virtutem a. Ergo virtutis
ab ad virtutem minor proportio quam ab ad b; similium ergo
ponderum minor et maior proportio quam virtutum. Et quia
hoc est inconveniens, erit utrobique eadem; ideoque ab ad c_
174
THE B O O K OF J O R D A N U S DE N E M O R E
ON T H E T H E O R Y O F W E I G H T
PART ONE
(Postulates)
Rl.OOl The movement of every weight is toward the center (of
the world), and its force is a power of tending downward and of
resisting movement in the contrary direction.
Rl.002 That which is heavier descends more quickly.
Rl.003 It is heavier in descending, to the degree that its move­
ment toward the center (of the world) is more direct.
Rl.004 It is heavier in position when in that position its path of
descent is less oblique.
Rl.005 A more oblique descent is one which, in the same
distance, partakes less of the vertical.
Rl.006 One weight is less heavy in position, than another, if it
is caused to ascend by the descent of the other.
Rl.007 The position of equality is that of equality of angles to
the vertical, or such that these are right angles, or such that
the beam is parallel to the plane of the horizon.
(Theorems)
Rl.Ol BETWEEN ANY HEAVY BODIES, THE FORCES ARE DI­
RECTLY PROPORTIONAL TO THE WEIGHTS.
Let there be two weights, ab and c, of which c^is the lighter.
And let ab descend to D, and let c^ descend to E. Again, let ab
be raised to F , and c_ raised to H. I then say that the distance
AD is to the distance CE, as the weight ab is to the weight c_;
for the velocity of descending is as great as the force of the
weight. But the force of the combined weight consists of the
forces of its components. Let the weight a^then be equal to the
weight Cj so that a/s force is the same as that of c. If then the
ratio of the weight aJb to the weight c^ is less than the ratio of
the force of ab to the force of c, the ratio of the weight ab to
(its component weight) a will likewise be less than the ratio of
175
 DE RATIONE PONDERIS
d e r a t i o n e p o n d e r i s

the force of ab to the force of a. And therefore the ratio of the

sicut AD ad CE, et econtrario sicut CH ad AF. force of alb to that of b will likewise be less than the ratio of
the weight ab to the weight b. Consequently the ratio of the
same weights will be both greater and less than the ratio of
their forces. Since this is absurd, the proportion must be the
same in both cases. Hence the weight ab is to the weight c, as
the distance AD is to the distance CE, and conversely as the
A fob distance CH is to the distance AF.

(Fig. Rl.Ol)
Rl.OZ WHEN THE BEAM OF A BALANCE OF EQUAL. ARMS IS
30 Rl.02 CUM EQUILIBRI5 FUERIT POSITIO EQUALIS, EQUIS
IN THE HORIZONTAL POSITION, THEN, IF EQUAL WEIGHTS
PONDERIBUS APPENSIS, AB EQUALITATE NON DISCEDET;
ARE SUSPENDED FROM ITS EXTREMITIES, IT WILL NOT
ET SI A RECTITUDINE SEPARETUR, AD EQUALITATIS LEAVE THE HORIZONTAL POSITION; AND IF IT IS MOVED
SITUM REVERTETUR. SI VERO INEQUALIA APPENDANTUR,
FROM THE HORIZONTAL POSITION, IT WILL REVERT TO
EX PARTE GRAVIORIS USQUE AD DIRECTIONEM DECLIN-
IT. BUT IF UNEQUAL WEIGHTS ARE SUSPENDED, THE BAL­
35 ARE COGETUR. ANCE WILL FALL ON THE SIDE OF THE HEAVIER WEIGHT
UNTIL IT REACHES THE VERTICAL POSITION.
A balance is said to be of equal arms, when the arms of the
Equilibris dicitur quando beam, measured from the axis of rotation, are equal. Let the
a centro circumvolutionis axis, then, be A, and the beam BAC; and let the suspended
F
brachia regule sunt equalia. weights be b and c^, and let FA be the line of the vertical. If
Sit ergo centrum A et reg- then we describe a circle through B and C, the mid point of its
40 ula BAC, appensa b^ et c, et lower half being E, it is evident that the descent of both b and c^
perpendiculum FA. Circum­ will be along the circumference of the circle, toward E. And
ducto igitur circulo per B since the descents along these paths are of equal obliquity, and
et C, in medio cuius infer­ since b and c are equal weights, therefore neither of them will
ioris medietatis sit E, man- move.
43 ifestum quoniam descensus Let it now be supposed that the balance is pushed down on
tam b quam c^ est per c ir ­ the side of b, and elevated correspondingly on the side of c^. I
cumferentiam circuli versus say that it will revert to the horizontal position. For the descent
E; et cum eque obliquus sit from C toward the horizontal position is less oblique than the
hinc inde descensus, cum sint descent from B toward E. For let there be taken equal arcs, as
(Fig. Rl.02a)
50 eque ponderosa, non mutabit small as you please, which we will call DC and BG; and let the
alterutrum. lines CZL and DMN, and also BKH and GYT, be drawn parallel
Ponatur item quod submittatur ex parte b^ et ascendat ex
to the horizontal. And let fall, vertically, the diameter
parte c. Dico quoniam redibit ad equalitatem; est enim minus
FRZMAKYE. Then ZM will be greater than KY, because if an
obliquus descensus a C ad equalitatem, quam a B versus E.
arc CX, equal to CD, is taken in the direction of F , and if the
55 Sumantur enim deorsum arcus equates quantumlibet parvi, line XRS is drawn horizontally, then RZ will be smaller than
qui sint CD, BG. Et ductis lineis ad equidistantiam equalitatis, ZM; and since RZ is equal to KY, ZM will be greater than KY.,
que sint CZL et DMN, item BKM, GYT, demittatur ortogona- C', ^ ( . A' .
177 0 , V, . '
176
 DE RATIONE PONDERIS
d e r a t i o n e PONDERIS
Since therefore any arc you please, which is beneath C, has a
liter descendens diameter greater component of the vertical than an arc equal to it which
que sit FRZMAKYE, E rit- is taken beneath B, the descent from C is more direct than the
60 que ZM maior KY, quia descent from B; and hence c^ will be heavier in its more eleva­
sumpto versus F arcu CX ted position, than b. Therefore it will revert to the horizontal
qui sit equalis CD, et ducta position.
ex transverso linea XRS, Now let b be heavier than c, and let the balance be in the hor­
erit RZ minor ZM; et quia izontal position. Then, since the descent on each side is of
65 RZ est equalis KY, erit ZM equal obliquity, it is evident that Id will descend. For let b be
maior KY. Quia igitur quili­ placed in any position you please, below, with c above. I say
bet arcus sub C plus capit that in this position b^ will still be heavier. For let the vertical
de directo quam ei equalis lines CD and BH be drawn; and let the lines BL and CM be tan­
sub B, directior est descen- gents to the circle; and let the arc CZ be drawn, similar and
70 sus a C quam a B; et ideo equal to the arc BE, and similarly placed, so that the line CM
in altiori situ gravius erit is tangent to it as well as to the circle. Then the obliquity of
(Fig. Rl.OZb)
c quam b. Redibit ergo ad v_ 0 the arcs BE and CZ is measured by the angle DCZ, and the
equalitatem. obliquity of the arc CE by the angle DCM; and the proportion of
Sit item b gravius quam c , et ponantur equaliter. Quia igitur
the angle DCZ to the angle DCM is smaller than any ratio that
75 utrobique est eque obliquus descensus, patet quia b descendet.
can be assigned between a greater and a lesser quantity. There­
Ponatur enim inferius fore it will also be less than the ratio of the weight b to the
ubilibet, et c_ superius. Dico weight c^. Since then b exceeds c to a greater extent than the
quia etiam in hoc situ erit obliquity exceeds the obliquity, b will be heavier in this posi­
gravius b. Demittantur enim tion than £. For this reason b will not cease to descend, and c
80 directe linee CD, BH; et to ascend, until the beam is in the position FE.
contingentes circulum sint
linee B L, CM; et sit arcus
CZ similis et equalis et in
eodem situ cum arcu BE,
85 quem etiam linea CM con­
tinget. Et quia obliquitas
arcuum BE, C Z, est angu­
lus DCZ, et obliquitas arcus
CE est in angulo DCM, atque
90 proportio anguli DCZ ad an­
gulum DCM est minor quali­
(Fig. Rl.OZc)
bet proportione que est inter -- -
maiorem et minorem quantitatem, minor etiam erit quam pon­
deris b ad pondus c. Cum ergo plus addat b super c^, quam
95 obliquitas super obliquitatem, gravius erit b in hoc situ quam
_c. Hac ratione non desinet b^ descendere, et c ascendere,
usque FE.
R1.03 IN WHICHEVER DIRECTION A WEIGHT IS DISPLACED
R1.03 OMNE PONDUS, IN QUAMCUMQUE PARTEM AB EQUA-
FROM THE POSITION OF EQUALITY, IT BECOMES LIGHTER
LITATE DISCEDAT, SECUNDUM SITUM FIT LEVIUS.
IN POSITION.
For above the horizontal position let there be designated two
100 Supra enim locum equalitatis duo loca signentur, supra et
points, one higher and the other lower. And from each of these
infra; et ab omnibus arcus resecentur ab inferiori equaies
179
178
 DE RATIONE PONDERIS
DE RATIONE PONDERIS

let equal arcs, as small as you please, be taken on the lower

utlibet parvi; et qui est sub loco equalitatis plus capiet de
side. Then the arc which is taken beneath the position of equal­
directo. ity will have the greater vertical component.

Rl.04 WHEN EQUAL WEIGHTS ARE SUSPENDED FROM A BAL­

Rl.04 CUM FUERINT APPENSORUM PONDERA EQUALIA,
ANCE OF EQUAL ARMS, INEQUALITY OF THE PENDANTS
105 NON FACIET NUTUM IN EQUILIBRI APPENDICULORUM
BY WHICH THEY ARE HUNG WILL NOT DISTURB THEIR
INEQUALITAS. EQUILIBRIUM.
Let the balance beam be ACB, its axis at C; the supporting
Sit regula ACB, centrum cords AD and BE, with BE the longer; and the suspended
C, et appendicula AD et BE, weights d_ and e. Then draw the perpendicular CZY as long as
longius autem BE, appensa
you please, and draw DZ and EY parallel to the beam of the
110 d et Descendatque CZY
balance. Then, with centers at Z and Y, let quarter circles be
ortogonaliter quantumlibet;
described through D and E; and since DZ and EY are equal, the
et ductis DZ et EY equidis-
quarter circles will also be equal. And because the descent of
tantibus regule, et positis
D and E is along the circumferences of these quarter circles,
centris in Z et Y, circum -
and because cl and are of equal weight, and their descents are
115 ducantur quarte circulorum
of equal obliquity, they will be equally heavy in position. There­
per D et E. Et quoniam DZ
fore the balance beam will not move one way or the other.
et EY sunt equales, erunt et
That their descent is along these paths, is shown in this way.
quarte circulorum equales.
Let a semicircle be drawn around C as a center, with radius
Et quia per illorum circum-
equal to BC or AC; and let A descend to M, and B to N. And
120 ferentias est descensus D et
from M and N, to the circumferences of the quarter circles,
E, cum eque ponderosa sint
draw the lines MX and NH parallel to CZ. I say that MX is equal
d et e, et eque obliquus de­
to AD, and that NH is equal to BE; which is evident if the lines
scensus, in hoc situ eque
ZX and YH are drawn. Since therefore A and B descend always
gravia erunt. Non ergo mu-
along this sem icircle, D and E will likewise descend through
125 tabit hinc vel inde regula. (Fig. Rl.04)
the quarter circles drawn. And this is what was to be proved.
Quod autem per illas sit iliorum descensus, sic constat. De­
scribatur enim semicirculus circa centrum C, secundum
quantitatem B et A; et demittatur A in M et B in N; descendant-
' - :■ * , . . ' .a ;
, _M t ■;/
que ab M et N, ad quartarum circumferentias, linee MX et NH
; ‘ i v■ ' 1)
130 equidistantes C Z. Dico quod MX adequatur AD, et NH equalis
est BE; quod patet, ductis lineis ZX, YH. Cum ergo semper
descendant A et B per hunc semicirculum, descendent etiam D
et E per descriptas quartas. Et hoc fuit demonstrandum.
Rl.05 IF THE ARMS OF THE BALANCE ARE UNEQUAL, THEN,
R1.05 SI BRACHIA LIBRE FUERINT INEQUALIA, EQUALIBUS
IF EQUAL WEIGHTS ARE SUSPENDED FROM THEIR EXTRE­
135 APPENSIS, EX PARTE LONGIORE NUTUM FACIET.
MITIES, THE BALANCE WILL BE DEPRESSED ON THE SIDE
OF THE LONGER ARM.
Sit regula ACB, et sit AC longior quam CB. Dico quod appen­ Let the balance beam be ACB, and let AC be longer than CB.
sis equalibus ponderibus que sint a_ et b^, declinabit ex parte A. I say that if equal weights are suspended, namely a_ and b, the
Demissa enim perpendiculari CFG, circinentur due quarte cir­ balance will be depressed on the side of A. For let the perpen­
culorum circa centrum C, que sint AG, BF. Et eductis contin- dicular CFG be drawn, and let two quarter circles, AG and BF,
140 gentibus ab A et B, que sint AE et BD, palam est minorem be described around the center C; and let the tangents AE and
esse angulum EAG quam DBF, et ideo minor obliquus descen- BD be drawn from A and B. It is then plain that the angle EAG
. ... ; •’ •i
180 181 v* / *i•* i k ' ! •; > i^
 DE RATIONE PONDERIS
sus per AG quam per BF. Gravius ergo a quam b_ in hoc situ.
(Fig. Rl.05)
R1.Q6 SI FUERINT BRACHIA LIBRE PROPORTIONALIA PON­
DERIBUS APPENSORUM, ITA UT IN BREVIORI GRAVIUS
145 APPENDATUR, EQUE GRAVIA ERUNT SECUNDUM SITUM
APPENSA.
D weights a and b; and let the ratio of b to a be as the ratio of AC
(Fig. Rl.06)
Sit ut prius regula ACB, appensa a et b; sitque proportio b ad
a tanquam AC ad BC. Dico quod non mutabit iii aliquam partem
libra. Sit enim ut ex parte B descendat; transeatque in obliqu-
150 um linea DCE loco ACB. Et appensa d ut a, et e_ ut b, et DG
linea ortogonaliter descendat et EH ascendat, palam autem
quoniam trianguli DCG et ECH similes sunt, quare proportio
DC ad CE que DG ad EH. Atqui DC ad CE sicut b ad a; ergo DG
ad EH sicut b ad a. Sit igitur CL equalis CB et CE, etj_ equum
155 b in pondere, et descendat perpendicularis LM. Quia igitur LM
18Z
DE RATIONE PONDERIS
is smaller than the angle DBF, and that therefore the descent
along AG is less oblique than along BF. In this position, con­
sequently, ;i is heavier than b.
Rl.06 IF THE ARMS OF A BALANCE ARE PROPORTIONAL
TO THE WEIGHTS SUSPENDED, IN SUCH MANNER THAT
THE HEAVIER WEIGHT IS SUSPENDED FROM THE SHORTER
ARM, THE WEIGHTS WILL HAVE EQUAL POSITIONAL
GRAVITY.
Let the balance beam be ACB, as before, and the suspended
to BC. I say that the balance will not move in either direction.
For let it be supposed that it descends on the side of B; and let
the line DCE be drawn obliquely to the position of ACB. If then
the weight d, equal to a, and the weight e^ equal to b, are sus­
pended, and if the line DG is drawn vertically downward and
the line EH vertically upward, it is evident that the triangles
DCG and ECH are similar, so that the proportion of DC to CE
is the same as that of DG to EH. But DC is to CE as b is to a;
therefore DG is to EH as b^is to a. Then suppose CL to be
equal to CB and to CE, and let^ be equal in weight to b; and
draw the perpendicular LM. Since then LM and EH are shown
to be equal, DG will be to LM as b is to a, and as l is to a.
But, as has been shown, a_andj_are inversely proportional to
their contrary (upward) motions. Therefore, what suffices to
lift a to D, will suffice to lift _l_ through the distance LM. Since
therefore _l_ and b are equal, and LC is equal to CB, l is not
lifted by b; and consequently a will not be lifted by b, which is
what is to be proved.
183
 DE RATIONE PONDERIS
et EH constat esse equates, erit DG ad LM sicut b ad a, et
sicut _L_ ad a. Sed, ut ostensum est, a et proportionaliter se
habent ad contrarios motus alternatim. Quod ergo sufficit
attollere a in D, sufficiet attollere ^ secundum LM. Cum ergo
160 equalia sint J, et b, et LC equale C B .^non sequitur b contrario
motu, neque a sequetur b, secundum quod proponitur.
RI.Q7 SI DUO OBLONGA, PER TOTUM SIMILIA ET QUANTI­
TATE ET PONDERE EQUALIA, APPENDANTUR ITA UT A L ­
TERUM DIRIGATUR, ALTERUM ORTOGONALITER DEPEND-
165 EAT, ITA ETIAM UT TERMINI DEPENDENTIS ET MEDII
ALTERIUS EADEM SIT A CENTRO DISTANTIA, SECUNDUM
HUNC SITUM EQUE GRAVIA FIENT.
(Fig. Rl.07)
Sint termini regule A et B, centrum C; et appensa, quod qui­
dem dirigitur secundum situm regule ad equidistantiam orizon-
170 tis sit ADE, medium eius D, et alterum dependens BG. Sitque
BC tanquam CAD. Dico quod ADE et BG in hoc situ eque gravia
sunt. Ad huius evidentiam dicimus quod si regula ex parte A
sit ut CE, et appendantur in A et E duo pondera equalia que
sint z et y, et duplum utriusque appendatur ad B, quod sit xl,
175 erit etiam in hoc situ xl tanquam z et ^ in pondere. Sint enim x
et l dimidia eius; eritque ponderis x ad pondus z tanquam BC
ad CE, et item ponderis JL_ ad pondus y in hoc situ sicut BC ad
CA. Itaque erit xl_ ad y et y, sicut ad EC et AC duplum CB; et
quia duplum CB est ut CA et CE, erit xl equale y et y in pon-
180 dere in hoc situ. Hac ergo ratione, quoniam omnes partes BG
pondere sunt equates et in hoc situ, et quelibet due partes ADE
equaliter a D distantes sunt in pondere equales duabus equis
partibus BG, sequitur ut totum toti.
R1.08 SI INEQUALLA FUERINT BRACHIA LIBRE, ET IN CEN-
185 TRO MOTUS ANGULUM FECERINT, SI TERMINI EORUM AD
DIRECTIONEM HINC INDE EQUALITER ACCESSERINT,
184
DE RATIONE PONDERIS
Rl.07 IF TWO OBLONG BODIES, WHOLLY SIMILAR AND
EQUAL IN SIZE AND WEIGHT, ARE SUSPENDED ON A BAL­
ANCE IN SUCH MANNER THAT ONE IS FIXED HORIZONT­
ALLY ONTO ONE ARM, AND THE OTHER IS HUNG VERTI­
CALLY, AND SO THAT THE DISTANCE FROM THE AXIS OF
SUPPORT TO THE POINT FROM WHICH THE VERTICALLY
SUSPENDED BODY HANGS, IS THE SAME AS THE DISTANCE
FROM THE AXIS TO THE MID POINT OF THE OTHER BODY,
THEN THEY WILL BE OF EQUAL POSITIONAL GRAVITY.
Let A and B be the ends of the balance beam, C the axis; and
let the body which is fixed horizontally along the plane of the
balance beam, be ADE, with D its mid point; and let the other
body, which hangs, be BG. And let BC be equal to CAD. I say
that ADE and BG, in this position, will be of equal heaviness.
To make this evident, we say that if the beam, on the side of A,
were as long as CE, and if there were suspended at A and E
two equal weights, y and y, and if a weight double one of these,
xl, were suspended from B, then also in this position xl would
be equal in heaviness to y and y. For let its halves be x and l;
then the weight x will be to the weight y, as BC is to CE; and
the weight_l will be to the weight y, in this position, as BC is to
CA. Hence xl^ will be to z plus y, as twice CB is to EC plus AC.
And because twice BC is equal to CA plus CE, xl will be equal
in weight to y plus y, in this position. For this reason, since
ail the parts of BG are also of equal positional gravity, and
since any two parts of ADE equidistant from D are equal in
weight to two equal parts of BG, it follows that the whole of
ADE is equal to the whole of BG.
R1.08 IF THE ARMS OF A BALANCE ARE UNEQUAL, AND
FORM AN ANGLE AT THE AXIS OF SUPPORT, THEN, IF
THEIR ENDS ARE EQUIDISTANT FROM THE VERTICAL
185
 DE RATIONE PONDERIS DE RATIONE PONDERIS

EQUALIA APPENSA IN HAC DISPOSITIONE EQUALITER LINE PASSING THROUGH THE AXIS OF SUPPORT, EQUAL
WEIGHTS SUSPENDED FROM THEM WILL, AS SO PLACED,
PONDERABUNT.
BE OF EQUAL HEAVINESS.
Sit centrum C, brachia Let the axis be C, the longer arm AC, and the shorter arm
BC. And draw the vertical line CEG; and let the lines AC and
190 AC longius, BC brevius; et
descendat perpendiculariter BE, perpendicular to this vertical, be equal. When, therefore,
CEG, supra quam perpendi­ equal weights are suspended at A and B, they will not change
culariter cadant hinc inde from this position. For let AG and BE be extended by a dis­
AG et BE equales. Cum sint tance equal to their own length, to K and to Z; and on them let
195 ergo equalia appensa a_ et the arcs of circles, MBHZ and KXAL, be drawn; and let the
b, ab hac positione non mu­ arcs AX and AL be equal to each other, and similar to the arcs
tabuntur. Pertranseant MB and BH. And let the arcs AY and AF also be equal and sim­
enim equaliter AG et BE, ilar. If then a is heavier in this position than b, let it be sup­
ad K et Z; et super eas posed that a descends to X and that b is raised to M. Then draw
200 fiant portiones circulorum the lines ZM, KXY, KFL; and let MP be erected perpendicular­
MBHZ, KXAL, circa cen­ ly on ZBP, and XT and FD on KAD. And because MP is equal
trum C. Fiat item portio to FD, while FD is greater than XT—on account of similar tr i­
KYAF similis et equalis angles—, MP will also be greater than XT. Hence b will be lift­
portioni MBHZ; et sint ed vertically more than <1 will descend vertically, which is im ­
205 arcus AX, AL, equales possible since they are of equal weight. Again, let it be sup­
sibi atque similes arcubus posed that b descends to H and lifts a_ to L; and let HR fall per­
MB, BH; itemque A Y , A F. pendicularly on BZ, and LN and YO on KAN. Then LN will be
Si ergo ponderosius est a greater than YO, and consequently greater than HR; so that in
quam b in hoc situ, de- (Fig. Rl.08a) the same way the impossible will result.
210 scendat a in X et ascendet b in M. Ducantur ergo linee ZM, To make this more evident, let us draw a different figure, as
KXY, KFL; et MP super ZBP stet perpendiculariter, et XT et follows: Let there be a vertical line YKCNZ, and around the
FD super KAD. Et quia MP equatur FD, et ipsa est maior XT, center C let there be drawn two sem icircles, YAEZ and KBDN;
per similes triangulos, erit MP maior XT; quare plus ascendit and let the lines AFE and BD be drawn at equal distances from
b secundum rectitudinem, quam a_ descendit, quod est im possi- the diameter, ard from these let there be drawn the equal per­
215 bile cum sint equalia. Descendat item b in H, et trahat a_ in L; pendiculars BL and CF. Then draw the lines CB, CA, CE, and
et cadant perpendiculariter HR super B Z, et LN et YO super CD. If we then suppose that equal weights are suspended at A,
KAN; fietque LN maior YO, et ideo maior HR; unde similiter B, D, E, and F, they will be of equal positional gravity. For if
colligetur impossibile. the lines BA, BXF, BE, DA, DF, and DE are drawn, all of them
Ad maiorem autem evidentiam describamus figuram aliam will be bisected by the diameter—as for instance BXF. For
220 hoc modo: Esto linea recta YKCNZ, et circa centrum C descri­ since BL and CF are equal, and the triangles BLX and CFX are
bantur hinc inde duo semicirculi YAEZ, KBDN; et transeant similar, BX will be equal to XF. And in the same manner the
linee equidistantes a diametro, AFE et BD; ducteque perpendi­ others will be divided at their mid points. Therefore, since the
culares hinc inde fiant equales, ut BL et CF. Protractis item mid points of all the lines are placed at a common center, so
lineis CB, CA, CE, CD, posito quod pondera equalia sint in likewise the weights are placed; therefore they will be of equal
225 A, B, D, E, F, in hoc situ eque ponderosa erunt. Ducte enim heaviness.
linee BA, BXF, BE, DA, DF, DE, omnes secabuntur per equa A more subtle variant may, however, be added, if we suppose
apud diametrum, veluti BXF; quia enim BL et CF sunt equales, that a_ is heavier than b, b^ heavier than _f, {_ heavier than d_, and
et trianguli BLX, CFX, sunt sim iles, erit BX equalis XF; et d heavier than e. Yet d is not able to lift ej for the segment of
ita omnes divise erunt per medium. Quare ergo in medio the line DE on the side of E would immediately become greater.
230 omnium sint centra posita, sic sunt pondera posita; equaliter But if is given an impulse downward, it is able to raise b; and
ergo ponderant. similarly b can raise a_; and d can raise a_ and a^ can raise d;

186 187
 DE RATIONE PONDERIS
DE RATIONE PONDERIS

Subtilius tamen quedam dif­ and b can raise _f and _f can raise b; until they make a complete
ferentia potest perpendi, ut sit revolution, and hang in such manner that the angle with the
a ponderosius quam b, et b^ axis is beneath them. For when b^is moved downward, the seg­
23 5 quam f, et _f quam d, et d quam ment of the line BA, on the side of B, will become steadily
e. Nec tamen potest d elevare longer, and b will become heavier.
e; statim enim portio linee DE
versus E fieret maior. Sed <1
potest, nutu facto, trahere b,
240 et b similiter aj et d, a_; et a_,
d; et b, L et_f, b; donec c ir ­
cumvoluta dependeant ut sit
angulus supra centrum sub
ipso. Motu enim b^ inferius,
245 crescet semper pars linee BA
versus B, et fiet b gravius.

(Fig. Rl.08b)

Rl.09 EQUALITAS DECLINATIONIS IDENTITATEM CONSERV-

Rl.09 EQUALITY OF THE DECLINATION CONSERVES THE
AT PONDERIS.
IDENTITY OF THE WEIGHT.
Declinationis equalitas tantum
Only on a rectilinear path is equality of declination conserved.
250 in via recta conservatur; et
A Let this path be on the line AB, and let the line AC descend
ipsa sit in linea AB, et recte
vertically. And let two points, D and E, be assigned on AB. Any
descendens linea sit AC.
weight you please, then, whether it descends from D, or from
Sintque in AB duo loca D et
E, will retain the same heaviness. For equal segments of AB,
E. Sive ergo a D descendat
taken beneath D and E, will have equal components of the ver­
255 quodlibet pondus, sive ab
tical. This is shown, if we draw perpendiculars to the line AC,
E, eiusdem ponderis erit.
from these points, namely FH and GL, and if we let the lines
Equates enim partes, sub D
DK and EM fall perpendicularly on them. Thus, whether a
et E sumpte, equaliter
weight is extended along AB, or placed there all at once, it will
capiunt de directo; quod
be of the same heaviness.
2(>0 patet, ductis perpendicular­
ibus ad AC ab eisdem locis,
que sint FH, GL, et demissis
ortogonaliter super illas DK
et EM lineis. Unde, sive ex­
M5 tendatur pondus super AB,
sive simul ponatur, unius
ponderis est.

188
189
 DE RATIONE PONDERIS DE RATIONE PONDERIS

Rl.lO SI PER DIVERSARUM OBLIQUITATUM VIAS DUO PON­ Rl.lO IF TWO WEIGHTS DESCEND ALONG DIVERSELY IN­
DERA DESCENDANT, FUERIT QUE DECLINATIONUM ET CLINED PLANES, THEN, IF THE INCLINATIONS ARE DI­
270 PONDERUM UNA PROPORTIO EODEM ORDINE SUMPTA, RECTLY PROPORTIONAL TO THE WEIGHTS, THEY WILL
UNA ERIT UTRIUSQUE VIRTUS IN DESCENDENDO. BE OF EQUAL FORCE IN DESCENDING.
Sit Linea ABC equidistans Let there be a Line ABC parallel to the horizon, and let BD
orizonti, et super eam orto- be erected vertically on it; and from D draw the lines DA and
gonaliter erecta sit BD, a D DC, with DC of greater obliquity. I then mean by proportion of
275 qua descendant hinc inde inclinations, not the ratio of the angles, but of the lines taken
linee DA, DC. Sitque DC to where a horizontal line cuts off an equal segment of the ver­
maioris obliquitatis. P ro­ tical. Let the weight e, then, be on DC, and the weight h on DA;
portionem igitur declina­ and let e_ be to h as DC is to DA. I say that those weights are
tionum dico non angulorum, of the same force in this position. For let DK be a line of the
280 sed linearum usque ad same obliquity as DC, and let there be on it a weight g, equal
equidistantem resectionem to e. If then it is possible, suppose that e_ descends to L, and
in qua equaliter sumunt de draws h up to M. And let GN be equal to HM, which in turn is
directo. Sit ergo e_ pondus equal to EL. Then let a perpendicular on DB be drawn from G
super DC, et h super DA; to H, which will be GHY; and another from L, which will be
285 et sit e^ ad h sicut DC ad TL. Then, on GHY, erect the perpendiculars NZ and MX; and
AD. Dico ea esse unius on LT, erect the perpendicular ER. Since then the proportion
virtutis in hoc situ. Sit of NZ to NG is as that of DY to DG, and hence as that of DB to
enim DK linea unius obii- DK, and since likewise MX is to MH as DB is to DH, MX will
' quitatis cum DC: et pondus be to NZ as DK is to DA—that is, as the weight £ is to the
290 super eam, £, equale est e. (Fig. Rl.lO) weight h. But because e does not suffice to lift g^ to N, it will
Si igitur possibile est, descendat e^ in L, et trahat h in M. Sit­ not suffice to lift h to M. Therefore they will remain as they
que GN equale HM, quod etiam equale est EL. Et transeat per are.
G et H, perpendicularis super DB; sitque GHY; et ab L, TL; et
tunc super GHY, NZ, MK; et super LT, ER. Quia igitur propor- Here ends the first part.
295 tio NZ ad NG sicut DY ad DG, et ideo sicut DB ad DK, et quia
similiter MX ad MH sicut DB ad DA, erit MX ad NZ sicut DK
ad DA, et hoc est sicut g^ ad h. Sed quia e non sufficit attollere
£ in N, nec sufficiet attollere h in M. Sic ergo manebunt.

Explicit pars prima.

t
190 191
 DE RATIONE PONDERIS
DE RATIONE PONDERIS
PARS SECUNDA
PART TWO
1 R2.0! CUM SIT REGULA LIBRE UNIUS PONDERIS ET GROS-
SITIEI PER TOTUM, ET IPSA IN PONDERE DATA, SI PER R2.01 WHEN THERE IS A BALANCE BEAM OF UNIFORM
INEQUALIA DIVIDATUR ATQUE EX PARTE BREVIORE DE­ WEIGHT AND THICKNESS THROUGHOUT, AND ITS WEIGHT
PENDEAT EQUABILITER PONDUS DATUM, ERUNT ET POR- IS KNOWN, IF IT IS DIVIDED INTO UNEQUAL SEGMENTS
5 TIONES REGULE QUE SUNT A CENTRO EXAMINIS SIMILI­ AND IF A BODY OF KNOWN WEIGHT, SUSPENDED FROM
TER DATE. THE SHORTER ARM, HOLDS THE BEAM IN EQUILIBRIUM,
THEN THE LENGTHS OF THE ARMS ON EACH SIDE OF THE
Sit regula ABC data in pon­ AXIS OF ROTATION WILL ALSO BE DETERMINED.
dere, et equalis in grossitie; Let the beam be ABC, of a given weight and of uniform thick­
et dependeat ex parte C pondus ness. Let a body, d, of known weight, hang from the end C, and
10 ci datum. Sitque BE equalis BC, let BE be equal to BC. From the mid point of AE, designated as
et in medio AE notetur Z, a Z, let there be suspended a body, h, equal in weight to the seg­
quo dependeat pondus h equale ment of the beam AE; and in this position it will also be of
AE; et in eo etiam situ eque equal heaviness. Since therefore h and d are equally heavy in
ponderabit. Quia ergo in hoc this position, the proportion of d to h will be that of ZB to BC.
15 situ eque ponderant h et d, And by alternation, the proportion of d to ZB will be that of AE
eritque proportio d ad h ea ZB (i.e., of h) to BC. And by composition, the proportion of d plus
ad BC. Et permutatim, que twice ZB (i.e., AC) to ZB, will be that of AE plus twice BC
proportio d ad ZB, ea est AE, (i.e., EC) to BC. If therefore the whole weight ABC is multi­
hoc est h, ad BC. Et coniunc- plied by its half, and the product is divided by the sum of the
20 tim, que proportio d et dupli (Fig. R2.01) weights of d and of AC—all these being given—, the weight of the
ZB, hoc est AC, ad ZB, ea est AE et dupli BC, hoc est EC, ad segment BC is thereby determined.
BC. Si ergo tota ABC ducatur in suum dimidium, et productum
dividatur per d et AC, quod totum est datum, exibit BC datum.

R2.02 QUOD SI PORTIONES DATE FUERINT, ET PONDUS

25 DATUM ERIT.
Cum enim, ut premissum est, cl pondus cum tota AC sit ad
eius dimidium sicut tota AC ad BC, cum sint AB et BC date, si
ducatur AC in suum dimidium ut prius, et productum dividatur
per BC, exibit pondus d et tota AC. Detracta ergo AC, relin-
30 quetur pondus d datum.
R2.03 SI VERO PONDUS DATUM FUERIT, ET PARS CUI
APPENDITUR DATA, TOTUM QUOQUE DATUM ERIT.
Verbi gratia, d pondus datum sit, et BC portio data. Quia ig­
itur d ad h, sive ad EA, sicut ZB ad BC, erit quod ex ductu d
35 in BC equale ei quod ex ductu EA in ZB; ergo quod ex ductu d
in BC bis, equale ei quod ex ductu EA in ZB bis; et hoc est in
totam AC. Ergo quod ex <d in BC bis, cum quadrato BC, est
192
R2.02 BUT IF THE LENGTHS OF THE ARMS ARE KNOWN,
THE WEIGHT OF THE SUSPENDED BODY WILL BE
DETERMINED.
For since, as was stated before, the weight d plus the weight
of all AC is to half the weight of AC, as the whole of AC is to
BC, and since AB and BC are given, then, if the weight of AC
is multiplied by its half, as before, and the product is divided
by BC, the weight of d plus that of AC will be determined.
Therefore, if AC is subtracted, the weight of d will be given as
the remainder.
R2.03 IF HOWEVER THE WEIGHT IS GIVEN, AND THE SEG­
MENT FROM WHICH IT IS SUSPENDED IS GIVEN, THE WHOLE
BEAM WILL THEREBY BE GIVEN.
Let the given weight, for example, be d, and let the given
segment be BC. Since then d is to h, or to EA, as ZB is to BC,
the product of d by BC will be equal to the product of EA by ZB;
therefore the product of d by twice BC will be equal to the pro­
duct of EA by twice ZB; but this (twice ZB) is the whole of AC.
193
 DE RATIONE PONDERIS DE RATIONE PONDERIS

equale ei quod ex EA in AC, Hence the product of d by twice BC, plus the square of BC, is
cum quadrato BC. Sed quod equal to the product of EA by AC, plus the square of BC. But
40 ex EA in AC, cum quadrato the product of EA by AC, plus the square of BC, is equal to the
BC, valent quadratum BA, square of BA—by the first and fourth propositions of the second
per primam et quartam book of Euclid, expressed in numbers. Therefore the product
secundi Euclidis, in numer­ of d by twice BC, plus the square of BC, is equal to the square
is. Igitur quod ex ductu d of BA. But the product of d by twice BC, plus the square of BC,
45 in BC bis, cum quadrato BC, is something given, since d and BC are given; therefore the
valent quadratum BA. Sed square of BA is given, and therefore its root, namely BA, is
quod ex ductu d in BC bis, given.
cum quadrato BC, est quod­ •Since the product of d by BC is given, the product of ZB by
dam datum—cum d et BC EA will be given. Hence the product of ZB by ZE will be given,
50 sint data; ergo quadratum and since their difference is known, each of them is given. And
BA est datum; ergo eius thus the whole of ABC will be given. The method is to add the
radix, scilicet BA, est data. (Fig. R2.03) square of BC to the product of d by twice BC; and the root of
Cum sit datum quod fit ex d in BC, erit et quod ex ZB in EA this sum will be BA.
datum; quare et quod ex ZB in ZE, quorum, cum sit differentia In this calculation of weights, however, there are involved
55 data, erit utrumque eorum datum; sicque tota ABC data. Hoc some general principles: namely, that the square of d plus BC
opus est, ut ei quod fit ex d in BC bis, addatur quadratum BC, is equal to the square of cl plus the square of BA. For the pro­
et compositi radix erit BA. duct of d by twice BC is equal to the product of AC by EA;
In hac autem ponderandi ratione, hic intercidunt generalia: hence the product of d by twice BC, plus the square of BC, is
scilicet, quod quadratum d, BC, est tanquam quadratum d et equal to the square of BA. Therefore the square of cl plus BC,
60 quadratum BA. Quod enim fit ex d in BC bis, est quantum quod is equal to the square of ci plus the square of BA.
ex tota AC in EA; quare ex d in BC bis, cum quadrato BC, est Further, the product of d plus BC, by twice BC, is equal to
quantum quadratum BA. Quadratum ergo d, BC, ut quadrata d the square of BC plus the square of BA. For the product of d
et BA. by twice BC, plus the square of BC, is equal to the square of
Amplius, quod fit ex d, BC, in BC bis, est ut quadratum BC BA; hence the product of d by twice BC, plus twice the square
65 et quadratum BA. Quod enim fit ex d_ in BC bis, cum quadrato of BC (which itself is equal to the product of d plus BC, by
BC, est ut quadratum BA; quare, quod ex d in BC bis, cum twice BC) will be equal to the square of BA plus the square of
quadrato BC bis—et hoc est quod fit ex d, BC, in BC bis—erit BC.
ut quadrata BA et BC. Further, the square of d plus BC, plus the product of d plus
Amplius, quadratum d, BC, et quod fit ex d, BC, in ABC bis, BC by twice ABC, is equal to the square of ABC plus the
70 est ut quadrata ABC, et d, BA. Erit enim quadratum d, BC, et square of d plus BA. For the square of d plus BC, and the pro­
quod fit bis ex d, BC, in BC, tanquam quadrata d et BA, et item duct of ci plus BC by twice BC, are respectively as the square
quadrata BA et BC. Quod item fit bis ex d, BC, in BA, est ut of d plus the square of BA, and as the square of BA plus the
quod ex d atque BC in BA bis. Et sic patet quod dicitur. square of BC. And also, the product of twice d plus BC, by BA,
is equal to the product of d plus BC by twice BA. And thus
what is asserted is evident.

R2.04 QUOD SI PONDUS DATUM SIT, ET PARS OPPOSITA
75 DATA SIMILITER, OMNIA DATA ERUNT.
Eadem ubique dispositio, et d atque BA data sunt. Et quad­
rata eorum coniuncta data erunt, que sunt ut quadratum d_, BC,
cuius radix, que est d, BC, data erit. Dempto ergo d, relinque­
tur BC datum; et sic tota ABC data erit.
R2.04 BUT IF THE WEIGHT IS GIVEN, AND THE OPPOSITE
SEGMENT IS LIKEWISE GIVEN, THE WHOLE BEAM WILL
THEREBY BE GIVEN.
Let the arrangement be the same as before in all respects,
with d and BA given. Then the sum of their squares will be giv­
en, which is equal to the square of d plus BC; and thus its root,
dplus BC, will be given. If then d is subtracted, the remainder

194 195
 DE RATIONE PONDERIS
DE RATIONE PONDERIS

BC will be given; and thus the total of ABC will be given.

8° R2.05 SI REGULA DATI FUERIT PONDERIS, ET PONDUS
APPENSUM CUM PARTE IN QUA DEPENDET FECERIT QUID
DATUM, UTRUMQUE EORUM DATUM ERIT.
Erit enim datum quadratum ci, BC, cum eo quod fit ex ipso
in ABC bis; de quibus, dempto quadrato ABC, relinquitur quad-
85 ratum d, BA, datum. Erit ergo d, BA, datum; et ipsius ad d,
BC, differentia data, que est differentia BA ad BC; sicque ut­
rumque erit datum, et similiter d. Eadem ratione, si, data
ABC, fuerit d, BA, datum, erunt omnia data. Quia enim quad­
rata ABC, et d, BA, sunt ut quadratum d, BC, et quod fit ex
90 ipso in ABC bis, erit quadratum d, BA, cum duplo quadrati
ABC, tanquam quadratum compositi ex ABC, et d, BC; quod
cum sit datum, et ABC datum, erit et d, BC, datum; sicque ut
prius BA, et BC, et d data.
Amplius, si d, BC, et d, BA, data, non autem ABC, erit quo-
95 que et ipsa data et singula data. Cum sit enim quadratum <1,
BC, ut quadratum d et quadratum BA, detracto eo de quadrato
d_, BA, relinquitur quod fit ex d_ in BA bis datum, quare utrum­
que datum.
R2.06 SI BRACHIA LIBRE FUERINT DATA PONDERE, ET
100 BREVIUS IN DUO SECETUR SIMILITER DATA, ET A SECTI­
ONE PONDUS DEPENDEAT QUOD LIBRAM IN EQUALITATE
COMPONAT, IPSUM QUOQUE DATUM ESSE DEMONSTRA­
BITUR.
Sint brachia libre ut prius,
105 AB longius, BC brevius quod
secetur in E; dependeatque
pondus d quod libram in equa-
litate conservet. Dependeat
autem et a C pondus quod
110 idem operetur. Quia igitur
tam h quam d, cum BC, pon­
derat ut BA, dempto BC, equa­
te erit d in pondere ad h, in
m H
hoc situ. Sicut igitur BC ad
115 BE, ita erit d ad h; cumque
sit h datum, et d datum erit. (Fig. R2.06)
196
R2.05 IF THE BEAM IS OF A GIVEN WEIGHT, AND THERE IS
GIVEN THE SUM OF THE SUSPENDED WEIGHT AND OF THE
SEGMENT ON WHICH IT HANGS, EACH COMPONENT OF
THIS SUM WILL THEREBY BE GIVEN.
For there will be given the square of d plus BC, plus the pro­
duct of d plus BC by twice ABC. Subtracting from this the
square of ABC, there will remain d_ plus BA. Thus d plus BA
will be given, and the difference between it, and d plus BC,
which is the difference between BA and BC. Thus each of these
will be given, and likewise ci. For the same reason, when ABC
is given, if c[ plus BA is given, each factor will be given. For
since the square of ABC plus the square of d plus BA, is equal
to the square of d plus BC, plus the product of d plus BC by
twice ABC, the square of d plus BA, plus twice the square of
ABC, will be equal to the square of the sum of ABC and d_ plus
BC; and since d plus BA is given, and since ABC is given, d
plus BC will be given. And thus, as before, BA and BC and d
will each be given.
Further, if d plus BC, and d plus BA, are given, but not ABC,
this will be determinable, and also each separately. For since
the square of d plus BC is equal to the square of d plus the
square of BA, then if it (i.e., the square of d plus BC) is sub­
tracted from the square of d plus BA, the remainder will be
twice the product of d by BA. Hence each of these will be given.
R2.06 IF THE WEIGHTS OF THE ARMS OF THE BALANCE
ARE GIVEN, AND IF THE SHORTER ARM IS DIVIDED INTO
TWO SEGMENTS, LIKEWISE GIVEN, AND IF FROM THE
POINT OF DIVISION THERE IS SUSPENDED A WEIGHT SUCH
AS WILL HOLD THE BALANCE IN EQUILIBRIUM, THE
AMOUNT OF THE WEIGHT WILL BE PROVED TO BE GIVEN.
Let the arms of the balance be as before, with AB the longer;
and let the shorter arm, BC, be divided at E, from which point
a weight d is suspended such as will hold the balance in equi­
librium. Now let there be suspended from C a weight h, such
as will also hold the balance in equilibrium. Since h plus BC,
as well as d plus BC, balance BA, then if BC is subtracted, d
will be of equal positional weight to h. Hence, as BC is to BE,
so d will be to h; and since h is given, d also will be given.
Again, if d should be given, and if CE and BE are given, BA
and AC will be known. For BC has the same ratio to BE, as d
to h; hence h is known. And on this account, BA also will be
known. By like reasoning, if the weight d should be given, and
if AB and BC are given, BE and CE will be determined. For
197
 DE RATIONE PONDERIS DE RATIONE PONDERIS

Amplius, si cl datum esset, atque CE et BE data, fierent BA since AB and BC are given, h will also be given; and as d is to
et AC data. Sunt enim BC ad BE, et d_ ad h, in eadem proporti­ h, so is BC to BE; and thus BE will be given.
one; quare h datum, ob hoc etiam BA data erit. Simili ratione,
120 si d pondus fuerit datum, et AB et BC data, erunt BE et CE
data. Quia enim AB et BC data sunt, erit et h datum, atque s i­
cut d ad h, ita BC ad BE; quare BE datum erit.

R 2 .0 7 QUOD SI A B R EV IO R E DUO D E P E N D E A N T P O N D E R A , R2.07 BUT IF TWO WEIGHTS ARE SUSPENDED FROM THE
A L T E R U M A T ERM IN Oi A L T E R U M A S E C T IO N E , QUE R E G " SHORTER ARM, ONE AT ITS EXTREMITY AND THE OTHER
125 U L A M IN E Q U ID IS T A N T IA M C O N S E R V E N T , C O M P O S IT U M - FROM A POINT SUBDIVIDING IT, IN SUCH MANNER THAT
QUE E X IPSIS D A T U M SIT, SINGULIS R E G U L E SECTIONIBUS THEY HOLD THE BALANCE IN EQUILIBRIUM, THEN IF THE
EX ISTE N TIB U S DA TIS, U T R A Q U E A P P E N S O R U M D A T A SUM OF THE WEIGHTS IS GIVEN AND IF EACH OF THE SEG­
ERUNT. MENTS OF THE BEAM OF THE BALANCE IS GIVEN, EACH
OF THE SUSPENDED WEIGHTS WILL BE DETERMINED.
Sint, ut solet, brachia libre Let the arms of the balance be AB and BC, as usual; and let
130 data AB, BC; et sectiones BC the segments of BC, namely BE and EC, be given; and let the
date, BE, EC; et ponderantia suspended weights be d and h. And suppose y_ to be equal to d,
h et d. Sitque y_ equale d, ut so that the total hyis given. Again, let there be a weight_t which,
sit totum hy datum. Sit item t hung from C, produces equilibrium; and let the difference be­
— A
pondus quod, dependens a C,

T2
tween hy_ and _t be given as z . And because _t is equivalent in
135 equalitatem faciat; cuius ad positional weight to h and d_ (as suspended from C and E), the
hy differentia data sit z . Et weight of hywill exceed the positional weight of h plus d_, by the
quia _t est in pondere ut h, d, amount z; and hence y^ is equal in weight to cl plus z. But the
hy.erit maius pondere quam ratio of y to d in positional weight, is as the ratio of BC to BE;
h et d, quantum est z\ ergo therefore _y is to z as BC is to EC. And since z_ is given, y will
140 y_ tantum est pondere quantum thereby be given, and likewise h.
d et z. Sed y ad d in pondere Again, if h and d are given, and also CE and EB are given,
sicut BC ad BE; ergo ad z_ yt d * BA will be determined. For since d is to z as BC is to CE, z_
sicut BC ad EC; et quia z_ will be determined, and thus t_ and BA will be determined.
datum, erit et y_ datum, Further, if h and d are given, and also AB and BC are given,
145 similiter h. (Fig. R2.07) BE and EC will be determined. For since AB and BC are
Amplius, si h et d data, atque CE et EB, erit et BA datum. given,_t will be given; and on this account z_ also; and since BE
Quia enim cl ad z^ sicut BC ad CE, erit z_ datum; sicque Jt atque is to CE as d is to z, CE will be determined.
BA data. By the same reasoning, furthermore, if BA and BC are
Amplius, si h et cl data, itemque AB et BC, erunt BE et EC given, and if BE and CE are given, then if either d, or h, or
150 data. Quia enim AB et BC data, erit^ datum, et ob hoc z\ et their difference, or their ratio, are given, everything will be
quia BE ad CE sicut d ad z, erit CE datum. determined.
Amplius, simili de causa, si BA et BC data, atque BE et CE,
sitque c[ datum, sive h, sive differentia eorum sive proportio,
omnia data erunt.

155 R2.08 SI SECTIONES LIBRE SINT AD INVICEM DATE, PON­
DUSQUE DATUM IN TERMINO BREVIORIS SIVE IN SECTIONE
DEPENDENS, VEL ETIAM DUO PONDERA DATA, ALTERUM
IN TERMINO ALTERUM IN SECTIONE APPENSA, REGULAM
IN EQUIDIST ANTIAM CONSTITUANT, IPSA QUOQUE IN
198
R2.08 IF THE RATIO OF THE ARMS OF THE BALANCE IS
GIVEN, AND IF A GIVEN WEIGHT HANGING EITHER AT THE
END OR AT AN INTERMEDIATE POINT OF THE SHORTER
ARM, OR AGAIN IF TWO GIVEN WEIGHTS SUSPENDED AT
THE END AND AT THE INTERMEDIATE POINT OF THE
199
 DE RATIONE PONDERIS DE RATIONE PONDERIS

160 PONDERE DATA ERIT. SHORTER ARM, HOLD THE BALANCE IN EQUILIBRIUM,
THEN THE WEIGHT OF THE BALANCE BEAM ITSELF WILL
BE GIVEN.
Esto ut prius regula ABC, Let the balance be ABC, as before, with the ratio of AB to
sitque AB ad BC datum in I-1 BC given; and let a given weight d be suspended from C, such
proportione, appendaturque that it holds the balance in equilibrium. I say then that the
E c weight of ABC is thereby given. For let some arbitrary weight
pondus d elatum equabiliter ^—---------- — ... — 1
t
165 ex parte C. Dico ergo ABC
datam esse in pondere. Pon-
-JU
[^ I Xl
E
be assigned to it, and let this weight be divided according to the
ratio of AB to BC, with AB larger and BC smaller; and on this
atur enim ipsa alicuius noti basis calculate a weight for d. Then, the weight originally given
ponderis, quod dividatur L-J for d will be to the weight subsequently calculated, as the
secundum proportionem AB weight of ABC is to the weight which was arbitrarily assigned
170 ad BC; ponaturque maius L_ J U—J to it. For if it is greater, or less, d will be similarly greater
AB et minus BC; et secundum or less than the value assigned to it.
hoc invenietur pondus d. (Fig. R2.08) But if d hangs at E, and the ratio of BC to EB is given, then
Sicut ergo se habet pondus d prius sumptum, ad posterius sump­ there is determined a weight_t which, hung from C, balances
tum, ita se habebit pondus ABC ad pondus positum. Si enim the beam. Or if d and h are given, _t again will be determined;
175 maius vel minus, et d similiter maius vel minus quam positum and, it being determined, the weight of ABC will also be deter­
est, erit. mined. This commentary refers to the first diagram of the
Quod si d in E dependeat, et data sit BC ad EB, datum erit et preceding proposition.
t_ equabiliter pendens a C. Quod si d et h data sint, similiter et
t_ datum erit, quod, quoniam datum est, datum erit pondus ABC.
180 Istud commentum respicit prius schema precedentis proposi­
tionis.

R2.09 SI REGULA DATI PONDERIS PER INEQUALIA DIVIDA­ R2.09 IF A BEAM OF GIVEN WEIGHT IS DIVIDED INTO UN­
TUR, ET A TERMINIS IPSIUS DATA PONDERA APPENDANT­ EQUAL ARMS, AND IF GIVEN WEIGHTS SUSPENDED FROM
UR QUE IN EQUALITATE CONSISTANT, BRACHIA QUOQUE ITS EXTREMITIES HOLD THE BEAM IN EQUILIBRIUM, THEN
185 LIBRE A CENTRO EXAMINIS DATA ERUNT. THE ARMS OF THE BALANCE ON EACH SIDE OF THE AXIS
WILL BE DETERMINED.
Verbi gratia, ex A depend­ For example, let a weight d_ hang from A, and a weight e^
eat pondus d, et a C pondus from C, each weight being given. And let BZ be equal to BC;
e, utrumque datum. Et sit BZ and, dividing ZA into equal halves at T, let a weight hy, such as
equalis BC, et diviso ZA per balances e, hang from T. And let y_ be as the weight of ATZ;
190 equalia apud T, descendat hy then the ratio of e_ to hy will be as that of TB to BC. And, by al­
quod similiter in pondere ternation, e_is to TB as hy, i.e ., as h plus AZ, is to BC. Hence,
respondeat e. Sitque tan- as e_ plus TB is to TB, so h plus BA is to BC. Again, since h is
quam A T Z, eritque proportio to cl as AB is to TB, h will be to AB as d is to TB. And thus d
e ad ly sicut TB ad BC. Et Pl us TB is to TB, as h plus AB is to AB; therefore e_ plus TB
195 permutatim e^ ad TB sicut hy, is to d plus TB, as h plus AB is to AB; therefore e^ plus TB is
sive h et A Z , ad BC; quare, to cl plus TB, as AB is to BC. And by composition, as e^ plus d,
sicut e_ cum TB ad TB, ita added to ABC (which is twice TB), is to d plus TB, so all ABC
h cum AB ad BC. Itemque, is to BC. If then ABC ip multiplied by d plus TB, and the pro­
quia h ad d sicut AB ad TB, (Fig. R2.09) duct is divided by the sum of d and e_ and ABC, BC will be
200 erit h ad AB sicut jl ad TB; qua re d et TB ad TB, sicut h et AB given as the result.
ad AB; itaque e cum TB ad d cum TB, sicut AB ad BC. Et Further, if, with ABC given, AB and BC, and the sum of d

200 201
 DE RATIONE PONDERIS
DE RATIONE PONDERIS

coniunctim, sicut e, 4» cum ABC (que est dupla TB), ad d cum

and e, axe given, then d_ and e_ will be separately determined.
TB, ita tota ABC ad BC. Si ergo ABC ducatur in d et TB, et
Further, these Same values being given, if either d or e^ is giv
productum dividatur per d, e, et ABC simul, exibit BC data.
en, the other of the two will be determined. Again, if d_ and e^
205 Amplius si, data ABC, fuerint AB et BC date, et totum d, e,
are given, and the ratio of AB to BC is given, then ABC as a
datum, et d et e erit datum. Amplius si, illis datis, fuerit vel
whole will be determined. For because the ratio of e^ plus TB,
d vel e datum, erit reliquum datum. Amplius, si d et e data
to d plus TB, is given, since this is the ratio of AB to BC, and
sint, et proportio AB et BC data, erit tota ABC data. Quia enim
because <1 and e are given, there will be determined TB, and
e cum TB est data ad d cum TB, quia sicut AB ad BC; et quia
also .the whole of ABC. Further, if AB and BC, and the ratio of
210 d et e_ data sunt, erit et TB atque tota ABC data. Amplius si,
e_ to d, are given, each of these will be determined.
datis AB et BC, fuerit proportio e^ ad d data, erit utrumque
datum eorum.

R2.10 SI VERO A SECTIONE LONGIORIS BRACHII PONDUS

R2.10 IF HOWEVER FROM AN INTERMEDIATE POINT ON
DATUM APPENDATUR, QUOD ALICUI DATO ET A TERMINO
THE LONGER ARM, THERE IS SUSPENDED A GIVEN WEIGHT
215 BREVIORIS DEPENDENTI IN PONDERE EQUETUR, ALTERA
WHICH BALANCES A GIVEN WEIGHT HUNG AT THE END OF
SECTIONUM LIBRE DATA, RELIQUA DATA ERIT.
THE SHORTER ARM, THEN IF EITHER ARM OF THE BAL­
ANCE IS GIVEN, THE OTHER WILL BE DETERMINED.
Hoc habetur ex premissa, quia mutua est inter pondera et
This is proved from the previous proposition: because there
remotiones proportio. Divisiones quoque huius plures sunt,
is a reciprocal proportion between the weights and their dis­
veluti in premissa. tances from the axis. As in previous cases, there are several
divisions of this demonstration.
220 R2.ll QUOD SI A TERMINO ET A SECTIONE LONGIORIS
R2.ll BUT IF, FROM THE END AND FROM AN INTERMEDI­
BRACHII DUO PONDERA DATA DEPENDEANT, QUE TERTIO
ATE POINT OF THE LONGER ARM, THERE ARE SUSPENDED
IN TERMINO BREVIORIS APPENSO IN EQUALITATE RE­
TWO GIVEN WEIGHTS WHICH BALANCE A THIRD WEIGHT
SPONDEANT, SECTIONIBUS REGULE DATIS, TERTIUM SIM­
HUNG AT THE END OF THE SHORTER ARM, THEN IF THE
ILITER DATUM ERIT.
SEGMENTS OF THE BEAM ARE GIVEN, THE THIRD WEIGHT
WILL LIKEWISE BE DETERMINED.
225 Ab A et T, que est sectio From A, and from an intermediate point of AB, namely T, let
AB, dependeant d et z ; et a there be suspended the weights d and z\ and from C let there
C dependeat ehl; ponderet-
be hung a weight ehl . And let e^ be equal in weight to d, and h to
que e_ ut d, et h ut z, et^
z\ then l plus BC will weigh as much as AB. Thus they will
cum BC quantum AB. Erit-
each be known, and hence their sum is known. Again, if ehl is
230 que singulum eorum datum,
given, and if the ratio of d to z is given, each of these will be
quare totum datum. Amplius,
separately determined. For suppose that from A there hangs a
si ehl datum, et proportio weight djg which balances ehl. The ratio of £ to z, as well as
d ad z_ data, quodlibet eorum m cn
that of z to d, is therefore given; hence also the ratio of £ to d.
datum erit. Dependeat enim
And since djg is given, each will be given, and also z^ will be de­
235 ex A, dg, quod in pondere
termined. Several other forms of the proof occur here.
respondeat ad ehl; proportio (Fig. R2.ll)
igitur ad z_ data, atque z_ ad d; quare ad d. Cumque dj* sit
datum, erit utrumque datum, et z datum. Alie quoque plures
divisiones intercidunt.

240 R2.12 SI DUO PONDERA, ALTERUM IN TERMINO, ALTERUM

R2.12 IF TWO WEIGHTS, SUSPENDED AT THE END AND AT
IN SECTIONE LONGIORIS BRACHII SUSPENSA, DUOBUS
AN INTERMEDIATE POINT OF THE LONGER ARM, ARE
2 0 2
203
 DE RATIONE PONDERIS DE RATIONE PONDERIS

DATIS PONDERIBUS ET A TERMINO BREVIORIS DEMISSIS IN SUCH THAT WHEN THEIR POSITIONS ARE INTERCHANGED
PONDERE EQUENTUR, LOCIS SUIS ALTERNATIS, SINGULA THEY BALANCE TWO DIFFERENT GIVEN WEIGHTS HUNG
EORUM DATA ERUNT. AT THE END OF THE SHORTER ARM, THEN EACH OF
THESE WEIGHTS WILL BE DETERMINED.
245 Ut si d ab A , et z a T, If, when d^is suspended from A, and z from T, they balance e^
suspensa sint, ut e a C hung from C; and again, when z_ is suspended from A and d from
demissum; itemque z_ ab T, they balance h; then, supposing two weights m_ and n, equal
A et d a T respondeant respectively to d and z, let m and z_ hang together from T, and
h in pondere. Tunc, sump- n and ci together from A. They will then balance ^together with
250 tis equalibus d et z, que h. And since the weight of e, and of h, is known, and since <1
sint rn et n, pendeatque plus n is equal to rn plus z_%these are given; and thus d and z_
m cum z_ in T, et n cum will each be determined, which is what was to be shown.
d in A, ponderabunt
simul quantum eh, quod
255 cum sit datum, et dn (Fig. R2.I2)
equate mz, erunt ipsa data, Sicque et d et z datum erit, quod
fuit ostendendum.

PARS TERTIA PART THREE

1 R3.0I SI SUPRA REGULAM IN PERPENDICULO CENTRO R3.01 IF THE AXIS IS ON A PERPENDICULAR ABOVE THE
MOTUS POSITO, QUANTUMLIBET PONDUS IN UTRALIBET BEAM OF THE BALANCE, THEN, HOWEVER GREAT A
PARTE DEPENDEAT, NON ERIT POSSIBILE ILLUD USQUE WEIGHT BE SUSPENDED FROM EITHER OF THE ARMS, IT
AD DIRECTUM CENTRI DESCENDERE. WILL NOT BE POSSIBLE FOR IT TO DESCEND TO A POSI­
TION DIRECTLY BELOW THE AXIS.
5 Verbi gratia, sit regula Let the balance beam, for example, be ABC, the perpendicu­
ABC, perpendiculum BDE, lar BDE, with the axis at D, and a greater weight (at A) than
centrum D; et sit pondus a_ the weight (at C). Then draw the lines DA and DC, and let DA
maius quam c^. Ducantur 0
D be extended to Z in such manner that DAZ is to DA as the
V
ergo linee DA, DC, et per- / \ weight a is to the weight c_. Let there be a weight z_ (at Z) equal
/ \
10 transeat DA in Z donec sit .A 'x 3 n\ c
to c. When, therefore, the three weights a, c, and z are in this
B
DAZ ad DA tanquam a_pon- ^^ ------ ----------------^
1 manner attached to the beam ABC, their revolution is around
i—
dus ad c_. Sitque z pondus ut i s a c the axis D, just as if they were hanging on the lines DAZ and
c. Quia igitur tria pondera ■ DC. But as so placed, z^ will tend to be at the same distance
a, c, z, sic dependent in i from the vertical passing through D, as c^ will; and likewise
15 ABC, atque revolutio eorum | will be at a proportional distance from the vertical. Therefore
circa centrum D quasi I a will not be able to descend as far as the vertical.
essent in lineis DAZ et DC,
sed, ipsis ita positis, tantum (Fig. R3.01)
vellet z_ distare a directo D quantum et c, distabit quoque et a
20 proportionaliter a directo eiusdem. Non ergo ad directum
poterit descendere.

R3.02 CUM SIT IGITUR DISTANTIA CENTRI A MEDIO REGULE R3.02 WHEN THE RATIO IS GIVEN, OF THE DISTANCE FROM
AD LONGITUDINEM IPSIUS DATA, PONDERAQUE APPENSA THE AXIS TO THE MID POINT OF THE BEAM, TO THE
AD PONDUS REGUI E DATA, ERIT PERPENDICULI DECLIN- LENGTH OF THE BEAM, AND IF THE RATIO OF THE SUS-

204 205
 DE RATIONE PONDERIS
DE RATIONE PONDERIS

25 ATIO DATA. PENDED WEIGHTS TO THE WEIGHT OF THE BEAM IS GIV­

Sit regula que directum
determinat HDLZ, et cetera ut
prius; declinetque regula ex
parte A donec linea HDLZ secet
30 eam in L; quasi ergo centrum
examinis esset in L, sic sita est
regula. Cum ergo sint pondera
data et regula, erunt sectiones
regule que sunt AL, LC, date;
35 quare longitudo utriusque ad
BD data erit. Similiter et LB;
quare et angulus LDB datus
erit, et est ut angulus EDH. Et ipse e st declinatio perpendiculi
a directo data.
EN, THEN THE ANGLE OF DECLINATION OF THE PERPEN­
DICULAR TO THE BEAM, FROM THE VERTICAL, WILL BE
DETERMINED.
Let the rod which stands vertically be HDLZ, and the rest as
before. And let the beam be depressed on the side of A until
the line HDLZ cuts it at L. With the beam in this position, it is
as if its axis were at L . Since then the suspended weights, and
the weight of the balance beam, are given, the segments of the
beam, AL and LC, are given. Hence the ratio of the length of
each segment, to BD, will be given; and also the ratio of LB to
BD. Consequently the angle LDB is determined, and it is the
same as the angle EDH. But this is the angle of declination of
the perpendicular to the beam, from the vertical.
(Fig. R3.02)

40 R3.03 SI VERO SUB REGULA CENTRUM DESIGNETUR, VIX R3.03 IF HOWEVER THE AXIS IS BENEATH THE BEAM, THE
CONTINGET IN HOC SITU STABILIRI PONDERA. WEIGHTS CAN SCARCELY BE STABILIZED IN THIS POSITION.
Sit regula ut prius ABC, Let the beam, as before, be ABC, and the perpendicular to it
et perpendiculum DBE; DBE. And let E be the axis beneath the balance, and let the
sitque E centrum sub reg- weights be a and c_. If we draw the lines EA and EC, the weights
45 ula, et pondera «i et c_. are so placed as if they were suspended on these lines. If they
Ductis igitur lineis EA, are in equilibrium in this position, then if any little tilt occurs
EC, quasi in ipsis sint, sic in either direction, as for instance on the side of A, the seg­
sita sunt pondera. Ipsis ment of the beam from A to the vertical HLZ will increase, so
igitur in hoc situ eque pon- that the beam will intersect the vertical at L. And this segment
50 derantibus, si fiat qualis - will thus become continuously heavier, until the beam rotates
cumque nutus in alterutra to a position beneath the axis E.
partium, veluti in A,
crescet ex parte A portio
regule usque ad rectitudi-
55 nem que signetur linea (Fig. R3.03)
HLZ, ut sit communis sectio ipsius et regule in L . Sicque gra­
vius reddetur continue, donec circumvolvatur regula sub E.

R3.04 POSSIBILE IGITUR EST, REGULA EQUIDISTANTER
COLLOCATA, QUANTUMLIBET PONDUS IN ALTERUTRA
60 PARTE SUSPENDERE, QUOD REGULAM AB EQUALITATE
NON SEPARET.
Sit regula ABC, centrum B, linea directionis DBE; sitque
regula suo pondere in equalitate sita. Sumatur igitur aliqua
regula equalis grossitiei et ponderis, que sit HTZ, posito T in
206
R3.04 IF THE BEAM IS IN HORIZONTAL EQUILIBRIUM, IT IS
POSSIBLE TO SUSPEND, FROM EITHER OF THE ARMS, AS
GREAT A WEIGHT AS YOU PLEASE, IN SUCH A WAY THAT
THE BALANCE BEAM WILL NOT DEPART FROM ITS HORI­
ZONTAL POSITION.
Let ABC be the beam, B its axis, and DBE a line designating
the vertical. And suppose the beam to be in horizontal equilib­
rium, by its own weight. Then take some other bar of equal
207
 DE RATIONE PONDERIS DE RATIONE PONDERIS

65 eius medio. Sitque portio thickness and weight, which we will call HTZ, T being its mid
regule BH, in utralibet point. And take a segment of the beam, BH, on whichever arm
parte, minor longitudine is desired, such that it is of less length than HT. And attach
quam sit HT, et d.ependeat this bar rigidly at H, in such manner that T is vertically be­
regula HTZ ab H fixa, ut neath B, cutting the line of the vertical at T. I say then that
70 T sit in directo sub B, this bar, so suspended, will not cause the beam to change posi­
secreta a linea directionis tion. For it is placed as if the line BZ were drawn, and as if it
in T. Dico ergo quod ipsa were hung on the line BH, in such manner that all its parts
ita dependens non faciet equidistant from T would be of equal heaviness. For they are
mutare libram. Sita est I at equal distance from the line of the vertical; hence ZT bal­
75 enim quasi traheretur linea | ances TH, and thus AB plus ZT is as heavy as BC plus TH.
BZ, et in ipsa linea BH Therefore no movement will occur. But beyond this, if any
dependeret, omnesque partes weight desired be suspended from T, it will not cause any
eius equaliter a T distantes (Fig. R3.04) inclination.
eque ponderarent. Distant enim equaliter a linea directionis,
80 quare ZT ponderat quantum TH, sicque AB, ZT, quantum BC,
TH. Non ergo fiet nutus. Sed et super hoc, si quodlibet pondus
suspendatur a T, non fiet nutus.

R3.05 QUOLIBET PONDEROSO AB EQUALITATE AD DIREC­ R3.05 IF A HEAVY BAR IS RAISED FROM A HORIZONTAL TO
TIONEM ELEVATO, SECUNDUM MENSURAM SUSTINENTIS A VERTICAL POSITION, IT IS POSSIBLE, GIVEN THE HEIGHT
85 IN OMNI POSITIONE PONDUS IPSIUS DETERMINARI OF THE MAN RAISING IT, TO DETERMINE HOW HEAVILY IT
CONTINGIT. WILL WEIGH ON HIM IN EACH POSITION.
Sit AB ponderosum, et sit Let the heavy bar be AB, and let its weight be uniformly dis­
ubique equalis ponderis situm q tributed throughout its length. Then, the end B remaining in a
equaliter; et fixo B, elevetur fixed place, let it be raised at the end A until it reaches the
90 in A donec directum sit CB, vertical position CB, by its movement describing a quarter cir­
motuque suo describat quar­ cle from A to C. And let the horizontal position be the first po­
tam circuli ab A in C. Sitque sition, and the vertical position the last.'And when the arc AC
situs equalitatis primus, di­ is divided into equal segments, let this position be called BD,
rectionis dicatur ultimus; or the middle position. And when the bar is raised to the height
95 et quando dividit arcum AC of the man lifting it, let this be BE, with the perpendicular EL
per equa, sit ipsum BD, et representing the height of the man lifting it; and let this be the
situs medius; et cum eleva­ second position. Let the third position be at BF, with the arc
tum fuerit secundum mensur­ FD equal to the arc DE.
am sustinentis, sit BE, et I then say that the bar will become continuously lighter from
100 perpendicularis EL sit pro A to E, and then continuously heavier as far as D; then however
elevante, et sit hic situs it will become lighter as far as F, and at F it will be of the
secundus. In situ vero tertio (Fig. R3.05a) same heaviness as at E; and then it will again become continu­
sit BF, sitque arcus FD equalis DE. ously lighter as far as C. Yet it is possible for it to be lighter
Dico igitur ipsum semper levius fieri ab A in E, et inde at A than at D, or heavier, or equally heavy, depending on the
105 semper gravius usque ad D; inde autem levius fieri usque in F, quantity EL. For let GH, equal to EL, be erected vertically so
atque in F eque grave ut in E; et inde item semper levius us­ that it touches DB at H; and let DK fall perpendicularly on AB.
que ad C. Possibile autem levius esse in A quam in D, et grav­ If then G should be at the mid point of AB, in which case GH
ius, et eque grave, pro quantitate EL. Sit enim GH equalis EL, would be equal to half of AB, then, since the weight DB, at D,
et ortogonaliter erecta donec contingat DB in H; et demittatur is to the weight AB, as the line BK is to the line BA, and since

208 209
 DE RATIONE PONDERIS
DE RATIONE PONDERIS

110 DK recte super AB. Si igitur G fuerit in medio AB, et tunc GH its weight at D is to its weight at H, as BG is to BK, and since
equum erit eius dimidio, cum sit pondus DB in D ad pondus AB BG is to BK as BK is to BA, the weight DB, at H, will be as the
sicut linea BK ad BA, atque pondus eius in D ad pondus eius in weight of AB. But if G is nearer to B, the weight at H will be
H ut BG ad BK. Cumque sit BG ad BK sicut BK ad BA, erit greater than at A; but if nearer to A, less.
pondus DB in H tanquam pondus AB. Quod si G sit versus B, Again, let MN be a perpendicular equal to EL, touching BF
115 erit in H maius pondus quam in A; si versus A, minus. at N. And draw the line ENP, and drop the perpendiculars FR
Sit item MN perpendicu­ and FX to AB and CB respectively. Since therefore the ratio of
laris equalis EL, contingens the weight EB to the weight FB, is as the ratio of LB to RB, or
BF in N; transeatque linea of XB to PB, and since the weight of FB at N is to its weight at
C
ENP, et ducantur perpendi- F , as FB is to NB, or as RB is to MB, and since XB is to PB
120 culares FR, FX, ad AB, CB. as RB is to MB, the weight EB is to the weight FB as the
Quia igitur ponderis EB ad weight of FB at N is to its weight at F. The weight of EB at E
pondus FB, ut LB ad RB, is therefore as great as that of FB at N. But that it is lighter
sive XB ad PB, pondusque at E than at H, is proved, because DH is longer than ET. For
FB in N ad pondus eius in DZ is greater than EZ, and the angle BEZ is less than the
125 F sicut FB ad NB sive RB angle DHZ.*
ad MB; et quia XB ad PB
sicut RB ad MB, erit pondus
EB ad pondus FB sicut pon­
dus FB in N ad pondus eius * The last two sentences involve reference to the first of the
130 in F. Tantum ergo est pondus A L R M B two diagrams provided for this theorem.
EB in E, quantum FB in N.
Quod autem in E sit levius (Fig. R3.05b)
quam in H, probatur, quia DH est longior ET. Est enim DZ
maior quam EZ, et angulus BEZ minor angulo DHZ.

