Você está na página 1de 512

APOLLONIUS OF PERGA

CONICS. BOOKS ONE - SEVEN


English translation by Boris Rosenfeld
The Pennsylvania State University
Apollonius of Perga (ca 250 B.C. - ca 170 B.C.) was one of the greatest
mathematicians of antiquity.
During 1990 - 2002 first English translations of Apollonius main work
Conics were published. These translations [Ap5](Books 1-3), [Ap6](Book 4),
[Ap7] (Books5-7) are very different. The best of these editions is [Ap6].
The editions [Ap4] and [Ap5] are very careless and often are far from the
Greek original. The editors of [Ap5] have corrected many defects of [Ap4], but
not all; they did not compare this text with the Greek original. Some defects
remain also in the edition [Ap6].
The translation [Ap7], being the first rate work, is not a translation of Greek
text because this text is lost, and is the translation of Arabic exposition by
Thabit ibn Qurra (826 - 901).
Therefore we present the new English translation of this classic work written in one style more near to Greek text by Apollonius, in our translation some
expressions of the translations [Ap5], [Ap6], and [Ap7] are used.
The authors of the translations [Ap5], [Ap6], and [Ap7] are linguists and
in their translations many discoveries of Apollonius in affine, projective, conformal, and differential geometries in Apollonius Conics being special cases of general theorems proved in Western Europe only in 17th -19th centuries were not
mentioned.
The commentary to our translation from the standpoint of modern
mathematics uses books [Ro1] and [Ro2] by the translator.
I am very grateful to my master student, now Ph.D. and the author of the
thesis[Rho1] and [Rho2] Diana L. Raodes, possessing ancient Greek. This work
could not be completed without the help of translators daughter, Professor of
the Pennsylvania State University, Svetlana R. Katok, and also Ph.D. Daniel Genin
and Nicholas Ahlbin.
Diagrams to Books I-IV should be taken from editions [AP3] Heiberg or
[AP12] of Stamatis, diagrams to Books V-VII should be taken from the edition
[AP7] of Toomer.

BOOK ONE
Preface
Apollonius greets Eudemus1
If you are restored in body, and other things go with you to your mind,
well; and we too fare pretty well. At the time I was with you in Pergamum, I observed you were quite eager to be kept informed of the work I was doing in conics. And so I am sending you this first book revised. I will send you other books
when I will be satisfied with them. For I dont believe you have forgotten hearing from me how I worked out the plan for these conics at the request of Naucrates2, the geometer, at the time he was with me in Alexandria lecturing, and
how on arranging them in eight books I immediately communicated them in
great haste because of his near departure, not revising them but putting down
whatever came to me with the intention of a final going over. And so finding
now the occasion of correcting them, one book after another, I will publish
them. And since it happened that some others among those frequenting me got
acquainted with the first and second books before the revision, dont be surprised if you come upon them in a different for.
Of the eight books the first four belong to a course in the elements 3.
The first book contains the generation of the three sections and of the
opposite [sections]4, and the principal properties in them worked out more fully
and universally than in the writings of others.
The second book contains the properties having to do with the diameters
and axes and also the asymptotes, and other things of a general and necessary
use for limits of possibility. And what I call diameters and what I call axes you
will know from this book.
The third book contains many unexpected theorems of use for the construction of solid loci and for limits of possibility of which the greatest part and
the most beautiful are new. And when I had grasped these, I knew that the
2

three-line and four-line locus5 had not been constructed by Euclid, but only a
chance part of it and that not very happily. For it was not possible for this construction to be completed without the additional things found by me.
The fourth book shows in how many ways the sections of cone intersect
with each other and with the circumference of a circle, and contains other
things in addition none of which has been written up by my predecessors, that
is in how many points the section of a cone or the circumference of a circle and
the opposite sections meet the opposite sections.
The last four books are fuller in treatment. For there is one [the fifth
book] dealing more fully with maxima and minima, and one [the sixth book] with
equal and similar sections of a cone, and one [the seventh book] with limiting
theorems, and one [the eighth book] with determinate problems.
And so indeed, with all of them published, those happening upon them
can judge them as they see fit.
Let the happiness will be to you.
First definitions
1. If a point is joined by a straight line with a point in the circumference of
a circle which is not in the same plane with the point, and the line is continued in
both directions, and if, with the point remaining fixed, the straight line being rotated about the circumference of the circle returns to the same place from
which it began, then the generated surface composed of the two surfaces lying
vertically opposite one another, each of which increases indefinitely as the generating straight line is continued indefinitely, I call a conic surface 6, and I call
the fixed point the vertex, and the straight line drawn from the vertex to the
center of the circle I call the axis.
2. And the figure contained by the circle and by the conic surface between the vertex and the circumference of the circle I call a cone7, and the
point which is also the vertex of the surface I call the vertex of the cone, and
the straight line drawn from the vertex to the center of the circle I call the axis,
and the circle I call the base of the cone.
3. I call right cones those having axes perpendicular to their bases, and I
call oblique those not having axes perpendicular to their bases.
4. For any curved line that is in one plane, I call straight line drawn from
the curved line that bisects all straight lines drawn to this curved line parallel to
some straight line the diameter 8,9. And I call the end of the diameter situated
on the curved line the vertex of the curved line, and I call these parallels the
ordinates drawn to the diameter 10 .
3

5. Likewise, for any two curved lines lying in one plane, I call the straight
line which cuts the two curved lines and bisects all straight lines drawn to either
of the curved lines parallel to some straight line the transverse diameter. And I
call the ends of the [transverse] diameter situated on the curved lines the vertices of the curved lines. And I call the straight line lying between the two
curved lines, bisecting all straight lines intercepted between the curved lines
and drawn parallel to some straight lines the upright diameter 11. And I call the
parallels the ordinates drawn to the [transverse or upright] diameter.
6. The two straight lines, each of which, being a diameter, bisecting the
straight lines parallel to the other, I call the conjugate diameters12 of a curved
line and of two curved lines.
7. And I call that straight line which is a diameter of the curved line or
lines cutting the parallel straight lines at right angles the axis of curved line and
of two curved lines 13,14.
8. And I call those straight lines which are conjugate diameters cutting
the straight lines parallel to each other at right angles the conjugate axes of a
curved line and of two curved lines.
[Proposition] 1

The straight lines drawn from the vertex of the conic surface to points on
the surface are on that surface 15.
Let there be a conic surface whose vertex is the point , and let there be
taken some point on the conic surface, and let a straight line be joined.
I say that the straight line is on the conic surface.
[Proof]. For if possible, let it not be [and the straight line is not on the
conic surface], and let the straight line be the line generating the surface,
and be the circle along which is moved. Then if, the point remaining
fixed, the straight line is moved along the circumference of the circle .
This straight line [according Definition 1] will also go through the point , and
two straight lines will have the same ends. And this is impossible. Therefore,
the straight line joined from to cannot not be on the surface. Therefore, it
is on the surface.
Porism
It is also evident that, if a straight line is joined from the vertex to some
point among those within the surface, it will fall within the conic surface. And if
it is joined to some point among those without, it will be outside the surface.
4

[Proposition] 2

If on either one of the two vertically opposite surfaces two points are
taken, and the straight line joining the points, when continued, does not pass
through the vertex, then it will fall within the surface, and continued it will fall
outside 16.
Let there be a conic surface whose vertex is the point , and a circle
along whose circumference the generating straight line is moved, and let two
points and be taken on either one of the two vertically opposite surfaces,
and let the joining straight line , when continued not pass through the point
.
I say that will be within the surface, and continued will be without.
[Proof]. Let and be joined and continued. Then [according to
PropositionI.1] they will fall on the circumference of the circle. Let them fall to
and , and let be joined. Therefore the will be within the circle, and so too
within the conic surface. Then let be taken at random on , and let be
joined and continued. Then it will fall on , for the triangle is in one plane
[according to Proposition XI.2 of Euclid]. Let it fall to . Since then H is within
the conic surface, therefore [according to the porism to Proposition I.1] the
straight line is also within the conic surface, and so too the point is within
the conic surface. Then likewise it will be shown that all the points on the
straight line are within the surface. Therefore the straight line is within
the conic surface.
Then let be continued to . I say that it will fall outside the conic surface. For it possible, let there be some point of it not outside the conic surface, and let be joined and continued. Then it will fall either on the circumference of the circle or within [according to Proposition I.1 and its porism]. And
this is impossible, for it falls on continued; as for example to the point .
Therefore the straight line is outside the surface.
Therefore the straight line is within the conic surface, and continued is
outside.
[Proposition] 3

If a cone is cut by a plane through the vertex, the section is a triangle 17.
Let there be a cone whose vertex is the point and whose base is the
circle , and let it be cut by some plane through the point , and let it make,
as section, lines and on the surface, and the straight line in the base.
5

I say that is a triangle.


[Proof]. For since the line joined from to is the common section of
the cutting plane and of the surface of the cone, therefore is a straight line.
And likewise also . And is also a straight line. Therefore is a triangle. If
then a cone is cut by some plane through the vertex, the section is a triangle.
[Proposition] 4

If either one of the vertically opposite surfaces is cut by some plane parallel to the circle along which the straight line generating the surface is moved,
the plane cut off within the surface will be a circle having its center on the axis,
and the figure contained by the circle and the conic surface intercepted by the
cutting plane on the side of the vertex will be a cone 18.
Let there be a conic surface whose vertex is the point and whose circle
along which the straight line generating the surface is moved is , and let it be
cut by some plane parallel to the circle , and let it make on the surface as a
section the line .
I say that the line is a circle having the center on the axis.
[Proof]. For let be taken as the center of the circle , and let be
joined. Therefore [according to Definition 1] is the axis and meets the cutting plane. Let it meet it at , and let some plane be drawn through . Then
[according to Proposition I.3] the section will be the triangle . And since the
points , , are points in the cutting plane, and are also in the plane of the triangle , [according to Proposition XI.3 of Euclid] is a straight line.
Then let some point be taken on the line , let be joined and continued. Then [according to Proposition I.1] it falls on the circumference . Let
it meet it at , and let and be joined. And since two parallel planes,
and , are cut by a plane , [according to Proposition XI.16 of Euclid] their
common sections are parallel. Therefore is parallel to . Then for the same
reason is also parallel to . Therefore [according to Proposition VI.4 of
Euclid] as is to , so is to , and is to , and is to .
Since is equal to and to [according to Proposition V.9 of Euclid]
is equal to and to .
Then likewise we could show also that all the straight lines falling from the
point on the line are equal to each other.
Therefore the line is a circle having its center on the axis.
And it is evident that the figure contained by the circle and the conic
surface cut off by it on the side of the point is a cone.
6

And it is there with proved that the common section of the cutting plane
and of the axial triangle [that is triangle through the axis] is a diameter of the
circle.
[Proposition] 5

If an oblique cone is cut by a plane through the axis at right angles to the
base, and is also cut by another plane on the one hand at right angles to the axial triangle, and on the other hand cutting off on the side of the vertex a triangle similar to the axial triangle and situated antiparallel, then the section is a circle, and let such a section be called antiparallel 19.
Let there be an oblique cone whose vertex is the point and whose base
is the circle , and let it be cut through the axis by a plane perpendicular to the
circle , and let it make as a section the triangle . Then let it also be cut
by another plane perpendicular to the triangle and cutting off on the side
of the triangle similar to the triangle and situated antiparallel, that is
so that the angle is equal to the angle . And let it make as a section
on the surface [of the cone] the line .
I say that the line is a circle.
[Proof]. For let any points and be taken on the lines and , and
from and let perpendiculars be dropped to the plane of the triangle
. Then [according to Definition XI.4 of Euclid] they will fall to the common
sections of the planes. Let them fall for example as and .
Therefore [according to Proposition XI.6 of Euclid] is parallel to .
Then be drawn through parallel to , and is parallel to .
Therefore [according to Proposition XI.15 of Euclid] the plane through and
is parallel to the base of the cone. Therefore [according to Proposition I.4] it
is a circle whose diameter is . Therefore [according to Proposition II.14 of
Euclid] 20 pl. is equal to sq. .
And since is parallel to , the angle is equal to the angle .
And the angle is supposed equal to the angle . Therefore the angle
is equal to the angle . And the vertical angles at are also equal.
Therefore the triangle is similar to the triangle , and therefore [according to Proposition VI.4 of Euclid] as is to , so is to .
Therefore [according to Proposition VI.16 of Euclid] pl. is equal to pl..
But it has been shown that sq. is equal to pl..
Therefore pl. is equal to sq..
7

Likewise then all the perpendiculars drawn from the line to could
also be shown to be equal in square to the rectangular plane, in each case under
the segments of .
Therefore the section is a circle21 whose diameter is .
[Proposition] 6

If a cone is cut by a plane through the axis, and if on the surface of the
cone some point is taken which is not on a side of the axial triangle, and if from
this point is drawn a straight line parallel to some straight line which is a perpendicular from the circumference of the circle to the base of the triangle, then
that drawn straight line meets the axial triangle, and on being continued to the
other side of the surface the drawn straight line will be bisected by the triangle22.
Let there be a cone whose vertex is the point and whose base is the
circle , and let the cone be cut by a plane through the axis, and let it make as
a common section the triangle , and from some point on the circumference let be drawn perpendicular to [the straight line] . Then let some
point be taken on the surface of the cone, and through let be drawn parallel to .
I say that the continued will meet the plane of the triangle , and if
further continued toward the other side of the cone until it meet its surface, will
be bisected by the triangle .
[Proof]. Let be joined and continued. Therefore it will meet the circumference of the circle . Let it meet it at and from let be drawn
perpendicular to .Therefore is parallel to , and therefore [according to
Proposition XI.9 of Euclid] also to . Let be joined. Since then in the triangle
[the straight line] is parallel to , therefore continued will meet .
But is in the plane of the triangle ; therefore will meet this plane.
For the same reasons it also meets , let it meet it at , and let be
continued in a straight line until it meet the surface of the cone. Let it meet it
at . I say that is equal to .
For since , , are points on the surface of the cone, but also in the
plane drawn through , , , , which is a triangle through the vertex of
the cone, therefore , , are points of the common section of the cones surface and of the triangle. Therefore the line through , , and is a straight line.
Since then in the triangle [the straight line] has been drawn parallel in
the base , and some straight line has been drawn across them from ,
8

therefore [according to Proposition VI.4 of Euclid] as is to , so is


to . But [according to Proposition III.3 of Euclid] is equal to since is
a chord in the circle perpendicular to the diameter. Therefore is equal to
.
[Proposition] 7

If a cone is cut by a plane through the axis, and if the cone is also cut by
another plane, so that the plane of the base of the cone is cut in a straight line
perpendicular either to the base of the axial triangle or to it continued, and if
from the cutting planes resulting section on the cones surface, straight lines
are drawn parallel to the straight line perpendicular to the base of the triangle,
then these straight lines will fall on the common section of the cutting plane
and of the axial triangle, and further continued to the other side of the section,
these straight lines will be bisected by the common section, and if the cone is
right, then the straight line in the base will be perpendicular to the common
section of the cutting plane and of the axial triangle, but if the cone is oblique,
then the straight line in the base will be perpendicular to that common section
only whenever the plane through the axis is perpendicular to the base of the
cone23,24.
Let there be a cone whose vertex is the point and whose base is the
circle , and let it be cut by a plane through the axis, and let it make as a
common section the triangle . And let it also be cut by another plane cutting the plane of the circle in perpendicular either to or to it continued, and let it make as a section on the surface of the cone the line . Then
is the common section of the cutting plane and of the triangle . And let
some point be taken on the section , and let K be drawn through
parallel to .
I say that meets , and if continued to the other side of the section
will be bisected by .
[Proof]. For since a cone whose vertex is the point and whose base is
the circle has been cut by a plane through its axis, and makes as a section
the triangle , and since some point on the surface, not on a side of the
triangle , has been taken, and since is perpendicular to [the straight line]
, therefore the straight line drawn through parallel to , that is , meets
the triangle , and [according to Proposition I.6] if further continued to the
other side of the surface, will be bisected by the triangle.
Then since the straight line drawn through parallel to meets the triangle and is in the planes of the section , therefore it will fall on the
9

common section of the cutting plane and of the triangle . But is the
common section of the planes. Therefore the straight line drawn through parallel to will fall on , and, if further continued to the other side of the section , will be bisected by .
Then either the cone is right, or the axial triangle is perpendicular to
the circle , or neither.
First let the cone be right. Then [according to Definition 3 and according
to Proposition XI.18 of Euclid] the triangle would be perpendicular to the
circle . Since then the plane is perpendicular to the plane [of the circle]
, and has been drawn in one of these two planes, [the plane of the circle]
, perpendicular to their common section, [the straight line] , therefore [according to Definition XI.4 of Euclid] is perpendicular to the triangle , and
therefore to all straight lines touching it and situated in the triangle .And so
is also perpendicular to .
Then let the cone not be right. If now the axial triangle is perpendicular to
the circle , we could likewise show that is perpendicular to .
Then let the axial triangle not be perpendicular to the circle .
I say that is not perpendicular to . For, if possible, let it be so. And it
is also perpendicular to [the straight line] .Therefore is perpendicular to
both and , and therefore it will be perpendicular to the plane through
and . But the plane of through and HZ is the [plane of the] triangle ,
and therefore is perpendicular to the triangle . And therefore all planes
through it are perpendicular to the triangle . But one of the planes through
is the [plane of the] circle . Therefore the circle is perpendicular to the
triangle . And so the triangle will also be perpendicular to the circle .
And this is not supposed. Therefore is not perpendicular to .
Porism
Then from this it is evident that is the diameter of the section ,
since it bisects the straight lines drawn parallel to some straight line , and it is
evident that it is possible for some parallels to be bisected by the diameter
and not be perpendicular to .
[Proposition] 8

If a cone is cut by a plane through its axis, and if the cone is cut by another plane cutting the base of the cone in a straight line perpendicular to the
10

base of the axial triangle, and if the diameter of the resulting section on the surface is either parallel to one of the sides of the triangle or meets one of the
sides continued beyond the vertex of the cone, and if both surface of the cone
and cutting plane are continued indefinitely, then the section will also increase
indefinitely and some straight line drawn from the section of the cone parallel to
the straight line in the base of the cone will cut off from the diameter on the
side of the vertex a straight line equal to any given straight line25.
Let there be a cone whose vertex is the point and whose base is the
circle , and let it be cut by a plane through its axis, and let it make as a section the triangle . And let it be cut also by another plane cutting the circle
in a straight line perpendicular to [the straight line] , and let it make as
a section on the surface the line . And let the diameter of the section
[according to Proposition I.7 and its porism] be either parallel to or on
being continued meet it beyond the point .
I say that if both the surface of the cone and the cutting plane are continued indefinitely, the section also will increase indefinitely.
[Proof]. For let both the surface of the cone and the cutting plane are
continued. Then it is evident that also , , will be therewith continued.
Since is either parallel to or continued meets it beyond the point , therefore and on being continued in the direction of and H will never meet.
Then let them be continued and let some point be taken at random on ,
and let be drawn through parallel to , and parallel to . Therefore the plane through and [according to Proposition XI.15 of Euclid] is
parallel to the plane through and . Therefore [according to Proposition I.4]
the plane is a [plane of a circle].
And since the points , , , are in the cutting plane and also on the
surface of the cone, therefore they are on the common section. Therefore the
section has increased to the points and . Therefore, with the surface of
the cone and the cutting plane increased to the circle , the section
has also increased to the points and .Then likewise we could show also that
if the surface of the cone and the cutting plane are continued indefinitely, the
section will also increase indefinitely.
And it is evident that some straight line will cut off on straight line on
the side of the point a straight line equal to any given straight line. For if we
lay dawn equal to the given straight line, and draw a parallel to through ,
it will meet the section, just as the straight line through was also proved to
meet the section in the points and . And so some straight line is drawn
11

meeting the section, parallel to , and cutting off on on the side of point
a straight line equal to the given straight line.
[Proposition] 9

If a cone is cut by a plane, which meets both sides of the axial triangle
and is neither parallel to the base [of the cone], nor antiparallel to it, then the
section will not be a circle 26.
Let there be a cone whose vertex is the point and whose base is the
circle , and let it be cut by some plane neither parallel to the base [of the
cone], nor antiparallel to it, and let it make as a section on the surface the line
.
I say that the line will not be a circle.
[Proof]. For, if possible, let it be, and let the cutting plane meet the base,
and let be the common section of these planes, and let be the center of
the circle , and from let be drawn perpendicular to . And let a plane
be drawn through and the axis and let [according to Proposition I.1] it make
as sections on the conic surface and . Since then , , are points in the
plane through the line , and also in the plane through the points , , ,
therefore , , are points on the common section of these planes. Therefore
[according to Proposition XI.3 of Euclid] is a straight line.
Then let some point be taken on the line , and through let be
drawn parallel to . Then [according to Proposition I.7] will be equal to
. Therefore is the diameter of the [supposed] circle . Then let
be drawn through parallel to . But is also parallel to .
And so the plane through and [according to Proposition XI.15 of Euclid]
is parallel to the plane through and , which is to the base, and the section
[according to Proposition I.4] will be a circle. Let it be the circle .
And since is perpendicular to , and [according to Proposition
XI.10 of Euclid] is also perpendicular to . And so [according to Proposition
II.14 of Euclid] pl. is equal to sq..
But pl. is equal to sq. for the line is supposed a circle, and
is its diameter.
Therefore pl. is equal to pl.. Therefore [according to Proposition
VI.16 of Euclid] as is to , so is to .
Therefore [according to Proposition VI.6 and Definition VI.1 of Euclid] the
triangle is similar to the triangle , and the angle is equal to the
12

angle . But the angle is equal to the angle for is parallel to .


And therefore the angle is equal to the angle . Therefore [according to
Proposition I.5] the section is antiparallel to the base of the cone. And this is
not supposed. Therefore the line is not a circle.
[Proposition] 10

If two points are taken on the section of a cone, the straight line joining
these two points will fall within the section, and continued in a straight line it
will fall outside27.
Let there be a cone whose vertex is the point and whose base is the
circle , and let it be cut by a plane through the axis, and let it make as a section the triangle . Then let it also be cut [not through the vertex] by another plane, and let it make as a section on the surface of the cone the line ,
and let two points and be taken on the line . I say that the straight line
joining two points and will fall within the line , and continued in a
straight line it will fall outside.
[Proof]. For since a cone, whose vertex is the point and whose base is
the circle , has been cut by a plane through the axis, and some points and
have been taken on its surface which are not on a side of the axial triangle and
since the straight line joining and does not verge to the point , therefore
[according to Proposition I.2] the straight line joining H and will fall within the
cone, and continued in a straight line it will fall outside, consequently also outside the section .
[Proposition] 11

If a cone is cut by a plane through its axis, and also cut by another plane
cutting the base of the cone in a straight line perpendicular to the base of the
axial triangle, and if further the diameter of the section is parallel to one [lateral] side of the axial triangle, and if any straight line is drawn from the section
of the cone to its diameter such that this straight line is parallel to the common
section of the cutting plane and of the cones base, then this straight line
dropped to the diameter will equal in square to [the rectangular plane] under
the straight line from the sections vertex to [the point] where the straight line
dropped to the diameter cuts it off and under another straight line which is to
the straight line between the angle of the cone and the vertex of the section as
the square on the base of the axial triangle to [the rectangular plane] under the
remaining two sides of the triangle.
13

I call such a section a parabola28,29.


Let there be a cone whose vertex is the point and whose base is the
circle , and let it be cut by a plane through its axis, and let it make as a section the triangle . And let it also be cut by another plane cutting the base of
the cone in the straight line perpendicular to [the straight line], and let it
make as a section on the surface of the cone the line , and let the diameter
of the section be parallel to one side of the axial triangle. And let be
drawn from the point perpendicular to , and let it be contrived that as sq.
is to pl. , so is to .
And let some point be taken at random on the section, and through
let be drawn parallel to .
I say that sq. is equal to pl. .
[Proof]. For let be drawn through parallel to . And is also parallel to .Therefore [according to Proposition XI.15 of Euclid] the plane
through and is parallel to the plane through and , which is to the
base of the cone. Therefore [according to Proposition I.4] the plane through
and is a circle whose diameter is . And is perpendicular to ,
since is also [according to Proposition XI.10 of Euclid] perpendicular to .
Therefore [according to Proposition II.14 of Euclid] pl. is equal to sq..
And since as sq. is to pl., so is to , and [according to Proposition VI.23 of Euclid] the ratio sq. to pl. is compounded30 of [the ratios]
to and to . Therefore the ratio to compounded of [the ratios] to and to . But [according to Proposition VI.4 of Euclid] as
is to so is to , and is to and [according to Propositions VI.2
and VI.4 of Euclid] as is to , so is to , is to , and is to .
Therefore the ratio to is compounded of [the ratios] to and
to ZA. But [according to Proposition VI.23 of Euclid] the ratio pl. to
pl. is compounded of [the ratios] to and to .
Therefore as is to , so pl.N is to pl..
But, with taken as common height [of two rectangular planes, according to Proposition VI.1 of Euclid] as is to , so pl. is to pl..
Therefore [according to Proposition V.11 of Euclid] as pl. is to
pl., so pl. is to pl..
Therefore [according to Proposition V.9 of Euclid] pl. is equal to
pl..
But pl. is equal to sq.; therefore also sq. is equal to pl..

