Due correction for Mr Hobbes· Or Schoole discipline, for not saying his lessons right. In answer to his Six lessons, directed to the professors of mathematicks. / By the professor of geometry.

SECT. II. Concerning his Grammar, and Criticks. (Book 2)

I Shall therefore next after the Rhetorick, consider the Grammar, you'l say, that Grammar should have gone first. It may be so. But it's no great matter for method, when a man deales with you; for you are not so accurate in your own, that you need find fault with anothers.

There be six or seven places (and, I think no more) where you would play the Critick.

First, you tell me pag. 11. that [Punctum est Corpus, quod non consideratur esse Corpus] is not Latin, nor the version of it [a Point is a body, which is not considered to be a body] English. If you had said, it had not been good sense, I would have agreed with you. But why not that, Latin? or this, English? (Nay stay there; you are not to give a reason for what you say. It's enough that you say so.) Quod esse videmus, id vide∣tur esse. Quod esse sentimus, id sentitur esse. Quod esse putamus, putatur esse. Quod esse cognoscimus, cognoscitur esse. Quod esse dicimus, dicitur esse. And why not as well, Quod esse conside∣ramus, consideratur esse? But what should it have been, if not so? Why thus, Punctum est corpus quod non consideratur ut cor∣pus. Very good! Bur Sir, It's one thing, to consider a thing as a body, or as if it were a body, (either of which the words ut corpus may beare;) another thing, to consider that it is a body, which was the notion I had to expresse, and therefore your word would not so well serve my turne, but rather the other. And when we have this to expresse, That though it be a body, and we know it to be a body, yet do not at present actually consider it so to be; (which I take to be

neither Irish, nor Welsh, nor, which is worse then either, the Symbolick tongue; but good English;) it is better ren∣dred in Latin by esse, then by ut.

Secondly, you tell me pag. 44. I might have left out [Tu vero] to seek an [Ego quidem.] (As though vero might ne∣ver be used where there is not a quidem to answer it.) And is not this a worthy objection? But however, to satisfy you, look again and you may see a quidem which answers directly to this vero. My words are these Articulo quarto (cap. 17.) curvilineorum illorum descriptionem aggrederis per puncta. Quae quidem res est non ita magnae difficultatis, ut tanto apparatu, tantisque ambagibus opus sit. Exempli gratia. &c. Tu vero, qua∣si per planorum Geometriam id fieri non possit, statim imperas me∣diorum quotlibet Geometricorum inventionem. Doe you see the quidem now? Very good!

But before I leave this, (to save my selfe that labour a∣non,) I must let your English Reader see, how notoriously you doe here abuse him, (him, I say; for the abusing of me in it, is a matter of nothing) My words were these; In the 4th Article (of your 17 Chap.) you attempt the describing of those curve lines by points, (that is, the finding out as many points as a man pleaseth, by which the said curve lines are to passe, through which, with a steady hand, those lines may be drawn, not Mathematically, but by aim,) which is a matter of no great difficulty, and may be performed without so much adoe as you make, and so much going about the bush. As for example, &c. (and so I go on to shew how those points may be easily found Mathematically, by the Geometry of Plains, that is, by the Rule and Compasse, or by streight lines and circles, without the use of Conick Sections, or o∣ther more compounded lines. And, having shewed that, I proceed thus) But you, as though this work (the finding of those points) could not be done by the Geometry of Plains, (as I had shewed it might,) require presently the finding of as ma∣ny mean proportionals as you please (viz. more or fewer ac∣cording as the nature of those lines shall be;) between two lines assigned: (which by the Geometry of Plains cannot be done:) And so, of a Plain Probleme, you make a Solid and linea∣ry Probleme. Which how unbeseeming it is for a Geometrician to doe, you may learne from those words which your selfe cite out of Pappus, pag. 181. (in the English, pag. 233.) Videtur autem non parvum peccatum esse apud Geometras, cum Problema

Planum per Conica aut Linearia ab aliquo invenitur. It's judged by Geometers no small fault, for the finding out of a Plain Problem, (as this is,) to have recourse (as you here) to Solid or Lineary Problems. Now these words, one would think, were plain enough for a man of a moderate capacity to un∣derstand. And is it not well owl'd of you, to perswade your English Reader that I had here taught, that a man may find as many mean-proportionalls, as one will, by the Geometry of Plaines? (where I said only that the work before spoken of, might be done by the Geometry of Plaines, and there∣fore needed not the finding of such Mean-proportionals?) And then (because you doe not know whether or no, as many mean proportionals as one will, may be found by the Geometry of Plains,) you tell us, that you never said it was impossible; (truly if you had said so, I should not have bla∣med you for it;) but that the way to doe it was not yet found, (you might have added, nor ever will be,) and therefore it might prove a Solid Problem for any thing I know. Nay truly, Sir, I know very well (though it seems you doe not,) that it is at lest a Solid Probleme, or rather Lineary; and that the way to doe it, Mathematically, by the Geometry of Plains, is neither yet found, nor ever will be. For those Problems which depend upon the resolution of a Cubick or Superior Aequation, not reducible to a Quadratick, (which is the case in hand) can never be resolved by the Geometry of Plains. Which, if, instead of scorning, you had endeavoured to understand, the Analyticks, you might have known too. But this by the way; to save my selfe the labour anon. I returne to your Criticks again.