135 R3.06 PONDUS NON IN MEDIO DEPENDENS, BREVIOREM R3.06 A WEIGHT NOT SUSPENDED AT THE MIDDLE, MAKES
PARTEM SECUNDUM PROPORTIONEM LONGIORIS AD IP ­ THE SHORTER PART HEAVIER, ACCORDING TO THE RATIO
SAM, GRAVIOREM FACIT. OF THE LONGER PART TO THE SHORTER PART.
In quo suspenditur sit Let ABC be that on which the weight e^ is hung. Then let the
ABC, et pondus e. Divida - weight e be divided into two weights, d and_f, such that d is to f_
140 tur autem e in d et f, ut as the length AB is to the length BC. If then the weight d is
sit d ad f sicut AB ad BC. r ' hung at C, and f_ at A, each of them will be of as much heavi­
Si igitur suspendatur d in J | ness as the weight e_, if we imagine in each case that the oppo­
C etj[in A, tanti ponderis j g j site end is the fulcrum. Hence for those who, at A and at C,
erit quodlibet eorum ~ are carrying the weight e^ suspended at B, the heaviness at A
145 quanti e_, intellecto quod will be to the heaviness at C, as the length CB is to the length
in opposita parte sit quasi BA.
centrum libre. Sustinenti­ □
CD
bus igitur in A et C pondus
e^ dependens a B, erit
150 gravitas in A ad gravitatem (Fig. R3.06)
C sicut CB ad BA.

210
211
 DE RATIONE PONDERIS
DE RATIONE PONDERIS

PARS QUARTA PART FOUR

R4.01 EVERY MEDIUM RESISTS WHAT IS MOVED IN IT.

1 R4.01 OMNE MEDIUM IMPEDIT MOTUM.
Let ab^be that which is moved, and let the medium obstruct­
Esto quod movetur ab;
ing it be called £. And suppose £ to be as if on a balance, which
quod vero occurrit medium
we will call TED. Now if £ is assumed to be of no gravity, then,
sit c; ponatur £ quasi in
if it does not resist the movement of ab descending, when it is
5 statera, que sit TED. Si
pushed by ala it will be forced to descend; and thus it will be
igitur £ nullius fuerit gra­
just like something having weight. Therefore it will be able, as
vitatis, si non impedit
it descends on the side of T, to raise some weight on the side
motum ab descendentis,
D; it will thus turn out that ab, in its descent, will be able to
cum impellatur ab ipso
raise d just as easily as it is able to push £ down. Hence what
10 cogetur descendere, et sic
lifts cl will not be resisted by d’ s velocity, which is impossible.
erit ut gravitatem habens.
But if £ should be heavy, then, if it is not in motion, what­
Poterit ergo descendens
ever is impeding it will have to impede ab to some extent; but
ex parte T aliquod pondus
if £ is in motion, then, since ab follows after it, ab will be
ex parte D attollere; eque
heavier to the extent that it is moving faster. Now let £ be
15 ergo constabit ab descensu
equal in weight to ab. It is possible, then, for £, placed on the
suo impellere £ et attollere
side T of the balance, to descend with the movement of £, and
d, quare attollens d non (Fig. R4.01)
to raise some weight on the side D. And then £ will become
impedietur a velocitate sua, quod est impossibile.
Quod si £ ponderosum fuerit: Si non movetur, quod ipsum im- just like £ in weight. If therefore ab encounters no resistance
20 pedit habebit et ab^ aliquatenus impedire; si movetur, cum £b in pushing £ down, it will encounter no resistance in pushing £
ipsum consequatur, erit ab gravius quo velocius. Sitque £ equa- down at the same time. Therefore, when ab and z are moved
le ab in pondere. Possibile igitur est z, ex parte T positum, with their natural motion, they will encounter no resistance in
motu £ descendere et attollere aliquod pondus ex parte D. raising d, all of which is impossible.
Fietque tunc z in pondere ut £. Si igitur ab non impeditur im -
25 pellendo £, non impedietur impellendo £ simul. Ergo, cum
moveantur ab et £ motu naturali, non impediuntur in attollendo
d, quod totum est impossibile.

R4.02 QUO PONDEROSIUS EST PER QUOD FIT TRANSITUS,
EO IN TRANSEUNDO DIFFICILIOR FIT DESCENSUS.
30 Huiusmodi per que fit
transitus sunt aer et aqua
et alia liquida. Quod igitur
ponderosius est, ipsum
sit ABC; quod levius sit
35 DEF; quod autem transit,
T, transiens autem per
illa offendat in B et E.
Est autem B gravius quam
E; cumque a descensu im -
40 pediantur et ipsa, quoniam
cum descendere habeant
stant, pluris est gravitatis
quod impedit B quam quod
R4.02 THE HEAVIER THE MEDIUM THROUGH WHICH A
BODY PASSES, THE MORE DIFFICULT IS ITS DESCENT IN
PASSING THROUGH IT.
The kinds of medium through which such passage occurs,
are air and water and other fluids. Let the heavier medium,
then, be ABC, and the lighter one DEF; and let the body tra­
versing it be T, which, passing through it, comes up against B
and E. B, however, is heavier than E; and since these media
are also hindered from descending, because when they have to
descend they are at rest, that which hinders B is of greater
weight than that which hinders E. And because T has to en­
counter the same impediment, it is hindered more when it is in
B. Similarly, if from beneath B and E it is propelled upwards
in equal manner, its movement in B will be slower.
(Fig. R4.02)

212 213
 DE RATIONE PONDERIS DE RATIONE PONDERIS

impedit E. Et quia T eodem habet offendi impedimento, plus

45 offendetur in B. Similiter infra B et E equaliter, si sursum
pellatur, tardioris erit motus in B.

R4.03 QUOD MAGIS COHERET, PLUS SUSTINET. JR4.03 THE MORE COHESIVE THE BODY, THE MORE IT WILL
SUPPORT.
Sit quod sustinere habet, Let the supporting body be ABC, and the thing descending on
ABC, et res descendens T, it, T, which in its fall strikes it at B. In order that it should
50 que cadens offendat in B. pass through, therefore, AB has to be separated from BC.
Ad hoc ergo ut pertranseat, Hence the more these cohere, either they will support T un­
habet AB separari a BC. © C moved for a longer time before they are broken apart, or else,
Quo ergo magis coherent, \ if T keeps on moving, it will have to drag them along with it,
/
vel plus sustinebunt T ut connected together, for a longer time. Therefore they will offer
55 non moveatur ante separa­ more resistance, and hence they will give more support.
tionem suam, vel, si move­
atur, plus habet ea secum (Fig. R4.03)
trahere coniuncta; plus ergo impedient, et ideo plus su
bunt.

60 R4.04 IN PROFUNDO MAGIS EST DESCENSUS TARDIOR. R4.04 THE GREATER THE DEPTH, THE SLOWER THE
DESCENT.
Sit profundum ABGD Let the depth be enclosed by the lines ABGD, and let EFK be
lineis conclusum, et partes the part through which the descent occurs, with E the deeper;
per quas fit descensus sint and let the parts on either side of E be B and G. The deeper
EFK, profundior E; partes the liquid, therefore, the more the lower parts are compressed,
65 collaterales E, B et G. © as at E. For it is compressed both by the parts which are
Quanto igitur liquor est above, and by the parts alongside of it. For since they are liq­
profundior, tanto inferiores uids, B and G, when compressed by the parts above them, seek
partes plus comprimuntur, to escape on all sides; hence they compress E in such a way
ut E. Comprimitur enim a that if F were to yield, E would rise to a higher position. From
70 superioribus et a iuxta this it is evident that E not only holds F up, but that it also
positis. Cum enim liquida (Fig. R4.04) pushes upward against it, for which reason F in turn pushes
sint, B et G compressa a superioribus nituntur undique eva­ more against K. Therefore F would push up against K to a less
dere; comprimunt ergo E, ita ut si F cederet, exiret in locum degree, if the depth ended at F; for in that case F would merely
superiorem. Unde manifestum est quod non solum sustinet F, be supported by the solid bottom, and this would not push up on
75 sed nititur contra, et eo magis F contra K. Minusque ideo F re­ it. Since therefore the descent of K, in this position (above F
pelleret K, si in F profunditas terminaretur; tunc enim solidum and E), is more impeded than if the depth were less, the de­
suppositum sustineret tantum F, et non niteretur contra. Magis scent of T will also be more impeded.
igitur, cum impediatur descensus K, in hoc situ quam si minor
esset profunditas, impedietur quoque et descensus T magis.

80 R4.05 LATITUDO MAIOR MINUIT GRAVITATEM..
Ut superiorem formam repetamus, dicimus in omni liquido
quamlibet partem inferiorem a qualibet superiori gravari; ut
E non solum ab F et K, sed ab A et D. Cum enim non possit A
descendere in B, tendit et in E, quoniam liquidum est. Similiter
R4.05 GREATER BREADTH DIMINISHES THE GRAVITY.
Using the same diagram as above, we say that in every liq­
uid, any lower part is pressed down by any higher part; thus E
is pressed down not only by F and K, but also by A and D. For
since A is unable to descend into B, it tends to flow into E also,

214 215
 DE RATIONE PONDERIS
j/ et F ab omni superiore gravatur, eoque amplius quanto AG
latius. Quanto igitur plus a supra non directe positis gravatur,
et a collateralibus comprimitur, et ab inferioribus repellitur,
tanto plus nititur contra K; et ideo amplius tardabitur descen­
sus T, et tantum gravitas minuetur.
<)Q R4.06 RES GRAVIS, QUO AMPLIUS DESCENDIT, EO FIT DE­
SCENDENDO VELOCIOR.
In aere quidem verum magis, in aqua minus; habet se enim
aer ad omnes motus. Res igitur gravis descendens, primo motu
trahit posteriora et movet proxima inferiora; et ipsa mota,
75 movent sequentia, ita ut illa mota gravitatem descendentis im ­
pediant minus; unde gravius efficitur, et cedentia amplius im ­
pellit, ita ut iam non impellantur sed etiam trahant. Sicque fit
ut illius gravitas tractu illorum adiuvetur, et motus eorum
gravitate ipsius augeatur; unde et velocitatem illius continue
100 multiplicari constat.
R4.07 FORMA PONDEROSI MUTAT VIRTUTEM PONDERIS.
Etenim si acutum vel
strictum fuerit, facilius per-
transit; et hoc dupliciter.
105 Levius enim separat, et sic
fit levius; minori etiam
offenditur, minusque impe­
ditur, et ob hoc etiam v el­
ocius transit. E contrario si
110 obtusum est. (Fig. R4.07)
R4.08 OMNE MOTUM PLUS MOVET.
Si quidem ex impulsu moveatur, certum est quod impellere
habet. Si a'utem motu proprie descendat, quo plus movetur, vel­
ocius fit, et eo ponderosius; atque plus impellit motum quam
It* «inr motu, et quo plus movetur, eo amplius.
216
DE RATIONE PONDERIS
being a liquid. F likewise is pressed down by all the higher
parts, and to a greater degree insofar as AG is wider. The
more, therefore, that it is pressed down by the parts not di­
rectly above it, and is compressed by the parts on the side,
and is pushed up by the lower parts, the more it pushes against
K; and therefore the descent of T will be more retarded, and to
that degree its gravity will be diminished.
R4.06 THE LONGER A HEAVY BODY FALLS, THE FASTER
IT BECOMES IN DESCENDING.
In air, indeed, more, and in water less. For air is related to
all movements. When therefore a heavy body is falling, in its
first movement it will draw along those parts of the medium
which are behind it, and it will move the parts just beneath it;
and these, set in motion, move the parts next to them, so that
these in turn, being set in motion, offer less resistance to the
gravity of the falling body. Hence it becomes heavier, and
pushes the receding parts of the medium still more, so that
they presently cease to be pushed, and even pull. And so it
comes about that the gravity of the falling body is aided by the
traction of those parts of the medium, and their movement in
turn is aided by the body’ s gravity. Hence its velocity also is
observed to be continuously multiplied.
R4.07 THE SHAPE OF A HEAVY BODY MODIFIES THE
FORCE OF ITS WEIGHT.
For if the body is pointed or slender, it will traverse the
medium more easily; and this, in two ways. For it divides the
medium more easily, and thus it becomes lighter. It also en­
counters less of the medium, and is less resisted; and on this
account also it traverses the medium more rapidly. The oppo­
site is the case, when the body is blunt.
R4.08 EVERY BODY, BY BEING IN MOTION, MOVES MORE.
If, on the one hand, it is moved by impulsion, it is certain
that it must impel the medium. If, on the other hand, it falls
with its own natural motion, the more it is moved, the faster it
becomes, and therefore so much the heavier; and it gives a
greater impulsion, when in motion, than without being in mo­
tion; and the more it is moved, the greater the impulsion.
21 7
 DE RATIONE PONDERIS DE RATIONE PONDERIS

R4.09 QUOD MOTUM PLUS IMPEDIT, PLUS IMPELLITUR.
Sit quod movetur a, et
quod plus impedit c_, et quod
minus b. Sitque libra DEF,
120 duoque pondera z^ et jt. Sitque
a quasi in D suspensum;
atque z ab F dependens, cum
c, impediat omnino motum
a_; et_t, cum b. Patet ergo
125 quod est _t quam z magis
sustinens. Minus ergo z^
adiuvat c, quam_t, b, ad sus­
tinendum a. Plus ergo
gravatur c^ pondere a, quam b;
130 plus ergo impellitur.
R4.09 WHAT RESISTS A MOVEMENT MORE, IS MORE
STRONGLY PUSHED.
Let a be that which is moved, and let c_ be what resists more,
and b what resists less. And let there be a balance, DEF, and
I1 two weights z^and_t. And let a be as if suspended on D; and let
D
E a’ s movement be entirely impeded by z, hanging from F, to­
gether with £^s resistance; and let it likewise be impeded com­
£ pletely by_t, together with b’ s resistance. It is then evident
►<
that_t gives more support than £, so that z gives less help to c_,
toward holding up a, than Ogives to b. Therefore £ i s more
E weighed down by a_’ s weight, than b is; consequently it is
pushed more strongly.
(Fig. R4.09)

R4.10 ET GRAVITAS REI MOTE, ET LEVITAS, FRUSTRARE R4.10 BOTH HEAVINESS, AND LIGHTNESS, OF THE THING
VIDETUR MOVENTIS VIRTUTEM. MOVED, SEEM TO THWART THE FORCE OF THE MOVER.
Sit movens AB, et quod Let the mover be AB, and that which is moved, C. Then C
movetur C. Adeo ergo leve can be so light, in relation to the force of A, as not to resist it;
135 potest esse C respectu v ir­ and thus it will scarcely be given any impulsion. On the other
tutis AB, ut eam non imped­ hand, it can be so heavy that it does not yield to the force of the
iat; et ita vix impelletur. thing impelling it, or does so very little; and hence it will be
Adeo, e contrario, grave, A -------------- —— -------- - B moved only slightly or not at all. In either case, therefore, the
quod virtuti impellentis non © force of the impelling body seems to be thwarted, because it
140 cedat vel parum; et ideo does not pass over into movement of the thing impelled, or
modicum movebitur vel nihil. (Fig. R4.10) does so very little.
Utrobique ergo videtur frustrata virtus impellentis, quia non
confert ad motum rei impulse, vel parum.

R4.ll VIRTUTEM IMPELLENTIS ADIUVAT CIRCUMACTIO R4.ll ROTATION OF THE IMPELLING BODY AIDS ITS
145 IPSIUS, EO AMPLIUS QUO FUERIT LONGIUS. FORCE, AND TO A GREATER DEGREE INSOFAR AS IT IS
LONGER.
Sit quod movet ABC, et motum Let the impelling body be ABC, and that which is moved by
est E. Si igitur ABC impellat E it, E. If then ABC pushes against E at the point C, and if A is
in C, et moveatur A, minus C_____________ B____________ A moved, it will give less impulsion than if A were fixed; for, as
impellet quam si figatur A; pon- has been shown, C is heavier in the position of equality, than if
150 derosius enim est C in situ A is depressed. Again, if A remains fixed, E will be given
equalitatis, quam si demittatur A, (Fig. R4.lla) more impulsion at C than at B; because it (the lever ABC) is
ut ostensum est. Manente item A, plus impelletur E in C, quam heavier at C.
in B; quia gravius in C. Again, if A remains fixed, and C is swung around it, it will
Item, circumactum C, manente A, plus impellet quam utro- give more impulsion than in either of the previous cases
155 bique prius non moto; quia motum plus, eo etiam magis quo where it is not moved; because a thing is moved to a greater
longius, dupliciter. Fixo enim A in centro, circumacta B et C, degree, to the extent that it is longer, in two senses. For if A
describent arcus circulorum, et maiorem C. Cum ergo maius is fixed as an axis and B and C swung around, they will de-

218 219
 DE RATIONE PONDERIS DE RATIONE PONDERIS

pondus in C quam in B, et
velocius quoque motum,
160 multo amplius impelletur
E in C, quam in B. Simul
etiam circumactum E cum
C, magis movebitur quam
si C, motum prius, offendat
165 E.
Si item centrum alterius
motus sit in B, ut CBA
circa A, et item CB move­
atur circa B, augmentabitur
170 virtus impellendi pro dupli­
ci motu; quoniam in equali
tempore multo maiori c ir ­
cuitu deferetur C, ut in
subiecta descriptione patet.
scribe arcs of circles, and C the greater one. Since therefore
the weight at C is greater than at B, and since C is also moved
more rapidly, E will be impelled much more strongly at C than
at B. Also, if E is swung around along with C, it will be given
more motion than if C, being moved first, only strikes E.
Again, if there should be an axis at B, of another movement,
so that CBA swings around A, and in addition CB swings around
B, the force of impulsion will be augmented by the double
movement; because, in an equal time, C will be carried around
through a much greater arc, as is apparent from the accompany­
ing diagram.
(Fig. R4.llb)

(Fig. R4.1lc)

175 R4.12 QUOD SUSTENTATUR IN TERMINIS, CIRCA MEDIUM R4.12 THAT WHICH IS SUPPORTED AT ITS ENDS IS MORE
CITIUS DEPRIMITUR, ET EO AMPLIUS SI IMPELLATUR, ET QUICKLY DEPRESSED NEAR THE CENTER, AND ALL THE
HOC SECUNDUM FORMAM IMPELLENTIS ET QUANTITATEM MORE IF IT IS GIVEN AN IMPULSION; AND THIS OCCURS TO
IPSIUS FIT PLUS ET MINUS. A GREATER OR LESS DEGREE, DEPENDING ON THE SHAPE
AND SIZE OF THE BODY WHICH STRIKES IT.
Sit quod impellatur ABC. Let ABC be that which is struck. If, then, it is held up at A
180 Ipsum ergo si sustineatur and C, it will be more disposed toward being depressed in the
in A et C, plus habebit vicinity of B; for nothing supports B except its continuity with
deprimi circa B; nihil enim the other parts, and though this may in some cases hold it up,
sustinet B nisi continuitas sometimes it does not suffice to do so. And once B commences
ad alia, que quidem quando­ M to descend, it becomes more weighty, since there then com­
185 que sustinet, quandoque non mences to be less weight at A and C. Besides this, the more
sufficit omnino. Et ex quo distant B is from the ends, the more weighty it will be; for it
incepit descendere, B fit is supported by way of the length, since the ends are as if axes
* k B/ Jc
magis ponderosum, quoniam of lever arm s. Therefore the middle part may become so
minus incipit esse pondus weighty that it is broken in two before it is bent all the way
W0 in A et C. Porro, quanto B (Fig. R4.l2a) down.
magis distat a terminis, magis ponderabit, quia ipsa sunt ut But these things count all the more when B is also given an

220 221
 DE RATIONE PONDERIS DE RATIONE PONDERIS

centra libre, quoniam sustentantur pre longitudine; ergo con­ impulsion. Thus, with the weight doubled, the straightness of
tingit aggravari medium, ut rumpatur antequam dirigatur. B’ s continuity with A and C is more quickly weakened; and
Hec autem magis contin- even more if what pushes down on it is sharp; for what is
195 gunt ubi etiam B impellitur; united gives a greater impulsion. But it is also the case that,
sicque duplicato pondere, although the rigidity of the connecting material may not yield
citius directio continuitatis to the weight and to the impulsion, if the supports give way to
B cum A et C solvitur, some extent in accommodation to the blow, it will be bent down
atque magis si acutum fuerit O because the middle part becomes steadily heavier. This like­
200 impellens; magis enim unum _I—
wise occurs if it is not held up at either end; and it also hap­
impellit. Atqui hoc etiam ut, pens if it is held up at one of the ends, as at A . For if it is giv­
cum soliditas continuitatis en an impulsion at B, since B will become heavier, C will not
et ponderi et impulsui non keep up with the rotation of B (around A), and the continuity
cedat, si que sustinent a li- will be broken; otherwise C would traverse more distance than
205 quatenus cedant prosequente B; since it is lighter, there would be only the smallest degree
eo quod impellit, solvatur; (Fig. R4.l2b) of solidity in CA.
quoniam medium semper fit gravius. Hoc etiam fit, si in neutro
termino sustineatur. Fit etiam si in altero, ut in A, quoniam si
impellatur in B, quoniam gravius fiet B, non sequetur C circum-
210 volutionem B, et rumpetur continuitas; alioquin plus transiret
C quam B; cum sit levius, esset minima soliditas in CA.

R4.13 CUM MEDIUM DETINETUR, FACILIUS EXTREMA R4.13 WHEN THE MIDDLE IS HELD FAST, THE END PARTS
CURVANTUR. ARE MORE EASILY CURVED.
Sit ipsum ABCDE, medium Let the body be ABCDE, and its middle part C. When this is
215 C; quod cum detineatur et ex­ held fast, and the ends are given an impulsion, since the move­
trema impellantur, quoniam ment of these cannot follow the straight line in which they are
motum eorum in partem qua impelled, it is necessary that the body become curved. For the
impelluntur non potest sequi, direct path has to be modified, lest the continuity of the solid
oportet curvari; quoniam di- material should prevent the movement, which it can do less
220 rectio habet solvi nisi con­ effectively at A than at B, and at E than at D. For if A and E
nexio soliditatis impediat, are given an impulsion, since they have to be held by what con­
que quidem minus proficit in nects them with the middle part—namely by B and D—, and since
A quam in B, et E quam D. (Fig. R4.13) these parts are capable of following them, since they are not
Impulsa enim A et E, quoniam medii connexione detineri ha- themselves held fast, A and E will be less impeded (than B and
225 bent, scilicet B et D, cum ipsa habilia sint ad sequendum cum D) by the connection with C. And so it comes about that since
in se non detineantur, minus impedientur A et E continuitate ad the ends yield more easily, while the other pa.rts follow more
C. Sicque fit ut cum extrema facilius cedant, et quo illis vicin­ easily to the extent that they are nearer the ends, the whole
iora habilius sequantur, contingat totum curvari in circulum. body becomes curved into a circle. The longer ACE is, there­
Quanto igitur longius ACE, tanto levius extrema curvantur. In
fore, the more easily its ends are curved.
230 eadem ratione qua et remotiora a centro libre ponderosiora
And by the same principle whereby the parts more distant
sunt, quoniam maiores arcus describunt, eadem quoque et in
from the axis of a balance are heavier, because they describe
omnem partem magis sequuntur impellentem, si non pondus greater arcs, so also the more distant parts follow that which
ipsum impediat. Nota etiam super hoc, quod manente C, non pushes them in any direction, more easily, if the weight itself
magis impedit pondus A impellentem A, quam pondus B impel-
does not impede. It should be noted, besides, that if C remains
235 lentem B, quantum etiam ad ipsum pondus. fixed, the weight of A does not resist what pushes A any more
than the weight of B resists what pushes B—insofar as the

222 223
 DE RATIONE PONDERIS DE RATIONE PONDERIS

weights themselves are concerned.

R4.I4 MAGIS IMPULSUM PLUS COHERET.
Hec impulsio a posterioribus fit, que impulsa habent anter­
iora propellere que, quoniam pondere suo aliquatenus resist­
unt, habent media constringi. Unde quandoque in latus dissipan-
240 tur. Hinc etiam contingit quod inferiora superioribus infixa,
illis depulsis, plus infiguntur.
R4.14 THE GREATER THE IMPULSION GIVEN TO A BODY,
THE MORE ITS PARTS COHERE.
This impulsion is produced from behind; and the posterior
parts, having been pushed, have to push the front parts ahead;
and these, which resist to some extent because of their weight,
have to compress the middle parts. Hence these are some­
times driven out at the side. And in this way it also happens
that when the lower parts of an object are attached to the upper
ones by being stuck into them, if a downward impulsion is given
to the upper parts, the lower ones are driven into them more
deeply.

R4.15 QUOD PARTES HABET COHERENTES, SI MOTU DIREC­ R4.15 IF A BODY, HAVING PARTS WHICH COHERE, IS DI­
TE OFFENDATUR, REDIT DIRECTE. RECTLY OBSTRUCTED IN ITS MOTION, IT WILL RECOIL DI­
RECTLY.
Hoc fieri habet et propter This occurs both because of the medium in which the body is
245 medium in quo defertur, sive carried, whether it be air or water, and also by reason of the
aer sive aqua, et propter rarity of its own parts. Let the mediunh in which it is moved be
partium raritatem. Sit in quo B, and the moved body A; and let that against which it strikes
defertur B, et motum A; in be C. Since then A moves B, when A departs from its place and
quo offendit, C. Quia ergo A expels B from its place, B has to reverse its motion in order
250 movet B cum recedat A de to fill up the places at the rear. Hence it is both pushed ahead,
loco suo et impellat B de loco and turned back to the rear, by the same impulsion. But it is
suo, oportet ut ad supplendum carried back with all the more weight, when A strikes C, since
loca posteriora, reciprocetur C~ it is then unable to proceed further because it is stopped by the
B; unde eodem impulsu et mass which is in front of it. And since the impulsive force of A
255 promovetur et retorquetur. (Fig. R4.15) has been broken up on C, and A is now inclined only by its own
Eo amplius, cum offendat A in C, cumque nequeat procedere, weight, it must be carried back by B ’ s movement unless its
pondere imminentis constrictum, ponderosius refertur; et cum own weight prevails against this; and it will recoil in a direct
impetus A refractus sit in C, et pondere solo iam innitatur, path, since B recedes equally in every direction.
habet retrahi motu B nisi pondus eius prevaleat; et directe, The rarity of its own parts, however, brings about the same
260 quia in omnes partes equaliter recedit B. Raritas vero partium result. For the front parts of A, when they first encounter the
hoc idem operatur, quoniam priores partes A, cum prius offen­ obstruction C, are pressed upon by the mass and impulsion of
dantur in C, urgentur mole et impetu posteriorum, et cedunt in the rear parts, and are compressed on themselves; then, when
se; sicque, deluso impetu, redeuntes in locum suum alias re­ the impulsion is expended, they revert to their places and in so
pellunt recedendo. Si separabiles sunt partes constricte, hinc doing push back the other parts. If the parts are separable, then
265 inde resiliunt. when they are compressed into a smaller place, they will
rebound.

R4.16 LIQUIDUM ALIQUOD, QUO AMPLIUS CONTINUE DE­
MISSUM DESCENDIT, TANTUM IN PRIORI PARTE STRICT­
IUS EFFICIETUR.
Exitus per quod egreditur AB; et prima pars C, que cum de-
270 scenderit ad DF, sit E in exitu. Item, cum E fuerit in DF, fit C
R4.16 A LIQUID WHICH IS CONTINUOUSLY POURED, FORMS
A NARROWER STREAM AT ITS LOWER END, TO THE DE­
GREE THAT IT FALLS FURTHER.
Let the hole through which the liquid escapes be AB, and let
the first portion of the liquid be C; and when C shall have de-

224 225
 DE RATIONE PONDERIS DE RATIONE PONDERIS

in ZT. Quia ergo, quo plus scended as far as DF, let the portion E be at the opening. And
descenderit ponderosius then, when E has reached DF, let C be at ZT. Since therefore a
erit, erit C ponderosius in body becomes heavier the more it falls, C will be heavier when
DF quam in AB; ergo at DF than when at AB; therefore it will be heavier at DF than
275 ponderosius in DF, quam E E is at AB. But because, when E arrives at DF, C reaches ZT,
in AB. Quia vero dum E the distance I Z will be longer than the distance AF; hence the
pervenit in DF, pertingit C stream will be more slender. And thus it becomes ever thinner,
in ZT, longius erit FZ quam because the front parts are faster, and so, finally, it breaks up
AF, quare gracilius. Itaque into drops.
280 semper gracilius continue,
C
quia priores partes velociores;
et sic tandem abrumpuntur.

(Fig. R4.16)

R4.17 SI RES INEQUALIS PONDERIS IN PARTEM QUAMCUM- R4.17 IF A BODY OF NON-UNIFORM WEIGHT IS GIVEN AN
QUE IMPELLATUR, PARS GRAVIOR PRIORA OCCUPABIT. IMPULSION IN ANY GIVEN DIRECTION, THE HEAVIER PART
WILL COME TO BE IN THE FRONT POSITION.
Sit quod impellitur AB, Let AB be the body which is projected, and its heavier part
__AO
pars gravior A. Si ergo A . If then the impulsion is given on the side of A, B will also
BO be impelled; and since it is lighter, it will more easily yield to
impellatur ex parte A, et B
impellatur; quoniam levius
est, facilius cedit impulsui,
290 cumque facilitatem eius non
| the impulsion; and since A does not follow it with such ease, it
will be held back in its own motion and will aid'the gravity of
A. And thus the whole impulsive force will pass back into A;
sequatur A, frustrabitur therefore A will move out in front, and with its impetus pull B.
quidem in se et gravitatem If however the part B receives the impulsion from the rear,
A adiuvabit; sicque totus (Fig. R4.17) and A is in front, then B, having received the impulsion, will
nisus revertetur ad A. Habet ergo precedere, et suo impetu impel A; and the lightness of B will be retarded in the moving
295 trahere B. Si vero B posterius impellatur, et precedat A, im ­ of A, and therefore A will receive more impulsion because it
pulsum quidem B impellet A levitasque B tardabitur in moven­ offers more resistance to motion. And being then impelled
do A; et ideo plus impelletur A quia motum plus impedit; toto­ with the whole of the original impulsive force, it will have to
que conatu impulsum habebit trahere B. pull B along.

Explicit pars quarta et cum ea finitur liber Jordani de Here ends the fourth part, and with it there ends the book of
ratione ponderis. Jordanus on the theory of weight.

226 227
 VIII

TRACTATUS BLASII DE PARMA DE PONDERIBUS

Edited, with Introduction, Translation

and Notes by

MARSHALL CLAGETT
 INTRODUCTION

I, The Place of the Writings of Blasius of Parma in the

Medieval Science of Weights
Continued interest in the medieval science of weights in the
fourteenth century was demonstrated in a variety of ways.
In the first place there was a widespread reproduction of the
principal versions of the earlier treatises: The Liber de ponder­
ibus, the Elementa de ponderibus of Jordanus, the De ratione
ponderis attributed to Jordanus, the Liber karastonis, and so on.
This weknowfrom the existence today of a considerable number
of fourteenth century manuscripts of these various treatises.
At the same time, many of the schoolmen of the fourteenth
century, while not primarily concerned with problems of statics,
nevertheless had the occasion to cite the thirteenth century
works. Among these fourteenth century schoolmen interested in
the earlier treatises were Thomas Bradwardine, the anonymous
author of the Tractatus de sex inconvenientibus, John Dumbleton,
Roger Thomas, Franciscus de Ferraria, Albert of Saxony, and
Marsilius of Inghen.^
Finally, there were a number of new commentaries on, or
versions of, the medieval statical material. Particularly inter­
esting was a commentary on the Elementa of Jordanus composed
in the fourteenth century probably after the time of the De pro­
portionibus motuum of Bradwardine (1328). This commentary
was published by Peter Apian in 1533 along with, and following
on, the Liber de ponderibus which we have called here version
“P ." Apian designated this second commentary merely as an
aliud commentum. Its first important proposition has been pub­
lished here in Appendix III. We have already mentioned the im ­
portance of this commentary for getting at the fundamental sig­
nificance of the first proposition of the Elementa. To this com­
mentator the first proposition signified the basic principle of
statics, the principle which later came to be called the principle
of virtual displacements or virtual work. And this mature com­
mentator clearly recognized that it is upon this basic principle
that the proof of the law of the lever should rest. Another com­
mentary to, or rather, version of, the Elementa of Jordanus was
composed toward the end of the thirteenth or the beginning of
the fourteenth century. This commentary spelled out the geo­
metry implied in the proofs of the Elementa. Its close attention
to geometry may account for the occasional use of the title Li -
ber Euclidis de ponderibus for this version. We have published
proposition number eight from this version in Appendix IV.

231
 TRACTATUS BLASII DE PONDERIBUS
IN T R O D U C TION

and VIII and the critical notes to these propositions.) Whether

In this same category of new versions or commentaries of
Blasius knew the shorter Elementa of Jordanus in the form in
the medieval statical material can be placed the two treatises
which we have published it here is not known certainly. But a
on weights of Blasius of Parma, composed toward the end of the
statement in his Questiones appears to show that he knew of the
■fourteenth century. The first of these treatises consists of five
Elementa in one of its fourteenth-century forms.^ Also he was
questions entitled Questiones super tractatum de ponderibus.
acquainted with and used the four propositions entitled De Can­
As the title implies these questions were raised by Blasius after
or1*-0 which usually accompanied Jordanus’ Elementa as an inte­
reading one or more versions of various earlier treatises on
gral part of that work. (See Part II, Propositions XHI-XVI.) In
weights. And while we shall not discuss this short work here in
the third part of his De ponderibus, i.e ., the part on hydrostat­
any detail, it ought to be noted that its discussion of the mean­
ics, Blasius made use of the Pseudo-Archimedean De insidenti -
ings of the various statical terms (e.g., pondus, ponderositas,
bus in humidum which we have published above, for he cited
etc.) confirms much of what has already been said by the editors
this work directly in the first supposition to Part III. He also
in the earlier parts of this collection. The scope of these Ques-
employed Book IV of the De caelo in fashioning his ideas on
tiones can be adequately presented by a listing of the questions:
specific weight. (See Notes to supposition 3 and Proposition I of
(1) Utrum omnis ponderosi motus sit ad medium—a question on
Part III.) It is quite probable that he fused with these two sour­
the first supposition of the tracts de ponderibus.
ces the basic ideas relative to specific gravity contained in the
(2) Utrum gravius alio velocius descendat—on the second sup­
Liber Euclidis de ponderoso et levi. (See Note to Part III, Prop­
position.
osition I.) Although the substance of certain of the propositions
(3) Utrum gravioris scilic et ponderis motus ad mqdium sit rec­
of the genuine tract On Floating Bodies of Archimedes was giv­
tior—on the third supposition.
en by Blasius (See Note to Part III, Proposition III), it is doubt­
(4) Utrum proportio ponderis ad pondus sequitur proportionem
ful if Blasius had read the Latin translation of that work made
descensus ad descensum—on the first proposition.
by William Moerbeke in 1269. He more than likely drew these
(5) Utrum pondus in equilibri positum propter solam variation­
Archimedean ideas from the Pseudo-Archimedean De insidenti-
em situs in sua periferia possit esse gravius—on the second
ibus and/or a section of the Quadripartitum numerorum of Jo*
proposition. (See the unique manuscript of this work in Iv6
hannes de Muris of 1344. As a final source of Blasius’ hydro­
Milan, Bibi. Ambros. F . 145 Sup., I8r-28r.)
static ideas we can note some unknown writing from which he
It should be observed finally that these questions are presented
took the idea of the hydrometer (See Note to Part III, Proposi­
in the scholastic form followed in most of B l a s i u s ’ other works.
tion II).
Distinctly different in form and content is the second of Blas­
So much for the sources utilized byBlasius.lt will be obvious
ius ’ statical writings, the Tractatus de ponderibus magistri
from even a cursory comparison of his De ponderibus with the
Blasii de Parma. Non scholastic in form, this tract is a rework­
treatises of the thirteenth century that Blasius rarely goes be­
ing (with an occasional novelty) of the earlier treatises on
yond his sources. In fact, in most cases he merely paraphrased
weights. It is this work which we have chosen to publish in this
those sources. It is readily evident that of the sources upon
collection as an example of a late medieval treatment of the
which he drew, Blasius was most attracted to the Liber de pon­
standard statical material.
deribus. This is not surprising considering the fact that this
Preliminary to the evaluation of the place of Blasius in the
little treatise has such a distinctly Aristotelean flavour and that
development of statics, we can note the principal sources on
Blasius was, as we shall see, an Aristotelean commentator of
which Blasius drew in writing his statical works. Particularly
no little fame. From this treatise Blasius borrowed his belief
important for the whole Aristotelean cast of his thought was the
that the crucial factor in determining the effective force of a
little Liber de ponderibus, which we have called version “P ."
balance weight is the relative curvature or rectitude of its po­
Not only did Blasius quote from this treatise verbatim, but the
tential areal path in comparison with the path of the weight on
tone and content of the initial assumptions of the first part of the opposite arm of the balance. The basic idea is that the
his work were directly inspired by the proemium of that work. straighter the path is, the more the weight has of its natural
There is also no question that Blasius had read, if not com­ free movement, and, since force is related directly to velocity,
pletely understood, the brilliant De ratione ponderis attributed the greater will be the effective force.lt is true that while Blas­
to Jordanus. For from that treatise he directly drew certain ius copies the Liber de ponderibus in emphasizing the relative
propositions and proofs (e.g., See Part II, Propositions III, VII,
233
232
 I N T R O D U C TION
TRACTATUS BLASII DE PONDERIBUS

rectitudes of the paths of the weights under consideration, he

/widows the works of Jordanus in measuring curvature or recti­
tude by the segment of the vertical line passing through the ful-
. rum intercepted by the areal path of the weight. Yet it must be
admitted that Blasius on more than one occasion obscures the
basic idea of positional gravity or effective weight that had been
so important for Jordanus. Nevertheless, the establishment of
the importance of differences in curvature of the areal traject­
ories of balance weights for differences in the positional grav­
ities of those weights constitutes the basic objective of Part I of
Blasius’ De ponderibus.
The second part of the De ponderibus includes a melange of
propositions copied from the Liber de ponderibus, the De ratione
ponderis, the De canonio, as well as a few original ones. Like
Jordanus and the authors of the Liber karastonis and the Liber
de ponderibus, Blasius included the statement of the equilibrium
of equal weights on equal arm lengths as a proposition to be
proved rather than as a postulate, as it had been with Archi­
medes (See Blasius’ Part II, Propositioni). The proof rested
upon showing that the curvature of the potential areal paths of
the equal weights at equal distances will be the same, and hence
their positional gravities will be the same, and, since the nat­
ural gravities are taken as being equal, the final effective
weights will be equal. The same type of proof is given in Part II,
Proposition II, to show that the effective weight of an equal nat­
ural weight placed on the end of a longer arm will be greater
and hence that arm will be depressed.
In Part II, Proposition III, Blasius has used the so-called
Aristotelean law of movement to “prove" that the resistance of
the medium in which a balance has been placed can negate the
equilibrium of an equal armed balance affirmed in Part II, Prop­
osition I, and thus make it impossible for one to discover the
equality or inequality of weights by means of a balance. The
"thought" experiment devised to support Part II, Proposition III,
not a fortunate one.
Among the propositions of the second part of the De ponderi-
fedS. Blasius included statements and proofs of the law of the
lever as applied to both the straight and bent levers (Part II,
¥*^positions X and XI). It is clear from the proofs of these prop­
ositions that Blasius had a good understanding of the basic idea
viatic moment and the necessity of taking the shortest hori-
*<»ntn 1 distance to the vertical line passing through the fulcrum
l*' 'urasuring positional or effective gravity. In fact, Blasius is
^ impressed with the importance of taking this shortest hori-
distance as the determining factor in dealing with equal
that he applies it rather absurdly to several propositions
234
and corollaries involving rotary or free swinging pendants (See
below, Part II, Propositions V and VI, and the corollaries to
^Proposition VI). Thus in Part II, Proposition VI, Blasius believes
that a weight on a long rotary pendant will in its free inclination
toward the center of the world be closer to the vertical than an
equal weight on a shorter pendant, and hence it will be less
effective than the weight on the shorter pendant. In this thought
experiment Blasius has no concept of the importance of signifi -
cant magnitude. While Blasius understands the basic idea of
static moment in these propositions of the second part of this
work, the principle of virtual work which seems to underly the
proofs of Jordanus seems even more obscured by Blasius. In
his proofs of Part II, Proposition X and Part II, Proposition XI,
relative to the straight and bent levers, for Blasius the funda­
mental point, as it had been in Part II, Propositions I and II, is
to establish equilibrium by counteracting the differences in ab­
solute weights through differences in positional gravity. And
differences in positional gravity depend upon differences in the
curvatures of the potential areal paths of the weights.lt is worth
noting in passing that Blasius omitted the elegant proof of the
equilibrium of weights on oppositely inclined planes given in the
De ratione ponderis (R1.10). However, from Book III of the De
ratione Blasius repeated in a confused way the tricky proposi-
tion (R3.04) relative to the case of the balancing of one arm of
a beam having weight by a beam of any desired weight suspended
on the other arm (Part II, Proposition VII). Similarly Blasius
borrowed R3.03 as his proposition VIII of Part II on the instab­
ility of the beam supported from below.
The second part of Blasius’ s De ponderibus Concludes with
four propositions (Part II, Propositions XIII-XVI) borrowed from
the De canonio. Here Blasius included little that was not either
in the Liber de ponderibus or the De canonio.
In Part III of the De ponderibus Blasius is concerned with the
problem of specific gravity. His definition of specific gravity
was not simply the operational definition given in the Pseudo-
Archimedean De insidentibus in humidum, which Blasius obvi­
ously had read. Rather it introduced dynamic considerations,
probably from the Liber Euclidis de ponderoso et levi, or per­
haps from the Quadripartitum numerorum of Johannes de Muris.
Things are said to be specifically heavier by the fact that they
would fall faster. Thus in comparing specific gravities of sol­
ids that sink in a liquid, Blasius pretended to note which one
sinks the faster for this one would be specifically heavier. The
propositions of the third part have a rather vague qualitative
character even when they profess to be quantitative, as will be
clear from an examination of these propositions and their eval-
235
 INTRO DUC TION TRACTATUS BLASII DE PONDERIBUS

uation in the critical notes. It is worth noting finally that B las- were copied in that year).14 In 1396 he did an arrangement of
ius described a rudimentary hydrometer in connection with the Buridan’ s Physics, one of the foundation works of the new phys­
determination of the specific gravities of liquids and floating ics of the fourteenth century.^ Copies of his own Expositio and
bodies (See Part III, Propositions II-VI). Questiones on Aristotle’s Physica appear in a manuscript dated
On the whole, I think it clear that the treatises of Blasius on 1397.16 While some would argue that Blasius left Pavia for Padua
statics were of less influence on the development of statics than as early as 1400, he reappears in the Pavian records from 1403-
the thirteenth century treatises attributed to Jordanus. For there 1407.17 After moving to Padua in 1407, Blasius’ career is more
is no evidence that Blasius’ treatises were published, and I do easily traceable in yearly examination records through 1411. ^S
not know of their later citation. Lynn Thorndike’s suggestion that The last mention of Blasius at Padua is to his absence from an
Blasius’ De ponderibus might have influenced Nicholas of Cusa’s examination dated 3 January, 1412.^® He appears to have been
De staticis experimentis is not at all confirmed by a comparison dismissed from the University in the preceding autumn, some
of the two works. Thus the main importance of the statical work would say because his classes were empty. At any rate, there is
of Blasius is in showing the survival and virility of the medieval a persistent report that Blasius was greedy for money but there
science of weights rather than in charting new and influential seems to be little fact in the story that Vittorio da Feltre, the
ways. famous humanist, wanted to study with him, but that Blasius de­
manded too high a fee .2® Just when Blasius was at Paris we do
II. The life of Blasius of Parma not know, but that he was there we are explicitly told in his
The earliest evidence we have of Blasius’ academic life is the Questiones super tractatum de ponderibus.21 My guess would
persistent report that the young student of the Pelicani family of be some time early in his career. We know, finally, that Blasius
Parma received his arts degree at Pavia in 1374,^ and it is un­ returned to his native city of Parma and that he died there on
der the records of this year that he is first mentioned oh the 23 April, 1416.22. He was survived by a son Francesco Pelacani
faculty roll as “reading astrology."4 He is still found in the who like his father received his degree at Pavia and continued
Pavian University records for 1377, but not long afterwards he on to teach there. Other works of scientific interest written by
appears to have moved to the University of Bologna where the Blasius include a Demonstrationes super sphaeram, Demonstra­
records show that in 1379 “80 Blasius taught logic, philosophy, tiones geometrice in theorica planetarium, Questiones super
and a stro lo g y .H o w long Blasius remained at Bologna is not tractatum sphere Joh.de Sacrobosco, and Questio de tactu cor­
known definitely. But by 1384 we find him agreeing to teach porum duorum. ^
astrology and philosophy for four years at the University of
Padua. It seems likely that the manuscript of his lectures on
the De generatione, the Meteorologica, the De anima, and the
Physica, dated 1385,7 is a product of these first efforts at Padua.
But it is certain that he did not spend ail of the four years con­
tracted for at Padua, for he is found back at Bologna in 1387-
.1388.® An undated Oxford manuscript of his on Aristotle’ s De
caelo presumably either dates from this period at Bologna or
from the earlier one.^ Blasius continued on the move, for in
1389 he returned to Pavia where he taught “the mathematical
arts and both philosophies (moral and natural)."^® It could be
that his interest in the * mathematical" science of weights dates
from this period at Pavia. Blasius continues in the Pavian rec­
ords for every year until 1388^ and the most important of his
works appear to date from this decade at Pavia. Thus we know
that his Questions on Perspective are dated 1390 in one manu­
script;12 his questions on the Tractatus Proportionum of Brad-
wardine, 1391, ® his questions on the De latitudinibus (or De con­
figuratione) qualitatum of Nicolas Oresme, 1392 (or at least

236 237
 T R A C T A T U S D E PO NDERIBUS
M AG ISTRI BLASII DE P A R M A
Pars Prima
(Suppositiones et Propositiones)
l I. SCIENTIA DE PONDERIBUS PHILOSOPHIE VERE NATURA­
LI DICITUR SUB ALTERNARI.
Probatur: Scientia de ponderibus particulari stilo de moti­
bus considerat. Philosophia autem naturalis de motibus inqui -
5 rit communi scrutinio. Ergo suppositio vera, et cetera.
II. BRACHIA EQUILIBRIS SI EQUALIA FUERINT, DUAS QUAR­
TAS EIUSDEM CIRCULI OPPOSITAS ET EQUALES IN REVO­
LUTIONE SCRIBUNT; INEQUALIA AUTEM INEQUALES, QUIA
MAIUS MAIOREM ET MINUS MINOREM.
10 Hoc patet per se et potest geometrice sic ostendi: Sint brach­
ia equilibris equalia, puta AB et BC, et
descendat AB usque ad F, gratia exempli.
Tunc clarum est quod in descensu huius
^ brachii AB usque ad F ascendet brach-
15 ium BC. Et tunc clarum est quod in de­
scensu descripti sunt duo arcus oppositi
et equales in centro motus, quod est B,
^ et facti sunt duo anguli contra se positi
(F ig .B -l) et per consequens equales. Et quia lat-
20 era istos angulos includentia sunt equalia, predictis angulis
subtense corde sunt equales. Sed equales corde cordant equales
arcus. Ergo et cetera. Alia pars evidenter patet et cetera.
III. QUODLIBET GRAVE EXTRA LOCUM SUUM NATURALEM
NON DETENTUM DESCENDERE APPETIT PER CORDAM
25 PLUSQUAM PER ARCUM.
Hoc patet, quia omne corpus quodcumque sit illud cum fuerit
extra locum ipsius naturalem, qui est eius conservatio, appetit
in quantum minori tempore [ut] est possibile acquirere illam
perfectionem. Et quia in minori tempore describitur corda
30 [plus] quam arcus eiusdem circuli, hinc est quod et cetera.
Ex hoc sequuntur tria corollaria: 1, Primum est: motus
gravis in equilibri non est simpliciter naturalis. Patet hoc ex
secunda suppositione que dicebat brachia equilibris in descensu
describere arcus et per consequens lineas curvas. Quare cor-
35 ollarium verum. 2. Secundum corollarium: motus gravis in
238
THE TREATISE ON WEIGHTS OF
MASTER BLASIUS OF PARMA
Part I
(Suppositions and Propositions)
I. THE SCIENCE OF WEIGHTS IS SAID IN TRUTH TO BE SUB­
ORDINATE TO NATURAL PHILOSOPHY.
Proof: The science of weights considers movements in a par­
ticular way, while natural philosophy takes movements under
common scrutiny. Therefore, the supposition is true, and soon.
H. IF THE ARMS OF A BALANCE ARE EQUAL, THEY DE­
SCRIBE IN REVOLUTION TWO EQUAL AND OPPOSITE QUAR­
TERS OF THE SAME CIRCLE. IF THEY ARE UNEQUAL,
THEY DESCRIBE UNEQUAL QUARTERS, THE LONGER ARM
DESCRIBING THE LARGER QUARTER, THE SHORTER ARM
THE SMALLER QUARTER.
This is evident per se, and it can be demonstrated geometri­
cally as follows: Let there be equal arms of a balance, for ex­
ample, AB and BC. And let AB descend to F, as an example.
Then it is clear that in the descent of this arm AB to F, the
arm BC ascends. And then it is clear that in the descent two
opposite and equal arcs have been described around the center
of movement, which is B. And two opposite and thus equal
angles have been formed. And because the sides including these
angles are equal, chords subtending the aforementioned angles
are equal. But equal chords cut off equal arcs. Therefore, and
so on. The other part is clearly obvious, and so on.
III. ANY HEAVY BODY AT ALL WHICH IS OUTSIDE OF ITS
NATURAL PLACE AND IS NOT HELD BACK SEEKS TO DE­
SCEND BY A CHORD RATHER THAN BY AN ARC.
This is evident because when any heavy body is outside of its
natural place, the place which it conserves, it seeks in as short
a time as possible to attain that perfection [of place]. And be­
cause a chord will be described in less time than an arc of the
same circle, hence it is that and so on.
From this supposition three corollaries follow: l. The move­
ment of a heavy body on a balance is not simply natural. This
is obvious from the second supposition which said that the
arms of a balance in descent describe arcs and hance curved
lines. Therefore, the corollary is true. 2. The movement of a
239
 TRACTATUS BLASII DE P O N D E R I B U S
TRACTATUS BLASII DE PONDERIBUS

brachio descendente non est simpliciter violentus. Patet hoc

quia per istum motum grave aquirit sibi locum naturalem.
3. Tertium corollarium: Talis motus gravis in equilibri est
medius inter motum naturalem et violentum. Patet hoc cum
40 omnis motus sit naturalis vel violentus vel preter naturam, et
cetera.
heavy body on a descending arm is not simply violent. This is
obvious because by that movement [in a balance] it acquires the
place natural to it. 3. Such a movement of a heavy body on a
balance is midway between natural and violent movement. This
is evident since every movement is natural or violent, i.e ., out­
side of nature, and so on.

IV. MINORIS CIRCULI CIRCUMFERENTIA PLUS CURVATUR;

IV. THE CIRCUMFERENCE OF A SMALLER CIRCLE IS MORE
MAIORISQUE MINUS. CURVED; THAT OF A LARGER CIRCLE IS LESS CURVED.
Probatur: Eadem corda plus cordat de circumferentia m i­
Proof: The same chord cuts more of the circumference of a
45 noris et minus de circumferentia maioris. Et hoc non est nisi
smaller circle and less of a circumference of a larger circle.
quia circumferentia minoris .plus curva­
This is only because the circumference of a smaller circle is
tur circumferentia maioris. Antecedens
more curved than that of a larger circle. The antecedent is
patet: Descriptis duobus circulis inequa-
evident. With two unequal circles described, circles which in­
libus sese invicem secantibus in duobus
tersect in two points A and B, then if a straight line is protrac­
50 punctis, que puncta sunt A, B, tunc ab A
ted from A to B, the proposition becomes obvious. For example,
usque ad B protrahatur recta linea et
let there be two unequal circles whose centers are C and D and
patefiet propositum. Verbi gratia,sint
which intersect in points A and B. Then with a straight line
duo circuli inequales, quorum centra sint
protracted, the proposition is obvious.
C et D, se invicem secantes in punctis
And then a corollary follows. The same vase contains a
55 A, B. Tunc protracta linea recta patet
greater quantity of liquid below than above. This is clear from
(F ig.B -2) propositum.
the supposition premissed and its proof taken together with this
Et tunc sequitur corollarium: Idem vas numero plus de liqui­
additional assumption, namely, any fluid is of spherical figure
do continet inferius quam superius. Patet ex suppositione
or approaches sphericity.
premissa et probatione eiusdem cum auxilio huius, quodlibet
60 fluxibile est sperice figure vel ad spericitatem accedit.

V. EIUSDEM CIRCULI ET MAIOR ARCUS PLUS CURVATUR

MINORE.
Suppositio sic probatur: Minor est proportio cordarum quam
eorumdem arcuum. Ergo suppositio vera. Antecedens declara­
65 tur. Duplus arcus non habet duplam cor­
dam sed minorem, quod declaratur. Pro
cuius evidentia fiat circulus cuius cen­
trum sit A. Deinde signatis duobus punc­
tis in circumferentia, que sint B, C, et
70 protracta linea recta ab uno in alterum,
tunc dividatur arcus istius corde BC,
gratia exempli, in duas partes equates
tanquam in puncto D. Tunc protractis
lineis rectis factus est triangulus BCD.
75 (F ig.B -3) Modo patet quod proportio totius corde
BAC ad cordam BD non est dupla, sed minor. Quod posset pro­
bari quia aliter alicuius trianguli duo latera simul sumpta ade-
quarentur tertio, quod est contra 20am primi Euclidis. Et' sic
patet suppositio, et ceterai
240
V. IN THE SAME CIRCLE A LARGER ARC IS MORE CURVED
THAN A SMALLER ONE.
The supposition is proved as follows. The proportion of
chords is less than that of the arcs of the same chords. There­
fore, the supposition is true. The antecedent is made clear as
follows. A double arc does not have a double chord. Clarifica­
tion: For making this evident, let a circle be drawn whose cen­
ter is A . Then assign two points on the circumference, the
points B and C. Protract a straight line from one point to the
other. Then let the arc of this chord BC be divided into two
parts, for example, into two equal parts at point D. Then with
straight lines protracted, a triangle BCD has been formed. Now
it is clear that the proportion of the whole chord BAC to the
chord BD is not a double one, but less than double. This can be
proved because otherwise two sides of a triangle taken together
would be equal to the third which is against the twentieth prop­
osition of the first book of Euclid. And so the supposition is
obvious.
241
 TRACTATUS BL ASII DE PONDERIBUS
TRACTATUS BLASII DE PONDERIBUS

80 VI. ARCUUM EQUALIUM INEQUALITER A LINEA EQUALITA­ VI. IN THE CASE OF EQUAL ARCS UNEQUALLY DISTANT
TIS DISTANTIUM QUI MAGIS DISTAT MINUS CAPIT DE FROM THE LINE OF EQUALITY (i.e., the line of horizontal
DIRECTO. balance) THAT WHICH IS A GREATER DISTANCE INTER­
CEPTS MORE OF THE VERTICAL [through the axis].
Probatur: Et fiat talis circulus cuius centrum sit A. Deinde Proof: Let such a circle be drawn with its center at A. Let
ducatur per centrum linea directionis, que sit BC. Deinde duca­ the vertical BC be drawn through the center. And then draw the
85 tur linea equalitatis, que sit DE. Tunc
line of equality DE. Thereupon let there be designated equal
signentur equales arcus inequaliter dis­
arcs unequally distant from the line of equality, either above
tantes ab equalitate, sub vel supra, non
or below that line, it not being important which. Let these arcs
est vis, que sint DF et FC. Dico quod ar­
be DF and FC. I say that the arc more distant from the line of
cus plus distans a linea equalitatis m i­
equality [when projected on the vertical] intercepts less of the
90 nus capit de directo seu de motu naturali,
vertical or of natural movement, and the less distant intercepts
et arcus minus distans plus capit, quod
more of the vertical. This is proved as follows. From point F
sic probatur: Quia a puncto F ducatur
is drawn line FG parallel to line DAE. And it is clear that
linea FG equidistans linee DAE. Et clar­
since arcs DF and FC are equal, DF and GC will also be equal
um est quod cum arcus DF et FC sint
arcs. Then a straight line is constructed from point G to point
95 (F ig.B -4) equales, erunt quoque DF et GC equales
D. Similarly one is drawn from point C to point F . Then two
arcus. Tunc a puncto G in punctum D ducatur recta. Similiter a
equal angles have been formed, the angles F and D, because by
puncto C in punctum F. Tunc facti sunt duo anguli equales, puta a proposition of the third book of Euclid equal arcs include
angulus F, D, quia per unam tertii Euclidis equales arcus capi­
equal angles formed on the circumference. Then consider the
unt equales angulos in circumferentia. Tunc considerentur duo two triangles ADO and FLC. These triangles I prove to be
100 trianguli, puta ADO et FLC, quos probo esse equiangulos. Quod equiangular because angle A is equal to angle L, both being
patet quia angulus A adequatur angulo L, quia uterque est rectus,
right angles since DA and FL are parallel and are cut perpen­
eo quod linea DA et FL sunt equidistantes et tertia supervenit,
dicularly by a third line BAC. And angle D is equal to angle F .
ut puta BAC secans illas orthogonaliter, et angulus D adequatur
Hence the third angle of one triangle is equal to the third angle
angulo F. Quare tertius adequatur tertio per 32am primi E le­
of the other by the thirty-second proposition of the first book
105 mentorum. Quare per quartam sexti latera sunt invicem pro­
of the Elements of [Euclid], Wherefore, by the fourth proposi­
portionalia. Et sic qualis est proportio DA ad FL talis est AO
tion of the sixth book the sides of the triangles are respective­
ad LC. Sed cum DA sit maior FL, eo quod tota DAE diamter>
ly proportional. And so the proportion of DA to FL is as the
est maior FLG.sic subduplum est maius subduplo, et sic AO est
proportion of AO to LC. But since DA is greater than FL be­
maior LC. Et per consequens AO est maior LC; quare a forti­
cause the whole diameter DAE is greater than FLG and thus
110 ori tota AL est maior LC. Cum autem linea AL sit linea direc­
its half is greater than the half of the latter, hence AO is
tions correspondens arcui DF, et LC sit linea directionis cor-
greater than LC. With AO greater than LC, a fortiori the
respondens arcui FC, patet quod arcus equales inequaliter
whole line AL is greater than LC. Since, moreover, the line
distantes a linea equalitatis capiunt inequaliter de directo, m i­
AL is the vertical line to which the arc DF corresponds andLC
nus distans plus et plus distans minus, quod voluimus demon­
is the vertical line to which the arc FC corresponds, it is clear
115 strare. equal arcs unequally distant from the line of equality intercept
the vertical unequally, that which is less distant intercepting
more and that which is more distant intercepting less. This is
what we wished to demonstrate.
VII. GRAVIUS EST ALIUD ALIO ET EODEM QUANTO MOTUS
VII. ONE BODY IS HEAVIER THAN ANOTHER BY THE
EIUS VERSUS CENTRUM EST RECTIOR.
AMOUNT THAT ITS MOVEMENT TOWARD THE CENTER [of
the world] IS STRAIGHTER.
Patet supposita tertia suppositione quod quodlibet grave
Proof: With the third supposition assumed, it is evident that
appetit movere per rectam, et quanto incessus eius est curvior
any heavy body at all seeks to move by a straight line and by
242
243