14

I will call such a section a parabola, and be called the straight line of
application [of rectangular planes] to which the ordinates drawn to are equal
in square. I will call this straight line also the latus rectum.
[Proposition] 12

If a cone is cut by a plane through its axis, and also cut by another plane
cutting the base of the cone in a straight line perpendicular to the base of the
axial triangle, and if the diameter of the section continued meets [continued]
one [lateral] side of the axial triangle beyond the vertex of the cone, and if any
straight line is drawn from the section to its diameter such that this straight line
is parallel to the common section of the cutting plane and of the cones base,
then this straight line to the diameter will equal in square to some [rectangular]
plane which is applied to a straight line increased by the segment added along
the diameter of the section, such that this added segment subtends the exterior angle of the [vertex of the axial] triangle, and as the added segment, is to
the mentioned the straight line, so the square on the straight line drawn parallel
to the sections diameter from the cones vertex to the [axial] triangles base is
to the [rectangular] plane under the segments of the triangles base divided by
the straight line drawn from the vertex [of the cone], and the applied plane has
as breadth the straight line on the diameter from the sections vertex to [the
point] where the diameter is cut off by the straight line drawn from the section
to the diameter, this plane is [the rectangular plane under two mentioned
straight lines] and increased by a figure similar and similarly situated to the
plane under the mentioned straight line and the diameter.
I will call such a section a hyperbola31.
Let there be a cone whose vertex is the point and whose base is the
circle , and let it be cut by a plane through its axis, and let it make as a section the triangle . And let the cone also be cut by another plane cutting the
base of the cone in perpendicular to , the base of the triangle , and let
this second cutting plane make as a section on the surface of the cone the line
, and let the diameter of the section [according to Proposition I.7 and
Definition 4] when continued meet , one [lateral] side of the triangle beyond the vertex of the cone at . And let be drawn through
parallel to the diameter of the section , and let it cut [at K]. And let
be drawn from perpendicular to , and let it be contrived that as sq. is to
pl., so is to .
And let some point be taken at random on the section and through
let be drawn parallel to , and through let be drawn parallel to .
15

And let be joined and continued to , and let and be drawn through
and parallel to .
I say that is equal in square to the rectangular plane , which is applied to having as breadth, and increased by a figure similar to pl. .
[Proof]. For let be drawn through parallel to . And is also parallel to . Therefore [according to Proposition XI.15 of Euclid] the plane
through and is parallel to the plane through and , which is to the
base of the cone. Therefore if the plane is drawn through and , the section [according to Proposition I.4] will be a circle whose diameter is . And
is perpendicular to it. Therefore pl. is equal to sq..
And since as sq. is to pl., so is to , and [according to Proposition VI.23 of Euclid] the ratio sq. to pl. is compounded of [the ratios] to and to , therefore also the ratio to is compounded
of [the ratios] to and to .
But [according to Proposition VI.4 of Euclid] as is to , so is to ,
and is to and as is to , so is to and is to .
Therefore the ratio to is compounded of [the ratios] to and
to . And [according to Proposition VI.23 of Euclid] the ratio pl. to
pl. is compounded of [the ratios] to and to .
Therefore also [according to Proposition VI.4 of Euclid] as pl. is to
pl., so is to and is to .
But, with taken as common height [according to Proposition VI.1 of
Euclid] as is to , so pl. is to pl..
Therefore also [according to Proposition V.11 of Euclid] as pl. is to
pl., so pl. is to pl., and [according to Proposition V.9 of Euclid]
pl. is equal to pl..
But it was shown that sq. is equal to pl., therefore also sq. is
equal to pl..
But pl. is the parallelogram . Therefore is equal in square to
which is applied to and having as breadth increased by the parallelogram
similar to pl.. I will call such a section a hyperbola, and be called the
straight line of application [of rectangular planes] to which the ordinates drawn
to are equal in square.
I will call this straight line also the latus rectum, and the straight line
the latus transversum.
[Proposition] 13
16

If a cone is cut by a plane through its axis, and is also cut by another
plane which on the one hand meets both [lateral] sides of the axial triangle, and
on the other hand, when continued, is neither parallel to the base [of the cone]
nor antiparallel to it, and if the plane of the base of the cone and the cutting
plane meet in a straight line perpendicular either to the base of the axial triangle
or to it continued, then any [straight] line drawn parallel to the common section
of the [base and cutting] planes from the section of the cone to the diameter
of the section will be equal in square to some [rectangular] plane applied to a
straight line to which the diameter of the section is as the square on the
straight line drawn parallel to the sections diameter from the cones vertex to
the [axial] triangles base to the [rectangular] plane under the straight lines cut
[on the axial triangles base] by this straight line in the direction of the sides of
the [axial] triangle, and the applied plane has as breadth the straight line on
the diameter from the sections vertex to [ the point] where the diameter is cut
off by the straight line drawn from the section to the diameter, this plane is
[the rectangular plane under two mentioned straight lines] and decreased by a
figure similar and similarly situated to the plane under the mentioned straight
line and the diameter. I will call such a section an ellipse32.
Let there be a cone whose vertex is the point and whose base is the
circle , and let it be cut by a plane through its axis, and let it make as a section the triangle . And let it also be cut by another plane on the one hand
meeting both [lateral] sides of the axial triangle and on the other hand continued neither parallel to the base of the cone, nor antiparallel to it, and let it make
as a section on the surface of the cone the [closed curved] line . And let the
common section of the cutting plane and of the plane of the base of the
cone be perpendicular to , and let [according to Proposition I.7 and Definition 4] the diameter of the section be [the straight line] . And let be
drawn from perpendicular to [the diameter] , and let be drawn through
parallel to , and let it be contrived that as sq. is to pl., so is to
.
And let some point be taken [at random] on the section, and let be
drawn through parallel to .
I say that is equal in square to the rectangular plane, which is applied
to and having as breadth, and decreased by a figure similar to pl..
[Proof]. For let be joined, and on the one hand let be drawn
through parallel to , and on the other hand let and be drawn through
and parallel to , and let be drawn through parallel to
Since then is parallel to , and is also parallel to , therefore
17

[according to Proposition XI.15 of Euclid] the plane through and is parallel to the plane through and , which is to the base of the cone.
If therefore a plane is drawn through and , the section [according
to Proposition I.4] will be a circle whose diameter is . And is perpendicular
to it. Therefore [according to Proposition II.14 of Euclid] pl. is equal to
sq..
And since as sq. is to pl., so is to , and [according to Proposition VI.23 of Euclid] the ratio sq. to pl. is compounded of [the ratios] to and to .
But [according to Proposition VI.4 of Euclid] as is to , so is to
and is to , and as is to , so is to and is to ,
Therefore the ratio to is compounded of the [ratios] to and
to .
But [according to Proposition VI.23 of Euclid] the ratio pl. to
pl. is compounded of the [ratios] to and to .
Therefore [according to Proposition VI.4 of Euclid] as pl. is to
pl., so is to and is to .
And with the straight line taken as common height [according to
Proposition VI.1 of Euclid] as is to , so pl. is to pl..
Therefore also [according to Proposition V.11 of Euclid] as pl. is to
pl., so pl. is to pl..
Therefore [according to Proposition V.9 of Euclid] pl. is equal to pl..
But it was shown that pl. is equal to sq., therefore also pl. is
equal to sq..
Therefore is equal in square to the parallelogram , which is applied
to and having as breadth and decreased by the figure similar to
pl..
I will call such a section an ellipse, and let be called the straight line
of application [of rectangular planes] to which the ordinates drawn to are
equal in square. I will call this straight line also the latus rectum, and the straight
line the latus transversum 33-38.
[Proposition] 14

If the vertically opposite surfaces are cut by a plane not through the vertex, the section on each of two surfaces will be that which is called the hyperbola, and the diameter of these two hyperbolas will be the same straight line,
and the straight lines, to which straight lines drawn to the diameter parallel to
18

the straight line in the cones base are applied in square, are equal, and the latus
transversum of the eidos39 [of these hyperbolas], that is the straight line situated between the vertices of the hyperbolas is common. I call such hyperbolas
opposite 40.
Let there be the vertically opposite surfaces whose vertex is the point
and let them be cut by a plane not through the vertex and let it make as sections on the surface the lines and .
I say that each of the two sections and is the so-called hyperbola.
[Proof]. For let there be the circle along which the line generating
the surface moves, and let the plane be drawn parallel to it on the vertically opposite surfaces, and and [according to Proposition I.4] are common sections of the plane of the sections and , and of the [planes of
the] circles. Then [according to Proposition XI.16 of Euclid] they will be parallel.
And let the axis of the conic surface be the straight line and the centers of
the circles be and , and let a straight line drawn from perpendicular
to be continued to the points and , and let a plane be drawn through
and the axis. Then [according to Proposition XI.16 of Euclid] it will make as
sections in the [planes of the] circles the parallel straight lines and , and
on the surface [according to Proposition I.1 and Definition1] and .
Then will be perpendicular to , since is also perpendicular to ,
and [according to Proposition XI.10 of Euclid] each of these two [straight lines]
is parallel to the other. And since the plane through the axis meets the sections
in the points and within the [curved] lines [ and ], it is clear that the
plane through the axis also cuts the [curved] lines. Let it cut them at and .
Therefore , , and are points on the plane through the axis and in the
plane of the [curved] lines, therefore [according to Proposition XI.3 of Euclid]
the line is a straight line. It is also evident both that , , , and are in a
straight line and , , , and also for [according to Proposition I.1]; they are
both on the conic surface and in the plane through the axis. Let then and
be drawn from and perpendicular to , and let be drawn
through parallel to , and let it be contrived that as is to , so sq.
is to pl., and as is to , so sq. is to pl..
Since then a cone whose vertex is the point and whose base is the circle has been cut by a plane through its axis, and it has made as a section the
triangle , and it has also been cut by another plane cutting the base of the
cone in perpendicular to , and it has made as a section on the surface
the line and the diameter continued has met one side of the axial trian19

gle beyond the vertex of the cone, and through the straight line has been
drawn parallel to the diameter of the section , and from the straight line
has been drawn perpendicular to , and as is to , so sq. is to pl.,
therefore [according to Proposition I.12] the section is a hyperbola, and
is the latus rectum of the eidos of this hyperbola , and is the latus transversum of this eidos . Likewise is also a hyperbola whose diameter is and
the latus rectum of whose eidos is , and the latus transversum of whose eidos is .
I say that is equal to .
[Proof]. For since is parallel to , as is to , so is to , and
as is to , so is to .
But [according to Proposition VI.23 of Euclid] the ratio sq. to pl.
is compounded of [the ratios] to and to and the ratio sq.
to pl. is compounded of [the ratios] to and to , therefore as
sq. is to pl., so sq. is to pl.. Also as sq. is to pl. , so is to
, and sq. is to pl., so is to .Therefore also [according to Proposition V.11 of Euclid] as is to , so is to . Therefore [according to
Proposition V.9 of Euclid] is equal to 41.
[Proposition] 15

If in an ellipse a straight line drawn as an ordinate from the midpoint of


the diameter is continued both ways to the section, and if it is contrived that as
the continued straight line is to the diameter, so the diameter is to some
straight line, then any straight line which is drawn parallel to the diameter from
the section to the continued straight line will be equal in square to the plane
which is applied to this third proportional and which has as breadth the continued straight line from the section to [the point] where the straight line drawn
parallel to the diameter cuts it off, but such this plane is decreased by a figure
similar to the rectangular plane under the continued straight line to which the
straight lines are drawn and the latus rectum, [that is the third proportional]
and if the straight line drawn parallel to the diameter is further continued to the
other side of the section, this drawn straight line will be bisected by the continued straight line to which it has been drawn42.
Let there be an ellipse whose diameter is , and let be bisected at
the point , and through let be drawn as an ordinate and continued both
ways to the section, and from let be drawn perpendicular to .
And let it be contrived that as is to , so is to .
20

And let some point be taken on the section, and through let be
drawn parallel to , and let be joined, and through let be drawn parallel to , and through and let and be drawn parallel to .
I say that is equal in square to the [rectangular] plane which is applied to and having as breadth and decreased by a figure similar to
pl. [that is is the diameter conjugate to the diameter , and is the
latus rectum for the ordinates to ].
[Proof]. For let be the latus rectum for the ordinates to and let
be joined, and through let be drawn parallel to , and through and
let and be drawn parallel to , and through , , and let , , and
be drawn parallel to .
Therefore sq. is equal to [the plane] , and [according to Proposition
I.13] sq. equal to [the plane] .
And since [according to Proposition VI.4 of Euclid] as is to , so
is to , and is to and is equal to and is equal to , and is
equal to . Therefore [the plane] is equal to [the plane] , and [the plane]
is equal to [the plane] .
Since also [according to Proposition I.43 of Euclid the plane] is equal
to [the plane] , and [the plane] is common, therefore [the plane] is
equal to [the plane] .
But [the plane] is equal to [the plane] , and [the plane] is common. Therefore [the plane] is equal to [the plane] and is equal to [the
planes] and , and so [the plane] without [the plane] is equal to
[the plane] .
Also [the plane] is equal to sq., [the plane] is equal to sq. and
[the plane] is equal to pl., therefore sq. without sq. is equal to
pl..
Since also has been cut into equal parts at , and into unequal parts at
, therefore [according to Proposition II.5 of Euclid] the sum of pl. and
sq. is equal to sq., or the sum of pl. and sq.H is equal to sq..
Therefore sq. without sq. is equal to pl., but sq. without
sq. is equal to pl., therefore pl. is equal to pl..
And since as is to , so is to , therefore [according to the porism to
Proposition VI.19 of Euclid] as is to , so sq. is to sq., which is [according to Proposition V.15 of Euclid] as is to , so sq. is to sq..
And [according to Proposition I.13] pl. is equal to pl., and is equal
to sq., and since [according to Proposition VI.4 of Euclid] as is to , so
is to , or [according to Propositions VI.1 and V.11 of Euclid] as is to
21

, so pl. is to pl., and since as is to , so pl. is to sq., and as


pl. is to sq., so pl. is to sq., therefore also as pl. is to pl.,
so pl. is to sq..
And pl. is equal to pl., therefore pl. is equal to sq. and is
equal to sq..
Therefore is equal in square to [the plane] , which is applied to ,
decreased by a figure similar to pl..
I say then that also, if continued to the other side of the section, will
be bisected by .
[Proof]. For let it be continued and let it meet the section at and let
be drawn through parallel to , and through let be drawn parallel to
. And since is equal to , therefore also sq. is equal to sq..
But [according to Proposition I.13] sq. is equal to pl.O and sq. is
equal to pl..
Therefore [according to Proposition VI.16 of Euclid] as is to , so
is to .
And [according to Proposition VI.4 of Euclid] as is to , so is to
, therefore also as is to , so is [according to Proposition V.17 of
Euclid] as is to , so is to . Therefore is equal to . And also
is equal to . Therefore also the remainders is equal to , and so also
is equal to .
Therefore , continued to the other side of the section, is bisected by
.
[Proposition] 16

If through the midpoint of the latus transversum of the opposite hyperbolas a straight line be drawn parallel to an ordinate, it will be a diameter of the
opposite hyperbolas conjugate to the diameter just mentioned43.
Let there be the opposite hyperbolas whose diameter is , and let be
bisected at and through let be drawn parallel to an ordinate.
I say is a diameter conjugate to .
[Proof]. For let and be the latera recta for the ordinates to , and
let and be joined and continued, and let some point be taken at random
on either section, and through H let be drawn parallel to , and from and
let and be drawn as ordinates, and through and let and be
drawn parallel to and . Since then [according to Proposition I.34 of Euclid]
is equal to , therefore also sq. is equal to sq..
22

But [according to Proposition I.12] sq. is equal to pl. and sq. is


equal to pl.. Therefore pl. is equal to pl..
And since [according to Proposition I.14] is equal to , therefore
[according to Proposition V.7 of Euclid] as is to , so is to .
But [according to Proposition VI.4 of Euclid] as is to , so is to
, and as is to , so is to . Therefore as is to , so is
to .
But, with taken as common height, as is to , so pl. is to
pl., and, with taken as common height, as is to , so pl. is to
pl..
And therefore as pl. is to pl., so pl. is to pl..
And alternately [according to Proposition V.16 of Euclid] as pl. is to
pl., so pl. is to pl..
And above was proved that pl. is equal to pl., therefore pl. is
equal to pl.. Therefore is equal to .
But also is equal to , and therefore is equal to , and so also
is equal to .
Therefore is bisected by , and is parallel to . Therefore is
the diameter and conjugate to .
Second definitions
9. Let the midpoint of the diameter of both the hyperbola and the ellipse
be called the center44 of the section, and let the straight line drawn from the
center to meet the section be called the radius of the section.
10. And likewise let the midpoint of the latus transversum of the opposite
hyperbolas be called the center.
11. And let the straight line drawn from the center [of the hyperbola or
of the ellipse] parallel to an ordinate, being a mean proportional to the sides of
the eidos and bisected by the center, be called the second diameter45.
[Proposition] 17

If in a section of a cone a straight line is drawn from the vertex of the


section and parallel to an ordinate it will fall outside the section46.
Let there be a section of a cone whose diameter is .
I say that the straight line drawn from the vertex, that is from the point
, parallel to an ordinate, will fall outside the section.
23

[Proof]. For, if possible, let it fall within as . Since then a point has
been taken at random on a section of a cone, therefore the straight line drawn
from within the section parallel to an ordinate will meet the diameter and
[according to Proposition I.7] will be bisected by it. Therefore continued will
be bisected by . And this is impossible for , if continued, [according to
Proposition I.10] will fall outside the section. Therefore the straight line drawn
from the point parallel to an ordinate will not fall within the section, therefore
it will fall outside, and so it is tangent to the section.
[Proposition] 18

If a straight line meeting a section of a cone and continued both ways,


falls outside the section, and some point is taken within the section, and
through it a parallel to the straight line meeting the section is drawn, the parallel
so drawn, if continued both ways, will meet the section47.
Let there be a section of a cone and the straight line meeting it, and
let it fall, when continued both ways, outside the section. And let some point
be taken within the section, and through let be drawn parallel to .
I say that continued both ways will meet the section.
[Proof]. For, let some point be taken on the section, and let be
joined. And since is parallel to , and some straight line meets ,
therefore continued will also meet . And if it meets between and , it
is evident that it also meets the section, but if it meets it beyond , that will
first meet the section. Therefore, if is continued to the side of and , it
meets the section. Then likewise we could show that, if it is continued to the
side of and , it also meets it.
Therefore, continued both ways will meet the section.
[Proposition] 19

In every section of a cone any straight line drawn from the diameter parallel to an ordinate will meet the section48.
Let there be a section of a cone whose diameter is , and let some point
be taken on the diameter, and through let be drawn parallel to an ordinate.
I say that continued will meet the section.
[Proof]. For let some point be taken on the section. But is also on the
section; therefore the straight line joined from to [according to Proposition
I.10] will fall within the section. And since the straight line drawn from parallel
24

to an ordinate [according to Proposition I.17] falls outside the section, and


meets it, and is parallel to the ordinate, therefore will also meet .
And if it meets between and , it is evident that it will also meet the section, but, if it meets if beyond as at , that it will first meet the section.
Therefore the straight line drawn from parallel to an ordinate will meet the
section.
[Proposition] 20

If in a parabola two straight lines are dropped as ordinates to the diameter, the squares on them will be to each other as the straight lines cut off by
them on the diameter beginning from the vertex are to each other49.
Let there be a parabola whose diameter is , and let some points and
be taken on it, and from and let and be dropped as ordinates to .
I say that as sq. is to sq., so is to .
[Proof]. For let be the latus rectum for the ordinates to the diameter.
Therefore [according to the Proposition I.11] sq. is equal to pl. and
sq. is equal to pl..
Therefore as sq. is to sq., so pl. is to pl..
But [according to Proposition VI.1 of Euclid] as pl. is to pl., so
is to , and therefore as sq. is to sq., so is to .
[Proposition] 21

If in a hyperbola or an ellipse or in the circumference of a circle50 [two] straight


lines are dropped as ordinates to the diameter, the squares on them will be to
the [rectangular] planes under the straight lines cut off by them beginning from
the [both] ends of the latus transversum of the eidos as the latus rectum of the
eidos is to the latus transversum, and to each other as the planes under the
straight lines cut off as we have said51.
Let there be a hyperbola or an ellipse or the circumference of a circle
whose diameter is and whose latus rectum for the ordinates to the diameter
is , and let the ordinates and be dropped to the diameter.
I say that as sq. is to pl., so is to , and as sq. is to sq.,
so pl. is to pl..
[Proof]. For let determining the eidos be joined, and through and
let and be drawn parallel to . Therefore [according to Propositions I.12
and I.13] sq. is equal to pl., and sq. is equal to pl..
25

And since as is to , so is to , and with taken as common


height as is to , so pl. is to pl., therefore as is to , so
pl. is to pl., or as is to , so sq. is to pl..
Then also for the same reasons as is to , so sq. is to pl..
And therefore as sq. is to pl., so sq. is to pl., and alternately
as sq. is to sq., so pl. is to pl..
[Proposition] 22

If a straight line cuts a parabola or a hyperbola at two points not meeting


the diameter inside, it will, if continued, meet the diameter of the section outside the section52.
Let there be a parabola or a hyperbola whose diameter is , and let
some straight line cut the section at two points and [and do not cut the diameter ].
I say that , if continued, will meet outside the section.
[Proof]. For let and be dropped as ordinates from and , and first
let the section be a parabola. Since then in the parabola [according to Proposition I.20] as sq. is to sq., so is to and is greater than , therefore also sq. is greater than sq..
And so also is greater than .
And they are parallel; therefore [according to Proposition I.10] continued will meet outside the section.
But then let it be a hyperbola [with the latus transversum ]. Since then
in the hyperbola [according to Proposition I.21] as sq. is to sq., so
pl. is to pl., therefore also sq. is greater than sq..
And they are parallel; therefore continued will meet outside the
section.
[Proposition] 23

If a straight line situated between two diameters cuts the ellipse, it will,
when continued, meet each of the diameters outside the section 53.
Let there be an ellipse whose diameters are and , and let some
straight line is situated between the diameters and .
I say that , when continued, will meet each of and outside the
section.
[Proof]. For let HE and be dropped as ordinates from and to ,
and and as ordinates to .Therefore [according to Proposition I.21] as
26

sq. is to sq., so pl. is to pl., and as sq. is to sq., so pl. is


to pl..
And pl. is greater than pl. for [according to Proposition II.5 of
Euclid] H is nearer to the midpoint of than , and pl. is greater than
pl. [for is nearer to the midpoint of than ].
Therefore also sq. is greater than sq., and sq. is greater than sq..
Therefore also is greater than , and is greater than .
And is parallel to , and to , therefore [according to Proposition I.10 and Proposition I.33 of Euclid] continued will meet each of the diameters and outside the section 54.
[Proposition] 24

If a straight line meeting a parabola or a hyperbola at a point, when continued both ways falls outside the section, then it will meet the diameter 55.
Let there be a parabola or a hyperbola whose diameter is , and let
meet it at , and when continued both ways, let it fall outside the section.
I say that it will meet the diameter .
[Proof]. For let some point be taken on the section, and let be
joined, therefore [according to Proposition I.22] continued will meet the diameter of the section. Let it meet it at , and is situated between the section and . And therefore continued will meet the diameter outside the
section.
[Proposition] 25

If a straight line meeting an ellipse between two diameters and continued


both ways falls outside the section, it will meet each of the diameters 56.
Let there be an ellipse whose diameters are and , and let , some
straight line between two diameters, meet it at , and continued both ways fall
outside the section.
I say that will meet each of and .
[Proof]. Let and be dropped as ordinates to and respectively. Since [according to Proposition I.15] is parallel to , and some
straight line has met , therefore it will also meet . Then likewise will
also meet .
[Proposition] 26
27

If in a parabola or a hyperbola a straight line if drawn parallel to the diameter of the section, it will meet the section at one point only 57.
Let there first be a parabola whose diameter is , and whose latus rectum is , and let be drawn parallel to .
I say that continued will meet the section [at one point only].
[Proof]. For let some point be taken on , and from let be drawn
parallel to an ordinate, and let pl. is greater than sq., and from let [according to Proposition I.19] be erected as an ordinate.
Therefore [according to Proposition I.11] sq. is equal to pl..
But pl. is greater than sq., therefore sq. is greater than sq.,
therefore is greater than . And they are parallel.
Therefore continued cuts , and so it will also meet the section.
Let it meet it at . Then I say also that it will meet it at only.
[Proof]. For, if possible, let it also meet it at . Since then a straight line
cuts a parabola at two points, if continued [according to Proposition I.22] it will
meet the diameter of the section, and this is impossible for it is supposed parallel.
Therefore continued meets the section at only one point.
Next let the section be a hyperbola, and be the latus transversum of
the eidos, and be the latus rectum, and let be joined and continued. Then
with the same construction let be drawn from parallel to . Since then
pl. is greater than , sq. is equal to pl., and pl. is greater than
sq., therefore also sq. is greater than sq.. And so also is greater
than , and the same reasons as in the first case will come to pass.
[Proposition] 27

If a straight line [within the section] cuts the diameter of a parabola, then
continued both ways it will meet the section 58.
Let there be a parabola whose diameter is , and let some straight
line cut it within the section.
I say that continued both ways will meet the section.
[Proof]. For let some straight line be drawn from parallel to an ordinate, therefore [according to Proposition I.17] will fall outside the section.
Then either is parallel to or not.
If it is parallel to it, it has been dropped as an ordinate, so that continued
both ways [according to Proposition I.18] it will meet the section.
Next let it not be parallel to , but continued let it meet at .
28

Then it is evident that it meets the section in the side of E for if it meets ,
and a fortiori it cuts the section.
I say that if continued the other way, it also meets the section.
[Proof]. For let be the latus rectum for the ordinates to the diameter,
and be an ordinate, and let [according to Propositions VI.11 and VI.17 of
Euclid] sq. is equal to pl., and let parallel to an ordinate meet at .
Since pl. is equal to sq., hence as is to , so is to , and therefore [according to Proposition V.10 of Euclid] as is to , so is to
.Therefore also as sq. is to sq., so sq. is to sq..
But since sq. is equal to pl., hence as is to , so sq. is to
sq., and sq. is to sq..
But as sq. is to sq., so sq. is to sq., and as is to , so
pl. is to pl..
Therefore as sq. is to sq., so pl. is to pl., and correspondingly as sq. is to pl., so sq. is to pl..
But because of the section [according to Proposition I.11] sq. is equal to
pl.. Therefore also sq. is equal to pl..
But is the latus rectum, and is parallel to an ordinate. Therefore
[according to the Proposition I.11] the section passes through , and meets
the section at .
[Proposition] 28

If a straight line touches one of the opposite hyperbolas, and some point
is taken within the other hyperbola, and through it a straight line is drawn parallel to the tangent, than continued both ways, it will meet the section 59.
Let there be opposite hyperbolas whose diameter is , and let some
straight line touch the hyperbola , and let some point be taken within the
other hyperbola, and through let be parallel to .
I say that continued both ways will meet the section.
[Proof]. Since then it has been proved [in Proposition I.24] that continued will meet the diameter , and is parallel to it, therefore continued
will meet the diameter. Let it meet it at , and let be made equal to , and
through let be drawn parallel to , and let be dropped as an ordinate,
and let be made equal to , and let be drawn parallel to an ordinate,
and let be further continued in the same straight line. And since is parallel to , and to , and is one straight line [with the diameter ] the
29

triangle is similar to the triangle . And is equal to ; therefore


is equal to .and so also sq. is equal to sq..
And since is equal to and is equal to , and is common,
therefore is equal to , and therefore pl. is equal to pl..
Therefore as pl. is to sq., so pl. is to sq..
And [according to Proposition I.21] as pl. is to sq., so the latus
transversum is to the latus rectum.
Therefore also as pl. is to sq., so latus transversum is to the latus
rectum.
Therefore is on the section. Therefore [according to Proposition I.21]
continued will meet the section at .
Likewise then it could be shown that continued to the other side it will
meet the section.
[Proposition] 29

If in opposite hyperbolas a straight line is drawn through the center to


meet either of the hyperbolas, then continued it will cut the other hyperbola 60.
Let there be opposite hyperbolas whose transverse diameter is , and
whose center is , and let cut the hyperbola .
I say that it will also cut the other hyperbola.
[Proof]. For let be dropped as an ordinate, and let be made equal
to , and let be drawn as an ordinate. And since is equal to , and
is common, therefore pl. is equal to pl..
And since [according to Proposition I.21] as pl. is to sq., so the
latus transversum is to the latus rectum, but also pl. is to sq., so the
latus transversum is to the latus rectum, therefore also [according to Proposition I.14] as pl. is to sq., so pl. is to sq..
But pl. is equal to pl.; therefore sq. is equal to sq..
Since then is equal to and is equal to , and is a straight
line, and is parallel to , therefore [according to Proposition VI.32 of Euclid]
is also a straight line. And therefore [continued] will also cut the other
hyperbola.
[Proposition] 30

If in an ellipse or in opposite hyperbolas a straight line is drawn in both directions from the center, meeting the section, it will be bisected at the center61.
30

Let there be an ellipse or opposite hyperbolas, and their diameter , and


their center , and through let some straight line be drawn.
I say that is equal to .
[Proof]. For let and be drawn as ordinates. And since [according to
Proposition I.21] as pl. is to sq., so the latus transversum is to the latus
rectum, but also as pl. is to sq., so the latus transversum is to the latus
rectum, therefore also [according to Proposition V.11 of Euclid] as pl. is to
sq., so pl. is to sq..
And alternately as pl. is to pl., so sq. is to sq..
But [according to Propositions V.16, VI.4 and VI.22 of Euclid] as sq. is
to sq., so sq. is to sq., therefore alternately as pl. is to sq., so
pl. is to sq..
Therefore also [according to Propositions II 5 and II.6 of Euclid] componendo in the case of the ellipse and inversely and convertendo 62 in the case of
the opposite hyperbolas, as sq. is to sq., so sq. is to sq., and alternately [as sq. is to sq., so sq. is to sq.]. But sq. is equal to sq.,
therefore also sq. is equal to sq., therefore is equal to .
And and are parallel; therefore also is equal to .
[Proposition] 31

If on the latus transversum of the eidos of a hyperbola some point be


taken cutting off from the vertex of the section not less than half of the latus
transversum of the eidos, and a straight line be drawn from it to meet to section, then when further continued it will fall within the section on the near side
of the section 63.
Let there be a hyperbola whose diameter is , and let some point on
the diameter be taken Cutting off not less than half of , and let some
straight line be drawn to meet the section.
I say that continued will fall within the section.
[Proof]. For, if possible, let it fall outside the section as , and from ,
a point at random, let be dropped as an ordinate, also [let be dropped as
an ordinate]; and first let be equal to .
And since [according to Propositions V.8 and VI.22 of Euclid] the ratio
sq. to sq. is greater than the ratio sq. to sq., but as sq. is to
sq., so sq. is to sq. because is parallel to , and as sq. is to
sq., so pl. is tO pl. because for the section [according to Proposition
I.21], therefore the ratio sq. to sq. is greater than the ratio pl. to
31

pl.. Therefore alternately the ratio sq. to pl. is greater than the ratio
sq. to pl..
Therefore separando [according to Propositions II.6 and V.17 of Euclid]
the ratio sq. to pl. is greater than the ratio sq. to pl., and this is
impossible [according to Proposition V.8 of Euclid]. Therefore will not fall
outside the section, and it falls inside.
And for this reason the straight line from some of the points on will a
fortiori fall inside, since it will also fall inside .
[Proposition] 32

If a straight line is drawn through the vertex of a section of a cone parallel


to an ordinate, then it touches the section, and another straight line will not fall
into the space between the conic section and this straight line 64.
Let there be a section of a cone, first the so-called parabola whose diameter is [and whose vertex is ], and from let be drawn parallel to an
ordinate.
Now [in the Proposition I.17] it has been shown that it falls outside the
section.
Then I say that also another straight line will not fall into the space between and the section.
[Proof]. For, if possible, let it fall inside as , and let some point be
taken on it at random, and let be dropped as the ordinate, and let be the
latus rectum for the ordinates to . And since [according to Propositions V.8
and VI.22 of Euclid] the ratio sq. to sq. is greater than the ratio sq. to
sq., and [according to Proposition I.11] sq. is equal to pl., therefore
also the ratio sq. to sq. is greater than the ratio pl. to sq., or is
greater than the ratio to .
Let then it be contrived that as sq. is to sq., so is to , and
through let be drawn parallel to .
Since then as sq. is to sq., so is to , and pl. is to
sq. and [according to Propositions VI.4 and Vi.22 of Euclid] as sq. is to
sq., so sq. is to sq., and [according to Proposition I.11] sq. is equal
to pl., therefore also as sq. is to sq., so sq. is to sq..
Therefore is equal to , and this is impossible. Therefore another
straight line will not fall into the space between and the section.