Thirdly, whereas it is said c. 16. art. 18. Longitudinē percursam cum impetu u••ique ipsi BD aequali; I said the word cum were better out, unlesse you would have Impetus to be only a Com∣panion and not a cause. For where a causality is imported, though we may use with in English, yet not cum in Latin. To kill with a sword (importing this to have an instrumentall or causall influence, and not only that it hangs by the mans side, while some other weapon is made use of) is not in La∣tin Occidere cum gladio, but gladio occidere. So ebrius vino; pallidus ira; incurvus senectute, or, if you will, prae ir••, ob••iram, &c. not cum vino, cum ira, &c. You say, it is better in (though for the most part your selfe leave it out in that constructi∣on;) let the Reader judge; for it is not worth contending

for. All that you say in defence, is that Impetus is the Ab∣lative of the Manner. What then? the question remains, as it was before, whether this Modus do not here import a causall influence? And 'tis evident it doth; for the effect here spoken (that such space be dispatched) doth equally de∣pend upon two causes; the one, that the motion be uniforme; the other, that the Impetus be so great. And therefore (since you please to insist upon it, which I did but give a touch at by the way, as in many other places where you take it Pa∣tiently,) cum not proper in either place; but either an Ab∣lative without a Preposition; or, if you would needs have a preposition, per, prae, pro, propter, ob, or some other which do import a Causality; not cum, which imports only a Con∣comitancy.

Fourthly, you say, pag. 61. That you think, I did mistake [praetendit scire] for an Anglicisme. Your words were these at first, (as that Paragraph was first printed, pag. 176.) ta∣men quia tu id nescis, nec praetendis scire praeter quam ex auditu, &c. as appears in the torne papers. And then, (after you had new modeld that whole Paragraph, as it now is pag. 174.) tamen quid id nescit, nec praetendit scire &c. This I did and doe still take (not mistake) for an Anglicisme And you cannot deny but that it is so. Where is the mistake then? You say tis a fault in the Impression. Yes that it is; and that twice for failing. But was it not a fault in the Copy first? you say it should have been, praetendit se scire. That, I confesse, helps the matter a little. But why was it not so? The Printer left out se (••es, at both places.) And why? but, because the Author had not put it in? In like manner pag. 222. Tractatus huius partis tertiae, in qua motus & magni∣tud•• per se & abstracte consideravimus, terminum hic statuo. This was the Printers fault too, was it not? or, at least, a fault in the Impression? (Beside much more of the like language up and down) And if you think it worth while to make a catalogue of such phrases; tell me against next time, and I shall be able to furnish you with good store.

There be two places more (to make up the halfe dozen) wherein you would faine play the Critick: of which, I heard from divers persons, you made much boast, long before your book came out; that you had D. Wallis upon the hip; &c. The one was that adducere malleum was no good Latin, because that duco and adduco were words not

used but of Animals, and signified only to guide or leade, not to bring or carry. The other was, that I had absurdly deri∣ved Empusa from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. It's true, those charges, not∣withstanding your first confidences, are not now layd in these words; but the former extenuated, and the latter va∣nisht. Yet some nibling there is at both.

The former of these, (which I make the fifth in order) is pag. 51. where you tell me, that Adducis malleum, ut occidas muscam, is not good Latin? But why? when we speak of bodies Animate, Ducere and Adducere, you say, are good. Tis very true. Did any body deny it? But are they not good also, of Bodies inanimate? or other things? (I exspected, that in order to the confutation of my phrase you should have told us, in what cases they had not been good, and that this was one of those; not, in what other cases they are good, as well as this; for that hurts not mee.) May they not be applied as well to a Hammer, as to a Tree? Though this be Animate; not that? You were, I heare, of opinion, when you first made braggs of this notion, (or else your friends belye you) that they were not to be used but of bodies Animate: But, that being notoriously false, some body it seems had rectified that mistake, and informed you better, and therefore you dare not say so now.