TRACTATUS BLASII DE PONDERIBUS
IZO tanto plus distat a naturali incessu. Et per hoc tardius movetur.
Et per hoc est minus grave gravitate naturali vel situali. Et ex
hoc patet suppositio.
Et ex hoc sequuntur duo corollaria: l. Primum: quanto pon­
dus equilibris alicuius elevatur tanto pondus positum in c ir-
IZ5 cumvolubili gravius sit et velocius movetur. Declaratur hoc
quia quanto equilibris est in loco altiori tanto pondus positum
in circumvolubili rectius descendit. Quare ex suppositione
gravius est,et ergo velocius descendit ad situm. Primum prin­
cipale declaratur. Pro cuius evidentia sit O centrum mundi et
sit ABC equilibris situata in inferi­
ori regione aeris, distans a centro
mundi per lineam OB brevissimam
linearum. Sint circumvolubilia
huius equilibris AO et CO. Sit alia
equilibris situata, gratia exempli,
in medio regione aeris, equalium
brachiorum cum prima equilibri.
Dico quod si pondus quod fuerit ap­
pensum cum prima equilibri append­
atur in ista vel in suo circumvolu­
bili, quod gravius erit. Et velocius
movebitur, eo quod protractis appen­
(Fig. B-5) diculis utriusque in centrum mundi,
pendicula equilibris inferioris cum brachiis eiusdem causant
145 maiores angulos quam appendicula equilibris superioris cum
brachiis eiusdem. Quod patet faciliter ex 3Za primi Euclidis.
Considerentur duo trianguli EDO et ABO et arguitur sic: Angu­
lus D adequatur angulo B quia uterque rectus. Et cum angulus
EOD sit minor angulo AOB, sequitur per 3Zam quod angulus
150 DEO sit maior angulo CAO. Quare sequitur quod circumvolu­
bilia equilibris superioris pius tendant ad equidistantiam cum
linea directionis quam circumvolubilia equilibris inferioris.
Et per consequens pondera appensa in superiori gravius de­
scendunt. Quare et cetera. Quod fuit probandum.
155 Z. Secundum corollarium: Grave in equilibri descendens
continue in eius motu retardatur. Patet corollarium ex quo
quia grave quanto plus descendit tanto maior portio circuli de­
scribitur. Ergo continue equilibris pondus obliquius descendit,
quia continue sit levius secundum situm, et cetera.
160 VIII. SOL.A PROPORTIONE MAIORIS INEQUALITATIS GRAVE
IN EQUILIBRI PENDENS NUTUM FACIT.
Ista non probatur quia inter prima principia connumeratur,
Z44
TRACTATUS BLASII DE PONDERIBUS
the amount that its path is more curved by that amount is it
more distant from its natural path, and accordingly is it moved
more slowly. And for this reason it is less heavy in natural or
positional gravity.
Two corollaries follow from this: 1. By the amount a weight
on a balance is elevated by so much is it heavier if the weight
is suspended on a rotary pendant (i.e., a freely swinging pend­
ant), and by so much is it moved more quickly. Clarification:
The more the balance is in an elevated position, the more a
weight suspended on a rotary pendant descends more directly.
Since from this supposition it is heavier, therefore it descends
more quickly to the position of equality. The first principal sup­
position is clarified as follows: To make it evident let O be the
center of the world and let ABC be a balance situated in the in­
ferior region of the air distant from the center of the world by
the line OB, the shortest possible line. Let the rotary pendants
of this balance be AO and BO. Let another balance be situated,
for example, in the middle region of the air—it being of equal
arms with the first balance. I say that if the weight which is
suspended on the first balance is suspended on the second bal­
ance or on its rotary pendant, it will be heavier and move fast­
er because of the fact that if its pendants are protracted to the
center of the world, the pendicles of the lower balance form
greater angles with the arms of this balance than the pendicles
of the superior balance with its arm s. This is easily proved
from the thirty-second proposition of the first book of Euclid.
Consider the two triangles EDO and ABO. And then it is argued
as follows: Angle D is equal to angle B because each is a right
angle. And since angle EOD is less than hngle AOB, it follows
by the thirty-second proposition that angle DEO is greater than
angle BAO. Hence it follows that the rotary pendants of the up­
per balance tend more to be parallel with the vertical than the
rotary pendants of the lower balance. And consequently the
weights suspended on the upper balance are heavier in descent.
Wherefore, and so on.
Z. A heavy body descending on a balance is continually retard­
ed in its movement. This corollary is evident from the fact
that the more a heavy body descends [in a balance], the larger
portion of a circle will be described. Therefore, a weight on a
balance continually descends more obliquely because it is con­
tinually lighter according to position. And so on.
VIII. A HEAVY BODY DESCENDING ON A BALANCE IS DE­
PRESSED ONLY AS THE RESULT OF A PROPORTION OF
GREATER INEQUALITY.
This is not proved because it is numbered among the first
Z45
 TRACTATUS BLASII DE PONDERIBUS
et cetera.
IX. EQUE GRAVIA DICUNTUR PONDERA CUM IN EQUILIBRI
165 POSITA FUERINT ET BRACHIA AB EQUALITATE NON
MUTABUNT.
Dico autem brachia equilibris cum fuerint ab orizonte equi-
distantia, ab equalitate non mutari.
Et sic finita sit pars prima operis, et cetera.
Pars secunda
l I. CUM BRACHIA EQUILIBRIS EQUALIA FUERINT ET AB OR­
IZONTE ET EQUIDISTENT, EQUIS PONDERIBUS APPENSIS
MINIME FIET NUPTUS.
Sciendum est pro secunda parte huius operis quod aliquando
5 equilibris est duorum brachiorum, aliquando unius tantum. Et
cum fuerint duorum brachiorum, aliquando erunt hec brachia
equalia, aliquando inequalia. Et etiam axis circa quam movent­
ur brachia aliquando transibit per regulam, aliquando supra,
et aliquando sub. Erit alia differentia, quoniam brachia ali­
10 quando habebunt appendicula et aliquando sine appendiculis. Et
ideo accidit quod pondera affixa erunt brachiis et aliquando
erunt appensa filis. Et aliquando erit unum appensum et reli­
quum brachio affixum» Et accidet diversitas eo quod aliquando
fila erunt equalia et aliquando inequalia; et aliquando circum-
15 volubilia et aliquando fixa; aliquando recta, aliquando curva. Et
diversitas provenit eo quod brachia aliquando erunt equidistan-
tia superficiei orizontis et aliquando non. Et iuxta predicta in
hac secunda parte varias ponam conclusiones.
His premissis probatur conclusio primo posita, quia sint AB
20 et BC equalia et equidistantla ab o r­
izonte. Tunc per secundam supposi­
tionem cum brachia sint equalia re­
spiciunt equales quartas eiusdem
circuli. Et equales quarte equaliter
25 curvantur. Et igitur pondera secund­
um situm sunt eque gravia et ex ypo-
tesi eque gravia gravitate naturali.
(Fig. B-6) Igitur non fiet motus.
II. TRIPLUM PONDUS AD ALIUD IN EQUILIBRI, MEDIO UNI~
30 FORMITER UT UNUM RESISTENTE,SUBTRIPLUM AD IPSUM
246
TRACTATUS BLASII DE PONDERIBUS
principles, and so on.
IX. WEIGHTS ARE SAID TO BE EQUALLY HEAVY WHEN,UP­
ON BEING PLACED ON A BALANCE, THE ARMS OF THE
BALANCE WILL NOT CHANGE FROM THEIR POSITION OF
HORIZONTAL EQUILIBRIUM.
I say, moreover, that since the arms of the balance are par­
allel with the horizon, they are not altered from a position of
horizontal equilibrium.
And so the first part of the work has been finished, and so
on.
Part II
I. WHEN THE ARMS OF A BALANCE ARE EQUAL AND PAR­
ALLEL WITH THE HORIZON, IF EQUAL WEIGHTS ARE SUS­
PENDED [on the ends of the arms], NO DEPRESSION TAKES
PLACE.
It ought to be known for the second part of this work that
sometimes a balance is of two arms, sometimes of one. In the
case of the two-arm balances, sometimes these arms will be
equal, sometimes unequal. And also sometimes the axis around
which the arms are moved crosses through the beam, some­
times it is above the beam and sometimes below. There are
other differences with respect to the arms. Sometimes they will
have suspension cords and sometimes they will be without
them. And therefore sometimes it happens that the weights will
be fixed on the arms and sometimes they will be suspended by
pendants. And sometimes one weight will be suspended and the
other one hung [directly] on the arm. And there is also a diver­
sity resulting from the fact that sometimes the pendants will
be equal and sometimes they will be unequal. And sometimes
they will be rotary pendants and sometimes fixed; sometimes
straight, sometimes curved. And diversity arises from the fact
that sometimes the arms will be parallel with the horizon and
sometimes they will not be so parallel.
With these things premissed, the conclusion posited in the
beginning is proved. Let there be arms AB and BC, equal and
parallel to the horizon. Then by the second supposition, since
the arms are equal they pass over equal quarters of the same
circle, and equal quarters are equally curved. And hence the
weights are equally heavy according to position, and by hypo­
thesis they are equally heavy in natural gravity. Hence no
movementv.takes place.
II. ONE WEIGHT TRIPLE ANOTHER WEIGHT AND PLACED
ON A BALANCE IN A MEDIUM UNIFORMLY RESISTANT AS
247
 TRACTATUS BLASII DE PONDERIBUS
NON LEVABIT.
Probatur: Ponatur equilibris in medio uniformiter resistente
ut unum, ut ponit conclusio. Deinde in uno brachiorum ponatur
a pondus grave ut tria, et in reliquo brachiorum ponatur c_ pond-
35 us grave ut unum. Et medium per quod debet a_ pondus descend­
ere resistat ut unum. Et sic habemus resistentiam ut duo. Et
quia medium per quod debet c^ pond­
us ascendere resistat ipsi ii ut
unum, sic computata tota resistentia
40 ________ _J__________ ^ ipsi a, resistit resistentia ut tria.
a C Et per consequens resistentia ade-
quatur potentie motive a^ ponderis in
(Fig. B-7) deorsum. Quare per octivam suppo­
sitionem a non levabit c_, quod fuit probandum. Tunc sequuntur
45 corollaria: l. Primum: Talis consequentia non valet: In equi-
libri sunt a et b pondera non facientia motum; igitur sunt eque
gravia. Instantia patet ex conclusione.
2. Aliud corollarium: Impossibile est mediante equilibri
proportionem ponderis ad pondus perscrutari. Patet istud cor-
50 ollarium sicut precedens.
3. Aliud corollarium: Stet eque gravia in equilibri non facere
motum. Quorum,si aliquid ab altero auferatur et alteri brachio
illud apponatur, gravius, ascendit leviori cadente. Patet coro­
llarium, quia sive brachia habuerint circumvolubilia sive non.
55 Si habuerint, ponatur ex utraque parte pondus 5 librarum. Et
perforetur unum brachium in uno loco vel in pluribus. Tunc, ut
constat, medium brachii perforati minus resistet, plus vero
brachii non perforati. Et hoc per aliquem excessum. Potest ig­
itur poni aliquid cum pondere in brachio non perforato, pend-
60 enti per medietatem predicti excessus, et ultra patet corolla­
rium.
III. CUM GRAVIUS ALIO IN EQUILIBRI APPENDATUR USQUE
AD DIRECTIONEM DECLINARE COGETUR.
Et quia ista conclusio non videtur stare cum secunda, oppor-
65 tet ideo ymaginari quod hic circumscribatur resistentia ex
parte medii. Et videtur etiam ista conclusio in se multas diffi­
cultates implicare a quibus nunc est abstinendum, et cetera.
Probatur conclusio: Et sit equilibris cuius brachia sint BA
et AC et equalia. Et sit b pondus gravius c_. Dico quod ipsis in
70 equilibri appensis b descendet usque ad directionem et ^ascen­
det. Quod probatur, quia descendat b^ ab equalitate per modicum
arcum et per AB ita quod continue b respiciat arcum curvior-
248
TRACTATUS BLASII DE PONDERIBUS
ONE WILL NOT LIFT THE WEIGHT WHICH IS ONE-THIRD
OF IT.
Proof: Let a balance be placed in a medium uniformly resist­
ant as [a weight of] one, as the conclusion posits. Then on one
arm place the weight a with a gravity of 3 and on the other arm
place the weight c^ with the gravity of one. The medium which
resists the descent of a resists with [a gravity of] one. And
thus we have a resistance of two. And because the medium
which resists the ascent of c_ resists as one, the whole comput­
ed resistance to <i is three. Therefore, the resistance is equal
to the downward motive force of a. Wherefore, by the eighth
supposition ;a will not lift c_, and this was to be proved.
Then some corollaries follow: l. The following implication
does not seem valid, namely, in a balance there are weights a
and b which do not cause movement and so therefore they are
equally heavy. The instance is clear from the conclusion.
2. It is impossible by means of a balance to discover the
proportion of one weight to another. This corollary is evident
just like the preceding one.
3. If we let it stand that equal weights on a balance do not
produce movement, then if something is taken away from one
arm and placed on the other arm, the heavier arm ascends
with the lighter arm falling. This corollary is evident, for
either the arms have rotary pendants or they do not. If they
have them, let there be placed on each side a weight of five
pounds, and let one of the arms be perforated either in one
place or in several. Then it is clear that the medium in which
the perforated arm moves resists less, while that in which the
non-perforated arm moves resists more. And this difference
of resistance is according to some given excess. Therefore,
something can be placed together with the weight on the non-
perforated arm, the whole being supported by the aforemen­
tioned excess. And so further follows the corollary.
III. WHEN ONE WEIGHT HUNG ON A BALANCE IS HEAVIER
THAN THE OTHER, IT IS FORCED TO DECLINE UP TO THE
VERTICAL.
Since this conclusion does not seem to jibe with the second
one, it is necessary for resistance of the medium to be disre­
garded. This conclusion also seems to imply a number of diffi-*
culties in itself which ought to be avoided now.
Proof of the conclusion: Let there be a balance whose equal
arms are BA and AC. Let weight l> be heavier than weight c.
I say that when these weights are hung on a balance, b descends
toward the vertical and c ascends. Proof: Because b would de­
scend through a small arc AB in such a manner that b continu-
249
 TRACTATUS BLASII DE PONDERIBUS
em quam c. Propter quod adversar­
ius dicit b non descendere usque ad
directionem. Sed contra: Dimittant­
ur enim due linee CD et BH
et linee contingentes circulum sint
BL, CM. Et sit arcus CZ similis et
equalis et in eodem situ cum arcu
BE quam et linea CM continget. Et
quia obliquitas arcuum BE, CZ est
angulus DCZ [ et obliquitas arcus CE
est in angulo DCE, atque proportio
anguli DCZ] ad angulum DCE est
minor qualibet proportione que est
85 (Fig. B - 8 )
inter maiorem et minorem quantitatem, etiam erit quam pond­
eris b ad pondus c. Cum igitur plus addat b^ super £ quam obli­
quitas super obliquitatem, gravius erit la in hoc situ quam c. Et
hac ratione non desinet b^ descendere et £ ascendere. Aliter et
90 sicut angulus ZCD ad angulum ECD ita arcus CZ, et per con­
sequens arcus BE, ad arcum CE in curvitate et econtra. Sed in
infinitum modicum angulus ZCD excedit ECD. Igitur in infini­
tum modicum arcus CZ, et per consequens arcus BE, est cur­
vior CE, et non in infinitum modicum pondus alio gravius exce-
95 dit minus grave. Et igitur usque ad directionem declinare
cogetur.
IV. CUM BRACHIA EQUALIA FUERINT INEQUALITER AB
ORIZONTE DISTANTIA, EQUIS PONDERIBUS APPENSIS F I­
ENT CANONIA EMISPERIO EQUIDISTANTIA.
100 Probatur: Sint primo brachia AB et BC equalia et inequaliter
distent ab orizonte sive a linea
equalitatis, que sit DF. Dico quod si
in hoc situ appendantur eque gravia,
motus fiet per quem brachia fient
105 orizonti equidistantia. Quod probat­
ur: Et primo ducatur linea directio­
nis, que sit HG. Tunc cum pondera
a, c sint gravia, utrumque appetit in
deorsum moveri. Appetat igitur a
110 moveri in G et £ in F . Si non ultra,
tunc sint isti arcus primo equales.
(Fig. B _9) Quo dato arguitur sic: Hii arcus CF
et AG sunt equales et inequaliter distant a linea DF equalitatis.
Igitur hii arcus inequaliter correspondent de directo. Tenet
115 consequentia ex septima ypotesi. Et cum arcus CF minus dis­
tet et arcus AG plus per eandem suppositionem et arcui CF
250
TRACTATUS BLASII DE PONDERIBUS
ally would pass over an arc more curved than that which c
would pass over [if it descended], an adversary says that b
does not descend up to the vertical. But we argue against this
as follows. Let the two lines BH and CD be drawn and let the
lines BL and CM be drawn tangent to the circle, and let arc CZ
be similar, equal to, and in the same position as arc BE so
that line CM is also tangent to the arc CZ. The obliquity of
arcs BE and CZ is constituted in the angle DCZ and the obli­
quity of arc CE is in the angle DCE, and the proportion of angle
DCZ to angle DCE is less than any proportion at all between a
greater and a lesser quantity, and so also less than the propor­
tion of weight b to weight c. Since therefore b exceeds c more
than one obliquity exceeds the other, b will be heavier in this
position than £. For this reason b will not cease to descend,
nor £ to ascend. Speaking in another way, as angle ZCD is to
angle DCE so is arc CZ, and thus arc BE, to arc CE in degree
of curvature, and vice versa. But angle ZCD exceeds DCE by
an infinitely small quantity, and therefore arc CZ, and hence
arc BE, is more curved than CE at this point by an infinitely
small amount. But the heavier weight exceeds the lighter
weight not by an infinitely small amount, [but by an assigned
amount]. Therefore, b is forced to decline up to the vertical.
IV, WHEN THE EQUAL ARMS OF A BALANCE ARE NOT PAR­
ALLEL WITH THE HORIZON AND EQUAL WEIGHTS ARE
HUNG [on their ends], THE BEAM ASSUMES A HORIZONTAL
POSITION.
Proof: In the first place let there be arms AB and BC which
are equal and not parallel with the horizon or the line of equal­
ity, which we let be DF. I say that if in this position equal
weights are hung on the balance, a movement takes place by
which the arms become parallel to the horizon. This is proved
as follows: First, let the vertical HG be drawn. Then since the
weights a and £ are heavy bodies, each seeks to be moved
downward. Hence a seeks to be moved to G and £ to F. But if it
assumed not, let us argue further. In the first place let these
arcs be equal. With this given, it is argued as follows. These
arcs CF and AG are equal and unequally distant from the line
of equality, DF. Therefore, these arcs correspond to unequal
amounts of the vertical. The consequence holds from the sev­
enth hypothesis. And since arc CF is less distant from the ver­
tical and arc AG more distant, by this same supposition arc CF
corresponds to more of the vertical and arc AG to less of it.
For it was asserted and demonstrated that in the case of equal
251
 TRACTATUS BLASII DE PONDERIBUS
pias de directo correspondet et arcui AG minus. Dicebatur
enim et demonstratum fuit quod arcuum equalium inequaliter
in regula distantium qui magis distat minus capit de directo.
120 Quare per suppositionem sixtam c^ secundum situm gravius est
ipso a et semper sic erit usque quod adveneret ad equalitatem.
Et idem erit si arcus erunt inequales, ut patet intelligenti. P o­
test etiam demonstrari et hoc in vigore sexti principii et hoc
sic: Quodlibet grave appetit descendere per lineam directionis
125 et numquam per arcum et hoc si relictum fuerit sue naturalita­
ti. Sit igitur linea directionis HG. Et sequitur ex probatione
quod quanto aliquis incessus minus
distat ab incessu HG,tanto ille in­
cessus plus participat de naturalita­
130 te; quanto plus declinat, minus habet
de naturalitate. Cum autem quodli­
bet pondus supra lineam equalitatis
plus participat de naturalitate quam
aliquod pondus sub equalitate, sequi­
135 tur propositum. Quod autem ita sit
patet. Ductis rectis lineis, que sint
CG et AG, unde linea CG plus distat
a recto incessu quam linea AG. Est
(Fig. B-10) enim angulus CBG acutior quam sit
140 angulus ABG eo quod angulus CBG cadit supra minorem arcum.
Sed hic occurit talis dubitatio utrum c^ pondus possit gravius
ipso a sursum impellere. Et statim apparet quod sic, quia cum
pondus c^ in hoc situ sit gravius ipso a, in tali situ per aliquem
excessum est gravius ipso a, Quare sequitur quod c^ pondus po-
145 test levare a pondus et gravius ipso. Aliter enim potentia acti­
va terminaretur affirmative per maximam.
In oppositum est tertia conclusio. Quod patet, quia cum c^ et
a pondera sint eque gravia, ut vult tertia conclusio, quodlibet
gravius a_ est ipso Quare sequitur quod si aliquid gravius ip-
150 so a_ ponatur in equilibri cum pondere c, pondus a usque ad de­
clinationem declinare cogetur, secundum quod tertia conclusio
dicit. Ad hanc instantiam pro nunc nichil dico, quia solutionem
tetigi in una questione. Videant tamen philosophantes.
V. EQUIS PONDERIBUS IN CIRCUMVOLUBILIBUS [IN]EQUA~
155 LIBUS APPENSIS A LINEA DIRECTIONIS EQUIDISTANTIBUS
NON FIET MOTUS.
Probatur: Et sint brachia equilibris AB et BC equalia et
equidistantia a superficiei orizontis. Et sint circumvolubilia
AD et CF inequalia, CF longius AD, et sint cum hoc equidistan-
160 tia a linea directionis, puta a linea BH. Dico quod equis pon­
deribus .appensis non fiet nutus. Sint igitur d, f pondera equalia.
252
TRACTATUS BLASII DE PONDERIBUS
arcs unequally distant in the rule, that which is more distant
intercepts less of the vertical. Hence by the sixth supposition c
is heavier according to position than a^ and is continually so un­
til it arrives at a position of horizontal equilibrium. And it will
be the same if the arcs are unequal, as is evident to the thought­
ful person. This can also be demonstrated by the authority of
the sixth supposition as follows: Any heavy body at all seeks to
descend through a vertical line and never by an arc, if it has
any of its naturalness left. Hence let the vertical line be HG.
And it follows by proof that the amount some path is less dis­
tant from the path from HG, the more does that path participate
in its naturalness. And the more it declines, the less it has of
its naturalness. Moreover, since any weight above the line of
equality participates more in its naturalness than any weight
below the line of equality, the proposition follows. That this is
so is evident. Construct the straight lines CG and AG. Hence
the line CG is more distant from the straight path than line AG,
for angle CBG is more acute than angle ABG, since it subtends
a smaller arc. But there occurs at this point a doubt whether
weight c^ could be heavier than a_ in order to force it upward.
And it would appear immediately that this is so. Since in this
position weight c is heavier than a, in such a position it is
heavier by some excess. Hence it follows that weight c_ can lift
weight a and be heavier than it, for otherwise an active power
would be terminated affirmatively by some maximum.
In opposition is the third conclusion, which is obvious be­
cause since c_ and a^ are weights equally heavy, as the third
conclusion wishes, any weight heavier than is heavier than c_.
Hence it follows that if any thing heavier than a_ is placed on a
balance together with weight c, weight a_ would be forced to de­
cline to a position of declination, in accordance with what the
third conclusion states. To this argument I say nothing for the
present, since I have covered its solution in a question. How­
ever, let the philosophically inclined observe it.
V. WITH EQUAL WEIGHTS SUSPENDED ON UNEQUAL RO­
TARY PENDANTS WHICH ARE PARALLEL WITH THE VER­
TICAL, NO MOVEMENT TAKES PLACE.
Proof: Let there be arms of a balance, AB and BC, arms
equal and parallel to the surface of the horizon. Let the unequal
rotary pendants be AD and CF, with CF longer than AD. And
let them in addition be parallel to the vertical, i.e ., to line BH.
I say that when equal weights are suspended, no depression of
253
 TRACTATUS BLASII DE PONDERIBUS
TRACTATUS BLASII DE PONDERIBUS
Et arguitur sic: d, sunt eque gra­
A B C the balance takes place. Hence let d and_f be the equal weights,
via gravitate naturali et situali.
and then it is argued as follows. Weights d and_f are equally
Igitur conclusio. Patet antecedens,
heavy in natural and positional gravity. Therefore, the conclu­
quia respiciunt duas quartas eius­
sion follows. The antecedent is evident because the weights
dem circuli equales. Modo equales
[would] pass over equal quarters of the same circle. Now equal
quarte equaliter capiunt de directo.
quarters intercept equal lines of the vertical. That this is so is
Et quod ita sit patet: a puncto D et a
evident. From point D and F are drawn two lines parallel to the
puncto F extrahantur due linee equi-
line of horizontal equilibrium. And [then] the proposition is
distantes a linea equalitatis. Et
evident.
patet propositum.

(Fig. B -11)
VI. CUM EQUILIBRIS FUERINT CIRCUMVOLUBILIA INEQUA-
VI. WHEN THERE ARE ROTARY PENDANTS OF A BALANCE
LIA SUIS INCLINATIONIBUS DIMISSA, EQUIS PONDERIBUS
WHICH ARE UNEQUAL IN LENGTH AND WHICH ARE FREE
APPENSIS IN BREVIORI FILO PENDENS DESCENDET. QUA-
TO FOLLOW THEIR OWN INCLINATIONS, IF EQUAL
175 RE MANIFESTUM EST QUOD SI EQUE GRAVIA IN EQUILIBRI
WEIGHTS ARE SUSPENDED [on the pendants], THE WEIGHT
PENDEANT ITA UT UNUM BRACHIO SIT AFFIXUM, RELI­
HANGING ON THE SHORTER CORD DESCENDS. HENCE IT IS
QUUM CIRCUM VOLUBILI PENDEAT, FIXUM DESCENDET,
MANIFEST THAT IF EQUAL WEIGHTS ARE HUNG ON A BAL­
ALIUD IN CONTRARIUM MOVEBITUR. ANCE SO THAT ONE WEIGHT IS FIXED [directly] TO ONE
ARM AND THE OTHER IS HUNG ON THE ROTARY PENDANT,
THE FIXED WEIGHT DESCENDS AND THE OTHER IS MOVED
CONTRARIWISE.
Probatur: Et sint brachia equilibris AB et BC equalia et cir-
Proof: Let there be the equal arms of a balance AB and BC.
180 cumvolubilia CE et AD dimissa sue
Let the rotary pendants be CF and AD, pendants free to follow
nature. Et per hoc dico quod hec
their nature. For this reason, the pendants do not make right
circumvolubilia non facient angulos
angles with the arms to which they are affixed but acute angles
rectos cum brachiis quibus sunt
since the weights suspended on them are inclined to the place
affixa, sed acutos, cum gravia eis
of heavy bodies [at the center of the world]. And because the
185 appensa inclinentur ad locum gra­
weight on the longer cord is less distant from the vertical and
vium. Et quia pondus in filo longiori
that on the shorter cord is more distant, hence it is that the
minus distat a linea directionis et
weight on the longer cord describes and passes over a quarter
breviori plus, hinc est quod pondus
of a smaller circle and the other weight on the shorter cord
in longiori filo describit et respecit
describes a quarter of a larger circle. This is evident, for the
190 quartam minoris circuli et aliud
lines DF and GE protracted constitute radii of unequal circles.
pondus in filo breviori quartam ma­
DF is the diameter of the larger circle because it is larger;
(Fig. B-1Z) ioris. Quod patet: protractis lineis
GE is the diameter of the smaller circle because it is smaller.
DF et GE, que linee sunt semidiametri inequalium circulorum,
Now by the fourth hypothesis the circumference of a smaller
DF diameter maioris quia maior, et GE diameter minoris quia
circle is more curved and that of a larger circle is less
195 minor. Modo per quartam ypotesim minoris circuli circumfer­ curved. H^nce by the sixth supposition the weight on the short­
entia plus curvatur et maioris minus. Quare per sextam pon­
er cord descends. And in the same way the corollary is evident
dus d in filo breviori descendit. Et pariformiter patet corolla­
from its statement and the premisses.
rium, ut patet ex descriptione et iuxta premissa.
Another corollary is added in this form: When a balance of
254
255

TRACTATUS BLASII DE PONDERIBUS
Subiungitur aliud corollarium in hac forma: Cum equilibris
200 equalium brachiorum fuerit unum appendiculum fixum ad ang­
ulum rectum et alterum circumvolubile, eque gravibus appen­
sis, gravius est quod in fixo pendet. Et si in circumvolubili
pendens brachio infingatur, in hoc situ equaliter ponderabunt.
Prima pars declaratur: Sint brachia AB et BC, appendicula
AD et CE. Et faciat appendiculum
AD angulum rectum cum suo bra­
chio, et sit fixum cum eo. Aliud ap­
pendiculum cum CE sit circumvol- ,
ubile in suo brachio. Et per conse­
quens facit cum eo angulum acutum
eo quod grave pendens in eo facit
ipsum inclinare versus locum gra­
vium. Quare describit quartam m i­
noris circuli alio appendiculo, et per
215 (Fig. B-13) consequens pondus pendens in ap­
pendiculo fixo ad angulum rectum cum brachio sit gravius alio,
quod est prima pars.
Secunda pars patet, quia cum AB et BC brachia sint equalia,
erunt semidiametri equalium circulorum. Cum igitur e pondus
2 2 0 fuerit affixum cum brachio secundum certum modum, ut tange­
tur in posterium, per primam conclusionem equaliter pondera­
bit cum d eo quod huiusmodi pondera respiciunt quartas equa­
lium circulorum. Ergo et cetera.
VII. POSSIBILE EST QUANTUMLIBET PONDUS IN ALTERO
225 BRACHIORUM EQUALIUM SITUARI QUOD RELIQUUM BRA­
CHIORUM AB EQUALITATE NON MUTABIT.
Probatur: Et sint brachia AB et BC equalia et sit pondus
DFG affixum secundum angulum
acutum brachio AB et hoc in puncto
230 D sic ut, taliter quod talis sit pro­
portio, termini ponderis, scilicet D,
G equaliter distent a centro motus
scilicet a puncto B. Et per conse­
quens si protraherentur corde a
235 punctis D et G ad angulum rectum
quod equaliter distent a linea direc­
tionis, secundum hoc patet proposi-
(Fig. B-14) tum.
VIII. SI SUB REGULA CENTRUM DESIGNETUR, DIFFICILE
240 EST SECUNDUM HOC STABILIRE PONDERA.
256
1
TRACTATUS BLASII DE PONDERIBUS
unequal arms has one of the pendants fixed and the other is a
rotary pendant, if equal weights are suspended [on the pendants^
the heavier is that which hangs on the fixed pendant. And if the
weight on the rotary pendant is instead fixed to the arm, the
weights will be equally heavy in this position.
The first part is made clear: Let the arms be AB and BC,
and the pendants AD and CE. And let pendant AD make a right
angle with its arm and be fixed in this position. And let the
other pendant CE be free to swing on its arm. And hence it
makes an acute angle with its arm because the heavy body
hanging on it makes it incline towards the place of heavy bodies
[at the center of the world]. Hence it describes a quarter of a
smaller circle than the other pendant. Consequently the weight
hanging on the pendant fixed at a right angle with its arm is
heavier than the other. This is the first part [of the corollary].
The second part is evident because, since arms AB and BC
are equal, they will be radii of equal circles. When, therefore,
weight <2 is fixed on its arm in a certain way to be touched upon
later, by the first conclusion it will be of equal weight with d
because the weights pass over quarters of equal circles. There­
fore, and so on.
VII. IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A WEIGHT AS LARGE AS WE LIKE
TO BE SO SITUATED ON ONE OF THE EQUAL ARMS [of a
balance] THAT THE OTHER ARM WILL NOT BE ALTERED
FROM THE POSITION OF EQUILIBRIUM.
Proof: Let there be equal arms AB and BC, and let the
weight DFG be affixed to arm AB at an acute angle at point D
such that the termini of the weight, namely, D and G are equally
distant from [the vertical through] the center of movement, i.e n
from point D. Consequently if cords are drawn from points D
and G at right angles [to the vertical],because they [the points
D and G] are equally distant from the vertical, the proposition
is accordingly evident.
VIII. IF THE CENTER [of movement] IS ASSIGNED A POSI­
TION UNDER THE BEAM, IT IS ACCORDINGLY DIFFICULT
TO STABILIZE THE WEIGHTS.
257
 TRACTATUS BLASII DE PONDERIBUS
Probatur: Quia sit equilibris cuius brachia AB et BC sint
equalia. Sit autem centrum motus O
A g e sub regula collocatum. Sint autem
pondera appensa in equilibri, a et c.
245 Dico quod in hoc difficile est stabi­
lire pondera, i.e ., iudicare an pon­
dera sint eque gravia an ne, quia
quantumcumque pondera sint eque
gravia, per quamcumque parvam
250 (Fig. B -15) conquassationem continget a moveri
deorsum,et hoc idem contingeret, dato quod a esset levius ipso
c; quod sic patet quia quantumcumque a_ per modicum arcum
descendat, brachium cui a est affixum efficitur longius, reli­
quum vero brevius. Et ideo a continue sit gravius et c_ levius.
255 Et ideo difficile est arguere equalitatem ponderum et inequali-
tatem. Similiter quia quantumcumque sint eque gravia et ine-
qualiter distent ab orizonte ad equidistantiam nequaquam tend­
unt. Et ista conclusio contra multas precedentes posset allega­
ri, et cetera.
260 IX. SI BRACHIA LIBRE INEQUALIA FUERINT, EQUE GRAVI­
BUS APPENSIS, EX PARTE LONGIORI FIET MOTUS.
Conclusio sic probatur, quia ex secunda ypotesi brachia ine-
qualia describunt inequales quartas inequalium circulorum,
quia maior maiorem; et per quartam suppositionem quarta m i-
265 noris circuli plus curvatur quarta maioris. Quare per sextam
suppositionem pondus pendens in longiori brachio gravius est
quanto quarta eius est rectior. Quare et cetera. Et ob hoc se ­
quitur corollarium: ut quod possibile est te faciliter ferre l i ­
bram cere in figura sperica cuius centesimam non portares sub
270 extensione certa. Patet corollarium, quia si habueris frustum
cere rotundum supra caput unius libre faciliter portas ipsam.
Si autem extendatur in modum baculi, quod potest quantumlibet
fieri, continue fit ista cera gravior et gravior, quia continue
partes plus recedunt a centro ipsius, et per consequens a capite
275 tuo, ille partes respiciunt maiores quartas et per consequens
plus et plus graves fiunt secundum situm. Patet igitur corolla­
rium.
X. BRACHIIS LIBRE INEQUALIBUS, SI FUERINT PONDERA
PROPORTIONALIA,NON FIET IN HAC DISPOSITIONE MOTUS.
258
TRACTATUS BLASII DE PONDERIBUS
Proof: Let there be a balance whose arms AB and BC are
equal. Moreover let the center of movement be placed under
the beam. Let the weights suspended on the balance be a and c.
I say that in this situation it is difficult to stabilize the weights,
i.e ., to judge whether the weights are equally heavy or not, be­
cause however much the weights are equally heavy, it happens
that a^ will be moved downward by any small disturbance at all
and this is identical with what would happen if a were heavier
than c^. This is evident as follows. However much a descends
through a small arc, the arm to which a is affixed becomes
longer, and the other arm shorter. Hence a continually is
heavier than £. And, therefore, it is difficult to argue the equa­
lity and inequality of weights. Similarly, because however much
the weights are equally heavy and unequally distant from the
horizon, they do not at all tend towards a position parallel to
the horizon. And this conclusion can be cited against many of
the preceding ones, and so on.
IX. IF THE ARMS OF A BALANCE ARE UNEQUAL, WHEN
EQUAL WEIGHTS ARE SUSPENDED [on their extremities],
THE LONGER ARM WILL BE MOVED [downwards].
This conclusion is proved as follows. From the second hypo­
thesis the unequal arms describe unequal quarters of unequal
circles, the longer arm describing the larger quarter. By the
fourth supposition, the quarter of the smaller circle is more
curved than the quarter of the larger one. Wherefore, by the
sixth supposition the weight suspended on the longer arm is
heavier by the amount its quarter is straighter. Therefore, and
so on.
And from this follows a corollary: It is possible for you to
carry easily a pound of wax when it is in a spherical shape al­
though you cannot carry a hundredth part of it when it has been
given a certain extended shape. The corollary is obvious, for if
you have on your head a round piece of wax, you can easily car­
ry a pound of it. However, if you extend it in the shape of a
rod, which can be done as much as you like, this wax continu­
ally becomes heavier and heavier because its parts continually
recede from its center, and hence from your head, and these
parts pass over larger quarters and thus become heavier and
heavier according to position. Therefore the corollary is
obvious.
X. IN THE CASE OF A BALANCE OF UNEQUAL ARMS, IF
THE WEIGHTS ARE [inversely] PROPORTIONAL [to the arm
259
 TRACTATUS BLASII DE PONDERIBUS
TRACTATUS BLASII DE PONDERIBUS

lengths], MOVEMENT DOES NOT TAKE PLACE IN THIS DIS­

POSITION.
280 Probatur, quia in hac dispositione pondera erunt eque gravia
Proof: This is because in this disposition the weights will be
secundum situm. Ergo non fiet motus. Pro cuius declaratione sint
equally heavy according to position. For its clarification, let
brachia libre et sint ita quod BC sit quadruplum ad AB. Dico
the arms of the balance be such that BC is quadruple AB. I say
quod sicut BC ad AB ita descensus
that as BC is to AB so the descent is to the descent, i.e ., BE to
ad descensum, puta BE ad BD. Et
BD. And as the descent is to the descent, so the rectitude is to
sicut descensus ad descensum ita
the rectitude and thus the gravity to the gravity. These state­
rectitudo ad rectitudinem, et ita gra­
ments are all evident through the fourth and sixth hypotheses.
vitas ad gravitatem. Hec omnia pa­
Hence it follows that the weight placed on the longer arm is
tent per quartam et sextam ypote-
four times as heavy [positionally] as the [same] weight sus­
sim. Quare sequitur quod £ pondus
pended on the shorter arm. Let weight d be assigned a natural
positum in brachio longiori est in
gravity four times that of a and let it be placed in the position
gravitate quadruplum ad ,a pondus
A. Thus the arms will be proportional to the weights and accord­
pendens in beviori. Signatur d_ pon­
ingly no movement will take place.
dus quadruplum ad gravitate natu­
rali. Ponatur in situ A. Erunt sic
295 brachia proportionalia ponderibus et secundum hoc non fiet
motus.

XI. CUM INEQUALIA FUERINT BRACHIA LIBRE ET IN CEN­

XI. WHEN THE ARMS OF A BALANCE ARE UNEQUAL AND
TRO MOTUS ANGULUM FECERINT, SI TERMINI EORUM AD
MAKE AN ANGLE AT THE CENTER OF MOVEMENT, AND IF
DIRECTIONEM EQUALITER, EQUE GRAVIA IN HAC DISPO"
THE TERMINI ARE EQUALLY DISTANT FROM THE VERTIC­
300 SITIONE EQUALITER PONDERABUNT.
AL, EQUAL WEIGHTS IN THIS DISPOSITION WILL BE IN
EQUILIBRIUM.
Sint AB et BC brachia inequalia non protracta in continuum
Let AB and BC be unequal arms not in a continuous straight
et directum sed que causent angu­
line but which form an angle ABC. Let arm AB be longer than
lum ABC. Sit brachium AB longius
arm BC. In addition, I wish that terminus A and terminus C are
brachio BC. Volo cum hoc quod ter­
equally distant from the vertical, e.g., BF. I say that equal
305 minus A et terminus C equaliter
weights suspended on the aforementioned termini are in equi­
distent a linea directionis, que sit,
librium. This is evident as follows. If two lines are protracted
gratia exempli, BF. Dico quod pon­
to the vertical orthogonally [from A and C], they will be equal
dera eque gravia appensa in predict-
since the termini A and C are equally distant from the vertical.
is terminis equaliter ponderabunt.
Let these lines be CE and AD. Since they are equal, they are
310 Quod sic patet, quia si ad lineam di­
radii of equal circles. Hence the quarters [of their circles]
rectionis protrahantur due linee or-
will be equal. These quarters are AFD and CBE. Therefore,
thogonaliter, ille erunt equates cum
equal weights on a balance of this kind will not at all depress
termini A et C equaliter distent a
it. The conclusion seems to contradict the tenth conclusion.
linea directionis; que linee sint CE et AD, que cum sint equates
315 sunt semidiametri equalium circulorum. Quare quarte erunt The following corollary follows from this conclusion: When
equates, que quarte sunt AFD et.CDE. Et ergo pondera eque the suspended weights are of the same weight and unequally
gravia in huiusmodi equilibri nequaquam nutum facient, que distant from the center of movement, if the weight which is
farther is brought in to equidistance [from the vertical] with
conclusio videtur decime contradicere. Et ob hoc sequitur tale
the other weight, then the suspended weights will be equally
corollarium: Cum eiusdem ponderis sint appensa et a centro
heavy according to position. This corollary is obvious from the
320 motus inequaliter distent, si r*emotius ad equidistantiam cum
conclusion and its method of proof. It follows in consequence
alio accesserit, appensa secundum situm equaliter ponderabunt.
that it is valid that equal weights are suspended on a balance of
2 6 0
261
 TRACTATUS BLASII DE PONDERIBUS
Patet corollarium ex conclusione et ex modo probandi. Quare
sequitur consequenter quod stat eque gravia appensa esse in
equilibri brachiorum inequalium et brachia ab equalitate non
JZ5 mutari. Et potest istud corollarium et precedens in eadem dis­
positione declarari sic: Sint brachia equilibris AB et BC. Sint
autem a et c equalia ponderosa et inequaliter distantia ab ipso
B tanquam a centro motus. Dico quod si a pondus equaliter ap-
propinquerit ad lineam directionis cum pondere £ quod in hoc
3 3 0 situ equaliter ponderabunt. Sint ergo OB et BC equalia et pona­
tur a pondus in puncto O. Tunc dico quod £, c_ equaliter ponder­
abunt. Si autem contingat quod hec brachia inequalia habeant
appendicula sic quod appendiculum appensum brachio AB non
sit flexibile ut filum ereum et curvetur ut ad lineam directionis
3 3 5 equaliter appropinquet cum c_, patebit propositum, quoniam in
tali situ data pondera respiciunt equales quartas equalium
circulorum.
XII. SI DUO OBLONGA UNIUS GROSSICIEI PER TOTUM SIM­
ILIA PONDERE ET QUANTITATE EQUALIA IN EQUILIBRI
340 APPENDANTUR ITA UT UNUM IN CONTINUUM ET DIREC­
TUM CUM EIUS BRACHIO SITUETUR, ALTERUM ORTHO-
GONALITER PENDEAT, SIC QUOD TERMINI PENDENTIS ET
MEDIUM ALTERIUS EADEM A CENTRO SIT DISTANTIA, IN
DISPOSITIONE TALI EQUALITER PONDERABUNT.
345 Probatur: Et sit equilibris cuius brachia sint AB et BC equa-
E A F lia. Et sint duo oblonga per totum
similia in longitudine et gravitate,
' cd_ et ef. Volo quod ei_ sit applicatum
brachio AB in continuum et direc-
350 tum cum eo et cd orthogonaliter
pendeat. Volo tamen quod medium
ponderis ef ut A distet a centro B
quantum C terminus alterius distat
ab eodem, ita quod una sit distantia
35 5 CB et AB. Dico quod in hoc situ
(Fig. B-18) equaliter ponderabunt. Quod proba­
tur, quia dum ef penderet in puncto F tunc cd esset in hoc situ
gravius ef et hoc in proportione in qua brachium BC est longi­
us BF, secundum quod declarabat commentum decime conclu-
360 sionis. Et si penderet in puncto E, tunc pondus cd esset levius
ef in proportione in qua BE est longius BC, per commentum
allegatum. Ergo pondus pendens in puncto A se habebit ad pon­
dus cd sicut BC brachium se habet ad BA. Sed proportio BC ad
BA est una, ergo ponderis ad pondus erit una. Et igitur si ter-
2 6 2
TRACTATUS BLASII DE PONDERIBUS
unequal arms and yet the balance is not altered from a position
of equilibrium. This corollary and the preceding one can be
shown by the same situation. Let there be arms AB and BC.
Moreover, let a_ and c_ be equal weights unequally distant from
B as a center of movement. I say that if weight a is brought
into equidistance from the vertical with the weight c_, then in
this position they will be in equilibrium. Therefore, let OB and
BC be equal and let a be placed in point O. Then I say that a
and £ are equally heavy. If moreover it happens that these un­
equal arms have suspension cords such that the cord from AB
is rigid like a bronze wire and it is curved toward the vertical
line until it is equally distant from that line as weight £, the
proposition will be evident since in such a position the weights
pass over equal quarters of equal circles.
XII. IF TWO OBLONG BODIES OF THE SAME THICKNESS
THROUGHOUT, AND EQUAL IN WEIGHT AND SIZE, ARE SUS­
PENDED ON A BALANCE SO THAT ONE IS SITUATED HORI­
ZONTALLY ON ONE ARM AND THE OTHER IS HUNG VERTI­
CALLY ON THE OTHER ARM, AND SO THAT THE TERMINUS
OF THE VERTICAL WEIGHT AND THE MIDDLE OF THE
HORIZONTAL ONE ARE THE SAME DISTANCE FROM THE
CENTER OF MOVEMENT, THEN IN SUCH A SITUATION
THESE WEIGHTS WILL BE IN EQUILIBRIUM.
Proof: Let there be a balance whose equal arms are AB and
BC. Let there be two oblong bodies cd and ef similar through­
out in length and weight. And I wish that ef be applied continu­
ously and directly to arm AB (i.e., horizontally), and let cd be
hung perpendicularly (i.e., vertically). I wish, moreover, that
the middle of weight ef, namely A, be the same distance from
the fulcrum as the terminus C of the other oblong body, so that
the distance CB and AB are the same. I say that in this position
the bodies are equally heavy (i.e., in equilibrium). This is
proved because if ef were to hang in point F, then cd_ in this po­
sition would be heavier than ef, and in the proportion in which
arm BC is longer than BF, just as the comment to the tenth
conclusion declared. And if [efj were hung in point E, then the
weight ccl would be lighter than ef in the proportion in which BE
is longer than BC, by the comment cited. Therefore, the weight
hanging in point A will be to the weight £d as the arm BC is to
the arm BA. But the proportion of BC to BA is one. Therefore,
that of the weight to the weight is one. Hence if the terminus of
the body hanging vertically and the middle point of the other
body are equally distant from the fulcrum, the weights so sus-
263
 TRACTATUS BLASII DE PONDERIBUS
365 minus dependentis et medium alterius equaliter ad centrum
motus distent, pondera sic appensa equaliter ponderabunt,
quod fuit demonstrandum. Et sequitur unum corollarium: Quod
stat granum milii in brachio equilibris positum sua gravitate
sursum impellere pondus in millecuplo gravius. Patet, potest
370 enim granum milii ad duplum eius extendi, et erit quadruplum
et sic quantumlibet. Quo facto applicetur brachio equilibris
equalium brachiorum in continuum et directum. Aliud autem
pondus quantumcumque vis pendeat in altero brachiorum sic
quod medium ponderis iacentis quantumlibet volueris plus dis-
375 tet a centro motus altero pondere. Et tunc patet propositum.
Nunc datis ponderibus volo noticiam brachiorum indagare.
XIII. SI FUERIT CANONIUM IN GRAVITATE PER TOTUM UN­
IFORME IN DUASQUE PORTIONES DIVISUM INEQUALES.ET
IN TERMINO MINORIS PORTIONIS SUSPENDATUR PONDUS
380 QUOD FACIAT IPSUM BRACHIUM ESSE ORIZONTI EQUIDIS-
TANS, ERIT PROPORTIO HUIUS PONDERIS. AD SUPERABUN­
DANTIAM PORTIONIS MAIORIS BRACHII AD MINOREM SICUT
PROPORTIO TOTIUS CANONII AD DUPLAM LONGITUDINIS
MINORIS PORTIONIS.
385 Sit canonium BAC cuius centrum sit A. Sit BA brevius bra­
chio AC. Et sit BAC eiusdem gros-
sicie per totum ita quod omnes due
E C partes equales sint eque graves.
Sumaturque AD equalis AB. Est igi­
390 tur DC, cuius medium sit E,excessus
AC brachii super AB brachium. Sus­
pendatur igitur pondus g^in B term -
(Fig. B-19) ino ita quod faciat BAC equidistare
orizonti. Dico igitur quod g pondus se habet ad dc sicut BC
395 linea ad BD lineam. Cum enim sit A centrum motus terminor­
um D, B, eo quod linee BA et AD sunt equales, constat quod dc
pondus ponderans contra g facit totam lineam equidistare
orizonti. Sed per undecimam conclusionem dc sic directa pon­
derat tantum quantum ponderat si suspenderetur in E puncto
400 medio. Igitur per decimam conclusionem g pondus se habet ad
dc pondus secundum proportionem AE brachii ad AB brachium.
Sed sicut AE ad AB ita BC ad BD quoniam BC est duplum ad
AE propter hoc quod BD est duplum ad AD et DC duplum ad
DE. Igitur sicut g ad dc ita BC ad BD, quod fuit probandum.
405 Verum quod hic premittimus conversam 10e conclusionis. Et
ideo sit regula BAC cuius longius brachium sit AC, et append­
antur pondera b et c ita quod regula equidistet orizonti. Dico
264
TRACTATUS BLASII DE PONDERIBUS
pended will be equally heavy, which was to be demonstrated.
A corollary follows: It holds that a grain of millet placed on
the arm of a balance by its own gravity can force upward a
weight one thousand times greater. This is obvious for the
grain of millet can be extended to its double, quadruple, and
thus as much as we like. With this done, it is applied to one
arm of a balance of equal arms. Moreover, another weight, as
large as you like, may be hung on the other arm, so that the
middle of the weight lying along the beam is, as much as you
wish, more distant from the center of movement than the other
weight. And so the proposed statement is evident.
Now I wish to find out about arm lengths when the weights
are given. '
XIII. IF THERE IS A BEAM UNIFORM IN WEIGHT THROUGH­
OUT AND IT HAS BEEN DIVIDED INTO TWO UNEQUAL SEG­
MENTS, AND ON THE SMALLER SEGMENT IS SUSPENDED A
WEIGHT WHICH KEEPS THE BALANCE IN HORIZONTAL
EQUILIBRIUM, THEN THE PROPORTION OF THIS WEIGHT
TO THE EXCESS [in weight] OF THE LONGER ARM OVER
THE SHORTER IS AS THE PROPORTION OF [the length of]
THE WHOLE BEAM TO TWICE THE LENGTH OF THE
SHORTER SEGMENT.
Let the beam be BAC with the fulcrum at A. Let BA be
shorter than the arm AC. And let BAC be of the same thick­
ness throughout so that any two equal parts are equally heavy.
And let AD be taken equal to AB. Hence DC whose midpoint is
E is the excess of arm AC over arm AB. Hence let weight g
be suspended on terminus B so that it makes BAC parallel to
the horizon. I say, therefore, that the weight g is to the
[weight] dc as the line BC is to the line BD. For since A is the
center of movement of the termini D and B, the lines BA and
AD being equal, it is clear that the weight dc acting against g
keeps the whole beam in horizontal equilibrium. But by the
eleventh conclusion dc situated horizontally in this way weighs
just as much as if it were suspended in the middle point E.
Therefore, by the tenth conclusion the weight g is related to the
weight dg as the proportion of arm AE to arm AB. But as AE
is to AB, so is BC to BD, since (l) BC is double AE due to the
fact that BD is double AD and DC is double DE, [and (2) BD is
given as twice AB]. Hence as g is to dg, so BC is to BD, which
was to be proved.
It is true that here we allowed the converse of the tenth con­
clusion. [That this is permissible can be shown:] Let there be
a rule BAC whose longer arm is AC and let weights b and £ be
suspended so that the rule is parallel to the horizon. I say that
265
 TRACTATUS BL ASII DE PONDERIBUS
quod c pondus se habet ad b pondus sicut BA ad AC. Si non, sit
primo maior proportio c ad b quam BA ad AC. Et resecetur
410 aliquid de c ita residuum sit d, quod se habet ad Ia sicut BA ad
AC. Cum igitur per decimam d_ et b equaliter ponderabunt in
hiis sitibus, igitur d ponderat sicut c^, quod est totum. Conse­
quens impossibile. Item si minor sit proportio c ad b quam BA
ad CA, igitur per decimam d et b eque gravia sunt secundum
415 situm. Sed c et b sunt eque gravia secundum situm in istis sit­
ibus. Igitur c tantum ponderat quantum d. Consequens est fal­
sum. Ergo si c et b sunt eque gravia secundum situm, propor­
tio c ad b est sicut BA ad AC, quod fuit probandum. Sit igitur
ista decima conversa premissa.
420 Arismetrice potest proposita conclusio declarari'isto modo:
Sit longitudo utriusque brachiorum sex palmorum. Tollantur
post hoc de uno brachiorum quatuor palmi. Manifestum est ita
quod quantum brachium longius est breviori triplum gravitate
naturali, sicut enim longius ita gravius postquam totum est in
425 gravitate uniforme. Unde brevius habet duos palmos. Sit pal­
mus petra pro ponderositate. Appendatur pondus sex palmorum
ad terminum brevioris partis. Et arguitur sic: Istud pondus
facit canonium parallelum orizonti quia cum linea recta per-
pendiculariter erecta fuerit a superificie orizontis ad canonium
430 constituat angulos rectos, manifestum est canonium esse para­
llelum orizonti. Sed si altera pars est gravior, altera eam se ­
queretur motu contrario ad canonium. Igitur eque grave sunt
partes secundum situm.
XIV. SI FUERIT PROPORTIO PONDERIS IN TERMINO MINO-
435 RIS PORTIONIS SUSPENSI AD SUPERABUNDANTIAM POND­
ERIS MAIORIS PORTIONIS AD MINOREM SICUT PROPORTIO
TOTIUS LONGITUDINIS CANONII AD DUPLAM LONGITUDI­
NEM MINORIS PORTIONIS, ERIT CANONIUM PARALLELUM
ORIZONTI.
440 Hec est conversa prioris, cuius probatione habita habetur
probatio presentis. Ideo presentem demonstrationem omitto.
XV. SI FUERIT CANONIUM EIUSDEM SUBSTANTIE NOTUM
MAGNITUDINE ET LONGITUDINE ET DIVIDATUR IN DUAS
PARTES INEQUALES DATAS, POSSIBILE EST NOBIS INVEN
445 IRE PONDUS QUOD CUM SUSPENSUM FUERIT IN TERMINO
26 6
TRACTATUS BLASII DE PONDERIBUS
the weight c^is related to weight b as BA to AC. If not, then in
the first case let c_ to b be greater than BA to AC. And let us
cut off something from c^ so that the remainder is d which is
related to b as BA is to AC. Since, therefore, by the tenth con­
clusion cl and b will be equally heavy in these positions, hence
d [less than the whole] weighs just as much as c^ which is the
whole. But the consequent is impossible. Also, [in the second
case] if c^ to b^is less than BA to CA, [let us add something to c_
to make the weight d such that d_ is to b as BA is to CA]. There­
fore, by the tenth conclusion d and b are equally heavy accord­
ing to position. But c_ and b are equally heavy positionally in
these positions. Hence c^ weighs just as much as d. The conse­
quent is false. Therefore if c^ and b are equally heavy accord­
ing to position, the proportion of c^ to b is as BA to AC, which
was to be proved. Hence the converse of the tenth conclusion is
allowed.
The proposed conclusion can be clarified arithmetically in
this way. Let the length of each arm be six palms. Afterwards
let four palms be removed from one of the arm s. It is evident
that the longer arm is triple the shorter arm in natural grav­
ity, for it is heavier in the same amount it is longer since the
beam is uniform throughout in gravity. Hence the shorter arm
is two palms. Let the weight of each palm [of the beam] be a
stone. Let there be suspended on the end of the shorter arm a
weight of six stones. And it is argued as follows. This weight
makes the beam parallel to the horizon because a straight line
from the surface of the horizon to the beam forms two right
angles. It is clear that the beam is parallel to the horizon. But
if one part is heavier, the other will follow it in a contrary
movement. Therefore, the parts are equally heavy according to
position.
XIV. IF THE PROPORTION OF THE WEIGHT SUSPENDED ON
THE END OF THE SHORTER ARM TO THE EXCESS IN
WEIGHT OF THE LONGER ARM OVER THE SHORTER ARM
IS AS THE PROPORTION OF THE LENGTH OF THE WHOLE
BEAM TO TWICE THE LENGTH OF THE SHORTER SEG­
MENT, THE BEAM WILL BE PARALLEL TO THE HORIZON.
This is the converse of the prior conclusion. If we assume
the proof of it, then we have the proof of the present conclusion.
Therefore, I shall omit the present demonstration.
XV. IF THERE IS A BEAM OF UNIFORM SUBSTANCE WHOSE
MAGNITUDE AND LENGTH ARE KNOWN AND IT IS DIVIDED
INTO TWO UNEQUAL PARTS, IT IS POSSIBLE FOR US TO
FIND THE WEIGHT WHICH WHEN SUSPENDED ON THE END
267
 TRACTATUS BL ASII DE PONDERIBUS
MINORIS PORTIONIS FACIET CANONIUM PARALLELUM OR-
IZONTI.
Sit canonium BAC eiusdem grossi-
ciei et dispositionis. Sitque utrum­
que brachium notum ut sit BA longi­
450
tudinis duorum palmorum et AC
quatuor palmorum. Et sit pondus to­
tius canonii notum quia 2 0 librarum.
Dico quod pondus quod est suspen­
sum.in B termino faciet canonium
455
equidistans orizonti. Protraham DE
lineam orthogonalem super BC et
(Fig. B-20) equalem linee CD. Protraham BE
ultra in continuum et directum donec occurat in puncto G cum
linea CG que sit equidistans linee DE. Et per 29am Euclidis
460
DBE et BCG sim iles. Quare per quartam sexti Euclidis sicut
GC ad DE, et per consequens ad DC sibi equalem, ita CB ad
DB. Igitur per premissam CG suspensum in termino B facit
canonium equidistans orizonti. Qualiter autem cognoscimus CG
ex 2la quinti Euclidis constat, ex quo sunt ibi quatuor proporti­
465
onalia quorum tantum unum est ignotum, videlicet CG. Multi­
plicamus CD, quod est superabundantia CA super BA, per CB
canonium, i.e ., multiplicamus sex palmos per decem et result­
at sexaginta que dividimus per DB in duplum minoris brachii,
quod est quatuor palmi,et quotiens est 15. Ergo canonium 15
470
palmorum equalis grossiciei cum BC et similis dispositionis
suspensum faciet canonium BC equidistans orizonti. Arguitur
tunc ultra quod sicut decem palmi ad 15 palmQs ita 20 libre ad
30 libras. Ergo c^ ponderat ad libram CG, sicut cg pondus ^d
dc_ pondus, hoc cum est ad 12 libras, ita CB linea, que est decem
475
palmorum,ad BD lineam, quatuor palmorum. Multiplica igitur
duodecim per decem, quod est tertium, et resultat 1 2 0 , quod
dividamus per quatuor, et numerus quotiens est 30, ut prius,
pondus cj* quod est suspensum in B facere canonium equidist­
480 ans orizonti; continent 30 libras.
Aliter potest argui: Protrahatur linea EF equidistans linee
DC. Eritque DEFC quadratum per 33am conclusionem primi
Euclidis. Igitur BDE et EFG trianguli sunt equianguli et per
consequens sim iles. Igitur per quartam sexti Euclidis sicut BD
485 ad DE, et per consequens ad DC sibi equalem, ita DC, et per
consequens EF, ad FG. Multiplica igitur dc superabundantia
per se ipsum, scilicet 12 libras per 12, et resultat 144, que de­
inde per 8 libras divide, scilicet per bd, et numerus quotiens
est 18 librarum, quod est pondus fg^. Addatur igitur 18 ad 12,
quod est pondus cd, et resultat 30, quod est pondus cg, eo quod
490
ef et cd sunt equales partes.
26 8
TRACTATUS BLASII DE PONDERIBUS
OF THE SHORTER SEGMENT WOULD MAKE THE BEAM
PARALLEL TO THE HORIZON.
Let there be a beam BAC of uniform thickness and disposi­
tion. And let the [length] of each arm be known so that BA is
two palms in length and AC is four palms. And let the weight of
the whole beam be known as 20 pounds. I say that [we can find]
the weight which is suspended on the terminus B to make the
beam parallel to the horizon, I protract line DE perpendicular­
ly on BC and equal to line CD. I protract BE further in a con­
tinuous and straight line until it intersects line CG, parallel to
DE, at point G. And by the 29th proposition [of the first book of
the Elements] of Euclid DBE and BCG are similar [triangles].
Hence, by the fourth proposition of the sixth book of Euclid, GC
is to DE, and consequently to DC equal to it, as CB is to DB.
Hence, by premiss CG suspended on terminus B makes the
beam parallel to the horizon. How we know what CG is, is clear
from the twenty-first proposition of the fifth book of Euclid.
From this, there are four propositional terms, one of which is
the unknown, evidently CG. We multiply CD which is the excess
of CA over BA by CG, the beam, i.e ., we multiply six palms by
ten, and the result is sixty, which we divide by DB, which is
twice the shorter arm and is four palms. The quotient is fif­
teen. Therefore, a beam of fifteen palms equal in thickness
with BC and of the same disposition when suspended [on the
shorter arm] makes the beam BC parallel to the horizon. Then
it is argued further that just as ten palms is to fifteen palms,
so twenty pounds is to thirty pounds. Hence cj» [of thirty
pounds] would keep the balance in equilibrium, for weight cg to
weight dc, which is twelve pounds, is as the line CB which is
ten palms to the line BD, which is four palms. Therefore, mul­
tiply twelve by ten, which is the third term, and the result is
one hundred and twenty, which we divide by four. The resulting
quotient is thirty, as before, the weight cj^ which is suspended
on B to make the beam parallel to the horizon. It consists of
thirty pounds.
It can be argued in another way. Let the line EF be drawn
parallel to line DC. DEFC will be a square by the thirty-third
conclusion of the first book of Euclid. Therefore, triangles
BDE and EFG are equiangular and thus similar. Therefore, by
the fourth proposition of the sixth book of Euclid as BD is to
DE, and consequently to DC equal to it, so DC, and thus EF, is
to FG. Multiply, therefore, the excess d£ by itself, i.e ., 12
pounds by 12, and there results 144, which then you divide by
eight pounds', i.e ., by the [weight] bd, and the quotient is 18.
This is the weight of fj*. Add, therefore, 18 to 12, the weight cd,
and the result is 30, which is the weight cg, because cj[ and cd
269
 TRACTATUS BLASII DE PONDERIBUS TRACTATUS BLASII DE PONDERIBUS

are equal parts.

XVI. IF THERE IS A BEAM WHOSE LENGTH, THICKNESS

XVI. SI FUERIT CANONIUM LONGITUDINE, SPISSITUDINE*
AND GRAVITY ARE GIVEN, AND IT IS DIVIDED INTO TWO
ET GRAVITATE [DATUM ET] DIVIDATUR IN DUAS PARTES
UNEQUAL SEGMENTS, AND THERE IS SUSPENDED ON THE
INEQUALES, FUERITQUE SUSPENSUM IN TERMINO MINORIS
END OF THE SHORTER SEGMENT A GIVEN WEIGHT WHICH
.495 PORTIONIS,PONDUS DATUM QUOD FACIT [CANONIUM] PAR­
MAKES THE BEAM PARALLEL TO THE HORIZON, THEN
ALLELUM ORIZONTI, LONGITUDO UNIUSCUIUSQUE [PORTI­
THE LENGTH OF EACH OF THE SEGMENTS WILL BE GIVEN.
ONUM] DATA ERIT. Proof: With the length of the whole beam known, as well as
Probatur sic: longitudine totius canonii nota, et pondere
its weight, I place one foot of a compass on the fulcrum and
noto, pone pedem circini in centro medii motus et constituet
construct a circle with the shorter segment as the radius,
500 circulum consimiliter breviorem portionem, que secabit per
diffinitionem circuli partem equalem de brachio longiore. Parti which will by the definition of a circle cut off a part of the long­
er segment equal to the shorter segment. The part cut off is
autem relique equatur portio ablata a termino ubi pendet pond­
equal to the remaining segment where the weight hangs, be­
us, quia ex hoc exceditur brachium brachio. Unde habetur
cause it is by this that one arm exceeds the other. Hence we
quesitum. have what is sought.
505 Aliud commentum, [cf. Figure B-20] Sit canonium parallel­
Another commentary: Let there be a beam BAC parallel to
um orizonti BAC cuius longius brachium sit AC. Sitque totum
the horizon. Let its longer arm be AC* Let the whole beam be
canonium sit terminatum. Et sit AD equate AB. Et suspendatur
determined. Let AD be equal to AB and let a given weight be
in termino B pondus datum. Dico igitur quod longitudo AB erit
suspended on the terminus B. I say, therefore, that the length
data,et per consequens longitudo AC erit data. Dirigatur enim
AB can be determined and consequently the length of AC. For
510 canonium BF equalis grossiciei eiusdem compositionis cum
let there be extended the beam BF equally thick and of the
canonio BC ita quod FBC sit prius canonium unum. Et sit BF
same composition as beam BC in such a way that FBC is as be­
equalis ponderis cum e^ pondere. Verum quia ad hoc quod BF
fore a single beam. And let BF be of equal weight with weight
sic dirigatur oportet quod longitudo sua fuerit nota. Ideo ad
e. It is true that in order to construct BF in this way it is nec­
illam sic deveniens, sit bc pondus notum, £ pondus notum, et
essary to know its length. Therefore, we proceed as follows:
515 per consequens ab, df nota, ita BC longitudine nota, AD, AB,DF
Let the weight bc^ be known, the weight e_ known, and conse­
linee ignote. Multiplica igitur e_ pondus per BC longitudinem et
quently the weights ab, df known; the line BC is known, while
productum divide per bc^ pondus et numerus quotiens ostendit
the lines AD, AB, and DF are unknown. Hence multiply the
longitudinem BF. Cum igitur per premissam BF se habet ad
DC sicut BC ad BD, erit permutatim per [1] 6 am quinti Euclid- weight e_ by the length BC and divide the product by the weight
bc. The quotient shows the length BF. Since by premiss BF is
520 is BF ad BC sicut CD ad DB. BC est medium proporcionale
to DC as BC is to BD, by permutation on the authority of the
inter FC et BD. Multiplica igitur longitudinem BC per se ip­
sam et productum divide per longitudinem FC, que nota est, eo sixteenth proposition of the fifth book of Euclid, BF is to BC as
DC is to DB. BC is the mean proportional term between FC
quod tam FB quam BC fuerit nota, et numerus quotiens per
and BD. Hence multiply the length BC by itself and divide the
21 am septimi Euclidis est longitudo BD, cuius medietas est
product by the length FC which is known because FB and BC
525 longitudo BA, que subtrahitur a longitudine BC et remanet long­
are known, and the quotient, by the twenty-first proposition of
itudo AC. Nunc igitur est utrumque brachium notum, quod fuit
the seventh book of Euclid, is the length BD. The half of BD is
probandum. Et sic secunda pars finitur huius operis. Nunc in­
the length BA which is subtracted from the length BC and the
tendo modum invenire per quem sine equilibri valeam videre
length AC remains. Now, therefore, each arm is known, which
que pondera sint unius gravitatis et que diversarum gravitatum was to be proved.
530 et cetera.
And so the second part of this work is finished. Now I intend
to find a method by which I would be able without a balance to
see which weights are the same and which diverse, and so on.

271
270
 TRACTATUS BLASII DE PONDERIBUS
TRACTATUS BLASII DE PONDERIBUS
Tertia pars
Part III
(Suppositiones)
1 I. NULLUM ELEMENTUM IN EIUS PROPRIA REGIONE PON­ (Suppositions)
I. NO ELEMENT HAS WEIGHT IN ITS OWN REGION.
DERAT.
Hoc dicit Archimedes in tractatu De insidentibus in liquido.
Archimedes says this in his treatise On bodies floating in
Cui magnus Aristoteles academicus contradicit in eius volum-
liquid. But the great Aristotle in his work On the Universe con­
5 nine De universo sub hoc tenore: Quodlibet elementum in regi­
tradicts this in the following way: “Any element at all, except
one propria preter ignem gravitatem habet. Que philosophia
fire, has weight in its own region." But this philosophy is not
non multis placet nec dicendis confert. Et ideo relinquetur.
pleasing to many, nor is it produced with the necessary argu­
ments. And therefore we set it aside.
II. QUODLIBET GRAVE APPETIT ESSE SUB LEVI ET LEVE
II. EVERY HEAVY BODY SEEKS TO COME TO REST UNDER
SUPRA GRAVE QUIETARE.
A LIGHT BODY AND EVERY LIGHT BODY ABOVE A HEAVY
ONE.
10 Patet hic sermo. Ea enim sic disposuit gloriosus Magister
This statement is obvious. For the Glorious and Sublime
et sublimus, ut naturales scribunt in decorem universi et hu­
Master has arranged these things, as the natural philosophers
mane nature stabilitatem.
say concerning the decor of the universe and the stability of the
human soul.
III. TUNC SUNT CORPORA EQUALITER GRAVIA CUM SERV­
III. BODIES ARE EQUALLY HEAVY [specifically] WHEN,
ATA EADEM QUANTITATE ET FIGURA EQUALITER POND-
WITH THE SAME VOLUME AND FIGURE TAKEN, THEY
15 ERANT. WEIGH THE SAME.
Hoc patet sine alio processu. Unde in suppositione duo tang­
untur. (l) Identitas figure. Unde identitas figure requiritur, quia This is evident without any other procedure. Two things are
alia et alia figura est causa accelerationis et tarditatis motus. touched upon in this supposition, (l) Identity of figure. Identity
Modo gravitas corporis maior vel minor non cognoscitur nisi of figure is required because difference in figure is a cause of
20 per velociorem et tardiorem motum. (2) Et sic dicebatur se r­ acceleration and retardation. Now the gravity of a body is not
vata eadem extensione, quoniam licet magnum lignum sit gra­ recognized as being more or less except by a faster or slower
vius plumbo, tamen [plumbum] ligno in eadem extensione gra­ movement. (2) [Equality of volume]. It was stated that the
same volume is taken, since although a large piece of wood is
vius est.
heavier than a piece of lead, yet the lead is heavier than the
Nunc sequuntur conclusiones, quarum prima est hec:
wood when they are of the same volume.
Now follow the conclusions, the first of which is this:
(Conclusiones sive Propositiones)
(Conclusions or Propositions)
25 I. PROPOSITIS DUOBUS PONDERIBUS NON FLUXIBILIBUS
I. IN THE CASE OF TWO NON-FLUID WEIGHTS IT IS POS­
POSSIBILE EST SINE EQUILIBRI QUOD IPSORUM SIT GRAV­
SIBLE TO FIND OUT WHICH OF THEM IS HEAVIER WITHOUT
IUS REPERIRE. A BALANCE.
Sciendum quod sunt quedam corpora fluxibilia, ut vinum,
It ought to be known that certain bodies are fluid, like wine,
aqua, oleum; quedam solida et non fluxibilia, ut lignum, ferrum
water, and oil; and certain are solid and non-fluid, like wood,
30 et cetera. Et quedam sunt corpora fluxibilia eiusdem rationis,
iron, and so on. And some fluid bodies are of the same nature,
ut due aque, et quedam diversarum rationum, ut aqua et ole­
such as two waters, and certain are different in nature, such
um. Et dico idem de corporibus non fluxibillbus. Tunc probatur
as water and oil. I say the same thing for non-fluid bodies.
conclusio: Quia sit quod hec duo corpora non fluxibilia a, b^
Proof of the conclusion: Let there be two non-fluid bodies, a_
eiusdem rationis vel diversarum rationum, et de hoc non sit
and ]3 , either of the same nature or different natures, it makes
35 cura. Que corpora ad aquam compellantur. Quo facto, vel ut-
no difference. These bodies are forced into water. This having
272
27 3
 TRACTATUS BLASII DE PONDERIBUS
rumque eorum descendit per aquam vel utrumque supernatat et
neutrum descendit, vel alterum descendit et alterum superna­
tat. Si utrumque descendit, videndum est quod horum velocius ad
fundum procedit, quia illud altero est gravius. Si autem eque
40 velociter ad fundum pertingerent, eque gravia dicerentur. Si
vero neutrum descendet, tunc diligenter videatur cuius maior
pars submergatur, quia illud erit altero gravius. Si vero unum
supernataret et alterum deorsum moveretur, patet quod horum
in hoc casu est gravius et quod levius. Si vero contingeret per
45 huiusmodi aquam fundum intueri non posse propter multitudi­
nem partium terrestrium, fiat versa vice ut quod huiusmodi
corpora applicentur fundo cum hasta. Deinde removeatur ali­
qualiter ab utroque et videbitur ascensus istorum corporum vel
alterius tantum et patebit conclusio, uno casu dumtaxat excep-
50 to, ut puta quod utrumque eorum haberet in fundo residentiam.
Ideo pro illo casu sit talis operatio ut quod huiusmodi gravibus
antequam compellantur ad fundum applicentur duo fila, quorum
extremitates pertingant ad aridam tanquam ad speram aeris.
Quibus extremitatibus appendantur duo gravia equalia quorum
55 utrumque sit utroque ponderum residentium in fundo aque gra­
vius. Hoc facto transeant ista fila per anulum aere fixum, et
tunc videatur quod istorum ponderum tardius descendit versum
superficiem terre. Illud est gravius. Et bene notetur ille casus
et non contingat ipsum amplius in posterum repetere.
6,0 II. DATIS DUOBUS LIQUIDIS EIUSDEM GENERIS SIVE DIVER­
SORUM POSSIBILE EST QUOD HORUM SIT GRAVIUS COGNO­
SCERE SINE EQUILIBRI.
Sint duo corpora liquida, ut due aque vel aequa et oleum, que
corpora sunt ponderanda. Capiantur c^ et d duo corpora non
65 fluxibilia nata supernatare; et pro parte submergi in liquido
ponderando. Et melius est ut unicum corpus capiatur in quo
signentur, gratia exempli, duodecim puncta inter se equidistan-
tia signata in eadem recta linea. Quo facto ponatur istud cor­
pus solidum in a liquido. Et notetur numerus punctorum qui
70 submergantur. Deinde ponatur idem corpus in h corpore pond­
erando et notetur ut supra numerus punctorum qui submersi
sunt huic liquido. Deinde videatur an iste numerus punctorum
sit equalis priori. Et [si] sic, hec duo liquida sunt eque gravia.
Si a^ sit maior, tunc b corpus liquidum est minus grave et a
75 liquidum est gravius. Si pauciora, in contrarium inferatur.
274
TRACTATUS BLASII DE PONDERIBUS
been done, either each of them descends in the water or each
of them floats and neither descends, or one descends and the
other floats. If each of them descends, it ought to be seen which
of them proceeds more quickly to the bottom because this one
is heavier than the other. Moreover, if they arrive at the bot­
tom equally quickly, they are said to be equally heavy. If neith­
er of them descends, then it ought to be seen carefully which of
them has the greater part submerged, for that one is heavier
than the other. If in truth one of them were to float and the oth­
er to be moved downward, it is obvious in this case which of
them would be heavier and which would be lighter. If it were to
happen that the bottom of the water of this sort could not be
seen because of the large number of earthy parts in the water,
let the procedure be reversed, so these bodies are held on the
bottom with pikes. Then let the pikes be removed from each
body at the same time, and the speed of the ascent of each of
the bodies will be seen, and the conclusion will be evident. But
one case is excepted, namely, when both of them remain on the
bottom. For this case proceed as follows. Before these weights
are pushed to the bottom, two cords are attached, whose ends
go out to some supports in the air. On these [exposed] ends are
suspended two equal weights, each of which is heavier than
each of the weights resting on the bottom [of the water]. With
this done, the cords are passed through a ring fixed in the air.
Then let it be observed which of the weights [outside] descends
more slowly towards the surface of the earth, for that one is
[fixed to] the heavier weight [to be tested]. And this case should
be noted well so that it will not have to be repeated in the
future.
II. IN THE CASE OF TWO LIQUIDS EITHER OF THE SAME
KIND OR OF DIFFERENT KINDS, IT IS POSSIBLE TO KNOW
WHICH OF THEM IS HEAVIER WITHOUT A BALANCE.
Let there be two liquid bodies, such as two waters, or water
and oil. These are the bodies to be weighed. Let there be taken
two non-fluid floating bodies, namely, e and d, which will partly
submerge in the liquid to be weighed. But it is better to take
one body on which are marked, for example, twelve points
equally distant apart along a straight line. With this done, this
body is placed in liquid a. And the number of points which are
submerged is noted. Then the same body is placed in liquid b
to be weighed, and the number of points which are submerged
in this liquid is noted as before. Then let it be observed wheth­
er the latter number of points is equal to the former. If so,
then these two liquids are equally heavy. If it is more [i.e.,
more points are submerged in liquid b], then the liquid body b
275
 TRACTATUS BLASII DE PONDERIBUS
III. DUOBUS GRAVIBUS PROPOSITIS,UNO LIQUIDO, ALTERO
SOLIDO,QUOD PONDEROSIUS EST INQUIRERE EST POS­
SIBILE.
Probatur: Sint hec corpora, gratia exempli, lignum et
80 aqua vel oleum sive vinum. Et hoc facto ponatur lignum in b
liquido et videatur an <1 lignum descendat per b aquam vel ne.
Et si descendit, inferatur per secundum suppositionem quod a^
est gravius b, quia gravius alio naturaliter descendit sub ipso.
Et per modum conversionis, quod naturaliter movetur sub alio
85 est gravius alio. Si autem a non descendit per b sed potius su­
pernatat, videatur tunc an aliqua pars ipsius «i sit infusa liqui­
do et aliqua pars discooperta sit liquido. Et si sic, tunc b liqui­
dum in eadem quantitate cum a_ est gravius ipso <l. Si autem ip­
sum a sic submergatur quod eius superficies superior fiat una
9 0 cum superficiei corporis liquidi, tunc dicatur in vigore tertie
suppositionis solidum et b fluxibile eiusdem gravitatis esse.
Et hoc fuit demonstrandum.
IV. DUOBUS GRAVIBUS PROPOSITIS NON FLUXIBILIBUS
EIUSDEM RATIONIS,IN QUA PROPORTIONE UNUM SIT A L "
95 TERO GRAVIUS EST POSSIBILE COGNOSCERE.
Probatur: Sint a et b, gratia exempli, duo ligna. In quorum
quolibet signentur duodecim puncta et inter se equidistantia. Et
sint primo hec ligna figurata consimilibus figuris. Hoc facto,
ponantur in una aqua vel in quo vis alio liquido. Et videatur in
100 utroque numerus punctorum super submersorum, et videatur in
utroque proportio punctorum submersorum ad puncta submer­
sa quanta sic. Et secundum hoc iudicabis de ponderibus et pa­
tet intelligenti. Si autem utrumque eorum fundum aque peteret
recurrendum est ad ymaginationem in declaratione prime con-
105 clusionis positam.
V. DUOBUS FLUXIBILIBUS DATIS EIUSDEM RATIONIS VEL
DIVERSORUM, IN QUA PROPORTIONE ALTERUM ALTERO
SIT GRAVIUS VIDERE EST POSSIBILE.
Probatur: Capiatur una trabs nata pro parte submergi in
110 fluxibilibus ponderandis et pro parte subnatari et signentur du­
odecim puncta, ut sepe dictum est. Deinde videatur proportio
276
TRACTATUS BLASII DE PONDERIBUS
is less heavy and liquid a is heavier. If fewer [points are sub­
merged in b], then the contrary may be inferred.
III. IN THE CASE OF TWO HEAVY BODIES OF WHICH ONE IS
A LIQUID AND THE OTHER IS A SOLID, IT IS POSSIBLE TO
FIND OUT WHICH IS THE HEAVIER.
Proof: Let these bodies be, for example, a, a piece of wood,
and b^, water or oil or wine. With this done, the wood a is
placed in the liquid b, and let it be observed whether the wood
a descends through the water b, or not. And if it descends, it
may be inferred by the second supposition that a^ is heavier
than b because something heavier than another thing naturally
descends beneath it (i.e., displaces it upward). And so converse­
ly, that which is naturally moved [to a place] beneath something
else is heavier than it. If, however, a does not descend through
b, but rather floats, then let it be observed whether some part
of a_ is down in the liquid while some part remains uncovered
by the liquid. If so, then the liquid b in the same quantity as a
is heavier than zu If, however, ci is submerged so that its su­
perior surface coincides with the surface of the liquid body,
then by the force of the third supposition it is said that the
solid a and fluid b^ are of the same [specific] gravity. And this
was to be demonstrated.
IV. IN THE CASE OF TWO NON-FLUID BODIES OF THE
SAME KIND, IT IS POSSIBLE TO KNOW IN WHAT PROPOR­
TION ONE IS HEAVIER THAN THE OTHER.
Proof: Let there be two pieces of wood, for example, a and 15.
On each of them are marked twelve points equally spaced. In
the first place the pieces of wood have been fashioned into sim­
ilar figures. With this done, they are placed in the same water,
or if you wish in any other liquid. And let the number of points
submerged in each piece of wood be observed; then observe the
proportion of the points submerged to the points submerged in
each one. And you will judge accordingly with regard to the
weights. This is obvious to the intelligent person. If, however,
each of them were to seek the bottom of the water, it is neces­
sary to have recourse to the device posed in the clarification
of the first conclusion.
V. IN THE CASE OF TWO FLUIDS OF THE SAME KIND OR OF
DIFFERENT KINDS, IT IS POSSIBLE TO OBSERVE IN WHAT
PROPORTION ONE IS HEAVIER THAN THE OTHER.
Proof: Take a staff of such a kind as to submerge partly and
to float partly in the liquids to be weighed. Let there be marked
off on it twelve points, as has been often said. Then observe the
277
 TRACTATUS BLASII DE PONDERIBUS
punctorum submersorum ad puncta submersa in utroque cor­
porum fluxibilium que ponderare proposuimus, et secundum hoc
sicut proportio se habet ad proportionem sic liquidum ad liqui-
115 dum.
VI. PROPOSITIS UNO DURO ET ALTERO FLUXIBILI POSSI­
BILE EST IN QUA PROPORTIONE UNUM SIT ALTERO GRA­
VIUS ‘ c o g n o s c e r e .
Probatur: Capiatur a corpus quadratum natum non ex toto
120 descendere per liquidum ponderandum. Deinde signatis duodec­
im punctis ut supra compellatur ad liquidum ponderandum,et
videatur an omnia puncta adequate submergantur. Et si sic,
tunc ista sunt equaliter gravia. Si non, notetur proportio punct­
orum submersorum ad non submersa et secundum dictam pro-
125 portionem dico liquidum esse gravius ligno.
Explicit tractatus de ponderibus ordinatum per Magistrum
Blasium de Parma tempore magnarum vacationum.
278
TRACTATUS BLASII DE PONDERIBUS
proportion of the points submerged in the one to the proportion
of the points submerged in the other of the liquid bodies which
we proposed to weigh. And accordingly as these proportions
are related so are the [specific weights of the] liquids.
VI. IN THE CASE OF ONE SOLID AND ONE FLUID IT IS POS­
SIBLE TO KNOW IN WHAT PROPORTION ONE IS HEAVIER
THAN THE OTHER.
Proof: Let there be taken a body of such a kind as not to
descend completely through the liquid to be weighed. Then with
twelve points marked as before, it is pushed into the Liquid to
be weighed. And let it be observed whether all of the points are
just submerged. If so, then these bodies are equally heavy. If
not, the proportion of points submerged to the points not sub­
merged is noted. I say that according to the said proportion is
the liquid heavier than the wood.
Here ends the treatise on weights arranged by Master Blas-
ius of Parma at the time of the great holidays.
279
 A P P E N D IX I