32

Next let the section be a hyperbola or an ellipse or the circumference of a


circle whose diameter is , and whose latus rectum is , and let be joined
and continued, and from let be drawn parallel to an ordinate.
Now [in Proposition I.17] it has been shown that it falls outside the section.
Then I say that also another straight line will not fall into the space between and the section.
[Proof], For, if possible, let it fall inside as , and let some point be
taken on it at random, and let be dropped as an ordinate, and let be
drawn parallel to .
And since [according to Propositions I.12 and I.13] sq. is equal to
pl., let it be contrived that pl. is equal to sq., and let cut at ,
and through let be drawn parallel to , and through parallel
to . Since then sq. is equal to pl., hence as is to , so is to ,
and therefore [according to Propositions V.11 and VI.22 and the porism to
Proposition VI.19 of Euclid] as is to , so sq. is to sq..
But as is to , so is to , and as sq. is to sq., so sq. is
to sq.. Therefore as is to , so sq. is to sq., therefore [according
to the porism to Proposition VI.19 of Euclid] as is to , so is to .
Therefore sq. is equal to pl., but also because for the section [according to Propositions I.12 and I.13] sq. is equal to pl., therefore sq.
is equal to sq., and this is impossible. Therefore another straight line will not
fall into the space between and the section.
[Proposition] 33

If on a parabola some point is taken, and from it an ordinate is drawn to


the diameter, and to the straight line cut off by it on the diameter from the vertex a straight line in the same straight line from its extremity is made equal,
then the straight line joined from the point thus resulting to the point taken will
touch the section 65.
Let there be a parabola whose diameter is , [and whose vertex is ],
and let be dropped as an ordinate, and let be made equal to , and let
be joined.
I say that continued will fall outside the section.
[Proof]. For, if possible, let it fall within as , and let be dropped as
an ordinate. And since the ratio sq. to sq. is greater than sq. to sq.,
but as sq. is to sq., so sq. is to sq. , and [according to Proposition
33

I.20] as sq. is to sq., so is to , therefore the ratio to is greater


than sq. to sq..
But as is to , so quadruple pl. is to quadruple pl., therefore
also the ratio quadruple pl. to quadruple pl. is greater than sq. to
sq..
Therefore, alternately the ratio quadruple pl. to sq. is greater than
the ratio quadruple pl. to sq., and this is impossible for since is equal
to , hence quadruple pl. is less than sq. for [according to Proposition
II.5 of Euclid], is not the midpoint of .Therefore t does not fall within the
section, therefore it touches it.
[Proposition] 34

If on a hyperbola or an ellipse or the circumference of a circle some point


is taken, and if from it a straight line is dropped as an ordinate to the diameter,
and if the straight lines which the ordinate cuts off from the ends of the latus
transversum of the eidos have to each other a ratio which other segments of
the latus transversum have to each other, so that the segments from the vertex are homologous 66, then the straight line joining the point taken on the latus
transversum and that taken on the section will touch the section 67.
Let there be a hyperbola or an ellipse or the circumference of a circle
whose diameter is , and let some point be taken on the section, and from
let be drawn as an ordinate, and let it be contrived that as is to , so
is to , and let be joined.
I say that touches the section.
[Proof]. For, if possible, let it cut it, as , and let some point be taken
on it, and let be dropped as an ordinate, and let and be drawn
through and parallel to , and let , , and be joined and continued
to , , and . And since as it to , so is to , but [according to
Proposition VI.4 of Euclid] as is to , so is to , and as is to , so
is to , and is to , therefore as is to , so is to , therefore
is equal to .
Therefore [according to Propositions II.5 and VI.27 of Euclid] pl. is
greater than pl..
Therefore the ratio to is greater than the ratio to .
But [according to Proposition VI.4 of Euclid] as to , so is to ,
therefore the ratio to is greater than the ratio to .
Therefore pl., is greater than pl.,.
34

And so [according to Proposition V.8 of Euclid] the ratio pl., to


sq. is greater than the ratio pl., to sq..
But as pl., is to sq., so pl. is to sq. because the triangles
, , and are similar, and as pl., is to sq., so pl. is to
sq., therefore the ratio pl. to sq. is greater than the ratio pl. to
sq., therefore alternately the ratio to pl. is greater than the ratio
sq. to sq..
But [according to Proposition I.21] as pl. is to pl., so sq. is to
sq. and [according to Propositions VI.4 and VI.22 of Euclid] as sq. is to
sq., so sq. is to sq., therefore also the ratio sq. to sq. is greater
than the ratio sq. to sq..
Therefore [according to Proposition V.10 of Euclid] is less than
, and this is impossible. Therefore does not cut the section. Therefore, it
touches it 68-69.
[Proposition] 35

If a straight line touching a parabola, meets the diameter outside the section, the straight line drawn from the point of contact as an ordinate to the diameter will cut off on the diameter beginning from the vertex of the section a
straight line equal to the straight line between the vertex and the [diameters
intersection with the] tangent, and not straight line will fall into the space between the tangent and the section 70.
Let there be a parabola whose diameter is , [whose vertex is ], and let
be erected as an ordinate, and let be tangent to the section.
I say that is equal to .
[Proof]. For, if possible, let it be unequal to it, and let be made equal
to , and let be upright as an ordinate, and let be joined. Therefore [according to Proposition I.33] continued will meet , and this is impossible for
two straight lines will have the same ends. Therefore is not unequal to ;
therefore it is equal to it.
Then I say that no straight line will fall into the space between and the
section.
[Proof]. For, if possible, let fall between, and let be made equal to
, and let be erected as an ordinate. Therefore [according to Proposition
I.33] the straight line joined from to touches the section, therefore continued it will fall outside it. And so it will meet , and two straight lines will have
35

the same ends, and this is impossible. Therefore a straight line will not fall into
the space between the section and .
[Proposition] 36

If some straight line meeting the latus transversum of the eidos touches a
hyperbola or an ellipse or the circumference of a circle, and if a straight line
dropped from the point of contact as an ordinate to the diameter, then as the
straight line cut off by the tangent from the end of the latus transversum is to
the straight line cut off by the tangent from the other end of the latus transversum, so the straight line will cut off by the ordinate from the end of the latus
transversum be to the straight line cut off by the ordinate from the other end
of the latus transversum in such a way that the homologous straight lines are
in continuous correspondence, and another straight line will not fall into the
space between the tangent and the section of the cone 71.
Let there be a hyperbola or an ellipse or the circumference of a circle
whose diameter is , and let be tangent, and let be dropped as an ordinate.
I say that as BE is to , so is to .
[Proof]. For if it is not, let it be as is to , so is to , and let
be erected as an ordinate, therefore the straight line joined from to [according to Proposition I.34] will touch the section, therefore continued it will meet
. Therefore two straight lines will have the same ends, and this is impossible.
I say that no straight line will fall between the section and .
[Proof]. For, if possible, let it fall between, as , and let it be contrived
that as is to , so to , and let be erected as an ordinate, therefore the straight line joined from to , when continued [according to Proposition I.34] will meet . Therefore two straight lines will have the same ends,
and this is impossible. Therefore a straight line will not fall into the space between the section and .
[Proposition] 37
If a straight line touching a hyperbola or an ellipse or the circumference of
a circle meets the diameter, and from the point of contact to the diameter a
straight line is dropped as an ordinate, then the straight line cut off by the ordinate from the center of the section with the straight line cut off by the tangent
from the center of the section will contain an area equal to the square on the
radius of the section, and with the straight line between the ordinate and the
36

tangent will contain an area having the ratio to the square on the ordinate which
the latus transversum has to the latus rectum 72.
Let there be a hyperbola or an ellipse or the circumference of a circle
whose diameter is and let be drawn tangent, and let be dropped as an
ordinate, and let be the center.
I say that pl. is equal to sq., and as pl. is to sq.. so the latus
transversum is to the latus rectum.
[Proof]. For since touches the section, and has been dropped as an
ordinate, hence [according to Proposition I.36] as is to , so is to .
Therefore componendo as the sum of and is to , so the sum of
and is to .
And [according to Proposition V.15 of Euclid] let the halves of the antecedents be taken. In the case of the hyperbola we shall say: but half of the sum
of and is equal to , and half of is equal to , therefore as is to
, so is to . Therefore convertendo as is to , so is to , therefore pl. is equal to sq..
And since as is to , so is to , and is to , and alternately
as is to , so is to , and componendo as is to , so is to
and so, pl. is equal to pl..
But [according to Proposition I.21] as pl. is to sq., so the latus
transversum is to the latus rectum, therefore also pl. is to sq., so the
latus transversum is to the latus rectum.
And in the case of the ellipse and of the circle we shall say: but half of the
sum of AD and is equal to and half of is equal to , therefore as is
to , so is to . Therefore convertendo as is to , so is to .
Therefore pl. is equal to sq..
But [according to Proposition II.3 of Euclid] pl. is equal to the sum of
pl. and sq. and [according to Proposition II.5 of Euclid] sq. is equal to
the sum pl. and sq..
Let the common sq. be subtracted, therefore pl. is equal to pl..
Therefore as pl. is to sq., so pl. is to sq..
But [according to Proposition I.21] as pl. is to sq., so the latus
transversum is to the latus rectum. Therefore as pl. is to sq., so the latus
transversum is to the latus rectum 73-80.
[Proposition] 38

37

If a straight line touching a hyperbola or an ellipse or the circumference of


a circle meets the second diameter and if from the point of contact a straight
line is dropped to the same diameter parallel to the other diameter then the
straight line cut off from the center of the section by the dropped straight line,
together with the straight line cut off [on the second diameter] by the tangent
from the center of the section will contain an area equal to the square on the
half of the second diameter and together with the straight line [on the second
diameter] between the dropped straight line and the tangent will contain an
area having a ratio to the square on the dropped straight line which the latus
rectum of the eidos has to the latus transversum 81.
Let there be a hyperbola or an ellipse or the circumference of a circle
whose diameter is , and whose second diameter is , and let meeting at be a tangent to the section, and let the be parallel to .
I say that pl. is equal to sq. and as pl. is to sq., so the latus
rectum is to the latus transversum.
[Proof]. Let ME be drawn as an ordinate, therefore [according to Proposition I.37] as pl. is to sq., so the latus transversum is to the latus rectum.
But [according to Definition 11] as the latus transversum is to ,
is to the latus rectum and therefore [according to the porism to Proposition
VI.19 of Euclid] as the latus transversum is to the latus rectum, so sq. BA is to
sq., and as the quarters of them, that is as the latus transversum is to the
latus rectum, so sq., is to sq., therefore also as pl. is to sq., so
sq. is to sq..
But the ratio pl. to sq. is compounded of [the ratios] to
and to or the ratio pl. to sq. is compounded of [the ratios]
to and to . Therefore inversely as sq. is to sq., so is to
or the ratio compounded of [the ratios] to and to or the ratio
to .
Therefore, the ratio sq. to sq. is compounded of [the ratios]
to and to which is the same as the ratio pl. to pl..
Therefore as pl. is to pl., so sq. is to sq.. And alternately
[as pl. is to sq., so pl. is to sq..].
But [according to Proposition I.37] pl. is equal to sq., therefore
also pl. is equal to sq..
Again since [according to Proposition I.37] as the latus rectum is to
the latus transversum, so sq. is to pl., and the ratio sq. to pl.
is compounded of [the ratios] to and to , or the ratio sq. to
38

pl. is compounded of [the ratios] to and to or to


, is the same as pl. to sq.. Therefore as pl. is to sq., so
the latus rectum is to the latus transversum.
[Porism] 1
Under the same suppositions [on the hyperbola] we shall prove that as each
straight line situated [on the second diameter] between the tangent and the
end of the [second] diameter from the ordinate is to the straight line situated
between the tangent and the other end of the [second] diameter, so the
straight line situated between the other end of the [second] diameter and the
ordinate to the straight line situated between the first end and the ordinate 82.
Since pl. is equal to sq., that is pl. because is equal to ,
pl. is equal to pl.. Therefore as is to , so is to , and
separando and convertendo as is to ,so is to . If the antecedents
are doubled and separando we obtain that as is to , so is to , what
was to prove 83.
[Porism] 2
From the said it is evident that the straight line is tangent to the section because pl. is equal to sq.. Hence we can prove that as pl.
is to sq. , so the ratio [of the latus rectum to the latus transversum] that
was proved [in Proposition I.38].
[Proposition] 39

If a straight line touching a hyperbola or an ellipse or the circumference of


a circle meets the diameter and if from the point of contact a straight line is
dropped as an ordinate to the diameter, then whichever of the two straight lines
is taken, of which one is the straight line between the [intersection of the] ordinate [with the diameter] and the center of the section, and the other is between [the intersection of] the ordinate and the tangent [with the diameter]
the ordinate will have to it the ratio compounded of the ratio of the other of the
two straight lines to the ordinate and of the ratio of the latus rectum of the eidos to the latus transversum84.
Let there be a hyperbola or an ellipse or the circumference of a circle
whose diameter is , and let the center of it be , and let be drawn tangent
to the section, and be dropped as an ordinate.
I say that the ratio to is compounded of [the ratios] the latus
39

rectum to the latus transversum and to and the ratio to is


compounded of [the ratios] the latus rectum to the latus transversum and
to .
[Proof]. For let pl. is equal to pl., and since [according to Proposition I.37] as pl. is to sq., so the latus transversum is to the
latus rectum and pl. is equal to pl.,, therefore as pl., is to sq.,
so H is to and the latus transversum is to the latus rectum.
And since pl. is equal to pl.,, hence as is to , so is to .
And since the ratio to is compounded of [the ratios] to and to ,
but as is to H, so the latus rectum is to the latus transversum,
therefore the ratio to is compounded of [the ratios] the latus rectum
to the latus transversum and to .
[Proposition] 40

If a straight line touching a hyperbola or an ellipse or the circumference


of a circle meets the second diameter, and if from the point of contact a
straight line is dropped to the same diameter parallel to the other diameter,
then whichever of two straight lines is taken [along the second diameter], of
which one is the straight line between the dropped straight line and the center
of the section, and the other is between the dropped straight line and the tangent, then the dropped straight line will have to one of two straight lines the
ratio compounded of the ratio of the latus transversum to the latus rectum and
of the ratio of the other of two straight lines to the dropped straight line85.
Let there be a hyperbola or an ellipse or the circumference of a circle
, and its diameter , and its second diameter , and let be drawn
tangent, and be drawn parallel to .
I say that the ratio to one of , is compounded of the ratio the
latus transversum to the latus rectum and the ratio the other of , to
[Proof] . Let pl., is equal to pl.,. And since [according to Proposition I.38] as the latus rectum is to the latus transversum, so pl., is to
sq. and pl., is equal to pl.,, therefore also as pl., is to sq., so
is to and the latus rectum is to the latus transversum.
And since the ratio to is compounded of [the ratios] to and
to , but as is to , so the latus transversum is to the latus rectum, and
as is to , so is to because pl. is equal to pl.,, therefore the
ratio to is compounded of [the ratios] the latus transversum to the latus
rectum and to .
40

[Proposition] 41

If in a hyperbola or an ellipse or the circumference of a circle a


straight line is dropped as an ordinate to the diameter, and if equiangular parallelogrammic figures are described both on the ordinate and on the
radius, and if the ordinate side has to the remaining side of the figure the
ratio compounded of the ratio of the radius to the remaining side of its
figure, and of the ratio of the latus rectum of the eidos of the section to the
latus transversum, then the figure on the straight line between the center
and the ordinate, similar to the figure on the radius, is in the case of the hyperbola greater than the figure on the ordinate by the figure on the radius,
and in the case of the ellipse and the circumference of a circle together with the
figure on the ordinate is equal to the figure on the radius 86.
Let there be a hyperbola or an ellipse or the circumference of a circle
whose diameter is , and center , and let be dropped as an ordinate, and
on and let the equiangular figures and be described, and let the
ratio to is compounded of [the ratios] to and the latus rectum to
the latus transversum.
I say that with the figure on similar to [the plane] in the case on
the hyperbola the figure on is equal to the sum of [the planes] and ,
and in the case of the ellipse and the circle the sum of the figure on and
[the plane] is equal to [the plane] .
[Proof]. For let it be contrived that as the latus rectum is to the latus
transversum, so is to .
And since as is to , so the latus rectum is to the latus transversum
, but as is to , so sq. is to pl. , and [according to Proposition I.21]
as the latus rectum is to the latus transversum, so sq. is to pl., therefore
pl. is equal to pl. .
And since the ratio to is compounded of [the ratios] to and
the latus rectum to the latus transversum , or the ratio to is compounded of [the ratios] to and to , and further the ratio to is
compounded of [the ratios] to and to , therefore the ratio compounded of[the ratios] to and to is the same, as the ratio compounded of [the ratios] to and to .
Let the common ratio to be taken away, therefore as is to
, so is to .
But as is to , so pl. is to pl. ,and as is to , so sq. is
to pl., therefore as pl. is to pl. , so sq. is to pl..
41

And it has been shown that pl. is equal to pl., therefore as


pl. is to pl., so sq. is to pl., and alternately as pl. is to sq.,
so pl. is to pl..
And as pl. is to pl., so [the plane] is to [the plane] for they
are equiangular and [according to Proposition VI.23 of Euclid] have to one another the ratio compounded of their sides, to and to , and therefore as pl. is to sq., so [the plane] is to [the plane] .
Moreover in the case of the hyperbola we are to say : componendo as the
sum of pl. and sq. is to sq., so the sum of [the planes] and is to
[the plane] or [according to Proposition II.6 of Euclid] as sq. is to sq.,
so the sum of [the planes] and is to [the plane] . And as sq. is to
sq., so [according to the porism to Proposition VI,29 of Euclid] the figure described on is similar and similarly situated to [the plane] , to [the plane]
, therefore with the figure on similar to [the plane] , as the sum of [the
planes] and is to [the plane] , so the figure on is to [the plane] .
Therefore the figure on is equal to the sum of [the planes] and , the
figure on being similar to [the plane] . And in the case of the ellipse and of
the circumference of a circle we shall say : since then [according to Proposition
V.19 of Euclid] as whole sq. is to whole [the plane] , so pl. subtracted
is to [the plane] subtracted, also remainder is to remainder as whole to
whole.
And [according to Proposition II.5 of Euclid] sq. without pl. is equal
to sq., therefore as sq. is to [the plane] without [the plane] , so
sq. is to [the plane] . But [according to the porism to Proposition VI,20 of
Euclid] as sq. is to [the plane] , so sq. is to the figure on , the figure
on being similar to [the plane] . Therefore as sq. is to [the plane]
without [the plane] , so sq. is to the figure on the . Therefore the figure
on being similar to [the plane] , the figure on is equal to [the plane]
without [the plane] .
Therefore the sum of the figure on and [the plane] is equal to [the
plane] .
[Proposition] 42

If a straight line touching a parabola meets the diameter, and if from the
point of contact a straight line is dropped as an ordinate to the diameter, and if
some point is taken on the section, two straight lines are dropped to the diameter, one of them parallel to the tangent, and the other parallel to the straight
line dropped from the point of contact, then the triangle resulting from them
42

[that is from the diameter and the two straight lines dropped from the point at
random] is equal to the parallelogram under the straight line dropped of the
point of contact and the straight line cut off by the parallel from the vertex of
the section 87 .
Let there be a parabola whose diameter is , and let be drawn tangent to the section, and let be dropped as an ordinate and from some point
at random let be dropped as an ordinate and through let be drawn parallel to , and through let be drawn parallel to and through B let
be drawn parallel to .
I say that the triangle is equal to the parallelogram .
[Proof]. For, since touches the section, and has been dropped as
an ordinate [according to Proposition I.35] is equal to , therefore is
equal to double . Therefore [according to Proposition I.41 of Euclid] the triangle is equal to the parallelogram .
And since as sq. is to sq., so is to because of the section
[according to Proposition I.20], but [according to the porism to Proposition
VI.20 of Euclid] as sq. is to sq., so the triangle is to the triangle
and [according to Proposition VI.1 of Euclid] as is to , so the parallelogram is to the parallelogram , therefore the triangle is to the triangle
, so the parallelogram is to the parallelogram .
Therefore alternately as the triangle is to the parallelogram , so
the triangle is to the parallelogram .
But the triangle is equal to the parallelogram ,therefore the
triangle is equal to the parallelogram .
[Proposition] 43

If a straight line touching a hyperbola or an ellipse or the circumference of


a circle meets the diameter, and if from the point of contact a straight line is
dropped as an ordinate to the diameter, and if through the vertex a parallel [to
an ordinate] is drawn meeting the straight line drawn through the point of contact and the center, and if some point [at random] is taken on the section, two
straight lines are drawn to the diameter, one of which is parallel to the tangent
and the other parallel to straight line dropped [as an ordinate] from the point of
contact, then in the case of the hyperbola the triangle resulting from them that
is the diameter and two lines drawn through the point taken at random to the
diameter] will be less than the triangle cut off by the straight line through the
center to the point of contact [by the ordinate through the point at random] by
the triangle on the radius similar to the triangle cut off, and in the case of the
43

ellipse and the circumference of a circle [the triangle resulting from the diameter and two lines through the point taken at random to the diameter] together
with the triangle cut off [by the line] from the center [to the point of contact
and by the ordinate through the point at random] will be equal to the triangle
on the radius similar to the triangle cut off 88.
Let there be a hyperbola or an ellipse or the circumference of a circle
whose diameter is , and center , and let be drawn tangent to the section,
and let be joined, and let be dropped as an ordinate, and let some point
be taken on the section, and let be drawn parallel to the tangent, and let
be dropped as an ordinate [and continued to meet at ], and through let
be erected as an ordinate.
I say that the triangle differs from the triangle by the triangle
.
[Proof]. For since touches and has been dropped, hence [according
to Proposition I.39] the ratio to is compounded of [the ratios] to
and the latus rectum to the latus transversum.
But as to , so is to , and [according to Proposition VI.4 of
Euclid] as is to , so is to , therefore the ratio to is compounded of [the ratios] to and the latus rectum to the latus transversum.
And through those reasons it has been shown in the theorem 41[that is
Proposition I.41] the triangle differs from the triangle by the triangle
for the same reasons have also been shown in the case of the parallelograms, their doubles.
[Proposition] 44

If a straight line touching one of the opposite hyperbolas meets the diameter, and if from the point of contact some straight line is dropped as an ordinate to the diameter, and if a parallel to it is drawn through the vertex of the
other hyperbola meeting the straight line drawn through the point of contact
and the center, and if some point is taken at random on the section and [from
it] two straight lines are dropped to the diameter, one of which is parallel to the
tangent and the other parallel to the straight line dropped as an ordinate from
the point of contact, then the triangle resulting from them will be less than the
triangle cut off by the dropped straight line from the center of the section by
the triangle on the radius similar to the triangle cut off 89.
Let there be the opposite hyperbolas and and let their diameter be
and center , and from some point on the hyperbola let be drawn
tangent to the section, and as an ordinate, and let be joined and contin44

ued as , and through let be drawn parallel to , and let some point
be taken on the hyperbola , and from let be dropped as an ordinate,
and let be drawn parallel to .
I say that the sum of the triangles and is equal to the triangle
.
[Proof]. For through let be drawn tangent to the hyperbola , and
let be drawn as an ordinate. Since then and are opposite hyperbolas
whose diameter is , and the straight line through whose center is , and
and are tangents to the section, hence is parallel to . And is
parallel to , therefore NK is also parallel to , and to . Since then is
a hyperbola whose diameter is and whose center is , and is tangent to
the section, and drawn as an ordinate, and is parallel to , and has
been taken on the section as the point from which has been dropped as an
ordinate, and has been drawn parallel to , therefore the sum of the
triangles and is equal to the triangle for this has been shown in
the theorem 43 [that is Proposition I.43].
[Proposition] 45

If a straight line touching a hyperbola or an ellipse or the circumference of


a circle meets the second diameter, and if from the point of contact some
straight line is dropped to same diameter parallel to the other diameter, and if
through the point of contact and the center a straight line is drawn, and if some
point is taken as random on the section, and [from it] two straight lines are
drawn to the second diameter, one of which is parallel to the tangent and the
other parallel to the dropped straight line, then in the case of the hyperbola the
triangle resulting from them is greater than the triangle cut off by the dropped
straight line from the center by the triangle whose base is the tangent and vertex is the center of the section, and in the case of the ellipse and the circle [resulting from the second diameter and two straight lines drawn to the second
diameter] together with the triangle cut off will be equal to the triangle whose
base is the tangent and whose vertex is the center of the section 90 .
Let there be a hyperbola or an ellipse or the circumference of a circle
, whose diameter is , and second diameter , and center , and let
touch it at , and let be drawn parallel to , and let be joined and continued, and let some point be taken at random on the section, and from let
and be drawn parallel to and .