But why, now, is not adducis malleum good Latin? Be∣cause, forsooth, Ducere and Adducere, when used of bodies Animate, signify to guide or lead; (and sometimes they doe so.) Now though a ninny may lead a ninny, yet not a hammer. Very witty? But I am of opinion, that he who leads M. Hobs, leads both. Or however, if a man may not lead a hammer; yet, I hope, he that hits the naile at head (which M. Hobs seldome doth) may be said to guide his hammer: may he not? The phrase therefore is good, even by your own law. But heark you, man; to lead, you told us, is the signification of the word, when it is used of Animates; why then do you talke of leading a hammer? do you take the hammer to be animate? or would have us take you to be the ninny?

But farther; they singify you say to guide or lead. What then? did I say they do not? Prithee tell me, what they do not signify; not, what they doe; if you meane to over∣throw my use of the word. Tis true, sometimes they signi∣fy to guide, or lead; viz. with the parties consent, (Fata

••••lentem, du••unt, nolentemtrahunt:) yet sometimes the quite contrary; as ducere captivum, Claud. Cic. to take a man Prisoner, or carry him captive, against his will: so ducere in carcerem; du∣cere ad supplicium, & deducere, Cic. to bring or carry a man to Prison, to execution, &c. (which for the most part is against his will.) Filia vi abducta, Ter. my daughter was carried away by force. And so, frequently. But suppose they doe, some∣times, signify to guide, sometimes to lead; what then? doe they signify nothing else? Is Ducere lineam, Plin. to guide a line, or to lead a line? and not rather to draw a line? Ducere ux••rem, Cic. to guide a wife? or to lead a wife? (though perhaps you will cavill at that phrase) and not ra∣ther to take a wife? But you say, Of bodies inanimate Addu∣cere, is good for Attrahere, which is, to draw to. Very good! But what is it not good for? is it good for nothing else? Du∣cere somnos, soporem, somnium, Virg. Hor. Insomnem ducere no∣ctem. Virg. Ducere somno diem, noctem ludo; sic horam, horas, tempus, aestatem, aevum, adolescentiam, senectutem, vitam, aeta∣tem, coenam, convivium, &c. ducere, producere, traducere, Hor. Virg. Claud. Propert. Ovid. Cic. Sen. Plin. Liv. &c. Do they signify, to leade, to guide, to dran? and not rather, to spend, to continue, to passe over, to passe away, &c.

Well! but however▪ (whatever they may signify else,) Duco, adduco, &c (with the rest of its com••ounds,) you would have us believe, (for that's it you drive at, though you dare not speak it out, or be confident to affirme it,) do not signify to take, carry, fetch, or bring, (which you sup∣pose to be the sense (aime at) unlesse when used of bodies animate. But that's as false as can be. Adducere fehrem Hor. Adducere Sitim, Virg. Adducere vini tae∣dium. Plin &c. doe they signify to lead a fever? or to guide a fever? or to draw a fever, (with cart-ropes, or a team of horses?) and not rather to bring a fever, &c. In my Dictio∣nary, duco & adduco, signify to bring, as well as to draw. The truth is, duco, with its compounds, is a word of as great variety and latitude of signification, as almost any the La∣tine tongue affords. And, amongst the rest, to bring, fetch, carry, take, (to, from, about, away, before, together, asunder, &c. according as the praeposition wherewith it is compounded doth require) is so exceeding frequent in all Authors (Plautus, Terence, Tully, Caesar, Tacitus, Livy, Pliny, Se∣neca, Virgil, Ovid, Horace, Claudian, &c.) that he must

needs be either malitiously blind, or a very great stranger to the Latin tongue, that doth not know it, or can have the face to deny it. Rem huc deduxi. Cic. Res eo adducta est, (deducta perducta,) in eum locum, in eum statum, in dabium, in certamen, in controversiam, in periculum, in maximum discrimen, &c. Cic. Liv. Caesar. Plancus ad Cic. &c. Add••cta vita in extremum. Tacit. Adducta res in fastidium, Plaut. in judicium, Cic. rem ad mucrones & manus adducere, Tacit. Contracta res est & adducta in augustiam. Cic. Rem co producere. Cic. Ad exitum, ad culmen, ad summum, ad umbilicam, ad extremum ca∣sum, &c. Cic. Caesar. Liv. Hor. &c. That is, The matter is brought to that passe, &c. So, Sive enim res ad concerdiam ad∣duci potest, sive ad bonorum victoriam &c. Cic. So, ex inordinato in ordinem adduxit, (speaking of Gods bringing the World out of the first Chaos,) and again, Eas primum confusas, postea in ordinem adductas mente divina. Cic. So, aquae ductus, a∣quarum deductio, rivorum a fontibus deductio, aquam ad utilita∣tem agri deducere, Cic. Aquam ex aliquo loco perducere, Plin. In urbem induxit, idem. To bring water from place to place. (not to draw it, attrahere.) Thus adducere febres, to bring fevers.