A FRAGMENT ON THE ROMAN BALANCE

ATTRIBUTED TO EUCLID
Edited by Marshall Clagett

In discussing the historical place of Thabitibn Qurra's Liber

karastonis we have already mentioned the close ties between
that treatise and a fragment appearing in the midst of two 16th
century manuscripts of the Liber Euclidis de ponderoso et levi
(M s. Bibl. Nat, tat. 10260, fol. I38r,and Cod. Vat, lat. 2875, fol.
I48v). This fragment follows on Proposition IV of the Liber de
ponderoso et levi, but is obviously unrelated to that work.
Pierre Duhem, who discovered this fragment, believed it to be
a part of a work entitLed Liber Euclidis de ponderibus secundum
terminorum circumferentiam, listed in the contents of Ms. Maz­
arine 3642 at Paris, but no longer contained in that manuscript.^
He also noticed that in another Paris manuscript (M s. Bibl. Nat,
lat, 16649, fol. 9 r-v) this fragment occurs separately under the
title Excerptum de libro Thebit de ponderibus. Here it follows
after a fragment of the Elementa de ponderibus of Jordanus de
Nemore, and is in turn followed by the Liber Euclidis de pon­
deroso et levi. We have already suggested, in connection with
the problem of the source of Thabit’ s Liber karastonis, that
this fragment is either an excerpt from Thabit’ s work, or else
the original Cause karastonis which Thabit revised. At any rate
much of the vocabulary found in this fragment is similar to that
of Thabit’ s treatise; and, as my detailed notes reveal, the prop­
ositions of the Liber karastonis are all but one presented in the
fragment, though they are presented in the reverse order.
We have found two considerably earlier renderings of the
fragment than any of the three l 6 th century manuscripts, noted
by Duhem, contain. The first is in the thirteenth century Bodlean
M s. Auct. F .5.2 8, 109r, and the second follows after the Elementa
de ponderibus of Jordanus, in a manuscript of Florence (Bibl.
Naz. Ms. J.V .30, fol. 8 r) which stems from the 14th century. In
this second early copy, however, there are only nine of the
twelve paragraphs found in the other versions, or about nine­
teen of the thirty-two lines.
A final copy, discovered by Duhem in another 16th century
Paris manuscript (Ms. Bibl. Nat, lat. 11247, fol. 4 3 r-v ),is sim ­
ilarly incomplete, containing only the first nine paragraphs. ^
This copy is devoid of title, and as in the Florence manuscript
it follows after the Elementa de ponderibus of Jordanus. It is
clear that it was either copied from the Florence manuscript,
or from a similar source, for not only is it incomplete in the
same manner, but it includes the same error in the first line,
repeating the phrase et tereti twice. This error does not appear

281
 APPENDIX I APPENDIX
in the other manuscripts.
TEXT
l (l) Queritur in longitudine equali et tereti eiusdem materie per
inequalia divisa quantum sit apponendum breviori, ut tota equi-
distat orizonti.
(2) Quod scitur divisa qualibet linea, quia cum suspendetur
5 pondus in fine alterius, et reliqua suspendetur longitudo pon­
derosa equaliter, ut AB, erit proportio ponderis ad AB ut par­
tis que est ab axe ad medium AB ad illam que est ab axe ad
pondus.
(3) Quia conglobata AB et posita in medio eius quod occupabat,
10 erit linea equidistans orizonti sicut prius.
(4) Quia cum quatuor equalia pondera et equaliter distantia
super unam partium uni super alterum posito fuerint equipoll-
entia aggregata etiam in medio sue distantie equipollebunt.
(5) Quia duo similiter erunt.
15 (6 ) Quia ponderis ad pondus nisi ut partis ad partem sed alter­
nation si tota linea fuerit equidistans orizonti.
(7) In perambulantibus uno tempore virtutum que viarum
proportio.
( 8 ) Cum cuiuslibet linee sectione fixa partes in eodem plano
20 movebuntur, ab extremitatibus similes arcus describuntur.
(9) Secundum proportionem ergo partium virtus invenietur ex­
tremitatum, quia diametrorumque portionum similium pro­
portio.
(10) Crossitudo perpendicularis non mutat habitudinem ponder-
25 um, quia partium columne teretis ut partium axis.
(11) Multiplicia igitur ponderum non mutant equidistantiam.
Similiter neque multiplicia longitudinum.
(12) Erunt e rgo pondera proportionalia in similibus partitioni­
bus equalium longitudinum et in ponderibus equalibus binatim
30 longitudines proportionales.
(13) Unde et ponderibus proportionalibus longitudines erunt
similiter.
2 8 2
I
TRANSLATION
(1) In a balance beam uniformly rounded of the same material,
and divided into unequal arm lengths, it is sought how much
weight is to be placed on the shorter arm in order that the
whole beam will be in horizontal equilibrium.
(2) This is known for any divided line, because when a weight
is suspended on the end of one of the arms and it balances
equally the weight of a beam length on the other arm, this
weighted beam length being designated as AB, the proportion of
the weight suspended on the one arm to the weight of AB will
be as the proportion of the length from the axis to the midpoint
of AB, to the length from the axis to the suspended weight.
(3) This is because, if the weight AB is concentrated and placed
in the mid point of the space which it occupied [before], the
beam will be in horizontal equilibrium as before.
(4) [And this will be true] because when four equal weights
equally spaced on one arm so that the balance is in equilibrium,
are aggregated and placed one upon the other in the middle
point of their spacing, they will still be in balance.
(5) [This follows] because a similar situation prevails for two
[weights on the same side of the balance].
(6 ) [And this is true] because if the whole beam is in horizontal
equilibrium, the weights are inversely as the arm lengths.
(7) In the case of walkers who walk in the same period of time,
there is a [direct] proportion between their paths and their
powers.
(8 ) When the arm lengths of any suspended beam are moved in
the same plane, similar arcs are described by the extremities
[of the arms],
(9) Hence the power of the extremities will be found according
to the proportion of the lengths, for the lengths of the diamet­
ers are in the same proportion as are the similar areal por­
tions [of the circles the diameters describe].
(10) The thickness of a beam does not change the ratio of
weights, because parts of the cylindrical beam are in the same
ratio as the distances along the axis [of the cylinder].
(11) Hence multiples of the weights do not change the equilibri­
um, nor do multiples of the lengths [change it],
(12) Therefore in similar parts of equal lengths there are pro­
portional weights, and conversely, with equal weights there are
proportional lengths.
(13) And so with proportional weights the lengths will be pro­
portional.
283
 A P P E N D IX II

THOMAS BRADWARDINE’S DISCUSSION OF PROPOSITION

ONE OF THE LIBER DE PONDERIBUS
Edited by Earnest A. Moody

The treatise On the proportions of velocities in motions, writ-

ten by Thomas Bradwardine in 1328, was devoted to the task of
determining an explicit mathematical formula which would ex­
hibit the functional dependence of the velocity of a moved body
on the quantitative values of motive and resistive forces. As
such, it was a contribution to dynamics rather than to the “ sci­
ence of weights." It is of interest in connection with the tradition
of Jordanus and the auctores de ponderibus, however, because
of the discussion of Proposition One of the Liber de ponderibus
occurring in Bradwardine’ s criticism of what is gene rally taken
to be Aristotle’ s “ law of motion."
In the fifth chapter of the seventh book of the Physics, A ris­
totle sets forth several “ rules" bearing on the mode of quanti­
tative dependence of the velocity of a moved body on the moving
force and the resistance. If we symbolize motive power by P,
resistance by M, and velocity by V,the general formula implied
by these rules would appear to be represented by the law,
V=k»P/M, where k is a constant assigned according to the units
employed in measuring the other factors. To this general form ­
ula, as given, Aristotle made restrictions—chiefly the restric­
tion that the formula holds only where P > M^. Bradwardine crit­
icizes this interpretation of Aristotle’ s law, partly because of
its lack of complete generality, and because, if it is generalized,
it leads to consequences which contradict the basic assumptions
of Aristotle himself. Aristotle had assumed that where motive
power and resistance are equal, the condition will be one of
equilibrium and not of motion—this is why he insisted that vel­
ocity is proportional to the ratio of motive power to resistance
only when the motive power is greater than the resistance. But
this is obviously unsatisfactory, since, if there is some finite
velocity which arises when the ratio P / M is as 2 /l , a velocity
half as great should arise from a ratio of P / M half as great.
Yet such a ratio would be one of equality, which Aristotle insists
does not produce any motion at all.
Bradwardine resolves the problem, within the assumptions of
Aristotle’ s dynamics, by construing the proportionality between
velocities, on the one hand, and ratios of force to resistance, on
the other, as geometrical proportionality. Hence the arithmetical
half of a given velocity corresponds to the geometrical half(i.e.,
the square root) of the P/M ratio corresponding to that given vel­
ocity. Bradwardine thereby arrives at a general formula which
could be expressed in modern notation as follows: V=log^(p/M),

285
 INTRODUCTION
where the log base k is a constant such as equals P /M when the
velocity = l. This formula retains its generality within the A r ­
istotelian dynamic assumptions, since, when I^M is l/l,th e vel­
ocity will be zero because the logarithm of l is zeroJ
The discussion of Proposition One of the Liber de ponderibus
occurs in the course of Bradwardine's criticism of the formula
V =k«P/M. The theorem, that among heavy bodies velocities are
proportional to weights, is invoked first as an argument in sup­
port of this formula of simple proportionality. In rebuttal, Brad-
wardine seeks to show that the “ author” of the Liber de ponder­
ibus did not intend his theorem to be so interpreted, and that if
it is interpreted in this way it is false. The chief interest of
Bradwardine’ s discussion is historical; for he claims that the
“author” of the Liber de ponde ribus did not invoke any principles
in proof of the theorem, but that the proofs supplied for the theo­
rem are by one or another “commentator." He then restates two
different proofs, by two of these “commentators,” and discusses
them. The proof ascribed to the first commentator is the one
which occurs in the Elementa de ponderibus of Jordanus de Ne­
more. The proof ascribed to the “other commentator" is one
which occurs (as principal text) in a version of the Liber de
ponderibus contained in Ms. Corpus Christi College 251, at Ox­
ford.
The significance of Bradwardine’ s remarks, for the problem
of assigning the authorship of the seven postulates and nine
theorems of the Liber de ponderibus, is clear. The “author," by
Bradwardine’ s testimony, did not offer any proof of the theorem
in question; and the proof which occurs in the authentic Elementa
Jordani de ponderibus is indicated by Bradwardine to be the
work of unus commentator, and not of the author. Bradwardine’ s
testimony, if it may be relied upon, supports our conjecture
that Jordanus de Nemore did not originate the postulates and
theorems of his Elementa de ponderibus, but only provided those
theorems with proofs. The postulates and theorems themselves,
we may suppose, were inherited (without proofs) in the pseudo-
Euclidean literature to which the De canonio, the Liber Euclidis
de ponderoso et levi, and the De speculis, belonged. And if this
is so, it is easy to understand how these same postulates and
theorems occurred in the so-called “Peripatetic version” of the
Liber de ponderibus, with proofs which show no influence what­
ever of the proofs given by Jordanus.
It is to be noted that Bradwardine’ s attempt to construe the
first theorem of the Liber de ponderibus as asserting propor­
tionality of velocities to the ratios of weights to resistant count­
erweights, instead of proportionality between velocities and
weights alone, was taken over by the commentator whose text
286
APPENDIX II
we have edited in our Appendix HI. This commentator, indeed,
repeats Bradwardine’ s argument in almost the same words, so
that we can assume that he was directly influenced by Bradward­
ine’ s work.
Whether Jordanus himself had understood the theorem in the
manner in which Bradwardine, and this later commentator,
thought it should be construed, is a question that can scarcely
be answered. But it may be remarked that it is not always the
impeccable and fully explicit demonstrations that have stimula­
ted the progress of science; more frequently, it has been the
plausible but defective argument, or the ambiguous and contro­
versial theorem, that has caused later mento re-examine basic
assumptions or to reformulate the problem in more adequate
and precise form. Such was the case with Proposition One of the
Liber de ponderibus, which provoked continual controversy for
two hundred and fifty years, while in all this time the elegantly
demonstrated theorems of Jordanus, such as his inclined plane
theorem and his resolution of the bent lever problem, were all
but forgotten.
The text which follows, containing Bradwardine’ s discussion
of the De ponderibus theorem, occurs in the second section of
the third chapter of Bradwardine’ s Tractatus de proportionibus
velocitatum in motibus, toward the end of this section. We have
established the text on the basis of the edition of De Maruef,
Paris s.a_.(l495?), corrected by four good manuscript texts found
in M s, Bibl. Nat, lat. 14576, at Paris, Cod. Vat. Ottob. 176, at the
Vatican Library, Ms. Digby 228 of the Bodleian Library at Oxford,
and Ms. 500 of the Biblioth^que de la Ville at B r u g e s/
287
 THOMAE BRADWARDINI
THOMAS BRADWARDINE
TRACTATUS DE PROPORTIONIBUS
TREATISE ON THE PROPORTIONS OF
VELOCITATUM IN MOTIBUS
VELOCITIES IN MOTIONS
Capitulum Tertium, Pars Secunda
Chapter Three, Part Two
l .................. Conclusio autem De ponderibus allegata similiter
.................. But the theorem cited from the Treatise on Weights
habet intelligi: “Inter quelibet gravia est velocitatis in descen­
is to be understood in similar fashion: “Between any heavy
dendo, et ponderis, eodem ordine sumpta proportio”—id est,
bodies, the velocity of descent is directly proportional to the
inter quelibet gravia est velocitatis in descendendo, et propor-
weight”—this means, between any heavy bodies the velocity of
5 tionis ponderis ad suam resistentiam, eodem ordine sumpta
descent is directly proportional to the proportion of the weight
proportio. Et hoc debet intelligi, resistentia existente equali
to its resistance. And it should be understood that the resist­
hinc inde. Auctor tamen non ponit aliqua principia illam con­
ance remains constant throughout. The author, however, does
clusionem probantia.
not lay down any principles in proof of that theorem.
Potest tamen obici contra glosam predictam, quod nullus
It may however be objected, against the above interpretation,
10 commentator probat illam conclusionem ad intellectum predic-
that no commentator proves this theorem in the above sense,
tum, sed ad alium, quem habet ista positio—quod nulla est pro­
but rather in the other sense which is upheld by the theory that
portio nec aliquis excessus potentie motive ad potentiam resis-
there is no proportion, nor any excess, of the motive power
titivam—, et quem verba illius conclusionis pretendunt. Dicen­
over a resisting power—which is what the words of the theorem
dum, quod nullus commentator quem nos vidimus probat istam
literally suggest. To this we reply that no commentator we have
15 conclusionem ad intellectum predictum, nec aliquem alium.
read proves this theorem in the above sense, or in any other
Nam unus commentator capit duo pondera inequalia, et duas
sense either. For one commentator assumes two unequal
lineas inequales istorum descensus designantes. Et capit pri­
weights, and two unequal lines representing their descents. And
mo, tamquam datum ab adversario, quod proportio maioris
he first assumes, as if asserted by his adversary, that the
ponderis ad minus est maior proportione maioris linee ad m i-
ratio of the greater weight to the lesser is greater than the
20 norem. Et ex hoc arguit proportionem minoris ponderis ad
ratio of the longer line to the shorter one; and from this he a r­
maius esse minorem proportione minoris linee ad maiorem;
gues that the ratio of the lesser weight to the greater will be
ex quo concludit minorem esse proportionem ponderum quam
less than the ratio of the lesser line to the greater. And from
descensuum—cuius oppositum erat datum. Istud autem non ob­
this he concludes that the ratio of the weights is less than that
viat, quoniam primo erat datum maiorem esse proportionem
of their descents—the opposite of which was assumed. But this
25 maioris ponderis ad minus, proportione maioris descensus ad
is no contradiction; it was first assumed that the ratio of the
minorem; et huic non repugnat, sed sequitur conversim esse
greater weight to the lesser one is greater than that of the
proportionem minorem scilicet minoris ponderis ad maius
longer descent to the shorter one; but it is not contradictory to
quam minoris descensus seu linee ad maiorem.
this, but it follows from this, that the converse ratio, of the
Alius autem commentator, similiter cum primo, capit duo
smaller weight to the greater, is less than the ratio of the
30 pondera inequalia et eorum descensus inequales; et apponit mi­
shorter descent to the longer one.
nori ponderi aliud pondus, ut ex ambobus appositum sit equale
The oiher commentator, like the first one, assumes two un­
maiori. Et supponit quod descensus ponderis appositi, per se,
equal weights and their unequal descents. And he adds, to the
per tempus equale tempori priorum descensuum, appositus mi­
lesser weight, another weight such that the two together will be
nori descensui, maiori descensui adequatur. Et illud non est
equal to the greater weight. And he supposes that the descent
35 prius probatum, nec per se notum, nec sequens; nec est uni­
of the added weight, taken alone and for a time equal to the
versaliter verum, sed in pluribus casibus est falsum quam
time of the original descents, if it is added to the shorter de­
verum—ut ex sequentibus apparebit. Et ex isto supposito, con­
scent, will be equal to the greater descent. And this was not
cludit quod minor est proportio maioris ponderis ad illud pon-
previously proved, nor is it self-evident, nor does it follow;

288 289
 APPENDIX II
dus appositum, quam maioris descensus ad descensum illius
40 ponderis appositi; cuius contrarium asserit esse datum. Sed
non est ita; quia non erat prius datum universaliter, ‘quorum­
libet ponderum inequalium esse maiorem proportionem maior­
is ad minus, proportione suorum descensuum eodem ordine
acceptorum,’ sed specialiter, ‘istorum duorum ponderum pri-
45 mo acceptorum, et suorum descensuum,’ Et ideo illi non re­
pugnat quod aliquorum aliorum ponderum inequalium sit minor
proportio maioris ad minus quam suorum descensuum eodem
ordine acceptorum. Aliquorum enim ponderum inequalium, est
equalis proportio maioris ad minus et suorum descensuum
50 eodem ordine acceptorum; aliquorum autem maior, et aliquo­
rum minor—ut in sequentibus erit lucide demonstratum...............
2 9 0
APPENDIX II
and it is not generally true but is false in more cases than it is
true—as will be evident from what follows. But having made
this assumption, he concludes that the ratio of the larger
weight to that added weight, is less than the ratio of the longer
descent to the descent of that added weight—the opposite of
which he says had been supposed. But this is not so; for it was
not previously assumed, in universal manner, that ‘ of any un­
equal weights the ratio of the greater to the lesser is greater
than the ratio of their respective descents,’ but it was assumed,
as a particular case, holding for ‘these two weights initially
supposed, and their descents.* And to this it is not contradict­
ory that in the case of some other unequal weights, the ratio of
the greater to the smaller is less than the ratio of their re­
spective descents. For in the case of some unequal weights, the
ratio of the greater to the smaller is equal to the ratio of
their respective descents; but in the case of some, it is great­
er; and in the case of some, it is less—as will be lucidly dem­
onstrated later on. . . .
291
 A P P E N D IX III

A FOURTEENTH CENTURY COMMENTARY ON

PROPOSITION ONE OF THE LIBER DE PONDERIBUS
I Edited by Ernest A. Moody

When, in 1533, Petrus Apianus of Ingolstadt published what he

described as a “ still better commentary of the excellent Jorda-
nus on weights," he was no doubt referring to the commentary
which he added, under each theorem, to the short version (with
prologue) which we have called Version “ P ," introducing it in
each case with the phrase “ Here follows another commentary”
(Sequitur aliud commentum). This “other commentary," which
is the longest and most critical and detailed of all the versions
of De ponderibus treatises or commentaries, was assumed by
Duhem to have been an elaboration, made by Apianus himself,
of the commentary represented by Cod. Vat. Lat. 2975 and gen­
erally entitled Liber Euclidis de ponderibus.^ This is not, how -
ever, the case. Apianus’ “other commentary" is one which is
found in several mediaeval manuscripts, of late 14th or early
15th century origin. It was almost certainly written after the
year 1328, since its discussions directly reflect the critical
comments made by Thomas Bradwardine in his Tractatus de
proportionibus velocitatum in motibus, which was composed in
that year.^
It is this “other commentary" of the Apianus edition, which
we have here edited and translated, in that part which treats of
the crucial first theorem of the Liber de ponderibus. Our text
is based on a good manuscript of the early 15th century, Ms. J.
VI.36 of the Biblioteca Nazionale of Florence, where the com-
mentaryto the first theorem occurs on fols. 2r-3r. The printed
edition of Apianus has been used in supplementary manner, but
distinct preference has been given to the readings of the manu­
script which are, in nearlyall cases, clearer and sounder. It is
obvious, nevertheless, that Apianus based his text on a manu­
script copy of the same original text as is represented by the
Florence manuscript, adding no embroidery of his own as Duhem
supposed.
It is unlikely that Apianus could have believed this commen­
tary to be the work of Jordanus himself, since its author refers
to Jordanus in the third person. We may therefore suppose that
Apianus thought of the short version with its prologue (Version
“P ”) as the Liber Jordani de ponderibus, and meant to indicate
by his statement, ut optimi hominis Iordani meliorem adhuc
commentarium de ponderibus in lucem ederem, that he was go­
ing to piiblish a “better commentary" on the De ponderibus of
Jordanus.
This commentary is of very great historical and theoretical

293
 INTRODUCTION
interest, for several reasons. First, it reveals the fact that the
work of Jordanus was not forgotten in the 14th century, but that
it remained very much alive and gave rise to intense contro­
versy and critical discussion of the principles underlying the
theorems and proofs of the scientia de ponderibus.^ Secondly,
this commentary reveals the interplay, in the fourteenth century,
between the earlier tradition of the De ponderibus treatises and
the newer tradition of dynamics associated with Bradwardine’ s
Tractatus proportionum and its reformulation of the Aristotel­
ian law of motion as an exponential function. Finally, the com­
mentary has great merit in itself, by reason of its clear grasp
of the theoretical issues involved in the interpretation of the
first theorem of the Liber de ponderibus, and its acute appre­
ciation of the fact that this theorem, in order to yield an ade­
quate foundation for the demonstration of the general lever
principle, must be construed in the sense of an enunciation of
the principle of work. Duhem, who also perceived this and a r­
gued valiantly in favor of that interpretation of the Jordanus
proofs could well have drawn support for his interpretation from
this ^commentary." It is hard to account for his failure to do so,
except on the supposition that he failed to read the “other com­
mentary" of the Apianus edition with care, having initially a s­
sumed it to be no more than a sixteenth century expansion of
the inferior commentary represented by the Liber Euclidis dp
ponderibus contained in Cod. Vat. Lat. 2975 and in Ms» Bibl. Nat.
(Paris) lat. 10260.
The author of this commentary was undoubtedly acquainted
with the proofs originated by Jordanus de Nemore, and perhaps
also with the Liber Euclidis version with which Duhem confused
it. But his discussion indicates that he regarded the wording of
the first theorem, found in our version “P ” but not in the E le­
menta Jordani, as the original form of the theorem; the word
proprie, which occurs in Version “P " but not in the authentic
Jordanus versions, reveals this fact. There is reason to suppose
that the author of this commentary did not regard the original
“auctor" of the Liber de ponderibus as Jordanus de Nemore;
for in discussing the theorem, he refers merely to the “author"
without naming him, but later states that this first theorem has
a different wording in the “text of Jordanus." The different word­
ing, as he gives it, turns out to be the wording of the first theo­
rem of the De ratione ponderis of Jordanus. All this suggests
that the author of this commentary took the original Liber de
ponderibus to be the text represented by our version “P ," and
that he did not ascribe the original work to Jordanus. Apparent­
ly he was not directly acquainted with the Elementa Jordani, but
considered that Jordanus’ contribution to the science of weights
294
APPENDIX III
was his treatise De ratione ponderis, in which the first theorem
has the different wording (replacing velocitatis with virtutis) to
which this commentator refers.
Whoever the author of this commentary may have been, he was
no mere copyist^ but a man of critical acumen, well versed in
Euclid’s Elements, familiar with the new mathematical approach
to dynamics which had been made by Thomas Bradwardine, and
possessed of an excellent insight into the problems involved in
Jordanus’ attempt to derive the laws of statics from a dynamical
foundation. One might hazard the conjecture that the author of
this commentary was one of those “Mertonian" mathematicians
of the second quarter of the fourteenth century, whose work was
strongly influenced byBradwardine.Indeed.it might turn out that
this commentary was written by Bradwardine himself.
As in our editions of other De ponderibus treatises, we have
used the convention of employing small underlined letters to in­
dicate weights, and Roman capitals to indicate positions or
lengths, in the references of the text to the diagrams. The dia­
grams have been constructed from the indications given in the
text, with the aid of those supplied on the margins of the manu­
script and of the edition.
We may mention, in addition to M s. J.VI.36 of the Biblioteca
Nazionale at Florence, three other manuscripts which contain
copies of the commentary here edited:
(1) Vienna, Nationalbibliothek, Cod, lat. 5203. fols. I74r-
I80v (15th century).
(2) Erfurt, Cod. Amplon. Q 387. fols. 52v-57r (late 14th
century). The description given by W. Schum, Besch-
reibendes Verzeichnis der Amplonianischen Hand-
schriften-Sammlung, Berlin 1887, pp. 6 4 8 -9 , indicates
that this is a copy of the same commentary used by
Apianus.
(3) Erfurt, Cod. Amplon. Q 385, late 14th century. Cf.
Schum, ibid., pp. 641-644, who describes the eleventh
item contained in this manuscript, in such way as to
indicate that it is a copy of the “other commentary"
of the Apianus edition, though incomplete, ending ^in
the middle of the proof of the fifth theorem.
295
 TEXT TRANSLATION

l Prima conclusio: INTER QUELIBET GRAVIA EST VELOCI- The first conclusion. BETWEEN ANY HEAVY BODIES, THE
TATIS IN DESCENDENDO PROPRIE, ET PONDERIS, EODEM PROPORTION OF THE PROPER VELOCITY OF DESCENT,
ORDINE SUMPTA PROPORTIO; DESCENSUS AUTEM, ET AND OF WEIGHT, IS THE SAME AND IN THE SAME ORDER;
CONTRARII MOTUS, PROPORTIO EADEM SED PERMUTATA. BUT THE PROPORTION OF DESCENT AND OF THE CON­
TRARY MOTION OF ASCENT, IS THE INVERSE OF THE PRO­
PORTION OF THE WEIGHTS.
5 Sint duo pondera, et sit a_ maius Let there be two weights, and let a be the greater and b the
et b minus; et sit descensus ip­ lesser. And let the descent of a be from A to C, and the descent
sius a ab A in C, et descensus la of b from B to D. I then say that the ratio of a to b is the same
ab B in D. Dico tunc quod eadem A T C as that of AC to BD. For if not, then it will be either greater or
est proportio ad Ij que est AC less. Let it first be supposed to be less; and let £ be the excess
10 ad BD proportio; quia si non, nb of a over b, and let F be the excess of AC over BD. Since
igitur erit maior aut minor. Sit therefore the ratio of a to b is less than that of AC to BD, it
igitur primo minor, et sit e_ ex­ follows that the ratio of «i to e^ will be greater than that of AC
cessus a^ super b, et sit F excessus to F—as I will prove later on. But F is the descent of e, since
AC super BD. Igitur, cum sit m i- -- D it is because of (the excess weight) e^ that the descent of a ex­
15 nor proportio a_ ad b quam AC ad ceeds the descent of b by the distance F. And so, here, the
BD, sequitur quod maior erit pro­ ratio of weight to weight is greater than the ratio of the corre­
portio a ad e_ quam AC ad F, ut sponding descents—when nevertheless the contrary had been
postea probabo. Sed F est descen­ -‘- c assumed, namely, that the ratio of weights is less than that of
sus e_, ex hoc quod propter e^ ex- descents. Hence, even though the opposite may be proved—
20 cedit descensus descensum b though not for the same weights—, nevertheless the argument is
per F; igitur hic est maior pro­ (Fig. 1) valid, in that the same principle which holds for certain
portio ponderis ad pondus quam descensus ad descensum, cum weights, holds for any. That is to say, if in one case the ratio
tamen Falsigraphus ponat contrarium, videlicet minorem esse of weight to weight is greater, or is less, than the ratio of de­
proportionem ponderis quam descensuum. Unde licet probetur scent to descent, the same holds good for all cases. It is there­
25 contrarium, non tamen in eisdem ponderibus, nihilominus stat fore clear that the first alternative cannot be conceded. But if
probatio, eo quod eadem est ratio in quibusdam ponderibus et the other alternative be supposed, that the ratio of the weight a
in omnibus; videlicet, quod si in uno casu maior vel minor fue­ to the weight b, is greater than the ratio of the descent AC to
rit proportio ponderis ad pondus quam descensus ad descen­ the descent BD, then the ratio of a to e will be less than that of
sum, semper accidit eodem modo. Patet igitur quod non potest AC to F, as I will prove later on. But F is the descent of e;
30 dari. Si detur pars scilicet quod sit maior proportio ponderis .a hence the contrary of what was assumed results he-e, since it
ad pondus b, quam descensus AC ad descensum BD, igitur erit is concluded that the ratio of weight to weight is less than that
minor proportio ad e, quam AC ad F, ut postea probabo. Sed of descent to descent.
F est descensus e^ igitur hic accidit contrarium ponenti, eo Thus the first part of the theorem is made clear; and from
quod concluditur minorem esse proportionem ponderis ad pon- this there follows the second part, whose meaning is this: that
35 dus quam descensus ad descensum. as the weight a^ is to the weight b, in descent, so, in converse
Sic ergo patet prima pars conclusionis; ex qua sequitur se­ manner, the ascent of the weight b^ is to the ascent of the weight
cunda pars, cuius sensus est iste, scilicet, quod sicut pondus a. For by so much as the weight a, by its heaviness, is more
se habet ad b pondus in descensu, sic ascensus b ponderis se inclined toward descending, by just so much more is it disin­
habet e contrario ad ascensum ^ponderis. Quanto enim a pon- clined, by reason of' that same heaviness, toward ascending;
40 dus ex sua gravitate plus inclinat ad descensum, tanto ex ea- and by so much as b^, through its heaviness, is less inclined

2 9 6 297
 APPENDIX III
dem gravitate plus declinat ab ascensu; et quanto b ex sua gra­
vitate minus inclinat ad descensum, tanto minus ex eadem gra­
vitate declinat ab ascensu—id est, tanto minus resistit trahenti
illum ad superius. Igitur eadem est proportio descensus «i ad
45 descensum b, que est ascensus b ad ascensum a; sed descensus
a_ ad descensum b est sicut a pondus ad b pondus; igitur, sicut
a pondus ad b pondus, ita ascensus b ad ascensum a. Ex quibus
patet secunda pars conclusionis.
Ex qua constat quod auctor non intelligit per primam partem,
50 scilicet quod si a pondus relictum proprie nature aliqua veloc­
itate movetur in aliquo medio, vel pertransiretur faciliter,
quod b, videlicet minus, relictum proprie nature, tardius move­
tur vel minus pertranseat illius descensus in eodem tempore,
secundum proportionem quam habet b_ ad a. Iste enim auctor
55 non habet determinare de motu gravis relicti proprie nature,
sed tantum de motu gravis in equilibra cum resistentia gravis
positi in alio brachio equilibre. Hec autem apparet ex secunda
parte conclusionis, in qua loquitur auctor de ascensu ponderis—
cum tamen non ascendat pondus naturaliter in medio in quo
60 naturaliter descenderet si permitteretur nature proprie. Sed a
ascendit in brachio equilibre propter violentiam quam inducit
pondus alterius brachii in descendendo. Cum ergo proportio
quam nititur auctor hic inducere de ascensu huius, probatur
per primam partem conclusionis, ista probatio non valeret nisi
65 sumeretur descensus in equilibra in prima parte conclusionis
sicut assumitur ascensus in equilibra in secunda parte conclu­
sionis. Et si sic intelligatur, oportet tunc habere respectum ad
equalitatem vel inequalitatem brachiorum. Unde manifestum
est quod conclusio non potest intelligi quod sicut descensus «i
70 ad descensum b, ita gravitas a_ simpliciter ad gravitatem b
simpliciter; sed sicut descensus <i ad descensum b, ita tota
gravitas a—simpliciter et secundum situm—ad totam gravita­
tem b, simpliciter et secundum situm. Et hoc oportet strictis­
sime intelligi. Nam illud non est verum nisi quando eadem est
75 proportio totius gravitatis a ad totam gravitatem b, que est po-
tentie a super suam resistentiam ad potentiam b super suam
resistentiam; quia secundum hoc variatur velocitas descensus.
Nec aliter valet propositio auctoris; quia ubi adversarius ponit
quod maior est proportio descensus a_ ad descensum b quam a_
80 ad b, auctor nihil aliud concludit nisi quod non est universal­
iter verum quod maior est proportio descensuum quam ponder­
um. Et hoc non repugnat dato ab adversario; immo quandoque
est sic, quandoque e contrario. Et ideo ad hoc quod concludatur
propositio universalis ex particulari data, oportet sic intelli-
85 gere conclusionem: quod in equilibra BACD, cuius centrum sit
A, £ pondus in situ C se habet ad idem pondus in situ D,
298
APPENDIX III
toward descending, by so much less is it disinclined, by reason
of that heaviness, toward ascending. That is to say, by so much
less does it resist what lifts it upward. Therefore the ratio of
the descent of a to the descent of b is as the ratio of the ascent
of b to the ascent of a_. But the descent of a is to the descent of
b, as the weight of a is to the weight of b. Therefore the weight
of a is to the weight of b, as the ascent of b is to the ascent of
ei. Thus the second part of the theorem is evident.
From this it is established, that the author does not under­
stand the first part of the theorem to mean that if the weight a,
left to its own nature, moves freely in a certain medium, or
traverses it, that b^—i.e ., the lesser weight—, if left to its own
nature moves more slowly, or traverses less of that distance
of descent in the same time, according to the ratio which b has
to a. For this author is not concerned to treat of the movement
of the heavy body left to its own nature, but only of the motion
of the heavy body when it is suspended on a balance, and is re­
sisted by a weight placed on the other arm of the balance. This
is made clear from th^ second part of the theorem, in which
the author treats of the ascent of weights—when however no
weight ascends naturally, in a medium in which it would natur­
ally descend if left to its own nature. But a_ ascends on the
arm of a balance, by reason of the force exerted by the weight
of the other arm descending. Since therefore the proportion
which the author seeks to establish, for the case of ascent, is
proved by means of the first part of the theorem, this proof
would not be valid unless, in the first part of the theorem, the
descent were assumed to take place on a balance, just as in the
second part of the theorem the ascent is assumed to take place
on a balance. And if it is understood in this way, it must then
have reference to the equality or inequality of the arms of the
balance.
From this it is evident that the theorem cannot be inter­
preted as asserting that the descent of a is to the descent of b,
as the simple weight of a_ is to the simple weight of b; but that
the descent of a^ is to the descent of b, as the total gravity of a—
both simple and relative to position—is to the total gravity, both
simple and positional, of b. And this ought to be carefully
understood. For it is true only when the ratio of the total grav­
ity of a to the total gravity of b is the same as the ratio of the
power of a_ relative to its resistance, to the power of b relative
to its resistance; because it is according to this that the veloc­
ity of descent varies. Otherwise the author’ s theorem is not
valid. For where the adversary supposes that the ratio of the
descent of a to the descent of b is greater than that of the
weight a_ to the weight b, the author draws no other conclusion
299
 APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

than that it is not universally true that the ratio of the descents
secundum proportionem totius
is greater than that of the weights. And this is not incompatible
descensus quem potest habere
with what was supposed by the adversary—indeed, sometimes it
in situ C ad totum descensum
is thus, and sometimes it is otherwise.
90 quem potest habere in situ D.
And therefore, in order to derive a universal conclusion
Ex quo ergo non potest ulter­
from the particular case posited, it is necessary that the con­
ius descendere nisi secundum
clusion be understood in the following manner: That in a bal­
quantitatem semidiametri
ance BACD, whose center is A, a weight g, when suspended at
cuius circumferentiam descri-
C, is related to the same weight g^ when suspended at D, accor­
95 bit, sequitur ex ista expositione
quod g pondus in C situ se ha­ ding to the proportion of the whole descent which it can have at
bet ad idem g pondus in D situ C to the whole descent which it can have at D. But by reason of
secundum proportionem CA ad the fact that it cannot descend to a lower position, except accord­
DA, ita quod g pondus in C situ ing to the length of the radius whose circumference it describes,
100 sufficeret eque faciliter de­ it follows, on this interpretation, that the weight g, at position C,
scendere ad lineam directionis, is related to the same weight g at position D, according to the
cum uno pondere in alio brachio (Fig. 2) ratio of CA to DA, so that the weight g, when placed at C, would
quod se haberet ad primum pondus levatum, secundum propor­ be able to descend to the vertical position with equal ease, with
tionem CA ad DA. Et hoc pro prima parte conclusionis. a weight on the other arm of the balance which would be related
105 Pro sufficientia secunde partis conclusionis, dico quod si b to the weight first raised, in the proportion of CA to DA. And
pondus sufficeret levare g in C situ ad lineam directionis, this takes care of the first part of the theorem.
unum aliud pondus quod eque faciliter levaret g^in D situ ad To show the sufficiency of the second part of the theorem, I
lineam directionis, se haberet ad b secundum proportionem DA say that if the weight b would suffice to raise a weight g placed
ad CA. Unde si iste sensus sit verus in uno casu, videtur quod at C, to the vertical position, another weight, such as would be
110 ita erit in quolibet casu, eo quod secundum istam expositionem equally able, if placed at D, to raise g to the vertical position,
non erit variatio gravitatis nisi propter variationem situum; would be related to b according to the ratio of DA to CA. And
igitur si in uno casu variatur gravitas eiusdem ponderis secun­ so, if this interpretation is true for the one case, it seems that
dum proportionem brachiorum, non est ratio quin ita sit in it will be true for all cases, since according to this exposi -
quolibet casu. Sic igitur intelligendo conclusionem, procedit tion the gravity varies only by reason of the variation in posi­
115 propositio auctoris, aliter non. Et sic intelligendo conclusio­ tions. Therefore, if in one case the gravity of the same weight
nem, est ad propositum octave conclusionis, ad cuius probati­ is varied according to the proportion of the lever arm s, there
onem allegatur ista conclusio. is no reason why this should not be so in any case whatever. If
Sed videtur quod hec expositio non sufficit pro sensu conclu­ therefore we interpret the argument in this manner, the au­
sionis, quia conclusio ponit quod sicut pondus ad pondus, ita thor’ s theorem holds good; otherwise not. And if we understand
120 velocitas ad velocitatem, cum it in this way, it has bearing on the eighth theorem, in proof of
tamen in ista expositione nihil which this theorem is invoked.
agatur de velocitate. Ergo hoc But it seems that this exposition is not adequate to the
potest sic persuaderi: Sit e^ meaning of the theorem, because the theorem states that as
unum pondus in eodem situ weight is to weight, so is velocity to velocity—whereas in our
125 cum b, ad quod se habet g in exposition we did not discuss velocity. We can, therefore, a r­
situ D sicut g in situ C se gue in this manner: Let the weight £ be placed in the same po­
habet ad b; igitur videtur quod sition as b, and let the weight g, placed at D, be related to it
per consimilem violentiam (i.e., to e at B), as g when placed at C is related to the weight
sufficit g^ in D situ agere in e, b. It seems therefore that g at D exerts an equal force on e (at
130 sicut idem £ in situ C sufficit B), as that same weight g, placed at D, exerts on the weight b.
agere in b; igitur eque cito Hence g, at D, is able to raise e^ to the vertical position just as
sufficit g^in D situ elevare e^ (Eig. 3) quickly as it is able, when placed at D, to raise b to the verti -

300 301
 APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

ad directionem sicut in C sufficit levare b ad directionem. Sed
eque cito deveniet b_ vel e_, et g, ad directionem; igitur velocitas
135 £ in D situ se habet ad velocitatem eius in C situ, secundum
proportionem DA ad CA—per quintam Archimedis De curvis
superficiebus, eo quod eadem est proportio diametrorum vel
semidiametrorum vel circumferentiarum; ergo etc.
Si autem istud argumentum non fidem facit, non est cura an
140 velocitas sit proportionalis vel non, dum tamen sequatur, si £
in D sufficit levare £, quod £ in C sufficit levare b. Et ideo
prima conclusio textus Iordani habet aliam litteram, scilicet
quod ‘ inter quelibet gravia est virtutis et ponderis eodem o r­
dine sumpta proportio.’ Et hoc intendit probatio, et hoc etiam
145 sufficit pro octava conclusione probanda, pro cuius probatione
assumitur ista. Et hoc sufficit pro expositione istius conclusi­
onis.
Nunc probo quod prius premittebatur, videlicet quod si pon­
dus maius se habeat ad pondus minus in minori proportione
150 quam descensus maioris ad descensum minoris, pondus maius
se habet ad excessum suum
supra minus in maiori pro­ Fj
portione quam descensus {\ab i>c
maioris ad excessum suum
155 supra descensum minoris.
Sit enim pondus maius ab, E ■
et minus pondus sit cj et sit
a excessus ab super c. Item, H-
sit DEF descensus maioris
160 ponderis, et sit G descensus
minoris ponderis. Et sit DE
D-*-
excessus DEF supra G. Cum
igitur maior sit proportio (Fig. 4)
DEF ad G, quam ab^ ad c, capiam HEF ad quam se habet DF s i-
165 cut ab ad c; tunc erit HF maior EF, per octavam quinti Eucli­
dis. Arguitur igitur tunc sic: Sicut DF ad HF, ita ab ad b; igi­
tur disiunctim, per decimam septimam quinti Euclidis, sicut
DH ad HF, ita a ad b; igitur econtra, sicut b ad a, ita HF ad
DH; igitur coniunctim, per decimam octavam quinti Euclidis,
170 sicut bci ad a, ita DF ad DH. Sed per octavam quinti Euclidis,
maior est proportio FD ad HD quam ad ED, ergo maior est
proportio ba ad a quam DF ad ED. Sed <i est excessus ponder­
um, et b est equale cj et ED excessus descensuum, et EF
equale G. Igitur patet intentum. Item probo aliter istud, per
175 tricesimam quinti Euclidis, que est quinta propositio Campani,
et hoc sic: Si maior sit proportio DF ad EF quam ab ad b, igi­
tur eversim, per istam conclusionem et tricesimam, minor
erit proportio DF ad ED quam ab ad a.
cal position. But b or £ arrive just as quickly as £ to the verti­
cal position; therefore the velocity of g, when placed at D, is
related to its velocity when placed at C, according to the ratio
of DA to CA by the fifth proposition of Archimedes’ De curvis
superficiebus, according to which the ratio of the radii, or of
the diameters, or of the circumferences, is the same; there­
fore, etc.
If however this argument is not persuasive, it does not mat­
ter whether the velocity is proportional or not, as long as this
holds: If g, placed at D, suffices to raise e, then g placed at C
suffices to raise b. And on this account the first conclusion of
the text of Jordanus has another wording, namely, that ‘between
any heavy bodies the proportion of force and of weight is the
same, in the same order.* And this likewise suffices for prov­
ing the eighth theorem, in proof of which this theorem is
assumed. And this is sufficient as explanation of this theorem.
Now I will prove what was previously assumed—to wit, that if
the greater weight is related to the lesser one, by a lesser pro­
portion than the proportion of the descent of the greater to the
descent of the lesser, then the greater weight will be related to
its excess over the lesser weight by a greater ratio than the
ratio of the descent of the greater weight to the excess of this
descent over the descent of the smaller weight. For let the
greater weight be ab, and the lesser weight £; and let a be the
excess of alb over c. Further, let DEF be the descent of the
greater weight, and let G be the descent of the smaller weight.
And let DE be the excess of DEF over G. Since then the ratio
of DEF to G is greater than that of ab to c, I will take HEF,
such that the ratio of DF to HEF is as that of a]5 to £. Then HF
will be greater than EF—by the eighth proposition of the fifth
book of Euclid. Then we argue as follows: DF is to HF, as ab
is to b; therefore, by division, according to the seventeenth
proposition of the fifth book of Euclid, DH is to HF as a is to b;
therefore by inversion, b is to a as HF is to DH. Therefore by
composition, according to the eighteenth proposition of the fifth
book of Euclid, b£ is to a as DF (i.e., DH+HF) is to DH. But by
the eighth proposition of the fifth book of Euclid, the ratio of
DF to DH is greater than that of DF to ED; therefore the ratio
of bji to a is greater than that of DF to ED. But a is the differ­
ence between the weights, and b is equal to c_; and ED is the
difference between the descents, and EF is equal to G. There­
fore what we wished to show is clear. Further, I prove this in
another way, by the thirtieth proposition of the fifth book of
Euclid, which is the fifth proposition of Campanus; and it is
proved thus: If the ratio of DF to EF is greater than that of ab
to b, then inversely, by this thirtieth proposition, the ratio of

302 303
 APPENDIX III
Unde eisdem mediis potest probari, si sit maior proportio
180 ponderis ad pondus quam descensus ad descensum, quod minor
erit proportio eiusdem ponderis ad excessum super aliud,
quam descensus ad suum excessum supra alium descensum.
Hoc est quod promisi superius demonstrare; et tenet etiam
priori consequentia, ista videlicet, quod si minor sit proportio
185 a ad b quam AC ad BD, igitur maior est proportio a ad e quam
AC ad F.
Per hoc manifestum est quod quandocumque sunt due propor­
tiones maioris inequalitatis inequales, tunc maius extremum
minoris proportionis se habet ad excessum per quem excedit
190 suum consequens, in maiori proportione quam habet maius ex­
tremum maioris proportionis ad excessum per quem excedit
suum consequens—vel minus extremum, quod idem est. Et hoc
est verum ubique sine instantia.
304
APPENDIX III
DF to ED will be less than that of ab to a.
And so by these same principles it can be proved thyit if the
ratio of weight to weight is greater than the ratio of descent to
descent, then the ratio of the first weight to its excess over the
other weight will be less than the ratio of its descent to its ex­
cess over the descent of the other. This is what I promised
above to demonstrate; and it holds by the same consequence as
before—this, namely, that if the ratio of <1 to b is less than that
of AC to BD, then the ratio of a^ to e^is greater than that of AC
to F.
From this it is manifest that whenever there are two unequal
proportions of greater inequality, then the ratio of the greater
term of the lesser proportion, to the difference by which it ex­
ceeds its consequent, is greater than the ratio of the greater
term of the greater proportion, to the difference by which it
exceeds its consequent—or the lesser term of that proportion,
which is the same thing. And this is everywhere true, without
exception.
305
 A P P E N D IX IV
INTRODUCTION

A VARIANT FORM OF PROPOSITION EIGHT Sigla

OF THE ELEMENTA JORDANI
Edited by Marshall Clagett T raditio I

Worth some separate commentary is a version of the Elemen­ RR = Cambridge, MS Gonville & Caius 504/271, 97v-100v
ta of Jordanus which enjoyed some popularity in the first cen­ MM = Florence, Bibi. Naz. J. IV. 29, 6lv-67r
tury or so after the composition of the Elementa, This version
is noteworthy for spelling out some of the geometry assumed in Traditio II
the Elementa. It is perhaps for this reason that it was once des­
ignated the Liber Euclidis de ponderibus (see the duplicate man­ U = Milan, Bibi. Ambrosiana T, 100 Sup., 149v-154v
uscripts Vat. lat 2975, l 6 8 r and Paris BN 7310, HOr). But like I_ = Rome, Vat. lat. 2975, l64r-171v
the original version of the Elementa itself, this version under­ E = Paris, BN Fonds latin 7310, 110r-121r
went some alteration in the course of its frequent scribal re­
production. Our extant manuscripts of this version show two The text is based largely on RR and with occasional vari
main traditions. The various manuscripts for each tradition are ants of the other manuscripts noted in the variae lectiones fol
noted in the list of sigla below. It is, difficult to say which of the lowing the texts.
traditions is the older or better. For some parts of Traditio II
give clearly better readings than in Traditio I, while in other
parts the situation is reversed. This is clear from proposition
eight which we have included in this appendix. Traditio II gives
better readings at the beginning of the proof, while Traditio I
provides a better text for the middle and last part of the proof.
The dates of the manuscripts are of little help in deciding the
question of which tradition is older. The principal manuscript
of each tradition (sigla RR and U) is late thirteenth century (or
perhaps early fourteenth century).
Still another version of the Elementa contained in MS Cam­
bridge University Library MM-III~ 11, I5lr-I54v bears some re­
semblance to our geometrical version being considered in this
appendix. However, the divergence between these two versions
is so great that I believe we ought to consider them separate
and distinct versions of the Elementa. At any rate, we shall not
consider the Cambridge version in preparing the text of propo­
sition eight in this appendix.
Of this geometrical version of the Elementa the editors have
elected to publish only proposition eight, i.e ., the law of the le ­
ver and its proof. Publication of the whole treatise would be
highly repetitious of the text of the Elementa already given in
this collection. The major differences between this proof and
that of the original Elementa are (l) the inclusion of more geo­
metry (see lines 11-27 of Traditio 1 and 11—38 of Traditio II)
and (2 ) the appendage of an erroneous statement at the end of
the proof to the effect that if the balance with arms lengths in­
versely proportional to the suspended weights were moved, it
would return to its horizontal position (see lines 47-48). This
is a repetition of the error of proposition two.

306 307
 TEXT TRANSLATION

Propositio VIII Proposition Eight

1 SI BRACHIA LIBRE FUERINT PROPORTIONALIA PONDERI­
BUS APPENSORUM, ITA UT IN BREVIORI GRAVIUS APPEN­
DATUR, EQUE GRAVIA SECUNDUM SITUM ERUNT APPENSA.
IF THE ARMS OF A BALANCE ARE PROPORTIONAL TO THE
WEIGHTS IN SUCH A WAY THAT THE HEAVIER WEIGHT IS
SUSPENDED ON THE SHORTER ARM, THE SUSPENDED
WEIGHTS WILL BE EQUALLY HEAVY ACCORDING TO
POSITION.

(Fig. Prop. VIII)

Sit ut prius regula ACB, appensa a^ et b. Sit que b maioris
5 ponderis ad a minus que est AC brachii maioris ad CB. Dico
quod non mutabit in alteram partem regula. Sit enim ut ex
parte B descendat transeatque in obliquum linea DCE loco
ACB, et appensa sint d ut a et e ut b. Et DG linea ortogonaliter
descendat in AB lineam et EH ascendat ad AB ortogonaliter in
10 eam fixa.
As before let the balance beam be ACB and the suspended
weights a_ and b. Let_b the larger weight be to the smaller
one as the longer arm AC is to CB. I say that the beam will not
move in either direction. For let it descend on side B and let
line DCE cross ACB obliquely with weight d equivalent to a and
e_ equivalent to b. Also let line DG descend perpendicularly to
line AB and line EH ascend perpendicularly to AB.

Traditio I T raditio II Traditio I T raditio II

Sunt itaque trianguli CDG et
CHE similes, quia G et H ang­
uli sunt equates. Item duo
anguli ex opposito sibi 2 2 a pri-
15 mi sunt equales. Ex 37a primi
D angulus E angulo erit equa-
lis. Quare illi trianguli sunt
sim iles. Quare que est propor­
tio DC ad CE est DG ad HE.
20 Atque DC ad CE tanquam b^
ponderis ad a pondus. Ergo DG
ad HE tanquam b ad a. Sit ergo
PL equalis HE, sitque perpen­
dicularis super AB, quod qui-
25 dem probare potest per quar­
tam primi, si secta LC et PC
equalia CE et CH.
Sed de necessitate requiritur
quod DG secet lineam AC c i­
tra terminum A; aliter non
opponeretur maxime latus
maximo angulo. Similiter ca­
dere non potest, quia simile
proiecto CB (EH? ), et appli­
cetur alia super B (H? ), con­
tingeret angulum quia intrin­
secum angulo intrinseco esse
minorem. Cadat ergo citra,
eodem modo ex parte G, re­
secando BC. Habemus iam du­
os triangulos similes, quon­
iam G angulus B (H?) angulo
et anguli contra se positi equa­
les, et tertius tertio. Quare
que est proportio DC ad CE,
And so these triangles CDG
and CHE are similar, since G
and H are equal angles: also
the opposite angles (at C) are
equal by the 2 2 nd of the first
(book of Euclid). From the 37th
of the first book, angle D will
be equal to angle E. Hence
these triangles are similar.
Therefore, the proportion of
DC to CE is that of DG to HE.
And DC is to CE as weight b is
to weight a. Hence, DG is to
HE as b is to a. Let PL be
equal to HE and perpendicular
to AB. This construction can
be proved by the fourth of the
first book, if segments LC and
But it is required of necessity
that DG cuts line AC inside
the terminus A. Otherwise the
longest side would not be op­
posite the largest angle [of
the triangle DGC], Similarly
[EH] can not fall [otherwise
than within B], for with EH
constructed and extended be­
yond H, it would happen that
one of the intrinsic angles at
H would be less than the oth­
er. Hence it fails inside [of
B] on intersecting BC just as
[AG does] at G. Now we have
two similar triangles. For
angle G and angle H are
equal, the opposite angles [at

308 309
 APPENDIX IV
ea est AC ad CB, et DG ad B
30 (H E?). Sed DC ad CE tanquam
b ponderis ad a pondus. Ergo
DG ad HE tanquam ad a. Sed
DC maior CE. Ergo GC maior
CB (CH?). Rescindatur ade-
35 qualiter perpendicularem line­
am LP, sitque equalis BE
(HE?) quod trianguli illi sint
equales.
Quia itaque PL est equalis HE erit DG ad PL que ponderis b ad
40 a. Ex prima autem propositione, in ascensibus alternando est
ponderum proportio, ut scilicet, que est b ponderis ad a_ sit
ascensus ponderis a_ ad ascensum ponderis b. Esto ergo ascen­
sus a per DG et ascensus b per PL. Quod ergo attollere potest
pondus a^ in punctum D attollere potest pondus b in punctum L.
45 Sed b, ut ponit adversarius, potest attollere «i in punctum D.
Ergo ipsum potest attollere se in punctum L, quod falsum est.
Immo ut equale esset in puncto L, fieret reditus ad situm
equalitatis, ut supra ostensum est.
310
APPENDIX IV
PC are equal to CE and CH. C] are equal, and the third
angle of one is equal to the
third angle of the other.
Hence the proportion of DC to
CE is as that of AC to CB,
and as that of DG to HE. But
DC is to CE as weight b is to
weight a. Hence DG is to HE
as Id is to a. But DC is great­
er than CH. Erect the perpen­
dicular line LP and let it be
equal to HE because these
triangles are equal.
And so because PL is equal to HE, DG is to PL as weight b is
to «1 . From the first proposition, moreover, the proportion of
the weights is inversely as their [vertical] ascents, so that evi­
dently weight b^ is to weight a^ as the ascent of weight a is to the
ascent of weight b. Let the ascent of a_, therefore, be through
DG and the ascent of b be through PL. Hence, that which can
lift weight a to point D can lift weight b to point L. But, accord­
ing to the adversary, b can lift a to point D. Therefore, it can
lift itself to point L, which is false. Nay rather, being equal
(in effective weight) at point L, it would return to a position of
equality, as was demonstrated above.
311
VARIAN T READINGS
 SIGLA OF MANUSCRIPTS AND EDITIONS

A = Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, Ms. lat. 8680 A

AA = Paris, Bibl. Nat., Ms. lat. 7215
B = Paris, Bibl. Nat., Ms. lat. 10260
BB = Paris, Bibl. Nat., Ms. lat. 7377 B
C = Paris, Bibl. Nat., Ms. lat. 10252
D = Paris, Bibl. Nat., Ms. lat. 14576
E = Paris, Bibl. Nat., Ms. lat. 7310
F = Paris, Bibl. Nat., Ms. lat. 16649
G = Paris, Bibl. Nat., Ms. lat. 11247
H = Vatican City, Cod. Vat. Reg. 1261
I_ = Vatican City, Cod. Vat. Lat. 2975
.J = Vatican City, Cod. Vat. Lat. Z185
K = Vatican City, Cod. Vat. Pal. 1377
L = Vatican City, Cod. Vat. Ottob. 176
LL = Vatican City, Cod. Vat. Ottob. 1850
M s= Florence, Bibl. N az.,Ms. J.1,32
MM = Florence, Bibl. N az.,Ms. J.IV.29
N = Florence, Bibl. N az.,Ms. J.VI.36
O = Florence, Bibl. Naz., Ms. J.V.30
P = Florence, Conv. S. Marco, Ms. 184 (in the text published
by M. Steinschneider, Annali di Matematica 5 (1863),
pp. 54-9)
Q = Oxford, Bodleian Library, Ms. Auct. F.5.28
R = Oxford, Bodleian Library, Ms. Digby Z28
RR = Cambridge, Gonville & Caius, 504/271
S = London, British Museum, Ms. Harleian 13
T = Dresden, Cod. Dresdensis Db 86 Fol. (in texts published
by M. Curtze, Bibliotheca Mathematica, 1896, pp. 43-9,
and 1900, pp. 51-4)
U = Milan, Cod. Ambros. T 100 Sup. (in the text published by
F . Buchner, Sitzungsberichte d. Physikalisch-medizini-
schen Sozietat in Erlangen, Bd. 52-3 (1920-21), pp. 141-88)
V = Thorn, Konigl. Gymnasial-Bibliothek, Ms. R. 4 °, 2 (in
text published by M. Curtze, Zeitschrift fur Math, u.
Physik, 13, Suppl. p. 45 ff., 1868)
W = Bruges, Bibl. de la Ville, Ms. 500
X = Liber Iordani Nemorarii...De ponderibus...editus Petro
Apiano, Nuremberg 1533.
Y = Jordani Opusculum de ponderositate, Nicolai Tartalea
studio correctum. Venetiis, apud Curtium Trojanum,
1565.
Z = Albertus de Saxonia: Thomae Bradvardini: Nicholai horen:
Tractatus Proportionum. De Maruef, Paris, s.a. (1495?)