45

I say that in the case of the hyperbola the triangle is equal to the
sum of the triangles and , and in the case of the ellipse and the circle
the sum of the triangles and is equal to the triangle .
[Proof]. For let and be drawn parallel to . Since then is tangent, and has been dropped as an ordinate, hence [according to Proposition
I.39] the ratio to is compounded of [the ratios] to and the latus
rectum to the latus transversum, and [according to Proposition VI.4 of Euclid]
as is to , so is to , therefore the ratio to is compounded of
[the ratios] to and the latus rectum is to the latus transversum.
And the triangle is the figure on , and the triangle , that is the
triangle , is the figure on , that is on , therefore in the case of the hyperbola the triangle is equal to the sum of the triangle and the triangle
on similar to the triangle , and in the case of the ellipse and the circle
the sum of the triangles and is equal to the triangle on similar to
the triangle for this was also shown in the case of their doubles in the theorem 41 [that is Proposition I.41].
Since then the triangle differs either from the triangle or from
the triangle by the triangle on similar to the triangle , and it also differs by the triangle , therefore the triangle is equal to the triangle on
similar to the triangle . Since then the triangle is similar to the triangle , and the triangle [is similar] to the triangle , therefore they
have the same ratio. And the triangle is described on between the ordinate and the center, and the triangle on the ordinate , which is on ,
and by already shown [in Proposition I.41] the triangle differs from the triangle by the triangle on similar to the triangle , and so also by the
triangle .
[Proposition] 46

If a straight line touching a parabola meets the diameter, then the


straight line drawn through the point of contact parallel to the diameter in the
direction of the section bisects the straight lines drawn in the section parallel to
the tangent 91 .
Let there be a parabola whose diameter is , and let touch the
section, and through let be drawn parallel to , and let some point be
taken at random on the section and let be drawn parallel to .
I say that is equal to .
46

[Proof] . Let , , and be drawn as ordinates. Since then by the


already shown in the theorem 42 [that is Proposition I.42] the triangle is
equal to the parallelogram BM and [the triangle] is equal to the [parallelogram] , therefore the remainders the parallelogram is equal to the quadrangle92 .
Let the common the quinquangle93 be subtracted, therefore the
remainders the triangle is equal to [the triangle] , therefore [according
to Proposition VI.22 of Euclid] is equal to 94 .
[Proposition] 47

If a straight line touching a hyperbola or an ellipse or the circumference of


a circle meets the diameter, and if through the point of contact and the center
a straight line is drawn in the direction of the section, then it bisects the
straight lines drawn in the section parallel to the tangent 95 .
Let there be a hyperbola or an ellipse or the circumference of a circle
whose diameter is and center , and let be drawn tangent to the section,
and let joined and continued, and let a point be taken at random on the
section, and through let [the straight] line be drawn parallel to .
I say that is equal to .
[Proof]. For let , , and be dropped as ordinates. Therefore by
reasons already shown in the theorem 43 [that is Proposition I.43] the triangle
is equal to the quadrangle , and the triangle is equal to the
quadrangle . Therefore the remainders quadrangle is equal to the
quadrangle .
Let the common quinquangle be subtracted, therefore the remainder triangle is equal to triangle .
And is parallel to , therefore [according to Proposition VI.22 of
Euclid] is equal to 96 .
[Proposition] 48

If a straight line touching one of opposite hyperbolas meets the diameter,


and if through the point of contact and the center a straight line drawn cuts
the other hyperbola, then whatever line is drawn in the other hyperbola parallel to the tangent, will be bisected by the drawn straight line 97 .
Let there be opposite hyperbolas whose diameter is and center , and
let touch the hyperbola A and let be joined and continued, and let some
47

point be taken on the hyperbola , and through let be drawn parallel to


.
I say that is equal to .
[Proof]. For let be drawn through tangent to the section, therefore
[according to Proposition i.44] is parallel to . And so also to since
then is a hyperbola whose center is and tangent , and since has
been joined and a point has been taken on the section and through it has
been drawn parallel to , by a theorem already shown [in Proposition I.47] for
the hyperbola is equal to .
[Proposition] 49

If a straight line touching a parabola meets the diameter and if through


the point of contact a parallel to the diameter is drawn, and if from the vertex a
straight line is drawn parallel to an ordinate, and if it is contrived that as the
segment of the tangent between the straight line erected [as an ordinate] and
the point of contact is to the segment of the parallel between the point of contact and the straight line erected [as an ordinate], so is some straight line to
the double of the tangent, then whatever straight line is drawn [parallel to the
tangent] from the section to the straight line drawn through the point of contact parallel to the diameter, will equal in square to the rectangular plane under
the straight line found [that is the latus rectum] and the straight line cut off by
it [that is the line parallel to the tangent] from the point of contact 98.
Let there be a parabola whose diameter is , and its tangent, and
through let be drawn parallel to , and let be erected as an ordinate,
and let it be contrived that as is to , so some straight line is to double
, and let some point be taken on the section, and let be drawn
through parallel to .
I say that sq. is equal to pl., , that is that with as diameter, is
the latus rectum.
[Proof]. For let and be dropped as ordinates. And since
touches the section, and has been dropped as an ordinate, then [according to Proposition I.35] is equal to .
But is equal to . And therefore is equal to . And so also the
triangle is equal to the triangle .
Let the common figure be added, therefore [according to Proposition I.42] the quadrangle is equal to the parallelogram and is equal
to the triangle .
48

Let the common quadrangle be subtracted therefore the remainders triangle is equal to parallelogram . And the angle is equal to
the angle , therefore pl. is equal to double pl.. And since as is to
, so is to double , and as is to , so is to , therefore also as
is to double , so is to .
But as is to , so sq. is to pl., and as is to double , so
pl., is to double pl., therefore as sq. is to pl., so pl., is to
double pl., and corresponding [as sq. is to pl., , so pl. is to double pl.]. But pl. is equal to double pl., therefore also sq. is equal
to pl.,.
[Proposition] 50

If a straight line touching a hyperbola or an ellipse or the circumference of


a circle meets the diameter, and if a straight line is drawn through the point of
contact and the center, and if from the vertex a straight line erected parallel to
an ordinate meets the straight line drawn through the point of contact and the
center, and if it is contrived that as the segment of the tangent between the
point of contact and the straight line erected [as an ordinate from the vertex] is
to the segment of the straight line drawn through the point of contact and the
center between the point of contact and the straight line erected [as an ordinate from the vertex], so some straight line is to the double tangent, then any
straight line parallel to the tangent and drawn from the section to the straight
line drawn through the point of contact and the center will equal in square to a
rectangular plane applied to the found straight line having as breadth the
straight line cut off [of the diameter] by the ordinate from the point of contact,
and in the case of the hyperbola increased by a figure similar to the rectangular plane under the double straight line between the center and the point of
contact and the found straight line, but in the case of the ellipse and the circle
decreased by the same figure 99 .
Let there be a hyperbola or an ellipse or the circumference of a circle
whose diameter is and center , and let be a tangent, and let be
joined and continued both ways, and let be made equal to , and through
let be erected as an ordinate, and through let be drawn perpendicular to , and let it be that as is to , so is to double , and let be
joined and continued, and let some point be taken on the section, and
through it let be drawn parallel to , and parallel to , and let
[be drawn] parallel to .
I say that sq. is equal to pl..
49

[Proof]. For let be drawn through parallel to . And since is


equal to ,and as is to ,so is to , therefore also is equal to ..
And since as is to , so is to double , and double is equal to
, therefore also as is to , so is to , and [according to Proposition
VI.4 of Euclid] as is to , so is to , therefore as is to , so is
to .
And since it was shown [in Proposition I.43] that in the case of the hyperbola the triangle is equal to the sum of the triangles and , and
is equal to the sum of the triangles and , and in the case of the ellipse
and the circle the sum of the triangles and is equal to the triangle ,
and is equal to the triangle .
Therefore in the case of the hyperbola with the common triangle and
common quadrangle subtracted, and in the case of the ellipse and the
circle with the common triangle subtracted the triangle is equal to the
quadrangle . And is parallel to , and the angle is equal to the
angle . Therefore [according to Proposition I.49] pl. is equal to pl.,
the sum of and . And since as is to , so is to , and as is to
, so is to , therefore as is to , so is to . And componendo
as the sum of and is to , so the sum of and is to , and alternately as the sum of and is to the sum of and , so is to .
But as the sum of and is to the sum of and , so pl., the sum of
and is to pl., the sum of and , and as is to , so is to
, and so is to , or as is to , so sq. is to pl., therefore as pl.
,the sum of and , is to pl. ,the sum of and , so sq. is to
pl., and alternately as pl. , the sum of and is to sq., so pl. ,
the sum of and is to pl..
But pl. is equal to pl., the sum of and , therefore sq. is
equal to pl., the sum of and , and is equal to , and is equal to
. Therefore sq. is equal to .
[Proposition] 51

If a straight line touching either of the opposite hyperbolas meets the diameter, and if through the point of contact and the center some straight line is
drawn to the other hyperbola, and if from the vertex a straight line is erected
parallel to an ordinate and meets the straight line drawn through the point of
contact and the center, and if it is contrived that as the segment of the tangent
between the erected straight line and the point of contact is to the segment of
50

the straight line drawn through the point of contact between the point of contact and the erected straight line, so some straight line is to the double tangent, then whatever straight line in the other hyperbola is drawn to the straight
line through the point of contact and the center parallel to the tangent, will be
equal in square to the rectangular plane applied to the found straight line and
having as breadth the straight line cut off by it from the point of contact and
increased by a figure similar to the rectangular plane under the straight line between the opposite hyperbolas and the found straight line 100 .
Let there be opposite hyperbolas whose diameter is and center , and
let be drawn tangent to the hyperbola and be joined and continued, and
let be drawn as an ordinate, and let it be contrived that as is to , so
some straight line is to double ..
Now it is evident that the straight lines in the hyperbola parallel to
and drawn to continued are equal in square to the planes applied to and
having as breadths the straight line cut off by them from the point of contact,
and projecting by a figure similar to pl., for is equal to double .
I say then that in the hyperbola the same reason will come about.
[Proof]. For let be drawn through tangent to the hyperbola , and
let be erected as an ordinate. And since and are opposite hyperbolas, and and are tangents to them, therefore [according to Proposition
I.44] is equal and parallel to . But also is equal to , therefore also
is equal to . And since as is to , so is to double or double ,
therefore also as is to , so is to double .
Since then is a hyperbola whose diameter is and tangent , and
has been drawn as an ordinate, and as is to , so is to double ,
hence any lines drawn from the section to continued, parallel to , will be
equal in square to the rectangular plane under and the line cut off by them
from increased by a figure [according to Proposition I.50] similar to pl.,.
[Porism]
And with these reasons shown, it is at once evident that in the parabola
each of the straight lines drawn parallel to the original diameter is a diameter
[according to Proposition I.46] but in the hyperbolas and the ellipse and the opposite hyperbolas each of the straight lines drawn through the center is a diameter [according to Propositions I.47 and I.48], and that in the parabola the
straight line dropped to each of the diameters parallel to the tangents will be
equal in square to the rectangular planes applied to it [according to Proposition
I.49], but in the hyperbola and the opposite hyperbolas they will equal in square
51

to the planes applied to the diameter increased by the same figure [according
to Propositions I.50 and I.51], but in the ellipse the planes applied to the diameter and decreased by the same figure [according to Proposition I.50], and that
all which has been already proved about the sections as following when the
principal diameters are used, will also those same reasons follow when the other
diameters are taken.
[Proposition] 52 [Problem]

Given a straight line in a plane bounded at one point, to find in the plane
the section of a cone called parabola whose diameter is the given straight line
and whose vertex is the end of the straight line, and where whatever straight
line dropped from the section to the diameter at given angle will be equal in
square to the rectangular plane under the straight line cut off by it from the
vertex of the section and by some other given straight line 101.
Let there be the straight line given in position and bounded at , and
another [straight line] given in magnitude, and first let the given angle be
right, it is required then to find a parabola in the considered plane whose diameter is , whose vertex is , and whose latus rectum is and there the
straight lines dropped as ordinates will be dropped at a right angle, that is so
that [according to Definition 7] is the axis.
[Solution]. Let be continued [beyond ] to , and let be taken as
quarter of , and let is greater than , and let as is to , so is to .
Therefore as is to , so sq. is to sq., and is less than quadruple ,
therefore also sq. is less than quadruple sq., and is less than double .
And so double is greater than . Therefore it is possible for a triangle to be
constructed from and two . Then let the triangle be constructed on
at right angles to the considered plane, so that is equal to , and is
equal to , and let be drawn parallel to , and to ,and let a cone be
conceived whose vertex is and whose base is the circle about the diameter
at right angles to the plane through [the triangle] . Then the cone [according to Definition 3] will be right for is equal to .
And let the cone be cut [through B] by a plane parallel to the circle ,
and let it make as a section [according to Proposition I.4] the circle at
right angles clearly to the plane through [the triangle] , and let be the
common section of the circle and of the triangle , therefore it is the
diameter of the circle and let be the common section of the considered
plane and of the circle. Since then the circle is at right angles to the
52

triangle , and the considered plane also is at right angles to the triangle
, therefore , their common section, is at right angles to the triangle ,
that is to the triangle [according to Proposition XI.19 of Euclid], and therefore it is perpendicular to all straight lines touching it in the triangle, and so it is
perpendicular to both and .
Again since a cone whose base is the circle and whose vertex is
has been cut by a plane at right angles to the triangle and makes as a section the circle , and since it has also been cut by another plane cutting the
base of the cone in at right angles to which is the common section of
the circle and the triangle , and the common section of the considered
plane and of the triangle , [the straight line] , is parallel to the side of
the cone , therefore the resulting section of the cone in the considered
plane is a parabola, and its diameter is , and the straight lines dropped as ordinates from the section to will be dropped at right angles for they are parallel to which is perpendicular to . And since as is to , so is to ,
and is equal to ,and is equal to , and is equal to and is equal to
, therefore as is to , so is to . And therefore as is to , so
sq. is to sq. or pl.. Therefore is the latus rectum of the section for
this has been shown in the theorem11 [that is Proposition I.11]102.
[Proposition] 53 [Problem]
With the same supposition let the given angle not be right, and let the
angle be made equal to it, and let is equal to half of , and from let
be drawn parallel to , and from let be drawn perpendicular to ,
and let be bisected at , and from let be drawn perpendicular to
and continued to and , and let pl. is equal to sq.. And the given two
straight lines and , in position and bounded at , and in magnitude, and let a parabola be described with a right angle whose diameter is ,
and whose vertex is , and whose latus rectum is , as has been shown before [in Proposition I.52] , and it will pass through because [according to
Proposition I.11] sq. is equal to pl., and will touch the section [according to Proposition I.33] because is equal to . And is parallel to
, therefore is the diameter of the section, and the straight lines
dropped to it parallel to will be bisected by [according to Proposition
I.46],and they will be dropped at the angle . And since the angle is
equal to the angle , and the angle at is common, therefore the triangle
53

is similar to the triangle . Therefore as is to , so is to ,


therefore as double is to double , so is to .
But is equal to double , therefore as is to , so is to double ..
Than by already shown in the theorem 49 [Proposition I.49] is the latus rectum.
[Proposition] 54 [Problem]

Given two bounded straight lines perpendicular to each other, one of


them being drawn on the side of the right angle, to find on the continued
straight line the section of a cone called hyperbola in the same plane with the
straight lines, so that the continued straight line is a diameter of the section,
and the point at the angle is the vertex, and where whatever straight line is
dropped from the section to the diameter making an angle equal to a given angle will equal in square to the rectangular plane applied to the other straight line
having as breadth the straight line cut off by the dropped straight line beginning
of the vertex and increased by a figure similar and similarly situated to the plane
under the original straight lines 103 .
Let there be two bounded straight lines and perpendicular to each
other, and let be continued to . It is required then to find in the plane
through and a hyperbola whose diameter will be and vertex , and
the latus rectum , and where the straight lines dropped from the section to
at the given angle will equal in square to the rectangular planes applied to
and having as breadths the straight lines cut off by them from B and increased
by a figure similar and similarly situated to pl..
[Solution]. First let the given angle be right, and on let a plane be
erected at right angles to the considered plane, and let the circle be described in it about , so that the segment of the diameter of the circle within
the arc has to the segment of the diameter within the arc a ratio not
greater than that of to , and let [the arc] be bisected at , and let
be drawn perpendicular from to and let it be continued to , therefore
[according to Proposition III.1 of Euclid] is a diameter. If then as is to ,
so is to , we use , but if not, let it be contrived [according to Proposition VI.12 of Euclid] that as is to , so is to where is less than
, and through let be drawn parallel to , and let , , and be
joined, and through let be drawn parallel to . Since then the angle
is equal to the angle , but the angle is equal to the angle , and the
54

angle is equal to the angle , therefore also the angle is equal to the
angle , therefore also is equal to .
Let a cone be conceived whose vertex is and whose base is the circle
about diameter at right angles to the triangle . Then the cone will be
right for is equal to .
Then let , , be continued, and let the cone be cut by a plane parallel to the circle , then the section [according to Proposition I.4] will be a
circle. Let it be the circle , and so will be the diameter of the circle. And
let be the common section of the circle and of the considered plane,
then will be perpendicular to both and for both circles and
are perpendicular to the triangle , and the considered plane is perpendicular
to the triangle , and therefore their common section is perpendicular to
the triangle , therefore it makes right angles also with all straight lines
touching it and situated in the same plane.
And since a cone whose base is the circle and vertex has been cut
by a plane perpendicular to the triangle , and has also been cut by another
plane, the considered plane, in perpendicular to , and the common section of the considered plane and the triangle , that is continued in the
direction of , meets at , therefore, as it was already shown before [in
Proposition I.12] the section will be a hyperbola whose vertex is , and
where the straight lines dropped as ordinates to will be dropped at a right
angles for they are parallel to . And since as is to , so is to ,
and as is to , so is to , and pl. is to sq., therefore as is to
, so pl. is to sq.. And [according to Proposition III.35 of Euclid] pl.
is equal to pl., therefore as is to , so pl. is to sq..
But the ratio pl. to sq. is compounded of [the ratios] to and
to , but as is to , so is to , and is to , and as is to
, so is to , therefore the ratio to is compounded of [the ratio]
to and to , that is sq. to pl.. Therefore as is to , so
sq. is to pl..
And is parallel to , therefore is the latus transversum and
is the latus rectum for it has been shown in the theorem 12 [that is Proposition
I.12].
[Proposition] 55 [Problem]
Then let the given angle not be right, and let there be two given straight
lines and , and let the given angle be equal to the angle , then it is
55

required to describe a hyperbola whose diameter will be , and the latus rectum , and where the ordinates will be dropped at the angle .
Let be bisected at , and let the semicircle be described on ,
and let some straight line parallel to be drawn to the semicircle where as
sq. is to pl., so is to , and let be joined and continued to , and
let as is to , so is to , and let be made equal to , and let
pl. is equal to sq., and let be joined, and through let be drawn
perpendicular to and let it be continued towards . And with two given
bounded and perpendicular to each other, let a hyperbola be described
whose latus transversum is and latus rectum , and where the straight
lines dropped from the section to the diameter will be dropped at a right angles
and will be equal in square to the rectangular plane [according to Proposition
I.54] applied to and having as breadths the straight lines cut off by them
from and increased by a figure similar to pl., and the section will pass
through for [according to Proposition I.12] sq. is equal to pl..
And will touch it for [according to Proposition I.37] pl. is equal to
sq., and so [according to Proposition I.47 and Definition 4] is a diameter
of the section. And since as is to double or , so sq. is to pl., but
the ratio to double is compounded of [the ratios] to double and
double to double , or the ratio to double is compounded of [the
ratios] to double and to , and as is to , so is to ,
therefore the ratio to is compounded of [the ratios] to double
and to .
But also the ratio sq. to pl. is compounded of [the ratios] to
and to , therefore the ratio compounded of [the ratios] to double
and to is the same, as the ratio compounded of [the ratios] to
and to .
Let the common ratio to be taken away, therefore as is to double , so is to .
But as is to , so is to , therefore as is to double , so
is to .
But whenever this is so, is the latus rectum for the ordinates to the
diameter for this has been shown in the theorem 50 [that is Proposition I.50].
[Proposition] 56 [Problem]

Given two bounded straight lines perpendicular to each other, to find one
56

of them as diameter in the same plane with the [mentioned] two straight lines
the section of a cone called ellipse whose vertex will be the point at the
right angle, and where the straight lines dropped as ordinates from the section
to the diameter at a given angle will be equal in square to the rectangular
planes applied to the other straight line having as breadth the straight line cut
off by them from the vertex of the section and decreased by a figure similar
and similarly situated to the plane under the given straight lines 104 .
Let there be two given straight lines and perpendicular to each
other, of which the greater is , then it is required to describe in the considered plane an ellipse whose diameter will be and vertex and the latus rectum , and where the ordinates will be dropped from the section to
the diameter at a given angle and will be equal in square to the rectangular
plane applied to and having as breadths the straight lines cut off by them
from and decreased by a figure similar and similarly situated to pl..
[Solution]. First let the given angle be right, and let a plane be erected
from at right angles to the considered plane, and in it on let the arc of a
circle be described, and its midpoint be , and let and be joined, and
let be made equal to , and through let be drawn parallel to B, and
through let be drawn parallel to , and let be joined and let it meet
continued at , then we will have as is to , so is to , and is to
, and is to .
And let and be joined and continued, and let some point be taken
at random on , and through it let be drawn parallel to and let it meet
continued at , then let be continued and let it meet at .
Since then the arc is equal to the arc , [according to Proposition III.27 of
Euclid] the angle is equal to the angle .
And since the angle is equal to the sum of the angles and ,
but the angle is equal to the angle , and the angle is equal to the
angle , therefore also the angle is equal to the angle and is equal
to the angle .
And also is parallel to , therefore the angle is equal to the angle
, and the angle is equal to the angle .
And also the angle is equal to the angle , and is equal to .
Then let the circle be described about at right angles to the triangle , let a cone be conceived whose base is the circle , and whose
vertex is , then the cone will be right because is equal to .
And since the circle is at right angles to the plane , and the considered plane is also at right angles to the plane through and , therefore
57

their common section will be at right angles to the plane through and .
Then let their common section be , therefore is perpendicular to both
and .
And since a cone whose base is the circle and whose vertex is , has
been cut by a plane through the axis and makes as a section the triangle ,
and has been cut also by another plane through and , which is the considered plane, in which is perpendicular to , and the plane meets the
sides of the cone and , therefore the resulting section [according to
Proposition i.13] is an ellipse whose diameter and where the ordinates will be
dropped at a right angle for they are parallel to . And since as is to , so
pl. or pl. is to sq. ,and the ratio pl. to sq. is compounded of
[the ratios] E to and to , but as is to , so is to , and as
is to , so is to , and is to , therefore the ratio to is
compounded of [the ratios] to and to which is the same as the
ratio sq. to pl., therefore as is to , so is to pl.. Whenever
this is so, is the latus rectum of the eidos, as it has been shown in the theorem 13 [that is Proposition I.13].
[Proposition] 57 [Problem]
With the same supposition let be less than , and let it be required
to the scribe an ellipse about diameter so that is the latus rectum.
Let bisected at , and from let [the straight line] be drawn perpendicular to , and let sq. is equal to so that is equal to , and let
be drawn parallel to , and let it be contrived that as is to , so is
to , therefore also is greater than . And since pl. is equal to sq.,
hence as is to , so sq. is to sq., and sq. is to sq.. But as is
to , so is to , therefore as is to , so sq. is to sq.. But sq. is
equal to pl., therefore as is to , so pl. is to sq..
Then with two bounded straight lines situated at right angles to each
other and with greater, let an ellipse be described whose diameter is and
latus rectum [according to Proposition I.56], then the section will pass
through because [according to Proposition I.21] as pl. is to sq., so is
to . And is equal to , then it will also pass through . Then an ellipse has
been described about .
And since as is to , so sq. is to sq.,and sq. is equal to
pl., therefore as is to , so sq. is to pl.. And so [according to
Proposition I.21] is the latus rectum.
58

[Proposition] 58 [Problem]
But then let the given angle not be right, and let the angle be equal
to it, and let be bisected at , and let the semicircle be described on
, and in it let be drawn parallel to making as sq. is to pl., so
is to , and let and be joined and continued, and let at is to ,
so is to , and let is to , and let it be contrived that pl. is equal
to sq., and let be joined and from let be drawn perpendicular to
and so parallel to for the angle at is right. And with given bounded
and perpendicular to each other, let an ellipse be described whose the
transverse diameter is , and the latus rectum of whose eidos is , and
where the ordinate to [according to Propositions I.56 and I.57] will be
dropped at right angles, then the section will pass through because [according to Proposition I.13] sq. is equal to pl.. And since is equal to ,
and is equal to , the section will also pass through , and will be the
center, and will be the diameter. And will touch the section because
pl. is equal to sq.. And since as is to , so sq. is to pl., but
the ratio to is compounded of [the ratios] to double and double
to or to , and the ratio sq. to pl. is compounded of [the ratios] to and to , therefore the ratio compounded of [the ratios]
to double and to is the same, as the ratio compounded of [the ratios]
to and to .
But as is to , so is to , and common ratio being taken away,
we will have as is to double , so is to or as is to double , so
is to .
And whenever this is so [according to Proposition I.50] is the latus
rectum of the eidos.
[Proposition] 59 [Problem]

Given two bounded straight lines perpendicular to each other, to find


opposite hyperbolas whose diameter is one of the given straight lines and
whose vertices are the ends of this straight line, and where the straight lines
dropped in each of the hyperbolas at a given angle will equal in square to the
rectangular planes applied to the other of the straight lines and increased by a
figure similar to the rectangular plane under the given straight lines 105.
Let there be two given bounded straight lines and perpendicular to
each other, and let the given angle be , then it is required to describe opposite
59

hyperbolas about one of the straight lines and , so that the ordinates are
dropped at an angle .
[Solution]. For let and be given, and let a hyperbola be described
whose transverse diameter will be , and the latus rectum of whose eidos will
be , and where the ordinates to continued will be at an angle , and let it
be the line for we have already described how this must be done [in Proposition I.55]. Then let be drawn through perpendicular to and equal to
, and let another hyperbola be likewise described whose diameter is
and the latus rectum of whose eidos is , and where the ordinates from the
hyperbola will be dropped at a same angle . Then it is evident that and are
opposite hyperbolas, and there is one diameter for them, their latera recta are
equal.
[Proposition ] 60 [Problem]

Given two straight lines bisecting each other, to describe about each of
them opposite hyperbolas, so that the straight lines are their conjugate diameters, and the diameter of one pair of opposite hyperbolas is equal in square to
the eidos of the other pair, and likewise the diameter of the second pair of opposite hyperbolas is equal in square to the eidos of the first pair 106.
Let there be two given straight lines and bisecting each other, then
it is required to describe opposite hyperbolas about each of them as the diameters, so that and are conjugate in them, and is equal in square to the
eidos [of the hyperbola] about , and is equal in square to the eidos [of
the hyperbola] about .
[Solution]. Let pl. is equal to sq., and let be perpendicular to
. And given and are perpendicular to each other, let the opposite hyperbolas and be described whose transverse diameter will be , and
whose latus rectum will be , and where the ordinates from the hyperbolas to
will be dropped at the given angle [according to Proposition I.59], then
will be a second diameter of the opposite hyperbolas [according to Definition
11] for it is the mean proportional between sides of the eidos, and parallel to an
ordinate it has been bisected at . Then again let pl. be equal to sq., and
let be perpendicular to .
And given and situated perpendicular to each other, let the opposite hyperbolas and be described whose transverse diameter will be
, and the latus rectum of whose eidos will be . And where the ordinates from
the hyperbolas will be dropped to at the given angle [according to Proposi60

tion I.59], then will also be a second diameter of the hyperbolas and
, and so bisects the parallels to between the hyperbolas and
, and bisects the parallels to , and this is what was to make107.
And let such hyperbolas be called conjugate 108 .