Officiosaque sedulitas, & opella forensis Adducit febres & testamenta resignat.

Hor. So,

Ova noctuae, &c. tadium vini adducunt.

Hor.

Addua••ere sitim tempora, Virgi••i, [sc. aestiva)

Hor. In like manner, febres deducere, to take them away.

Non domus & fundus, non aeris acervus & auri, Aegroto domini deduxit corpore febres, Non animo curas.—

Hor.

So,

deducere fastidium.

Plin And then

Febrim{que} reducit,

Hor. to bring back again. So,

Frondosa reducitur aestas.

Virg.

Luctus fortuna reduxit.

Claud.

Reducere exemplum, libertatem, morem,

&c. Plin.

Aurora diem reduxit.

Virg.

Collectasque fugat nubes solem{que} reducit.

Virg. that is, re∣storeth. So,

Reducere somnum,

Hor.

Spem mentibus anxiis reducere

Idem.

In memoriam reducere,

Plin. Cic. Now it would be hard to say, that in all these places Adduco, De∣duco, Reduco, &c. are put for Attrabo, Detraho, Retraho, &c. Attrahere febres, attrahere taedium, &c. So

Abduxi ••lavem,

Plaut. I took or brought away the key (as had every whit, as adducere malleum, to bring a hammer.) So

Navis a praedoni∣bus abducta,

Cic. Ter. The ship taken at Sea by Pyrats, and carried away.

Visaque confugiens somnos abduxit imago.

Ovid.

So (speaking of Hercules loosing the chains whereby Pro∣metheus was chained to the rock)

Vincula prensa manu saxis abduxerat imis

Val. Flac.

Quidsi de vestro quippiam orem abducere?

Plaut. What if I should desire to carry away somewhat of yours?

Coeperat intendens, abductis montibus, unda Ferre ratem.

Val. Flac.

Abducti montes, id est, semoti. —abducta{que} flumina ponto.

Idem.

Quod ibidem recte custodire poterunt, id ibidem custodiant; quod non poterunt, id auferre atque abducere licebit.

CIC. Where ab∣ducere, all along, is no more then auserre. In like manner, conducere is oft times the same with conferre, congerere. As

Veteres quidem scriptores hujus artis, unum in locum conduxit Aristoteles.

Cic.

Partes conducere in unum,

Lucret. (i. e. in unum corpus componere.) So deducere, to carry forth.

Ducere, deducere, producere, funus, exequias.

Plin. Virg. Stat. Lucan.

Deducunt socii naves,

Virg. And to take away, (the same with tollere, demere, auferre,) as in deducere febrem, deducere fasti∣dium, as before. Thus deductio and subtractio for as you use to call it both in English and Latin, Substractio, as if it came from sub and straho) is contrary to Additio, and signifies all kind of Ablation or taking away.

Addendo, deducendoque, videre quae reliqui summa fiat.

Cic.

Ʋt, deducta parte tertia, deos reli••ua reddatur Africanus de pactis dotalibus. Ʋt centum nummi deducerentur.

Cic.

Sibi deducant drachmam, reddant caetera.

Cic.

ut beneficia integra perveniant, sine ulla deductio∣ne.

Sen. So,

deducere cibum.

Ter. to abate, diminish, or take away; as also,

Cibum subducere,

Cic.

Subducere vires,

Ovid.

••t succus ••ecori & lac subducitur agnis.

Virg.

Jam mihi subduci facies humana videtur.

Ovid.

Ignem subdito; ubi ebullabit vinum, ignem subducito.

Cato de re rust.

Aurum subducitur rerrae.

Ovid. So,

Annulum subduco.

Plant.

Subducere pallium,

Mart. to take or steale away.

De∣ducere vela, deducere carbasa,

Ovid. Luc.

—primaque ab origine mundi, Ad mea perpetuum deducite tempora carmen.

Ovid.

That is, To bring down from the beginning of the World to his own times.

—a pectore postquam Deduxit vestes.

Ovid.

Deducere sibi galerum, vel pileolum,

Sueton. to putt off, or take off.

Et cum frigida mors animâ subduxerat artus.

Virg.

—Seductae ex aethere terrae.

Ovid.

Where seducere, is no more but separare. So,

diducta Britan∣nia mundo.

Claud.

Ante se fossam ducere & jacere vallum,

Liv.