315

In general, the variant readings for the texts included in this
volume are given in a uniform method of citation. The pre­
ferred reading is separated from the variant readings by the
use of the colon. The capitalized and underlined letters refer
to the sigla given in the general list above and repeated before
each set of variant readings. Other editorial comments or
phrases (ordinarily but not always given in Latin) are under­
lined. The number preceding the reading is, of course, the line
number in the text. Thus, for example,
8 super: sunt M om.A
would mean that the word “ super" in line eight of the text is the
preferred reading, that manuscript M has the variant “sunt"
and that manuscript A omits the word. Abbreviations used in
the editorial comments are standard, e.g., om. = omittit or
omisit, add. = addit, lac. = lacuna, and so on.
316
V A R IA N T READINGS F O R PAGES 2 6 -3 0
DE PONDEROSO
(3 = Oxford, Bodleian Library Ms. Auct. F .5.28, fol. I07r
(Late 13th century).
M = Florence, Bibl. Naz. Ms. J.I. 32, fol. 47r. (End of 13th
century).
I_ = Vatican City, Cod. Vat. Lat. 2975, fols. I48r-v (16th
century).
B = Paris, Bibl. Nat. Ms. lat. 10260, fols. I37v-I38r (16th
century).
T = Dresden, Cod. Dresd. Db 86 Fol., as published by M.
Curtze, in Bibliotheca Mathematica, 3e Folge, Bd. 1(1900),
pp. 51~4. (14th century)
I corpora: corpora sunt T sunt om.T 7 super: sunt
II quod: quo IB minus: maius IB 15 diversa iter. IB 17 cor­
porum: corpora MIB 20 sint: sunt QIB iter...GD: A sit GD
iter M_ quam: igitur IB 21 EV: EN M A om.M in: quid Cl
quidem T 22 GD: ED IB 25 virtutis: virtuti T 26 sit om.M
D: G IB 27 T: C IB 29 D om.MIB T: C IB 31 T: C .IB 34 si-
cut: sit_Q^ D om.IB 36 sit E: E IB 36 equali: equalis IB
37 sit Z: Z IB erit Z om.IB similiter pones: similis penes IB
38 patet: parte _IB similia: simul QMIB 39 utrumque: utrum
M equipollet om.IB 42 virtuti: virtutes LB post tertii addide­
runt IB fragmentum ab opere alieno excerptum quod appendice
prima edidi 42-44 Patet...generis om.QMIB 45 Cum: Quando
IB fuerit corporum: fuerint corpora M 46 erunt: erit IB
47 Sit: Sit enim_IB 48 et: ad QMIB 49 equale: equalis QM
51-52 Explicit...invicem: Explicit quia plus non invenitur de eo
IB
DE INSIDENTIBUS
A = Paris, Bibl. Nat., Ms. lat. 8680A, Uv-I2v
AA = Paris, Bibl. Nat., M s. lat. 7215, lr-2v
BB = Paris, Bibl. Nat., M s. lat. 7377B, 79v-82v
H = Vatican City, M s. Vat. Reg. 1261, 55v-56r (Prop.IV only)
LL = Vatican City, Ms. Vat. Ottob. 1850, 10r-llv
LLl6c =l6th century marginal additions to LL
Q = Oxford, Bodleian Library, M s. Auct. F .5.28, I08v (Prop.
IV only)
T = Dresden, Ms. Db 86 F o l., 272r-274v (in Curtze edition;
see general sigla list)
Y = Jordani Opusculum de ponderositate, etc., Venetiis,
1565, I6v-I9v.
317
 VA RIA NT READINGS FOR PA GE S 4 0 - 4 4
For variations in title, see the introduction preceding the text.
1 irregularem: irregularitatem A regularem Y 2 haberi om.Y
7 proportiones: portionum T valeant: valeat AA 8 sociari:
sortiri LL 10 danda: donanda AA igitur: enim A 13 extremi­
tatibus: examinibus A ponderis om.AA corporis BB 15 mini­
mum A 17 ponderis Y quando LLT quo AAABBY 18 calculis
T calculi ABBLY 19 nutum: motum AA 20 quo AA 22 est^
om.AA 23 dicitur respectu: descendere respectum Y 24 ex
natura: naturaliter A ALL ascendere: descendere BB 28 est:
om.AABBTY velimus BB 29 hoc om.T 31 gravitatis om.T
33 gravior: maior T cuiuscumque: cuius AAY cuiuslibet T
magnitudinis om.AT 34 date: dare A 35 gravius: gravium A
post dicitur: ex parte BBLLl6c 36 nutum: motum AA eisdem:
iisdem T eiusdem A 37-38 vel...equatur om.T 40 comparati:
comparare A vel om.BB et AT argenti: argentum A 42 dif­
ferentia: diversatio T duorum om.T 43 maius: maior T
45 Duarum: Quorum A post duarum: dari dicitur quando scitur
aliqua communis utrique mensura in utraque earum continetur
et est earundem quantitatum unius ad aliam proportio BB
quantitatum unius ad aliam proportio dari dicitur quando scitur
quoties aliqua communis que dicitur mensura in unaquaque
earum continetur. Et est earundem LLl6c 45 est om.AY
46 quem: quod Y quam A 47 quem: quod AA 49 oleo: oleum
AY gravitatis: ponderis vel gravitatis vel quantitatis AA
51 Duorum: Si equalium A altero: alterum altero BBLLl6c
esse om.AA specie: ipse A 52 maiori: maioris AA numero:
minori A 55 pondera: corpora T 56-57 quorum...equale: qua­
lium pondus est equale T quorum corpora (pondera LL l6c)
magnitudinibus ipsorum corporum sunt proportionalia in eo­
dem medio examinata BBLLl6c. Post primam propositionem
addit BB alteram propositionem sine demonstratione: Omne
corpus supernatans aque occupat in ea locum aque sui ponderis.
59 equalis: equale T 60 ponderetur: ponderatur A 60-81 Sit...
propositum om.BB 62-63 aque...equalis om.AA 63 A om.A
64 equalis: equale T 66 Idem: Item T et om.T 67 D: G et AA
om.LL 67-68 cuius...D om.T 68 scilicet om.T 69 m illesi­
ma: decima millesima AA submersa TY sublata A 70 m il­
lesimam: decimam millesimam AA millesima TY sive octa­
va om.AAA sive ergo est immersa radicat Y 71 est A: est
scilicet AA 72 millesima om«AA vel octava: sive octava A
vel ergo Y 74 ingreditur: magnitudine A exit: erit AY octa­
va: octava pars AA 75 post auro: scilicet in magnitudine AA
octava: octava pars AA 76 C om.AAATY 77-79 Quantumcum-
que...G om.T 78 A: G AA 79 erunt: crescit LL 80 C: E T
81 propositum om.A 83 est: et AA 83-84 in magnitudine: id est
318
V A R IA N T READINGS F O R PAGES 4 4 - 4 8
secundum magnitudinem Y 84 tanquam om.AA 87 et...magni­
tudine: et aqua ei equalis C BB C om.AABB 89 in magnitu­
dine om.BB 90 per precedentem om.LL 91-93 proportio A ...
F: proportio E ad F, A ad B AA 93 sunt: sint ALL E2: pro­
portio E LL 92-93 Et...D om.Y (homoiot.) 93 post D add.Y
arguit per el quinto di Euclide (sic ! ) 94 tanquam om.A A ad
B: E ad F Y proponebatur: proportionatur AA, et postea AA
addit quia A est equalis C et B equalis A (D?); C aqua et A
aqua sunt corpora eiusdem generis. Igitur que est proportio
eorum in pondere eadem est in magnitudine per quartam peti­
tionem, et per consequens eadem est proportio in magnitudine
corporum quorum unum est equalis ipsi C et aliud ipsi D.
95 post corporis add.LLBB pondera post liquoribus add.AA
scilicet in aqua et in oleo. 96 fuerint...data: fuerit data gra­
vitas T pondera om.AA gravitatis om.T 99 Sint: Sit AY
100 B...aqua om.T datum est: om.omnia manus, et edit.; sup­
plevi. 101 itaque: itaque A AALL 102 quam: quod BBLL
103 habet: habet A AA quod: quam Y aqua: aquam AY 103“
104 quod...id om.LL 103 quam: quod BB 103-104 ponderis...
differentie om.T 106 propositionem om.T 108 E: C T 110 pe­
titionem: propositionem AY 111 ex om.AA de LLl6c 111-112
in...declarare om.Q 112 declarare: declarari A 111-122 Si...
levioris om.AYBB Fac 3 corpora equalia in magnitudine, quo­
rum unum mixtum sit ex duobus et alia duo sint simplicia, ut
duo sint aurem et argentum, et tertium ex hiis mixtum equalis
magnitudinis. Dico quod erit partis mixti que in ipso est de
genere gravioris proportio ad aliam sui partem que est de gen­
ere levioris tanquam proportio differentie ponderis mixti ad
pondus levioris ad differentiam [ponderis] eiusdem mixti ad
pondus gravioris. Unde si differentie sint equales, erit in mix­
to equaliter de simplicibus. Si differentie sint inequales, secun­
dum proportionem earum invenies quod queris.AALL 114 vel­
imus: volumus T 115 et^ om.T et^ om.T 116 cuiusque ponder­
is: transp. T corporis: ponderis Q habet in aere: in aere ha­
bet T 117 seorsum: seorsim T 118 et^ om.T 119-120 sumemus
...aqua H ponderis (pondus Q) ipsius (scilicet Q) quod in aere
habet superabundantiam ad illud quod in aqua sumemus et hoc
semper sumitur inter duas superhabundantias QT 121 in...
est: est in mixto H 122 mixti: mixti corporis T corporis lev­
ioris: transp.T 127 et^ om.T corporis om.T 131 corpori:
corpore T corpora Y in magnitudine om.ABBT sit om.T
132 que: quam A 133 post H add.Y in magnitudine primam:
secundam LL primam et tertiam BB 134 quartam petitionem:
primam 8 nostri Quesiti (sic ! )Y non om.A et...quam: et ideo
C ad K est illa que BB et est etiam que LL quam: que
BBLLTY Sed: et T Sed G ad H om.BB 135 K: B T proportio
319
 VA R IA N T READINGS F O R PAGES 4 4 - 5 2
om.ALLY 137-138 K...ponderis om.T (homiot.) 138 quare: que
est BB 140 propositionem: proportionem AY 143 ceram: cere
BB 145 invenire: inveniri A 146 in...pondus om.T 147 Item:
Tunc AA et LLl6c 149 FG: F AAT 151 Remanebunt: Igitur ma­
nebunt AA remanebit T_ 152 I: H AA 152 E: B AA L,: B A
C et B AA 153 D et L: B et D AA proportio om.BBLLT
154 proportio om.AY tertiam: secundam LLl6c propositionem:
proportionem T 155 N: K AA 156 A^- om.BB E: DE T ad^
om.T 158 N: E T^ 159 est^ om.T 161 est: erit T 162 ponder­
um: ponderis AY ponderis M ad pondus E in specie BBLLl6c
eorum: eorum corporum AABB 165 aliqua om.T 166 fit: sit
AY in: ad BB 168 maiorum: maior AY in: ad BB 172 erit-
que: erit et AY 173 quod: quod illud quod BB 175 ante que add.
Y per***Euclidis quia A componitur ex D et E 176 ex^: et ex
AY eritque: erit et AY B: L, AA 177 producuntur: producta T
178 Cum...constet om.T 178-179 Cum...N om.BB 178-179 ex...
equalis N om.T 179 K: B AA erit G: eritque T N^: N ad D
AA Addito: dico AA 180 erunt: erit T 182 L,: B T 182-185 Et
quia...B om.AAABBLLT 186-194 BBL.L, duas versiones propo­
sitionis VIII habent 186 equalia: equalia magnitudine BB vers.
I&rll 187 sint: sunt T et om.AAAY et inequalium ponderum
om.BBverlLLverl 188 tertium vero corpus: aliud vero mixtum
BBver.I LLver.I utriusque: utrique T 189 post genere- add.
BBver. I&LLver.I et fuerit simplicium unum gravius reliquo
partis om.AA 193-194 levioris...pondus om.T (homoiot.)
194 corporis om.BBver.I&LLver.I 195 simplicia om.AA A et
D: AD et AY 196 BC, equale: B inequale AA 200 erit: est AA
201- 202 pondere..pondere om.Y 201 FG...H : H AABB
2 0 2 - 203 I...differentiam om.T 202 I: L AY 204 IK: K T
204-207 et...IK om.Y (homoiot.) 205 etiam om.AAABBLL
quot...IK om.T 206 C: E T N: EN T 209 pondus: pondera Y_
210 sumptis: sumpti Y K: IK T 211 H: B Y_ 212 sumptis: sump­
ti Y I: C ATY E AA K BB quare: quia enim Y erit om.T
213 R: I T E Y 214 A om.Y 216 Q: I Y N: etiam Y 217 H: B
Y 218 G: HG AAAY 219 post partiale add.A Explicit add.Y Et
ita finit add.T quod est proportio quantitatis A ad quantitatem
B ut G ad D, quia sumpto multiplici A quod sit E et equale v ir­
tutis G, quod fit Z, et Z potentia similiter pones ad B in H et
ad D virtutem C, et ex multiplicata simul (Hoc totum pars est
tertiae propositionis libri Euclidis de ponderoso et levi, q .v.)
add.BB Si aquam subtilitatem (sic) paulatim contingat fieri
leviorem vel aliquod corpus ut e_ supernatans aque paulatim
condempsando gravius fieri, quantum cito corpus illud fiet
gravius quam aqua sibi equali in magnitudine, statim incipiet
descendere et descendet usque ad fundum aque, ut patet, ab h
inj^; vel si utrumque contingat, hoc est, corpus fieri gravius
320
VA R IA N T READINGS F O R PAGES 52, 6 4 -6 6
et aquam leviorem, tunc illud corpus velocius descendet. Hoc
est exemplar quod quedam res videntur subito contingere, licet
earum causa successive finem sue dispositionis explicet (?),
sicut in stellis cadentibus et pluviis. Hoc potest opinari, verbi
gratia, sit ab superficies aque, cd eius fundum. Et sit e corpus
natans supra aqua quod gravitatem paulatim et paulatim susci­
piat. Dico quod mergetur paulatim secundum proportionem sui
ponderis ad pondus aque sibi equalis in magnitudine pars eius
corporis existens in aqua. Nam si suum pondus sit subduplum
ad pondus aque sibi equalis in magnitudine pars eius corporis
existentis in aqua erit subdupla ad ipsum corpus, ut patet in_f.
Et si pondus ipsius corporis fuerit equale ponderi aque ei
equalis in magnitudine totum corpus mergetur in aqua, nec ha­
bet totum tendendi ad fundum, cum non vincat in pondere aquam
sibi equalem in magnitudine, ut patet in g. Sed quando vincet in
pondere aquam sibi equalem in magnitudine, statim descendet
ad fundum motu veloci, ut patet ab h in_i, et hoc est quod pro­
ponebam demonstrare.
DE CANONIO
A = Paris, M s. Bibi. Nat, lat. 8680 A , fols. 53v-55r (I3th
century.)
H = Vatican City, Cod. Vat. Reg. 1261, fols. 56r-57r (I4th-
I5th centuries)
Note: A recurrent error of the scribe, in H, is to write serpens
instead of suspensum. This, as well as transpositions and
corrections made in the line by the original hand, is not
noted in the Varia lectio.
I Incipit...canonio om.H 2 canonium: id est regula libre supra
scripsit alio mano H symmetrum: id est rationale seu com­
mensurabile supra scripsit alio mano H 3 et dividatur: divida-
turque H 8 est om.A longitudinis: longitudinum H ll enim
om.H portiones: partes H 16 —17 portionis: proportionis A
17 est om.A 19 quando: quando est H 20 intelligetur: intelligi-
tur H 25 his: huius H 27-28 puncto medie: medio A 29 in
duas om.A 33-35 sicut...omnes: ut patuit in penultima superi­
orum demonstrationum H 35-36 Verum...ergo: Sed que est EG
ad eam que est GA est AB ad eam que est AD contineat enim
AB totam AD et duplum eius in quo EG excedit AG id est DB
quod est duplum ED ergo a primo proportio est H 42-43 para­
llelum epipedo: epipedo parallelo A 46 epipedo orizontis:
orizonti H 48 primo: primum H 51 orizonti: orizontis A
52 ponderis: ponderis pondus A 53-57 sicut...A: ergo z pondus
quod est pars zl est equale suo toti H 54 post demonstratum
321
 VARIANT READINGS FOR PAGES 6 6 - 7 4
add.A est 57 quoque om.H 58~59 nutum...faciat om.H(homoi-
ot.) 62-64 quoniam...orizontis: propositum H 63 [ad lineam
AD] supplevi 65 Atque: Estque H est om.H 66 in om.H
80 est om.H 84 30: 34 A^ est om.A 86-87 quod...invenire: per
superiorem proportionem habet enim se 30 ad 12 sicut 10 ad 4
H 88 erat: esto H 89 secetur: auferatur A 90 educatur^:
inducatur H 93-94 BZ canonii: canonii BC H 94 et^: est H,
correxi cum...materia: cum sit equale ponderi canonii equalis
magnitudine canonio AB cui pertinet BZ A 95 parallelum: par­
allelo A 98 proportio: portio H linea om.A 99 DB: DEB H
ergo: eius que est A 100 proportio^ om.H 100-101 sed...pond­
erum om.A 101 erit...cui: Est ergo ponderis ad quod 14 102 BZ
BZ et que est equale magnitudine canonii AB A canonii om.H
102 eius que est om.H 103-106 Et...canonii: quare pondus ad
quod pertinet H 104 [est] supplevi 107-108 faciet...ostendere:
etc H 108 Et: Itemque H 110 propter: per EI triangulorum:
triangules H III eius om.H 112 est^ om.H 113 que est ignota:
id est que erat ignota H 113 Si ergo: Signo A 115 primam: pri­
mum H 116 post demonstravimus add.H quod sicut habebit se
ad AB in longitudine et pondere eritque ut ante quod suspensum
a puncto A faciet Ca per A etc H 117 cognoscemus: cognosca­
mus H ita: al H 119 dividemus om.H portionum: portionis H
120 adunatum: ad manum H portionum: portionis H 121 istius:
huius H 124 eius om.H 126 parailelogramum: parallelum H
erit ergo: et A 128 eius^ om.H 129 AD: AD per sextum H
131 scilicet IZ om.A 132-133 eo...BI om.A 134 Exempli causa:
Exemplificandum A 140 et^om.A 142 faciet: facit H canonium
parallelum: ca per A H 144 [est] supplevi spissitudo: sim ili­
tudo H 145 est om.H 146 20: 9 H hoc: hoc est H 147 quod^:
pondus quod H secundum pondus om.H 148 suspensum: sus­
pensum est A AB canonium om.H 149 Et...volebamus: Quod
volebamus H 154-155 uniuscuiusque: cuiuscuiusque H 155 erit:
erunt H 158 et suspensio sit G punctum om.H 159 pondus e^:
pondere H l6l rei om.H 161-162 Fit...e^: Subiaceat canonium
equale secundum pondus ponderi e, et secundum spissitudinem
equale canonio AB, sitque linea BZ A 163 est^ om.H
163-169 quoniam...AD: quoniam cum fuerint duo canonia eius­
dem materie et eiusdem spissitudinis, proportio portionis uni­
us ad portionem alterius sicut proportio canonii DB quod est
superhabundantia ponderis GB ad AG ad canonium ZB, sicut
proportio linee BZ ad lineam BD. Et pondus canonii BZ est
equale ponderi e, et proportio ponderis e ad pondus canonii DB
sicut proportio linee AB ad lineam AD, et proportio linee BZ
ad lineam DB sicut proportio linee AB ad lineam AD A
169~170 proportio...linee: longitudo H 169 lineam om.H
170 proportio linee: longitudo H lineam om.H 170-171 erit...
322
VA RIA NT READINGS F O R PAGES 74, 8 8 -9 2
linee om.H 171 lineam om.H proportio linee^ om.H 172 line­
am om.H ergo: itaque H media: medio loco H linearum:
inter H 173 AZ^: AZA H rursum data: rursus H 173-174 erit..
AD data: ergo et AD data est quare H 174 que...data: AG H
175 Verum...data est om.H 177 huius: huiusce H 178 semper:
super unum H 179 in numerum: numeri A 184 portio: propor­
tio H 185 divisionem om.H 187 300: 30 A 188 sunt: sit H et
om.H 192 accipiamus: accipiemus H 194 Explicit liber de
canonio om.H
LIBER KARASTONIS
A ,=
Paris, Bib. Nat. Fonds latin, 8680A, 13 or I4c, lr-4r
B =
Paris, Bib. Nat. Fonds latin, 10260, l6c, I83v-I92r
I_ =
Romej Vat. lat 2975, l6c, I76r-I83v
P =
Florence, Bibi. Naz. San Marco 184, 15c, H2v-I13r (see
general sigla list)
U ss Milan, Cod. Ambros, T100 Sup., 14c, 143r-l49r (see
general sigla list)
V - Thorn, R. Q« 2. 14c, 69"73 (see general sigla list)
Proemium:
2 portionem: proportionem IB ut: et AP priver: precor vel
prior A puer P 4-5 acuit se: circuit P circuit se U etiam
scivit A 5 super om.IB 6 exponuntur veritates: exponam qua
oportet IB 8 ex: et IBP 9 tu...invenisti: quod venisti P
ll ignotum: ignota_IB IL—12 et...experimentum: experimentum
conieci I_ et...experimentum vel consecutio U 12 frater super:
super _A frater IB 15 opinionis animarti: opinionem IB 16 con­
ditionibus: dictionibus P 18 eis: eis et P 20 significationibus
sufficientibus: significationibus IB figurabus sufficientibus P^
23 pectoris: petitionis IB 24 derivate: deviate IB 25 ei: et
BP 26 sicut: sicci AU 30 et eius: om.IB 35 tendimus: inten­
dimus AP 39“41 sicut proportio...alterum: sicut proportio
virtutum moventium huius et spatia secantium V 41 illius s e ­
cantis: illius quod secat secantis _IB 42 viatorum: motorum IB
43-45 in...60 miliaria om.IB 44 qui: quod AB 47 propositio
recepta: proportio incepta P proportio recta U 51-52 et move­
tur: removetur IB 52 motu: moto IB mota V redit: tendit IB
53 accidere: acadere PV 56 et quod: et IB ita quod V 57 sig­
nat: significat V 60 lineam secundam: alium quendam IB
62 diversas: divisas U figam: figuram IB 63-64 lineam...
ipsam: om.A 74 quoniam: quemJLB 77-78 arcus...proportio:
om.A 84 BD: BG A 86 secant: secantur J^B sequuntur U
88 quod ipsum: ad ipsam IB^ 95 hec: hoc IB^ 99 hec: hoc IB
propositio: proportio_I primo B 102 omnis: divisus IB
323
 VA RIA NT READINGS FOR PAGES 92-106
103 extimatur: existimatur ymaginabimus U 104 punctum:
lineam IB 107 attractionem: altitudinem IB alterationem UV
114-115 proportionalia: proportione ^B sit: fit U 124 equidista-
bit: equidistabunt IB^ 126 inclinaverimus: inclinaremus A T:
O IB ad^: apud U 128 sit: all mss. have “ situm," reconstruc­
ted quando: quoniam Uj U_ regularly substitutes quoniam for
quando in this context; it will not be noted hereafter. 129 si
om.U 131 additionem: adjectionem IBU 132 sit: fit U 133 Quo­
niam: quando IB 142-143 et...numeris: om.IB 150 dicemus:
dicamus P 153 hec quidem: hoc quod IAB 156-159 diversas...
aliud: diversas suspensa ex puncto secante posito quoque pon­
dere in extremitate alterius lateris et altero pondere posito V
173 u om.IB 176 NB: AB _IB 181 u-m: n*m V which regularly
uses in this proof n for weight u. 182 B*N: bene IB BD A
183 ter: tibi U 189 aggregaverimus: aggregavimus U 196 iam:
non A 200 earn: eas IAB 207 remanet: retinet A 209 est...
si: illud sicut dico sicut IB^ 211 quantum: quod cum A
214 quinta: quinte U 215 quatuor: om.A 215-216 scilicet: se ­
cundum U 218 est: eis IB 219 e_: a IB 222 unum: unam I_
223 quare: quanto IB^ 229 deinde suspenditur: suspensa V
230 ponitur: posito V 230-231 laterum...equalia: latere pon­
dere aliquo et in alio pondera ponuntur equalia V_ 232 compar -
itates: computantes IB 233-235 sicut...linea: ut postrema
prime et sequens postrema equalis sequenti primam sic que-
libet V 236-237 si...suspendantur: aggregata suspensa V
240 exempli causa: exemplicatio A 246 z: r IB which use r_
for z throughout. 256 ubique: ubicunque AU 259 iterum: iter­
um u IB 266 et quod: zqd IB 269 sunt sic: sunt demonstrati­
ones si U 271 suspenduntur: suspendens IB 273 nisi: added
by editor 274 proportionalium: vel proportionum .A 276 vel
expanso om.IB 277 qui currant om.IB 278 vel statur om.IB
vel equatur U linee hyarem examen: hiharen (?) examen A
comparem examen U 278-280 examen...ponebantur om.IB
279 probatur: parabatur U 281 quod: que IAB 282 utendum
illo: ducendum illud IB 286-287 et...linea: suspensa V 287-
300 et suspendatur...altero: suspensa quoque pondera aliquo in
uno extremitate et in altero eius latere V 292 super: semper
V_ in: et 113 294 extremitate: quod mutate IB 296 quodl...
linea: quid si opprimeretur in lineam V_ vel extimemus om.IB
297 denudetur: dividi V_ 305 jr: v IE^here anc* throughout proof
311 DB: AB IB 313-316 cuius...orizontis om.AU 317 latus om.
IB DH redeat A 318 quod: quando IAB 320-321 huius ponder­
is: hec pondus U 322 minueret: nueret U_ DH: BH IB DH re­
deat U_ 326 DH: BH IB 332 compari: comparari IB 335 quam:
quam sit pars quam U 336-337 tantum: tunc U_ 340 minorem:
maiorem IB vel simplex om.A 341 erit: erat A 342 quidem:
324
VA R IA N T READINGS FOR PAGES 106-114, 128-130
quod IB^ 359 pondus: punctum IB 361 attractione: auctione IB
376-378 si...aliquod: in cuius extremitate pondere suspenso V
294 attractione: actione IB 296-397 super...sicut: est 396
e om.IAB 401 e t...RB om.IB 406 ej _t IB RBQD: M ss. have
q.d.b., reconstruction is by editor. 472 pondus: ponderi U
413-414 duabus tertiis: om.A 416 grossam: crossam IJ
417 usus: visus IB^ 419 crossitudinis: crassitudinis V 420 cum
puncto: tum punctum V 420-442 Et...orizontis om.V Curtze
quotes Codex Regina Suecorum 1253 where the whole law is giv­
en substantially as the text here. 431-433. quod...perpendicu­
laris om.IB 460-461 vel cubiti: om.IB 463 D: B A 469 Illud...
est: assumpta conclusione precedente illud quod hoc dicitur
non fit V quidem: quod IB 471 AB: DB IAB 474 iam...ostendi­
mus: patet igitur V 474-481 linea...ostendimus om.V
487 medietatem: medietates V 489 et...linee om.A 490-491
longitudinem: longiorem V 491 super duplum: secundum sub-
duplum V 492 illud: M ss. habent est illud; correxi est: M ss.
habent et; correxi 495 tibi frater: super A 496-497 et^...
veritatis om.IB 504 lance: latere AP 506 quasi: quidem U
509 generati: gravati U 510 proportionem predicte: portionem
perpendicularem U 511 sciatur: faciatur U 514 generati: gra­
vati P^ in gravate U 516 ponderatis: ponderat P 517 adiuvant:
adveniat IB adiuvat P verificat ipsam: verificant U 518 eis
om.IB determinavimus demonstravit IB demonstravimus U
ELEMENTA JORDANI
Q = Oxford, Bodleian Library Ms. Auct. F.5.28 (late 13th cent.)
M = Florence, Bibi. Naz. Ms. J. I. 32 (end of 13th cent.)
C = Paris, Bibl. Nat. Ms. lat. 10252 (dated 1464)
1 ante Omnis: Incipiunt elementa Jordani de ponderibus Q Eu­
clidis de ponderibus M (alio mano) post medium add. C v ir­
tutemque ipsius potentiam ad inferiora tendendi et motui con­
trario resistendi 3 eiusdem: eius M 4 est om.MC 5 esse:
est C 6 est om.M 7 autem om.M in...quantitate om.M
8 capere om.M 9 aliud: ad M 11 Situm: Situm autem <Q esse
om.M post esse add.C equalitatem angulorum circa perpendi­
culum sive rectitudinem angulorum sive 14 ponderis: pondero-
sitatis C 16 post permutata add.C secundum preami (?) data
18 in: ad C 20 Sin: Sint M Si C 21 universaliter: utrumlibet
est impossibile Q Atqui: Quod C 27 quia: qua C propter:
prope Q^ e^: est C 28 ergo om.M 31 sequitur: super M eam:
ipsam C_ 36 b super a: super a b C 37 equalis om.M equis:
equalibus M 38 discedet: discedunt Q^ 44 et om.M 45 appen­
sa: appensa autem 49 est om.QM 50 tam: quam M
325
 VA RIA NT READINGS F O R PAGES 130-140
53 sint: fuerint C 54~55 mutabit: mutabitur Q 57-58 ascen­
dat: ascendet C 60 quia: quoniam QC minus om.M obliquus:
obliquior CM 62 a: ad CM Sumantur: Sumatur C 63 arcus:
alicuius M 64 quantilibet: quantitatibus C qui: et C sint: sit
M 67 sint: sit C 68 demittatur: demittantur Q 70 que: qui M
71 maior: maior quam C 75 linea: linea que sit C RZ minor
ZM: ZM maior DU et M M 79 ideo: econtrario C Redibit: Re­
dit C 80 equalitatem: medietatem C 85 et^ om.C 86 longius
autem BE om.QM 87 Descen-datque: descendat et C descendat
Q 89~90 equidistantibus: equidistantia C 91~92 circumducan­
tur: circumducatur C_ 92 quarte: medii C_ 98~99 cum...e om.
CM 102 erunt: sint M 103 hinc vel om.C regula: regulam C
105 C om.M 106 descendantque: descendatque C 109 equidi-
stantes...NH om.M (homoiot.) Dico: Et dico C 109 etiam om.
Q 112 descendant: descendaret M descendunt: descendent C
113 etiam: et M erat: est QC demonstrandum: propositum Q
115 Quodlibet: Quodcumque M 117-118 Huius...iri: Est huius
demonstratio qualis est M 123 E: est C Perpendiculariter:
Perpendiculari C 125 resecentur: resecant C arcus om.M
127 quantulumque: quantumlibet M^ 128 enim om.C propin­
quius: propinquus C propinque M indicant: inducunt C
130 sint: sicut M om.C EG om.Q 133 et^ om.C 134 minor:
minor est C 135 etiam: est C Et inde: Unde C propositio:
proportio C 137 longiore: longiori C 144 circinentur: circi­
netur C duo: dico C 145 semicirculi: semicirculus C 145-146
hinc...EBF: hinc EBF inde DAG C 149 ei: ei est Q 151 A om.
Q Fietque: Sitque Q 152 arcus: ei arcus Q om.M 153 dem­
onstravimus: demonstratum est Q 154-155 LM ...id: linea AM
et est illud C^ 155 equale: equalis C 156 obliquior: obliquius
C ab A: B C 157 situm: situm situs C^ statum M 159 ponde­
ris: portionis C 160 inequaliter: equaliter C 162 illo: illud Q
164 Sit om.C 173 a: autem C 178-180 m aior...FM om.M (hom-
oiot.) 179 Et transeat: Transeat enim C2 183 AL: et AL M
Equaliter: qualiter Q 185 et: et etiam M 186 F: secundo Q
186-187 est...voluimus: est propositum Q voluimus demonstra­
re M 188 equilibri: equalibus CQ 189 autem: vero Q 191
quod: qui C est: esse Q om.C 198 C om.C 200 cuius: eius M^
om.C 200 perpendiculariter: perpendiculum C 203 £ erit:
esset C 204 quod: que Q 205 eque om.C 205 je om.C
209 esset: ratione C Sed: Sic _Q_ Si M 210 ad: ac C 212 quare,
quia C 215 in om.M 216 eque: equa C secundum: super se-3
eundum C 219 quod: et M in: ad C 220 ex om.C transeatque.
et transeat Q 221-222 loco...linea om.C 225-227 Sit...a_l
om.C (homoiot.) 225 equalis om.M 229 alternatim: alterna­
rum M aletiarum C ergo om.Q sufficiet: sufficit M_ 230 JL_ se­
cundum ML: in CD ML QMC (correxi secundum codices A et H
326
VA RIA NT READINGS FOR PAGES 140-142, 150-154
edit. X ) 231 £: autem C 232 b^: u ubi C 236 dependentis:
pendentis C 239 appensa: appensum M_ quidem om.MC
241 cuius: eius Q dependens: dependentis C 242 et BG om.C
eque om.C 245 appendantur: appendatur QM 246 sit om.C
erit: erunt C 247 Sint: Sunt C 248 eritque: eruntque M et
om.C 249-250 in...y om.Q (homoiot.) 250 erit om.C propor­
tio om.M et AC: ad EC AC C ad: quia M 254 due: et due M
equaliter: equates C 255 toti om.C Et: Etiam C 256 quod~
oportuit om.M demonstrare: demonstrari C^ demonstrandum M
257 Expliciunt...ponderum: Explicit de ponderibus. 8 kl. novem-
bris 1464 C om.M
LIBER DE PONDERIBUS
J —Vatican City, Cod. Vat. Lat. 2185, fol. 27v-28v (14th century)
K = Vatican City, Cod. Vat. Pal. 1377, fol. 19 r-20v (15th century ?)
X = Jordani Nemorarii...De Ponderibus Propositiones XIII...
editus...Petro Apiano... Nuremberg 1533.
(Titulus) Liber de Ponderibus Jordani Nemorarii X Incipit
tractatus magistri Jordani de ponderibus J 3 quedam: ac J
probari: probare X Primo: Primum ergo X 4 a...deorsum om.
X 7 minore: minori X in minore: minor X 8 quam om.J
9 respondet: correspondet X 11 respondet: correspondet X
dupla om.J 12 maiori: maioris _J_ minori: minoris _J 13 est
om.J 14 possum: posset X ostendere: ostendi X 15 fit: sit X
17 cum om.X circuli: circuli efcej[ 18 casus: et casus X
20 quod om.X 22 alias: aliter X non om.X 22-23 contrarius:
gravis X 23 apparet om.X descensu: ascensu X adquirendum
impedienti: aliquid movetur violentie X 24 quia^: quoniam X
minor erit: maior est X hoc: hunc situm JC 28 vel: et X
29 causam huiusmodi: per causam huius X esse om.X 30 qui­
dem: si X 31 quod om.X 32 et om.X naturali: descensu na­
turae X 34 debet argui: licet argumentari X quoniam nihil:
qui X 35 arguitur: argumentatur X 36 quod om.X 39 Sed
om.X 40 portione: parte X. 41 quia ponatur: patet unum X
42 hoc arguitur: illud obiicitur X 43 esse: fuisse X intrinse­
cum: intrinseci J_ 45 equalis om.X 48 intrinseco: intenditur
intenditur et X 49 que: qui X fuit: fit X quam: quem X
50 contrarietas sive: contrarietatis suae X portione circuli:
parte X 58 est*: fit X 61 quia: quare X 63 esse dependentia:
et X 65 in loco: ad locum X 68 eadem: ex eadem X 69 sit:
fit X 73 supponi: supponuntur X Probantur: probari X dictis:
iam dictis X que: quidem X 74 igitur: itaque X 76 Prim a...
hec: Prima est X Incipit tractatus Jordani de ponderibus.
Iordani de ponderibus prima suppositio K 78 Secunda: Secunda
327
 VA RIA NT READINGS FOR PAGES 158-162
VA RIA NT READINGS FOR PAGES 154-158

rum: perpendiculorum JX 163 brachium: brachia J 164 appen-

suppositio K Quanto gravius: Quod graviorem K est: tanto X
diculum: perpendiculum JX sic om.X 165 licet: sed JC non:
80 Tertia: Tertia suppositio K esse: est K 81 eiusdem: eius
non forte _J in om.K 167 casu: causa X propter: per J
K est om.J 82 in om.J 84 Obliquiorem autem: Obliquation­
170 ex: de K 171 propositionis: partis X voluit: voluerit X
em aut K 85 in om.J directo: recto J_ 86 esse om.J
172 equilibri: equilibra JX 173 erant: erat K erunt X film sub
87 quanto: quod K descensum: descensus JX sequitur: conse­
filo K_ ideo: propter K que X habuerunt: habent X hunc K
quitur X 91-94 Omnes...tredecim om.K 91“92 per predicta:
174 etiam: et K appendiculorum: perpendiculorum JX flexus
sicut patet per predicta X 92 iam om.X 93~94 igitur propo­
om.J 174 175 Incognitis: incognitos JK 175 irrisor esset: de­
sitiones: itaque X 94 tredecim om.J 95 Prima...hec: Propo­
risor K irrisorem X 176 accepto: at J 177 appendicula: per­
sitio prima X Prima propositio mg.K duo om.J 96 velocita­
pendicula _J2£ 178 describuntur: dicitur J[ utrumque: uterque K
tis: velocitas K proportio velocitatis 96 in om.X ponderis:
nescivit: negavit JX 179 mutationes: mutationem J 18.0 ex: et
ponderum X 98 sed: secundum K 100 Commentum.. . proposi­
ex KX enim: non KX 181 contingere: congruere KX contingit:
tioni s ^mJTC 101 omnes om.J quoquomodo om.K 102 precisa:
convenit J_ 182 propositio om.J 183 in om.J 185 appensa om.
precise K 103 patet: sic patet K quod: quo X 104 quia: scili­
X 186 Commentum om.JX tantum: tamen J_ valeat: valet K
cet quod J 105 sed: et K contrarie: omnino K 106 propter
187 quantum: quam J 188 in om.J tantum: tunc X 189 erant:
quod: ideo J_ dicitur: dicit K 106-113 Sicut...sequitur om.K erunt_J essent X 191 hic: hoc K oppositum: putum J quaprop­
107 se habet om.X aliud: idem .J 108 eiusdem proportionis: ter: quia propter KX 192 propositione: in propositione KX
eadem proportio J 109 a puncto om.X in2: ab X 111 istud^
193 propositio om.J oblonga: pondera _J grossitiei: grossitudi­
om.X istud2: id X illo: isto X 112 descendit: velocius ascen-
nis J_ 194 pondere: et pondere X 195 erigatur: dirigatur_J et
dit X 113 motu...sequitur: movetur contrarie X 114 propositio
om«J 196 etiam: tamen K 200 Commentum om.JX transver­
om.J 116 discedet: descendit K separetur: separaretur K
sans. transversum X transversus K 200-201 eius...crux om.
117 revertetur: reverteretur K 118 Commentum om.JX X 201 aliud: et aliud X dependeat: dependeat extra J descen­
119-120 Vocatur...predicta om.K 119 ad om.X 120 idem^: quod
su: descensus J 202 sit terminus: sic angulus K 203 cum: in
X idem2: dicitur X 121 propositio om.J 122 equilibri: equili-
J_ sicut: sicut secundum situm K 204 istius: illius JK quia
bra J 122-123 appendiculorum: perpendiculorum jJ 124 Com­
sicut: sic JX 205 utrobique: ubique K. violentia: violentum JX
mentum om.JX debet: dicitur J_ sumi om.J appendiculorum.
206 equales: equalia _K ergo: quia _J 207 sunt: sunt ergo J
perpendiculorum J_ 125 pro^ om.JX pondere: ponderis J_ pro
208 propositio om.J 209 substantie: due(!) J dividaturque: et
om.JX sic om.K 126 igitur om.K 128 ergo om.J 129 propo­
dividatur J^ dividam K 210 in: inter jJ inequales: equales J
sitio om.J 130 ab equalitate om.X discedat: descendit JK
211 quod: quo _J 212 proportio: portio _J 213 illius: istius K
132 Commentum om.JX 133 propositio om.J libre: equilibris
maioris illius _J maioris: minoris _J 214 ad minorem om.J
KX 134 ponderibus om.J 134-135 longioris: longiori J
215 longitudinis om.X duplam: duplum X 215-216 longitudi­
136 Commentum om.JX 136-137 pondere vero non: sed forte
nem: longitudinis JX 217 Commentum om.JX hic om.X
non pondere J non pondere X 137 longioris: longiori J descri­
218 regula: regula motus J_ est^: dicitur J proportionabile:
bitur: describetur K circulus: semicirculus _J 138 patet om J
proportionale X 218-219 brachium: brachio brachium sit X
quod om.J 140 propositio om.J Cum...ponderis: Si duo pond­
219 substantie: due J zona X id est in om.JX 220 est: idest~X
era K 141 et2 om.J 141-142 remotius: remotum X 144 illo:
221-222 cuius...sint om.KX 222 omnino: omnia KX 222-223
eo J 145 Commentum om.JX in brachio: inter brachia _J
grossum: grossa K 223 Sit: Sint^J gratia exempli: grandis K
147~ponderat: pendeat J brachio: brachio uno jJ distanti: dis­
ergo X 224 sex: octo J et om.J 225 quoniam: quia J
tante _J puncto: centro KX_ 147-148 pendente: dependente X pon­
226 gravius: brevius J 227 brevius: unum K habet om.X Si­
dere J 148 si om.K 149 post equidistantiam add.X vel ad di­
cut: Sicut sunt K 227-228 palmi om.X 228 petra: petre K fit
rectionem appendiculo: appensili X 150 fuit: fuerit X vere J_
X igitur om.KX 229 petrarum om.X Et arguitur: Arguitur X
H IX

151 a om.K quam: ut J est om.J 152-153 nunc facit: tunc fuit
om.K 231 quia om.KJ perpendicularis: perpendiculari K fue­
154 Septima propositio om.J equilibri: equilibra_J 155 appens
rit om.J 232 superficie plana: superiori plano X 232-233
appensibilia X autem om.J 156 et om.J alterum: aliud
rectos: erectos K 233 propositione: ex propositione K septi­
157 circumvolubili: circumvolubile X circulo _J^ 158 erit: est_J
ma: secunda K prima X primi Euclidis: per Euclidem X per
159 Commentum om.JX 160 brachia: brachium J 161 Secun­ eundem K 234 fore: saepe X orizontis om.KX Sed si: Si KX
dum angulum om.KJ 162 esse: habere X 162-163 appendiculo-
329
328
 VA RIA NT READINGS F O R PAGES 162-164, 174-176
VARIANT READINGS FO R PAGES 176-186

altera: alia K 235 alia: altera alia JX eam: eadem J recta K

AH 56 qui sint om.H 64 post ZM add.Y quod facili demon­
aliud: ad J_ sicut aliud KX 236 ut: sicut _J om.X suppositione:
strabis supra sc rips. q ! ut demonstrabitur 74 quam om.AH
ex suppositione K 237 alterutrius: alterius utrius K alterna­
ponantur equaliter: ponatur in equali situ A 75 eque: equalis
rum X si aliquid: aliud K additio X 238 addatur: addam K
eque S quia b: quod AH 77 ubilibet: utlibet QY utrolibet S
tunc: autem J 239 propositio om.KX 239“240 propositiones
79 Demittantur: Demonstramus S 80 post linee add.A equidi-
om.KX 240 linearum om.J 242 propositio om.J 248 Com­
stantes ad sensum 81 sint: sicut^A 85 etiam: et Q om.S
mentum om.JX ad om.KX 250 conversa: conversio J
89 CE: esse J5 CZ DCM: DCE A atque: atqui A 93 etiam:
252 pondere: in pondere J_ 252~253 ostendebam: ostendi
itaque A 96 desinet: desinit S c om.S 97 usque: usque ad A
ostendebatur X 253-254 vel correspondere om.J 254 igitur:
98 Omne: Quodlibet Q vel omne suprascr. H Q^ 99 discedat:
ymo K quia J 256 propositio om.J Atque: Et J om.X ex his:
discedet S^ 100 enim: quintum S supra2: super S 101 inferiori
per hoc .J 258 substantie: due J^ zona X 260 tantum: tunc X
inferiore HS inferiori parte A 109 appensa: appensa autem Q
261 cum om.K 264 Ista propositio: Illa probatio X predictis:
110 Descendatque: Descendetque S 119 illorum: illorum circu­
dictis J_ 265 propositio om.J datum om.J 266 gravitate:
lorum Q 120 est descensus om.S 121 E: E ponderum Q cum
gravitate simillime J 269 faciet: faciat .J 270 longitudo:
ora.S 126 illorum: ipsorum £3 128 quantitatem: distantiam A
longitudine J_ portionis: proportiones J_ portio X erit: erunt J^
de s c endantque: descendentque S 130 Dico: Et dico Q adequa-
271 Commentum om.JX 274 partem om.X 277 post quesitum
tur: equatur AH 131 est om.S quod...YH mg.Q 132 descendant
add.K Laus tibi Xpc quoniam liber explicit iste. 278 Expli­
descendent S^ 133 Et hoc fuit: Quod erat Q 138 enim: quam S
cit... Jordanis: Explicit tractatus Jordani de ponderibus cum
140 ab: ad A et B: etiam B A sint: sunt S om.A et BD: BD A
commento K
141 minor: minus A 147 b2 om.A 148 mutabit: nutabit HY
151 descendat: descendet S^ ascendat: ascendet S^ autem om.SY
DE RATIONE PONDERIS
152 quare: quia SY 153 Atqui: Atque SY 154 et CE: vel CE S
er MC.CE p.c.H equum: equalis S equatur Y 155 descendat:
A = Paris, Ms. Bibi. Nat, lat. 8680 A , fols. 6v-llv
descendet S perpendicularis: perpendiculum SY 158 sufficit:
H = Vatican City, Cod. Vat. Reg. 1261, fols. 50r-55v
sufficiet QY 158-159 sufficit...D om.S 159 sufficiet: sufficiat
S = London, Brit. Mus. M s. Harleian 13, fols. 133v-140r
S. sufficeret A 160 non: vero S sequitur: sequatur H seque­
Q = Oxford, Bodl. Libr. M s. Auct. F .5 .2 8 , fols. 125v-133r
tur A 161 neque: neque etiam A <i sequetur bj assequetur bl S
Y = Jordani Opusculum de ponderositate...apud Curtium Tro­
secundum...proponitur om.A 162 oblonga: elonga A 163 ut: ut
janum, Venet, 1565
in QY 163-164 alterum dirigatur om.H 168-169 quod quidem:
quidem SY quod que appenduntur sint ut>id quod Q 170 medi­
PART I um eius: cuius medium sit Q BG: sit G Q Sitque: Sit item Q
1 ante Omnis: Incipit pars prima libri Jordani de Nemore de
Sit ut_S_ Sit tunc Y 171 eque: equaliter 15 173 E: in E S
ratione ponderum H Jordanis de ponderibus A (alio mano) In­
174 appendatur: suspendatur A ad: a A 175 z et y: zy H pon­
cipit liber Johannis de ponderibus S (alio mano) Iordani opus­
dere: eodem pondere _S enim: equidem A post enim add.H x et
culum de ponderositate Y 5 esse: est H quanto: quando AH in
1 ad pondus y in hoc situ sicut BC ad CA itaque erit xl ad z et y
quanto mg.A id est quando Q1 eiusdem: eiusdem rei Q eidem
in hoc situ 176 ponderis: pondus A pondus eius Y 177 item
A 7 esse: est A supra cuius scripsit id est quando situ
om.A ponderis: pondus AY sicut^T sicut ab SY 178 Itaque: Sed
om.A 8 descensus: est descensus AQ 14 sive...angulorum
S^ sicut...CB: proportio que est EC et AC ad duplum CB Q s i­
om.A 15 superficiei: cum superficie A 18 Sint: Sicut A et^
cut duplum CB ad EC et AC coniuncta A sicut EC et AC ad du­
om.AQY 19 supra quod scr, H proportio 20 ponderis om.A
plum CB H 179 et^: cum A et2 om.S 179-180 in pondere: se ­
22 componitur: constat AY 25 proportio om.A Ergo: Propor­
cundum pondus A 181 pondere...situ: etiam in hoc situ sunt pon­
tio ergo 26 similium: simul A similis H 27 ponderum ora.
dere equales A et2 om.S 182 sunt...equales: equantur pondere
A Et quia: Quia A 28 est om.A 29 et om.A post econtrario
A 183 partibus om.Q sequitur: sequatur A toti om.Q
add.A ab ad C 38 brachia: et brachia S 40 appensa: appensa
191 descendat: descendet_S perpendiculariter: perpendicularis
autem AH 41-42 circumducto: ducto S 42 circulo: circulo
H 193 cadant: cadent 194 et om.S 196 positione: dispositi­
FBEC H 52 quod: quoniam HY ascendat: ascendet S 53 quo­
one A 199-200 eas fiant: his sint S 202 item: tunc S com­
niam: quod A 54 versus: ad AH 55 deorsum: sursum Y om.
mune Y_ 204 portioni: portionis SY 209-210 descendat: de-
330
331
 V A R IA N T READINGS FOR PAGES 186-198
scendet S 210 ascendet: ascendat SY 213 per: propter AH
214 secundum: super A ad Y 216 cadant: cadent S 217 fietque
S fiet Y 220- 221 describantur om.QS 222 equidistantes:
equidistanter AH 224 in: inde S 226 secabuntur: sequebantur
S equa: equalia AY 228 CFX: et CFX S om.A 229 ita...erunt:
similiter alie dividentur A Quare: Quasi AH 232 Subtilius:
Subtilis AH 236 elevare: levare S^ 237 linee om.S 238-239
Sed...potest: ES apud S 243 supra: super AH sub: et sub H
244 inferius om.S 257 sub: LB S_ 261 ad: ad lineam A
264 lineis: lineas QSY 267 est: erit A 271 erit: eritque S
275 descendant: descendent S 281 resectionem: resecationem
Y insectionem 11 refractionem fi 283 Sit: Si S^ 290 est om.
AH e: el S om.H 291 est om.S descendat: descendet S^ in2
^ .S 293 sit que: fietque S 294 tunc: item Q ER: erit S erit
ER Y Quia: Quod A 295 sicut: est sicut H 296 similiter:
simile S 297 et om.AH 298 sufficiet: sufficiat S 299 Expli­
cit pars prima om.HQSY
PART II
4 equabiliter: equaliter J5 5 regule: et regule QSY 10 sitque:
sit S 14 Quia: Quod A 18 ea est: ea AH 21 ea est: ea AH AC:
ACAE S dupli: duplum S 24 fuerint: fuerint regule A 28 ut
om.H 30 pondus d: pondus SH 33 Quia: Quod A 34 sicut:
sive S 34-52 erit...data om.AH 35 ductu om.S 36 bis: bl S
•ei: ei est S 37 totam: totum Y 43-44 numeris: materiis Y
44-45 d in: dati S 53 fit: sit AS d in om.S 55 utrumque: ut­
erque S Hoc: Huius AH 56 ex: de S addatur: ad datum Q
57 BA: ZB quod est dimidium ABC AH 58 autem: enim S vero
Q non Y hic: hec H 59-60 B C...BA: in CB bis cum quadrato
EB est quantum BA S 60 quadratum om.A fit om.A quantum:
quadratum Y 62 quantum: ut A quadratum^ om.S ut: est ut A
65 post BA add.A quare quod ex d in BC bis cum quadrato BC
ut quadratum BA (dittog.) 66 est: et S_ in om.S 71 in BC. in
CBA S 71-72 item quadrata om.QSY 72 Quod item: Et tunc Y
74 sit: fuerit A 84 de: ex S 85 datum^ om.S 85-86 d, BC:
BC S 88 Quia: Quod A 89 ut: in S 91 compositi: compositum
H 94 data: datum A 94-95 quoque: tamen A 97 d2: de SH
97-98 utrumque: utrumque erit A 102 esse: erit A 106 depen-
deatque: et dependeat H et perdependeat A 108 conservet:
conservat S^ 110 Quia: quod A 112 ut om.H 113 d: de _ S ad:
cum A h: Hoc J5 117-119 Amplius...erit om.hic AH et add, in­
fra 1. 122 post datum erit 118 Sunt: Sicut SY 119 Simili. Ideo
dissimili A Similiter Y_ 120 et BC data iter, A 121 Quia.
Quod A atque: atqui H 123 Quod...breviore: A breviore vero
si A 125 'equidistantiam: equidistantia H 126 ipsis: eis H. reg
ule: pegille H 131 ponderantia: pondera dependentia AH 132 y
332
VA RIA NT READINGS FOR PAGES 198-208
equale d: ex equale S 133 item: tunc Y t: de S 135 ad: et H
P«c. 1,39 quantum: quamjS ergo: quare A et quare H 144 ~
erit...datum: sicque y datum erit A 147 sicque: sed quia S sit-
9V® _X 149 itemque: uterque S_ rationeque Y 150 Quia enim:
Quod erunt A data: data sunt AH t: tunc A ob hoc z: cbhz S
153 sitque: sicque S d om.H proportio: proprie H 154 data:
propria H 159 equidistantiam: equidistantia AH 164 elatum
om.AH equabiliter: equaliter S 167 ipsa: ipsum fi 170 pona-
turque: ponatur jj 171 AB et: ADZ S 172 d om.H 173-174
sumptum om.S 175 maius: magis A minus: minus est Q
quam: quod H 178 equabiliter: equaliter ASY 179 quoniam:
quia S erit: erit et A 180 Istud om«Y 180-181 Istud...proposi­
tionis om.AH 185 examinis: et examinis A 187 d om.A
190 descendat: descendet S 193 eritque: erit S 196 et AZ: cum
AZ AY 197 cum TB: ad TB S ad TB: cum TB S 198 Itemque:
iterum S 200 h1 om.AY erit...TB iter. A quare: itaque AY
201 itaque: igitur AY 203 et* om.H 204 per om.S simul:
similiter HQ data: similiter data H 205 ABC om.QS 206 erit:
om.QS 208 Quia: Quod SA 209 e: est quia^: quoniam AY
210 et2 om.H sunt: fuerit S 211 datis: data S datum Y
213 Longioris: unius AY 215 brevioris: brevius H alterius AY
equetur: equatur S equentur Y 220 longioris: imius AY
222 brevioris appenso: unius suspenso AY 223 tertium sim i­
liter: illud tertium AY 227 ehl: ehlde fi 232 proportio: pro­
portio igitur QS 237 sit om.S 238 erit...datum om.S
243 equentur: equantur QS 245 a: ad H ut om.S 246 a C: ab
BC QH ad BC fi 251 sint: sint scilicet 55 251 pendeatque: pen­
de at quod ^A pendeantque pendeat_Y_ 256 erit om.S post
erit add.A Explicit pars secunda 256-257 quod...ostendendum
om.AY 257 ostendendum: ostensum H
PART IH
8 Ducantur: Producantur S 10 in om.QS 12 z pondus: 3 ponde­
ret Y 13 Quia: Cum A 14 dependent: dependunt Q 16 quasi:
quare Y 19 et £.: ZC S et a.: ZA fi 21 descendere: pertingere
AY post descendere add.QS oportet quod ponderis c possit
virtus agere in pondus a aut ut patet in phisicis falsum est
26 regula: linea post, corr, H directum: rectum H medium S
27 determinat: determinet Q cetera ut: recta et S 28 declin-
etque: declinatque^ 31 esset om.S 37 et angulus: angulus V
etiam angulus Y 38 ipse: ipsa AY 40 vero: non_S^ 41 stabil­
iri: stabilire fi 47 sint: sunt_S 48 sunt: sint Q Ipsis: In ipsis
S Ipsius Y 50-51 qualiscumque nutus: quacumque nutu A
qualitercumque nutus Y qualiscumque nutu H 54-55 rectitu­
dinem: directionem rectitudinem Q 55 que: qua S 56 ut: post
S 64 grossitiei: superficiei H HTZ: HZ A 65 portio: propor-
333
 VARIANT READINGS FOR PAGES 208-214
tio ^A 66 utralibet: utraque A 69 H: T OSH 71 secreta: secat
S secta Y a: autem QS 73 dependens: pendens Ji faciet: faci­
at S 74 Sita est: Sitaque .S 75 quasi: quod S linea: et linea
Q z linea 55 77 dependeret: dependent QS 80 quantum1: tan­
tum quantum S 81 fiet: fiat S^ 82 fiet: fiat S faciet hinc vel
inde Y facie hinc vel inde A nutus: nutum AY 85 determinari:
terminari S^ 86 contingit: est possibile AY 89 elevetur: ele­
vatur S 90 CB: B A 91~92 quartam: circumferentiam 53
99 et om.QS 102 situ: isto S 104-105 levius...autem om.Y
104 inde: in S^ 105 ad: in A 106 atque in F om.QSY 107 in ^
om.QS 109 erecta: directa QS 110 super: sub _S 111 dimidio:
dimidie_S 113 post BA add.Y quia sunt consequenter proporti­
onali 114 post AB add.Y quia habent eandem proportionem ad
pondus DB in A 115 versus: vero versus AY minus om.A
116 Sit: Fit H' item: inter_S 117 post EL add.Y quia BK habe­
ret maior proportio ad BG quam AB ad BK et ideo et pondus in
H ad pondus in D 121 Quia: Quod A 122 RB om.S 123 post PB
add.Y a puncta F et E aequedistent (ex hypothesi) a punctis C
et A, sive a puncto D 125 sicut: sic Q 131 post N add.Y quia
figura EABP est similis figurae FRBC (quod facile probabis)
et figura NMBP circa diametrum FB (per sextum Euclidis) erit
similis eisdem. Ideo sicut BL ad BR, sic BR ad BM, et ideo
sicut BE in E ad pondus BF in F , sic erit idem pondus FB in N
ad idem pondus FB in F , et ideo (per quintam Euclidis) pondera
EB in E, et BF in N, erunt aequalia 133 ET: et SY 135 Pon­
dus: Mundus Y dependens: descendens Y 137 graviorem: gra­
vitatem Y facit: reddit A redditur Y 139 pondus e: pondus H
140 autem: item QS autem e om.H 141 sicut: ut sicut S AB:
ABC H 145 quanti e: quam S quanti est H 146 opposita: oppo­
nenda A 150 gravitas: gravius 55 151 post BA add.H incipit
quarta pars add.A Liber quartus.
PART IV
4 ponatur: ponaturque HY 12 Poterit: Ponit S 15 constabit:
distabit A 17-18 non impedietur: si impedietur S 21 conse­
quatur: consequetur A z: et S 25-26 impellendo...in om.S
25 simul: similiter Y 26 in om.H 30 que: quod AY 31 sunt
om.H aer: et aer Y ab QS aqua et: aqua H 32 igitur: si H
35 quod autem: quodque AY 36 T: sit T QS 37 offendat: osten­
dat 55^ 39 “40 impediantur: impediatur QS 41 habeant: habent
QS 42 stant: statim S_ 43 quod^ om.Q 44 habet offendi: of­
fenditur 53^ 45 infra: inter A om.QS 47 Quod: Quo A_ 50 of­
fendat: offendet S 53 magis om.AY 54 vel om.QS 55 movea­
tur: moveantur A 56*57 moveatur: moventur A 58 impedient:
impediant 53 58-59 plus sustinebunt: prius Y 65 E: est A
66 liquor: loquor A 69 enim om.H 72 et om.A 72~73 evade-
334
VA R IA N T READINGS FO R PAGES 214-222
re: evadunt A 73 comprimunt: comprimat J5 coarctant AY
74 est om.A quod: quod E AY 75 sed: sed etiam S ideo: iam
H 77 sustineret: sustinet sustentaret H niteretur: nitetur S
79 impedietur ...m agis: et T quoque magis impedietur A et e
magis impedietur Y impeditur quoque et latitudo maior descen­
sus T magis S 83 K: a K S 85 eoque: eo quod ASY quanto:
quam A 86 igitur om.A 86*88 plus...tanto om.Y 86 grava­
tur: gravata H 87 ab om.A 88 nititur: nitetur £3 88“89 de­
scensus: ascensus Y 89 post minuetur add.S et in mg.
scrips. Q videtur contra hanc demonstrationem ratio, quia
virtus compressionis partium maior est directe suppositarum
90 gravis: gravior Y 92 quidem om.A verum om.Y 95 de­
scendentis: descendens jS descendentem Y 97 etiam om.Q
trahant: trahantur S trahatur Q 99 illius: ipsius QS 100 post
constat add.Q Idem cema quod prius 102 vel: et HY
109 transit: transeat S E: Et e S 112 quidem: quid HY 113 au­
tem: quando S descendat: descendet 55 115 sine: si non A
117*118 et...plus om.S 120 et om.S 125 est: gravius est A, p.
corr. H quam z om.A magis: ergo magis A 125*126 magis
sustinens om.HY 126 minus ergo z om.A 132 videtur: viden­
tur HY 134 ergo om.A 139 impellentis: impellens 55 140 c e ­
dat: cedet S parum: paucum S om.Y 142 quia: quoniam QS
143 impulse: pulse 55 144 adiuvat: adiuvet S 145 fuerit: fuit Y
146 movet: motum est HY 147 est om.AY igitur: igitur impel­
lat AQSY, ante corr.H 148 minus iter.A 149 impellet: impel­
lit H 150 C: in C S 154 impellet: impellat_S impelletur A
154*155 utrobique: utraque utroque Y 155 magis: maius H
156 circumacta: circumacto A 157 describent: describunt S
describantur Q maius: minus AH 159 quoque: quocumque S
om.A 164-170 offendat...virtus om.S 165 E om.H 169 aug-
mentabitur: et augmentabitur AY 173 deferetur: feretur AY
efficitur^ 174 descriptione: dispositione 55, ante corr.Q
177 impellentis: impellimus A 178 plus et minus: plurimus AY
185 sustinet: sustinere sufficit p. corr.H 191 quia: quoniam A
quam Y ut om.A 192 sustentantur: sustententur !5 sustentatur
A pre longitudine: per longitudinem^ post longitudinem ante
corr. Q ergo: unde J5 197 citius: eius A 198 cum A iter. S
199*201 atque...impellit om.S 201 ut: fit ut Q 203 ponderi:
ponderis ASY 204-205 aliquatenus: aliquando QS 205 cedant
prosequente: cedent vel sequente _S cedant persequutae Y
207 etiam: autem_S 208 altero: altero tantum QS 209 fiet
om.S 210 circumvolutionem: circumvolutione A 211 esset:
essetque QS minima: nimia QS CA: eam QS 219*220 directio:
directus jS directam Y 223 in om.QS 228 habilius: facilius
AY contingat: continget S 229 In: Item QS 231 eadem: eadem
ratione ante corr.Q quoque: ergo A 232 sequuntur: sequantur
335
 VA RIA N T READINGS FOR PAGES 2 2 2 -2 2 6
AH sequentur Y 233 Nota: Notum AY super: quod super AHY
quod: quidem AY non om.A 234 impedit: impediat impediat A
237 Hec impulsio a: Impulsio autem A 238-239 resistunt: re­
sistan t^ 241 infiguntur: infigantur S 242 habet: habent A
246 aer: aere S 248 post B add.Y idest aer sive aqua in: et in
QS 250 recedat: recedit S 251 impellat: impellet IS 251-252
et...suo mg.A 252 suo om.S 254 unde: tantum QS 256 Eo:
Eo autem QS cumque: cumque B HY 257 ponderosius: impet-
uosius QS 258 refractus: refactus AH iam om.Q innitatur:
mutatur £5 259 motu: motum A directe: directe quidem QS
260 vero: quoque QS 262 urgentur: iungentur J3 266 Liquid­
um: Si quidem Y 267 tantum: tanto AH 269-270 descenderit:
descendit QS 272 descenderit: descendit QS 273 erit C: erit
S 274-275 quam...DF om.S 278-279 FZ quam AF: AF quam
FZ QHY AF quam FE A S 279 “280 Itaque semper gracilius
om.AHY 282 abrumpuntur: abrumpitur QS 283 partem: partes
A 283-284 quamcumque: quacumque A 285 impellitur: im ­
pellit A Y 288 impellatur: propellatur QS 289 cedit impulsui:
cedet pulsui AY 292 quidem: quod A quam £> 294 nisus om.A
suo: in suo AY 295 et om.A precedat: precedet £5 296 qui­
dem: quod £3 tardabitur: attrectabitur Y retardabitur A
297 motum: totum A 297-298 totoque: et totoque A 298 habe­
bit orruA 299-300 Explicit...ponderis: Explicit liber Johannis
de ponderibus _S Explicit liber Jordani de ponderibus Q Ea
finitur liber Iordani de ratione ponderis Et sic finit Y
TRACTATUS BLASII DE PONDERIBUS
C = Paris, Bibi. Nat. M s. lat. 10252 (149v-159r)
N = Florence, Bibi. Naz., (J VI. 36, 8r-16v)
NOTE: Manuscript N is apparently somewhat older than C
which is dated 1476. At least it preserves spellings and forms
which are more “ medieval." N tends to drop one of the conso­
nants in many words that are ordinarily spelled with a double
consonant. Thus N rather consistantly uses “aponatur," “ap-
endiculum," “posibile,” “im pelire," etc. On the other hand, N
occasionally doubles the consonants in words conventionally
spelled with a single consonant, e.g., “ta llis," “filium .” In all
of these cases and many others C tends to adopt the convention­
al spelling. N also uses “ s " or " s s " for “x ," as “fisum" for
“fixum," “a ssis" for “axis,” etc. In the variant readings be­
low I have not noticed the particular cases of these differences
in spelling. And generally I have omitted simple word inver­
sions, such as “rectus est” for “est rectus." Similarly, I have
omitted indicating when one manuscript has “ergo" for “igitur
336
V A R IA N T READINGS FOR PAGES 2.38-246
and vice versa. Additions by the editor to complete the text
are inclosed within brackets [ ]. Unless otherwise indicated the
preferred reading is from the other of the two manuscripts.
Thus in the example “9 per: ex C ," “per" is the reading in N.
If, however, variants are given for both manuscripts, then the
preferred readings to the left are editorial reconstructions. As
an exa^nple, in Part III, 2 Archimedes : Altiminides N Alam i-
nides C, “Archimedes” is my reconstruction.
PART I
1 vere om.N 2 subalternari et cetera N 3 Probatur: Proba­
tur conclusio N 4 considerat: inquirit C 5 et cetera om.C
10 per: ex C 18 et facti: facti C 21 subtense...sunt equales:
subtense sunt equalis corde C 22 Ergo: quia C et cetera om.
C 29 perfectionem: perfectionem in minori tempore est poss­
ibile acquirere illam perfectionem C 31 ex: et ex C 32 hoc:
hec C 34 describunt C 36 descendens 39 motum om.C
40-41 et cetera om.C 43 maiorisque: maioris quam C 51 us­
que om.N linea om.N 61 et om.C 66 declaratur: declarari
potest C 70 in: ad C_ 75-76 corde BAC: arcus BCD C ad cor­
dam BD om.C 78 20am: 20am primam C 79 et cetera om.C
80-81 equalitatis: directionis C 81 qui: quod N C magis: m i­
nus C 84 per centrum: in C follows “directionis." 84-85 du­
catur om.N 88 est om.N 95 DF om.C 96 equales: equalis C
98 unam: primam C Euclidis: Euclidis tunc considerentur N
Elementorum C 98“99 equales arcus... circumferentia om.N
100 ADO: DEO C 101 quia^ om.N est om.C 102 eo: est C
103 ut: ut probat C 104 quare: quia N tertius adequatur: tres
adequantur C per: et per N 106 qualis: equalis N FL: FL et
DO NC 113 equalitatis: directionis N 114-115 quod...demon­
strare: quod valuit minoris quod volui demonstrare C 118 quod
quia C 119 movere: moveri C 127 rectius: velocius N quare:
quia N 128 ad situm: assumptum C primum om.C 133 sint:
sit C 144 inferioris: superioris C 145 maiores: minores C
superioris: inferioris C 146 brachiis eiusdem: brachiis et
causant maiores angulos appendicula equilibris superioris C
patet faciliter: potest faciliter probari C 147 EDO et ABO:
ADO, ACO N 148 B: C N 149 EOD: AOD N AOB: AOC N
150 DEO: DAO N AOB C CAO: EOD C 151 tendant: tendat N £
153 appensa: pensa C 158 equilibris pondus om.C 159 levius:
velocius N et cetera om.C 161 pendens: descendens N
163 et cetera om.C 165 posita om.C 167-168 cum...equidis-
tantia: in C follows “mutari." 169 operis, et cetera om.C
PART II
3 fiet nuptus: motus fiet C 6 fuerint: fuerit N et aliquando C
337
 VA RIA NT READINGS FOR PAGES 2 6 4 - 2 6 0
hec om.C 7 etiam: eius C_ 9 et om.N 10 e t...appendiculis
om.N 11 ideo: tunc N 13 affixum: appensum N 14 etl om.N
16 eo: ideo N 22 sint: sunt C 34 brachiorum: brachio C
35“36 descendere: resistere N 38 resistat: resistit C 39
post unum add.N et sic habebimus resistentiam ut duo.
45 consequentia: conclusio N 48 est om.N 49 perscrutari:
suscrutari C 49 ~50 corollarium om.C 54-55 non Si habue­
rint: non habuerint si C 57 brachii perforati: basi[s] perfor­
ate C 59 cum: in N in: cum N brachio: basi C 64 et om.N
videtur: videbatur C 65 hic om.N 66 Et om.C 67 nunc: non
C 68-69 Et...equalia om.C 72 et per AB: ut per OB C 74 b
om.N 76 enim om.C 79 situ: situ erit N 80 et^ om.C CM:
cui NC but R1.03 from which it is copied has CM. 82-84 words
in [ ] have been added by editor from R1.03 84 DCE: DCM NC,
reconstruction from R1.03 86 etiam: esset N 89 et^: et sic C
90 ZCD: ZCM NC ECD: CMG NC 91 arcus BE: quam EB N
92 ZCD: ZCM NC ECD: MGE NC 93 arcus BE: BE C 94 non:
nam N 98-99 fient: fiet C 111 isti om.N 113 et AG: AG: C
114 hii arcus: hiis arcibus N hi arcibus C tenet: tamen C
115 cum: tunc N 121 semper om.C usque quod adveneret: us­
que quo venerit C ad: usque ad C 122-123 potest: patere po­
test N 125 relictum: reliquum N 130-133 quanto...naturalitate
om.C 130 minus: unus N edit, reconstruction 134 sub: ab N
136 rectis om.N 139 CBG: CAG C 140 ABG: AGB N ACG C
CBG: ACG C_ 144 a om.C 147 in om.C tertia: ista C 148
eque: equaliter C ut: et C^ tertia om.C 152 solutionem: sal­
vationem C 154 inequalibus: equalibus NC cf. E .3 and R1.03
158 equi distantia: distantia C 159 CF longius: AF longius N
160 BH: BA N 162 Et...eque gravia om.C 164 conclusio: et
cetera C 167 quarte: corde C 171-172 et patet propositum
om.N 176 pendeant: pendentia N brachio: brachium N 179 Et
sint: sint C 180 CE et AD: CE C 184 gravia: brachia N
179 respicit: respicit quod N 193 DF et GE: DG et L.F N
194 maior: maior est C GE: LF N 196 minus om.N 198 ut:
sic N 200 equalium: parium C 201 circumvolubili: circum-
volubilibus N 203 pendens: pendentis C hoc: hec C 204 sint:
et sint C 205 CE: AC NC 208 CE: eo N 209 suo: ipso N
211 in eo om.N 213 quare: quia NC 219 cum: eius C^ 223 E r­
go: quia C 227 sint: cum sint C pondus DFG: AFG N pondus
AFG <3 231 termini: G N 231-232 D G: DCG N 249 quamcum-
que: quantumcumque C parvam om.C 250 _a moveri: C om.a
254 c: se N 259 et cetera om.C 261 fiet om.C motus: casus
NC 262 sic probatur: potest C 265 quarta: quarte C quare:
quia N 266 suppositionem om.C pendens: ponderis N 268 fa-
ciliter om.N 276 graves:, grave C 278-279 pondera proporti­
onalia: ponderibus appensis proportionalibus^ 282 et sint: et
338
VA R IA N T READINGS F O R PAGES 2 6 0 -2 7 0
sit C^ 284 post BD add.N sicut descensus ad descensum, puta
BE ad BD 288 quare: quia NC 294 sic: sicut N 297-298 cum
...eque gravia: cum brachia libre fuerint inequalia et centro
motus est equegravia N 302 que: quod CN 304 hoc quod om.N
305 equaliter: inequaliter N 306 sit: sunt N sint C 309 ter­
minis om.N 322 patet corollarium: corollarium intelligenti
patet C ex modo: modo C <023 stat: stet C_ 326 equilibris
om.N 327 et^ om.C 329 approprinquerit: appropinquetur N
330 equaliter om.N 330-331 et ponatur; pondera N 333 AB: A
N 334 ut filum: vel filum N ut ad lineam: a linea C 335 ap­
propinquet: appropinquat N 339 quantitate: qualitate N 340-
341 et directum om.N 348 volo: et volo N 358 et om.N in
qua: qua C 364 erit: est N 368 equilibris: equilibri C
369 pondus: pondus etiam C in om.C 373 quantumcumque:
quantumlibet N 374 quantumlibet: quelibet N 378 portiones:
proportiones NC 385 sit A: A N 389 sumaturque: summaque
C 396 linee: linea C 397 g: AG C 399 puncto: penso C
400 conclusionem om.C 401 dc pondus: dc C 402 sicut: sit N
403 propter om.C 404_g ad dc: dc ad de N fuit: fuerat C
408 jc: se C b^ pondus: b C 414 d et b: DC et BA NC 416 d: CD
NC 419 premissa: premissarum C_ 424 postquam: preter
quam C 425-26 Sit palmus petra: ita palmus ponitur N
428 quia om.N 429 erecta fuerit: extrema NC, reconstructed
on basis of P.10 from which Blasius copied this. 431 est: esset
C 437 totius om.C 437-438 longitudinem: longitudinis C
438 canonium om.C 444 datas: data C 446 portionis om.N
458 protraham: protrahatur C 460 Et: erit C 461 quare: quia
C 464 CG: CG constat N 465 quo: quo non C 470 quod est:
quod N 471 equalis grossiciei om.N 473 quod om.N 475 dc:
dc vel ad ed C 478 post et add.N et est 30 et add.C quod est
30 propter redundantiam, omisi 485 DE: FE C 485*486 E t...
EF om.C 487 resultat: resultant N 488 8: 6 NC 489 18: 24
N addatur: addantur C 12: 21 NC 490 30: 20 vel 30 NC 490-
491 eo quod ef om.C 491 sunt: super C 493 in: per C
497 erit: est N 498 nota et om.N 502 equatur: equaliter N
503 exceditur: extendetur N extenditur C, reconstruction by
P.13 brachium om.N 506 cuius: cuius B C^ AC: AC pondus C
508 in termino om.N 511 BF: FB vel BF C 512 e: N has BE
throughout; C has c; «^preserved from C.4, the source of this
passage 515 ab df: ad bf pondus C AD: ad NC 516 linee:
longitudine C ignote: ignota C multiplica: multiplicando C
517 ostendit: extendit C 518-519 BF se...erit om.N 520 DB:
AB N 523 fuerit: sunt C 525 subtrahitur: subtrahatur N
remanet: veniet N 529 sint: sunt C gravitatum: quantitatem C
530 et cetera om.C
339

VA RIA N T READINGS FOR PAGES 2 7 2 -2 8 2
PART III
3 Archimedes: Altiminides N Alaminides C insidentibus: inci­
dentibus NC 4 cui...academicus: cuius magnus Achademicus
Aristoteles C 7 et om.C 11 decorem: de corpore N 18 accel­
erationis: alterationis C 22 plumbo: plumbum C 24 hec: hec
et cetera N 29 “30 ut...fluxibilia om.N 33 sit quod: sint C
hec om.N 34 et om.C 38 horum: istorum N 39 procedit:
pertendit C est: erit C 40 pertingerent: pertingent N 41 de­
scendet om.N 41-42 cuius...submergatur: quod illorum plus
subiungitur N 44 contingeret: continget N 45 propter: per N
55 ponderum: pondus C residentium: residuum N 56-57 hoc...
videatur: hoc N 62 horum: hoc NC 62-63 cognoscere om.C
63 sint: sunt C 74 a om.C 75 in om.N 83 descendit sub:
movetur se C 86 a om.C 87 discooperta: decorperta N
96 sint: sic N 99 videatur: videatur liquido et videatur N
101 utroque: utroque eorum N 103 fundum aque peteret: peteret
fundum C 109 in: et in C 113 ponderare proposuimus: pondera
proportionibus N 114 sicut: quod N sic: secundum quod N
116 altero: uno N 119 natum non: per actum N 125 proportion­
em: submersionem N 126-127 Explicit...vacationum: Explicit
tractatus de ponderibus secundum magistrum Blasium de Par­
ma. 1476, 9 Januarii Neapoli, per A. de Bruxella C
APPENDIX I
Q = Oxford, Bodleian Library, Ms. Auct. F .5.28, 109r (I3c)
F = Paris, Ms. Bibi. Nat, lat. 16649, 9r-v (l6c)
B = Paris, M s. Bibi. Nat, lat. 10260, 138 r (16c)
I_ '= Vatican City, Cod. Vat. lat. 2975, 148v (l6c)
0 = Florence, Ms. Bibi. Naz. J. V. 30, 8r (l4c)
G = Paris, Ms. Bibi. Nat, lat. 11247, 43r-v (l6c)
NOTE: Q and F are the most complete. B and which are du­
plicates, contain several lacunae and some basic errors in
paragraph one. O and G are incomplete as indicated in the in­
troduction to this appendix.
1 queritur: quare BI longitudine: longitudine et tereti OG
1-2 per inequalia divisa: divisa per inequalia F per equalia
divisa EU 2 quantum sit apponendum: quoniam sunt ad ponen­
dum BI ut: et OFB 2-3 equidistat: equarent G 4 scitur:
scietur G quia: que G 5 pondus: ponendus G fine alterius:
lacuna BI fine alterius partis Q reliqua: relique OG reliquum
Q suspendetur: supponetur G superponitur Q 6 ut: lac.BI
erit Q et OFB 7 illam: eam G ad^ om.BI 9 Quia: Qui?^ G
posita: positam G 11 Quia: qui? G 12 alterum: alteram FQ
340
V A R IA N T READINGS FOR PAGES 2 8 2 -2 9 6
posito: positam F 12-13 fuerint equipollentia: equipolleant G
15 Quia: om.F ad pondus nisi om.G nisi ut: que F 16 linea
om.BI 17 post tempore Q add, est viarum: maxima F 20 mo­
vebuntur: movebuntur b 7_ _G describuntur: describetur G
21 secundum: sed G proportionem: proportionem proportio F
proportione G invenietur Q invenitur OFB 22 -que portio­
num om.G similium: similiam G 25 teretis Q longitudines
FOG lac.BI 26 igitur: ergo Q 31 et: in FOG.
APPENDIX II
Only the significant variants are here given. The following
sigla are employed:
D = Paris, Bibl. Nat., M s. lat. 14576
L = Vatican City, Codex Vattbanus Ottobonensis 176
R = Oxford, Bodleian Library, Ms. Digby 228
W = Bruges, Bibl. de la Ville, M s. 500
Z = Albertus de Saxonia: Thomae Bradvardini: nicholai horen:
Tractatus Proportionum. Paris, De Maruef, s.a.
1-5 allegata...ponderis om.WL 7 tamen: autem WL ponit:
proponit WL 9 tamen: autem WL 11-13 quod...resistitivam
om.W 15 nec aliquem: sed ad modum Z 21 minorem: maio­
rem WL 29“32 duo...maiori om.WL (homoiot.) 33 per tem­
pus: quia tempus WL 34 maiori descensui om.Z 40 esse da­
tum: auctor datus Z 43 suorum: duorum WL 44-45 sed...de-
scensuum om.Z 45 non om.WLR 47 suorum: duorum WL
49 suorum: duorum WL
APPENDIX III
N = Florence, Biblioteca Nazionale, M s. J.VI.36, fols. 2r-3r
X = Liber Iordani Nemorarii Viri Clarissimi DE PONDERIBUS
PROPOSITIONES XIII et earundem demonstrationes... edi­
tus. . . Petro Apiano. Norimbergae, per Ioannem Petreium,
% A.D. MDXXXni.
f
% 1 Prima conclusio: Propositio prima X quelibet: quelibet duo
X 1-2 velocitatis: velocitas NX, correxi 2 in om.N et om.N
ponderis: ponderum X 3 et om.N 4 permutata: mutata N
5 et sit om.X 6 et^ om.X et^: etiam X 6-7 ipsius om.X
7 ab A: ab E X 8 ab B: a B X tunc: ergo X 9 proportio om.X
10 quia om.X 10-11 si...m inor: Sin autem, semper erit minor
vel maior X 11-12 Sit...et: Si sit minor contra quia N 13 sit F:
F X 16 sequitur quod om.X 18 probabo: probabitur X 19 ex
hoc: eo X 20 descensus_a: descensus ipsius a X descensum:
341
 V A R IA N T READINGS FOR PAGES 3 0 0 -3 0 4
VA RIA NT READINGS FOR PAGES 2 9 6 - 3 0 0
Item pro sensu X 106 g: pondus X C situ: DC situm X
descensu X 21 hic om.X 22 ponderis: huius ponderis scilicet
109 CA: DC N 110 ita om.N eo: ita X 111 erit: valet X
a X pondus: e pondus X 22“24 cum...descensuum om.N 25 in
113 ratio quin: maior ratio quando X sit: erit X 114-116 proce­
om.N nihilominus: nominamus (!) N 27 videlicet om.N
dit. ..conclusionem onruN_ 116-117 probationem: probationes N
25 ponderis: ponderum X 29 eodem: isto N 29*30 Patet...
118 videtur: probo N hec: ista X sufficit: sufficiat X 119 quia:
dari om.X 30 Si...quod om.X sit maior: Si maior fuerit X
nam X ita: sic X 121-122 nihil agatur: non arguitur X 122 Er­
31 igitur om.X 32 proportio om.N probabo: probabitur X
go: item N 123 sic: isto modo X 124 unum om.X 125 quod:
33 e: ut prius probatum est X hic om.X 33*34 accidit...quod
quem X 126 g om.N 127 videtur: ut prius X quod om.X
om.N 36 conclusionis: propositionis X 37 pars om.N iste
128 per om.N 129 sufficit om.N 130 sicut: g situ sicut X
scilicet: videlicet X 38 pondus om.N in descensu om.X
idem: illud N situ C: eodem situ X 131 eque cito: econtrario X
39 Quanto enim: quia quanto N 39*40 pondus om.N 40 incli­
132 _g: om.X 133 sicut: sicut A X _b: om.N 134 deveniet: leva­
nat: inclinatur N tanto iter.N 40*41 eadem: adem N 41 ab
bit N 134 et: vel X velocitas: et velocitas X 135 habet: habe­
ascensu: ad ascensum X 42 minus inclinat: minus plus incli­
bit X C om.N 136 Archimedis: Euclidis N 138 vel circumfer­
nat N minus declinat X descensum: ascensum N eadem: adem
entiarum: qo (?) N 139 facit: faciat X cura: causa an: tan­
N 43 ab ascensu: ad ascensum X tanto om.N resistit: resist-
tum quod X 140 si om.N 141 ideo: iam X 142 Iordani: io dae
aret (!) N 45 descensum om.N que: quam N 47 ita om.N
(?) N 143 est virtutis: sit velocitatis X 144 Et...probatio om.
Ex quibus: igitur X 49 constat: constare potest X auctor: ma­
X etiam om.N 145 pro^: ad X probatione: probationem X
ior (!) X intelligit: intendit X per primam: propriam (!) X
146 assumitur ista: ista conclusio allegatur X Et hoc: Hoc igi­
50 si om.X relictum: relictum sit X aliqua: maiori X 51 mo­
tur X 146 pro... istius: ad explicationem X 148 Nunc probo:
vetur: moveretur X aliquo: altero X vel: vel aliud X
Iam igitur restat probare X prius premittebatur: post inde
51*53 faciliter...pertranseat om.X 52 nature om.N, supplevi
promisi probare N 149 habeat: habet X pondus minus: minus
53 descensus om.X 54 quam: quod N Iste enim: Sed X auctor:
X minori: maiore (!) N 150 minoris: minorem X 151 habet:
maior (^) 55 gravis: gravi N 56 equilibra: equilibri X
habebit X 152 in om.X 156 enim om.N 157 pondus sit om.X
56*57 gravis positi: gravi posita N 57 equilibre: equilibris X
161 DE: DEF X 162 supra: ad X 162-163 Cum...sicut: secun­
apparet: patet X 57*58 ex...parte: per secundam partem X
dum quod X 165 tunc erit: erit autem X octavam: nonam (?)N
58 auctor: maior (!) X 60 si...proprie om.N Sed a_: Sed X
166 igitur om.X 166-167 igitur: G _X. 168 igitur: G et X 170
61 ascendit: descendit N equilibre: equilibris X 63 nititur...
DF: D X octavam: nonam (?) N 171 proportio om.X FD: ip­
hic: maior innuit X probatur: probaretur X 64 partem om.X
sius FD X 172 ba: dba X 174 Igitur: Sufficienter igitur X
probatio: proportio N 65 equilibra: equilibri X 66*67 sicut...
174-175 Item...tricesimam: Idem igitur (probatur ex tricesima -
conclusionis om.X 67 intelligatur: sumatur X tunc om.N
quarta X 175 Campani; adutionis (?) Campanus N Archime­
68 vel: et X 68*69 manifestum est: ideo notandum X 69 in- dis _X_ 176-177 igitur: G X 177 et om.X 177-178 minor erit:
telligi: sic intelligi X 70*71 gravitas...ita om.X fhomoiot.)
maior est N 178 ED: EF N ab ad a: ab ab ad d N 179 Unde
70 a: om.N, supplevi 73 oportet: debet X 74 illud: hoc X
om.X 181-182 super...excessum om.N 182 ad: super X, cor­
verum nisi om.N est^ om.N 75 que: qui vel que N 75*76 po-
rexi supra: quam supra X descensum: excessum X 183 Hoc:
tentie: totius potentie X 76 ad: et ad X 77 quia: et X varia­ Et hoc X promisi: ab initio promisimus X superius om.X
tur: varietur X descensus: et descensus X 78 Nec aliter: al­ 183-194 et...instantia om.X 185 a. ad e: ADE N, correxi
iter non X valet: valeret X propositio: proportio sive propo­ 190 maius: magis N, correxi 191 excessum: extremum N, cor-
sitio N quia: nam X ponit: ponat N 80 auctor: et auctor X rexi
81 est: sit N 82 dato: dicto X 84 propositio: proportio N
post oportet add.N ut magis divideretur (?) 85 sit om.N APPENDIX IV
86 ad...g: et illud scii. N 91 ergo om.N ulterius: ultra N
95 sequitur: sic sequitur X 96 pondus: si pondus N situ: si­ RR = Cambridge, Ms Gonville &r Caius 504/271, 97v-100v
tum X 97 idem: illud N D: A N 99 quod: quod sicut N MM = Florence, Bibi. Naz. J. IV. 29, 6lv-67r
100 post sufficeret add.X cum maiori pondere in alio brachio U = Milan, Bibi. Ambros, T. 100 Sup., 149v-154v
eque faciliter: sufficeret X 100*101 post descendere add.X in I_ = Vatican City, Vat. lat. 2975, l64*171v
D situ 101-102 ad...brachio om.X 103 levatum: locatum X E = Paris, BN Fonds lat. 7310, 110r-121r
104 prima parte: sensu prime partis X 105 Pro sufficientia:

342
 VA RIA NT READINGS FOR PAGES 308-310

NOTE: For a discussion of the two main traditions and dates of

these manuscripts, see the Introduction to Appendix IV.