BOOK TWO
Preface
Apollonius greets Eudemius1.
If you are well, well good, and I, too fare pretty well.
I have sent you my son Apollonius2 bringing you the second book of the
Conic as was arranged by us. Go through it then carefully and acquaint those
with it worthy of sharing in such things. And Philonides3, the geometer. I introduced to you Fphesus, if ever he happen about Pergamum, acquaint him with it
too.
[Proposition] 1

If a straight line touch a hyperbola at its vertex, and from it on both


sides of the diameter a straight line is cut off equal in square to the quarter of
the eidos, then the straight lines drawn from the center of the section to the
ends thus taken on the tangent will not meet the section 4.
There be let there be a hyperbola whose diameter , vertex , and the
latus rectum , and let touch the section at , and let the square on and
61

each be equal to the quarter of the [eidos] pl., and let and be
joined and continued.
I say that they will not meet the section,
[Proof]. For, if possible, let meet the section at , and from let
be dropped as an ordinate, therefore [according to Proposition I.17] it is parallel
to . Since then as is to , so sq. is to pl., but sq. is equal to
the quarter of sq., and sq.BD is equal to the quarter of pl.,
therefore as is to , so is to sq., and sq. is to sq..
And also [according to Proposition I.21] as is to , so pl. is to
sq., therefore as sq. is to sq., so pl. is to sq..
Therefore pl. is equal to sq., and this [according to Proposition
II.6 of Euclid] is impossible. Therefore will not meet the section. Then
likewise we could show that neither does , therefore and are asymptote
of the section.
[Proposition] 2
With the same suppositions it is to be shown that a strait line cutting the
angle under the strait line and is not another asymptote5.
[Proof]. For, if possible, let be it, and let be drawn through parallel to and let it meet as , and let be made equal to and let be
joined and continued to the points , , and [of intersection with the hyperbola, its diameter and the line , respectively].Since then and are
equal and parallel, and are also equal and parallel.
Since is bisected at and added to it, [according to Proposition II.6 of
Euclid] the sum of pl. and sq. is equal to sq..
Likewise then since is parallel , and is equal to , therefore also
is equal to .
And since is equal to , therefore is greater than . And also
is greater than , since also greater than , therefore pl. is
greater than pl., which is greater than sq..
Since then [according to Proposition II.1] as is to , so sq. is to
sq., but [according to Proposition I,21] as is to , so pl. is to sq.,
and as sq. is to sq., so sq. is to sq., therefore also as sq. is to
sq., so pl. is to sq..
Since then as whole sq. is to whole sq., so subtracted part pl. is
to subtracted part sq., therefore also as sq. is to sq., so remainder
sq. is to remainder pl., that is as sq. is to pl., so sq. is to sq..
62

Therefore sq. is equal to pl., and this is impossible for it has been shown
to be greater than it. Therefore is not an asymptote to the section.
[Preposition] 3

If a straight line touches a hyperbola it will meet both asymptotes and it


will be bisected at the point of contact, and the square on each of its segments
will be equal to the quarter of the eidos corresponding to the diameter drawn
through the point of contact 6.
Let there be the hyperbola , and its center , and asymptotes and
, and some straight line touch it at .
I say that continued will meet and .
[Proof]. For, if possible, let it not meet them, and let is joined and
continued, and let be made equal to , therefore is a diameter. Then let
sq. and sq. each be made equal to the quarter of the eidos corresponding
to , and let and be joined. Therefore [according to Proposition II.1]
they are asymptotes, and this is [according to Proposition II.2] is impossible for
and are supposed asymptotes. Therefore continued will meet the
asymptotes and .
I say then also that sq. and sq. will each be equal to the quarter of
the eidos corresponding to .
[Proof]. For let it not be, but if possible, let sq. and sq. each be
equal to the quarter of the eidos. Therefore [according to Proposition II.1]
and are asymptotes, and [according to Proposition II.2] this is impossible.
Therefore sq. and sq. will each equal to the quarter of the eidos corresponding to .
[Proposition] 4 [Problem]

Given two straight lines containing an angle and a point within the angle,
to describe through the point the section of a cone called hyperbola, so that
the given straight lines are its asymptotes7.
Let there be two straight lines and containing a chance angle at
, and some point be given, and let it be required to describe through a hyperbola with the asymptote and .
[Solution]. Let be joined and continued to , and let be made equal
to , and let be drawn through parallel to , and let be made equal
to , and let be joined and continued to , and let be contrived that pl.,
is equal to sq., and with continued let a hyperbola be described about it
63

through , so that the ordinate equal in square to the [rectangular] planes applied to and increased by a figure similar to pl., . Since then is parallel
to , and is equal to , therefore is equal to , and sq.GB is equal to
quadruple sq.. And sq. is equal to pl., ,therefore sq. and sq. are
each equal to the quarter of the eidos pl., . Therefore and are asymptote of the described hyperbola.
[Proposition] 5

If the diameter of a parabola or a hyperbola bisect some straight line


[within the section], the tangent to the section at the end of the diameter will
be parallel to the bisected straight line 8.
Let there be the parabola or the hyperbola whose diameter is
,and let touch the section, and let some straight line be drawn in
the section making equal to .
I say that is parallel to .
[Proof]. For, if not let be drawn through parallel to and let be
joined. Since then is a parabola or a hyperbola whose diameter is , and
tangent , and is parallel to it, therefore [according to Propositions I.46
and I.47] is equal to . But also is equal to .
Therefore is parallel to , and this is impossible for [according to
Proposition I.22] continued it .
[Proposition] 6

If the diameter of an ellipse or the circumference of a circle is bisects


some straight line not through the center, the tangent to the section at the end
of the diameter will be parallel to the bisected straight line 9
Let there be an ellipse or the circumference of a circle whose diameter is
, and let bisect , a straight line not through the center, at .
I say that the tangent to the section at is parallel to .
[Proof]. For let it not be, but, if possible, let be parallel to the tangent
at , therefore [according to Proposition I.47] is equal to .
But also is equal to , therefore is parallel to , and this is possible for if is the center of the section , and [according to Proposition
I.23 will meet [the straight line] , and if it is not, suppose it to be , and let
be joined and continued to , and let be joined. Since then is equal to

64

and also is equal to , therefore is parallel to . But also , and


this is impossible. Therefore the tangent at is parallel to .
[Proposition] 7

If a straight line touches a section of a cone or the circumference of a circle, and a parallel to it is drawn in the section and bisected, the straight line
joined the point of contact with the midpoint will be a diameter of the section
10.
There be a section of a cone the circumference of a circle , and
tangent to it, and parallel to and bisected at , and let be joined.
I say that is a diameter of the section.
[Proof] . For let it not be, but, if possible, let be a diameter of the
section. Therefore [according to Definition 4] is equal to , and this is not
impossible for is equal to .
Therefore will not be a diameter of the section. Then likewise we could
show that there is no other [diameter] than .
[Proposition] 8

If a straight line meets a hyperbola at two point, continued both ways it


will meet the asymptotes, the straight lines cut off on it by the section from
the asymptotes will be equal 11.
Let there be the hyperbola and the asymptotes and , and let
some straight line meet .
I say that continued both ways it will meet the asymptotes.
[Proof]. Let be bisected at and let be joined. Therefore [according to Proposition I.47] it is a diameter of the section, therefore the tangent at
[according to Proposition II.5] is parallel to . Then let be the tangent,
then it will [according to Proposition II,3] meet and . Since then is parallel to , and meets and , therefore also will meet and .
Let it meet them at and , and [according to Proposition II.3] is
equal to , therefore also is equal to . And so also is equal to .
[Proposition] 9

If a straight line meeting the asymptote is bisected is by the hyperbola, it


will touch the section one point only 12.
65

For let meeting the asymptotes , be bisected by the hyperbola


at .
I say that it touches the hyperbola at no other point.
[Proof]. For, if possible, let meet touch it at as . Therefore [according to
Proposition II.8] is equal to , and this is impossible for is supposed
equal to . Therefore it will not touch the section as another point.
[Proposition] 10

If some straight line cutting the hyperbola meet both asymptotes, the
rectangular plane under the straight lines cut off between the asymptotes and
the section is equal to the quarter of the eidos corresponding to the diameter
bisecting the straight lines drawn parallel to the drawn straight line 13.
Let there be the hyperbola and let , be its asymptotes, and let
some straight line be drawn cutting the section and the asymptotes, and let
be bisected at and let be joined, and let be made equal to , and
let be drawn from perpendicular to ,therefore [according to the
porism to Proposition I.51] is a diameter and is the latus rectum.
I say that pl. is equal to the quarter of pl., then likewise also
pl. is equal to the quarter of pl..
[Proof]. For let be drawn through tangent to the section, therefore
[according to Proposition II.5] it is parallel to . And since it has been shown
[in Proposition II.1] that as is to , so sq. is to sq., and sq. is to
sq., and [according to Proposition I.21] as is to , so pl. is to
sq., therefore as sq. is to sq., so pl. is to sq..
Since then as whole sq. is to whole sq., so subtracted part of pl.
is to subtracted part of sq., therefore also [according to Proposition II.5, II.6,
and V.19 of Euclid] as remainder sq. is to remainder pl., so sq. is to
sq. or as remainder sq. is to remainder pl., so sq. is to sq..
Therefore pl. is equal to sq..
Then likewise it could be shown also that pl. is equal to sq., therefore also pl. is equal to pl..
[Proposition] 11

If some straight line cut each of the straight lines containing the angle
that is adjacent to the angle which contains the hyperbola, then this straight
line will meet the section at one point only, and the rectangular plane under the
66

straight lines cut off [on this straight line] between the containing straight lines
and the section will be equal to the quarter of the eidos corresponding to the
diameter drawn parallel to the cutting straight line 14.
Let there be a hyperbola whose asymptotes are , , and let be
continued to , and through some point let be drawn cutting and
[continued as necessary].
Now it is evident that it meets the section at one point only for the
straight line drawn through parallel to as will cut the angle and
[according to Proposition II.2] will meet the section and [according to the
porism to Proposition I.51] be its diameter, therefore [according to Proposition
I.26] will meet the section as one point only. Let it meet it as .
I say then also that pl. is equal to sq. .
[Proof]. For let be drawn as an ordinate through , therefore the
tangent through [according to Proposition II.5] is parallel . Let it be .
Since then [according to Proposition II.3] is equal to , therefore the ratio
sq. or pl. to sq. is compounded of [the ratios] to and to .
But as is to , so is to , and as is to , so is to , therefore
the ratio sq. to sq. is compounded of [the ratios] to and to .
But also the ratio pl. to pl. is compounded of [the ratios] to
and sq.KH to HE, therefore as pl. is to pl., sq. is to sq..
Alternately as pl. is to sq., so pl. is to sq..
But it was shown [in Proposition II.10] that pl. is equal to sq.,
therefore also pl. is equal to sq..
[Proposition] 12

If two straight lines at chance angles are drawn to the asymptotes from
some point of those on the section, and parallels are drawn to two straight lines
from some point of those on the section, then the rectangular plane contained
by the parallels will be equal to that contained by those straight lines to which
15

they were drawn parallel .


Let there be a hyperbola whose asymptotes are and , and let some
point be taken on the section, and from it let and be dropped [at
chance angles] to and , and let some other point on the section be
taken, and through let and be drawn parallel to and .
I say that pl. is equal to pl..
[Proof]. For let be joined and continued to and . Since then
67

[according to Proposition II.8] pl. is equal to pl., therefore as is to


, so is to .
But as is to , so is to , and as is to , so is to ,
therefore as is to , so is to .
Therefore pl. is equal to pl..
[Proposition] 13

If in the place bounded by the asymptotes and the section some straight
line is drawn parallel to one of the asymptote, it will meet the section at one
point only16 .
Let there be a hyperbola whose asymptote are and , and let some
point be taken [in the place bounded by asymptotes and the section], and
through it let be drawn parallel to .
I say that it will meet the section.
[Proof]. For, if possible, let it not meet it, and let some point on the
section be taken, and through let and be drawn parallel to and ,
and let pl. is equal to pl., and let be joined and continued, then
[according to Proposition II.2] it will meet the section. Let it meet it as , and
through K parallel to and let and be drawn, therefore
[according to Proposition II.12] pl. is equal to pl..
And it is supposed that also pl. is equal to pl., therefore pl.
or pl. is equal to pl., and this is impossible for both is greater than
, and is greater than .
Therefore will meet the section. Let it meet it at .
I say then that it will not meet it at any other point.
[Proof]. For, if possible, let it also meet it at , and through and let
and be drawn parallel to . Therefore [according to Proposition II.12]
pl. is equal to pl., and this is impossible. Therefore it will not meet the
section at another point.
[Proposition] 14

The asymptote and the section, if continued indefinitely, draw nearer to


each other, and they reach a distance less than any given distance 17.
Let there be a hyperbola whose asymptotes are and , and a given
distance .
I say that and and the section, if continued, draw nearer to each other
and will reach a distance less than .
68

[Proof]. For let and be drawn parallel to the tangent, and let
be joined and continued to . Since then [according to Proposition II.10] pl.
is equal to pl., therefore as is to , so is to .
But [according to Proposition VI.4 of Euclid] is greater than , therefore also is greater than .
Then likewise we could show that the succeeding straight lines are less.
Then let the distance be taken less than , and through let be
drawn parallel to , therefore it [according to Proposition II.12 ] will meet the
section. Let it meet it at , and through let be drawn parallel to
therefore is equal to , and so is less than .
Porism
Then from this if is evident that and are nearer than all asymptotes
to the section, and the angle under , is clearly less than that under other
asymptote to the section 18.

[Proposition] 15

The asymptotes of opposite hyperbolas are common19.


Let there be opposite hyperbolas whose diameter is and center .
I say the asymptote of the hyperbolas and are common.
[Proof]. Let and be drawn tangent to the hyperbola through
and , they [according to Proposition I.44] are therefore parallel. Then let
each of [the straight lines] , , , and be cut off equal in square to the
quarter of the eidos applied to , therefore is equal to , is equal to ,
and is equal to .
Then let , , , and be joined. Then it is evident that is in a
straight line with , and with because of the parallel. Since then it is a
hyperbola whose diameter is and tangent , and and are each equal
in square to the quarter of the eidos applied to , therefore and are asymptotes. For the same reasons and are also asymptotes to hyperbola .
Therefore the asymptote of opposite hyperbola are common.
[Proposition] 16

If in opposite hyperbola some straight line is drawn cutting in the straight


lines containing the angle adjacent to the angles containing the sections, it will
69

meet each of the opposite hyperbola in one point only, and the straight lines
cut off on it by the hyperbola from the asymptotes will be equal 20 .
Let there be the opposite hyperbolas and whose center is and asymptotes and , and let some straight line be drawn trough, cutting
each of and .
I say that continued it will meet each of the hyperbolas in one point only.
[Proof]. For since and are asymptotes of the hyperbola , and some
straight line has been drawn across cutting both of straight lines containing
the adjacent angle , therefore [according Proposition II.11] continued will
meet the section. Then likewise also . Let it meet them at and . Let be
drawn through parallel to , therefore [according to Proposition II.11]
pl. is equal to sq., and pl. is equal to sq..
And so also pl. is equal to pl., and is equal to .

[Proposition] 17

The asymptotes of conjugate opposite hyperbolas are common 21.


Let there be conjugate opposite hyperbolas whose conjugate diameters
are and , and whose center is .
I say that their asymptotes are common.
[Proof]. For let , , , and be drawn through [the points]
, , , and touching the hyperbolas, therefore [according to Proposition I.44] is a parallelogram. Then let and be joined, therefore they are
diagonals of the parallelogram, and they are all bisected at . And since the figure on [according to Proposition I.60] is equal to sq., and is equal to
, therefore each of sq., sq., sq., and sq. is equal to the quarter of
the eidos corresponding to . Therefore and [according to Proposition II.1] are asymptotes of hyperbolas and . Then likewise we could show
that same straight lines are also asymptotes of the hyperbolas and . Therefore the asymptotes of conjugate opposite hyperbolas are common.
[Proposition] 18

If a straight line meeting one of the conjugate opposite hyperbolas when


continued both ways, falls outside the section, it will meet both of the adjacent
hyperbolas at one point only 22.
70

Let there be the conjugate opposite hyperbolas , , , and , and let


some straight line meet the hyperbola and continued both ways fall outside
the section.
I say that it will meet both hyperbolas and at one point only.
[Proof]. For let and be asymptotes of the hyperbolas. Therefore
[according to Proposition II.3] meets both and . Then it is evident that
it will {according to Proposition II.16] also meet the hyperbolas and at one
point only.
[Proposition] 19

If some straight line is drawn touching one of the conjugate opposite hyperbolas at random, it will meet the adjacent hyperbolas and will be bisected at
the point of contact 23.
Let there be the conjugate opposite hyperbolas , , , and , and let
some straight line touch it at .
I say that continued it will meet the hyperbolas and and will be bisected at .
It is evident now that it will [according to Proposition II.18] meet the hyperbolas and , let it meet them at and .
I say that is equal to .
[Proof]. For let the asymptotes of the hyperbolas and be drawn.
Therefore [according to Proposition II.16] is equal to , and [according to
Proposition II.3] is equal to , and is equal to .
[Proposition] 20

If a straight line touches one of conjugate opposite hyperbolas, and two


straight lines are drawn through their center, one through the point of contact,
and one parallel to the tangent until it meet one of the adjacent hyperbolas,
then the straight line touching the section at the point of meeting will be parallel to the straight line drawn through the point of contact and the center, and
those through the point of contact and the center will be conjugate diameters
of the opposite hyperbolas 24.
Let there be conjugate opposite hyperbolas whose conjugate diameters
are and , and center , and let be drawn touching the hyperbola ,
and continued let it meet at , and let be joined and continued to , and
through let be drawn parallel to , and through let be drawn touching the section.
71

I say that is parallel to , and and are conjugate diameters.


[Proof]. For let , , and be drawn as ordinates, and let and
be the latera recta. Since then [according to Proposition I.60] as is to
, so is to , but [according to Proposition I.37] as is to , so
pl. is to sq., and as is to , so sq. is to pl., therefore also as
pl. is to sq., so sq. is to pl..
But the ratio pl. to sq. is compounded of [the ratios] to and
to , and the ratio sq. to pl. is compounded of [the ratios] to
and to , therefore the ratio compounded of [the ratios] to
and to is the same ratio compounded of [the ratios] to and to
, and of these as is to , so HL is to , for each of , , and is
parallel to each of , , and , respectively.
Therefore as remainder is to , so is to .
Also the sides of equal angles at and L are proportional, therefore the
triangle is similar to the triangle , and will have equal angles corresponding to the subtend sides.
Therefore the angle is equal to the angle .
But also the angle is equal to the angle , and therefore the angle
is equal to the angle . Therefore is parallel to .
Then let it be contrived that as is to , so is to , therefore is
the half of the latus rectum of the ordinates to the diameter in hyperbolas
and [according to Proposition I.51]. Since is the second diameter of the
hyperbolas and , and meets it, therefore pl., is equal to sq. for if
we draw from a parallel to , the rectangular plane under and the
straight line cut off by the parallel will [according to Proposition I.38] be equal
to sq..
And therefore [according to Proposition VI.20 of Euclid] as is to ,
so sq. is to sq..
But as is to , so is to or [according to Proposition VI.1 of
Euclid] as is to , so the triangle is to the triangle , and [according
to Proposition VI.19 of Euclid] as sq. is to sq., so the triangle is to the
triangle or [according to Proposition II.1] as sq. is to sq., so the
triangle is to the triangle . Therefore as the triangle is to the triangle , so the triangle is to the triangle .
Therefore the triangle is equal to the triangle . But they also
have the angle is equal to the angle for is parallel to , and to
. Therefore the sides of the equal angles [according to Proposition VI.15 of
Euclid] are reciprocally proportional. Therefore as is to , so is to ,
72

therefore pl. is equal to pl.. And since as is to , so is to , and


as is to , so is to for they are parallel, therefore also as is to ,
so E is to .
But with taken as common height, as is to , so pl., is to
pl., and as is to , so sq. is to pl.. And therefore as pl., is to
pl., so sq. is to pl..
Alternately as pl., is to sq., so pl. is to pl..
But pl. is equal to pl., therefore also pl., is equal to sq..
And pl., is the quarter of the eidos corresponding to for is
equal to the half of , and is the latus rectum, sq. is equal to the quarter
of sq. for is equal to .
Therefore sq. is equal to the eidos corresponding to . Then likewise
we could show also that is equal in square to the eidos corresponding to .
Therefore and are conjugate diameters of the opposite hyperbolas
, , , and .

[Proposition] 21

Under the same supposition it is to be shown that the point of meeting of


the tangents is on one of the asymptotes 25.
Let there be conjugate opposite hyperbolas, whose diameters are and
, and let and be drawn tangent.
I say that is on the asymptote.
[Proof]. For since sq. is equal to the quarter of the eidos corresponding
to [according to Proposition I.60], and [according to Proposition II.17] sq.
is equal to ,therefore also sq. is equal to the quarter of the eidos corresponding to . Let be joined, therefore [according to Proposition II.1] is
an asymptote, therefore [the point] is on the asymptote.
[Proposition] 22
If in conjugate opposite hyperbolas a radius is drawn to any of the hyperbolas, and a parallel is drawn to it meeting one of adjacent hyperbolas and
meeting the asymptotes, then the rectangular plane under the segments
continued between the section and the asymptotes on the straight line drawn is
equal to the square on the radius26.
73

Let there be conjugate opposite hyperbolas , , , and , and let there


be the asymptotes of these hyperbola and , and from the center let
some straight line be drawn across, and let be drawn parallel to it cutting both adjacent hyperbolas and the asymptotes.
I say that pl. is equal to sq..
[Proof]. Let be bisected at , and let be joined and continued
therefore is the diameter of the hyperbolas and [according to the porism
to Proposition I.51]. And since the tangent at [according to Proposition II.5]
is parallel to , therefore [according to Proposition I.17]
has been dropped as an ordinate to . And center is , therefore and
are conjugate diameter [according to Definition 6] .Therefore sq. [according
to Proposition I.60] is equal to the quarter of the eidos corresponding to .
And pl. [according to Proposition II.10] is equal to the quarter of the eidos
corresponding to , therefore also pl. is equal to sq..
[Proposition] 23

If in conjugate opposite hyperbolas some radius is drawn to any of the


hyperbola, and a parallel is drawn to it meeting three adjacent hyperbolas,
then the rectangular plane under the segments continued between the three
hyperbolas on the straight line drawn is twice the square on the radius27.
Let there be the conjugate opposite hyperbolas , , , and , and let the
center of the section be , and from let some straight line be drawn to
meet any one of the hyperbolas, and let be drawn parallel to cutting
three adjacent hyperbolas.
I say that pl. is equal to double sq..
[Proof]. Let the asymptotes to the hyperbolas, and , be drawn,
therefore [according to Proposition II.22] sq. is equal to pl. and [according to Proposition II.11] is equal to pl.. And the sum of pl. and pl. is
equal to pl. because of the straight lines on the ends[according to Propositions II.8 and II.16] being equal. Therefore also pl. is equal to double sq..
[Proposition] 24

If two straight lines meet a parabola each at two points, and if a point of
meeting of neither one of them is contained by the points of meeting of the
other, then the straight lines will meet each other outside the section 28.

74

Let there be the parabola , and let and meet , and let a
point of meeting of neither of them be contained by the points of meeting of
the other.
I say that the straight lines continued will meet each other.
[Proof]. Let the diameters of the section, and , be drawn through
and ,therefore [according to the porism to Proposition I.51] they are parallel
and each one cut the section [according to Proposition I.26] at one point only.
Then let be joined, therefore the sum of the angle and is equal to
two right angles, and and continued make the angles less than two right
angles. Therefore [according to Proposition I,10, and Euclids Postulate 5] they
will meet each other outside the section.
[Proposition] 25

If two straight lines meet a hyperbola each at two points, and if a point
of meeting of neither of them is contained by the points of meeting of the
other, then the straight lines will meet each other outside the section, but
within the angle containing the section 29.
Let there be a hyperbola whose asymptotes are and , and let
and cut the section, and let a point of meeting of neither of them be
contained by the points of meeting of the other.
I say that and continued will meet outside the section, but within
the angle .
[Proof]. For let and be joined and continued and let be joined.
And since and continued cut the angles and , and mentioned
angles [according to Proposition I.17 of Euclid] are less than two right angles,
and and continued will meet each other outside the section but within
the angle .
Then we could likewise show it, even if and are tangents to the
sections.
[Proposition] 26

If in an ellipse and in the circumference of a circle two straight lines not


through the center cut each other, then they do not bisect each other 30.
[Proof]. For, if possible, in the ellipse for in the circumference of a circle
let and not through the center bisect each other at and let be the
center of the section, and let be joined and continued to and .
75

Since then is a diameter bisecting , therefore [according to Proposition II.6] the tangent at is parallel to . We could then likewise show that it
also parallel to . And so also is parallel to . And this is impossible. Therefore and do not bisected each other.
[Proposition] 27

If two straight lines touch an ellipse or circumference of a circle, and if


the straight line joining the points of contact is through the center of the section, the tangents will be parallel, but if not, they will meet on the same side of
the center 31.
Let there be the ellipse or the circumference of a circle , and let
and touch it, and let be joined, and first let it be through the center.
I say that is parallel to .
[Proof]. For since is a diameter of the section, and touches it at
, therefore [according to Proposition I.17] is parallel to the ordinates to .
Then or the same reasons is also parallel to same ordinate. Therefore
is also parallel to .Then let not be through the center as in the second
diagram, and let the diameter be drawn, and let be drawn tangent
through , therefore is parallel to . Therefore continued will meet
on the same side of the center as .
[Proposition] 28

If in a section of a cone or in the circumference of a circle some straight


line bisects two parallel straight lines, then it will a diameter of the section 32.
Let and , two parallel straight lines in a conic section, bisected at
and , and let be joined and continued.
I say that it is a diameter of the section.
[Proof]. For if not, let be so if possible. Therefore the tangent at
[according to Proposition II.5 and II,6] is parallel to . And so the same
straight line is parallel to . And is a diameter, therefore [according to
Definition 4] is equal to , and this is impossible for it is supposed that
is equal to . Therefore is not a diameter. Then likewise we could show that
there is no other except . Therefore will be a diameter of the section.
[Proposition] 29

76

If in a section of a cone or in the circumference of a circle two tangents


meet, the straight line, drawn from their t point of meeting to the midpoint of
the straight line joining the points of contact is a diameter of the section 33 .
Let there be a section of a cone or the circumference of a circle to which
let and , meeting at , be drawn tangent, and let be joined and bisected at , and let be joined.
I say that it is a diameter of the section.
[Proof]. For, if possible, let be a diameter, and let be joined, then it
will cut the section [according to Propositions I.5 and I.36]. Let it cut it at ,
and through let ZKH be drawn parallel to . Since then is equal to ,
also is equal to .
And since the tangent at is parallel to [according to Propositions
II.5 and II.6], and is also parallel to , therefore also is parallel to the
tangent at . Therefore [according to Propositions I.46 and I.47] is equal to
, and this is impossible. Therefore is not a diameter. Then likewise we
could show that there is no other except .
[Proposition] 30