Vallum ducere,

Idem.

fossam, vallum, praeducere,

Tacit. Sen.

perducere,

Caes. to cast up a wall, a bank, a trench before them.

Murum in altitudinem pedum sexdecim perduxit. duas fossas ea altitudine perduxit. munitio de castello in castellum per∣ducta.

Caesar. So,

ducere muros,

Virg. to raise up: and

edu∣cere turrim. aramque educere coelo certant. sub astra educere. molemque educere coelo.

idem. to raise up as high as heaven. Thus,

educere foetum,

Cic. Claud. Plin.

Educere, producere, faetum, partus, liberos, sobolem, fructus, &c.

Si••ius. Plaut. Hor. &c. To bring forth, So,

Educere cirneam vini.

Plaut, to bring out a flagon of wine, (as bad, I trow, as

adducere malleum.) Educere naves ex portu;

and

in terram subducere,

Caesar.

Ʋn••que conspecta livorem ducit ab uva.

Hor.

—arborea frigus ducebat ab umbra.

Ovid.

Animum ducere

(to take courage) Liv.

Ab ipso Ducit opes animumque ferro,

Hor.

Argumenta ducere,

Quintil.

Ducere conjecturam, similitudinem, &c.

Cic.

Initium, principium, ex∣ordium ducere.

Cic.

Ortum, originem ducere,

Cic. Quint. Hor. (i. e. sumee,)

Producere exemplum,

Juvenal.

Ducere cica∣tricem.

Colum. Liv. Ovid.

Cicatricem, crustam, rubiginem, callum, obducere.

Plin. Cic.

Obducere velum, torporem, tene∣bras,

Plin. Cic. Quintil.

Inducere, introducere, consuetudi∣nem, morem, ambitionem, seditionem, discordiam, novos mores,

Cic. Stat Plin.

Qua ratione haec inducis, e••dē illa possunt esse quae tollis.

Cic.

Inducere formam membris,

Ovid.

Cuti nitorem,

Plin.

Te∣nebras, nubes, noctem,

Ovid.

Senectus inducit rugas,

Tibul.

Tentorium vetus deletum sit, novum inductum,

Cic.

Introdu∣cere, quod & in medium afferre, dicitur.

Bud. Cic.

Obliviae poenae ducere.

Val. Flac.

Sollicitae vitae,

Hor.

Nec podagri••us, nec articularius est, quem rus ducunt pedes,

Plaut. (whose feet can carry him, not lead, guide, or draw him.)

Transducere arbores,

(to transplant or remove from place to place,) Co∣lum.

Quod ex Italia adduxerat.

Caes. And if these Authori∣ties be not enough; it were easy to produce a hundred more, (to justify my use of the word, and bring your new notion

to nothing;) wherein Duco (both in it selfe and its com∣pounds) signifies to take, bring, fetch, carry, &c. without a∣ny regard had at all to your notion of guiding, leading, or 〈◊〉〈◊〉, that we may see what a deale of impudence and ignorance you discover, when you undertake to play the Critick. And when you have done the best you can, you will not be able to find better words then Adducere malleum, and Reducere, to signify the two contrary motions of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉; the one when you strike with it, the other when you take it back to fetch another stroke.

To all these examples I might, if need were, adde your own which though it would be but as anser inter olores; nor would it at all increase the reputation of the phrase, to say 〈◊〉〈◊〉 you use it: Yet it may serve to shew, that it is not out of i••dgement, (because you think so;) but out of malice and a designe of revenge (that you might seem to say some∣what, though to little purpose,) that you thus cavill with∣out a cause. For duco, adduco, circumduco, and the rest of the compounds, are frequently used by your selfe, in the same ••••nse and construction which you blame in mee. Lineam ••••cere, producere, &c. a puncto, ad punctum, per punctum, &c. are phrases used by your selfe fourty and fourty times. If 〈◊〉〈◊〉 do not seem to come home to the businesse; that of ••um-effectum, rem a••i••uam &c. producere, (to produce, ••ring forth, bring to passe,) comes somewhat nearer; which 〈◊〉〈◊〉 at lest twenty times in one page. p. 74. and within three leaves, (cap 9 & 10,) above fifty times: and else∣where frequently. So, actus educi poterit, p. 78. partes flui∣•••••• educi ••osse. p. 258. deduci hinc potest. (i. e. inferri) p. 23. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 inde deducere non possum. p. 248. fluviorum origines 〈◊〉〈◊〉 possunt. p. 278. ratio quaevis ad rationem linearum reduci 〈◊〉〈◊〉. p. 96. linea in se reducta p. 190. quibus & reduci cogi∣•••••• nes praeteritae possint. p. 8. copulatio cogitationem inducit. p 20. n••men aliquod idoneum inducat. p. 52. phantasma finis 〈◊〉〈◊〉 thantasmata mediorum. p. 229. in animum inducere non 〈◊〉〈◊〉 p. 24••. Parallelismus ob eam rem introductus est. p. 246. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 instantia adduci potest. p. 82. And particularly of 〈◊〉〈◊〉dies, in flectione laminae (lege, flexione) capita ejus addu∣••••••ur. p. 2••5. flexio est, manente eadem lineâ, adductio extre∣•••••••• ••unctorum, vel diductio, p. 196. terminis diductis, ibid. 〈…〉〈…〉 adductio extremarū linearum. p. 197. cujus puncta ex∣t••ema diduci non possunt. p. 106. adductio vel diductio termino∣rum,