4 Sit que U sit eque IE Sitque RR b om.U 5 est om.RRMM

ad CB U ad ACB RR ab ACB MM 6 in alteram: in aliquam U
inquam RRMM regula: regulam IE 7 transeat: transit MM
8 d ut a: dua E 9 EH RR EB U 14-11 oponetur _I 14-1 The
proper theorem in the Campanus edition is 1,15 not 1,22.
15- 1 In Campanus, 1,26 not 1,37 as in RR. or 1,32 as in MM.
16- 17-11 simile proiecto CB U sic hoc protracto OB E
19-20-11 intrinsecus JE intrinsece U 26“II positi IE poni U_
3 7 -II sint: sunt IE 44-45 L ...punctum om.MM 45 _a om.RR
46 quod falsum est om.UE 47 ut U sic RR esset RR esse U
fieret RR fiet U ad situm RR adsint UE 48 supra ostensum
RR preostensum UE. C R IT IC A L NOTES

344
 NOTES TO PAGES 3 - 4

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

PART I
1. For the general objectives of physics in the Middle Ages,
see M. Clagett, “Some General Aspects of Medieval Physics,"
Isis 39 (1948), pp. 29-44.
2. Standard treatments in early statics are those of Giovanni
Vailati, Scritti, Leipzig, 19U (where articles dating back to
1897 are reproduced); P. Dahem, Les Origines de la statique,
l, Paris, 1905; and Ernst Mach, The Science of Mechanics,
English translation from the German ninth edition, LaSalle,
Illinois, 1942, particularly pp. 11-32.
3. There has been considerable discussion by Mach, Vailati
and others of the role of experience in the formation of the
postulates and propositions leading to the proof of the gen­
eral law of the lever. See a discussion of this point in the
additions made by Mach, op. cit., edit, cit., pp. 27-28. Cf. V.
Lenzen’ s note in Isis, vol. 17 (1932), pp. 288-89. For the Eng­
lish text of Archimedes’ proof see T. L. Heath, The Works of
Archimedes, Cambridge, 1897, pp. 188-194. The most import­
ant of the postulates is the first, which Heath translates as
follows: "Equal weights at equal distances are in equilib­
rium, and equal weights at unequal distances are not in
equilibrium but incline towards the weight which is at the
greater distance." The next most important part of Archi­
medes’ proof stems ultimately from proposition 4, which
Heath paraphrases: “If two equal weights have not the same
center of gravity, the center of gravity of both taken togeth­
er is at the middle point of the line joining their centers of
gravity." Proof of the most essential part of this proposition
was probably given in a lost treatise of Archimedes On
Levers. This proposition is generalized for the centers of
gravity of any number of odd and even magnitudes in corol­
laries l and 2 to proposition 5. Hence Archimedes easily
passes from the basic postulates (particularly postulate l)
and the corollaries of proposition 5 to propositions 6 and 7,
which taken together constitute the general law of the lever.
Heath has paraphrased them thus: “IWo magnitudes, whether
commensurable or incommensurable, balance at distances
reciprocally proportional to the magnitudes."
k 4. Aristotle (? ), Mechanical Problems, 3, 850a (translation of
E. S. Forster, Oxford, 1913): “Now since a longer radius moves
more quickly than a shorter one under pressure of an equal
weight, and since the lever requires three elements, viz.,
the fulcrum—corresponding to the cord of a balance and
forming the center—and two weights, that exerted bytheper-

347
 NOTES T O PAGES 4 - 9
son using the lever and the weight which is to be moved;
this being so, as the weight moved is to the weight moving
it, so, inversely, is the length of the arm bearing the weight
to the length of the arm nearer to the power. The further
one is from the fulcrum, the more easily will one raise the
weight; the reason being that which has already been stated,
namely, that a longer radius describes a larger circle. So
with the exertion of the same force the motive weight will
change its position more than the weight which it moves, be­
cause it is further from the fulcrum.”
5. Mechanics, chap. 1, has already defined “quicker” as follows:
“Now we use the word ‘quicker’ in two senses; if an object
traverses an equal distance in less time, we call it quicker,
and also if it traverses a greater distance in equal time.
Now the greater radius describes a greater circle in equal
time, for the outer circumference is greater than the inner."
It is in the second sense of the word quicker that the author
is using it in his explanation of the law of the lever.
6. Even clearer expression of the principle of virtual velocities
as underlying simple machines is found in the Mechanics of
Hero, Bk. II, chaps. 22-26 (For English translation see M.
Cohen and I. Drabkin, A Source Book in Greek Science, New
York, 1948, pp. 232-35.)
PART II
1. Cf. Ernest A. Moody, “Galileo and Avempace: The Dynamics
of the Leaning Tower Experiment," Journal of the History of
Ideas, Vol. XII, Nos. 2-3 (April, June 1951), pp. 163-193 and
- 375-422. C f.also A. Koyre, Etudes Galileennes, Paris 1939.
2. Pierre Duhem, Etudes sur Leonard de Vinci, 3 vols., Paris
1906-1913 (especially vol. 3); Le Systeme du Monde, 5 vols.,
Paris 1913-1916 (especially vols. 3-5); and Les Origines de la
Statique, 2 vols., Paris 1905-1906.
3. This is the verdict of Anneliese Maier, who has retraced the
steps of Duhem in a very careful and scholarly manner, add­
ing much new material from her own manuscript studies.
Her chief works in this field bear the following titles: Das
Problem der intensiven Grosse in der Scholastik, Leipzig
1939; Die Impetustheorie der Scholastik, Wien 1940; An der
Grenze von Scholastik und Naturwissenschaft, Essen 1943;
Die Vorlaufer Galileis im 14. Jahrhundert, Rome 1949; Zwei
Grnndprobleme der scholastischen Naturphilosophie (sec­
ond and revised edition of the first two works listed above),
Rome 1951.
4. Cf. B. Ginzberg, ‘ Duhem and Jordanus Nemorarius," Isis,
Vol. 25 (Sept. 1936), pp. 341-362. Ginzberg’s criticism of
348
NOTES T O PAGES 9 - 2 4
Duhem’ s work seems to rest mostly on a priori prejudices,
and on a confusion of the texts on which Duhem based his
findings. Cf. infra, p. 392, Note to lines 143-161 of the De
ratione ponderis, Part I.
5. For detailed titles of these previous printed texts, see Bib­
liography.
6. On Moerbeke’ s translations of Archimedes, cf. A. Birken-
majer, Vermischte Untersuchungen, Munster 1922, pp. 1-32.
7. F . Buchner, “Die Schrift liber den Qarastun von Thabit ben
Qurra,” Sitzungsberichte der Physikalisch-medizinischen
Sozietat in Erlangen, Bd. 52-53 (1920-1921), Erlangen 1922,
pp. 141-188.
8. Cf. infra, Appendix II, for the Bradwardine text.
9. Ernst Mach, The Science of Mechanics, transl. by T. J. Me
Cormack, 2nd ed., Chicago 1902, pp. 8“85. Mach is quite crit­
ical of the Archimedean proof of the general lever principle,
holding that it could not be derived from Archimedes’ lim ­
ited set of postulates unless the latter are construed as al­
ready expressing the principle—in which case it is not dem­
onstrated except by a petitio principii.
10. Cf. P. Duhem, Les Origines de la Statique, vol. I, Paris 1905,
p p .27-29, 49-51, 182-193, 257-258, 272-279, 303-311, 315-316,
and 329 “332, for the history of these attempts to solve the
inclined plane problem.
11. P. Duhem, Les Origines de la Statique, vol. I, Paris 1905,
Chs. 9-10, pp. 194-235.
DE PONDEROSO
INTRODUCTION
1. F. Woepcke, “Notice sur des traductions arabes de deux
ouvrages perdus d’ Euclide," in Journal Asiatique, 4e Serie,
XVIII (1851), Paris. This work ascribed to Euclid is analyzed
in some detail by P. Duhem, “Les Origines de la Statique, ”
I, Jhris 1905, pp.62-7; cf.p. 59, for a desc ription of its content.
2. George Sarton, Introduction to the History of Science, Vol. I,
Baltimore 1927, p. 156.
3. Cf. F. Buchner, “ Die Schrift iiber den Qarastun von Thabit
ben Qurra,” in Sitzungsbe richte der Physikalisch-medizini-
schen Sozietat in Erlangen, Bd. 52-53 (1920-21), pp. 148-53.
Also cf. Introduction to our edition of Thabit’ s Liber Kara-
stonis.
4. P. Duhem, Origines de la Statique, I, p. 70, holds that the
author of the Liber Euclidis de ponderoso et levi espouses
the thesis that bodies of the same density, but of unequal vol­
ume, will fall at unequal speeds proportional to their vol-
349
 NOTES TO PAGES 2 4 -2 6
umes. This claim seems to me unjustified by the text, and
to be based on the supposition (not made by the author of the
treatise) that speed of fall is uniquely determined by the
“power" or scalar weight of the body, rather than by the ratio
of its power to that of the medium displaced. Since the vol­
ume of medium displaced, in a fall through some given dis­
tance, varies proportionately to the volume of the body which
falls through it, an increase in the size of the falling body,
without any increase in its density, will leave the ratio of its
power (or weight) to that of the displaced medium unchanged,
and will consequently not make any change in the speed with
which it will fall through that medium.
5. Cf. Introduction to our edition of the Liber Karastonis of
Thabit ibn Qurra, p. 82.
6. Cf. Introduction to our edition of the Liber Karastonis of
of Thabit ibn Qurra, p. 82.
TEXT
Lines
1-16 The definitions and postulates require little explanation. The
first three postulates define “size” (magnitudo) in the sense of
volume, in terms of the dimensions of the external place (locus)
occupied by a body. “Place" is here understood in the Aristote­
lian sense, as “containing body," and not in the sense of a void
substratum coextensive with the body said to be “in” the place.
Cf. Aristotle, Physics IV, ch. 4. The 4th, 5th and 6th postulates
define “force" (virtus or fortitudo), in the sense of the power of
a heavy body to fall downward, or of a light body to rise upward,
in a given corporeal medium. Two bodies are said to be of equal
force if they traverse equal “places " in the same medium, in the
same time. These equal amounts of “place" are to be understood
not merely as linear distances, but as volumes of the medium
displaced by the fall of the heavy body; they are therefore m eas­
ured by the product of the volume of medium equal to the volume
of the falling body, by the linear distance of the fall. This is in­
dicated by Postulate 3, which states that the size of the body de­
termines the size of its place. The 7th, 8th, and 9th postulates
define identity and diversity of “kind" of heavy or light body, by
equality or inequality of their forces of downward or upward
movement for equal volumes of the bodies compared, and as de­
termined by the time they require to traverse a given distance
through the same medium. This gives a kinetic basis for defin­
ing density, as “force" divided by volume, rather than as mass
(in the modern sense) divided by volume.
17-22 Theorem I states the inverse relationship to that stated in
Postulate 5. Whereas this postulate defined force in terms of
350
NOTES TO PAGES 28-31
the time required to traverse equal amounts of “place," this
theorem concludes, from Postulate 5, that the body of greater
force will traverse the greater amount of “place" in the same
time required by a body of lesser force to traverse a lesser
amount of place.” In contrast to the modern notion of force, as
something acting on the falling body and measured by the mass
(and the differential rate of acceleration) of the body which falls,
the Aristotelian tradition conceived the force of the heavy body
to be the power of the body itself to push aside the corporeal
medium blocking its way. The measure of this power could be
expressed only in relative or comparative terms, according to
the greater or less period of time required for overcoming a
greater or less quantity of resistance, the latter being conceived
(in the case of free fall) as the volume of corporeal medium of
some given density which is pushed aside (or accelerated from
rest) during the time of the fall.
23~38 The second and third theorems state that where bodies are of
the same kind (so that the ratio of their “forces" to their vol­
umes is the same), then their forces are proportional to their
volumes. This is obviously so, in view of the definition of same­
ness of kind. It should be noted, however, that although 10 lbs. of
lead has twice the “force” of 5 lbs. of lead, the linear distance
through which it will fail, in a given medium, in a given time,
will be the same as that traversed by the 5 lbs. of lead in the
same medium and in the same time; for the 10 lbs. of lead has
twice the volume of the 5 lbs.of lead(since theyare the same in
“kind"), and hence its double force, encountering a double amount
of resisting medium, will require as much time to traverse a
given linear distance as will be used by the 5 lbs. of lead in
overcoming the resistance of half that volume of medium. Fail­
ure to take account of the fact that resistance is measured by
the whole quantity (i.e., volume) of medium pushed aside, and
not merely by linear distance alone, seems to account for Du-
hern’ s contention that the author of this treatise upheld the the­
ory» attacked by Benedetti and Galileo, that the speed of free fall
in a corporeal medium depends on gross weight rather than on
the density of the falling body relatively to that of the medium.
Cf.P.Duhem , Les Origines de la Statique, I (Paris 1905), p. 70.
39-44 The fourth theorem, required in the proof of the fifth, merely
states that two bodies which are the same in kind as a third,
are the same in kind as each other.
45-50 Theorem V is the converse of Theorem III; it states that if
force is proportional to volume, for two bodies, then the two
bodies are the same in kind. This follows immediately from the
definition of “sameness in kind," provided by Postulates 7-8 .
The sixth theorem which F . Buchner translated from a manu-
351
 NOTES TO PAGES 3 5 - 3 8
NOTES TO PAGES 3 8 - 4 0
script known to him, draws the remaining conclusion that if two
bodies of unequal volume are of equal force, the body of smaller account. It is interesting that Proposition IV of the pseudo-
volume must be denser than the other. On our assumption that Archimedean De insidentibus in humidum presents the meth­
the force of the falling body is measured by the volume of m e­ od here presumed to have been actually used by Archimedes.
dium it must penetrate, it would follow that the body of smaller For Archimedes’ Proposition VII, which corresponds to Prop­
osition I of the medieval treatise, see p. 237 of the Cohen
volume but of equal force (by its greater density) would traverse
a greater linear distance in given time, through a given medium, and Drabkin volume; the account given by Vitruvius is also
translated in that volume, on p. 239.
than the body of larger volume—a lb. of lead would fall faster
8. "Wiedemann discusses these treatises in a series of articles
than a lb. of wood, in a corporeal medium such as air. Speed, in
appearing in Sitzungsberichte of the Physical-Medical Soci­
this Aristotelian dynamics, depends on the ratio of the “natures”
ety at Erlangen for the years 1902-1906.
or densities of falling body and medium, since the volume of re­
sistant medium which must be pushed aside, in a given linear 9. This treatise was edited in the Journal Asiatique, 7th series,
Vol. 13, (1879).
distance of fall, keeps a constant relation to the volume of the
10. Wiedemann, Sitzungsberichte, 1906, note, pp. 10-12.
body which falls through it. In the case of weights on a balance,
11. Ibid.
however, this constant proportionality of "m over” and “ moved”
12. See Paris, BN MS lat. 7190, 8lr et seq.
with respect to volume, no longer obtains; and it is with the
problem of weights on lever arms, for the most part, that the
TEXT
mediaeval treatises De ponderibus were concerned. Yet it was
Lines
taken for granted that the underlying dynamic principles were
1-22 The first five definitions describe the type of balance known
the same in the two types of phenomena; and this assumption,
eventually justified, was both a hindrance and a stimulus to the as a trutina, used in weighing precious metals and objects of
slow progress of the science of mechanics. small weight. This is an equal-armed balance,from each end of
which there hangs a small tray, or weighing-pan. The object to
DE INSIDENTIBUS be weighed is placed on one of these pans, and its weight is de­
termined by placing in the other pan as many small unit counter­
weights as are needed to bring the scale into balance. The min­
INTRODUCTION
1. Cf. Simplicius, Commentary on Aristotle *s De caelo, Heiberg imum counterweight, in the Roman system, was the calcus(here
ed. pp. 710.14-711.IZ; translated into English, in “A Source called calculus). According to Isidore of Seville (Etymologiar­
Book in Greek Science,” by M. R. Cohen and I. E. Drabkin, um XVI, 25), the calcus is the “minima pars ponderis," having
this name because it was conceived to> be about what the weight
N. Y „ 1948, pp. 247-8.
2. M. Curtze, “Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Physik im 14. of a grain of powdered chalk would be. It takes 192 calci to make
Jahrhundert,” Bibliotheca Mathematica, Neue Folge X (1896), an ounce (uncia), and since the Roman pound (libra) contains
twelve ounces, there are 2304 calci in a pound. Other small
p. 43.
3. M. Clagett, “ The Use of the Moerbeke Translations of A r ­ units of weight included the obolus (=4 calci), the scripulus or
scrupulus (= 8 calci) corresponding to the Greek “gramma"; the
chimedes e tc .,” Isis, 43 (1952).
4. See M. Grabmann, Guglielmo di Moerbeke O.P. etc., Roma, solidum (= 4 scripuli), and the stater or half-ounce (= 6 solidi).
This system is also described in the treatise De ponderibus et
1946, p. 59.
mensuris of the grammarian Priscian of Caesarea (ca. 500 A.D.)t
5. Isidori Hispalensis Etymologiarum sive Originum Libri XX,
and in the Carmen de ponderibus ascribed to Priscian by some
edited by W. M. Lindsay, Oxford 1911; Vol. II, Lib. XVI, 25-27.
mediaeval manuscripts, and printed in the edition of his works
6. Cf. L. Thorndike, History of Magic and Experimental Science,
Vol. I, N .Y . 1929, pp. 761-2; and C. H. Haskins, Medieval Sci­ edited by Donatus of Verona, published at Venice in 1527. That
our present treatise follows Isidore of Seville rather than the
ence, Cambridge, M ass., 1927, p. 30.
Carmen de ponderibus is indicated by the fact that this latter
7. Cohen and Drabkin, op. cit., p. 239, Note l, suggest that the
work takes the semiobolus (which Isidore regards as equivalent
method actually employed by Archimedes may have been the
to two calci) as the minimum measure of weight, whereas our
one involving the weighing of the three bodies inboth air and
present treatise follows Isidore in taking the calcus as the
in water, rather than the method indicated in Vitruvius’
smallest unit.
352
353
 NO TES TO PAGES 4 0 - 4 4
23-24 Definition 6 gives the generic meaning of heavy (grave) by
stating that we call heavy all bodies which naturally descend, in
contrast to those bodies which naturally ascend. Presumably we
are to understand this in the sense in which Aristotle (De caelo
IV, ch. 4, 3lla 15-b 13) distinguishes the “ absolutely heavy” and
the “absolutely light," as bodies such as descend, or ascend, in
both of the two “natural” media of air and water. Wood, for ex­
ample, which descends in air but rises in water, is neither heavy
nor light in the absolute sense, but is considered by Aristotle to
be both heavy and light, in a relative sense, depending on which
of the two natural fluid media it is in.
25-41 Definitions 7-11 distinguish two senses of relative weight: (a)
where one body is heavier than another in gross weight, ir r e ­
spective of the volumes of the bodies compared; (b) where one
body is heavier than another “in its kind" (secundum speciem).
The first sense, called gravitas secundum numerositatem, is
clearly defined. The second sense, called "specific gravity"
(secundum speciem) is not explicitly defined here, though it re­
ceives an explicit definition inFbstulates 3-6 , in the second part
of the treatise (cf. lines 51-57).
42-47 Definitions 12-14 contrast the two relations between bodies,
i.e ., their relation according to weight, and their relation ac­
cording to volume; and the ratio of one quantity to another is de­
fined as numerically determined by the ratio between the number
of times that some common measure is contained in each of the
quantities.
48-57 These postulates state the physical assumptions required in
the proofs of the subsequent theorems. On Postulate I, and its
implicit contradiction of Aristotle’ s position as given in the De
caelo, cf. our remarks in the Introduction to this text (ante,p .35,
and Note l). Postulates 3, 4 and 6 offer a clear “topological"
definition of specific gravity.
58-81 Proposition I is essentially the same as the seventh Proposi­
tion of the authentic treatise of Archimedes On Floating Bodies,
though the proof is not quite the same. As we have pointed out
in the introduction not only does the proof of this proposition
differ from the proof given in the Archimedes’ work but the
Latin phraseology of the proposition differs markedly from the
Latin phraseology of Moerbeke’s translation of the seventh Prop­
osition of Archimedes’ On Floating Bodies.
82-94 Proposition II utilizes Prop. I, together with Postulate 4, to
show that the ratio of the volumes of two solids is as the ratio
between the excesses of their weights in air over their weights
in water. We may note that Props. V and VI, which invoke this
theorem in their proofs, cite it as “the third proposition." This
indicates that the order of the theorems, as given in our manu­
354
NOTES T O PAGES 4 4 -4 6
scripts and in the Trojanus edition, does not represent the or­
iginal order. Possibly the theorem which in our text appears as
Prop. Ill, was originally Prop. II, and our second theorem orig­
inally placed third. Or possibly the extra Proposition given in
BN 7377B as Proposition II was the original Proposition. As we
have noted in the introduction this proposition is essentially that
of Proposition V of Archimedes’ On Floating Bodies. It tells us
that a body floating in water displaces a weight of water equal
to itself. No proof of this Proposition is given in the aforemen­
tioned manuscript. It should be noticed that in the case of the
extra proposition,as in the case of Proposition I, the Latin phra­
seology differs completely from the phraseology of the equiva­
lent proposition of Archimedes in the Moerbeke translation. It
is possible that the extra passage appended to the last proposi­
tion of the work as given in BN 7377B and as reproduced in the
variant readings above (post line 219), originally formed a part
of the explanation if not proof of this extra proposition. The in­
tention of the additional passage is to show all three cases of
bodies in fluids, namely, the case where the density of the body
is less than that of the fluid, the case where it is equal to that
of the fluid, and finally, the case where it is more than that of
the fluid. A possible confirmation of the suggestion that this
added passage belongs to the explanation of the extra proposition
is found in Johannes de Muris’ chapter derived from the De in­
sidentibus in humidum,fo r there Johannes repeats the proposi­
tion regarding a floating body displacing its weight of water and
he gives as an explanation a passage very closely similar to the
extra passage of BN 7377B. The possible assumption, then, is
that our added passage appeared in some manuscript as an ex­
planation of the floating body proposition.
95-110 Proposition III is based on Prop. I and on the postulates. It
shows how the ratio of specific gravities of two liquids may be
determined from the ratio of the excesses of the weight of some
single body, in air, over its weights in each of the two liquids.
This yields an alternative method of measuring the densities of
liquids, to the method of the hydrometer. The hydrometer, never­
theless, was described in the Carmen de ponderibus, and in the
medieval work known as the Mappe clavicula, so that it too might
have been known to the author of our treatise.
Ul-122 Proposition IV gives the method of solving the Golden Crown
problem which rests directly on the Archimedean principle
stated in Prop. I of our treatise (and in Prop. VII of the authentic
treatise of Archimedes On Floating Bodies). This solution, dif­
ferent from the one indicated by Vitruvius, is most obviously
suggested by the principle stated in Archimedes’ own work.
Attention is called to the fact that some of the manuscripts
355
 NOTES TO P A G E 46
lacked any proof of Proposition IV and the fact that Proposition
IV circulated independently of the rest of the treatise. A further
point to notice is that in at least two cases already mentioned in
the introduction, a scribe or editor has filled in a proof using
Proposition VII. It is, of course, possible that Proposition IV did
not belong to the original treatise but was an additional frag-
mentjperhaps translated from the Greek, which a later editor in­
serted in compiling the treatise as we know it.
It is of interest to compare the solution of the Golden Crown
problem here suggested, with the method described in the Car­
men de ponderibus (fol. 277 recto, edition of 1527), in these lines:
Nunc aliud partum ingenio trademus eodem
Argentum fulvo si quis permisceat auro
Quantum id sit, quove id possis deprendere pacto
Prima syracusii mens prodidit alta magistri.
Regem namque ferunt siculam quam voverat olim
Caelicolum regi ex auro statuisse coronam,
Comperto dehinc furto, nam parte retenti
Tantumdemque argenti opifex immiscuit auro,
Orasse ingenium civis, qui mente sagaci
Quis modus argenti fulvo latitaret in auro
Repperit, illaeso quod diis erat ante dicatum.
Quod te quale siet, paucis adverte docebo.
Lancibus aequatis quibus haec appendere mos est,
Argenti atque auri, quod edax purgaverit ignis
Impones libras, neutrum ut praeponderet, hasque
Summittes in aquam, quam pura ut ceperit unda,
Protinus inclinat pars haec, quae sustinet aurum;
Pensius hoc namque est, simulare crassius unda.
At tu siste iugum, mediique e cardine centri
Intervalla nota, quantum discerpserit illinc,
Quotque notis distet suspenso pondere filum,
Fac drachmis distare tribus, cognovimus ergo
Argenti atque auri discrimina, denique libram
Libra tribus drachmis superat, cum mergitur unda.
Sume dehinc aurum, cui pars argentea mixta est
Argentique meri par pondus, itemque sub unda
Lancibus impositum specta, propensior auri
Materies, subsistet enim furtumque docebit.
Nam si ter senis superabitur altera drachmis,
Sex solas libras auri dicemus inesse,
Argenti reliquum, quia nil in pondere differt
Argentum argento, liquidis cum mergitur undis,
Haec eadem puro deprendere possumus auro
Si par corrupti pondus, pars altera gestet.
Nam quotiens ternis pars illibata gravarit
356
NOTES T O PAGES 4 6 - 5 0
Correptam drachmis sub aquam, totidem esse notabis
Argenti libras, quas fraus permiscuit auro.
Pars etiam librae quaevis si forte supersit
Haec quoque drachmarum simili tibi parte notetur
Nec non et sine aquis.
The method described in these verses may be briefly stated
in the following manner. We first suspend masses of pure gold
and of pure silver, each weighing one pound, on the arms of a
balance. Then we submerge the balance in water, with these
weights attached, and it is seen that the arm holding the gold
will descend. By shifting the suspension cord to a point on the
balance beam, such that the two masses come into balance in
the water, we may determine the difference between their weights
in water by means of the distance between this point of suspen­
sion and the center of the balance beam. We will suppose that
this difference is indicated as one of 3 drachmas. Next we place
the alloyed crown on one arm of our balance, and a mass of pure
silver on the other arm, in such manner that they balance when
the beam is suspended from its mid point, in the air. Then we
submerge the balance under the water; the crown, having gold
mixed with silver in its composition, will then outweigh the mass
of pure silver, when weighed in water. We will again shift the
suspension cord so as to bring them into balance, and determine
the difference in weight, in drachmas, as before. Suppose that
this difference is 18 drachmas. Then, since it is by 3 drachmas
that each pound of pure gold outweighs a pound of silver, under
waiter, we know that there must be 6 pounds of pure gold in the
crown, since the silver in the crown does not outweigh the silver
in the other mass of pure silver.
Essentially this is the method of our Proposition IV, though
it is not as simple in form and procedure. It is to be noted that
neither of these two methods requires any direct antecedent
measure of the volumes of the metals compared, such as would
be given by use of the “overflow" method associated with Vitru­
vius’ story of Archimedes in his bath.
123-141 Proposition V, which rests on Prop. I and Prop. II (here cited
as the "third proposition"), shows how the ratio of two bodies,
in respect of volume and also in respect of specific gravity, may
be determined by comparison of their weights in air with their
weights in water.
142-163 Proposition VI extends the problem of Prop. V to the case
where one body is lighter than the liquid, and the other heavier.
The proof rests, as before, on Props. I and II.
164-185 Proposition VII appears to be a “ mathematical lemma” to
the problem tackled in the eighth and last theorem. It may be
exhibited in symbolic notation as follows:
357
 NOTES T O PAGES 5 0 -5 2 NOTES T O PAGES 5 2 -6 6

Given 3 quantities, A, B, and C, such that A > C > B, let us (1) Let L = B.(I+K), and let M = C.(I+K)
assign the letter D to indicate the difference A - C, and the letter Let N = F.(I+K), and let O = G.(I+K)
E to indicate the difference C - B. Then A - B = D + E. Let this Let P = A.K, and let Q = E.K
quantity, A " B, or D + E, be called F . We then wish to prove that (2) Then P:Q = A:E
F.C = E.A + D.B (3) Let R = D.I, and let S = H.I
(1) Let E.A = G; then G = E.D + E.C (4) Then R:S = D:H
And let E.D = K, and E.C = H; then G = K + H (5) Since P /K = A, and since R /l = D, and since A = D, it follows
(2) Let D.C = L; then L = D.E + D.B that P:K = R:I, and therefore (by alternation) P:R = K:I
And let D.E = N, and let D.B = M; then L = N + M (6) A:B = E:F (since these are ratios of weight to volume, of
(3) K = N (since K = E.D, and N = D.E) bodies of the same specific gravity—i.e ., both being pure
(4) But G = K + H, and therefore G =H + N (By l and 3 above) gold).
(5) Therefore G + M = H + N + M (Adding M to each side of 4) Multiplying both sides of this equation by —------, we
(6) But N + M = L; therefore G + M = H + L (By 2 above) A.K E.K . „ I+K
(7) Substitute A.E for G, D.B for M, E.C for H, and D.C for L. iiaVe B (I+K ) = F (I+K ) * r° m this, by substitution
Then A.E + D.B = E.C + D.C we obtain the equation P:L = Q:N. Consequently
(8) But since E.C + D.C = F.C (A:B s E :F ) = (P:L = Q:N)
Therefore F.C = E.A + D.B Q.E.D. (7) D:C = H:G (since these are ratios of weight to volume of
36-219 This proposition is apparently an attempt by the mediaeval bodies of the same specific gravity, namely bodies of pure
author of our treatise to outdo all previous methods of solving silver). T
the Golden Crown problem. For he seeks to contrive a solution Multiplying both sides of this equation by we have
which will not require that the bodies be weighed in any medium D.I H.I I+K’
other than air. This method does however require that the C.(l+K) ~ G.(I+K)
masses weighed be of equal volume; hence it requires that we From this, by substitution, we obtain R:M = S :0 .
have a means of determining the volume of irregular solids, Consequently(D:C = H:G) = (R:M = S:0)
such as would be provided by the “overflow” method described Here the text ends, with the proof incomplete. Curtze’ s text,
by Vitruvius and associated with the story of Archimedes and from Cod. Dresd. Db 86, adds a sentence which belongs verbatim
his bath. to the third Proposition of the pseudo-Euclidean De ponderoso
We may attempt to represent the argument of the text, in et levi,and which is followed in turn by the fourth and fifth Prop­
symbolic manner, as follows: ositions of that work.
Let the pure gold be A, and the pure silver D, and the alloy BC
(with B representing the quantity of gold in this alloy, and C the DE CANONIO
quantity of silver in it). We will then represent the weight of A
by E, the weight of D by H, and the weight of BC by FG (with F INTRODUCTION
representing B ’ s weight and G representing C ’ s weight). It is 1. P. Duhem, Les Origines de la Statique, Vol. I, Paris 1905,
then plain that A:E = B :F , and that D:H = C:G, since A and B are pp. 93-97.
gold, while D and C are silver. And it is also evident that E> 2. F . Woepcke, “Notice sur des traductions arabes de deux
FG > H, since gold is of greater specific gravity than silver. ouvrages perdus d’ Euclide,” in Journal Asiatique, 4e Serie,
We now represent the difference, E - FG, by I, and the differ­ t.18, p.217 ff.,185l. Duhem, op. cit. pp.62 -66, gives an analysis
ence FG - H, by K. Our problem then is to prove the following of the treatise translated by Woepcke, on which I have de­
equation: pended for my own description given here.
B:C = K:I
The proof, as given in the text, is not oomplete, and I have TEXT
made no attempt to complete it. The steps given in the text may Lines
be symbolized as follows: 1 - 3 7 The first theorem, and its method of proof, is of an Archi­
medean type, as was the proof of the lever principle given in the
“Book of Euclid on the Balance” edited by Woepcke, which we

358 359
 NOTES TO PAGES 6 6 - 7 2 NOTES T O PAGES 7 2 - 7 4

described in the Introduction to the present text. Given the bal­ sought, i.e ., the same as z), is called BZ, then we have this
ance beam AB, of symmetrical form and uniform material, di­ equation:
vided into a shorter segment AG and a longer segment GB by BZ _ AB
the point of suspension G, and given a weight :z which, when sus­ GB - AG “ 2.AG
pended from the end of the shorter arm at A, holds the beam in (3) The third method, which is quite algebraic, yields this form­
equilibrium, then the following equation is asserted to hold (the ula:
small underlined letters designate weights, and the capital Ro­ -iP A -~-A P I + (g B - AG) = BZ = z
man letters lengths): AD v 1 ~
25 SB 25 AB 150-193 The fourth theorem develops the method for solving the con­
(gb - ag) = 2.AG — db " AD verse problem from that of Theorem III. Namely, when the weight
Note, on lines 25-26, the reference to “those books which speak (here called ejis given, and the length and weight of the balance
of these matters,” in justification of the principle that if equal beam as a whole, are given, to find the point at which the beam
weights are suspended at two points on one arm of a balance, must be suspended in order to be in equilibrium when the weight
they maybe replaced by a single weight equal to their sum, sus­ e^ is hung from the end of the shorter arm. The method here is
pended at the point midway between them. This principle ap­ to assume an additional length of bar (of like material and thick­
peared as an axiom in the “Book of Euclid on the Balance” which ness with the balance beam), as an extension of the longer arm.
Woepcke edited; it also occurs in the pseudo-Euclidean fragment This additional segment is called BZ,and it is assumed to be of
which we have edited in Appendix I, and which is perhaps a relic the same weight as the given weight e_ which was suspended
of the Cause Charastonis on which Thabit ibn Qurra based his from the end of the shorter arm. Thus we are given the weight
Liber Karastonis, and which Duhem conceived to be a lost work e, the length of the beam AB, and the weight of the beam which
by Ptolemy's son Heriston. we designate as ab. The problem is then to determine the
Lines 33-34 invoke the authority of Archimedes and Euclid, ■it
lengths of AG and of GB relatively to the given length AB. The
for the general lever principle. Our second manuscript, Cod. proof may be symbolized as follows:
Vat. Reg, 126,1, replaces this reference with the statement “as (1) bz : db = e_ : db (Since bz = e^, by hypothesis)
was demonstrated in the next to the last of the above demon­ (2) e : db - AB : AD (By Theorem II)
strations.” This reference is to Proposition 8 of the Elementa (3) bz : db = BZ : DB (Since the segments are of uniform thick­
Jordani de ponderibus (which is a demonstration of the general ness and material, so that weight is proportional to length)
lever law); presumably the text contained in this manuscript was (4) Therefore, BZ _ AB
copied from a version which had been sewed on to the 9 propo­ DB AD
sition version of the Liber de ponderibus of Jordanus. (5) And BZ DB
38~64 This second theorem is merely the converse of the first one, AB (By alternation)
AD
and rests on the same fundamental equation: (6) And BZ 4 AB DB 4 AD
•J; AB (By composition)
- - AB AD
gb - ag 2. AG 3 _ AZ AB
65-149 The third theorem develops several methods of solving the AB AD
equation established in the first theorem, for the case where ABZ
(7) Therefore AD
the weight 2^ is not given, but where the length and weight of the AZ
balance beam, as well as the ratio of the segments into which it But AZ is known, since AB was given, while BZ is computed
£ ^
is divided, are given. Three different methods are offered, with through the formula ----- , so that AZ = =!----- 4 AB. Likewise,
different forms of proof: (l) The first method solves the equation ab ab
used in Theorems I — XI, for 2^; (2) The second method determines since AB was given, we can compute ABZ. Consequently, by the
the weight of by determining the length of a bar, of the same above equation (7), we can determine AD; and since AG is half
thickness and material as the balance beam, which would bear of AD, we can determine the length AG. Finally, since AB was
the same ratio to the excess length of the longer arm over the given, and GB = AB - AG, we can determine the length of the
shorter, as the whole beam does to twice the shorter arm. Thus, other arm GB. And this is what was to be demonstrated.
if the length of this bar (whose weight will be that which is
361
360
 NOTES TO PAGES 7 4 - 8 4 NOTES T O PAGES 8 8 -9 0

At the end of this demonstration, an alternative formulation TEXT

is offered, which may be expressed as follows: Lines
l “36 The introductory section is missing in the extant Arabic ver­
AB2 sions. But that it is genuinely Arabic can hardly be doubted, for
2. AG
e.AB it abounds inArabacisms that show through the Latin. The open­
+ AB ing sentence, “ May God preserve you and increase your health"
ab
f is clearly the translation of a common Arabic optative phrase,
LIBER KARASTONIS such as hafazakum ’allahu wa tawwala ’umrakum or some sim ­
ilar expression. The same can be said for the parenthetical
phrase, “May God direct you and illuminate the understanding
INTRODUCTION of your heart." The use of iam with the perfect, so common in
L. P. Duhem, Les Origines de la statique, Vol. I, Paris, 1905,
this text, and evident here in the introduction in the phrase iam
pp. 80-89, 353-354.
2. Ibid, 86~7; cf. Simplicius, in Aristotelis Physicorum libros... scivisti, is a rendering probably of qad with the perfect, thus
commentaria, VII, 5 (Edition Diels, Berlin, 1895, p. IU0). qad ’ araftum. There are numerous other places which are not
“natural" Latin, but seem to be Arabic in their structure. I have
3. Duhem, Origines, I, 353
4. See note by H. Diels appended to E . Wiedemann, ‘‘ Ueber already pointed out the importance of this introduction for e s­
Thabit ben Qurra, e tc .," Sitzber. d. Phys. Mediz, Sozietaet in tablishing the fact that this work is in essence a commentary
Erlangen, vol. 52, 1920, (publ. 1922), pp, 218*219. by Thabit on a Greek original.
5. Wiedemann, op. cit. in note 4,189*219. cf. also the summary 31 For a discussion of the various possible works of Euclid to
and bibliography of J. Ruska in Encyclopedia of Islam, art­ which this Liber Euclidis might refer, see the introduction, sec­
tion II, preceding the text.
icle “Thabit."
37-49 This first proposition is identical with the first proposition of
6. Ruska, op. cit. in note 5.
7. S. Pines, “Quelques tendances antiperipateticiennes de la the Liber de ponderoso et levi (which see), and with paragraph (l)
pensee scientifique Islamique,” Thales, vol. 4, 1937-39 (publ. of the Euclid fragment (Appendix I). It has its source ultimately
in the rules on movement given in the De caelo, I, vi, 273b-274;
Paris, 1940), 216.
III, ii, 30la-b; and the Physica, VII, v, 250a. The example given to
8. See the proemium of the text.
9. Arabic text with French translation published b yF . Woepcke, illustrate this proposition, which is here designated as self-
“Notice surdes traductions arabes de deux ouvrages perdus evident, is missing in the Arabic version. Buchner’ s analysis
d’Euclide," Journal Asiatique, 4e serie, XVIII, pp. 217-232. of the significance of this Aristotelean rule in the form given
here by Thabit is most interesting and I should like to para­
10. Buchner, op. cit., p, 151
11. Archimedes, On the equilibrium of Planes, 1st postulate phrase his argument in some detail. The first proposition
asserts that i\/fz ~ sl / s2> where f[ and f£ are motive powers or
(Heath translation p. 189).
12. Woepcke, op. cit., pp. 220, 225-226. forces and s^ and s^ are distances. To understand what is meant
by this expression we must give attention to the following ax­
13. Wiedemann, op. cit., pp. 25-26
14. Woepcke, op. cit., pp. 220-221, 227-228 ioms: (l) If one and the same force (virtus) acts successively on
15. Duhem, Origines, I, p. 89, Buchner, op. cit., pp. 151-153 different heavy bodies, this force produces in the lightest body
the greatest velocity and in the heaviest body the least velocity.
16. Buchner, op. c it., p. 151
The velocities are inversely proportional to the weights, or
17. Duhem, Origines, I, 75-77
v^/v 2 = w2 /w^. (2) If forces of different strength act successively
18. Ibid., loc. cit.
on bodies equal in weight and put them into motion from a rest
19. Ibid., p. 77. position, then the body acted upon by the greatest force obtains
20. Aristotle?, Mechanics, see chapters 1-4.
2 1. F . Buchner, “Die Schrift ueber den Qarastun von Thabit b. the greatest velocity. The velocities are directly proportional
Qurra,” Sitzungsberichte der Physikalisch-medizinischen to the forces: v^/v^ = i\ffz> (3) Conversely one can deduce from
Sozietaet in Erlangen, vol. 52, 1920, (publ. 1922), 142-147. the velocity of a body of fixed weight the amount of force which
22. Ibid., 146; cf. M. Steinschneider, “Intorno al Liber Karaston- sets it into motion from its rest position. And indeed the m o­
i s ," Annali di Matematica, Vol. 5, 1863, p. 58. tive force is greater according as (a) the velocity of the body is

362
 NOTES TO P A G E 90 NOTES T O PAGES 9 0 - 9 6

greater and according as (b) its weight, is greater. These axi­ movement of falling bodies where they believed weight to be the
omatic considerations then, according to Buchner, led Thabit motivating force rather than the resistance. Buchner's analysis
(or perhaps the original author) to the formulation of the first is of no use in this case.
proposition, if it is realized that in the first proposition it is As for Thabit’s second proposition, it can be restated with
assumed that the forces are acting on equal weights and the symbols as follows. When a lever of unequal arm lengths, l^, l^
distances are traversed in the same time. The first assumption is set in motion about the fulcrum and thus sweeps out arcs.a^,
is clear from the manner in which he uses this law in the proof
then a^/a.^ = CL Appendix I, Euclid fragment, para­
of the third proposition, and the second assumption is explicitly graph (9).
stated. 82-85 The numerical example included is incomplete. Numerical
Then Buchner proceeds to relate Thabit’ s concept of force as examples are missing in the extant Arabic versions.
used in this first proposition with the Newtonian conception of 86 “95 This sub-proposition which relates proposition one to the
force. The basic distinction between the two is that here force lever, saying that the forces are proportional to the arc de­
is that which produces velocity, while in Newtonian physics it is scribed is also found in paragraph (9) of the Euclid fragment in
that which produces acceleration. Let us connect the two con­ Appendix I.
cepts mathematically, (Buchner puts these relations in the form 101"155 This third proposition is, of course, the law of the lever,
they might have as metric definitions with quantitative units w^ . l^ = W2 . l^. Thabit’ s derivation has considerable historical
known and established. Actually, most medieval definitions are interest, for the attempt is made to derive this basic law of
of a topological nature, i.e ., they are of such a form as to show statics from the fundamental Aristotelean rule of dynamics
when two objects possess an equal or a greater or a lesser stated as the first proposition. We can understand Ihabit’s proof
amount of some physical quantity. Thus they are of the form of if we consider two fundamental axioms which seem to underly
proportions, e.g., one force is to another as one velocity is to his proof, although he does not explicitly state them:
another, etc.). From the third of the three axioms of movement (l)
/*' In
~ the
" case of a lever the As we have observed, proposi­
given above we can deduce the following definition of force, force or power of movement tion one above implies a defi­
f = w.v, where f is force, w is the weight acted upon, and v is (virtus motus) of a weight on nition such that fot w.v or foe
the velocity produced in that weight by the exertion of the force. the extremity is proportional w.s / t with the w constant. In
The time during which the force acts is not taken into consider­ to both the weight and the arc the case of a lever, t is con­
ation in this formulation. Thabit confines himself, according to swept out by the point of ex­ sidered a c o n s t a n t for the
Buchner, to cases where the force or forces act through the tremity (i.e., f OC w.a) weights acting on each side of
same period of time. Buchner feels that with this last assump­
the lever. And if s = a, so f oyw.a.
tion considered, the definition deduced for Thabit is essentially
Actually, force as a product of
correct. Buchner says, if we formulate the modern force con­
weight and velocity is not di­
cept thus: Ja F.dt = m.v and assert Thabit’ s formulation f = w.v,
mensionally the same as force
then considering the fact that Thabit had no concept of mass but
as the product of weight and
would substitute weight, the two formulas could be tied together distance.
by the function: f = J^F dt. Then the distinction between the two (2) Equilibrium results when This assumption is a primitive
concepts becomes clear. Thabit does not concern himself with the total force of movement on appeal to a principle of virtual
alterations in the movement of a body which are produced dur­ each side of the lever is the displacements which Duhem al­
ing the action of the force on the body, but only the changes in same, (wi . a^ = w^ . a^). ready sees evident in the Mech­
the conditions of movement after the force has acted on the
anics attributed to Aristotle.
body in a fixed period of time. Buchner then has shown by this
Thus the Liber karastonis is
kind of analysis that the Peripatetic definition of an externally
clearly in this tradition.
acting force upon a weight accepted by Thabit is roughly equiv­
alent to the concept of momentum in the Newtonian system, or Then the proof of the law of the lever is as follows:
better yet to that which is dimensionally the same, the impulse
of force. But Buchner does not point out that the peripatetics
had a different concept of force when discussing the problem of

364
365
 NOTES TO P A G E 96
(l) Equal weights at equal dis­ This is because such weights
tances from the fulcrum are sweep out equal arcs, i.e ., be­
in equilibrium. cause their forces of movement
are equal. Thus, if w^, W2 are
equal and a^,a2 are equal, then
w^ . a^ = W2 . a2 and thus equi­
librium prevails by axiom (2).
(2) Equal weights at unequal This is because they sweep out
distances from the fulcrum unequal arcs, i.e ., their forces
are no longer in equilibrium. of movement are no l o n g e r
equal. Thus, if w^, w are equal
and is greater than 1^, then
wl • U is greater than w . I2
and equilibrium does not pre­
vail.
(3) If the weights are no long­ This is because the equality of
er kept equal, but they are s e ­ their forces of movement has
lected so that they are inverse­ been restored. Thus to convert
ly proportional to their dis­ the unequilibrium of the state
tances from the fulc rum, equi­ described in (2) to equilibrium,
librium again prevails. a weight r has to be added to
weight w such that w[ , a.\ =
(w + r) . a2 * But when we have
found such a weight to fulfill
this condition of equilibrium,
then at t ha t t i m e w\ . l [ =
(w + r) . I2 since from proposi­
tion two ai/a2 = l l / l 2• Hence if
we call W2 = w + r, the lever is
in a state of equilibrium when
wl • ll = W2 . 12*
The general review of the first two propositions applying them
to the lever as well as the general statement of the law of the
lever are missing in the Arabic version, it should be noted, al­
though the latter is given in exemplar form.
120-121 This represents a basic misconception of the stability of a
lever suspended from above, which misconception has empirical
roots. If the lever were weightless, it would of course be stable
in any position, not just that of the horizontal position. If it has
weight, is supported from above, and is moved off the horizontal,
the elevated center of gravity of the rule tends to seek its low­
est possible position in the line of the vertical suspension. Hence
such a rule tends to remain in horizontal equilibrium. The belief
in the horizontal stability of the rule supported from above, was
strong during the middle ages. Thus Jordanus seeks to demon­
strate it rationally by the erroneous application of a concept of
366
NOTES T O PAGES 9 6-100
positional gravity to arcs. (See Elementa Jordani, proposition 2).
The correct notion, as concerns levers having weight, is found
in the Mechanics attributed to Aristotle. (Chap. 2). This makes
us question whether Thabit (or Jordanus) had direct access to
this work.
122-140 The Arabic version of this demonstration does not use the
expression “force of movement." But the equilibrium of the equal
weights at equal distances is laid to the fact that they describe
equal arcs in the same time. Then in a passage somewhat brief­
er than the Latin, the Arabic version goes on to say that if we
move one of the equal weights farther from the fulcrum, then to
maintain the balance in equilibrium we must add to the weight
at the shorter distance enough weight so that the weights on the
extremities are in an inverse ratio to the arcs described by the
ends of the arms in the same time. And thus these weights are
also in the inverse ratio of their distances from the fulcrum.
(Wi edemann, op. cit., p. 24). Following upon this demonstration,
the Arabic version includes some passages that may have some
relation to the treatise attributed to Euclid and entitled the Book
of the Balance, as I have suggested in the Introduction, part II.
They can be read in the German translation of Wiedemann, op.
cit., 25~26.
156-226 Thabit’ s fourth proposition, while not explicitly stated in
these terms in Archimedes' On the Equilibrium of Planes is
certainly implied. Duhem (Origines, I, 356) has called it the
“Axiom of Archimedes," distinguishing it from other fundament­
al axioms from which the law of the lever can be derived. Cf.
Appendix I, Euclid fragment, paragraph (5).
The conclusion advanced here is that e / (m + u) = BU/GA. This
is correct, but Buchner (op. cit., p. 185) believes that the demon­
stration in the Latin text is based on a false procedure that hap­
pens with the given conditions to produce the correct conclusion.
From the Latin text it appears as if the author had proceeded as
follows: If x + y = e, and BG + NG = 2 GT, and bythe law ofthe
lever, x / u = BG / GA and y /m = NG / GA, then (x +y)/(u + m) =
(BG + NG)/ 2 GA, or e/(u + m) = GT / GA. Now in actuality this
addition of numerators and denominators happens to be true
only because the respective pairs of denominators are equal,i.e.,
u = m and GA = GA. This can be easily demonstrated:
(1) Assume x + y ^ e , m + u = z o r m = u = z / 2.
(2) x / u = BG / GA (law of the lever)
y / m = NG / GA (law of the lever)
or rewriting x - u . BG / GA and y = m . NG / GA.
(3) x + y = u . BG / GA + m . NG / GA
= z . BG / 2GA + z . NG / 2GA
= z . (BG + GN) / 2GA
367
 NOTES T O PAGES 100-103
= in + m) . (BG + NG) / 2GA
or (x + y) / (u + m) = (BG + NG) / 2GA.
(4) Then if (BG + NG) = 2.GT,
e / (u + m) = GT / GA Q.E.D.
This longer procedure is given in the Arabic version (Wiede­
mann, op. cit., p. 29) substantially as I have here given it. The
proof is so elementary that I am inclined to think the Latin
translator who abbreviated the proof knew that the shorter
method of procedure was valid with the conditions assumed here.
227-268 Proposition five, of course, generalizes proposition four
and can be proved therefrom. But notice that although the prop­
osition is here stated in completely general fashion, the example
given below places four equal weights equally distant apart on
the one arm of the lever, and the demonstration is confined to
proving that the equilibrium is maintained when the weights are
aggregated and suspended from the point midway between the
first and last weight. The Arabic version gives a short proof in
more general terms. The proposition in terms of four equal
weights is also given in Appendix I, the Euclid fragment, para­
graph (4).
269 “284 This passage is corrupt in all of the manuscripts and is
missing in the Arabic versions. I venture as a suggestion that
hyarem in line 278 is a corruption of the Arabic word fayaran
which is the fork of balance against which the needle or tongue
(lisan, or in Latin, examen) is aligned to indicate balance. It
may be that Buchner’ s reading of comparem is correct, but it
is hard to see where hyarem originated. The intent of the whole
passage is clear. It holds that we can proceed from demonstra­
tions concerning weightless, proportional lines to beams hav­
ing thickness. Thus we can go from the general geometry of the
lever or balance to the Roman balance, which has weight, and
where one arm is longer than the other.
285-373 Both propositions six and seven are closely related to or
re-expressions of what Duhem (Origines, I, 357) has called the
“Axiom of the Canon, ” because it is referred to in the proof of
the proposition of the De canonio where it is stated that it makes
no difference whether a certain weight is uniformly extended
over a given line or whether it is suspended as a separate weight
from the middle point of the line (quoniam nulla est differentia
seu pondus DB sitequaliter extensum super totam lineam db seu
suspendatur a puncto medio sectionis). Cf. Appendix I, Euclid
fragment, paragraph (2).
The proof of propositions given in the Latin text here is rad­
ically different from the original in Arabic. In the Arabic text
(Wi edemann, op. pit., pp. 30-33) we have an indirect proof in the
manner of Greek geometry, and one that is quite elegant. For
368
NOTES TO PAGES 103-108
the sake of comparison with that given in the Latin version, I
should like to sketch the proof in the Arabic version. In the ac­
companying figure I have altered the Arabic lettering to Latin
letters that do not necessarily correspond to those found in the
original Arabic manuscripts; hence in my paraphrase of the
proof I have also changed the lettering:
(1) Suppose that the expanded weight or material section
BDEW balances the weight z. Now we wish to prove that if we
replace BDEW by a weight _t equal to it and suspended from H,
the midpoint of line BD, horizontal equilibrium will still exist.
(2) _t will either balance z or it will not.
(3) Assume that will not balance z.Then_t is either not heavy
enough to balance z,and thus the balance is depressed at A, or t
is too heavy and the balance is depressed at H.
(4) Suppose that _t is not heavy enough and the balance is de­
pressed at A. Then some weight _1 must be added to _t to balance z.
(5) Let us cut off along line BD a line segment BM such that
BM /BD = j / t , and since the beam portion BDEW is of uniform
thickness and substance, BN/BDEW = BM/BD =_LA*
(h) Then take some part of BM that is commensurable with
BD. This part will be BS. Then divide BD into lengths equal to
BS. These divisions will be BS, SQ, QH, HF, FO, and OD. By
dropping perpendiculars from points S, Q, H, F, and O, equal
sections of BDEW will be formed. These sections are BK, ST,
QL, HR, FP, and OW.
(7) Now suppose that we took the weight of section OW and
suspended it all from point O, it would then compensate for more
of z^ than it “did as an expanded weight because the whole weight
of the section would be concentrated at a point further from the
fulcrum than all of the parts of the section up to OP. Similarly
hang all of the weight FP at F, HR at H, QL at Q, ST at S, and
BK at B. Hence all of these weights hung at these points now
compensate for more than they did as an expanded weight BDEW.
(8) Let us suppose further that we hang a weight equal to each
of these sections, e.g., equal to BK, at point D. It, added to the
369
 NOTES T O PAGES 103-108
other weights, will compensate for still more than the simple
extended weight DBEW.
(9) According to the preceding proposition we can hang at H,
the midpoint of BD, the sum of all the equal weights equally
spaced along BD, and this sum will balance just what the indi­
vidual weights hung at the different points balanced. Hence, the
sum at Hwill balance at Am ore than the expanded weight BDEW,
and hence it will balance more than z.
(10) Now DBEW is equal to _t. The weight of BK, however, is
less than 1 by original assumption. Hence if one hangs in addi­
tion to jt some weight less than _1 (and this weight less than 1 is
BK), it balances at A a weight greater than z.
(11) But our original assumption was that _t plus balances
only at A . Hence it is impossible for both t_ plus ^ to balance
only z and _t plus a weight less than to balance more than _z.
From the impossibility of the contradiction we deduce the false­
ness of the original premise, and hence the side A is not de­
pressed.
^12) The author uses precisely the same kind of reasoning to
deduce that side B cannot be depressed (Wiedemann, op. cit.,
pp. 32-33).
(13) Since neither side is depressed, the balance is in equilib­
rium, and the proposition is proved.
The Latin proof here presented is, as I have said, quite differ­
ent from this indirect proof. In spite of the way in which it starts
out, it is essentially a direct proof. Referring to figure (5) in the
text, we can summarize it as follows:
(1) Assume that the weight of DBEU is equal to _t. And suppose
that the weighty at His insufficient to balance r^ at A, then some
weight 1 will have to be added to balance r.
(2) Divide BH and DH into an equal number of line segments
by their commensurable part BS. These segments are BS, SQ,
QH, HF, FO, and OD. And since the portion of the beam DBEU
is of uniform thickness and substance, equal sections are formed
by the perpendicular lines OI, FP, etc. Thus part SU equals part
DI.
(3) Now suppose that the line DO is stripped of the weight of
section DI and that weight is suspended from O. Thei. it will
compensate for more of weight r_ than it did before as an ex­
panded section, since its line of suspension is farther from the
fulcrum than the rest of DI.
(4) On the other hand, if the weight of SU is suspended at S, it
will compensate for less of r_ than it did before as an expanded
weight.
(5) Now since there is at every point along line DO a strip or
part of DI equal in weight and length to a corresponding line or
370
NOTES TO PAGES 108-114
partin section SU, we can suspend each respective pair of parts,
first at points S and O, and then the totals at a point midway be­
tween the suspended parts, namely at point H. The weights of
each pair of sections suspended at h will compensate for just
as much of r as they did as expanded weights in their former
positions. This holds then for sections DI and SU, OP and GK,
HN and HP.
(6) Hence the whole weight of section DBEU when suspended
at point H balances what it balanced as an expanded weight.
(Q.E.D.)
(7) Then there is superfluously added that _t plus _1_ will com­
pensate for more than r_, because just _t compensates for _r.
Hence, as I have said, the proof is really a direct one, and
steps (1), and (7) are unnecessary. The Latin proof is one that
apparently assumes that if you divide the beam section having
thickness into halves, you can form from these halves pairs of
corresponding line segments or parts of equal thickness, which,
when joined together and suspended from the point midway be­
tween them, do not disturb the equilibrium. Propositions four
and five are the authorization.
374-414 Proposition seven is not essentially different from the pre­
ceding proposition. Proposition six had reduced the case of the
expanded weight to one where suspended weights hang from a
weightless line. Since this reduction had been made, then the
general law of the lever can be applied, and thus the proportion
of the weight of the expanded section to the weight suspended on
the other arm is as the proportion of the distance of the sus­
pended weight from the fulcrum to the distance of the midpoint
of the beam section from the fulcrum.
415-494 Notice how close this final proposition corresponds to the
third proposition or problem in De canonio, both as to the ex­
pression of the problem to solve and the solution given. How­
ever the proofs given in De canonio at this point are different
from the demonstration here given. The conclusion here in the
Liber karastonis is as follows: Total beam length is AB. Let us
call its weight ab. Beam AB is divided into unequal parts, BG
and GA. Take section GD equal to GA. The excess of GB beyond
GD is BD. The weight of BD we designate bd. Finally, BD is
divided into two equal parts at U. Then the conclusion is that
the weight which, when suspended at jijust balances the Roman
balance,is computed as follows:
e = ab . . AB
~ — AB 2AG
which we could reduce further, although Thabit does not do so, to:
= ab ( AB -1 )
2AG
371
 NOTES TO PAGES 114-121 NOTES T O PAGES 122-123

The demonstration of this formulation is given by Thabit as there occurs a geometrical theorem, with the marginal no­
follows: tation by a late mediaeval hand, that this theorem belongs to
(1) GD = GA. If the weights ofGD and GA are gd and jga, gd = ga. the Philotegni and ought to have been joined to that work.
This is because AB is a beam of uniform thickness and sub­ 2. Cf. M. Curtze, Jordani Nemorarii Geometria vel de Triangu­
stance. Thus gd just balances ga. lis Libri IV, Thorn, 1887, pp. iii-v i, for the full quotation from
(2) Thus db which is the weight of DB is the surplus to be bal­ Trivet, and for a long letter received from the Dominican
anced by e_. historian, H. Denifle, arguing against acceptance of Trivet’ s
/,x db DB L , , DB testimony.
= = ---- because this is a uniform beam. Or, db = ab . ——
ab AB — — AB 3. Cf. H. Ch. Scheeben, “ Der literarische Nachlass Jordans von
(4) from proposition VII. Sachsen," in Historisches Jahrbuch, Vol. 52 (1932), pp. 56-71.
db GA 4. Cf. M. Curtze, loc. cit. p. vi, for the manuscript subscription
which we have quoted.
(5) GA = 2C^ Since GU = 1/2 - 5. Professor Marshall Clagett has called my attention to the
. , . _ e ___AB from steps (4) and (5). [Step (6) is actually following passage from Richard Fournival’ s Biblionomia or
' ' db 2GA omitted by Thabit, but is implied.] catalogue of books, which is edited by L. Delisle, Le cabinet
tn\ db . AB DB AB from steps (3) and (6). des manuscrits de la Bibliotheque Nationale, vol. 2, Paris
S. “ ?r:A
2GA = *2 • AR * 2GA Q.E.D. 1874, p. 526:
(8) We could go one step beyond Thabit and rewrite it as “43. Jordani de Nemore liber philothegny CCCCXVII
follows: propositiones continens. Item ejusdem liber de ratione
(AB ~ 2GA) ponderum, et alius de ponderum proportione."
e = ab +
2GA In his own preface, Richard Fournival states that he is the
chancellor of the church at Amiens. It is known that he was
= ab ( A5. - 1) chancellor there as early as 1246, and that he died before
— 2GA 1260 (Histoire litteraire de la France, t. 23, p. 717). Fournival
also lists the work of Gerard of Brussels, De motu, in his
495-523 This last section is omitted in the Arabic manuscripts, but catalogue; and Gerard in turn had utilized some theorems of
the material included as a part of proposition 3 in the Beirut Jordanus’ Philotegni or De triangulis in his own work. This
(Arabic) manuscript, noted and translated by Wiedemann (op.cit., suggests that both Jordanus of Nemore and Gerard of Brus­
pp. 26-27) vaguely suggests the last section. sels had completed their careers well before 1260, though
the absence of earlier references to them makes it likely
ELEMENTA JORDANI that they flourished through most of the first half of the thir­
teenth century. Fournival’s catalogue seems to confirm the
INTRODUCTION authenticity of the De ratione ponderis (or ponderum, as it
1. On this identification, cf. P. Duhem, “ Un ouvrage perdu cite occurs in some manuscripts) as a work of Jordanus. The
par Jordanus de Nemore, le Philotechnes, ” in Bibliotheca other work attributed to Jordanus, “de ponderum proport­
mathematica vol. 5 (1905), pjj. 321-325; also “A propos du ione,” may well be the Elementa Jordani super demonstra­
Philotechnes,” in Archiv fur Geschichte der Naturwissen- tionem ponderum, which also bears variant titles in the ex­
schaften, vol. 1 (1909), pp. 380-384. Cf. also G.^Enestrom, tant manuscripts. Professor Clagett thinks it likely that the
“Ueber den ursprunglichen Titel der geometrischen Schrift “Gernardus" to whom the Algorismus demonstratus, form ­
des Nemorarius," in Bibliotheca mathematica, vol. 13 (1912), erly ascribed to Jordanus Nemorarius, is now attributed, is
pp. 83~84; and H. Bosmans, “Le Philotechnes," in Revue des none other than Gerard of Brussels, whose work stands in
questions scientifiques, Jan. 1923, p.12. The confirmation of close relationship to that of Jordanus of Nemore.
the identification, by a 14th century manuscript of Bruges, is
discussed in Isis, vol. 5, p. 499, and again in vol. 12, p. 93.
In one of the manuscripts which we have used, for our edi­
tion of the De ratione ponderis, namely Cod. Vat. Reg. 1261,