If two straight lines tangent to a section of a cone or to the circumference of a circle meet, the diameter drawn from the point of meeting will bisect
the straight line joining the points of contact 34.
Let there be the section of a cone or the circumference of a circle , and
let two tangents and be drawn to their meeting at , and let be
joined, and let be drawn through as a diameter of the section.
I say that is equal to .
[Proof]. For let it not be, but, if possible, let be equal to , and let
be joined, therefore [according to Proposition II.29] is a diameter of the
section. But it also the diameter, and this is impossible.
For if the section is an ellipse, at which the diameters meet each other,
will be a center outside the section, and this is impossible, and if the section is a
parabola the diameters [according to the porism to Proposition I.51] meet each
other, and if is a hyperbola, and and meet the section without containing
one another points of meeting, then the center is within the angle containing
the hyperbola [according to Proposition II.25], but it is also on it for it has been
supposed a center since and are diameter [according to the porism to
Proposition I.51] and this is impossible. Therefore is not equal to .
[Proposition] 31
77

If two straight line touch each of the opposite hyperbolas, then if the
straight line joining the points of contact falls through the center, the tangents
will be parallel, but if not, they will meet on the same side as the center 35 .
Let there be the opposite hyperbolas and , and let and be
tangent to them at and , and let the straight line joined from to fall first
through the center of the hyperbola.
I say that is parallel to .
[Proof]. For since they are opposite hyperbolas for which is a diameter, and touches one of them at , therefore the straight line drawn through
parallel to [according to Proposition I.44] touches the section. But also
touches it, therefore is parallel .
Then let the straight line from to not be through the center of the
hyperbolas, and let be drawn as a diameter of the hyperbolas, and let be
tangent to the section, therefore is parallel to , and since and
touch a hyperbola, therefore they [according to Proposition II.25] will meet.
And is parallel to , therefore also and continued will meet. And it is
evident that they are on the same side as the center.
[Proposition] 32

If straight lines meet each of the opposite hyperbolas, at one point when
touching or at two points when cutting, and, when continued, the straight lines
meet, then their point of meeting will be in the angle adjacent to the angle containing the hyperbola36.
Let there be opposite hyperbolas and and either touching the opposite hyperbolas at one point or cutting them at two points, and let them
meet when continued.
I say that their point of meeting will be in the angle adjacent to the angle
containing the section.
[Proof]. Let and be asymptotes to the hyperbolas, therefore
continued [according to Proposition II.8] will meet the asymptotes. Let it meet
them at and . And since and are supposed as meeting, it is evident
that either they will meet in the place under the angle or in that under the
angle . Likewise also if they touch [according to Proposition II.3].
[Proposition] 33

78

Let them be the opposite hyperbolas and , and let some straight line
cut , and, when continued both ways, let it fall outside the section 37.
I say that does not meet the hyperbola .
[Proof]. For let and be drawn as asymptote to the hyperbolas,
therefore continued will meet [according to Proposition ii.8] the asymptotes.
And it only meets them at and . And so it will not meet the hyperbola .
And it is evident that it will fall through three places. For if some straight
line meets both of opposite hyperbolas it will meet neither of opposite hyperbolas at two points. For it meets it at two points, by what has just been proved it
will not meet the other hyperbola.
[Proposition] 34

If some straight line touch one of opposite hyperbolas and a parallel to it


be drawn in the other hyperbola, then the straight line drawn from the point of
contact to the midpoint of the parallel will be a diameter of the opposite hyperbolas38.
Let there be the opposite hyperbolas and ,and let some straight line
touch one of them at , and let be drawn parallel to in the other hyperbola, and let it be bisected at , and let be joined.
I say that is a diameter of the opposite hyperbolas.
[Proof]. For, if possible, let be [a diameter] therefore the tangent
at is parallel to [according to Proposition II.31]. But is also parallel to
, and therefore the tangent at is parallel to . Therefore [according to
Proposition I.47] is equal to , and this is impossible for is equal to .
Therefore is not a diameter of the opposite hyperbolas. Therefore is [a
diameter].
[Proposition] 35

If a diameter in one of opposite hyperbola bisects some straight line, the


straight line touching the other hyperbola at the end of the diameter will be
parallel to the bisected straight line 39 .
Let there be the opposite hyperbolas and , and let their diameter
bisect in hyperbola at .
I say that the tangent the hyperbola [] at is parallel to .
[Proof]. For, if possible, let be parallel to the tangent to the hyperbola
at , therefore [according to Proposition I.48] is equal to .
79

But also is equal to . Therefore is parallel to , and this is impossible for continued it [according to Proposition I.22] meets it. Therefore
is not parallel to the tangent to the hyperbola at , nor is any other straight line
except .
[Proposition] 36

If parallel straight lines are drawn, one in each of opposite hyperbolas,


then the straight line joining their midpoints will be a diameter of the opposite
hyperbolas 40.
Let there be the opposite hyperbolas and , and let and be
drawn, one in each of them, and let them be parallel, and let them both be bisected at and , and let be joined.
I say that is a diameter of the opposite hyperbolas.
[Proof]. For if not, let be one [diameter]. Therefore the tangent to
[according to Proposition II.5] is parallel to , and so also to . Therefore [according to Proposition I.48] is equal to , and this is impossible since also
is equal to . Therefore is not a diameter of the opposite hyperbolas.
Therefore is [the diameter].
[Proposition] 37

If a straight line not through the center cuts the opposite hyperbolas,
then the straight line joined from its midpoint to the center is a so-called upright diameter of the opposite hyperbolas, and the straight line drawn from the
center parallel to the bisected straight line is a transverse diameter conjugate to
it 41.
Let there be the opposite hyperbolas and let some straight line
not through the center cut the hyperbola and and let it be bisected at ,
and let be the center of the hyperbolas, and let is joined, and through
let be drawn parallel to .
I say that and are conjugate diameters of the hyperbolas.
[Proof]. For let be joined and continued to , and let be joined.
Therefore [according to Proposition I.30] is equal to . But also is equal
to . Therefore is parallel . Let be continued to . And since is
equal to , therefore also is equal to , and so also is equal to .
Therefore the tangent at [according to Proposition II.5] is parallel to , and
80

so also to . Therefore and [according to Proposition I.16] are conjugate diameter.


[Proposition] 38

If two straight lines meeting touch opposite hyperbolas, the straight line
joined from the point of meeting to the midpoint of the straight line joining the
points of contact will be a so-called upright diameter of the opposite hyperbolas
and the straight line drawn through center parallel to the straight line joining of
contact is a transverse diameter conjugate to it 42
Let there be the opposite hyperbolas and , and and touching
the hyperbolas, and let be joined and bisected at , and let be joined.
I say that the diameter is a so-called upright diameter, and the
straight line drawn through the center parallel to is a transverse diameter
conjugate to it.
[Proof]. For, if possible, let be a diameter, and let be a point taken at
random, therefore will meet . Let it meet it at , and let be joined,
therefore [according to Proposition I.32] will hit the hyperbola. Let it hit it
as , and through let be drawn parallel to . Since then is a diameter,
and bisects , it also bisects [according to Definition 4] the parallels to it.
Therefore is equal to . And since is equal to , and is on the triangle
, therefore also is equal to . And so also equal to , and this is
impossible. Therefore will be a diameter.
[Proposition] 39

If two straight line meeting touch opposite hyperbolas, the straight line
drawn through the center and the point of meeting of the tangents bisects
straight line joining the points of contact 43.
Let there be the opposite hyperbolas and , and let and be drawn
touching and , and let be joined, and let be drawn as a diameter.
I say that is equal to .
[Proof]. For if not, let be bisected as , and let be joined, therefore
[according to Proposition II.38] is [a diameter]. But is also
[a diameter], therefore [according the porism to Proposition I.31] is the center. Therefore the point of meeting of the tangents is at the center of the hyperbolas, and this [according to Proposition II.32] is impossible.
Therefore, is not unequal to . Therefore [they are] equal.
81

[Proposition] 40

If two straight lines touching opposite hyperbolas meet, and trough the
point of meeting a straight line drawn parallel to straight line joining the points
of contact, and meeting the hyperbolas, then the straight lines drawn from the
points of meeting to the midpoint of the straight line joining the point of contact touch the hyperbolas 44.
Let there be the opposite hyperbolas and , and let and be drawn
touching and , and let be joined, and through E let be drawn parallel
to , and let be bisected at , and let and be joined.
I say that and touch the hyperbolas.
[Proof]. Let be joined, therefore is an upright diameter, and the
straight line drawn through the center parallel to [according to Proposition
II.38] is a transverse diameter conjugate to it. And let the center be taken,
and let be drawn parallel to , Therefore and are conjugate diameter. And has been drawn as an ordinate to the second diameter, and has
been drawn touching the section and meeting the second diameter. Therefore
pl. is equal to the square on the half of the second diameter [according to
Proposition I.38], which is to the quarter of the eidos corresponding to . And
since has been drawn as an ordinate and joined, therefore [according to
Proposition I.38] touches the hyperbola . Likewise then also touches
the hyperbola . Therefore and touch the hyperbolas and .
[Proposition] 41

If in opposite hyperbolas two straight lines not through the center cut
each to other, then they do not bisect each other45.
Let there be the opposite hyperbolas and , and in and let and
not through the center cut each other at .
I say that they do not bisect each other.
[Proof]. For if possible, let them bisect each other, and let be the center of the hyperbolas, and let is be joined, therefore [according to Proposition II.37] is a diameter. Let be drawn through parallel to , therefore
is a diameter conjugate to and [according to Proposition II.37]to .
Therefore the tangent at is parallel to [according to Definition 6].Then for
the same reasons with drawn parallel to , the tangent at is parallel to
, and so also the tangent at is parallel to the tangent at , and this is im-

82

possible for it has been shown [in Proposition II.31] that is it also meets it.
Therefore and not through the center do not bisect each other.
[Proposition] 42

If in conjugate opposite hyperbolas two straight lines not through the


center cut each to other, then they do not bisect each other46 .
Let there be the conjugate opposite hyperbolas , , , and , and in
, , , and let two straight lines not through the center, and , cut each
other at .
I say that they do not bisect each other.
[Proof]. For, if possible, let them bisect each other, and let the center of
the hyperbola be , and let be drawn parallel to and [parallel] to ,
and let be joined, therefore [according to Proposition II.37] and are
conjugate diameters. Likewise and are also conjugate diameter. And so
also the tangent at is parallel to the tangent at , and this is impossible for it
meets it, since the tangent at [according to Proposition II.19] cuts the hyperbolas and , and the tangent at [cuts] the hyperbolas and , it is evident
also that their point of meeting [according to Proposition II.21] is in the place
under the angle . Therefore and not through the center do not bisect
each other.
[Proposition] 43

If a straight line cuts one of conjugate opposite hyperbolas at two points,


and through the center one straight line is drawn to the meet point of the cutting straight line, and another straight line is drawn parallel to the cutting
straight line, they will be conjugate diameter of the opposite hyperbolas47.
Let there be the conjugate opposite hyperbolas , , , and , and let
some straight line cut the hyperbola at two points and , and let be bisected at , and let be the center, and let be joined, and let be drawn
parallel to .
I say that and are conjugate diameters.
[Proof]. For since is a diameter, and bisects , the tangent at
[according to Proposition II.5] is parallel to , and so also to . Since then
they are opposite hyperbolas, and a tangent has been drawn to one of them,
at , and from the center one straight line is joined to the point of contact, and another has been drawn parallel to the tangent, therefore and
are conjugate diameter for this has been shown before [in Proposition II.20].
83

[Proposition] 44 [Problem]

Given a section of a cone, to find a diameter 48.


Let there be the given conic section on which are the point , , , ,
and . Then it is required to find a diameter.
[Solution]. Let it have been done, and let it be than with and
drawn as ordinates and continued is equal to , and is equal to .
If then we fix and in position to be parallel, the points and will
be given. And so will be given in position.
Then the synthesis49 to this problem is as follows. Let there be the given
conic section on which are the points , , , , and , and let and be
drawn parallel and bisected at and . And joined will be [according to
Proposition II.28] a diameter of the section. And in the same way we could also
find an indefinite number of diameter.
[Proposition] 45 [Problem]

Given an ellipse or a hyperbola, to find the center50.


And this is evident: for if two diameters of the section and , are
drawn [according to Proposition II.44] through point at which they cut each
other will be the center of the section, as indicated.
[Proposition] 46 [Problem]

Given a section of a cone, to find the axis 51.


Let the given section if a cone first be a parabola, on which are the
point , , and . Then it is required to find its axis.
[Solution]. For let be drawn as a diameter of it [according to Proposition II.44]. If then is an axis, what was enjoined would have been done, but it
not, let it have been done, and let be the axis: therefore the axis is parallel to [according to the porism to Proposition I.51] and bisects the straight
lines drawn perpendicular to it[according to Definition 7] And the perpendiculars
to are also perpendiculars to , and so bisects the perpendicular to .
If then we fix , a perpendicular to , it will be given in position, and therefore
is equal to , therefore is given.
Therefore through the given point , has been drawn parallel to ,
which is given in position, therefore is given in position.
84

Then the synthesis of this problem is as follows. Let there be parabola on


which are points , , and A, and let , a diameter of it, be drawn [according to
Proposition II.44] and let be drawn perpendicular to it, and let it be continued to . If then is equal to , it is evident that is the axis [according to
Definition 7], but if not, let be bisected at and let be drawn parallel to
. Then it is evident that is the axis of the section for it is parallel to the
diameter it is also a diameter it bisects at right angles. Therefore has
been found as the axis of the given parabola.
And it is evident that the parabola has one only axis for if there is another
as , it will be parallel to [ according the porism to Proposition I.51]. And
its cuts and so it also bisects it [according to Definition 4].
Therefore is equal to , and this is impossible.
[Proposition] 47 [Problem]

Given a hyperbola or an ellipse, to find the axis 52 .


Let there be the hyperbola or the ellipse , then it is required to find
its axis.
[Solution]. Let it have been found, and let it be , and the center of
the section, therefore bisects the ordinates to it and at right angles [according to Definition 7].
[Solution]. Let the perpendicular be drawn, and let and be
joined. Since then is equal to , therefore is equal to .
If then we fix the given point , will be given. And so the circle described, will be given. And so the circle with the center and the radius
will also pass through and will be given in position. And the section is
also given in position, therefore is given. But is also given, therefore is
given in position. Also is equal to , therefore is given. But also is given,
therefore is given in position.
Then the synthesis of thus: problem is as follows. Let there be given the
hyperbola or the ellipse , and let be taken as its center, and let a point be
taken as random on the section, and let the circle with the center and the
radius be described, and let be joined and bisected at , and let , KD,
and be joined, and let be drawn through .
Since then is equal , and is common, therefore and are
equal to and , and the base is equal to the base . Therefore bisects at right angles. Therefore is an axis [according to Definition 7],
85

Let be drawn through parallel to , therefore air the axis of


the hyperbola conjugate to [according to Definition 8].
[Proposition] 48 [Problem]

Then with these reasons shown, let it be next in order to show that there
are no other axes of the same section53.
[Solution]. For, if possible, let there also be another axis . Then in the
same way as before with drawn perpendicular [according to Definition 4]
is equal to and so also is equal to . But also is equal to , therefore is equal to , and this is impossible.
Now that the circle does not hit the section also at another point between , , and , is evident in the case of the hyperbola, and in the case of
the ellipse the perpendiculars and be drawn. Since then is equal to
for they are radii, also sq. is equal to sq.. But the sum of sq. and sq.
is equal to sq., therefore the sum sq. and sq. is equal to the sum sq.
and sq..
Therefore the difference between sq. and sq. is equal to the difference between sq. and sq..
Again since the sum pl. and sq. is equal to sq., and also
[according to Proposition II.5 of Euclid] the sum pl. and sq. is equal to
sq., therefore the sum pl. and sq. is equal to the sum pl. and
sq.. Therefore the difference between sq. and sq. is equal to the difference between pl. and pl..
And it was shown that the difference between sq. and sq. is equal to
the difference between sq. and sq., therefore the difference between sq.
and sq. is equal to the difference between pl. and pl.. And since
and are ordinates [according to Proposition I.21] as sq. is to pl., so
sq. is to pl..
But the same difference was also shown for both, therefore sq. is equal
to pl., and [according to Propositions V.9, V.16, and V.17 of Euclid]
sq. is equal to pl.
Therefore the line is a circle and this is impossible for it is supposed
an ellipse.
[Proposition] 49 [Problem]
Given a section of a cone and a point both with in the section, to draw
from this point a straight line touching the section 54 .
86

Let the given section of a cone first a parabola whose axis is . Then it is
required to draw a straight line as prescribed from the given point that is not
within the section.
Then the given point is either on the line or on the axis or somewhere else
outside.
Now let it be on the line, and let it be , and let it have been done, and
let it be , let be drawn perpendicular, then it will be given in position.
And [according to Proposition I.35] is equal to , and is given, therefore is also given. And is given, therefore is also given. But also [is
given], therefore is given in position.
Then the synthesis of this problem is as follows. Let be drawn perpendicular from , and let be made equal to , and let be joined.
Then it is evident that it [according to Proposition I.33] touches the section.
Again let the given point be on the axis, and let it have been done, and
let be drawn tangent, and let be drawn perpendicular, therefore [according to Proposition I.35] is equal to . And is given, therefore also is
given. And is given, therefore is also given. And is perpendicular, therefore is given in position. Therefore is given. But also [is given], therefore
is given in position.
Then the synthesis of this problem is as follows. Let be made equal to
, and from let be drawn perpendicular to , and let be joined.
Then it is evident that touches [according to Proposition I.33].
And it is evident also that, even if the given point is the same as , the
straight line drawn from perpendicular touches the section [according to
Proposition I.17].
Then let be let the given point, ad let it have been done, and let be
it, and through let be drawn parallel to the axis, that is to , therefore
is given in position. And from let be drawn as an ordinate to , then [according to Proposition I.35] is equal to . And is given, therefore is also
given. And has been erected as an ordinate, which is parallel to the tangent
as [according to Proposition I.32], therefore is given in position. Therefore is also given, but also [is given]. Therefore is given in position.
Then the synthesis of this problem is as follows. Let be drawn through
parallel to , and let be made equal to , and let be drawn parallel to
the tangent at , and let be joined. It is evident then that this will do the
problem [according to Proposition I.33].
Again let it be a hyperbola whose axis is and center , and asymptotes an . Then the given point will be given either on the section or on
87

the axis or within the angle or in the adjacent place or on one of the asymptotes containing the section or in the place between the straight lines containing the angle vertical to the angle .
Let first be on the section, and let it have been done, and let be
tangent, and let be drawn perpendicular, and let be the latus transversum
of the eidos, then [according to Propositions I.36] as is to , so is to
. And the ratio to is given for both these straight lines are given,
therefore also the ratio to is given. And is given, therefore is given.
But also [is given], therefore is given in position.
Then the synthesis of this problem is as follows. Let be drawn perpendicular from , and let as is to , so is to , and let be joined
then it is evident that touches the section [according to Proposition I.34].
Then again let the given point be on the axis, and let it have been done,
and let be drawn tangent, and let be drawn perpendicular. Then for the
same reason [according to Proposition I.36] as is to , so is to . And
is given, therefore is given. And is perpendicular, therefore is given
in Position. And also the section is given in position, therefore is given. But
also [is given], therefore is given in position.
Then the synthesis of this problem is as follows. Let all other be supposed
the same, and let it be contrived that as is to , so is to , and let
be drawn perpendicular, and let be joined. Then it is evident does the
Problem [according to Proposition I.34], and that from another tangent to the
section could be drawn on the other side.
With the same suppositions let the given point be in the place inside the
angle , and let it be required to draw a tangent to the section from .
Let it have been done, and it be , and let be joined an continued, and let
be made equal to , therefore they are all given. Then also will be
given. Then let be drawn as an ordinate to , then also as is to , so
is to .
And the ratio to is given, therefore the ratio to is given.
And is given, therefore also is given. And has been erected parallel to
the tangent at , therefore is given in position.
And also the section is given in position, therefore is given. But is
also given, therefore is given.
Then the synthesis of this problem is as follows. Let all other be supposed
the same, and the given point , and be joined and continued, and let be
made equal to , and let it be contrived that as is to , so is to ,
88

and let be drawn parallel to the tangent at , and let be joined, therefore [according to Proposition I.34] touches the section.
And it is evident that a tangent to the section could also be drawn to the
other side.
With the same suppositions the given point be on one of the asymptotes containing the section, and let it be required to draw from a tangent to
the section. And let it have been done, and let it be , and through let
be drawn parallel to , then is equal to , since also [according to Proposition II.3] is equal to . And is given, therefore also is given. And
through the given point has been drawn parallel in position to , therefore is given in position. And the section is also given in position, therefore
is given. But also given therefore is given in position.
Then the synthesis of this problem is as follows. Let there be the section
, and asymptotes and , and the given point on one of the asymptotes containing the section, and let be bisected as , and through let
be drawn parallel to and let be joined. And since is equal to therefore also is equal to .
And so by the shown before [in Proposition II.9] touches the section.
With the same supposition let the given point be in the place under the
angle adjacent to the straight lines containing the section, and let it be , it is
required then to draw a tangent to the section from . And let it have been
done, and let be , and let be joined and continued, then it will be given in
position. If then a given point is taken on the section, and through is
drawn parallel to it will be given in position. And if is bisected at , and
is joined and continued, it will be in position a diameter conjugate to [according to Definition 6]. Then let be made equal to , and through let
be drawn parallel to , then because and are conjugate diameters,
and a tangent, and a straight line drawn parallel to , therefore pl.
is equal to the quarter of the eidos corresponding to [according to Proposition I.38]. Therefore pl. is given. And is given, therefore is also
given. But it is also given in position, and is given, therefore is also given.
And through has been drawn parallel in position to , therefore is
given in position. And the section is also given in position, therefore is given.
But also [is given], therefore is given in position.
Then the synthesis is as follows. Let the other supposition be the same,
and let the given point be in the mentioned place, and let be joined

89

and continued, and let some point be taken, and let be drawn parallel to
, and let bisected at and let be joined and continued, and be
made equal to , therefore is a transverse diameter conjugate to
[according to Definition 6] then let pl. be made equal to the quarter of the
eidos corresponding to , and through let be drawn parallel to ,
and let be joined, then it is clear that touches the section according to
the converse of the theorem [Proposition I.38].
And if it is given in the place between and , the problem is impossible for the tangent will cut . And so it will meet both and , and this is
impossible according to shown in the theorem 31 of the book I [Proposition
I.31] and in the theorem 3 of this book [Proposition II.3].
With the same suppositions let the section be an ellipse and the given
point on the section, and let it be required to draw from tangent to the
section. Let it have been done, and let it be , and let be drawn from as
an ordinate to the axis , then will be given, and [according to Proposition
I.36] as is to , so is to .
And the ratio to is given, therefore the ratio to is also given.
Therefore is given. But also [is given],therefore is given in position.
Then the synthesis of this problem is as follows. Let be drawn perpendicular, and let as is to , so is to , and let be joined.
Then it is evident that touches, as also in the case of the hyperbola [according to Proposition I,34].
Then again let the given point be , and let it be required to draw a tangent. Let it have been done, and let it be , and let be joined to the center and continued to , then will be given in position. And if is drawn as
an ordinate, then [according to Proposition I.36] as is to , so is to
. and the ratio to is given, therefore the ratio to is also given.
Therefore is given. And has been erected as an ordinate for it is parallel
to the tangent at , therefore is given in position. Therefore is given. But
also [is given], Therefore is given in position.
And the synthesis of this problem is the same as for the preceding.
[Proposition] 50 [Problem]

Given the section of a cone, draw a tangent, which will make with the axis,
on the same side as the section, an angle equal to a given acute angle55.

90

Let the section of a cone first be a parabola whose axis is , then it is


required to draw a tangent to the section that will make with the axis on the
same side as the section an angle equal to the given acute angle.
[Solution]. Let the have been done, and let it be , therefore the angle
is given, let is drawn perpendicular, then the angle at is also given.
Therefore the ratio to is given. But the ratio to is given, therefore
also the ratio to is given. And the angle at is given, therefore the angle
is also given. And it is [given] with respect to , which is given in position, and with respect to the given point , therefore is given in position.
And the section is also given in position, therefore is given. And touches,
therefore is given in position.
Then the synthesis of this problem is as follows. Let the given section of
a cone first be a parabola whose axis is , and the given acute angle , and
let some point be taken on , and let be drawn perpendicular, and let
be bisected at , and let be joined, and let the angle be made equal to
the angle , and let be drawn perpendicular, and let be made equal to
, and let be joined. Therefore [according to Proposition I.33] is tangent
to the section.
I say then that the angle is equal to the angle . For since as is
to , so is to , and as is to , so is to , therefore ex56 as
is to , so is to .
And the angles at and are right, therefore the angle at is equal to
the angle at .
Let the section be a hyperbola, and let it have been done, and let be
tangent, and let the center of the section be taken, and let be joined and
let be perpendicular, therefore the ratio pl. to sq. is given for [according to Proposition I.37] it is the same as the ratio of the latus transversum to
the latus rectum. And the ratio sq, to sq. is given for each of the angles
and is given. Therefore the ratio pl. to sq. is given, and so also
the ratio to is given. And the angle at is given, therefore the angle at
is also given. Then some straight line has been drawn across in position with
respect to and to the given point at a given angle, therefore is given in
position. And the section is also given in position, therefore is given. And
has been drawn across as tangent, therefore is given in position.
Let the asymptote to the hyperbola be drawn, therefore continued
[according to Proposition II,3] meet the asymptote. Let it meet it at . Therefore the angle is greater than the angle .
Therefore for the construction the given acute angle will have to be
91

greater than the half the angle between the asymptotes.


Then the synthesis of his problem is as follows. Let there be the given
hyperbola whose axis is , the asymptote , and the given acute angle
greater than the angle and let the angle equal to the angle and
let be drawn from perpendicular to and let some point be taken on
, and let be drawn from it perpendicular to . Since then the angle
is equal to the angle , and also the angles at and are right, therefore as
is to , so is to , and [the ratio] to is greater than [the ratio]
to , therefore also [the ratio] to is greater [the ratio] to .
And so also [the ratio] sq. to sq. is greater than [the ratio] sq. to
sq. .
But [according to Proposition II.1] as sq. is to sq., so the latus
transversum is to the latus rectum, therefore also [the ratio] the latus transversum to the latus rectum is greater than [the ratio] sq. to sq..
If then we shall contrive that as sq. is to sq., so some other is to
sq., it will be greater than sq.. Let it be pl., and let be joined.
Since then sq. is greater than pl., therefore [the ratio] sq. to sq.
is greater than [the ratio] pl. to sq., which is greater than [the ratio]
sq. to sq..
And if we shall contrive that as sq. is to sq., so sq. is to some
other, it will be to a magnitude less than sq., and the straight line joined from
to the point taken will make similar triangles, and therefore the angle is
greater than the angle . Let the angle be made equal to the angle
, therefore will cut the section [according to Proposition II.2]. Let is cut
it at , and from let be drawn tangent to the section [according to Proposition II.49], and drawn perpendicular, therefore the triangle is similar to
the triangle . Therefore as sq. is to sq., so sq. is to sq..
But also [according to Proposition I.37] as the latus transversum is to the
latus rectum, so pl. is to sq., and as the latus transversum is to the latus
rectum, so pl. is to sq.. And inversely as sq. is to pl., so sq. is
to pl., therefore ex as sq. is to pl., so sq. is to pl.. And
therefore as is to , so is to . But also we had as is to , so
is to , therefore ex as is to , so is to .
And the angles at and are right, therefore the angle at is equal to
the angle .
Let the section be an ellipse whose axis is . Then it is required to draw
a tangent to the section that with the axis will contain on the same side as the
section an angle equal to the given acute angle.
92

Let it have been done, and let it be . Therefore the angle is given.
Let be drawn perpendicular, therefore the ratio sq. to sq. is given. Let
be the center of the section, and let be joined. Then the ratio sq. to
pl. is given for [according to Proposition I.37] it is the same as the ratio of
the latus rectum to the latus transversum, and therefore the ratio sq. to
pl. is given, and therefore the ratio to is given. And [the ratio] to
[also is given], therefore the ratio to is given.
And the angle at is right, therefore the angle at is given. And it is
given respect to a straight line given in position and to a given point, therefore
is given. And from the given point let be drawn tangent, therefore is
given in position.
Then the synthesis of this problem is as follows. Let there be the given
acute angle , and let some point be taken on , and let be drawn
perpendicular, and let it be contrived that as the latus rectum is to the latus
transversum, so sq. is to pl., and let be joined, and let be the center of the section, and let the angle be made equal to the angle , and
let be drawn tangent to the section [according to Proposition II.49].
I say that does the problem, that is the angle is equal to the angle
. For since as is to , so is to , therefore also as sq. is to
sq., so sq. is to sq.. But also as sq. is to pl., so sq. is to pl.
for each is the same ratio as that of the latus rectum to the latus transversum
[according to Proposition I.37]. And therefore ex as sq. is to pl., so
sq. is to pl.. And therefore as is to , so is to .
But also as is to , so is to , therefore ex as is to , so
is to .
And the sides about the right angles are proportional, therefore the angle
is equal to the angle . Therefore does the problem.
[Proposition] 51 [Problem]

Given a section of a cone, to draw a tangent, which with the diameter


drawn through the point of contact will contain an angle equal to a given acute
angle 57 .
Let the given section of a cone first be a parabola whose axis is , and
the given angle is , then it is required to draw a tangent to the parabola which
with the diameter from the point of contact will contain an angle equal to the
angle .