ibid. and so again five or six times in that and the next page. So ex cujuspiam corporis circumductione. p. 4. corpus cir∣cumductum, ibid. si corpus aliquod circumducatur, ibid. in••elli∣gi potest planum circumduci, p. 109. si planum circumducat••••, ibid. punctum ambientis quodlibet ab ipso circumducitur, p. 18••. and the like elsewhere. In all which places, by your law, it should have been circumlatio, circumlatus, circumfer••••••, circumferri, circumfertur, &c. as it is, p 50. p. 108. and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 some other places. Now if circumdaci and circumferri, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 be used promiscuously, and so circumductio and circum••••••, &c. why not as well in the same cases adducere and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 &c.? And if corpus quodpiam, may, without absurdity, be 〈◊〉〈◊〉 circumduci, why not as well adduci? In like manner, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 sum est conduci mobile (i. e. simul ferri) ad E ad A, concu•••••• duorum motuum &c. p. 193. and moti per certam & design 〈◊〉〈◊〉 viam conductio facilis, p. 200. with many the like phras•• which are every whit as bad as adducere malleum. And therefore, you had very little reason to quarrell at that phrase; save that there was nothing else to find fault with, and somewhat you were resolved to say.

And the like is to be said of that other phrase, next be∣fore, quod non consideratur esse corpus, which, though it be 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Latine, when I speak it; yet, with you the same constructi∣on comes over and over again, as least a hundred times 〈◊〉〈◊〉 simulachrum hominis negatur esse verus homo, p. 23. qu•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 gantur esse verae. p. 26. singulae partes singulas lineas conficere ••••telligantur, p 68. si corpus intelligatur moveri,—redigi—〈◊〉〈◊〉 escere, ibid. severall times intelligitur quiescere,—〈…〉〈…〉 70. agens intelligitur producere effectum, p. 73. du•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 intelliguntur transire, p. 87 ostenderetur ratio esse 〈◊〉〈◊〉 p. 100. lineae extendi intelligautur, p. 108. intelligatur radius ••••veri, p. 111. si partes fractae intelligantur esse minim••, p▪ 11••▪ supponatur longitudo esse, p. 131, altitudo ponitur esse in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 basium triplicata, p. 153. sphaera intelligatur moveri, p. 〈…〉〈…〉 haesio illa supponatur tolli, p. 188. intelligatur radius 〈◊〉〈◊〉 materia dura, ibid. vis magnetica invenietur esse motus, p▪ 〈◊〉〈◊〉▪ And so punctum, corpus, res aliqua, ponitur, supponitur, inte••••••∣gitur, ostenditur, &c. esse, quiescere, movere, circum 〈…〉〈…〉 &c. p. 62, 64, 68, 75. 85, 106, 112, 115, 110, 〈…〉〈…〉 141, 142, 147, 155, 171, 182, 183, 184, 188, 〈…〉〈…〉 239. and many other places: which are every whit 〈◊〉〈◊〉 as consideratur esse. Yea and consideratur also is by your 〈◊〉〈◊〉

so used p. 87. Eaedem duae lineae—prout considerantur pro ip∣sis magnitudinibus—poni. &c. So that 'twas not judge∣ment, but revenge, that put you upon blaming this phrase also. And you care not, all along, how much you bespatter your self, (for, you think, you cannot look much fouler then you doe already,) if you have but hopes to be a little revenged on us. And truly you have that good hap all the way, that there is scarce any thing (right or wrong) that you blame in us, but the same is to be found in your selfe also with much advantage.

But this fault (adducis malleum) you should not, you say, (though it had been one,) have taken notice of in an English man; but that you find me in some places nibling at your Latine. Yes; I thought, that was the matter. You had a mind to be revenged. And ha'nt you done it handsomely? Was there nothing else to fasten upon with more advantage then these poor harmlesse phrases? 'Tis very well. It seems my Latine (though as carelessely written as need to be; for 'twas ne∣ver twice written, and scarce once read, before it was prin∣ted,) did not much lye open to exception; for if it had, I perceive I should have heard of it with both eares.