372 373
 NOTES TO PA G E 128
NOTES T O P A G E 128

TEXT
with which a given weight descends along paths which deviate
Lines from the vertical—in our language, the concern is with the com­
1-12 The terminology introduced in the Postulates requires a few
ponent of gravity effective in producing motion along a path com­
comments. Pondus, which we have translated by “weight," is to
patible with a constraint system such as a balance.
be understood in the substantival sense, as that which has a
Postulate E.04 introduces the expression gravitas secundum
natural tendency to move toward the center of the world. This
situm, or positional gravity." This plays a major part in the
tendency itself is called the virtus, gravitas, or ponderositas of
statical theorems which follow. Whereas “gravity in descending"
the heavy body (grave) or of the weight (pondus). Thus poftdus is
is measured by the obliquity of the path actually traversed in the
treated as a scalar quantity, analogous to our notion of mass,
movement of a heavy body along a path compatible with the con­
while virtus or gravitas is a vector quantity, analogous to our
straints, positional gravity" is defined by a merely virtual
•notion of force. The simple gravitational virtus is assumed to
movement along a possible path of descent, in a constraint sy s­
be proportional to the scalar weight or pondus, just as in New­
tem which is in equilibrium. In modern language, “positional
tonian physics the force of gravity acting on a body in a given
gravity" is a component in a system of forces whose vector sum
region is proportional to its mass. The additional clause, added
is zero. It is measured by the work which would be done if the
in the first Postulate by our manuscript C, and by most of the
system permitted the element in question to undergo motion in­
manuscripts of the De ratione ponderis of Jordanus, makes this
dependently of the rest of the system; but as taken in the con­
plain: virtutemque ipsius potentiam ad inferiora tendendi et mo­
straint system, in equilibrium, it actually does no work. The
tui contrario resistendi. This also indicates that the same virtus
measure of “positional gravity" of a body, relative to its nat­
which measures a body’ s downward directed force, in falling,
ural gravity or virtus, is determined by the ratio of the obli­
measures its resistance to any force acting to lift it vertically
quity of the path it would traverse in a “virtual displacement"
upward. This is a basic principle in the consideration of weights
of the system, to the vertical path along which its natural grav­
in equilibrium, and it is invoked in Postulate E .06 and in the
ity is directed.
second part of Theorem E .l.
Fbstulate E.05 defines “obliquity" as the deviation of a path of
The “heaviness” of a weight, or its gravitas or ponderositas,
descent from the vertical, or as its approach to the horizontal.
is equal to its virtus only insofar as it is directed vertically
The contrary of “more oblique" is “more direct," so that the
downward. If a weight descends obliquely, as along an inclined
positional gravity varies inversely with the degree of obliquity
plane, its "heaviness” in descending along the oblique path (or
of the path of virtual movement. Jordanus ’ definition is precise:
the force which it exerts along the oblique path) will be less than
the descent is more oblique if the path of descent has a smaller
its natural virtus as directed toward tjie center of the world.
component of the vertical. In Proposition R1.10 of the De ratione
This variable “heaviness," or force exerted by a body in de­
ponderis this notion is explicitly explained, for the case of a
scending along a path other than the vertical, is called gravitas
rectilinear descent along an inclined plane. Thus, taking an in­
in descendendo. The second and third Postulates state that the
clined plane as path of possible descent, we project a given
“heaviness" of a body in its descent, along whatever path it de­
length of the inclined plane onto a vertical line, forming a right-
scends, is proportional to the speed with which it descends along
angled triangle. Then the ratio of the altitude of this triangle to
that path, and both its heaviness and its speed depend on the
its hypothenuse varies inversely with the obliquity, or directly
degree to which its path of descent approaches the vertical.
with the “ positional gravity." The positional gravity, or com­
Postulate E.02 might be given a more general interpretation, as
ponent of force directed along the inclined plane, is therefore
stating that a body of greater natural weight (pondus) will fall in
measured by sin a. pondus, when <iis the angle of hypothenuse
free vertical descentfaster than abody of smaller natural weight.
to base.
But in the Aristotelian context, even this thesis would be under­
Pastulate E.06 states that one body has less positional gravity
stood in terms of a descent against a resistance—either a resist­
than another, if the descent of the other suffices to cause it to
ant medium, or a resistance such as that of a counterweight on
ascend. Obviously it is assumed that the two bodies are con­
the other arm of a balance, which will be raised more rapidly
nected by a balance beam, or by a pulley arrangement. It is not
by a larger weight on the descending arm, than by a smaller
wholly clear whether the author is also assuming equality of the
weight. Postulates E.02 and E.03 seem, however, to be concerned
two weights compared, or whether he is taking into considera­
with the restricted case of variability of the force and speed
tion the case where the weights are unequal in their natural
374
375
 NOTES TO P A G E 128
gravity or mass. On the first assumption, the postulate would
state that if two equal weights are attached so that the descent
of one involves the ascent of the other, then if one of them is
able to descend and to raise the other, it possesses this advant­
age by reason of position—i.e ., because its path of possible de­
scent, within the constraint system, is less oblique. But if the
postulate is understood to hold for unequal weights also, then it
asserts that if the descent of one weight causes the ascent of
the other, the product of the pondus and its “positional” coeffi­
cient, in the case of the weight which descends, is greater than
the product of the pondus and positional coefficient of the other
weight.
Postulate E.07 defines the “position of equality,” obviously
referring to a balance beam capable of rotation on an axis of
support. The situs equalitatis is the horizontal position of the
beam, such that its arms form equal (and right) angles with the
perpendicular to the plane of the horizon passing through the
axis of support. The words in which this postulate is expressed
are highly reminiscent of the expression—so obviously G reek-
found in the De canonio: parallelum epipedo orizontis.
13-36 Theorem E .l: This first theorem is the most obscure in
meaning of all nine, and it was a subject of continual contro­
versy throughout the later mediaeval period. Our texts from
Bradwardine (Appendix II), and from the late 14th century com­
mentary which was printed by Petrus Apianus as his “second
commentary” (Appendix III), illustrate this controversy and dis­
cussion. At first sight the theorem appears to be an assertion
that unequal weights, in free fall, descend with velocities pro­
portional to their weight. The diagram normally supplied on the
margins of the manuscripts, and which we have reproduced,
seems to support such an interpretation. Yet the use of the term
“velocity of descent,” which in Postulates E.02 and E.03 is asso­
ciated with direction of descent and with “heaviness” directed
along an oblique path, suggests that the author is thinking of
movements along oblique paths, as between bodies in a con­
nected system, and of their “gravities" in the relative sense de­
termined by the paths of movement compatible with the system.
The second part of the theorem, as the later commentary printed
by Apianus points out, could only apply to the movements of bodies
in a connected system, since heavy bodies do not have any veloc­
ity of ascent in their free or natural movement.
If we do suppose the theorem to be concerned with two weights
on the ends of an equal armed balance, the two parts of the theo­
rem would have a relatively simple interpretation consistent
with the Aristotelian “law of motion" which holds that velocity
is a function of the ratio of mover to moved. Jordanus* theorem
376
NOTES T O P A G E 128
would then state that if a_ and b are two unequal weights, sus­
pended at the two ends of a balance of equal arms, the speed
with which the heavier weight descends will be determined by
the ratio of the weights. Thus, if a is greater than b, the arm on
which a hangs will descend, and its velocity of descent will be
proportional to the ratio _a/b. And if b is greater in its natural
weight than a, the arm on which a hangs will ascend, and its
velocity of ascent will be proportional to the ratio b /a (or in­
versely proportional to the ratio_a/b). “Velocity of descent ” ap­
parently does not mean the speed along the curved arc, but the
amount of vertical descent accomplished by the movement of the
end of the lever arm, in a given time. This is at least the inter­
pretation given by Albert of Saxony, in Conclusion 8 of Chapter 4
of his Tractatus proportionum (edition De Maruef, Paris, s.a.,
circa 1495):
Velocitas descensus attenditur penes spatium lineale
mensurans appropinquationem mobilis ad centrum (1.mundi)
descriptum a puncto medio vel equivalenti ipsius mobilis,
in tanto vel tanto tempore; et quia omne tale spatium lineale
est rectum, patet quod sive mobile descendat per lineam
rectam sive per curvam, semper eius descensus mensur­
andus est et debet attendi penes spatium lineale rectum...
Ex isto sequitur aliqua mobilia eque velociter descendere
et tamen non eque velociter moveri; et sicut dictum est de
descensu, sic dicendum est suo modo de ascensu.
The second part of the theorem follows very directly from the
first part, on the above interpretation. For while the first part
stated that if > b, then a will descend at a speed proportional
to^./b, the second part states that if ji < b, then a will ascend
with a speed inversely proportional to _a/b. This interpretation
seems to fit the theorem, within the context of the postulates
and of the subsequent theorems, much better than the inter­
pretation of the theorem as an assertion of proportionality of
speed to weight in free fall.
The theorem is obviously a formulation, for the special case
of weights in connected systems, of the basic Aristotelian law
of motion, according to which speed is determined by the ratio
in which the motive power exceeds the resistance overcome by
it. We may compare the theorem with its prototypes in the ante­
cedent literature: With Aristotle’s Mechanical Problems (850 a
30 ff.), with Prop. I of the pseudo-Euclidean De ponderoso et levi,
with Paragraph 7 of the pseudo-Euclidean fragment which we
have edited in Appendix I, and with Prop. I of Thabit ibn Qurra’s
Liber Karastonis. The type of argument used in the proof, more­
over, has a marked analogy with the argument used by Aristotle
in the De caelo et mundo (301a 25 - b 17) against the supposition
377
 f
NOTES T O PAGES 130-132
NOTES TO P A G E 132

of an infinite natural body. In all of these antecedent cases there

positional gravities of the two weights b and £ directly, accord­
is great ambiguity in the theorem, due to the excessive gener­
ing to the ratios of vertical component to arc of descent in both
ality, and the lack of precision in defining the terms, which
cases as if the descent of b_ could be treated Independently of
characterizes Aristotle’s own statements of the “law of pro­
the ascent of £. He should have compared the ratio of the ob­
portion of v e lo c itie sB u t it is clear that each of these writers,
liquity of a small descent of b^to the obliquity of an equal ascent
and especially Jordanus, felt the necessity of basing the lever
of £, with the ratio of the obliquity of an equal small descent of
principle and the other statical theorems on a general dynam­
£ to the obliquity of a corresponding ascent of b; he would then
ical foundation.
have seen that these ratios would remain equal under any dis­
The argument of the proof of E.l is sufficiently clear. It rests
placement one way or the other, so that no advantage would be
on Proposition 30 of the fifth book of Euclid’ s Elements, which
gained by either side through any displacement. While Jordanus
may be stated in modern notation as follows:
could have avoided his error within the principles and methods
If then a t_b < 9 , t _P of his own theory, it is probable that the complexity introduced
b D a C
into the problem, by the constantly changing obliquities involved
37-80 Theorem E .2: This theorem, like the first, gave rise to re­
in displacements along the circular path, led him to misapply
peated discussion and criticism in the later Middle Ages and
his own principles in this case.
Renaissance. It is discussed by Roger Bacon in his Opus maius
75-76 Philotegni. The reference is to Jordanus’ work on geometry,
(Part 4, D ist.3,C h . 16), a work written between 1266 and 1268. The
called Geometria vel De triangulis, which was edited by M.
theorem has two parts, the first of which seeks to demonstrate,
Curtze, Thorn 1887. On p. 19 of this edition, Proposition I of
by means of the concept of positional gravity, what Archimedes
" Book III is given as follows: “Si tres linee in circulo equedis-
had laid down as his initial postulate—that equal weights on
? tantes equales inter se arcus comprehendant, maxime ad m e-
equal lever arms are in equilibrium. Since it was shown in E.l
^ diam maior erit distantia et maiorem cum ea circuli partem
that movement (or “velocity of descent”), as between weights on
* comprehendet.” That is, if three parallel lines cut off equal arcs
a balance, is determined either by inequality of pondera or by
on a circle, there is a greater distance between the longest of
inequality of positional gravities, or by both together, and since
»' the chords and the one of medium length than between the latter
the present theorem assumes equality of the pondera, the con­
£ and the chord of shortest length, and they will enclose a greater
dition determining equilibrium reduces to that of equality of po­
4 area of the circle.
sitional gravities—i.e ., of the “obliquities" of virtual descents
; 81-114 Theorem E.3: This theorem gives a demonstration of what
of the two weights. The first part of the theorem shows that
was stated as the second axiom, in the Book of Euclid on the
when the balance beam is in horizontal position, equal arcs cut
Balance which Woepcke translated from the Arabic. Jordanus
off just below the horizontal diameter of the circumference of
seeks to show, by purely geometrical means, that the arc trav­
rotation, will have equal components of the vertical; hence the
ersed by a weight suspended on a cord from the end of a lever
obliquities of virtual descent, for the two weights, will be the
arm will be equal and similar to the arc traversed by the end of
same.
the lever arm, irrespective of the length of the cord of suspen­
The second part of the theorem, which is erroneous, is what
sion. The geometrical principle invoked on lines 109-111 is said
gave rise to the criticisms discussed by Bacon and later writ­
to have been demonstrated in his Praeexercitamina. I have not
ers. Jordanus here attempts to show that the equilibrium of
found such a demonstration in theDe triangulis (or “Philotegni" )
equal weights on equal lever arms is a case of stable equilib­
rium. The attempted proof involves an erroneous application of of Jordanus, so that we must presume that the reference is to
some other treatise of Jordanus, or possibly to an introductory
the concept of positional gravity. Jordanus first shows that a
discussion originally prefaced to his Elementa super demon­
small finite arc cut off just below the position of the weight on
strationem ponderum. The demonstration referred to, however,
the lever arm that is elevated above the horizontal has a great­
appears to be supplied by the version of the Liber Jordani de
er component of the vertical than an equal arc cut off just be­
ponderibus contained in Ms. Bodl. Auct. F .5.2 8, fol,126v, in the
low the position of the weight on the depressed arm. From this
following passage:
he concludes that the elevated weight has greater positional
Illud autem sic demonstrabitur. Educta enim MX et NH
gravity than the depressed weight, so that the balance beam will
directe ad brachia libre, erunt MF et NT equales. Sunt au­
return to the horizontal position. His error is to compare the
tem PF et AD equales. Sed XP est equalis MF; secant enim
378
379
 NOTES T O P A G E 134
equales partes circuli secundum eundem situm per equalia.
Itaque PF est equalis MX, quia MPest id quod utrimque ac­
cipitur; ergo MX est equalis AD. Eodem modo constabit
quod NH est equalis BE. Ex premissis ergo liquet, cum MF
et PX sint equales, et NT sit equalis MF, quia PX est equa­
lis RH cui NT est equalis. Itaque e^ pondus non magis capit
de directo quam d descendendo ad puncta X et H, nec ad al­
ia puncta. Similiter ergo neutrum appendiculum faciet
nutum.
(Translation): This however will
be proved thus. Drawing MX and NH
straight up to the arms of the bal­
ance, MF and NT will be equal. But
PF and AD are equal; and XP is
equal to MF, since they cut off equal
parts of the circle by equal lengths
and at the same position. Hence PF
is equal to MX, because MP is com­
mon to both; therefore MX is equal
to AD. In the same manner it is
seen that NH is equal to BE. From
the foregoing, therefore, it is clear
that since MF and PX are equal, and
NT equal to MF, PX is equal to RH,
to which NT is equal. Hence the
weight e_ has no greater component
of the vertical than d, in descend­
ing to the points X and H, or to any
other point. Accordingly, then, nei­
ther of the pendants will be dis­
turbed.
The proof of the theorem E«3 is equivalent to a geometrical
reduction of the case posited, to the case of E .2, as can be seen.
115-136 Theorem E .4 : In saying that this theorem is proved in the
same manner as before, Jordanus is presumably referring to
E.2, which involved a similar geometrical theorem concerning
ratios of arcs intercepted by chords parallel to the diameter of
the circle. Of interest is his use of the expression quantulum-
que parvi, applied to the equal arcs of descent beneath the po­
sitions of the weight on the lever arm. This seems to indicate
that Jordanus was aware of the fact that his theory of positional
gravity, in the case of the curved trajectory of the weight on the
lever arm, called for reduction of finite displacements to ele­
mentary displacements along infinitely small segments of the
curved path.
380
NOTES TO PAGES 134-138
137 158 Theorem E ,5 . This is Jordanus* demonstration, by means of
his principle of positional gravity, of the second part of Archi­
medes first postulate i.e ., that equal weights on unequal lever
arms are not in equilibrium. The proof is clear, resting on the
geometrical theorem cited from Jordanus’ own De triangulis,
that equal chords of unequal circles will intercept unequal arcs
such that the smaller arc is intercepted on the greater circle
and the greater arc on the smaller circle. Hence the ratio of
vertical descent to trajectory (which is the ratio of chord to arc)
. is greater on the greater circle; and thus the positional gravity
of the weight on the longer lever arm will be greater than that
of an equal weight on the shorter lever arm.
153-154 Philotegni..The reference is to Jordanus’ De triangulis, Book
III, Prop. 3 (ed. M. Curtze, Thorn 1887, p. 20): “Si linee equales
in circulis inequalibus arcus resecant, de maiori minorem et de
minori maiorem resecabunt." That is, if equal lines cut off arcs
in unequal circles, the smaller arc is cut on the larger circle,
and the larger arc on the smaller circle.
159 “187 Theorem E .6: This theorem, as well as the one following it
(E .7), involves another erroneous application of the principle of
positional gravity, which Jordanus here extends from the case
of the straight lever to that of the bent lever. The error is
understandable, if we suppose that Jordanus construed the gen­
eral principle involved in E .5, namely that equal weights at un­
equal distances from the axis of support are in disequilibrium,
as valid in the literal sense of distance from axis of support,
instead of seeing that it applies only in the sense of horizontal
distance from the vertical passing through the axis of support.
In the case of the straight balance beam, the two senses coin­
cide; but where the balance beam is bent at the axis of support,
they do not. Failure to see this difference in the two cases may
well account for Jordanus’ acceptance of this theorem, and per­
haps also for his acceptance of the next one, which is proved by
means of this one.
188“213 Theorem E .7: This theorem has a certain connection with
E .3, which stated that inequality of the lengths of the suspension
cords does not alter the condition of equilibrium for the balance
beam in horizontal position. Here it is asserted that even if the
means of suspension are of equal length, if one of them is rig­
idly connected to the lever arm (and is itself a rigid rod), while
the other is free to hang from the other arm of the balance,
equal weights will not be in equilibrium as so suspended from
an equal armed balance. The proof given by Jordanus, in his
comment on this theorem, is equivalent to a reduction of the
case posited here to the case of E .6, through showing that the
rigid connection at right angles is equivalent to the weight being
381
 NOTES TO PAGES 138-140
directly placed on a bent lever arm. The fallacy of E.6 is there­
fore involved in the present theorem.
It is of possible interest to note that the order of letters, as
introduced for construction of the diagram for this theorem, is
the Greek order: A,B,C ,D ,E ,Z ,H . This suggests that the theorem
was inherited from some Greek source, and that Jordanus, ac­
cepting it as true because of its Greek origin,felt duty bound to
find a way of demonstrating it through his principle of gravitas
secundum situm, so that he was thereby led to accept E.6 as a
foundation for the proof here offered of E .7 . In the De ratione
ponderis, both E.6 and E.7 are omitted entirely, and replaced by
another theorem on the bent lever (R1.08) which is wholly cor­
rect, and which explicitly asserts the principle that the position­
al gravity is to be determined by the horizontal distance of the
weight from the vertical passing through the axis of support. If
Jordanus was the author of the De ratione ponderis, we may sup­
pose that he came to recognize the fallacy involved in this ear­
lier treatment of the bent lever problem, and consequently the
falsity of the two theorems E.6 and E .7.
214-232 Theorem E.8: This is the crucial theorem—the general prin­
ciple of the lever. The method of proof used by Jordanus is
wholly different from that of Archimedes, though it is perhaps
vaguely implicit in the Mechanical Problems ascribed to A ri­
stotle (850a 30—b 10), and also in the Third Proposition of Thabit
ibn Qurra's Liber Karastonis. But whereas Aristotle, and Thabit
as well, had argued that the lesser weight on the longer arm
balances the greater weight on the shorter arm, because it
would traverse a proportionately greater distance along the arc
of its movement, Jordanus states that the comparison is deter­
mined according to the lengths of vertical descent or ascent ac­
complished in the movements along the curvilinear path. As
Duhem pointed out, Jordanus’ proof rests on the principle of
work, in this form: What can lift a weight W through a height H,
can lift a weight W /k through a height k.H, or a weight k.W
through a height H /k. Duhem held that this principle was “im ­
plicitly” invoked by Jordanus in his proof; and B. Ginzberg, ar­
guing against Duhem, made much of the fact that a man who
fails to make his principle explicit is not likely to be very con­
scious of the fact that his proof dep'ends on that principle. But
neither Duhem nor Ginzberg seems to have noticed that Jorda­
nus does invoke, as principle of his demonstration, an explicit
theorem—namely, the second part of his first theorem E .l. This
stated that the “velocities of descent and of ascent" are inversely
proportional to the weights. Hence the whole problem of the in­
terpretation of Jordanus’ proof of the general lever principle,
given here in E.8, depends on the meaning to be given to E.l.
382
NOTES TO PAGES 140-142
This is clearly seen by the 14th century commentator whose text
was edited by Petrus Apianus, and whose discussion of E.l we
have printed and translated in our Appendix HI. He points out
that Jordanus invoked the second part of EJ in his proof of E.8,
and states that E.l would only be of value for the proof of E.8 on
condition of being interpreted as a statement that two unequal
weights, so placed on a balance that their vertical descents for
equal degrees of rotation of the balance on its axis are unequal
in inverse proportion, have equal power to sustain or to lift a
weight on the other arm of the balance. This interpretation
would make E .l an explicit statement of the principle of work on
which E.8 depends.
The whole problem of “explicit interpretation," however, is
undecidable in an historical sense; for the differentiations which
we make among alternative possibilities, through the distinc­
tions developed in Newtonian mechanics, were certainly not
made in the thirteenth century. Hence, though we must concede
that many of the Newtonian principles were included “virtually"
in the general conception of potentia motiva as a function of
time, distance, and resistance, the different relationships among
these factors such as are expressed by the set of sharply differ­
entiated formulas of Newtonian mechanics, were not distin­
guished and separated in the thirteenth century, but were includ­
ed in the general conception in undifferentiated manner. Never­
theless, Jordanus’ use of his general dynamic principles, for
demonstrating the special theorem of unequal weights on un­
equal lever arm s, contributed to the clarification of the dynam­
ical analysis by determining one explicit sense for the concept
of work, as involved in the general leve* principle.
233-256 Theorem E .9: This theorem proves the special principle,
invoked in the first theorem of the De canonio, that weights
evenly distributed along one arm of a balance may be replaced
by a single weight equal to their sum, suspended at the mean
point of their distribution, without altering the condition of equi­
librium. Jordanus proves this from the general lever principle
established in E.8. His procedure is thus the reverse of that
used by Archimedes, who employed the special principle that
weights distributed along the lever arm can b^ replaced by one
equal to their sum placed at the mean point of their distribution,
to prove the general lever law—a procedure whose validity has
been questioned by Mach and others. Jordanus, in any event, de­
rives the special principle from the more powerful general
principle, which he invokes on lines 248-249.
The theorem E.9 corresponds to the fourth axiom of the Book
of Euclid on the Balance edited by Woepcke, and to paragraphs
3 “5 of the pseudo-Euclidean fragment which we have edited in
383
 NOTES TO PAGES 145-150
Appendix I. It also corresponds to Propositions IV~V1 of Thabit’s
Liber Karastonis. While the first eight theorems of Jordanus’
Elementa deal with weights on' ideal balance beams whose
weight is neglected, this ninth theorem effects the transition to
the treatment of the Roman balance, where the weight of the
beam must be taken into account. Thus the Elementa Jordani
provides the required theoretical basis for the theorems of the
De canonio, to which it was normally prefixed in the mediaeval
manusc ripts.
LIBER DE PONDERIBUS
INTRODUCTION
1. P. Duhem, Les Origines de la Statique, Vol. I, Paris 1905,
pp. 128-132.
2. P. Duhem, ibid., p. 127.
3. This text is edited, arid translated, in our Appendix II.
4. P. Duhem, loc. cit., pp. 132-134.
5. Aristotle, Mechanical Problems, 849 a 6-17; transl. by W. S.
Hett, in “Aristotle: Minor Works I ,” Loeb Library, London
1936, pp. 341-343.
TEXT
Lines
1“3 The conception of mechanics as a “mixed science" or scientia
media stems from Aristotle, who described the sciences of op­
tics and harmonics as sciences using mathematical principles
in their proofs of physical conclusions. Cf. Analytica Posteriora
I, ch. 13, 78 b 32-79 a 16. This conception was communicated to
the Latin tradition by the De trinitate of Boethius, and through
Arabian treatises on the classification of sciences—notably A l-
Farabi’ s “Enumeration of the Sciences.” Dominicus Gundissali-
nus (fl. 1150) borrowed heavily from Al~Farabi in his treatise
De divisione philosophiae, which in turn influenced thirteenth
century writers such as Robert Kilwardby. Cf. L. Baur, “Domi­
nicus Gundis salinus De divisione philosophiae, " in Beitrage zur
Geschichte der Philosophie des Mittelalters, Bd. IV, Heft 2-3 ,
Miinchen i.W.,1903; also Marshall Clagett, “Some General Aspects
of Physics in the Middle Ages," in Isis, V ol.39, May 1948, pp.29~36.
3-6 Cf. Prop. II of the Liber Karastonis of Thabit ibn Qurra. Also
Aristotle, Mechanical Problems, 848 a 12-15: “The facts about
the balance depend upon the circle, and those about the lever
upon the balance, while nearly all the other problems of mech­
anical movement can depend upon the lev er."
6 "13 These considerations of the degree of curvature reflect the
discussion in Aristotle’ s Mechanical Problems, 848 b 10-849 a 9,
384
NO TE S TO PAGES 150-152
which analyze the circular trajectory of the lever arm as a con­
stantly changing vector resultant of rectilinear components. The
author here intends the expression “more curved" in the sense
of “having a greater component of horizontal movement relative
to vertical movement.” Thus, in the descent of a lever arm from
the horizontal position, the further it moves downward along the
circular trajectory, the greater will be the ratio of horizontal
displacement to vertical. Likewise, if we compare the move­
ments of unequal lever arms, the shorter one will acquire a
greater ratio of horizontal to vertical component, than the long­
er arm, in descending an equal distance from the horizontal po­
sition along its circular trajectory.
14-38 By associating “gravity" and “violence” with the vertical and
the horizontal components of the circular movement, the author
passes from the purely geometrical vector analysis of trajec­
tories to an analysis of the changing composition of forces act­
ing on the weight attached to the extremity of the lever arm.
Again we may refer to Aristotle’ s Mechanical Problems, 849 a
6-2 2, where the same interpretation of the vector composition,
in dynamic term s, is given. It is clear that the author of our
treatise, in saying that the weight on the lever arm 'becomes
“lighter” as it descends beneath the horizontal position along
its curved path, is not speaking of its natural weight, but of the
tangential force it exerts at the successive positions along the
trajectory. In general, the words “heavier" (gravior, pondero­
sior) and “lighter" (levior) are understood in this relative sense,
throughout the treatise.
33-38 The statement that “nothing ascends by nature" is surprising,
in a mediaeval treatise whose background is basically Aristot­
elian. But this is definitely the reading of our manuscript J[. The
Apianus edition, which replaces this statement with the opposed
assertion that fire “naturally ascends," may represent a more
authentic manuscript tradition. In any case, the author seeks
here to establish that when a weight on a lever arm is raised
from a position below the horizontal, the force which it exerts
along the tangent of its path, in the direction opposed to its up­
ward motion, increases continuously as this tangent approaches
the vertical.
39-70 The author here considers the objection that in a system which
is in equilibrium, a weight is not being acted upon by any forces
at all, whether natural or violent, since the action of a force is
an actual movement. Hence the conception of “positional grav­
ity,” defined by the displacements which would occur if the con­
straints did not prevent them, would seem on this basis to be a
fictitious notion. Just such an objection was raised to the notion
of gravitas secundum situm, and to Jordanus’ use of it in his
385
 NO TES T O PAGES 150-156
statics, by the celebrated Guido Ubaldi del Monte in the Mechan­
icorum liber which he published in 1577; he claimed that the
same weight, in the same position, would be assigned different
positional gravities according to the way in which one consid­
ered its possible movements, and he contended that a value
which varied according to one’s manner of consideration is not
a legitimate physical quantity. His argument rested on the a s­
sumption that the value of the positional gravity varies arbit­
rarily according to whether one takes a longer or a shorter arc
for the calculation of its obliquity in the assigned position; but
this was to miss the point of the notion of positional gravity, at
least in the way it was employed by Jordanus—for the vector
composition is to be calculated for an arc smaller than any
assigned value (“quantumlibet parvi" in Jordanus’ terms), and
hence it is no more arbitrary than is the limiting value which
defines an infinitely small arc. While Jordanus seemed to grasp
this truth, the author of the present version is content to re­
spond to the objection by a somewhat vague appeal to the A r is ­
totelian thesis that there is a proportionality between states of
natural and violent rest, and the corresponding natural and vio­
lent movements. On Guido Ubaldi’ s discussion of this problem,
cf. Duhem, Les Origines de la Statique, vol. I, Paris 1905, pp.
213-219.
71-75 This passage, by its wording, would seem to indicate that the
prologue had been supplied, as an introduction to the Liber pon­
derum, by the “commentator.” There is also a suggestion, here
and in lines 91 “94, that the Liber ponderum consisted only of the
set of postulates and theorems, the proofs or explanatory com­
ments being the work of the commentator.
76-90 The postulates, which are substantially identical with those of
the Elementa Jordani, require no comment beyond that which
was made in our Notes to this work of Jordanus.
95-113 The first theorem differs from that of the Elementa Jordani
by including the word proprie after the phrase velocitatis in de­
scendendo. The commentary states that this is in order to ex­
clude from consideration all velocities acquired otherwise than
by nature. From the context it seems fairly clear that this does
not mean that we are to consider velocities acquired by bodies
in free fall; rather it means that the expression “velocity of de­
scent" is to be taken in its strict or “proper" sense, as amount
of vertical descent accomplished by the descending weight in a
given time, and not the distance it may have to traverse along an
oblique or curved trajectory, in that given time, in order to ac­
complish the vertical descent. This interpretation is confirmed
by the passage from Albert of Saxony, quoted in our Note to
Proposition I of the Elementa Jordani, in which velocitas de -
386
NO TES T O PAGES 156-160
scensus is defined in this technical sense.
This comment makes it plain, also, that the descents of
weights, as here considered, are conceived as descents of
weights on a balance, involving the lifting of a counterweight on
the other arm of the balance. The commentary edited in our
Appendix III, which is of fourteenth century origin, confirms
this interpretation, and manages to construe this theorem as an
enunciation of the principle of work. On this question, see our
Note to Prop. I of the Elementa Jordani.
114-139 These four theorems, here stated with only the barest indi­
cation of proofs, are discussed in more detail in the Notes to
the Elementa Jordani.
140-181 Theorems P.06 and P.07, which likewise appear in the E le-
menta Jordani, involve the error of supposing that the distance
from axis of support, which determines positional gravity, is to
be measured along the lever arm in the case of the bent lever,
as is done in the case of the straight lever in horizontal posi -
tion. The same error is made by Jordanus, though it is corrected
in his De ratione ponderis which gives a correct and elegant
demonstration of the condition of equilibrium in the bent lever.
The text of P.07, in this version, is rather obscure, especially
in lines 174-181. The main point seems to be that those who fail
to concede the theorem forget that the pendant fixed rigidly at
right angles to its lever arm must describe the same path as
would be described by a bent lever arm passing from the axis
of support directly to the lower end of the fixed pendant. Thus
they fail to see that this theorem reduces to the case of P.06.
182-192 The brief comment to the theorem (P.08) on the general
lever principle is obviously inadequate>as a proof. It assumes,
as if established empirically, that unequal weights on inversely
unequal lever arms are in equilibrium. From this it argues that
since unequal weights would not be in equilibrium if they were
free to follow the same paths of descent, the inequality of their
natural weights must be offset by an inversely proportional in­
equality of their positional gravities as determined by the obli­
quities of their paths of virtual descent. The reference to Theo­
rem I, as basis for this argument, is of value in interpreting
that crucial theorem, since it indicates that the proportionality
of velocities of descent to weights, enunciated in Prop. I, is to
be understood as a proportionality of vertical descents accom­
plished in given time, by weights on a balance, to their “grav­
ities” in the relative sense determined by the obliquity of path
as well as by natural weight.
193-207 Whereas Jordanus proved this theorem by direct use of the
general lever principle, in E .9, the present commentator merely
suggests that a direct application of the theory of positional
387
r
NOTES TO PAGES 162-171
gravity is sufficient to establish the theorem.
208-277 These last four theorems are those of the De canonio, but
the present commentator appears not to have been acquainted
with the elegant proofs given in the text of that treatise, and his
proofs are far inferior. The proof of P.10 does bear some vague
resemblance to Prop. VII of Thabit’ s Liber Karastonis, which in
turn may have been influenced by the authentic De canonio di­
rectly or indirectly.
It is of interest to note that at the end of the second of the
commentaries on theorem P.09, published by Petrus Apianus,
there occurs this sentence: wHic explicit secundum aliquos liber
Euclidis de ponderibus.” This tends to confirm our conjecture
that the seven postulates and the nine theorems, to which Jor-
danus supplied proofs in his Elementa and to which our present
author supplied an introduction and his brief comments or
proofs, were inherited by both men as a series of propositions
ascribed to Euclid and known simply as the Liber ponderum. The
four theorems of the De canonio may also have been known first
only as four propositions devoid of demonstrations, accounting
for the fact that our present “commentator" knew the theorems
without being acquainted with the proofs found in the full text as
translated from the Greek. This full text, found in late thirteenth
and in fourteenth century manuscripts, may have been discovered
or translated at a date subsequent to the composition of this
“Peripatetic" commentary, and perhaps subsequent to the time
of composition of the Elementa Jordani.
DE RATIONE PONDERIS
INTRODUCTION
1. Pierre Duhem, Les Origines de la Statique, I, Paris 1905,
p , 134.
2. Ibid, pp. 182-193, 2 2 5-22 6,23 6-26 2.
3. Galileo, Della scienza meccanica (Le Opere di Galileo Gal-
ilei, ed. Alberi, Firenze 1854, t. XI, p. 90); and Dialoghi delle
Nuove Scienze (ibid., t.XIII, p.77). Duhem, loc. cit. pp.248-262
gives a detailed discussion of Galileo’ s different uses of the
concept of momento, in the statical and dynamical senses
and contexts.
4. P. Duhem, loc. cit. pp. 134-147. But later, in his Etudes sur
Leonard de Vinci, vol. I (Paris 1913), pp. 310-316, Duhem
reached the conclusion that Leonardo did not have access to
a manuscript containing Book I of the De ratione ponderis,
in which the inclined plane theorem occurs; so he withdrew
his first anachronistic title of “precursor of Leonardo," sub­
stituting for it an equally inappropriate title, “precursor of
388
NO TES T O PA GE S 171-174
Simon Stevin.” In this later work Duhem also decided that
Books II-IV of the De ratione ponderis were not written by
the author of Book I, but were of Greek origin; no convincing
evidence, however, is given for this conjecture.
5. This statement must be qualified to the extent that Ms. Har -
leian 13 of the British Museum writes “Johannis” instead of
“Jordanis” in its title and explicit. But this would seem to
be no more than a copyist’ s error, since we know of no “Jo­
hannes” who would be a candidate for the authorship of any
of the De ponderibus treatises.
6. Cf. Introduction to the Elementa Jordani, Note 5; supra,
p. 373.
7. Cf. supra, p. 145-146where we discuss this question and cite
the confirming evidence given in Bradwardine’ s Tractatus
proportionum.
TEXT, PART I
Lines
1-15 The seven postulates are the same as those of the Elementa
Jordani, and our comments on the latter hold equally for these.
The second clause in R1.001, though occurring in a few manu­
script copies of the Elementa, occurs regularly in the manu­
script versions of the De ratione ponderis, and probably belongs
properly only to this work. Of interest is an interpolation found
in the Curtius Trojanus edition, in this first postulate, and prob­
ably representing a marginal notation on Thrtaglia’ s manuscript
which the printer incorporated in the text: “we can understand
the power of the weight in terms of the length of the lever arm,
or in terms of its velocity insofar as consequent on the length
of the lever arm " (virtutem ipsius, sive potentia, possumus in-
telligere longitudinem brachii librae, aut velocitatem eius quae
probatur ex longitudine brachii librae). This would interpret the
first postulate as a statement restricted to the case of a weight
on a lever arm, asserting that the force of the weight which is
directed vertically downward depends on its distance from the
axis of rotation; on this interpretation, the virtus of the weight
is nothing other than its statical moment when the lever arm is
in horizontal position.
The ten theorems of Book I of the De ratione ponderis include
seven which are the same, or nearly the same, as theorems
found in the Elementa Jordani—though the order is slightly dif­
ferent. We give below a correlation of the theorems, as far as
they overlap:
Elementa Jordani De ratione ponderis I
E.l = R1.01 (slightly different)
E.2 = R1.02 (adds a third part to the
389
r
NOTES TO PAGES 174-176
theorem and proof)
E.3 = R1.04 (identical)
E.4 = R1.03 (proof only sketched
here)
E.5 = R1.05 (different proof)
E.6 and E.7 omitted entirely from De ratione
ponderis
E .8 and E .9 = R1.06 and R1.07 respectively.
R1.08 is a new theorem on the bent lever (replacing E.6 and
E .7), and R1.09 and R1.10, on the inclined plane, have no counter­
part in the Elementa Jordani.
16-29 Theorem R1.01: The difference between this theorem, and E.l
of the Elementa, lies in the substitution of the word virtus for
velocitas, so that it reads as an assertion that the “forces of
descent” of any two weights are proportional to their weights or
pondera. This would be a significant difference if we read mod­
ern meanings into the terms; but the proof offered for the theo­
rem indicates that the reason why the “forces of descent" are
proportional to the weights, is that the “velocities of descent"
are proportional to them. The problems involved in the inter­
pretation of this theorem are the same as those raised in con­
nection with E .l; should we interpret “ponderis" (or weight) in
the sense of relative weight dependent on distance from axis of
rotation, or in the sense of the natural weights of the bodies
compared? Again we refer to the interesting discussion given
by the later mediaeval commentary on Prop. I of the Liber de
ponderibus, printed in the Apianus edition as the second com­
mentary on this theorem, and which we have edited in our Ap­
pendix III.
The second part of E.l has no corresponding part in R1.01, at
least in the statement of the theorem itself. But it seems to be
implied by the last part of the proof of R1.01, which derives the
consequence that the heights through which two unequal weights
can be raised (presumably by the same counterweight descend­
ing through the same vertical distance) will be inversely pro-
portional to the two weights in question. The presence of this
argument, here as in E .l, makes it unlikely that the theorem is
understood for the case of heavy bodies in free fall, and sup­
ports the contention of the later commentator mentioned above,
that the entire theorem bears on the relative capacities of un­
equal weights to lift a given counterweight on the other arm of
the balance, or to resist being lifted by the given counterweight.
Only as so interpreted is the theorem of value in establishing
the general lever principle for which it is invoked here (in R1.06)
just as it was invoked in E.8 of the Elementa Jordani. On this
interpretation, the theorem is an enunciation of the principle of
390
NOTES T O PAGES 176-178
work, in this form: If a weight w, descending through a vertical
distance d, can lift a counterweight jc through a certain vertical
height h, then another weight k.w, by descending the vertical
distance d/k, can raise the same counterweight x the same
height h; and also, another weight w/k can raise x through the
height h by descending the vertical distance k._d. The second
part of the theorem will then assert that if w, descending the
vertical distance d, can raise _x through the height h, then k.w,
descending the same distance d, can raise k.x the same height
h, or it can raise jc the height k.h. The three crucial theorems
of Book I of the De ratione ponderis (R1.06 on the general lever
principle, R1.08 on the bent lever, and R1.10 on the inclined plane)
rest on this principle of work; and at least in the case of R1.06
the proof is explicitly referred to the principle that the heights
through which weights can be lifted by the same counterweight
are in inverse ratio to their weights, as a principle which had
been established (ut ostensum est). Now it is only this first theo­
rem that could possibly be construed as having established this
principle; consequently it seems proper to interpret the first
theorem in this sense.
The method of proof here employed is similar to that used in
E .l, depending on Euclid V, Prop. 30; i.e ., if then
a+h.
—— ^ AE+ED TT • x, x ofr the two weights,
>— — . Here a+b is the greater and
its part a is assumed to be the same as thelesser weight c,
while the distance of _a+b’ s descent is assumed to be divisible
proportionately to its components a^ and in such manner that
the distance AE corresponding to _a’ s part of the descent is equal
to the whole descent of the lesser weight c , and the distance ED
represents _b’ s part in the whole descent of ^+b.
30-97 Theorem R l.02: The first two parts of this theorem, and of the
proof given, correspond exactly to E .2, the second part commit­
ting the same error in assuming stable equilibrium to obtain.
The third part of R1.02, not found in E .2, shows that if one of the
weights is the least bit heavier than the other, its finite excess
. of natural weight will offset the infinitesimal advantage due to
difference in the obliquities of virtual descent, so that the arm
on which the heavier weight hangs will continue to fall until it
is vertically beneath the axis of support. The argument is of in­
terest because of its glimpse of the infinitesimal aspect of the
concept of a virtual displacement. But Duhem’ s claim (Les O r­
igines de la Statique, I, p.140) that this constitutes “une refuta­
tion concluante" of the error committed in the second part of
the proof, is untenable; for part of the argument in this third
section is the assumption that there is an advantage in position-
 NOTES TO PA GE S 178-184
al gravity on the side of the weight which is above the horizon­
tal position, which needs to be offset by some finite addition to
the weight on the other arm in order to keep the balance from
reverting to the horizontal.
98-133 Theorems R1.03 and R1.04: These correspond exactly to E.4
and E.3 respectively, except that the proof of R1.03 is abridged
to a mere sketch. Our comments on E.4 and E.3 apply fully to
these corresponding theorems.
134-142 Theorem R1.05: This theorem is identical with E .5, but offers
a different proof. As in R1,02, the author compares angles
formed between arcs and lines tangent to them; but he seems to
be thinking of the comparison between the change-rates of the
slopes of the arcs corresponding to equal small segments of
their respective tangents, as determining a gain in positional
gravity for the weight on the longer arm, for any virtual dis­
placement of the balance.
143-161 Theorem R1.06: This states the general lever principle, and
is in all respects identical with E .8 . The principle of work, ac­
cording to Duhem, underlies the proof; and if this is so, we must
assume that the first theorem (R1.01), here as in the Elementa,
is Jordanus’ statement of the principle of work. It maybe noted
that B. Ginzberg, in an article which seems to be chiefly con­
cerned with the task of discrediting Duhem’ s integrity as a
scholar, seeks ammunition for his criticism of Duhem’ s claim
that Jordanus’ proof of the lever principle is based on the prin­
ciple of work, by taking a sentence which occurs only in the in­
authentic version represented by Cod. Vat. Lat. 2975 (a version
which is not even ascribed to Jordanus, but to Euclid), as if it
belonged in Jordanus' own proof of this theorem. This sentence
reads, “fiet redditus ad situm equalitatis” (“a return to the hor­
izontal position occurs”); it is substituted, in the manuscript,
for the final clause of our te x t,‘T non sequitur b contrario motu,
neque a sequetur b .” There is no justification for attributing
this reading fro m Cod, Vat. Lat. 2975 to Jordanus or to the author
of the De ratione ponderis, since the manuscripts of the authen­
tic Elementa Jordani, and those of the De ratione ponderis as
well as the Curtius Trojanus edition of this work, all give the
reading which we have used in our text. (The article mentioned
by B. Ginzburg, was published in Isis, XXV, Sept. 1936, pp.341-
362; despite the author’ s claim to have checked up on Duhem
through direct study of “the original manuscripts,” it turns out
that he saw no manuscript at all of the Elementa Jordani, on
which Duhem based his argument concerning the principle of
work, and that he took the so-called Liber Euclidis de ponderi-
bus contained in Cod. Vat. Lat. 2975 as a copy of the Elementa
Jordani, even though Duhem had pointed out the vast difference
392
NOTES TO PAGES 184-188
between the two versions).
162-183 Theorem R1.07: This theorem is identical with E.9, and rep­
resents the transition from the theorems of equilibrium on a
balance of weightless (or “ideal") lever arms, to the problems
concerning equilibrium of weights on a material balance beam,
such as are treated in the De canonio and in the second book of
the De ratione ponderis. The proof here is identical with that of
E .9 , and our comments on the latter theorem apply fully to its
replica here.
184-246 Theorem R1.08: There is no antecedent in the Elementa Jor­
dani for this theorem on the bent lever, except that the two e r­
roneous theorems E .6 and E.7 involved the problem of equilib­
rium in a bent lever. The proof given here is rather intricate in
its geometrical development, as can be seen by a glance at the
diagram. But the proof is valid, and the principle which it in­
vokes is clear enough—namely, that the reason why a balance of
bent arms will be in stable equilibrium where the weights are
C-
equidistant from the vertical passing through the axis of sup­
r port, is because in any displacement from this position a weight
would be raised some vertical distance, by an equal weight de­
scending less than that distance. Thus the principle of work un­
derlies this demonstration, just as it does in the proofs of the
general lever principle (R1.06) and of the inclined plane theo­
& rem (R1.10).
Duhem (Les Origines de la Statique, I, pp. 140-142) gives a
proof of this theorem, accompanied by a diagram, which is not
the proof found in the edition of Curtius Trojanus, or in any of
our manuscripts. Yet Duhem indicates the text of the printed
edition as his source. He also had access to one manuscript
(P aris, Ms. Bibl. Nat, lat, 7378 A), but apparently made very
little use of it because of its illegibility. Only after completing
his work did he discover the good text offered by Ms. Bibl. Nat,
lat. 8680 A, as he states on p. 319 of his work. We must there­
fore suppose that Duhem, while fully grasping the basic reason­
i.
d: ing of this proof, reconstructed it and provided it with a diagram
suited to his reconstruction by way of a conjecture as to the
meaning of the very garbled text of the edition. With a good man­
uscript it is not hard to detect the mistakes made by the printer
of the edition; but without such aid, we can understand how Du­
hem was driven to a somewhat intuitive method of divining the
details of the proof. His intuition was basically sound, to be
sure; but the proof he gave was superior, from the point of view
of simplicity and elegance, to that of the actual text. In conse­
quence, Duhem’ s diagram and paraphrase of the proof cannot
m be taken as literally derived from the sources—not even from
the source which he himself was using.
39 3
r 1
NOTES TO PAGES 188-190
247-298 Theorems R1.09 and R1.10: These two theorems, not found
in the Elementa Jordani or in any of the antecedent literature,
Greek or mediaeval, present the first correct statement and
proof of the condition of equilibrium of unequal weights on di -
versely inclined planes, in the history of mechanics. The dem­
onstration is clear and elegant, and requires no comment in ex­
plication of the reasoning. The basis of the proof is indicated,
in the last two lines, as the principle of work—namely, a force
which would suffice to lift the weight £ through the vertical
height ZN, could lift the weight h through the height XM, where
g^:h = XM : ZN, or, equivalently, where the products of the weights
by the heights through which they are raised, are equal. In this
way the theorem shows that the force required to sustain a body
on an inclined plane (i.e., the force directed upward along the
plane) is measured by the weight of the body sustained, multi­
plied by the ratio of the altitude to the length of incline corre­
sponding to it. And this is of course our modern formula.
What is essential, and apparently original, in Jordanus’ whole
treatment of the statical problems, is his recognition that it is
the vertical descent or ascent of a weight, in relation to the
length of oblique trajectory, which is to be taken into account.
It is.this which differentiates Jordanus’ definition of “positional
gravity” from that offered by the author of the so-called “P eri­
patetic commentary" (our version “P "), who seems to associate
positional gravity with degree of curvature of the trajectory, or
with the ratio of vertical to horizontal displacement. In the case
of the curved trajectory of a weight on a balance arm, Jordanus
sees that it is necessary to determine the positional gravity at
each point of the curve by the ratio of the tangent to its projec­
tion on the vertical; since this is, in effect, a reduction of the
more difficult problem of the curved trajectory, to the simpler
case of the inclined plane, it seems likely that the inclined plane
formulation was present to Jordanus’ thought from the start
even though it was only in his later work that he introduced a
separate theorem in this formulation.
For the history of the attempts to solve the inclined plane
problem, from Pappus to Descartes, cf. P. Duhem, Les Origines
de la Statique, I, p p .2 7 -9 ,49-51, 182-193, 257-58, 272-279, 303-311-
315-316, and 329-332. Of interest is a marginal comment at the
bottom of the page of our manuscript A, which refers to this in­
clined plane demonstration (R1.10) as basis for the following
theorem of hydraulics:
Nota quod ex ultima propositione huius partis sequitur
necessario quod si duo canales equalis grossitiei, per to­
tum similes, angulariter coniungantur, et aqua impleantur,
existente copia aque in altero termino, ita tamen quod illi
394
NO TE S TO P A G E 192
termini sint in equidistantia orizontis, stabit aqua et non
descendet; quod si ex parte alterius termini non existentis
in aqua, fiat aliquis descensus sub linea equi di stanti e, fluet
aqua ad illam partem; et ex hoc sequitur quod per talia in­
strumenta non poterit descendere nec supra suam originem
nec in loco eque alto, sed necessario requiritur inferior.
(Translation): Note that from the last proposition of this
part, it follows necessarily that if two pipes of equal dia­
meter, and similar throughout, are joined at an angle and
filled with water, in such manner that one end is immersed
in a large body of water, but so that the two ends are on the
same horizontal level, the water will remain and not de­
scend through the pipe. But if the «nd which is not immersed
in the water is lowered beneath that horizontal level, the
water will flow to that side. And from this it follows that,
by means of such instruments, water cannot flow to a place
above its source, nor to a place equally high, but the place
(to which it will flow) must necessarily be lower.
Duhem, loc. cit. p. 307-8, mentions that Pierre Herigone, in
f- his Cours mathematique published in 1634, made use of Jordanus’
proof of the inclined plane theorem, and also of the general le ­
ver principle. Duhem suggests that Herigone’ s discussions of
the siphon reflected the above annotation on M s. Bibl. Nat, lat.
8680 A , and he states that this annotation is to be dated as of
the thirteenth century—though he gives no reasonfor thus dating
it. Ihe handwriting of the annotation is in a Gothic cursive style
which remained common until late in the fifteenth century,
though it could have been of much earlier origin. In any case,
the annotation indicates that some early reader saw that the
basic principle conveyed by Jordanus* proof of the inclined plane
theorem was that of equivalence of work.
TEXT, PART II
Lines
1-23 Theorem R2.01: As the diagram indicates, the argument sup­
poses that the segment AE of the material balance beam is re­
placed by a weightless line from whose mid-point at Z there is
hung a weight h equal to the weight of the material segment AE.
%: In this way the problem of the Roman balance is reduced to that
I. of the ideal balance to which the lever principle, as developed
in R1.06, applies directly. The problem of this theorem is to de­
termine the ratio of the shorter arm BC to the whole beam AC,
when the weight of AC and the weight of d_ are given. Obviously,
iW '
in dealing with the symmetrical balance beam of uniform ma­
€■ terial, divisions in its length can be treated as equivalent to di­
visions of its weight. We suppose that B is the point of division
395
'
 NOTES TO PAGES 192-194 NOTES TO P A G E 194

(5) Therefore d.2BC = EA.AC

at which the axis of rotation is placed, such, that the beam will
(6) Adding (BC")2 to both sides of the above equation,
be in equilibrium whendis suspended fromthe shorter armBC.
d.2BC + BC2 = EA.AC + BC2
Then we mark off a point E, such that EB = BC. Since EB and BC,
(7) But EA.AC + BC2 = BA2 (By Euclid II, Props. 1 and 4;
considered alone, are in equilibrium (since each part of BC has
or algebraically, we may substitute AC - 2BC for EA,
a corresponding equal part of EB at an equal distance from the
and AC - BC for BA, and then derive the equation
axis), it follows that the weight of AE must be what balances the
AC2 - 2 AC .BC + BC2 =(AC - BC)2
weight d. We then suppose that the weight of AE is replaced by
(8) Therefore d.2BC + BC2 = BA2
a weight, h, equal to the weight of AE, but concentrated at the
But d.2BC + BC2 is given, since d and BC are given; there­
mid point of the ideal line AE. The proof then proceeds as fol­
fore BA2 is known, and its root BA is known. But AC =BA + BC;
lows:
therefore
d : h = ZB : BC (By theorem R1.06)
AC =/2d.BC + BC2 + BC
Therefore, d : ZB = h : BC (Euclid V, 12: “alternation")
53~57 The short part after this main proof suggests an alternative
But h = AE (in weight), by hypothesis; therefore d : ZB = AE : BC
procedure based on the same starting point, d.BC = ZB.EA. Since
Dividing both sides by 2, d : 2 .ZB =AE : 2.BC; but 2 .ZB = AC,
EA = 2ZE, and since ZB = BC + ZE, we may substitute and ob­
and 2.BC = EC; therefore d : AC -= AE : EC
tain d..BC = 2.ZE (ZE + BC) = 2.Z E 2 + 2(BC.ZE). And since _d and
But d + AC : AC = AE + EC : EC (Euclid V,13; “composi­
BC are known, ZE can be determined; and since AC = 2.ZE + 2.BC,
tion”)
AC can be found.
Therefore d + AC : — = AE + EC : — ; but — = BC; and 58-73 The three “ generalia" added on lines 58-73 are very difficult
- 2 2 2
to grasp from the Latin text as given, due primarily to the lack
AE + EC = AC;
of notational signs for addition and multiplication between let­
Therefore d + AC : — = AC : BC; therefore BC = A CJ/ 2_AC ters designating quantities to be taken in combination as sums
2 d + AC
or products. It was necessary to add many “ands" in the trans­
Since AC and d are known, the value of BC is determined by
lation (or “plus’ s ”) to indicate addition, and “by" to indicate
this equation,
multiplication. An analysis of these three “generalia" is offered
24-30 Theorem R2.02: This is another form of the calculation de­
below:
veloped in R2.01.
(I) : Lines 58-63. To prove that (d + BC)2 = d2 + BA2
d + AC : 1/2 AC = AC : BC (By R2.01)
Proof: 2 d.BC = EA.AC—(given); therefore 2 d.B C +B C 2 =
Therefore d + AC = AC. BA2 (as above, by Euclid II, Props. 1 and 4; or alge­
~ 2BC
braically). Adding d2 to both sides, we obtain
Consequently, cl = (AC. ^ - ..)- AC d2 + 2 d.BC + BC2 = d2 + BA2
2BC
Therefore, (d + BC)2 = cl2 + BA2 Q.E.D.
31-73 Theorem R2.03: The text of this theorem is not as clear as
(II) Lines 64-68. To prove that (d + BC).2BC = BC2 + BA2
might be desired, especially in lines 58~73. A long passage, con­
Proof: 2 d.BC + BC2 ? BA2 (Euclid II, 1 and 4; and as
taining the main proof of the theorem (i.e., from line 34 to line
above) Add BC2 to each side; then 2 d.BC + 2.BC2 =
52) is omitted from our manuscripts A and H, though it appears
BA2
in the other two manuscripts and in the edition. The main steps
But 2 d.BC + 2.BC2 = (d + BC). 2 BC
of this proof are reasonably clear, as follows:
Therefore, (d_+ BC).2BC = BA2 + BC2 Q.E.D.
Given the weight d_, and the weight (or length) of the segment
(III) Lines 69“73. To prove that
BC of the balance beam, to find the total weight (or length) of
(d + BC)2 + (d_+ BC).2AC = AC2 + (d + BA)2
the whole beam AC.
Proof: Substitute (BA + BC) for AC; then
(1) d : h = ZB : BC (By R1.06 and R2.01)
AC2 + (d + BA)2 = (BA + BC)2 + (d + BA)2 =
(2) But h = EA (given); therefore d : EA = ZB : BC.
BA2 + 2BA BC + BC2 + d2 + 2d. BA + BA2
(3) d.BC = EA.ZB (By multiplication of means and extremes
But (d_ + BC)2 = d2 + BA2 (By the first of the “generalia" above)
of the first equation stated above)
and (d + BG).2AC = (d + BC).2(BA + BC) = 2BA.BC + BC2 +
(4) Therefore d.2BC = EA.2ZB (multiplying by 2); but 2ZB = AC
2d.BA + BA2
(since AZ = ZE and EB = BC)
397
396
 NOTES TO PAGES 194-198
Therefore (d + BC)2 + (d + BC).2AC = d2 + BA2 + 2BA.BC +
BC2 + 2d.BA
But since AC? + (ji + BA)2 is also equal to this, therefore
(d + BC)2 + (d + BC).2AC = AC2 + (d + BA) 2 Q.E.U
Some of these generalia are invoked in subsequent proofs; but
their immediate connection with the proof of R2.03 is not wholly
apparent.
74-79 Theorem R2.04: Given d and BA, to find BC.
d2 + BA^ = (cl + BC)2 (By R2.03, generalium No. 1)
Therefore d + BC = J g . + BA^ » hence BC + BA2 - d
Since d and BA are known, BC is determined, and therefore AC
which is equal to BA + BC. Q.E.D.
80-98 Theorem R2.05: This theorem has three parts, as follows:
(I) Given AC, and the sum d + BC, to find BA, BC and d sep­
arately.
Proof: (d + BC)2 + (d + BC).2AC = AC2 + (d + BA)2
(R2.03, No. 3)
Therefore (d + BC)2 + (d + BC).2AC - AC2 = (d + BA)2
Since (I + BC, and AC, are given, _d + BA is determined; and
since d + BC is given, (d. + BA) - (d + BC), which is the same as
BA - BC, is given. But AC is given, and AC = BA + BC. There­
fore BC * AC - (BA - BC)] and BA - AC 4 (BA - BC)
2 2
(il) Given AC, and the sum (d + BA), to find BC, BA, and d_ sep­
arately.
Proof: AC2 + (d + BA)2 = (d + BC)2 + 2 (d + BC).AC
(By R2.03)
Therefore, (d + BA)2 + AC2 + AC2 = (d + BC)2 +
2 (d + BC).AC + AC2; and hence (d + BA)2 + 2.A C2 =
(AC + [d + BC])2
But (d + BA), and AC, are given; therefore d + BC is deter­
mined; and then, as before, BA and BC and d can be separately
determined.
(Ill) Given the sum (d + BC), and the sum (d + BA), to find AC,
and each of the other values separately.
Proof: (d + BC)2 = d2 + BA2 (By R2.03)
But [d +tBA)2 = _d2 + 2 d.BA + BA2; and therefore
(d + BA)2 - (d + BC)2 = 2d .B A
Therefore d and BA can be separately determined, and con­
sequently BC and AC.
99_122 Theorem R2.06: This theorem passes to consideration of the
case where a weight is suspended from an intermediate point
on one arm, balancing the weight of the longer arm. The prob­
lem is as follows: Given the weights of the arms AB and BC,and
the ratio by which BC is divided into BE and CE, to determine
what weight <1, suspended from the point E, will balane e the beam.
398
%
I NOTES T O PAGES 1 9 8 -2 0 0
Suppose that, instead of d, there is a weight hung from C, such
as will balance the beam. Since the weight of h plus that of BC
is what balances the weight of the opposite arm AB, and since
likewise the weight d plus the weight of BC suffices to balance
the arm AB, we may subtract the common component BC; and
then the positional weight of d must be equal to that of Ji. There-
■ fore BC : BE = (i : h; but h is given (since AB and BC are given,
h is determinable by R2.02); also BE and BC are given; there­
fore d is determined.
A second variant is added, as follows: Given d, and the weights
of AB and BC, we can obtain the ratio of BE to CE. For h is de-
. terminable by theorem R2.02; and ci : h = BC : BE (as shown above.
But BC and d are given; therefore BE is determined, and there­
fore CE.
i A third variant is this: Given d, and given CE and BE, we can
- determine BA and AC. For BC : BE = d : h; and BC = CE + BE,
which are given; and d itself is given, and BE is given. There­
fore h is determined, and hence, by R2.01, AB and BC can be
determined.
V 123-154 Theorem R2.07: Given AB and BC, and also BE and EC, and
the combined weight of d and h (suspended at E and C respec­
tively, on the shorter arm), to find d_ and h separately.
We suppose a weighty, equal to d_, to be added to h; and since
d + h is given, h 4 y is given. Now we know that there will be some
weight _t which, if hung from C, will balance the beam; and the
amount of this weight can be determined by the formula of R2.01.
Let the difference between (h +_y) and_t be called z. Then since
t, suspended from C, has the same positional weight as d_ and h
have when suspended at E and C, the positional weight of h + y_
will exceed the positional weight of h+^1, by the amount z; hence
y_= d + z. But : d = BC : BE; therefore _y : z_ - BC : EC. But z_ is
given (isince li+_y is given and_t is knoyvn); therefore _y is deter­
mined, since BC and EC are given. And since h +_y (which is
equal to h + _d) is known, we subtract _y from (h + ^ ), and find h.
The second variant is this: Given h and d_, and also CE and EB,
to find BA. Proof: d : z = BC : EC (since y : z = BC : EC, as shown
above, whereas = d). Therefore, z_ is determined. But z^= (h + d) -
t; therefore _t = (h + d) - z. But _t = AB - (CE + EB), and therefore
AB = t + (CE + EB). Q.E.D.
A third variant is this: Given h and ci, and also AB and BC, to
find BE and EC. Proof: _t = AB - BC; but (h + d) - _t = z\ and BE :
CE = d : z. Therefore BC : CE = (d + z ) : z; and hence
CE = -
BC(d + z) Q.E.D.
155-181 Theorem R2.08: Given the ratio AB:BC, and the weight d, to
find the weight of the whole beam ABC. We arbitrarily assign
399
r NOTES TO PA GE S 2 0 2 -2 0 4
1

NOTES TO PAGES 2 0 0 -2 0 2
the unknown weight, which is suspended at C, into three parts,
two numerical values x and y, supposing that their sum repre­
£» h, and^_, such that on an ideal balance beam £ would balance
sents the weight of ABC, and such that x : y = AB : BC. Then
d, and_h would balance £. By the lever principle of R1.06, we can
since, by R2.03, d = AB^/2BC, it follows that if AB = x, and BC = y,
determine the weights of £ and h from the known weights d and
d = x^/2y. Therefore
z, since the length of the arms of the balance are given, as well
-----5 t / d ; and (x + y).2y _ AB -I- BC as the division of the longer arm into its two segments. Thus
AB + BC 2y ' - x^ d
the remainder of the weight ehl, represented by l, is what bal­
Hence: AB + BC = ^ —YS^- * and since d, and x and y, are ances the excess weight of the material balance beam on its
longer side AB. So we calculate the weight of 1 from the known
known quantities, it follows that AB + BC, or ABC, is known.
weights of the arms AB and BC, by the formula of R2.02, and
A second form is this'.Given d, and given the ratio BC:EB, to
we add this result to the weights already determined for e and
find AC. We suppose a weight _t which, hung from C, balances
h, and thus determine the total weight ehl required to balance d
the beam. This weight _t will be known, since d : _t = BC : EB (by
and £ on the material balance beam ABC.
R2.06, third variant); therefore AB and BC are determined, and
The variant on this proof supposes ehl to be given, and the
consequently their sum ABC.
ratio of cl to z, as well as the lengths of the beam-segments AB
A third form is this: Given d and h, and the ratio BC:EB, to
and BC, to be given. The problem is to calculate the weights of
find AC. Find_t (by R2.06), and then calculate ABC as above.
d and z separately. We suppose a weight dg^ to be suspended from
182-212 Theorem R2.09: Given the weight of ABC, and of d and of j;,
A, replacing d and z_ at their positions A and T, such that dg will
to find AB and BC. Let hy be a weight such as balances £, when
balance ehl suspended at C. We then know that : z = TB : AB;
it is hung from T (replacing the material segment AZ with an
and since the lengths TB and AB are given, we know the ratio of
ideal line); and let its part_y be equal to the weight of AZ which
g. to z. But since the ratio of d : £ i s given, we can determine
it is replacing. Then £ : hy = TB : BC (by R1.06); hence _£ : TB =
the ratio of g^ to d^ through dividing_g/_z b y ji/z . And since dg is
hy : BC (by alternation). And since hy = h + A Z, it follows that
known—for we can calculate 1 by R2.02 and can then calculate
e : TB = h + AZ : BC. By composition, we derive the equation,
dg from £h by R1.06—, and since the ratio of d to g is known,
e + TB : TB = h + AZ + BC : BC. But since BC =BZ, and BZ + AZ = AB,
we can determine the values of d and g separately. Again, since
we may replace AZ + BC with AB, and write
the ratio of d to £ is given, we can determine z_ separately.
(1) e + TB : TB = h + AB : BC
240-257 Theorem R2.12: This theorem utilizes R 2.ll, as well as pre­
But since h : d = AB : TB, therefore d : TB = h : AB;
vious theorems, to solve a special problem, where the weights
and by composition, we may write
d^ and z, when their positions are interchanged, balance two
(2) d + TB : TB = h + AB : AB
known weights £ and h respectively. Presumably the lengths of
Multiplying the two equations (l) and (2), we derive
the beam segments are known, as in R 2.ll. By R2.07, if the sum
(3) (£_ + TBj.TB _ (h + AB).AB
of two weights, at different points on one arm, is known, and if
(d + TB).TB “ (h + AB).BC
the ratio of their distances from the axis is known, the weights
Cancelling the common terms on each side, we obtain
can be separately determined. Hence, since dn, which can be
(4) = -AIL # And by composition, we obtain calculated from eh, is equal to d + £, we can use R2.07 to deter­
(d + TB) BC
mine d_ and £ separately.
(5) (e + d + 2 TB) _ (AB + BC)
d + TB BC
TEXT, PART III
But since 2 TB = ABC, and since AB + BC =ABC,
Lines
therefore
1~21 Theorem R3.01: This demonstration clearly presupposes the
(6) Rr _ ABC, (d + TB)
" d + e + ABC Q.E.D. principle established in R1.08 of the first book—namely, that
The variants on this proof, as well as the theorem R2.10 which equal weights, suspended from unequal lever arms which form
follows on lines 213-219, need no comment.lt maybe noted how­ an angle at the axis of support, will be in equilibrium when the
ever that R2.10 contains a clear reference to the principle of extremities of the two arms are equidistant from the vertical
statical moment, as having being established previously. passing through the axis of support. Even more than R1.08, this
220-239 Theorem R2.11: This theorem is easily understood. We divide
401
400

N O TE S TO PAGES 2 0 4 -2 0 6
theorem represents a correction of the error involved in E.6
and E.7 of the Elementa Jordani.
The balance beam is initially conceived as a straight beam
which is attached rigidly to a rigid perpendicular rod extending
upwards, this perpendicular being in turn supported at its upper
end by a cord which permits it to swing freely from an axis at
D. By drawing the lines DAZ and DC, Jordanus reduces the prob­
lem to that of the bent lever of unequal arms supporting equal
weights, and invokes R1.08 to show that a weight at Z, equal to
the weight at C, would determine equilibrium in such manner
that the horizontal distance of Z from the vertical passing
through D, would be the same as the horizontal distance of C
from that vertical. Since, by construction, the ratio of DZ to DA
is the same as the ratio of the weight a^ to the weight c^, it fol­
lows that the distance from the vertical at which <1 will reach
equilibrium will bear the same ratio to the distance from the
vertical at which z^ will reach equilibrium, as the ratio of the
weight c^ to the weight a_. Hence, as long as there is some finite
weight, however small, on the opposite side, the heavier weight,
no matter how great, can never descend to a position vertically
below the axis of support. And this is what was to be proved.
22-39 Theorem R3.02: This theorem, and the next, strongly reflect
the passage in Aristotle’ s Mechanical Problems (850 a 2-29)
dealing with stable and unstable equilibrium. When the axis of
rotation is above the center of the straight balance beam, the
equilibrium will be stable; if below, it will be unstable. The A r­
istotelian text involves some obscurities, leading Duhem to
state that Jordanus corrected some implicit errors involved in
the discussion of the Mechanical Problems. In any case, these
two theorems constitute a correction by Jordanus of the obvious
fallacy involved in the second part of R1.02 and E .2, which had
misapplied the theory of positional gravity in an attempt to show
that equal weights on an equal armed balance beam (of no thick­
ness) would be in stable equilibrium.
The argument of R3.02 is as follows: Given the ratio DB : AC,
and the ratio of the weights a_ and c_ to the total weight of the
beam AC, it follows that since the balance is in equilibrium,
a : c^ = CL : AL (by R1.06, the general lever principle), but since
the ratio of DB to AC (which is the same as AL + CL) is given,
the ratios of DB to AL, and of DB to CL, are thereby given. But
LB = “ AL; and consequently the ratio of LB to DB is known.
But this ratio LB : DB measures the angle LDB; and this angle
is equal to the angle EDH, since they are vertical angles. There­
fore the ratio LB : DB measures the declination of the perpendi­
cular ED from the vertical line HZ.
40-57 Theorem R3.03: The proof here used is very similar to that
1
NOTES T O PAGES 206-210
given in the Mechanical Problems ascribed to Aristotle (850 a
20-29); b e ., when the material beam is supported from below,
any movement of the beam involves an increase in the quantity
of beam oh one side of the vertical, and hence increases the
weight on that side and decreases the weight on the other. Jor­
danus however uses the method of reduction to the case of
weights supported by bent lever arms, considering the weight of
the straight balance beam as if it were attached to the ends of
the bent arms in such manner that the part of the beam on the
left side of the vertical through the axis of support is supported
by the left-hand bent lever arm, and the remainder by the right-
hand arm.
58-52 Theorem R3.04: Pierre Duhem, in his Etudes sur Leonard
de Vinci, Vol. I, pp. 306-7, discusses this theorem and compares
it with a similar one stated by Leonardo da Vinci. It is an appli­
cation of the basic principle of statical moment as measured by
equidistance of weights from the vertical passing through the
axis of support, to the somewhat tricky case in which the weight
of the bar HTZ, though actually divided evenly on each side of
the vertical through the axis, seems to be applied only to one
arm because of its rigid attachment to the arm BC at the point
H. Children, today, enjoy performing this stunt; e.g., they fix a
short stick and a much longer one onto a cork, to form an acute
angle, and then show that if the free end of the short stick is set
on the very edge of a table, with the other end projecting hori­
zontally out into the air, it will not fall off. Jordanus here seems
to take a certain childish delight in the apparently paradoxical
character of the theorem; as in his final statement, “But beyond
this, if any weight you please is suspended from T, it will not
cause any inclination one way or the other." This “experiment"
is described in a mediaeval work, the Secretum philosophorum,
which perhaps comes from an Arabic source; cf. L. Thorndike,
History of Magic and Experimental Science, Vol. II, N.Y. 1929,
p. 789.
83-134 Theorem R3.05: The kind of experience that this theorem
seeks to analyze and explain is illustrated when a man attempts
to raise a long ladder from the ground. He first lifts it up atone
end, to the extent of his own height, and then he walks toward
the end which remains on the ground until he has the ladder
standing vertically on that end. A marginal note on our manu­
script H gives just such an illustration:
In hac quinta vult quod statura elevantis hominis sit s e ­
cundum quantitatem EL, ita quod homo iste, quando incipit
elevare AB pondus ex parte A, incurvetur; et cum erectus
erit, sit sicut EL; et tunc portando predictum pondus, pro­
cedet versus B;et cum steterit in B,tunc predictum pondus
403

NOTES TO PA G E 210
erit directum, sicut CB.
(Translation): In this fifth theorem the author supposes
that the stature of the man who does the lifting, is, of the
quantity EL; so that when this man commences to raise the
weight AB at its end A, he will be bent down; and when he
becomes erect he is as the line EL; and then, holding up the
said weight, he will walk toward B;and when he stands at B,
then the said weight will be vertically on end, as the line
CB.
There is some obscurity in the text of this theorem, as given
in the manuscripts; this led Duhem to conjecture that Jordanus'
original theorem had been mutilated by some careless copyist—
though he cites this theorem (Les Origines de la Statique I,p,143)
as evidence of the author’ s clear grasp of the principle of stat­
ical moment. Presumably the author is concerned to exhibit the
way in which the positional gravity of the weight of AB varies in
function of two different conditions: (l)with the movement of the
supporting bar AB from the horizontal to the vertical position,
which steadily decreases its positional gravity or statical mo­
ment relative to the axis at B; and (2) with the shift of the point
of application of the support EL as it moves from A toward B.
What Jordanus wishes to determine is the relative “heaviness”
bearing on the support EL as it shifts its point of application to
the bar AB. As he formulates the problem, in abstraction from
accidental considerations (such as torque) which would introduce
considerable complexity into the actual “experiment,” the an­
alysis appears to be substantially sound, and the proof offered
on lines 116-131 exhibits an ingenious application of the principle
of statical moment to the problem.
135 ~151 Theorem R3.06: The source of this theorem may have been
a passage in the Mechanical Problems attributed to Aristotle,
where we find (857 b 9) the following:
Why is it that when two men carry a weight between them
on a plank or something of the kind, they do not feel the
pressure equally, unless the weight is midway between
them, but the nearer carrier feels it more? Surely it is be­
cause in these circumstances the plank becomes a lever,
the weight the fulcrum, and the nearer of the two carrying
the weight is the object moved, and the other carrier is the
mover of the weight. (Loeb Library ed., Aristotle, Minor
Works I, transl. by W.S. Hett; London 1936, p. 403).
This same problem was discussed by Vitruvius. De architec­
tura X, Ch. 3; and by Hero of Alexandria in his Mechanics. These
earlier treatments all contain an erroneous application of the
lever principle, just as Aristotle’ s explanation does. Jordanus,
however, corrects the error involved in treating the weight as
404
1
NO TES TO P A G E 212
the fulcrum, by treating the opposite end as a fulcrum relative
to the man whose share of the burden is being considered. On
this basis he argues that the positional gravity of d at C, is to
that of e^ at B, as that of _f at A is to that of e_ at B. Duhem (Etudes
sur Leonard de Vinci, I, p. 299) remarks: “Ce court passage
merite grandement, par lui-m£me, d’attirer l ’attention de l ’his-
torien des sciences; pour la premiere fois, en effet, depuis que
les hommes s ’occupent de Mecanique, une force de liaison s ’y
trouve determinee par une methode exacte.”
TEXT, PART IV
Lines
1-27 Theorem R4.01: The most distinctive principle of Aristotelian
dynamics, that motion and velocity essentially involve a finite
proportion between the power by which the body moves through
the medium and the power by which the medium resists this
movement, is involved in this theorem. The proof has special
interest because of its attempt to reduce the case of free fall
in a resistant medium to the case of one weight raising another
I on the opposite arm of a balance.
The argument, which is somewhat obscure, may be construed
as follows: We suppose the opposite of what is asserted by the
theorem—i.e ., we suppose that the medium offers no resistance
to the weight falling through it. The medium itself, then, will
either be of some weight, or it will be weightless; and if it is of
some weight, it will either be at rest or in motion. We first sup­
pose it to be weightless, though nevertheless capable of being
set in motion by the heavy bddyab as it descends in the medium.
The author then argues: If this weightless body is set in motion,
it will be “as if having weight,” since a body in motion has a
capacity to do work by reason of its state of movement. This is
supported by supposing that the weightless body c^ is on one arm
of a balance, on whose other arm is a weight d_; clearly, if c de­
scends, d will be raised, and since d has weight, work will be
done in raising it. But if c^’ s descent involves no expenditure of
force on the part of ab—as would be the case if the medium c^
offered no resistance to the fall of ab in it—, it would then occur
4. that the weight cl would be lifted without any force being expended
in doing this work. But this is impossible, and in violation of the
principle of work, which is fundamental to Jordanus’ whole
treatment of weights.
The second case is where the medium is assumed to have
some weight of its own. Then, if it is assumed to be at rest when
ab descends on it, this could only be so if there is something
supporting c_ and preventing it from falling by its own weight.
But in that case, whatever is resisting c_'s descent, will resist
405
 NOTES TO PAGES 212-214
ab’ s descent also.
If however the medium is assumed to be in motion (by reason
of c_'s weight and the absence of any impediment to its fall), then
ab, if not held back by any resistance from c, will be acceler­
ated and overtake c_; and its effective force will increase with
its velocity (erit AB gravius quo velocius). This will then reduce
to the same situation as before—namely, c^ would be able to lift
a counterweight d in virtue of the velocity given to it by ab push­
ing against it, so that if goffered no resistance to this acceler­
ation by ab, work would be done on <i without the expenditure of
any force.
The last part of the argument, which is rather obscure, is ap­
parently designed to reinforce the above conclusion. The author
supposes a weight z, whose scalar value (at rest) is the same as
that of ab; and he then supposes that descends with the speed
that c was assumed to have when hb was falling against c^ and c
was merely moving along with it. It is then argued that 2^, falling
at c^’ s speed on the side T of the balance, could raise some
weight d on the other side. But, says Jordanus, if ab is not im ­
peded in moving c^ at that speed, it will not be impeded in mov­
ing 2^ along with it; hence we would have to suppose that when
ab and are moved by their natural weight, they lift d without
being resisted, or without expending any force. So again, from
the assumption opposed to the theorem, we derive the impos­
sible consequence of work being done without force being ex­
pended.
28-46 Theorem R4.02: This theorem expresses the Aristotelian
principle that a given heavy body falls more slowly in proportion
to the relative “thickness” or density of the medium. But it is
interesting to note that Jordanus here assumes that if a body of
some mass, such as air or water, is at rest in anyplace outside
the center of the world, this is because some other body is ex­
erting force in holding it up—as if “natural rest” were similar
to the “violent rest” of a weight on a balance. He then argues
that since whatever is keeping the heavier medium from de­
scending must be of more gravity (pluris gravitatis) than what
is holding up the lighter medium, the body falling in the heavier
medium is as if raising a greater counterweight on a balance.
So again we have the effort to reduce the analysis of free fall
through a resistant medium, to the case of weights on opposite
arms of a balance.
The author seems to make the assumption that all bodies are
per se heavy, and that “lightness” is to be reduced to an upward
pressure caused mechanically by the downward force of other
heavy bodies, or of a medium heavier than the body in question.
This view was also implied by the statement of the "Peripatetic
406
NO TES TO PAGES 214-216
commentator” in his prologue to the De ponderibus (version
*P”), that “nothing naturally ascends" (nihil naturaliter ascendit).
47-59 Theorem R4.03: Here Jordanus seems to assimilate the re­
sistance offered to a falling body by the medium, to the case of
a rigid body being struck by a weight falling on it. “Cleaving”
the medium is thus exhibited as analogous to either breaking or
stretching a stick suspended at both ends.
60-79 Theorem R4.04: Jordanus asserts that a fluid has more den­
sity at a depth than near the surface, due to the compression
exerted on all the parts below, by the fluid above them. From
this he draws the conclusion, in consonance with the Aristotelian
theory that speed is determined by the ratio of the density of the
falling body to the density of the medium, that the heavy body will
descend more slowly in the deeper portion of the fluid. The a r­
gument shows a certain grasp of the notion of pressure exerted
in a liquid, as determined by the weight of the column of liquid
vertically above the part being considered. It may be compared
with Archimedes’ treatise On Floating Bodies, Book I, Postulate I.
80-89 Theorem R4.05: Duhem (Etudes sur Leonard de Vinci, I, p.275)
compares this theorem with the argument of Aristotle, in Book
IV of the De caelo et mundo, Chapter 6, claiming that what had
been for Aristotle a law of hydrostatics (and as such erroneous)
is transformed by Jordanus into a correct theorem concerning
the resistance exerted by a fluid against the descent of a heavy
body. This interpretation seems forced; for Jordanus says that
the larger (and not simply the deeper) the body of water, the
greater will be the pressure at any point. On this basis, he ar­
gues that the density of the liquid in the larger container will be
greater, and consequently it will offer >greater resistance to a
body descending in it.
90-100 Theorem R4.06: This rather fantastic explanation of the nat­
ural acceleration of falling bodies had considerable vogue dur­
ing the last decades of the thirteenth century and at the begin­
ning of the fourteenth century. It represents an intermediate
stage between the teleological explanation in terms of increas­
ing “eagerness” due to proximity of the body to its natural place,
and the later fourteenth century explanation in terms of cumu­
lative retention of impetus or of acquired velocity. A mechan­
ical explanation was being sought, but at first it was sought in a
perturbation of the corporeal medium through which the body
falls, on the basic assumption that if the medium were at rest
it would offer a uniform resistance throughout the fall, and
thereby would determine a uniform speed of fall since the nat­
ural gravity of the falling body is a constant.
For the history of attempts to explain the acceleration of fal­
ling bodies, from antiquity up io the fourteenth century, cf. P,
407