93

[Solution]. Let it have been done, and let be drawn a tangent making
with the diameter drawn through the point of contact the angle equal to
the angle , and let meet the axis at [according to Proposition I.24]. Since
then is parallel to [according the porism to Proposition I.51] the angle
is equal to the angle .
But the angle is given for it is equal to the angle , therefore the angle is also given.
Then the synthesis of this problem is as follows. Let there be a parabola
whose axis is , and the given angle is . Let be drawn a tangent to the
section making with the axis the angle equal to the angle [according to
Proposition II.50], and through let be drawn parallel to . Since then the
angle is equal to the angle , and the angle is equal to the angle ,
therefore also the angle is equal to the angle .
Let the section a hyperbola whose axis is , and center and asymptote , and the given acute angle , and let be tangent and let be joined
doing the problem. And let be drawn perpendicular. Therefore the ratio of
the latus transversum to the latus rectum is given, and so also the ratio pl.
to sq. [according to Proposition I.37]. Then let some given straight line be
laid out, and on it let there be described an arc of a circle admitting an angle
equal to the angle [according to Proposition III.33 of Euclid], therefore it will
greater than a semicircle [according to Proposition III.31 of Euclid]. And from
some point of those on the circumference let be drawn perpendicular making as pl. is to sq., so the latus transversum is to the latus rectum, and
let and be joined. Since then the angle is equal to the angle , but
also as pl. is to sq., so the latus transversum is to the latus rectum, and
as pl. is to sq., so the latus transversum is to the latus rectum, therefore
the triangle is similar to the triangle , and the triangle [is similar]to the triangle . And so the angle is equal to the angle .
Then the synthesis of this problem is as follows. Let there be the given
hyperbola , and axis , and center , and given acute angle , and let the
given ratio of the latus transversum to the latus rectum be the same as
to , and let be bisected at , and let a given straight line be laid
out, and on it let there be described an arc of a circle greater than semicircle
and admitting an angle equal to the angle [according to Proposition III.31 and
III,33], and let it be , and let the center of the circle be taken, and from
let be drawn perpendicular to , and let be cut at in the ratio to
, and through let be drawn parallel to and from let be drawn
perpendicular to continued, and let and be joined, and let be con94

tinued to , and from let be drawn perpendicular to it, therefore it is parallel to .


And therefore as is to or is to , so is to .
And doubling the antecedents as is to , so is to , and componendo as is to , so is to . But as is to , so pl. is to
sq., therefore as is to , so pl. is to sq., and [according to
Proposition III.36 of Euclid] pl. is to sq..
But as is to , so the latus transversum is to the latus rectum,
therefore also as pl. is to sq., so the latus transversum is to latus rectum.
Then let be drawn from perpendicular to . Since then [according
to Proposition II.1] as sq. is to sq. so the latus transversum is to the latus
rectum, and also as the latus transversum is to the latus rectum, so pl. is to
sq., and [the ratio] sq. to sq. is greater than [the ratio] pl. to
sq., therefore also [the ratio] sq. to sq. is greater than [the ratio]
sq. to sq..
And the angles at and are right, therefore the angle is less than the
angle .
Then let the angle be made equal to the angle , therefore will
[according to Proposition II.2] meet the section. Let it meet it at . Then let
be drawn tangent from [according to Proposition II.49], and let be drawn
perpendicular, then [according to Proposition I.37] as the latus transversum is
to latus rectum, so pl. is to sq.. Therefore also as pl. is to sq., so
pl. is to sq., therefore the triangle is similar to the triangle , and
the triangle [is similar] to the triangle , and the triangle to the triangle . And so the angle is equal to the angle and is equal to the
angle .
And if the ratio of the latus transversum to the latus rectum is equal to
the equal, is touches the circle [according to Proposition III.37 of
Euclid], and the straight line joined from the center to will be parallel to
and it will do the problem.
[Proposition] 52

If a straight line touches an ellipse making an angle with the diameter


drawn through the point of contact, it is not less than the angle adjacent to the
one contained by the straight lines deflected at the middle of the section 58 .
Let there be an ellipse whose axes are and , and center , and let
95

be the major axis, and let touch the section, and let , , and be
joined, and let be continued to .
I say that the angle is not less than the angle .
[Proof]. For is either parallel to or not.
Let it first be parallel, and is equal to , therefore also is equal to
. And is a diameter, therefore [according to Proposition II.6] the tangent
at is parallel to . But also is parallel to , therefore is a parallelogram, and therefore the angle is equal to the angle . And since and
are each greater than , the angle is obtuse, therefore the angle
is acute. And so also the angle [is acute]. And therefore the angle is
obtuse.
Then let not be parallel to , and let be drawn perpendicular,
therefore the angle is not equal to the angle . But the right angle at
is equal to the right angle at , therefore it is not true that as sq. is to sq.,
so sq. is to sq.. But [according to Proposition I.21] as sq. is to sq., so
pl. is to sq., that is the latus transversum is to the latus rectum, and [according to Proposition I.37] as the latus transversum is to latus rectum, so
pl. is to sq.. Therefore it is not true that as pl. is to sq., so sq.
is to sq.. Therefore is not equal to .
Let there be laid out an arc of a circle admitting an angle equal to
the angle [according to Proposition III.33 of Euclid], and the angle is
obtuse, therefore is an arc less than a semicircle [according to Proposition
III.31 of Euclid]. Then let it be contrived that as is to , so is to ,
and from let be drawn at right angles, and let and be joined, and
let be bisected at , and let be drawn at right angle; therefore it is a
diameter. Let the center be , and from it let be drawn perpendicular, and
and be joined. Since then the angle is equal to the angle , and
and have been bisected, one at and other at , and the angles at and
are right, therefore the triangles and are similar. Therefore as sq. is
to sq., so sq. is to sq.. And since is equal to , and is greater
than , therefore [the ratio] to is greater than [the ratio] to , and
convertendo [the ratio] to is less than [the ratio] to .
And doubling the antecedents, therefore [the ratio] to is less
[the ratio] to .
And separando [the ratio] to is less [the ratio] to .
But [according to Proposition I.21] as is to , so sq. is to sq., that is
sq. is to sq., that is the latus transversum is to the latus rectum, and [according to Proposition I.37] as the latus transversum is to the latus rectum, so
96

pl. is to sq.. Therefore [the ratio] pl. to sq. is less than [the ratio]
to , that is less [the ratio] pl. to sq., what
is less [the ratio] pl. to sq..
If then we contrive it that as pl. is to sq., so pl. is to some
other, it will be greater than sq.. Let it be to sq.. Since then as is to
, so is to , and and are perpendicular, and as pl. is to sq.,
so pl. is to sq., therefore the angle is equal to the angle .
Therefore the angle or the angle is greater than the angle , and
the adjacent angle is greater than the angle .
Therefore the angle is not less than the angle .
[Proposition] 53 [Problem]

Given an ellipse, to draw a tangent which will make with the diameter
drawn through the point of contact an angle equal to a given acute angle, then
it is required that the given acute angle be not less than the angle adjacent to
the angle contained by the straight lines deflected at the middle of the section59.
Let there be the given ellipse whose major axis is and minor axis ,
and center , and let and be joined, and let the angle be the given angle not less than the angle , and so also the angle is not less than the
angle .
Therefore the angle is either greater for equal to the angle .
[Solution]. Let it first be equal, and through let be drawn parallel to
, and through let be drawn tangent to the section [according to Proposition II.49]. Since then is equal to , and as is to , so is to ,
therefore is equal to . And is a diameter therefore the tangent to the
section at , that is , is parallel to [according to Proposition II.6]. And
also is parallel to , therefore is a parallelogram, and therefore the
angle is equal to the angle . And the angle is equal to the given
angle, which is , therefore also the angle is equal to the angle .
Then let the angle is greater than the angle , then inversely the angle is less than the angle .
Let a circle be laid out, and let an arc be taken from it, and let it be
admitting an angle equal to the angle , and let be bisected at , and from
let be drawn at right angles to , and let and be joined,
therefore the angle is less than the angle .
97

But the angle is equal to the half of the angle , and the angle
is equal to the half of the angle , therefore the angle is less than
the angle , And the angle at and are right, therefore [the ratio] to
is greater than [the ratio] to . And so also [the ratio] sq. to sq.
is greater than [the ratio] sq. to sq..
But sq. is equal to pl., and [according to Proposition III.35 of
Euclid} sq. is equal to pl., and is equal to pl., therefore [the ratio]
pl. to sq. for the latus transversum to the latus rectum [according to
Proposition I.21] is greater than [the ratio] to .
Then let it be that as the latus transversum is to the latus rectum, so
is to 60 , and let be bisected at . Since then [the ratio] the latus
transversum to the latus rectum is greater than [the ratio] to , also [the
ratio] to is greater than [the ratio] to .
And componendo [the ratio] to is greater than [the ratio] to .
Let the center of the circle be , and so also [the ratio] to is
greater than [the ratio] to .
And separando [the ratio] to is grater than [the ratio] to .
Then let it be contrived that as is to , so is to less than such
as , and let and and be drawn parallel. Therefore as is to , so
is to , and is to is to , and componendo as is to , so is to
.
Doubling the antecedents, as is to , so is to .
Separando as is to or the latus transversum to the latus rectum,
so is to .
Then let and be joined, and let the angle be made on at
equal to the angle , and through let be drawn touching the section
[according to Proposition II.49], and let be dropped as an ordinate. Since
then the angle is equal to the angle , and the right angle at is equal
to the right angle at , therefore the triangle is equiangular with the triangle . And as the latus transversum is to the latus rectum, so is to ,
that is pl. is to sq., that is pl., is to sq.. Therefore the triangle
is similar to the triangle , and the triangle [is similar] to the triangle and therefore the angle is equal to the angle .
But the angle is equal to the angle is equal to the angle ,
therefore also the angle is equal to the angle . And therefore the
adjacent angle is equal to the adjacent angle . Therefore has been
drawn across tangent to the section and making with the diameter drawn
98

through the point of contact, the angle equal to the given angle , and this
it was required to do 61.

99

BOOK THREE
[Proposition] 1

If straight lines touching a section of a cone or the circumference of a circle meet, and diameters are drawn through the points of contact meeting the
tangents, the resulting vertically related triangles will be equal1 .
Let there be the section of a cone or the circumference of a circle ,
and let and meeting at touch , and let the diameters of the section
and be drawn through and meeting the tangents at and .
I say that the triangle is equal to the triangle .
[Proof]. For let be drawn from parallel to , therefore it has been
dropped as an ordinate [according to Proposition I.32]. Then in the case of the
parabola [according to Proposition I.42] the parallelogram is equal to the
triangle , and with the common area subtracted, the triangle is
equal to the triangle .
And in the case of the other sections let the diameters meet at the center .
Since then has been dropped as an ordinate, and touches [according to
Proposition I.37] pl. is equal to sq.. Therefore as is to , so is to
, therefore also [according to the porism to Proposition VI.19 of Euclid] as
is to , so sq. is to sq..
But [according to Proposition VI.19 of Euclid] as sq. is to sq., so the
triangle is to the triangle , and as is to , so the triangle is to
the triangle , therefore also as the triangle is to the triangle , so
the triangle is to the triangle . Therefore the triangle is equal to
the triangle .
Let the common area be subtracted, therefore as remainders, the
triangle is equal to the triangle .
[Proposition] 2

With the same suppositions if some point is taken on the section of a


cone or the circumference of a circle, and through it parallels to the tangents
are drawn as far as the diameters, then the quadrangle under one of the tangents, and one of the diameters will be equal to the triangle constructed on the
same tangent and the other diameter 2 .

100

Let there be the section of a cone or the circumference of a circle and


let and be tangents, and and diameters, and let some point be
taken on the section, and and be drawn parallel to the tangent.
I say that the triangle is equal to the quadrangle .
[Proof]. For the triangle [in Propositions I.42 and I.43] has been
shown that it is equal to the quadrangle , let the common quadrangle be
added or subtracted, and the triangle is equal to the quadrangle .
[Proposition] 3
With the same suppositions if two points are taken on the section or the
circumference of a circle, and through them parallels to the tangents are drawn
as far as the diameters, the quadrangles under the straight lines drawn, and
standing on the diameters as bases, are equal to each other 3.
Let there be the section and tangents and diameters as said before, and
let two points at random and be taken on the section, and through let the
straight lines and be drawn parallel to the tangents, and through
the straight lines and .
I say that the quadrangle is equal to the quadrangle , and the
quadrangle is equal to the quadrangle .
[Proof]. For since it has already been shown [in Proposition III.2] the triangle is equal to the quadrangle , and the triangle is equal to the
quadrangle , and the triangle is equal to the sum of the triangle and
the quadrangle PM therefore also the quadrangle is equal to the sum of the
quadrangles and , and so the quadrangle is equal to the sum of the
quadrangles and .
Let the common quadrangle be subtracted, therefore as remainders
the quadrangle is equal to the quadrangle .
And therefore as wholes the quadrangle is equal to the quadrangle .
[Proposition] 4

If two straight lines touching opposite hyperbolas meet each other, and
diameters are drawn through the points of contact meeting the tangents, then
the triangles at the tangents will be equal 4 .
Let there be the opposite hyperbolas and and let the tangents to
them, and , meet at , and let be the center of the hyperbolas, and let
101

and be joined, and continued to , and let and also be joined


and continued to and .
I say that the triangle is equal to the triangle , and the triangle
is equal to the triangle .
[Proof]. For let be drawn through tangent to the section, therefore
[according to Proposition I.44] it is parallel to . And since [according to
Proposition I.30] is equal to , and [according to Proposition VI.19 of
Euclid] the triangle is equal to the triangle .
But [according to Proposition III.1] the triangle is equal to the
triangle , therefore also the triangle is equal to the triangle .
And so also the triangle is equal to the triangle .
[Proposition] 5

If two straight lines touching opposite hyperbolas meet, and some point is
taken on either of the hyperbolas, and from it two straight lines are drawn, one
parallel to the tangent, other parallel to the line joining the points of contact,
then the triangle constructed by them on the diameter drawn through the point
of meeting differs from the triangle cut off at the point of meeting of the tangents by the triangle cut off on the tangent and the diameter drawn through
the point of contact 5.
Let there be opposite hyperbolas whose center is , and let tangents
and meet at , and let and be joined, and let be continued, and let
and be joined and continued, and let some point be taken on the section, and through it let be drawn parallel to , and parallel to .
I say that the triangle differ from the triangle by the triangle .
[Proof].For since has been shown [in Propositions II.38 and II.39] to be
a diameter of the opposite hyperbolas and [according to Definition 5 and Proposition II.38] to be an ordinate to it, and has been drawn parallel to ,
and parallel to , therefore the triangle differs from the triangle
by the triangle [according to Propositions I.44 or I.45]. And so the triangle
differs from the triangle by the triangle . And it is evident that
the triangle is equal to the quadrangle .
[Proposition] 6

With the same suppositions if some point is taken on one of the opposite
hyperbolas, and from it parallels to the tangents are drawn meeting the tan102

gents and the diameters, then the quadrangle under one of the tangents and
one of the diameters will be equal to the triangle constructed on the same tangent and the other diameter 6.
Let there be opposite hyperbolas of which and are diameters,
and let and touch the hyperbola meeting each other at , and let
some point be taken on the section, and from it let and be drawn
parallel to the tangents.
I say that the quadrangle is equal to the triangle .
[Proof]. Now since and are opposite hyperbolas, and , meeting
, touches the hyperbola , and has been drawn parallel to , therefore
[according to Proposition III.2] the triangle is equal to the quadrangle .
[Proposition] 7

With the same suppositions if points are taken on each of the hyperbolas,
and from them parallels to the tangents are drawn meeting the tangents and
the diameter, then the quadrangles under the straight lines drawn and standing
on the diameters as bases, will be equal to each other 7.
With the mentioned suppositions let and be taken on both hyperbola,
and through them let and be drawn parallel to , and
and parallel to .
I say that what was said in the enunciation will be so.
[Proof]. For since [according to Proposition III.2] the triangle is equal
to the quadrangle , let the quadrangle be added to both, therefore the
whole triangle is equal to the quadrangle .
But also [according to Proposition III.5] the triangle is equal to the
quadrangle , and [according to Proposition III.1] the triangle is equal to
the triangle , therefore the quadrangle is equal to the quadrangle .
Let the common quadrangle be added, therefore as the whole quadrangle is equal to the quadrangle , and also the quadrangle is equal to
the quadrangle .
[Proposition] 8
With the same suppositions instead of and let there be taken and
of which the diameters hit the hyperbolas, and through them the parallels to
the tangents be drawn 8 .
I say that the quadrangle H is equal to the quadrangle , and the quadrangle is equal to the quadrangle .
103

[Proof]. For since it was shown [in Proposition III.1] the triangle is
equal to the triangle , and the straight line from to is parallel to the
straight line from to , therefore as is to , so is to , and convertendo as is to , so is to . And also as is to , so is to for
each is double the other, therefore ex as is to , so is to . And the
triangles are similar because of the parallels, therefore [according to Proposition
VI.19 of Euclid] as the triangle is to the triangle , so the triangle is
to the triangle . And alternately [as the triangle is to the triangle ,
so the triangle is to the triangle ]. But [according to Proposition III.1]
the triangle is equal to the triangle , therefore the triangle is equal
to the triangle .
As parts of these it was shown that the triangle is equal to the
triangle , therefore also as remainders of the quadrangle is equal to the
quadrangle . And so also the quadrangle is equal to the quadrangle .
And since is parallel to , the triangle is equal to the triangle .
And likewise also the triangle is equal to the triangle .
But [according to Proposition III.1] the triangle is equal to the triangle ,
therefore also the triangle is equal to the triangle . And also the quadrangle is equal to the quadrangle .
Therefore as wholes the quadrangle is equal to the quadrangle .
[Proposition] 9
With the same suppositions if one of the points is between the diameters
as and other is the same with one of and , for instance , and the parallels
are drawn. I say that the triangle is equal to the quadrangle , and the
quadrangle is equal to the quadrangle 9.
And this is evident for since it was shown that the triangle is equal to
the triangle , and [according to Proposition III.5] the triangle is equal to
the quadrangle ,therefore also the triangle is equal to the quadrangle
And so also the triangle is equal to the quadrangle , and the quadrangle
is equal to the quadrangle .
[Proposition] 10
With the same suppositions let and be taken not as points at which
the diameters hit the hyperbolas. Then it is to be shown that the quadrangle
is equal to the quadrangle 10.
104

[Proof]. For since and touches and and are diameters


through the points of contact, and and KI are parallel to the tangents, [according to Proposition I.44] the triangle is equal to the sum of the triangles
and . And likewise also the triangle is equal to the sum of the triangle and .
But [according to Proposition III.1] the triangle is equal to the
triangle , therefore the triangle without the triangle is equal to the
triangle without the triangle .
Therefore the sum of the triangles and is equal to the sum of
the triangles and .
Let the common area be added, therefore the quadrangle
is equal to the quadrangle .
[Proposition] 11

With the same suppositions if some point is taken on either of the hyperbolas, and from it parallels are drawn, one parallel to the tangent and other parallel to the straight line joining the points of contact, then the triangle constricted by them on the diameter drawn through the point of meeting of the
tangents differs from the triangle cut off on the tangent and the diameter
drawn through the point of contact by the triangle cut off at the point of meeting of the tangents11.
Let there be the opposites hyperbola and , and let the tangents
and meet at , and let the center be , and let and be joined, and
let some point be taken at random on the hyperbola , and through it let
has been dropped to parallel to , and parallel to .
I say that the triangle differs from the triangle by the triangle

[Proof]. For it is evident that is bisected by [according to Propositions II.29 and II.39], and that is a diameter conjugate to the diameter drawn
through parallel to [according to Proposition II.38], and so is an ordinate to [according to Definition 6].
Since then is a diameter, and touches, and is an ordinate, and
with the point taken on the hyperbola , let be dropped to parallel to
and parallel to , therefore it is clear that [according to Propositions
II.43 and II. 45] the triangle differs from the triangle by the triangle
by the triangle .
105

And so also the triangle differs from the triangle by the triangle
.
And it has been proved at the same time that the quadrangle is
equal to the triangle .
[Proposition] 12

With the same suppositions if of one hyperbola two points are taken and
parallels are drawn from each of them, likewise the quadrangles under them will
be equal 12.
Let there be the same suppositions as before, and let and be taken
at random on the hyperbola , and through them let and be
drawn parallel to , and and parallel to .
I say that the quadrangle is equal to the quadrangle .
[Proof]. For since it has been shown [according to Proposition III.11] that
the triangle is equal to the quadrangle , and the triangle is equal
to the quadrangle , therefore, as remainder, either the quadrangle
without the quadrangle is equal to or the sum of the quadrangles and
is equal to the quadrangle .
And with the common quadrangle added or subtracted the quadrangle is
equal to the quadrangle .
[Proposition] 13

If in conjugate opposite hyperbolas straight line tangent to the adjacent


hyperbola meet, and diameters are drawn through the points of contact, then
the triangles whose common vertex is the center of the opposite hyperbolas
will be equal 13 .
Let there be conjugate opposite hyperbolas on which there are the points
, , , and , and let and meeting at touch the hyperbolas and ,
and let be the center, and let and be joined and continued to and .
I say that the triangle is equal to the triangle .
[Proof]. For let and be drawn through and parallel to .
Since then touches the hyperbola , and is a diameter through the
point of contact, and is parallel to , a diameter conjugate to the diameter , the so-called second diameter [according to Proposition II.20], and
therefore has been drawn as an ordinate to . And touches, therefore
[according to Proposition I.38] pl. is equal to sq. .
106

Therefore as is to , so is to . But as is to , so is to
, and is to , therefore also as is to , so is to ..
And the angles and are equal to two right angles, therefore the
triangle is equal to the triangle
[Proposition] 14

With the same suppositions if some point is taken on any one of the hyperbola, and from it parallels to the tangents are drawn as far as the diameters,
then the triangle constructed at the center will differ from the triangle constructed about the same angle by the triangle having the tangent as base, and
center as vertex 14.
Let the other be the same, and let some point be taken on the hyperbola , and through it let be drawn parallel to and parallel to . I
say that the triangle differs from the triangle by the triangle
[Poof]. For let be drawn from parallel to . Since then, because of
the same reasons as before, is a diameter of the hyperbola , and is
a second diameter conjugate to it [according to Proposition II.2O] and is a
tangent at , and has been dropped parallel to , therefore [according to
Proposition I.40 the ratio] to is compounded of [the ratios] to
and the latus transversum of the eidos corresponding to to the latus rectum.
But as is to , so is to , and as is to , so is to , and
is to , and [according to Proposition I.60] as the latus transversum of the
eidos corresponding to is to the latus rectum, so the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to is to the latus transversum.
Therefore [the ratio] to is compounded of [the ratios] B to
and the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to to the latus transversum
or [the ratio] to is compounded of [the ratios] to and the latus
rectum of the eidos corresponding to to the latus transversum.
And by the shown in the theorem 41 of Book I [that is Proposition I.41]
the triangle differs from the triangle by the triangle .
And so also [according to Proposition III.13] by the triangle .
[Proposition] 15

If straight lines touching one of the conjugate opposites hyperbolas meet,


and diameters are drawn through the points of contact, and some point is taken
107

on one of the conjugate hyperbolas, and from it parallels to the tangents are
drawn as far as the diameters, then the triangle constructed by them at the hyperbola is greater than the triangle constructed at the center by the triangle
having the tangent as base and the center of the opposite hyperbolas as vertex15.
Let there be conjugate opposite hyperbolas , , , and whose center is and let and touch the hyperbola , and let the diameters
and be drawn through the points of contact and , and let some
point be taken on the hyperbola , and through it let be drawn parallel
to and parallel to .
I say that the triangle is equal to the sum of the triangles and .
[Proof]. For let be drawn through parallel to , and through
parallel to , and parallel to , then it is evident that is a diameter conjugate to [according to Proposition II.20], and that is parallel to
dropped as an ordinate to , and that is a parallelogram.
Since then touches, and is through the point of contact, and is
another tangent, let it be contrived that as is to , so is to double ,
therefore is the so-called the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to
[according to Proposition I.50]. Let be bisected at , therefore as is to
, so is to .
Then let it be contrived that as is to , so is to , then also will
be so-called the latus rectum of the eidos applied to [according to Propositions I.16 and I.60].
Since then as is to , so is to , but as is to , so sq. is
to pl., and as is to , so pl., is to pl., therefore as sq. is to
pl., so pl., is to pl.. And pl., is equal to sq. because as
sq. is to pl., so pl., is to pl.. And pl., is equal to sq.,
because [according to Proposition I.16] sq. is equal to pl.,, and
pl., is equal to the quarter of pl., ,and sq. is equal to the quarter
of sq., therefore as sq. is to pl., so sq. is to pl.. And
correspondingly sq. is to sq., so pl. is to pl. . But as sq. is to
sq., so the triangle is to the triangle for they are similar, and as
pl. is to pl., so the triangle is to the triangle , therefore as the
triangle is to the triangle , so the triangle is to the triangle .
Therefore the triangle is equal to the triangle .
Again since [the ratio] to is compounded of [the ratios] to
and to , but as is to , so is to , and to , and as
is to , so is to , therefore [the ratio] to is compounded of [the
108

ratios] to and to . And since is parallel to , and the triangle


is similar to the triangle , and as is to , so is to , therefore
[the ratio] to is compounded of [the ratios] to and to or [the
ratio] to is compounded of [the ratios] to and to I.
Since then is a hyperbola having as a diameter, and as the
latus rectum, and from some point let be dropped as an ordinate, and the
figure let be described on the radius , and the figure let be described on the ordinate or its equal , and on the straight line between
the center and the ordinate, or on , its equal, the figure let be described
similar to the figure described on the radius, and there are compounded ratios as already given, therefore the triangle is equal to the sum of the triangles and [according to Proposition I.41].
[Proposition] 16