But you are offended, it seemes, that I should offer to nibble at your Latine. And truly, if that were a fault, I know not how to help it now. I must needs confesse, I did some times (when I stumbled upon them, but never went out of my way to seek them; for, if so, I might have found enough) correct some phrases, as I went along, (sometime to make sense, where the sentence was lame; sometimes to make it Latine, where the phrase was incongruous or barbarous;) because I did not know, that your being an English man, had given you a peculiar priviledge above others to speak barba∣rously without controll. Such as these, nescit, nec pratendit scire praeterquam ex auditu. p. 174. or as it was first printed. p. 176. nescis, ne••p praetendis, &c. And accipiat lector tanquam Proble∣matice dicta. p. 181. And Placuit quoque ea stare quae merito per∣tinent ad vindicem, ibid. So p. 143. (at lest in my book) progressio stabit hoc modo, 0. 1. 2. 3. 4. &c. And diverse other places, which I do not now remember. But you know there be many more, which, had they come in my way, I might have found fault with, as well as these; As that p. 37. falsae sunt,—& multa istiusmodi (propositiones.) And p. 116. definiemus lineam curvam esse eam cujus termini diduci

posse intelligimus. And p. 111. quantitas anguli ex quantitate arcus cum perimetri totius quantitate compaeratione aestimatur. (for ex quantitatis—comparatione, or ex quantitate—cōparata•• p. 115. ducatur a'termino primae, ad terminos caeterarum, rectae lineae. And p. 222. partitertiae, in qua motus & magnitudo consideravi∣mus, terminum hic statuo. And p. 224. Ex quo intelligitur esse ea (phantasmata) corporis sentientis mutatio aliqua. So p. 269. Exeuns, for exiens. and p. 3. exemplicatum esse, for exemplo explicatum, aut comprobatum. and p. 51. exemplicativum; and many more of the same stamp (as barbarous every whit, as those of the Schoolemen, which you blame as such, p. 22▪ non sunt itaque eae voces Essentia, Entitas, omnisque illa Bar∣baries, ad l'hilosophiam necessarius non est.) I might adde that of p. 20. tanquam diceremus, (as if we should say,) and p. 22. tan∣quam possent, and elsewhere, instead of quasi, acsi, (or some such word) or tanquam si, which is Tullies phrase, (tan∣quam si tua res agatur. tanquam si Consul esset. tanquam si clausa esset Asia &c.) for tanquam without si▪ signifies but as, not as if: But because I know you are not the first, that have so used it, of modern writers; and that even of the ancients, some of them doe sometimes leave out si, (as in other cases they doe ut;) I shall allow you the same liberty, and passe this by without blame (as passable, though not so accurate.) To these we may adde those elegances p. 32. (syllogismus) stabit sic. p. 49. sed haec dicta sint pro exemplo tantum, and So, p. 269. Ventus aliud non est quam pulsi aeris motus rectus; qui tamen potest esse circularis, vel quomodocunque curvus. And a multitude more of such passages, (which, were it worth while to collect them, might be added as an appendix to Epistolae obscurorum virorum,) of which some are incon∣gruous, some barbarous, some bald enough, and some mani∣fest contradictions, or otherwise ridiculous But these are but negligences, as you call them, and therefore not attended with shame: for we doubt not but that, if you had particular∣ly considered them, you could have mended them. Only, me thinks, he that is so frequent in such language, need not have quarrelled with such harmelesse phrases as adducere malleum, or consideratur esse. But I go on.

The other place (which makes up the halfe dozen) you talked much of it at first, yet before it comes to be printed, 'tis dwindled to nothing. It was, that I had derived your