NOTES T O PAGES 216-218
Duhem, Etudes sur Leonard de Vinci, III, pp. 57-96. As Duhem
pointed out in his Les Origines de la Statique, I, pp. 138“9, the
type of explanation offered by Jordanus of Nemore had many de­
fenders in the 16th century. Leonardo da Vinci adopted it, as did
Cardanus.lt was defended by Card. Contarini in his De elemen­
tis (published 1548), by Benito Pereira in 1576, and as late as
1640 by Gassendi.
101-110 Theorem R4.07: The theorem is sufficiently obvious, though
the argument is somewhat obscure. In the sentence, “ Levius
enim separat, et sic fit levius," the term levius does not seem
to mean “lighter" in the usual sense, but “less resistant” or
“more easily moved.” Jordanus’ point is that the resistance is
less, for a sharp object, both qualitatively and quantitatively—i.e.
in respect of the cohesion of the medium, and in respect of the
quantity of medium that must be displaced.
111-115 Theorem R4.08: According to Duhem (Etudes sur Leonard de
Vinci, I, p. 278), this theorem reflects Aristotle’ s Mechanical
Problems (853 a 19 ”31 and 853 b 15-24). Aristotle points out that
an axe, even if very heavy, does not split a timber if it is merely
set on top of it, whereas if it is in motion it has the force to do
so. The conception of the augmentation of the force of a weight,
by reason of acquired velocity, is involved in this and in the next
three theorems—and it underlies the conception of impetus as it
was developed in the fourteenth century.
The theorem itself seems to be a kind of inversion of the fa ­
mous dictum that “Everything which is in motion is moved by
something e ls e ." It is here asserted that everything that is in
motion—and in virtue of the fact of being in motion—has the
power to move something else. Aristotle’ s dictum treats motion
as the effect of a mover; this theorem treats movers (or “for­
ces” ) as effects of movement. The power, in short, is made con­
sequent on the act, and not the other way around.
116-130 Theorem R4.09: Duhem (Etudes sur Leonard de Vinci, I,
p. 278) remarks: “Passons rapidement sur la huitieme (= 9th)
proposition...Appuye d’une demonstration peu intelligible, elle
parait surtout destine a preparer la suivante.” But the proof is
not so unintelligible, on examination. Its meaning is apparently
sound—that action and reaction are commensurate. We may
again connect Jordanus’ treatise with the Mechanical Problems
of Aristotle, which says (852 b 37): “ Things which strike harder
are themselves struck harder."
131-143 Theorem R4.10: This reflects the Mechanical Problems (858
a 23—b 3), where the same theorem is expressed in almost the
same words. The editor of the Loeb Library translation, im ­
pressed by the Aristotelian statement of this theorem, added a
Note to the effect that “Aristotle came near to realizing though
408
1
NOTES T O PAGES 218-222
he does not succeed in formulating Newton’ s First and Third
Laws of Motion.” This is going a little far. Yet the statement
made in this theorem recurs in Buridan’ s discussion of impe­
tus,in which context it acquires a more exact meaning which is
closer to the Newtonian laws. We may quote Buridan, in his well
known Question (Qu. 12 of Book VIII, Quaestiones super octo li ­
bros Physicorum, Paris 1509, fol. 120v):
If then it is asked why I throw a stone further than
a feather, and an iron weight (of a size proportioned to the
hand) further than a wooden one of the same size, I say that
the cause of this fact is that the reception of all natural
forms and conditions in matter, is determined according to
the matter. Hence, the greater the quantity of matter, the
greater the degree of impetus that the body can receive.
Now in the dense and heavy, other things being equal, there
is more primary matter than in the rare and the light; con­
sequently the dense and the heavy receive a greater impetus
just as iron receives more heat than an equal volume of
water or wood. A feather, however, receives impetus in
such a small degree that this impetus is quickly overcome
by the resistant air.
The measure of impetus, for Buridan, is the product of the
velocity (in the “instantaneous” sense) and of the “quantity of
matter" of the body in motion; thus it corresponds, in value even
if not in the intuitive meaning given to the concept, to momen -
tum in the modern sense. Buridan’ s analysis is only vaguely
suggested by Jordanus’ theorem R4.10; but there is undoubtedly
some historical continuity between the ideas involved in Jorda­
nus* consideration of “impulsion” and Buridan’ s later theory of
“impetus."
144-174 Theorem R 4.ll: This theorem is closely related to another
passage from the Mechanical Problems (852 a 29”36). The first
part of the argument is somewhat obscure, and the diagrams
which we have reproduced from the manuscripts are not very
enlightening. The author appears to make these points: (l) The
weight at the end C, of the bar ABC, is more effective in giving
an impulsion to the body E, if the other end A is fixed as an axis
of rotation—its “effective gravity” is then determined by the
weight times its distance from the axis; (2) the weight of the
end C is more effective in giving an impulsion to E, to the extent
that it is already in motion—its weight or mass is multiplied by
its velocity. Thus the two ways in which natural gravity is aug­
mented, represented by moment of force relative to an axis, and
by acquired velocity or impetus, are invoked in this theorem.
175-211 Theorem R4.12: The two parts of this theorem directly echo
two passages of the. Mechanical Problems (852 b 22-9 and 853 a
409
 NOTES TO PAGES 2 2 2 -2 2 4
5-18). The effort is to resolve problems involving elasticity or
rigidity of materials, through a direct application of principles
developed for rigid lever arms—as if the supporting power of a
timber depended only on its length and weight, and not on its
tensile strength or shape. Jordanus does speak of the “solidity
of the continuity” of the body, and perhaps has these factors in
mind; but his neglect of the question of the height and breadth of
the supporting timber Kvhich is essential in the formula y=----
4h3bY
belies Duhem’ s contention that Jordanus corrected Aristotle’ s
treatment by taking account of the factors determining tensile
strength of materials (Etudes sur Leonard de Vinci, I, pp.281-2).
The part played by the length of the timber is treated, as by
Aristotle, on the lever principle; but Jordanus adds the further
consideration (treated already in R4.08) of the impetus of the
load as augmented by reason of acquired velocity. He also takes
into account the shape of the object so descending (as treated
previously in R4.07).
212-235 Theorem R4.13: This theorem, similar to the previous one,
needs no special comment.
236-241 Theorem R4.14: Here we find the conception of “impulsion"
o t impetus applied to the internal elastic structure of bodies.
The argument invites us to contemplate the fall of a piece of
wood, into whose under side nails have been very lightly driven.
When the wood falls with great speed, or is given a sudden down­
ward push, the inertial resistance offered by the nails will be
sufficient to cause them to be driven more deeply into the wood.
We have a vague suggestion here of the conception of the innate
resistance of a body to motion, as being a resistance to accel­
eration; but it is far from explicit. Jordanus is primarily inter­
ested in the problem of communication of an impulsive force
through the parts of elastic bodies; the example of the nails
driving deeper into the wood when the latter moves suddenly, is
designed to represent the manner in which the elastic structure
of a body permits a compression of its parts generating a re­
coil—as in a bouncing ball.
242-265 Theorem R4.15: This theorem develops the idea of internal
compression, introduced in R4.14, in explanation of the rebound
of an elastic body. Again the notion of “impulsio” (here also
called impetus) plays an important part, applied in a quasi-at­
omistic analysis of elasticity. In the works of Robert G rosse­
teste we find a somewhat similar use of the concept, in explan­
ation of the vibratory motion of a stretched string in its produc­
tion of sound. In his treatise On the Liberal Arts (L. Baur, Die
philosophische Werke des Robert Grosseteste, Munster, 1912,
pp. 2—3), Grosseteste speaks as follows:
410
NOTES TO PAGES 2 2 4 -2 2 6
For when a body is struck violently, the parts which have
been struck and compressed recede from their natural po­
sitions. But the natural force, tending toward the natural
position, makes these parts pass beyond their proper
bounds. ...And thus they again leave their natural position,
and by the same natural inclination they return and pass
across that position. And in this way, in the smallest parts
of the struck body there is generated a vibration, until fin­
ally the natural inclination no longer impels them beyond
their proper position.
It is of interest to compare this passage from Grosseteste,
as well as the present theorem of Jordanus, with another part
of the same Question 12, on the eighth book of Aristotle's Physics,
written by Jean Buridan:
There are many things such as can be curved back on
themselves or compressed by violence, which naturally re­
vert with great velocity to their straightness or natural
condition; and, in thus reverting, are able by their impetus
to push or pull something else that is attached to them—as
is seen in'the case of the bow and arrow. Thus also a resil­
ient ball bounced on hard ground is compressed on itself
by reason of the impetus of its motion, and immediately
after it strikes it reverts with great velocity to its spheri­
cal shape, pushing itself upward from the ground; and in so
doing it acquires an impetus which moves it for a long dis­
tance. In this way also the chord of the zither, tightly strung,
and struck hard, remains for a long time in a certain vibra­
tion, so that for a perceptible period of time its sound con­
tinues. And this happens because, by reason of the initial
blow, the string is stretched violently in one direction, and
it reverts so rapidly to its straightness that it passes be­
yond the straight position to the opposite side, and then it
returns again, and thus many times.
As these quotations reveal, the fourth book of Jordanus’ De
ratione ponderis takes its place in an historically continuous
line of development, leading from early thirteenth century ef­
forts to apply mathematics to physical phenomena, found in such
men as Robert Grosseteste, to the developed “impetus mechan­
ic s ” associated with Buridan, Albert of Saxony, and Nicole O r-
esme. This line of development is found in the liberal arts tra­
dition, in the disciplines of the quadrivium; and it was within
this tradition that Jordanus de Nemore lived and worked.
266-282 Theorem R4.16: This little demonstration goes back to a
passage in Simplicius’ Commentary on the Physics, where it is
said that Strato of Lampsacus, pupil of Theophrastus, had of­
fered this “experiment” of pouring water from a spout as evi-
411
 NOTES T O P A G E S 2 2 6-227
dence of the fact that falling bodies are accelerated. Jordanus
seeks to explain the fact through the principle that acquired
velocity increases the “ponderosity” of a body falling, so that it
is able to move continuously faster as it falls. Here again we
have a vague anticipation of the “impetus" explanation of accel­
eration given later on by Buridan; for Buridan states that the
effect of the natural gravity of a body, in free fall, is to contin­
uously add new degrees of impetus to the body, thereby contin­
uously increasing the power of the body to overcome the resist­
ance of the medium, and consequently giving it continuously
greater speed.
Since Simplicius* commentary had not been translated into
Latin in the period when Jordanus wrote the De ratione ponderis,
we must suppose that this experiment of the poured water, as
associated with the problem of acceleration in free fall, had
been described by some intermediary source accessible to Jor­
danus, which had in turn derived it from Simplicius.
283-298 Theorem R4.17: This theorem, though expressed in a most
obscure fashion, applies the concept of “impetus” to the case
where a body is of unequal composition—i.e ., with respect to
density, and is projected or thrown from the hand or from a
machine. The denser portion of the missile will acquire a great­
er impulsion or impetus from the initial velocity given to the
projectile, than will the rarer portion, as was previously indi­
cated in R4.10. Consequently the denser portion will more easily
overcome the resistance of the medium, than the rarer portion,
and it will therefore move out to the front, even if at first it
was in the rear. Again we have indication of the connection be­
tween Jordanus’ dynamics and the “impetus physics” of Buridan;
where he says (line 297) that the heavier part A “will receive
more impulsion because it offers more resistance to motion,”
he is giving crude expression to the truth that a body of greater
mass, which is therefore a body that offers greater resistance
to an accelerating force, will when set in motion at a given vel­
ocity have a greater momentum, which in turn will make it
more resistant to the decelerating action of the medium. In Bur­
idan, this insight achieves more explicit formulation, though it
was not reduced to exact quantitative laws until the 17th and 18th
centuries. But the historical continuity of the development of
modern mechanics, from the small beginnings found in Jordanus
de Nemore through the fourteenth century “impetus physics”
and down to Galileo and his contemporaries, is discernible at
each stage. In attempting to apply the mathematical method,
which he had used so successfully in the field of statics, to the
difficult realm of general dynamics, Jordanus took a first step
in a direction which led slowly and painfully toward the modern
412
NOTES TO PAGES 231-237
science of mechanics.
TRACTATUS BLASII DE PONDERIBUS
INTRODUCTION
1. For the Bradwardine citation see Appendix II. Roger Thomas
Tractatus proportionum, MS Venice, Bibi. Naz., VIII, 19,
151r-152r. Franciscus de Ferraria, Questio de proportion­
ibus, MS Oxford, Bodl., Canon. Misc. 236, 6lv et passim. For
citations by Dumbleton, the auctor de sex inconvenientibus,
Albert of Saxony, and Marsilius of Inghen, see P. Duhem,
Etudes sur Leonard de Vinci, vol. 3, pp. 295, 424-441.
2. MS Milan, Bibi. Ambros., F . 145 Sup.,25r.In discussing the
fifth question Blasius advances a supposition identical with
1-6 of his De ponderibus, a supposition which states that in
the case of equal arcs unequally distant from the horizontal
line of equilibrium that which is farther away intercepts
less of the vertical. Then he adds that this is proved by a
commentator: “ Tertiam probat commentator commentans
Jordanum mechanice eam concluendo.” This is unquestion­
ably a reference to one of the later commentaries to the E l­
ementa of Jordanus where the geometry is more detailed.
3. P. Duhem, Systeme du monde, vol. 4, 278; Cf. L. Thorndike,
History of Magic, vol. 4, 65.
4. Memorie e documenti per la storia dell’ Universita di Pavia.
Pavia, 1878, vol. 1, p. 147.
5. Thorndike, Op. cit. loc. cit.
6. A. Gloria, Monumenti della Universita di Padova, vol. 1,
Padua, 1888, 415.
7. Ibid., p. 416; Cf. Thorndike, Op. cit., vol. 4, 67
8. Thorndike, Op. Cit., 4, 66
9. Ibid., loc. cit.
10. Memorie e documenti,,.di Pavia, 1, 147
11. Thorndike, Op. cit., 4, 67,
12. Ibid., 4, 67, 658
13. MS Venice. Bibi. Naz., VII, 38, 8-37
14. Oxford, Bodl. MS Can. M is. 177, 97v-100v
15. Thorndike, Op. cit., 4, 68, 454.
16. Included in MS Vat, lat. 2159
17. Thorndike, Op. cit., 4, 69
18. C. Zonta et al., Acta graduum academicorum gymnasii Pa­
tavini ab anno 1406 ad annum 1450, Padua, 1922. See Blasius
in the Index.
19. Ibid., p. 64
20. Thorndike, Op. cit., 4, 70-71, reviews his dismissal.
21. MS Milan, Bibl. Ambros. F. 145 Sup., 17r: “Ad instantiam
413
 1

NOTES TO PAGES 2 3 7 -2 4 2
NOTES TO PAGES 2 4 2 -2 4 8
amicorum ego Blaxius Lombardus de Parma, dum Parisius
(5) Triangle DAO is similar to FLC, the triangles
me visitabant, volui aliqua dubia super tractatum de ponde­
being equiangular.
ribus inquirere et illa conclusionibus et corollariis posse
(6) DA:FL :: AO:LC, Euclid, VI, 4.
me declarare."
(7) But DA is greater than FL, since DAE is more
22. Thorndike, Op. cit., 4, 70
than FLG.
23. See the complete list of Blasius’ work in Appendix 40 of
(8) Thus AO is greater than LC.
Thorndike, Op. cit., 4, 652-662.
(9) Hence, AL is greater than LC, since AL exceeds
AO.
TEXT, PART I
116-159 Cf. “P ," 53-56. The first corollary which states that a weight
Lines
on a more elevated balance tends to be heavier positionally is
1-5 Cf. the proemium of version “P ," lines 1-3.
an example of a “thought” experiment based on fundamental
6-22 Cf. “P ,” lines 3-6.
misconceptions of gravity. It is, of course, an experiment com­
23-41 Notice that Blasius explains the rectilinear descent of heavy
pletely contrary to fact. His proof of the corollary rests upon
bodies on the basis of a concept of “least action." A body tends
the assumption that the weight on the higher balance would have
to attain its natural place in as short a time as possible; hence,
a path EO which is more vertical than the path AO which the
it must travel the least path, which path is a straight line rath­
lower weight would follow. Let us grant this much of the Blasius
er than a curve. Cf. lines 56 “59 of “P ." In this supposition and
argument: If a given weight would follow the inclined path EO
the corollaries adjoining it, Blasius presents an Aristotelean
rather than the path AO, and AO were appreciably more inclined
analysis of the movement of weights on the extremities of a
than EO, it is perfectly true that it would be effectively heavier
balance, an analysis that ultimately goes back to the second
along that path. But the reader’s attention is invited to the much
chapter of the Mechanical Problems attributed to Aristotle, but
superior treatment of the “inclined plane problem" in R1.09 and
which Blasius borrowed directly from “P .” Having proved that
R1.10. The second corollary is drawn from the discussion of “P,"
natural movement is rectilinear, Blasius then states in the first
14-26.
corollary that the movement of the weight on the end of the bal­
160-163 In the medieval “Aristotelean” vocabulary this supposition
ance arm is not simply natural because the weight in this situ­
simply means that the motive force of the descending weight
ation moves over an areal path. Nor is that movement simply
muSt be greater than the resisting force of the ascending weight
unhatural or violent, i.e ., directed away from its natural place,
or no movement would take place.
as Aristotle would define it, since the weight even though con­
164-168 Supposition 9 is a perfectly sound operational definition of
strained to move in an arc nevertheless moves toward its nat­
the equality of weights in spite of the unsound definition of force
ural place when moving downward. Hence the movement of the
understood by Blasius.
weight on the balance arm is a compound of natural and violent
movements. Cf. “P ," 30-33.
TEXT, PART II
44-60 Cf. WP ,’’ 7-8
Lines
61-79 Cf. “P ,” 6-7 and 10-11
1-27 This first proposition of Part II was a postulate with Archi­
80-115 This sixth supposition was inspired by the proof in E .2,which
medes, but Blasius following the tradition of the Liber karaston-
has been given above. It is used by Blasius to prove a proposi­
is , the version “P ,” and the versions of Jordanus, believes it
tion equivalent to E .2, namely, Blasius’ Proposition IV of Part
requires a proof. The proof of Blasius states: (l) the potential
II. And even though Part II, Proposition IV is incorrect, as we
areal paths downward of the equal weights suspended on equal
shall see later, the geometrical proposition stated here in this
arms have the same curvature; (2) hence, they are equally heavy
supposition is correct. We can summarize his proof as follows
positionally; and (3) having been posited as equally heavy in nat­
(see Fig. 4): ural gravity, their final effective weights must be equal, and
(1) Arc DF is given as equal to arc FC.
thus the balance remains in horizontal equilibrium.
(2) Arcs DF, CG, GE are equal, since FLG is parallel
2 9 - 6 I This is another one of Blasius’ thought experiments based on
to DAE.
Aristotelean dynamics. The reasoning is that weight a encount­
(3) l_ D equals J_ F from Euclid, I, 27.
ers on its own side a resistance of one from the medium. In ad­
(4) [_ A equals [_ L, both being right angles.
dition, it has the downward force of b resisting it, as well as
414
415
 NOTES TO PAGES 2 4 8 -2 5 0
the further resistance of the medium against the ascent of b.
Thus the combined total of the resistances to a would be-three,
and hence equivalent to the downward force of a. This being the
case, Blasius goes on to say in the first corollary that we can­
not necessarily affirm that because weights on a balance do not
produce movement of the balance they are therefore equal, for
the medium might be upsetting the free action of the balance. In
fact, he goes on to assert in the second corollary that one can­
not determine the proportion of weights by means of a balance
because of the complicating factor of the resistance of the m e­
dium. It is quite evident that in the succeeding propositions re­
garding the balance the resistance of the medium is to be dis­
regarded, as Blasius tells us in the next proposition.
62-96 This third proposition was inspired by the last part of R1.02.
In fact, you will notice vhat the whole argument of the adversary
in lines 75-89 was copied verbatim from R1.02, 79"97. Thus we
were able to reconstruct the phrase in brackets in lines 82-84
on the basis of R1.02, 88-90, and we have-altered the corrupt di­
agrams in both Blasius manuscripts to accord with the argu­
ment as presented by Jordanus. It was pointed out in the note to
R1.02 that Duhem had seen in this argument of Jordanus (which
Blasius copies) an essential refutation of the erroneous state­
ment regarding the return of a balance with equal weights sus­
pended on equal arms to horizontal equilibrium when moved off
the horizontal. The supposed experimental confirmation of this
phenomenon came from the use of beams suspended from the
upper side, which beams naturally have weight. When such a bal­
ance is disturbed the center of gravity of the beam seeks the
lowest position in the vertical line through the fulcrum. The
pretense of Jordanus that the superior weight would tend to tra­
verse a potential areal path which would intercept more of the
vertical than an equal arc of the potential path of the inferior
weight also tending to move downward and hence the superior
weight would be effectively heavier than the inferior weight is,
of course, quite erroneous. But if the medieval mechanician
accepted this statement as true because of its apparent experi­
mental support, he was then confronted with another experi­
mental fact, namely that a superior weight with its supposed
superior positional gravity could not balance or lift a heavier
weight placed in the inferior position, for experiment showed
that a balance descends in the direction of the heavier weight,
assuming the balance to be of sufficient sensitivity. The author
of the De ratione ponderis seeks to get around this contradiction
by the ingenious argument here reproduced. This argument es­
sentially says that the positional advantage of the superior weight
over the inferior weight is dependent on the proportion of the
416
NOTES T O PAGES 2 5 0 -2 5 6
degree of curvature of the arcs in the superior and inferior po­
sitions, the degrees of curvature being measured by the amounts
of the vertical line through the fulcrum intercepted by the arcs.
Now this proportion of curvatures or vertical intercepts is seen
to be smaller and smaller as we examine smaller and smaller
pairs of arcs. And so we can always take arcs small enough
that the positional advantage of the superior over the inferior
weight is less than any given amount by which the absolute weight
of the one weight exceeds the absolute weight of the other weight.
Now if the author had continued this line of reasoning he would
have seen that the supposed idea of the positional advantage en­
joyed by the weight on the elevated arm was in actuality false,
because if, as he himself had seen, we take arcs as small as we
like (quantumlibet parvi) and if we measure areal curvatures by
their vertical intercepts, then it is evident that the ratio of the
* vertical intercepts of the equal arcs is continually smaller on
taking smaller and smaller pairs of arcs and does in fact have
a limit of zero, which ought to be interpreted as meaning that
the^ superior weight in fact has no positional advantage.
97-153 Cf. E.2 and R1.02, and the preceding note.
^ 123-124 His reference to the “sixth” supposition should be to the
’ “seventh” supposition by our numbering.
145-146 Blasius implies here a criticism of the argument of Jorda­
nus involving infinitesimal arcs, a solution which we have seen
Blasius also presented. His criticism seems to center on the
/ fact that on one hand we are setting some limit to which the ac-
! tive power of the heavier weight is more than the lighter weight,
but on the other hand we are not setting any limit as to how
small the positional advantage of the elevated weight is over
the depressed weight.
" 152-153 The whole question is reviewed by Blasius in his Questiones
super tractatum de ponderibus, MS Milan, Bibi. Ambros. F.145
Sup. quest. 5, 24v et seq.
154-171 Cf. E.3 and R1.03. While these theorems are essentially the
same as the proposition of Blasius, the latter highlights the f^.ct
; that here the pendants are parallel to the vertical through the
* fulcrum, for in his next theorem such will not be the case. The
proof is based upon the faot that the equal weights in this situa­
tion would pass over equal quarters of the same circle, thus
f intercepting equal segments of the vertical. Hence these weights
§ would be equal in positional and natural gravities.
I 172-223 Now in this theorem Blasius asserts that if unequal rotary
pendants are free to follow their inclinations, the weight on the
f shorter pendant will be farther from the vertical through the
3 fulcrum and hence will have a greater effective weight. Simi-
# larlythe fixed weight in the corollaries will be farther from the
417
 NOTES TO PAGES 2 5 6 -2 6 6
vertical and so have greater effective weight. The corollaries
aim to correct P.07 and E .7.
224-238 This is borrowed from R3.04. But in both of the Blasius
manuscripts the passage is confused. The whole point of the
proof is that in spite of the weight of the beam DFG being fixed
to one arm alone, it is so fixed that its center of gravity F is in
the vertical line passing through the fulcrum. Hence the balance
will be in equilibrium.
239-259 Cf. R3.03. Again the precision of the De ratione ponderis is
missing.
260-277 Cf. E.5 and R1.05. The diagram is like that of R1.05 rather
than E .5.
265-266 Blasius’ reference to the “sixth” supposition should be to
the “seventh” supposition in the numbering here adopted.
278-296 In this proof the author shows that the positional advantage
enjoyed by the weight on the longer arm over the weight on the
shorter arm is precisely the same ratio as that of the length of
the longer arm to the shorter arm since the rectitudes of the
paths of the extremities as measured by the intercepts of the
arcs on the vertical are in the same proportion as the arm
lengths. Hence if the ratio of natural weights is made the in­
verse of the ratio of the arm lengths,the positional advantage is
exactly overcome and the balance is in equilibrium. The prin­
ciple of virtual displacements is here obscured by the emphasis
on rectitudes. C f.Liber karastonis, prop.Ill, P .08, E.8, and R1.06.
297-337 Cf. R1.08. This proof shows little trace of the superb proof
of the author of the De ratione ponderis. Here again, as in the
proof of the law of the lever, the principle of virtual displace­
ments remains obscured.
519“321This corollary constitutes a correction to P.06 and E«6 which
had held that the weight on the longer arm of the bent lever
would be positionally lighter than that on the shorter arm.
138-276 Cf. P .09, E .9, and R1.07.
577-433 Cf. De canonio, prop. 1, and P.10. The proof can be abbre­
viated as follows:
(1) £ : dc :: AE : AB, by propositions 10 and 12.
(2) But AE : AB :: BC : BD, because
1. BC = 2AE since BD = 2AD and DC = 2DE, and
BC = BD + DC, and AE = AD -I^DE, and thus
BC = 2(AD + DE) = 2AE.
2. BD = 2AB, by construction.
(3) Therefore, g^ : dc :: BC : BD. Q.E.D.
>98-399 The authority should be the 12th conclusion.
to5 -419 The tenth conclusion had said that if the weights are pro­
portional to the arm lengths, then equilibrium exists. The con­
verse, then, is that if equilibrium persists, the weights must be
418
NOTES T O PAGES 266-271
inversely proportional to the arm lengths. A proof by reductio
ad absurdum follows.
420-433 Cf. P.10, particularly lines 223-237 which are here repro­
duced almost verbatim.
434-441 Cf. P.11, and De canonio, prop. II.
442-491 Cf. P.12 and De canonio, prop. III. Both of the basic methods
used by Blasius were drawn from proposition III of the De can­
onio with some alterations. The first proof follows:
To find the length and thus the weight of a uniform beam of
the same thickness as the beam of a Roman balance which, when
suspended on the shorter arm, will balance the longer arm.
(1) Using letters this becomes finding a beam of length CG
and weight £g, when CG is assumed to be of the same thickness
as the beam BC.
(2) CG is constructed as follows. Make AD = AB and DE = CD;
and also make DE perpendicular to BC. Extend BE until it in­
tersects at G a perpendicular from C. CG then is the length of
that perpendicular. It can be easily shown that this is the de­
sired length.
(3) Triangle BCG is similar to BDE, Euclid, 1,29.
(4) CG : DE :: CG : CD :: CB : DB; because CD = DE; and
Euclid, VI, 4.
(5) Hence CG = C D .BC/ DB; Euclid, V, 21.
(6) Therefore, eg = ab •C G /AB, since CG is of uniform weight
and thickness with AB.
The second proof uses the same figure.
(1) EF is drawn parallel to CD, forming the square DEFC;
Euclid, I, 33.
(2) Triangle BDE is similar to-EFG, since they are equiangu­
lar.
(3) BD:DE :: FE:FG; Euclid, VI, 4.
(4) DE = FE = CD = CF, DEFC being a square.
(5) Hence FG = CD2/B D .
(6) Thus jfg = dc2/b d , since the lengths are proportional to the
weights.
(7) Therefore, eg = cf + fg, and we have just found,while cf
equals dc, which is given.
492-530 The first paragraph is drawn verbatim from P.13. The sec­
ond part is similar to Proposition IV of the De canonio and fol­
lows:
(1) Length BC, weight be, and weight e are known.
(2) fb = jic = e_, by construction.
(3) Hence ab and jdf are known; ab = (be - dc)/Z and df = 2ab + bf.
(4) BF = e*BC/_bc, because we have a uniform beam.
(5) BF/CD: : BC/BD, since by De Canonio,lo r II e/jctiBC/BD.
(6) Then B F /B C ::C D /B D , by alternation.
419
 NOTES TO PAGES 2 7 2 -2 7 4
(7) (BF+BC)/BC: : (CD+BD)/BD, by composition. Blasius omits
this step.
(8) Hence F C /B C : :BC/BD, since FC=BF+BC and BC=CD+BD.
(9) And so BD=BC^/f C, BD then is determinable since from
(1) BC is given and FC is composed of BF, known in (4), and BC,
given in (1).
(10) Hence BA=BD/2 and AC= BC-BA, and these are the lengths
we wished to find.
TEXT, PART III
Lines
1-7 Authority for the first supposition of Part III is the Pseudo-Ar-
chimedean De insidentibus, for which see the text above, lines
48“49. But notice how Blasius has changed his supposition by
introducing the Aristotelean elementum for the word corpus
used there. The reference to the De universo is to the De caelo,
311b, 6-10. And while he pretends a certain independence of A r ­
istotle in this passage, the work is filled with Aristotelianisms,
as we have pointed out from time to time in the notes.
8-12 The second supposition is straight Aristotelean dynamics as
outlined in both the Physics and the De caelo, the four elements
having their natural places, the heavy bodies down and the light
bodies up. This, according to Blasius, is the natural order or
decor of the Universe as God has established it.
13-23 Supposition three constitutes a definition of specific gravity.
The definition given in the De insidentibus in humidum postu­
late 6 should be compared with that of Blasius. We have already
suggested that the De insidentibus is either a translation from
the Arabic or a work based strongly on the Arabic tradition, a
tradition emphasizing the practical determinations of specific
gravity. To this definition of specific gravity, Blasius has linked
dynamic conside rations, making gravity measurable by velocity.
He was no doubt influenced in doing so by the Liber Euclidis de
ponderoso et levi, and possibly by the chapter “On Weights” of
Johannes de M uris’ Quadripartitum numerorum. In the latter
treatise we read: “Non enim fit resistentia descensus gravis
nisi propter dempsitatem medii; item si nullum esset medium,
grave descenderet in instanti (BN 7190, 81v).” This is clear ap­
plication of Aristotle’ s dynamic law to statical problems. The
author of the De ponderoso et levi in postulates 7, 8, and 9 makes
specific weight depend on force, having already noted that force
is measurable by velocity (in postulates 4, 5, and 6).
25-59 This conclusion is quite disappointing when compared to those
the Liber de insidentibus. The disappointment rises mainly
from the fact that Blasius is not giving us a really quantitative
method of specific gravity determination. Using the basic A r-
420
NOTES TO PAGES 2 7 4 -2 8 1
istotelean ideas of De ponderoso et levi, he is interested here
only in determining without a balance which of two bodies is
specifically heavier. Needless to say the whole approach is er­
roneous since it is based on the idea that speed of fall varies
with specific gravity.
60-75 In this conclusion we find a rudimentary hydrometer described,
although one continually has the feeling in this and the succeed­
ing conclusions that Blasius has not actually used a hydrometer.
I am not sure what is the source of Blasius’ information on the
hydrometer. One of the earliest hydrometers I am familiar with
is the aereometer described by the Bishop Synesius of Cyrene
(378-430 A.D.) in a letter to Hypatia (Opera, Epist. XV, Lutetia,
1612, p. 174). Such an aereometer was well known to the Arabs.
76-92 Notice that in the proof of conclusion 3 Blasius has given us
the substance of propositions three, four, and seven (first part)
of Archimedes’ true treatise On Floating Bodies. It would have
been available to Blasius since it was translated by Moerbeke
in 1269. But there is so little evidence of any other knowledge of
Archimedes in the works of Blasius, that I believe Blasius re­
ceived this Archimedean material indirectly.lt could have been
drawn from a fragment attached to the Liber de insidentibus of
Pseudo-Archimedes in BN Latin 7377B (See Variant Readings
for De insidentibus, post line 219). Or it might have been drawn
from the chapter “ De ponderibus" of Johannes de Muris where
the fragment from the De insidentibus is substantially repeated.
(See Notes to lines 82-94 of the De insidentibus.)
93-105 Blasius’ rather loose terminology in conclusion four demands
some comment. The phrase eiusdem rationis sometimes refers
to “of the same specific gravity” but here is used by Blasius
merely to mean “of a similar nature” but of a different specific
gravity. The complete impracticality of turning each body to be
tested into a hydrometer lends support to my feeling that Bla­
sius used the hydrometer only in “thought" experiments.
93“125 In the last three propositions, 4, 5, and 6,Blasius moves to­
wards simple quantification of specific gravity. Notice that
there is no single standard liquid or solid to which the densities
of others are to be compared, but rather it is a question with
Blasius of what is the ratio of the densities of any two fluid or
nonfluid bodies. Proposition five measures the proportion of the
densities of two fluids by a hydrometer marked with twelve
points.
APPENDIX I
INTRODUCTION
1. P.Duhem, Les Origines de la Statique I, Paris 1905, pp.75~77.
2. P.Duhem, Un ouvrage perdu cite par Jordanus de Nemore,
421

NOTES TO PAGES 2 8 2 -2 8 3
le Philotechnes, in Bibliotheca Mathematica, Vol. 5 (1905),
pp. 321-322.
TEXT
Lines
1-3 The first paragraph poses the question of the Roman balance.
This question was also the basic objective of the Liber kara-
stonis and the De canonio.
4-8 The problem can be solved for any Roman balance, presumably
in the manner of the formula given in Proposition VIII of the
Liber karastonis, although this formula is not here given. How­
ever, to justify such a solution, Paragraph 2 tells us that if a
longitudinal weight, AB, on one arm length, is balanced against
a regular weight, P, on the other, then
AB ec
P dc
This should be compared with 1 scholarly work Die Vorlaufer Galileis im 14. Jahrhundert,
Thabit’ s Proposition VII. Fig.App. I p
9"10 Paragraph 3 suggests that paragraph 2 is true, because if AB
is concentrated as a single weight at the midpoint of its length,
the horizontal equilibrium remains. Cf. Thabit’ s Proposition VI.
11-13 Paragraph 4 affirms paragraph 3, because if four weights sus­
pended at equal distances on one arm, and in equilibrium, are
replaced by a single weight equal to them added together, the
beam is still in equilibrium. Cf. Thabit’ s Proposition V.
14 But paragraph 4 follows from the fact that two weights suspend­
ed on one side of a balance, and in equilibrium, can be replaced
by a single weight equal to them added together and placed at
the mid point between them, without disturbing the horizontal
equilibrium. Cf. Thabit’s Proposition IV.
Line s
15-16 As paragraph 6 indicates, paragraph 5 follows from the law of
4-7
the lever. Cf. Thabit’ s Proposition III. .
17-23 Paragraphs 7~9. The law of the lever is proved in the same
way as in Thabit’s work, starting with the Peripatetic law re­
lating power and distance, applying it to areal displacements at
the ends of the lever, and then showing that the arcs are pro­
portional to the arm lengths. Cf. Thabit’ s Propositions I and II.
24-32 Paragraphs 10-13. These statements have as their object, to
show that in a uniform beam having thickness, the weights of
parts of the beam are proportional to the lengths. And although
the idea is not here expanded, we are to suppose that since the
equal portions of the beam on each side of the axis will cancel
each other, the beam is like a weightless line; and thus the law
of the lever developed for weightless lines can be applied to the
surplus of the beam on the longer side. Cf. the statements in
422
1
NOTES T O PAGES 2 8 5 -2 8 8
the proemium to proposition VI of Thabit’ s work, and also the
statement made in the course of the proof of his proposition VIH
(Liber karastonis, lines 460-461) where he notes that in the case
of a beam of uniform thickness “the weight of one part of the
length or measure is no more than that of another part equal to
it .”
APPENDIX II
INTRODUCTION
1. On Bradwardine’ s criticism and reformulation of the Aristo­
telian “law of motion," cf. my study, “Galileo and Avempace,"
in the Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. XII, 2-3 (April and
June, 1951), pp. 163-193 and 375-422; also my article, “Laws
of Motion in Mediaeval P hysics,” in The Scientific Monthly,
Vol. LXXH, 1 (January 1951), pp.18-23. Anneliese Maier, in her
Rome 1949, gives a very interesting discussion of the signifi­
cance of Bradwardine’ s reformulation of the Aristotelian law,
on pp. 81-110.
2.1 am indebted to Professor H. Lamar Crosby, Jr., of Hollins
College, for the use of photographic copies of the texts of
Bradwardine’ s treatise provided by the Paris, Bruges and
Oxford manuscripts. An edition of the Bradwardine treatise,
based on a number of good manuscripts, with English trans­
lation and a detailed analysis of the work, has been prepared
by Professor Crosby and will be published in due course.
TEXT
Bradwardine here seeks to subsume the De ponderibus theo­
rem under his general dynamic formula, whereby the velocity of
a moved body varies as the “proportion of the proportions" of
motive power to resistance—i.e ., the arithmetical series of vel­
ocities is correlated with a geometrical progression of ratios
of force to resistance. In the case of comparisons between heavy
bodies falling freely through a medium, the arithmetic series of
velocities will correspond with the exponential series of ratios
between the density of the falling body and the density of the me­
dium. In the case of weights on a balance, such as the Liber de
ponderibus is concerned with, the comparison is between the
velocities of descent of unequal weights placed successively on
one arm of the balance, with the ratios of these weights to a
counterweight on the other arm of the balance which is assumed
to remain the same. This would be implied by the sentence on
line 7—“And it should be understood that the resistance remains
423
r 1
N O T E S T O PAGES 288-291
constant throughout." Bradwardine’ s interpretation of the theo­
rem, consequently, accords exactly with the interpretation of­
fered by the later commentator whose discussion we have edited
in Appendix III, and who makes this meaning fully explicit on
lines 83-104 of our editibn of his text.
16-23 Here Bradwardine states, as the proof offered by “one com­
mentator,” the proof which is found in the Elementa de ponder­
ibus of Jordanus de Nemore; cf. lines 17-32 of our text of that
work.
.29*40 The proof here restated by Bradwardine, as that of “another
commentator," is not found in any of the common versions of
the Liber de ponderibus. It does occur, however, in a version
contained in Ms. Corpus Christi College 251, at Oxford, on fol.
10 verso. This version is here accompanied, as if by a marginal
gloss in the original hand, by the set of proofs given in the Ele-
menta de ponderibus of Jordanus; but no indication of authorship,
either of the principal text or of the gloss provided for it, is
given in the original hand. A later hand supplies the title “Liber
de ponderibus Jordani," and it also describes the extra set of
proofs (which in fact are those of the Elementa Jordani) as the
“commentary of Alardus." Possibly this is a reversal of the
proper ascriptions of the two sets of proofs, in which case we
should attribute those which occur as the principal text to A lar­
dus (whoever he may have been), and those occurring as alter­
native proofs, to Jordanus. If this be correct, Bradwardine’ s
“other commentator" was this Alardus. The proof to which
Bradwardine refers is given in this manuscript, as follows:
Sint a et b duo pondera inequalia, et b sit maius a. AD sit
linea descensus a, BC linea descensus b.Dico ergo, que est
proportio ponderis (b) ad a., ea est BC ad AD; quod si con­
strueretur, intelligatur generaliter quod que est proportio
ponderis ad pondus, ea est descensus ad descensum.
Age ergo sic: Que est proportio ly ad a, eadem est BC ad
AD, aut maior aut minor. Si eadem, ergo propositum. Si
maior, sumatur v^ pondus quod cum cL sit equale b, iterum
DG linea que sit descensus y si per se descendat in tempore
b, et sit cum AD equale BC linee. Inde sic: Que est propor­
tio b ad v, a, pariter acceptas, eadem est BC ad AG; quia
equalium eadem est proportio. Sed maior est proportio ly
ad a_ quam BC ad AD; ergo minor est proportio b ad _v, quam
BC ad DG. Sed DG est descensus v_, BC descensus bj ergo
maior est proportio DG ad BC quam v ad b; ergo maior est
proportio descensus ad descensum quam ponderis ad pon­
dus. Sed £rius datum erat in contrarium.
(Translation): Let a and b be two unequal weights, and let
b be greater than a_, and let the line AD be the descent of a_
424
NOTES TO PAGES 2 9 3 -2 9 4
and the line BC the descent of b. I say, then, that the pro­
portion of the weight b to the weight a_ is the same as that
of BC to AD. And this, if generalized, should be understood
universally as stating that the proportion of descent to de­
scent is as that of weight to weight.
We then proceed as follows: Whatever the proportion of
b to a, that of BC to AD is either the same, or greater, or
le ss. If it is the same, then our thesis is granted. If great­
er, then take a weight v such that _v + a. = b; also take a line
DG, representing the descent which v has, if descending
alone, during the same time in which ty descends; and let
this line, added to the line AD, be equal to the line BC.Then
we argue thus: Whatever be the proportion of b to the sum
of v and a, such is the proportion of BC to AG (i.e.,AD + DG)~
because equals are in the same proportion. But the propor­
tion of b to a is greater than that of BC to AD; therefore
the proportion of b to y is less than that of BC to DG. But
DG is the descent of v, and BC the descent of bj therefore
the proportion of DG to BC is greater than that of v to b;
and therefore the proportion of descent to descent is great­
er than that of weight to weight. But the contrary—that the
ratio of weight to weight is greater than that of descent to
descent—was previously assumed.
APPENDIX III
INTRODUCTION
1. P. Duhem, Les Origines de la Statique, I, Paris 1905, pp.130*131.
2. Cf. ante, Appendix II, for the text of Bradwardine’s discussion,
with translation. The parts of the present commentary, which
reflect Bradwardine’ s discussion, are indicated below, in our
Notes.
3. This tends to justify Duhem’ s claim that the “ science of
weights” was carried on, as a living and developing tradition
from the time of Jordanus into the fifteenth century. Critics
of Duhem have tended to label his “ school of Jordanus" as a
fiction, and to hold that the De ponderibus treatises reduce to
the work of Jordanus himself, which in turn is regarded as
an isolated mediaeval contribution to mechanics, giving rise
to no further developments. B. Ginzburg, “Duhem and Jorda­
nus Nemorarius," in Isis, Vol. 25 (Sept. 1936), p.351, takes this
position. Also Anneliese M aier,An der Grenze von Scholastik
und Naturwissenschaft, Essen 1943, p.269, Note 1, derides Da-
hem’ s notion of a continuing tradition of the “ science of
weights,” and states flatly that “Im 14. Jahrhundert gibt es
jedenfalls keine Scientia de ponderibus mehr, wenigstens nicht
425
 NOTES TO PAGES 2 9 6 -2 9 8
ais lebendige Wissenschaft." The commentary here edited
which almost certainly stems from the middle of the 14th cen­
tury, seems to me to constitute a convincing refutation of this
statement, and to indicate that the “ science of weights" made
some real progress in this period, achieving a much clearer
and more explicit grasp of the principle of work, as founda­
tion of statics, than can be credited to Jordanus himself.
TEXT
Lines
1-4 The wording of the theorem is the same as that of the Liber
de ponderibus in the so-called “Peripatetic version," which we
have called Version “P .” The distinguishing mark of this form
of the theorem is the addition of the word proprie to the phrase
velocitatis in descendendo.
5*24 These lines reproduce the proof which was supplied for the
theorem in the Elementa Jordani.
24-30 Here there is a reflection of the comments made by Brad-
wardine, in his discussion of the proof of “unus commentator"
(apparently meaning Jordanus); cf. supra, Appendix H, lines 23-
27 and 39-43. The point is that the particular conclusion derived
from the assumption that_a/b < AC /B D , is not contradictory to
that particular assumption, but only to a universal assertion
that for any weights the distances of descent in equal time are
proportional to the weights. As our commentator points out la ­
ter on (lines 834.04), this universal proposition can only be con­
ceded within restricted conditions—i.e ., for weights placed on
an arm of a balance, where their power of lifting a counter­
weight on the other arm is a function not merely of their simple
gravity but of their position on the lever arm and consequently
of the distance of vertical descent which they can accomplish
through a movement of the system.
30-35 Here the commentator supplies the argument for the alterna­
tive supposition that a/b > AC/BD —which Jordanus had not both­
ered to do, since the argument is strictly analogous to the first
argument.
36-48 This supplies the argument for the second part of the theo­
rem, which Jordanus had merely suggested, as an obvious cor­
ollary.
49“68 At this point our commentator embarks on his own critical
discussion of the theorem, arguing most convincingly that it
must be construed for the special case of weights descending
on one arm of a balance and lifting a counterweight on the other
arm. The proportionality of descents to weights is understood
explicitly in this sense: the power of a body, suspended on one
arm of a balance, to lift a weight on the other arm, is measured
426
NOTES T O P A G E 298
by the product of the natural gravity of that body, and the ver­
tical distance of descent which it can accomplish while raising
the counterweight, in a movement of the balance beam from the
horizontal to the vertical position. This distance of descent, of
course, depends directly on the distance from the axis of rota­
tion at which the weight is placed. Thus the interpretation of the
theorem, on which our commentator insists, exhibits it as an
enunciation of the principle of work, yielding the law of statical
moment. The commentator insists that the “author" of the theo­
rem must have intended it in this sense, since he invoked this
theorem as basis for his eighth theorem in proof of the general
lever principle.
Whether the “author," or whether Jordanus de Nemore, in­
tended the theorem to have this meaning, can scarcely be deter­
mined on the basis of the texts available. It is clear, in any
event, that earlier commentators on the De ponderibus had
tended to construe the theorem in a much broader sense, as
equivalent to the general assertion that bodies of unequal weight,
in free fall through a medium such as air, descend proportion­
ately unequal distances in equal times. For it is against this in­
terpretation that our commentator finds it necessary to argue.
Bradwardine’ s discussion also indicates that this was the usual
interpretation, since he introduces the theorem as an “author­
ity” for the Aristotelian “law of motion" taken as an assertion
of the direct proportionality of velocity to force (where resist­
ance is constant), and of the inverse proportionality of velocity
to resistance (where the force is constant). Both Bradwardine,
and our present commentator, consider the theorem to be in­
valid if interpreted in this sense; but this commentator strives
to “save" the author, and Jordanus, by claiming that they must
have intended the theorem in the restricted sense in which it is
correct—i.e ., in the sense of the principle of work. In any case,
this fourteenth century commentator is clear enough, and wholly
I - explicit, in discerning the one interpretation of the theorem
which makes it true, and adequate for the proof of the lever
principle.
68-73 The point is made here, again, that the proportion of the lift­
ing powers (or effective “gravities") of a and b, as placed on the
lever arm, is not a simple function of their natural weights
alone, but of these weights as modified by distance from the axis
of rotation—of their weights as determined by their coefficients
of “positional gravity.”
73-77 Here the case of the weights lifting a counterweight, on a bal­
ance, is exhibited as relevant to the general dynamic theory
which Bradwardine had formulated—i.e ., the ratio of the effec­
tive powers of two movers, which determines the ratio of the
i
i
427
r
NOTES TO PAGES 2 9 8 -3 0 2
distances they can traverse in acting against their respective
resistances for an equal time, is as the proportion of the pro­
portions of the two movers to their respective resistances. In
the present case, the resistances are determined not only by
the natural gravity of the counter weight being lifted, but by the
ratio of inequality of the two arms of the balance. Thus, if is
the descending weight, and P 2 the counterweight which it raises,
and if the length of lever arm on the side of P^ is Lf, and that
on the side of is L2, we calculate the whole resistance which
Pi must overcome to raise P 2, by the following formula-
P l = P 2.l 2 /L !
This is of course equivalent to the law of statical moment:
P l.L i = P 2 .L 2
78~83 These lines echo lines 45-51 of Bradwardine’ s discussion.
83-117 Here the commentator reformulates the theorem, and the ar­
gument, in such manner as to make it explicitly an enunciation
of the principle of work.
118-138 An objection is here considered, that to interpret the theo­
rem in terms of the principle of work completely neglects the
question of speed or velocity, whereas the theorem itself asserts
that the velocities (not the distances) of descent, are propor­
tional to the weights. In reply, the commentator points out that
since the weights are connected on a balance, the time of move­
ment is the same for each element of the system, with the re­
sult that the comparisons reduce to comparisons of distances
of descent, or of ascent. In short, as long as “velocity” is taken
in the sense of distance/time, and not in the differential sense,
the time factor cancels out in the case of the movement of the
weights on a balance, and the “velocities of descent” become
equivalent to the distances of descent.
136~137 Archimedes’ De curvis superficiebus, here cited, is a me­
diaeval commentary by one Johannes de Tinemue on the first
book of the De sphaera et cylindro. Prop. V of this work asserts
the proportionality of diameters to circumferences of circles,
as here indicated. The text of the De curvis superficiebus has
been established by M. Clagett, and will appear in Osiris, Vol. 11.
139 -147 This is a striking paragraph, in which the commentator
clearly dissociates the question which concerns him—i.e.,the
principle of work—from the problem of velocities. All that mat­
ters, for the dynamical foundation of the statical theorems, is
the principle of work. So he says: “It does not matter whether
the velocities are proportional or not, so long as this holds: If
placed at D, suffices to raise £, then g, placed at C, suffices
to raise bj ” the distance of D from the axis of rotation being in
the same ratio to the distance C from the axis, as the weight e^
is to the weight b.
428
NOTES T O P A G E 302
The reference here made to “the text of Jordanus,” as having
a different wording, is most interesting. For this different word­
ing, in which virtus is substituted for velocitas, is the wording
of the De ratione ponderis (not used in the Elementa Jordani or
in any of the other versions of the Liber de ponderibus). This
suggests that our commentator did not regard Jordanus as the
“author” of the original Liber de ponderibus, but as an editor or
author of a revised version, represented by the De ratione pon­
deris.
148-174 Here the commentator supplies the detailed proof of what
had been taken for granted in the original argument (in lines
14-18)—namely, that if a/b < AC/DB, then a /a -b > A C /AC -B D .
The demonstration, formulated here in different symbols, is as
follows:
Given the weights ab and c, such that ab > c^, and such that
ab-c = a (or b = c). Then let DEF be the distance through which
ab descends in the same time that c_ descends through the dis­
tance G; and let G be equal to that part of DEF which is EF. We
seek to prove:
If ab/c < D E F/EF, then ab/a > DEF/DE
Proof: Suppose that DEF is divided at a point H, such that the
ratio of DEF to HF is the same as that of ab to^c. Then
HF > EF (By Euclid V, Prop. 8, which states that if a > b,
then a/c > b/c and c /a < c/b)
But DF:HF = ab : b (since DF:HF = ab:c, while c = b by
I' hypothesis)
Therefore, DF-HF ; HF = ab-b : b (By Euclid V, Prop.17)
t And, since DH = DF - HF, and a = a b - b , D H : H F = a : b
£
Therefore HF : DH = b : a (By inversion)
l And HF + DH : DH = b_+ a^: a (Euclid V, Prop. 18: compo­
sition)
ft
But HF + DH = DF, and b + a = ab
Therefore DF : DH = ab : <1
But DF/DH > DF/DE (By Euclid V, Prop. 8, and because
DH = DF-HF, DE = D F-EF, and HF > EF; hence DH <
DE, and so DF/DH > DF/DE)
Therefore ab/a > DF/DE (Since DF/DH = a b /a) Q.E.D.
174-178 The alternative proof here indicated is this: If DF/EF > ab/b,
then DF/ED < ab/a (since ED = D F-EF, and a = ab-b). The 30th
Proposition of Euclid V may be expressed as follows: If a + b /b >
c + d/d, then a + b/a< c + d/c. The “fifth proposition" of Campanus
is not the 5th proposition of Campanus’ edition of Euclid V; the
reference is apparently to some other work by Campanus of Na­
varre, possibly to an abridged compendium of propositions from
t Euclid. The text of our manuscript N, which we could not fully
resolve here, states that this is the fifth proposition “adutionis
429
 N O T E S TO PAGES 3 0 4 -3 0 5
Campanus;” the Apianus text replaces this with “Archimedis."
But the reference is certainly not to the 5th proposition of A r­
chimedes’ De curvis superficiebus, and it seems more likely
that the Campanus reading is more correct.
179*186 It is stated that the same proof suffices to establish the a r­
gument from the alternative assumption that_a/b > A C/BD . The
text of Apianus ends here, with the statement that “this is what
we promised to prove.”
187-194 This paragraph, which occurs in our Florence manuscript
but is omitted from the Apianus edition, gives a statement of the
general mathematical principle involved in the original argu­
ment and in the detailed proofs of lines 148“178; i.e ., if a/b >
c/d , then a /a -b < c /c -d .
430
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Apianus, Petrus: Liber Iordani Nemorarii. . De Ponderibus Prop­
ositiones XIII et earumdem demonstrationes. Nuremberg 1533
Archimedes: The Works of Archimedes. Edited and translated
by T. L. Heath, Cambridge 1908
pseudo-Archimedes: De insidentibus aquae. Edited by M. Curtze,
Bibliotheca Mathematica, Neue Folge, Bd. X, 1896, pp. 43-9
Aristotle: The Physics, Loeb Library Edition, 2 vols., London
1929
Aristotle: On the Heavens, Loeb Library Edition. London 1939
Aristotle: Minor Works. Loeb Library Edition. London 1936
Bacon, Roger: Opus maius. Edited by J. H. Bridges, 3 vols.,
Oxford 1897-1900
Bosmans, H.: “Le Philotechnes,” in Revue des Questions Sci-
entifiques, Jan. 1903
Bradwardine, Thomas: Albertus de Saxonia: Thomae Bradvar-
dini: Nicholai horen: Tractatus Proportionum. Paris: De
Maruef, sans annee (ca.1495)
Buchner, F .: “Die Schrift iiber den Qarastun von Thabit ben
Qurra," in Sitzungsberichte der Physikalisch-medizinischen
Sozietat in Erlangen, Bd. 52-3, (1920-21), Erlangen 1922,
p p .141-88
Cantor, M.: Vorlesungen iiber die Geschichte der Mathematik.
2nd ed., Leipzig 1900
Clagett, M.: Giovanni Marliani and Late Medieval Physics.
N.Y. 1941
Clagett, M.: “Some General Aspects of Mediaeval Physics," in
Isis, Vol. 39, May 1948
Curtze, M.: “Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Physik im 14.
Jahrhundert," in Bibliotheca Mathematica, Neue Folge, vol. 10
(1896)
Curtze, M.: Jordani Nemorarii Geometria vel De Triangulis
Libri IV (Mitteilungen des Coppernicus-Vereins fiir Wissen-
schaft und Kunst zu Thorn, Heft VI). Thorn 1887
Curtze, M.: “Ueber die Handschrift R. 4° 2: Problematum
Euclidis Explicatio, des Konigl. Gymnasial Bibliothek zu
Thorn,” in Zeitschrift fiir Mathematik und Physik, 13. Jahr-
gang, Supplement, p. 45 ff. 1868
Curtze, M.: “ Zwei Beitrage zur Geschichte der Physik," in
Bibliotheca Mathematica, 3. Folge, vol. I (1900), p. 51 ff.
Duhem, P.: Etudes sur Leonard de Vinci. 3 vols., Paris 1906-13
Duhem, P.: Le Systeme du Monde. 5 vols., Paris 1913-16
Duhem, P.: Les Origines de la Statique. 2 vols., Paris 1905-6
431
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Duhem, P.: “Un ouvrage perdu cite par Jordanus de Nemore, Maier, Anneliese: Die Vorlaufer Galileis im 14. Jahrhundert.
le Philotechnes,” in Bibliotheca Mathematica, vol. 5 (1905), Rome 1949
p. 321-5 Moody, Ernest A.: "Galileo and Avempace: The Dynamics of
Enestrom, G.: “Ueber den urspriinglichen Titel der geometri- the Leaning Tower Experiment, " in Journal of the History of
schen Schrift des Nemorarius," in Bibliotheca Mathematica Ideas, vol. XII, 2-3 (April-June, 1951), pp. 163-193 and 375-
vol. 13 (1912), p. 83-4 422
Enestrom, G.: “Ueber di Demonstratio Jordani de Algorism o," Moody, Ernest A .: “Laws of Motion in Medieval Physics,”
in Bibliotheca Mathematica, 3. Folge, vol. 7 (1906), p. 24-37- Scientific Monthly, Vol. LXXII, 1 (January 1951), pp. 18-23
also vol. 8, p. 135-52; vol. 9, p. 175; and vol. 14, p. 41-54 Sarton, G.l Introduction to the History of Science, 3 vols.,
Euclid: The Thirteen Books of Euclid’ s Elements, translated Baltimore 1927, 1931, 1947
by T. L. Heath. Cambridge 1908 Scheeben, H. Ch.: “Der literarische Nachlass Jordans von
pseudo-Euclid: F. Woepcke, “Notice sur des traductions arabes Sachsen,” in Historisches Jahrbuch, 52 (1932), pp. 56-71
de deux ouvrages perdus d’ Euclide,” in Journal Asiatique, 4e Steinschneider, N.: “Intorno al Liber Karastonis—Lettera di
Serie, t. 18, p. 217 ff. (1851) Maurizio Steinschneider a D. Baldessare Boncompagni,” in
pseudo -Euclid: M. Curtze: “ Zwei Beitrage zur Geschichte der Annali di Matematica, vol. 5 (Rome 1863), pp. 54-9
Physik," in Bibliotheca Mathematica, 3. Folge, v. I (1900), Thorndike, Lynn: History of Magic and Experimental Science.
p. 51 ff. 6 vols., N.Y. 1929-41
Ginzburg, B.: “Duhem and Jordanus Nemorarius," in Isis, vol. Vailati, Giovanni: Scritti. Leipzig 1911 (There is also a Spanish
25 (Sept. 1936), pp. 341-62 translation of mechanical essays, Buenos A ires, 1947)
Isidori Hispalensis Etymologiarum sive originum Libri XX. Vitruvius: De architectura. Loeb Library Edition, 2 vols.,
Ed. W. M. Lindsay, 2 vols. Ox. 1911 1931-4
Jordanus Nemorarius: Jordani Opusculum de ponderositate, Woepcke, F .: “Notice sur des traductions arabes de deux ouv­
Nicolai Tartaleae studio correctum novisque figuris auctum. rages perdus d’ Euclide," in Journal Asiatique, 4e Serie, 18
Venetiis, apud Curtium Trojanum, MDLXV (1851)
Jordanus Nemorarius: Liber Iordani Nemorarii viri clarissimi
DE PONDERIBUS PROPOSITIONES XIII, et earumdem dem­
onstrationes, multarumque rerum rationes sane pulcherrimas
complectens, nunc in lucem editus..«Petro Apiano Mathemat­
ico Ingolstadiano.. Norimbergae per Io. Petreium, Anno dom­
ini M.D.XXXIII
Jordanus Nemorarius: Geometria vel De Triangulis Libri IV.
Ed. M. Curtze, Thorn 1887
Jordanus Nemorarius: Arithmeticae Ed. Faber Stapulensis,
Paris: Joh. Higman and Wolfgang Hopyl, 1496. Reprinted 1514
Jordanus Nemorarius: De numeris datis (or De lineis datis).
Edited by H. Treutlein, in Zeitschrift fiir Math, u. Physik,
XXIV, Supplementheft, pp. 135-66; also edited by M. Curtze,
ibid., vol. XXXVI, 1891
Jordanus Nemorarius: Planisphaerium. Printed in the collec­
tion "Sphaerae atque astrorum ..’ etc., published at Basel in
1507, 1536, and 1558; another title is De planisperii figurati­
one ; also De commensuratione caelestium
Lacombe, G.: Aristoteles Latinus, I. Rome 1939
Mach, Ernst: The Science of Mechanics. 2nd English edition,
translated by Thomas J. McCormack. Chicago: Open Court.
1902

432 433
 INDEX

Note: This index is primarily to proper names and principal

concepts. It would be extremely useful to have an index verborum
to the texts; but since the primary objective of this work is
historical rather than philological, the publication of such an
index has been, at least temporarily, set aside.

ALARDUS, 424.
Albert of Saxony: use of the De ponderibus, 19, 231, 413; on ‘‘vel-
ocity of descent,'* 377, 386; mentioned, 411.
Al-Farabi, 384.
Al~Khazini, 38.
Apianus, Petrus: mentioned, 10, 145, 231, 385, 388, 440; the al-
iud commentum, 293_95, 376, 383.
Archimedes: the law of the lever, 3, 4, 7-8, 57, 59, 81, 83, 234,
347, 360, 367, 381“83, 415; his mathematical approach
to statics, 9, 20, 59; the De insidentibus ague, 36~38,
233, 353-355, 407, 421; the De Sphaera et cylindro, 428;
mentioned, 11, 23, 64, 65, 79, 430,
Aristotle: on classification of the sciences, 3, 384; his dynam­
ics and dynamic approach to statics, 4, 8 “9, 20, 23, 147,
285, 347-48, 350, 377; the De caelo, 35, 354, 407; the
Mechanical Problems, 11, 12, 13, 18, 45, 84, 123-24, 147,
170, 347-48, 367, 377, 382, 384-85, 402-4, 408, 410, 414;
the Physics, 123, 237, 285, 350, 409; mentioned, 36.
BENEDETTI, J. B., 20, 351.
Blasius of Parma, 10, 19, 39, 231-37.
Boethius, 384.
Bradwardine, Thomas: his dynamics and kinematics, 8, 19,
285-87, 423, 427-28; the Tractatus proportionum, 146,
236, 285-87, 293-95, 389, 423-25; mentioned, 231, 386.
Buchner, F .: his text and analysis of the Liber karastonis, 11,
13, 81, 82, 84-86, 349, 363, 364, 367, 368; his transla­
tion of the De ponderoso, 24, 351-52.
Buridan, Jean: on impetus, 8, 171, 409, 412; on vibrating strings
and elastic rebound, 411; mentioned, 237.
CAMPANUS of Navarre, 429,430.
calculus, defined, 40.
Cardan, Jerome, 20, 408.
circumvolubile (rotary pendant), 136, 158.
Clagett, Marshall, 373, 428.
Cohen, M. and Drabkin, I., 348, 352-53.
Contarini, Card., 408.
Crosby, H. Lamar, 423.

435
 INDEX
Curtze, M.: his edition of the De insidentibus ague, 10, 36, 359-
his edition of the De ponderoso, 11, 25; his edition of the
De triangulis, 14, 121, 373, 379, 381; mentioned, 85.
DENIFLE, H., 373. ’ -
density, 124, 350-51, 420.
Descartes, 394.
Diels, H., 79.
Duhem, Pierre: on medieval statics in general, 8~9, 425; on
version “ P," 15, 145-46; on the *De ratione ponderis, 18,
123, 169, 171, 391-95, 402-5, 407-8, 410, 416; on the
Elementa of Jordanus, 123, 125, 382; on other statical
texts, 281, 293, 294, 351, 359, 368, 386, 388; mentioned,
348, 349, et passim.
ELASTICITY, 409-11.
equilibrium, stable and unstable: in the Mechanical Problems,
84, 402; in the Liber karastonis, 94, 366; in the E le­
menta of Jordanus, 130, 366-67, 378-79; in the De rati­
one ponderis, 170, 176-78, 207, 391-92, 393, 402; in the
De ponderibus Blasii; 250, 416-17.
Euclid: the Liber de ponderoso, 11, 12, 23-25; the Book of the
Balance, 59~6l, 367; the unknown Liber Euclidis cited
in Liber karastonis, 80-83, 88, 89; the various statical
fragments, 81-84, 363; as possible author of De ponder­
ibus, 146, 148, 172, 388; mentioned, 3, 9, 57, 59, 64, 65,
295, 360.
FORCE (virtus), 124, 350, 351, 363-65, 374, 400.
force of motion (virtus motus), 90, 92, 365-66.
forces, composition of, 15-16.
Franciseus de Ferraria, 231, 413.
GALILEO: his role in development of science, 8; the incline'd
plane problem, 17, 169; his dynamics and the concepts
of impeto and momento, 171, 351, 388, 412; mentioned,
172.
Gassendi, P ., 408.
Gerard of Brussels, 373.
Ginzberg, Bi, 348, 382, 392, 415.
gravity ("heaviness"), 40, 374, 385.
gravity, positional (gravitas secundum situm): definition, 6, l6;
in the Elementa of Jordanus, 123-24, 128, 137, 139, 375;
in the Liber de ponderibus, 147, 150-51, 385; in the De
ratione ponderis, 170, 174; in the De ponderibus Blasii,
234, 235.
gravity, specific (gravitas secundum speciem): definition in
terms of force, 26, 235, 272, 350, 420; distinguished
from weight, 35, 40, 354; defined in terms of volume
and weight, 42; its determination 42-45; of mixed
436
INDEX
bodies, 46—53; of liquids, 46, 236, 274, 355, 421; the
sources of Blasius’ concept, 233; the Golden Crown
problem, 355-57.
Gundissalinus, Domenicus, 384.
HERIGONE, Pierre, 395.
Hero of Alexandria, 404.
hydrometer, 274, 421.
IMPETUS: general nature and application to projectile motion,
8, 226, 409, 412; applied to statics, 19, 171; applied to
elastic structure of bodies, 224, 410-11; applied to fall­
ing bodies, 407.
inclined plane principle: its use by Jordanus evaluated, 6, 17;
as a basic principle of statics, 15; in the De ratione
ponderis, 169, 188, 190, 235, 394.
Isidore of Seville, 37, 38, 353.
JOHANNES de Muris, 39, 233, 355, 420, 421. *
John Dumbleton, 19, 231, 411.
Jordanus de Nemore: general contributions to statics, 3-6 , 9 “11;
the Elementa, 14-18, 121-125, 231, 233, 306, 360, et
passim; the De ratione ponderis, 18-19, 171—73, 232,234,
et passim; biography, 121-23, 373; the De triangulis
(Philotegni), 131, 136, 379; the Praexercitamina, 132,
379; the Liber de ponderibus, 145-49, 232, 233, 360; the
interpretation of his texts by Bradwardine, 286-87; re­
lationship to the aliud commentum, 293-95; mentioned,
83, 236, 281, 366-67, et passim.
Jordanus of Saxony, 4, 121, 122.
KARASTON, 79“80, 114, 115.
LENZEN, V. F ., 347.
Leonardo da Vinci, 17, 403, 408.
lever principle: proof by Archimedes, 4, 347; proof by pseudo-
Aristotle, 4-5 , 347-48; proof by Thabit ibn Qurra, 5, 81,
90-96, 422; in the Elementa of Jordanus, 5, 123, 138-40,
382; use in the De canonio, 11, 58, 66, 360; proof by
Blasius, 234, 259~6l, 365-66, 418; in the aliud comment-
um, 294, 300; in the version of App. IV, 308-10.
M A C H ,!^ 15, 347, 349, 383.
Maier, Anneliese, 348, 423, 425.
Marsilius of Inghen, 231, 413.
momentum, 171, 409.
Monte, Guido Ubaldi del, 20, 386.
Moody, Ernest A ., 348.
motion, Aristotelian law of: its modification in the De ponder -
oso, 24, 26, 351; in the Liber karastonis, 90, 363-64; in
the Elementa Jordani'and the De ratione ponderis, 129,
174, 376-78, 405; in the De ponderibus Blasii, 234, 244,
248-50, 415-16; in the fragment of App. I, 283, 422;
A 1
 INDEX

Bradwardine's reformulation, 285-86, 288-90, 294,

423, 426; in the aliud commentum, 298, 426-27.
NICOLAUS of Cusa, 236.
Nicolaus of Oresme, 236, 411.
Nicolaus Trivet, 122.
PAPPUS, 17, 169, 394.
Pereira, B ., 408.
place, 350, 351.
Priscian of Caesarea, 37, 353.
RICHARD Fournival, 373.
Robe-t Grosseteste, 410-11.
Roger Bacon, 378. ,
Roger Thomas, 231, 413.
roman balance: in the De canonio, 13, 57-58, 64-74, 83, 123,
359~6l, 384; in the Liber karastonis, 13, 83, 110-14, 369-
72; in the De ratione ponderis, 18, 169, 192-204, 395-
401; in version "P ," 162-64, 388; in the De ponderibus
B lasii, 264-70, 418-20; in the fragment of App. I, 282,
422.
SAMAU’ AL ibn Jahja, 38.
Sarton, George, 23.
Simplicius, 36, 79, 352, 362, 411, 412.
situm equalitatis (the horizontal position of a balance), 128, 174.
statical moment, 6, 170, 234, 235.
Strato of Lampsacus, 23, 411.
TARTAGLIA, Niccolo, 10, 20, 169, 389.
Thabit ibn Qurrazuse of dynamics and principle of virtual vel­
ocities, 5, 24-25, 123, 363-64, 377; relationship to the
Euclid fragment of App. I, 9, 82-83, 281, 360, 422; the
Liber karastonis, 12-14, 59, 61, 79“84, 363-72, 422;
biography, 80; proof of the law of the lever, 365-66,
382; formula for the Roman balance, 371-72; mentioned,
24, 147, 384, 388.
Thorndike, L ., 236, 403.
trutina, 57, 353.
VAILATI, Giovanni, 357.
velocity of descent, 128, 376-77, 386, 390, 428.
virtual displacements, 5, 15, 17, and see work, principle of.
Vitruvius, 37, 38, 352, 355, 404.
WEIGHT (pondus), 374.
Wiedemann, E ., 38, 80, 86, 353, 362, 367, 372.
William of Moerbeke, 11, 36-38, 233, 354, 355.
Woepcke, F., 23, 59, 349, 360, 362, 379, 383.
work, principle of: its relationship to virtual velocities, 5; in
the Elementa of Jordanus, 17, 124, 140, 382-83; in the
De ratione ponderis, 18, 170, 186, 190, 390-91, 393, 394;
in the De ponderibus Blasii, 235, 418; in the aliud com-
mentum, 294, 298-302, 426-28.