Athenian Empusa, from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; and said it was a kind of Hob goblin that hopped upon one legge, (which you take to be a clinch, forsooth, because your name is Hobs;) and hence it was that the Boys play, now a daies in use, (fox come out of thy hole,) comes to be called Empusa. This derivation you did, at first, cry out upon as very absurd; and you meant to pay me for it: Till you were informed, as I hear, by some of your friends, that the Scholiast of Aristophanes (as good a Critick as M. Hobs) had the same▪ (and so have Eu∣stathius, Erasinus, Caelius Rhodiginus, S••ephanus, Scapula, Ca∣lepine, and others:) and therefore you were advised not to quarrell with it. Whereupon waving your main charge, you only tell mee (pag. ult.) that it doth not become my gravity, to tell you that Empusa, your Daem••nium Athenien∣se, was a kind of Hob-goblin, that hopped upon one legge; and that thence a boys play, now in use, comes to be called Ludus Empusae. And withall, pray me to tell you, where it was that I read the word Empusa, for the Boys play I spake of? To the Que∣stion, I answer, that I read it so used in Junius's Nomencla∣tor; Riders, and Thomas's Dictionary; sufficient Authors for such a businesse. And then as for the Clinch you talk of, in Hobs and Hob-goblins, and the jest you suspect in Hobbius, and Hobbi, which you say, is lost to them beyond sea; I hope that losse will never undoe mee: and when you can help me to a better English word for your Daemoniū, thē Hob-goblin; or a better Latin word for Hobbes then Hobbius (whose vo∣cative case, in good earnest, is Hobbi,) I shall be content, without any regret, to part with the jest, and the clinch too, to do you a pleasure; Who tell us presently after, that you meant to try your Witt, to do something in that kind. And then shew your selfe as great a Witt, as hitherto a Cri∣tick.

There is yet a Seventh passage, p. 14. which may be referred also to this place. The words Mathematicall definition do not please you Those termes or words, which do most properly belong to Mathematicks, we commonly call Mathematicall termes, and the definitions of such termes, in Mathematicks, Mathematicall definitions. And is it not law∣full so to do? No, you tell us. But why? Because it doth bewray another kind of Ignorance. What ignorance? An inex∣cusable ignorance. How doth it bewray it? It is a marke of ig∣norance; of ignorance inexcusable. Ignorance of what? Igno∣rance

of what are the proper works of the severall parts of Phi∣losophy. And, I pray, why so? Because it seems by this, that all this while, I think it is a piece of the Geometry of Euclide, no lesse to make the Definitions he useth, then to inferre from them the Theorems he demonstrates. A great crime, doubtlesse! But how doth it appeare, that I think so? May not a man recommend Hellebor to you, as a good Physicall drug, (be∣cause used in Physick, and proper for some diseases,) unlesse he think, it is the Physitians work to make it, as well as to make use of it? But suppose I do; what then? do you be∣lieve no body thinks so, but I? or do you believe, that any body thinks otherwise but you? Is it not proper for words of Art, (voces artis,) to be defined and explained in that art to which they belong? is it not proper for a Gram∣marian to define Gender, Number, Person, Case, Declension, Coniugation &c. in the sense wherein they are used in Gram∣mer? And for a Logician to define Genus, Species, Ʋniver∣sale, Individuum, Argumentum, Syllogisinus, &c. in the sense wherein they are used in Logick? And may not those be called Grammaticall, and these Logicall definitions? And for a Mathematitian, to define or tell what is a Triangle, a Cone, a Parabolaster, what is Multiplication, Division, Ex∣traction of rootes, what is Binomium, Apotome, Potens duo me∣dia, &c. And may not these definitions be called Mathema∣ticall? No, by no means, you tell us, to call a Definition Mathematicall, Physicall &c. is a marke of ignorance, of unex∣cusable ignorance. (And doe you not think then, that Gor∣raeus was a wise man, to write a large Volumne in folio, intituled Definitiones Medicae?) But why a marke of ignorance? Because a Mathematitian, in his definitions teach you but his language (not his art) but teaching language is not Mathema∣tick, nor Logick, nor Phisick, nor any other Science, (but some Art perhaps, which men call Grammar.) some men would have thought that to Define, had belonged to Logick; but let it passe for Grammar at present. Do you think, no∣thing, is Mathematicall, wherein a man makes use of Gram∣mar? Can a man teach Mathematicks, in any language, with∣out Grammer? (unlesse, perhaps, in the Symbolick Language, which is worse then Welsh or Irish.) But you say, He that will understand Geometry must understand the termes before he begin: (because a man ought not to go into the water, be∣fore he can swim.) Well, But if not his Definitions, what

then is it, in Euclide, that is Mathematicall? it is, you tell us, his inferring from them the Theorems he demonstrats. (And why not the solution of Problems also; as well as the inferring of Theorems?) But to infer and to demonstradte, are, I suppose as much the work of Logick; as, to define, is the work of Grā∣mar. And therefore, by the same reason for which you will not allow the Definitions to be Mathematicall, because to teach a language is the work of Grammar, you must also ex∣clude the Propositions and Demonstrations, because to inferre and demonstrate, is the work of Logick. And so, nothing in Euclide will be Mathematicall. 'Twill be Grammar and Lo∣gick, all of it. And are not these pure Criticismes; think you? Do not these wofull notions of yours, and the language that doth accompany them, shew handsomely together? But enough of this.