If two straight lines touching a section of a cone or the circumference of a circle meet, and from some point on the section a straight line is
drawn parallel to one tangent and cutting the section and the other tangent,
then as the squares on the tangents are to each other, so the plane under the
straight lines between the section and the tangent will be to the square cut off
at the point of contact 16.
Let there be the section of a cone or the circumference of a circle
, and let and meeting at touch it, and let some point be taken on
the section , and through it let be drawn parallel to .
I say that as sq. is to sq., so pl. is to sq..
[Proof]. For let the diameters and be drawn through and
, and through parallel to , it is at once evident that [according to
Propositions I.46 and I.47] is equal to , and [according to Proposition III.2]
the triangle is equal to the quadrangle , and [according to Proposition
III.1] the triangle is equal to the triangle . Since then is equal to
and added, as the sum of pl. and sq. is equal to sq.. And since the
triangle is similar to the triangle , as sq. is to sq., so the triangle
is to the triangle . And alternately as the whole sq. is to the whole
triangle , so the sum of the subtracted part of sq. is to the subtracted
part of the triangle .Therefore also as the remainder of pl. is to the remainder of the quadrangle , so sq. is to the triangle . But as sq. is
to the triangle , so sq. is to the triangle , therefore also as pl. is
to the quadrangle , so sq. is to the triangle . But the quadrangle is
109

equal to the triangle , and the triangle is equal to the triangle ,


therefore also as pl. is to sq., so the triangle is to the triangle
.Alternately [as pl. is to sq., so sq. is to sq.].
[Proposition] 17

If two straight lines touching a section of a cone or the circumference of a circle meet, and two points are taken at random on the section, and
from them in the section are drawn parallel to the tangents straight lines cutting each other and the line of the section, then as the squares on the tangents
are to each other, so will the rectangular planes under the straight lines taken
similarly 17.
Let there be the section of a cone or the circumference of a circle
, and tangents to , and meeting at , and let and be taken at
random on the section, and through them at and be drawn parallel
to and .
I say that as sq. is to sq., so pl. is to pl..
[Proof]. For let the diameters and be drawn through
and , and let the tangents and parallels be continued to the diameters, and let
and be drawn from and parallel to the tangents, then it is evident
that [according to Propositions i.46 and i.47] is equal to , is equal to
. Since then has been cut equally at I and unequally at [according to
Proposition II.5 of Euclid] the sum of pl. and sq. is equal to sq. . And
since the triangles are similar because of the parallels, as the whole sq. is to
the whole triangle , so the subtracted part of sq.IZ is to the subtracted part
of the triangle . Therefore also as the remainder of pl. is to the remainder of the quadrangle , so the whole sq. is to the whole triangle . But
as sq. is to the triangle , so sq. is to the triangle . Therefore as
pl. is to the quadrangle ZM, so sq. is to the triangle . But the triangle
is equal to the triangle [according to Proposition III.1] and the quadrangle is equal to the quadrangle [according to Proposition III.3], therefore as pl. is to the quadrangle , so sq. is to the triangle . Then
likewise it could be shown that as pl. is to the quadrangle , so sq. is to
the triangle . Since then as pl. is to the quadrangle , so sq. is to
the triangle , and inversely as the quadrangle is to pl., so the triangle
is to sq., therefore ex as sq. is to sq., so pl. is to pl..
[Proposition] 18
110

If two straight lines touching opposite hyperbolas meet, and some


point is taken on either one of the hyperbolas, and from it some straight line is
drawn parallel to one of the tangents cutting the section and the other tangent,
then as the squares on the tangents are to each other, so will the rectangular
plane under the straight lines between the section and the tangent be to the
square on the straight line cut off at the point of contact 18.
Let there be the opposite hyperbolas and , the tangents
and , and through the points of contact the diameters and , and let
some point be taken at random on the hyperbola , and through it let
be drawn parallel to .
I say that as sq. is to sq., so pl. is to sq. .
[Proof]. For let be drawn through parallel to . Since then
is a hyperbola and BN its diameter and a tangent and parallel to ,
therefore [according to Proposition I.48] is equal to . And is added,
therefore [according to Proposition II.6 of Euclid] the sum of pl. and sq. is
equal to sq.. And since is parallel to , the triangle is similar to the
triangle . Therefore as the whole sq. is to the whole triangle , so the
subtracted part of sq. is to the subtracted part of the triangle , therefore
also as the remainder of pl. is to the remainder of the quadrangle , so
sq. is to the triangle . But as sq. is to the triangle , so sq. is to
the triangle , therefore also as pl. is to the quadrangle , so sq. is to
the triangle . And [according to Proposition III.6] the quadrangle is equal
to the triangle , and [according to Proposition III.1] the triangle is equal
to the triangle , therefore as pl. is to the triangle , so sq. is to
the triangle . But also as the triangle is to sq., so the triangle is
to sq., therefore ex as sq. is to sq., so pl. is to sq..
[Proposition] 19

If two straight lines touching opposite hyperbolas meet parallels to


the tangents are drawn cutting each other and the section, then as the squares
on the tangents are each other, so will the rectangular plane under the
straight lines between the section and the point of meeting of the straight lines
be to the rectangular plane under the straight lines taken similarly 19.
Let there be the opposite hyperbolas whose diameters are and
and the center at , and let the tangents and meet at , and let
and be drawn from any points parallel to and .
111

I say that as sq. is to sq., so pl. is to pl..


[Proof]. Let and be drawn through I and parallel to and . And
since as sq. is to the triangle , so sq. is to the triangle , and sq.
is to the triangle , therefore as the remainder of pl. is to the remainder
of the quadrangle , so sq. is to the triangle . But [according to
Proposition III.4] the triangle is equal to the triangle , and [according to
Proposition III.7] the quadrangle is equal to the quadrangle , therefore also as sq. is to the triangle , so pl. is to the quadrangle .
But [likewise] as the triangle is to sq., so the quadrangle is to
pl., and therefore ex as sq. is to sq., so pl. is to pl..
[Proposition] 20

If two straight lines touching the opposite hyperbolas meet, and


through the point of meeting some straight line is drawn parallel to the straight
line joining the points of contact and meeting each of the hyperbolas, and some
other straight line is drawn parallel to the same straight line and cutting the
hyperbolas and the tangents, then as the rectangular plane under the straight
lines drawn from the point of meeting to cut the hyperbolas is to the square on
the tangent, so is the rectangular plane under the straight lines between the
hyperbolas and the tangent to the square on the straight line cut off at the
point of contact 20.
Let there be the opposite hyperbolas and whose center is
and tangents and , and let be joined, and let and be joined and
continued, and let be drawn through parallel to , and let the point be
taken at random, and through it let be drawn parallel to .
I say that as pl. is to sq., so pl. is to sq..
[Proof]. For let and be drawn from and B parallel to .
Since then as sq. is to the triangle , so sq. is to the triangle , so
sq. is to the triangle , and as sq. is to the triangle , so the remainder of pl. [according to Proposition II.5 of Euclid] is to the remainder of the
quadrangle [according to Proposition V.19 of Euclid] and is equal to
pl. [according to Propositions II.38 and II 39] and the triangle is equal
to the triangle [according to Proposition III.11], therefore as pl. is to
the triangle , so pl. is to the triangle .
And as pl. is to sq., so pl. is to sq..
[Proposition] 21
112

With the same suppositions if two points are taken on the section,
and through them straight lines are drawn, one parallel to the tangent, other
parallel to the straight line joining the points of contact and cutting each other
and the hyperbolas, then as the rectangular plane under the straight lines drawn
from the point of meeting to cut hyperbola is to the square on the tangent, so
will the rectangular plane under the straight lines between the section and the
point of meeting 21.
Let there be the same suppositions as before, and let and be
taken, and through them let and be drawn parallel to , and
and parallel to .
I say that as pl. is to sq., so pl. is to pl..
[Proof]. For since as sq. is to the triangle , so sq. is to the
triangle , and sq. is to the triangle , and as sq. is to the triangle
, so sq. is to the triangle , therefore the whole sq. is to the whole
triangle , so the subtracted part of sq. is to the subtracted part of the
triangle , therefore also as the remainder of pl. is to the remainder of
the quadrangle , so sq. is to the triangle .
But [according to Proposition III.11] the triangle is equal to the
triangle and [according to Proposition III.12] the quadrangle is equal
to the quadrangle , therefore as sq. is to the triangle , so pl. is
to the quadrangle . But it was shown [in Proposition III.20] as the triangle
is to sq. or pl. [according to Propositions II,38 and II.39], so the
quadrangle is to pl., therefore ex as sq. is to pl., so
pl. is to pl.. And inversely as pl. is to sq., so pl. is to
pl..
[Proposition] 22

If two parallel straight lines touch opposite hyperbolas, and two


straight lines are drawn cutting each other and the hyperbolas, one parallel to
the tangent, other parallel to the straight line joining the points of contact, then
as the latus transversum of the eidos corresponding to the straight line joining
the points of contact is to the latus rectum, so the rectangular plane under the
straight lines between the section and the point of meeting will be to the
rectangular plane under the straight lines between the section and the point of
meeting 22.
113

Let there be the opposite hyperbolas and , and let and be


parallel and tangent to them, and let be joined. Then let be drawn
across parallel to and parallel to .
I say that as is to the latus rectum of the eidos, so pl. is to pl..
[Proof]. Let and be drawn through and parallel to for
since and are parallels tangent to the hyperbolas, is a diameter
[according to Proposition II.31], and , , and are ordinates to it [according to Proposition I.32]. Then [according to Proposition I.21] as is to the
latus rectum, so pl. is to sq., and so pl. is to sq. or sq.. Therefore the whole pl. is to the whole sq., so the subtracted part of pl. is
to the subtracted part of sq., or as pl. is to sq., so pl. is to sq.
for [according to Proposition I.21] is equal to , therefore also as the remainder of pl. is to the remainder of pl., so is to the latus rectum.
But pl. is equal to pl., therefore as , that is the latus transversum of
the eidos, is to the latus rectum, so pl. is to pl..
[Proposition] 23

If in conjugate opposite hyperbolas two straight lines touching contrary hyperbolas meet in a hyperbola at random, and two straight lines are
drawn parallel to the tangents and cutting each other and the other of opposite
hyperbolas, then as the squares on the tangents are to each other, so the rectangular plane under the straight lines between the section and the point of
meeting will be to the rectangular plane under the straight lines similarly taken
23.
Let there be the conjugate opposite hyperbolas , , , and
and their center , and let and , tangents to the hyperbolas and
meet at , and let and be joined and continued to and , and let
be drawn from H parallel to , and from parallel to .
I say that at sq. is to sq., so pl. is to pl..
[Proof]. For let be drawn through parallel to , and from
parallel to . Since then is a diameter of the conjugate opposite hyperbolas
, , , and , and touches the section, and has been drawn parallel
to it, [according to Proposition II.20 and Definition 5] is equal to , and
for the same reasons is equal to . And since as sq. is to the triangle
, so sq. is to the triangle , and so sq. is to the triangle , also
as the remainder of pl. is to the remainder of the quadrangle , so
sq. is to the triangle . But [according to Proposition III.4] the triangle
114

is equal to the triangle , and [according to Proposition III.15] the quadrangle is equal to the quadrangle , therefore as sq. is to the triangle , so pl. is to the quadrangle . But as the triangle is to
sq., so the quadrangle is to pl., therefore ex as sq. is to sq.,
so pl. is to pl..
[Proposition] 24

If in conjugate opposite hyperbolas two straight lines are drawn


from the center to the hyperbolas, one of them is taken as the transverse diameter and other as the upright diameter, and two straight lines are drawn parallel to two diameters and meeting each other and the hyperbolas, and the point
of meeting of the straight lines is the place between four hyperbolas, then the
rectangular plane under the segments of the parallel to the transverse diameter
together with the plane under the segments of the parallels to the upright diameter has the ratio which the square on the upright diameter has to the
square on the transverse diameter, will be equal to the double square on the
half of the transverse diameter 24 .
Let there be the conjugate opposite hyperbolas , , , and whose
center is , and from let the transverse diameter and the upright diameter be drawn through, and let and be drawn parallel to
and and meeting each other at , and first let be within the angle or
the angle .
I say that pl. together with pl. has the ratio sq. to sq.
is equal to the double sq..
[Proof]. For let the asymptotes of the hyperbolas and be
drawn, and through let tangent to the hyperbola be drawn. Since then
[according to Propositions I.60 and II.1] pl. is equal to sq., therefore as
pl. is to sq., so sq. is to sq..
And [the ratio] pl. to sq. is compounded of [the ratios] to
and to .
But as is to , so is to , and as is to , so is to
; therefore [the ratio] sq. to sq. is compounded of [the ratio] to
and to .
But [the ratio] to pl. is compounded of [the ratios] to
and to , therefore as sq. is to sq., so pl. is to pl..
Therefore also as [sq. is to sq.] , so the sum of sq. and
pl.
25

115

is to the sum of sq. and pl.. And sq. is equal to pl. [according to
Proposition II.11] and is equal to pl. [according to Proposition II.16], and
sq. is equal to pl. [according to Proposition II.11] and is equal to pl.
[according to Proposition II.16], therefore as sq. is to sq., so the sum of
pl. and pl. is to the sum of pl. and pl.. And the sum of pl.
and pl. is equal to pl., therefore as sq. is to sq., so pl. is to
the sum of pl. and pl..
Then it must be shown that the sum pl. and pl. and pl. is
equal to the double sq..
Let the common sq., that is pl. be subtracted, therefore is
remains to be shown that the sum of pl. and pl. is equal to sq..
And this is so four the sum pl. and pl. is equal to pl., and
the sum pl. and pl. is equal to [according to Proposition II.16] and
is equal to sq. [according to Proposition II.11].
Then let and meet on one of the asymptotes at . Then
pl. is equal to sq., and pl. is equal to sq. [according to Propositions II.11 and II.16], therefore as sq. is to sq., so pl., is to pl..
And so we want the double pl. to be equal the double sq., and
it does.
And let be within the angle or the angle . Then likewise by
the composition of ratios as sq. is to sq., so pl. is to pl.. And
sq. is equal to pl.,, so is equal to pl., and sq. is equal to pl.,
therefore as pl. is to pl., so the subtracted part of pl. is to the subtracted part of pl.. Therefore also as pl. is to pl., so the remainder
of pl. is to the remainder of sq. without pl..
Therefore it must shown that pl. together sq. without pl.
are equal to the double sq..
Let common sq., that is pl., be subtracted, therefore it remains to be shown that pl. together with sq. without pl. are equal to
sq..
And this is so for pl. together with sq. without pl. is equal
to sq..
[Proposition] 25
With the same suppositions let the point of meeting of the parallels
to and be within one of the hyperbolas and , as set out for instance
at 26.
116

I say that the rectangular plane under the segment of the parallels to
the transverse diameter, that is pl., will be greater than the plane to which
the plane under the segments of the parallels to the upright diameter, that
is pl., has the ratio that the square on the upright diameter has to the
square on the transverse diameter by the double square on the half of the
transverse diameter.
[Proof]. For the same reason as sq. is to sq., so pl. is to
pl., and sq. is equal to pl., and [according to Proposition II.11] sq.
is equal to pl., therefore also as sq. is to sq., so pl. is to pl..
And since [according to Proposition II.22] the whole pl. is to the
whole pl., so the subtracted part of pl. is to the subtracted part of
pl. or pl., therefore also the remainder of pl. is to the remainder of
pl., so sq. is to sq..
Therefore it must be shown that pl. is equal to the sum of
pl. and the double sq..
Let the common pl. be subtracted, therefore it must be shown
that pl. [according to Proposition III.24] is equal to the double sq..
And it is [according to Proposition II.23 ] the mentioned equality.
[ Proposition ] 26

And if the point of meeting of the parallels at is within one of the


hyperbolas and , as set out before then the rectangular plane under the
segments of the parallels to the transverse diameter, that is pl. , will be less
than the plane to which the plane under the segments of the other parallel, that
is pl. has the ratio which the square on the upright diameter has to the
square on the transverse diameter by the double square on the half of the
transverse diameter.
[Proof]. For, since for the same reasons as before as sq. is to
sq., so pl. is to pl., therefore also as the whole pl. is to the whole
pl. together with sq., so square on the upright diameter is to square on
the transverse diameter. Therefore it must be shown that as the sum of pl.
and the double sq. is equal to the sum of pl. and sq..
Let the common sq. be subtracted, therefore it remains to be
shown that the sum of pl. and sq. is equal to pl. or the sum of pl.
and pl. is equal to pl. [according to Propositions II.11 and II.16].
And it is for the sum of pl. and pl. is equal to pl..
117

[Proposition] 27

If the conjugate diameters of an ellipse or the circumference of a circle are drawn, and one of them is called the upright diameter, and other the
transverse diameter, and two straight lines meeting each other and the line of
the section are drawn parallel to them, then the squares on the straight lines
cut off on the straight line drawn parallel to the transverse diameter between
the point of meeting of the straight lines and the line of the section increased
by the figures described on the straight lines cut off on the straight line drawn
parallel to the upright diameter between the point of meeting of the straight
lines and the line of the section, figures similar and similarly situated to the eidos corresponding to the upright diameter will be equal to the square on the
transverse diameter 27.
Let there be the ellipse or the circumference of a circle , whose
center is , let two of its conjugate diameters be drawn, the upright diameter
and the transverse diameter , and let and be drawn parallel
to and .
I say that sq. and sq. increased by the figures described on
and similar and similarly situated to the eidos corresponding to will be
equal to the sq..
[Proof]. For let be drawn from parallel to , therefore it has
been dropped as an ordinate to . And let be the latus rectum. Now since
[according to Proposition I.15] as is to , so is to , therefore as
is to , so sq. is to sq.. And sq. is equal to the eidos corresponding to
, therefore as is to , so sq. is to the eidos corresponding to . And
as sq. is to the eidos corresponding to , so sq. is to the figure on
similar to the eidos corresponding to [according to Proposition VI.22 of
Euclid], therefore also as is to , so sq. is to the figure on similar to
the eidos corresponding to . And also as is to , so sq. is to pl.
[according to Proposition I.21], therefore the figure on or similar to the
eidos corresponding to is equal to pl..
Then likewise we could show that the figure on similar to the eidos corresponding to is equal to pl..
And since has been cut equally at and unequally at the sum
of sq. and sq. is equal to the sum of the double sq. and the double
sq. is equal to the sum of the double sq. and the double sq. [according
to Proposition VI.9 of Euclid].
118

Then for the same reasons also the sum of sq. and sq. is equal
to the double sq. and the double sq., and the figures on and similar
to the eidos corresponding to are equal to the double similar figures on
and . And the sum of the figures on and is equal to the sum of pl.
and pl.. And the sum of the figures on and is equal to pl. and
pl., and the sum of sq. and sq. is equal to the sum of sq. and sq.,
therefore the sum of sq. and sq. and the figures on and similar to
the eidos corresponding to is equal to the sum of the double pl. and the
double pl. , and the double sq. and the double sq.. And since has
been cut equally at and unequally at , the sum of pl. and sq. is equal
to sq. [according to Proposition II.5 of Euclid].
Likewise also the sum of pl. and sq. is equal to sq..
And so the sum of pl. and pl. and sq. and sq. is equal to
the double sq..
Therefore sq. and sq. together with the figures on and on
similar to the eidos corresponding to are equal to the double of sq..
But also sq. is equal to the double of sq., therefore sq. and sq.
together the figures on and similar to the eidos corresponding to are
equal to the sq..
[Proposition] 28

If in conjugate opposite hyperbolas conjugate diameters are drawn,


one of them is so-called the upright diameter, and other the transverse diameter, and two straight lines are drawn parallel to them and meeting each other
and the hyperbolas, then the squares on the straight lines cut off on the
straight line drawn parallel to the upright diameter between the point of meeting of the straight lines and the hyperbolas have to the squares on the straight
lines cut off on the straight line drawn parallel to the transverse diameter between the point of meeting of the straight lines and the hyperbolas the ratio
which the square on the upright diameter has to the square on the transverse
diameter 28.
Let there be the conjugate opposite hyperbolas , , , and , and
let be the upright diameter and the transverse diameter, and let
and be drawn parallel to them and cutting each other and the hyperbolas.
I say that as the sum of sq. and sq. is to the sum of sq. and
sq., so sq. is to sq..
119

[Proof]. For let and be drawn as ordinates from and ,


therefore they are parallel to and . And from let the latera recta
corresponding to and be drawn, then it is evident that as is to ., so
sq. is to sq. [according to Proposition I.15] , so sq. is to sq., and as
sq. is to pl. [according to Proposition I.21], so pl. is to sq. [according to Propositions I.21 and I.60].
Therefore as one of the antecedents is to one of consequents, so are
all of the antecedents to all of the consequents [according to Proposition
V.12 of Euclid], therefore as sq. is to sq., so the sum of pl. and sq.
and sq. is to the sum of pl. and sq. and sq. or as sq. is to sq.,
so the sum of pl. and sq., and sq. is to the sum of pl. and sq.
and sq..
But the sum of pl. and sq. is equal to sq., and the sum of
pl. and sq. is equal to sq. [according to Proposition II.6 of Euclid],
therefore as sq. is to sq., the sum of sq. and sq. is to the sum of
sq. and sq. so the sum of sq. and sq. is to the sum sq. and
sq..
And as has been shown, the sum of sq. and sq. is equal to the
sum of the double of sq. and the double of sq., and [according to Proposition II.7 of Euclid]the sum of sq. and sq. is equal to the sum of the double sq. and the double sq., therefore also as sq. is to sq., so the sum
of sq. and sq. is to the sum of sq. and sq..
[Proposition] 29

With the same suppositions if the parallel to the upright diameter


cuts the asymptotes, then the squares on the straight lines cut off on the
straight line drawn parallel to the upright diameter between the point of meeting of the straight lines and the asymptotes together with the half of the square
on the upright diameter has to the squares on the straight lines cut off on the
straight line drawn parallel to the transverse diameter between the point of
meeting of the straight lines and the hyperbolas the ratio which the square on
the upright diameter has the square on the transverse diameter 29.
Let there be the same construction as before, and let cut the asymptotes at and . It is to be shown that as the sum of sq. and sq. and
the half of sq. is to the sum of sq. and sq.HK, so sq. is to sq. or
as the sum of sq. and sq., and the double sq. is to the sum of sq.
and sq., so sq. is to sq..
120

[Proof] . For since [according to Proposition II.16] is equal to


,the sum of sq. and sq. and the double pl. is equal to the sum of
sq. and sq., therefore the sum of sq. and sq. and the double sq. is
equal to the sum of sq. and sq.. And as the sum of sq. and sq. is to
the sum of sq. and sq., so sq. is to sq. [according to Proposition
III.28], therefore also as the sum of sq. and sq. and the double sq. is to
the sum of sq. and sq., so sq. is to sq..
[Proposition] 30

If two straight lines touching a hyperbola meet, and through the


points of contact a straight line is continued, and through the point of meeting
a straight line is drawn parallel to one of the asymptotes and cutting both
the hyperbola and the straight line joining the points of contact, then the
straight line between the point of meeting and the strait line joining the points
of contact will be bisected by the hyperbola 30.
Let there be the hyperbola , and let and be tangents and
and asymptotes, and let be joined, and through parallel to let
be drawn.
I say that is equal to .
[Proof].For let be joined and continued both ways, and let
be made equal to , and through and let and KN be drawn parallel to
. Therefore they have been dropped as ordinates. And since the triangle
is similar to the triangle , therefore as sq. is to sq., so sq. is to
sq.. And as sq. is to sq., so is to the latus rectum [according to
Proposition II.1], therefore also as sq. is to sq., so is to the latus rectum.
But as is to the latus rectum, so pl. is to sq. [according to
Proposition I.21], therefore also as sq. is to sq., so pl. is to sq..
Therefore pl. is equal to sq.. And also [according to Proposition i.37]
pl. is equal to sq. because touches and has been dropped as an
ordinate, and so also the sum of pl. and sq. is equal to the sum of pl.
and sq..
But the sum of pl. and sq. is equal to sq. [according to
Proposition II.6 of Euclid], and therefore the sum of pl. and sq. is equal to
sq.ZN. Therefore has been bisected at with added [according to Proposition II.6 of Euclid]. And and are parallel, therefore is equal
to .
121

[Proposition] 31

If two straight lines touching opposite hyperbolas meet, and a


straight line is continued through the points of contact, then and through the
point of meeting a straight line is drawn parallel to the asymptote and cutting
both the section and the straight line joining the points of contact, then the
straight line between the point of meeting and the straight line joining the
points of contact will be bisected by the section 31.
Let there be the opposite hyperbolas and , and tangents and
, and let be joined and continued, and let be an asymptote and
through let be drawn parallel to .
I say that is equal to .
[Proof]. For let be joined and continued to , and through and
let and be drawn parallel to , and through and let and
be drawn parallel to . Since the triangle is similar to the triangle , as
sq. is to sq., so sq. is to sq.. And it has been shown that as sq. is
to sq., so pl. is to sq. [according to Proposition III.30] .
Therefore pl. is equal to sq.. Let sq. be added to each
[side of this equality], therefore the sum of pl. and sq. is equal to sq.,
that is sq., is equal to the sum of sq. and sq.. And [according to Propositions V.12 and VI.4 of Euclid] as sq. is to the sum of sq. and sq., so
sq. is to the sum of sq. and sq., therefore sq. is equal to the sum of
sq. and sq,. And sq. is equal to sq., and sq. is equal to the square
on the half of the second diameter [according to Proposition II.1], and is equal
to pl. [according to Proposition I.38], therefore sq. is equal to the sum of
sq. and pl..
Therefore has been cut equally at and unequally at , and we
use the Proposition II.5 of Euclid.
And is parallel to , therefore is equal to . 32 33 .
[Proposition] 32
If two straight lines touching a hyperbola meet, and a straight line is
continued through the points of contact, and a straight line is drawn through
the point of meeting of the tangents parallel to the straight line joining the
points of contact, and a straight line is drawn through the midpoint of the
straight line joining the points of contact parallel to one of asymptotes, then
122

the straight line cut off between this midpoint and the parallel will be bisected
by the hyperbola 34.
Let there be the hyperbola whose center is ,and asymptote
, and let and touch, and let and be joined and continued to
and , then it is evident that is equal to . Then let be drawn through
parallel to , and through it parallel to .
I say that is equal to .
[Proof] . For let and be drawn through and parallel to ,
then, as has been already shown [in Proposition III.30], as sq. is to sq., so
sq. is to sq., and pl. is to sq., therefore pl. is equal to sq..
And also pl. is equal to sq. because touches, and has been
dropped as an ordinate [according to Proposition I.37], therefore the sum of
pl. and sq. is equal to the sum of pl. and sq. equal to sq. [according to Proposition II.6 of Euclid].
Therefore has been bisected at with added .
And and are parallel, therefore is equal to .
[Proposition] 33

If two straight lines touching opposite hyperbolas meet, and one


straight line is drawn through the points of contact, and another straight line is
drawn through the point of meeting of the tangents parallel to the straight line
joining the points of contact, and still another straight line is drawn through the
midpoint of the straight line joining the points of contact parallel to one of asymptotes and meeting the section, and the parallel drawn through the point of
meeting, then the straight line between the midpoint and the parallel will be bisected by the section 35.
Let there be the opposite hyperbolas and , and tangents
and and center , and asymptote , and let be joined and continued,
and also let be joined, then it is evident that it is bisected at [according
to Proposition II.30]. Then let and be drawn through and parallel
to , and through parallel to .
I say that is equal to .
[Proof]. For let and be dropped from E and parallel to ,
and through parallel to .
Since then through already shown [in Proposition III.30] that as
sq. is to , so pl. is to sq., therefore as sq. is to sq., so the sum
123

of pl. and sq. is to the sum of sq. and sq. [according to Proposition
V.12 of Euclid] or as sq. is to sq., so sq. is to the sum of sq. and
sq. [according to Proposition II.6 of Euclid].
But it has been shown [in Propositions I.38 and II.1] that sq. is
equal to pl., and sq. is equal to sq., therefore as sq. is to sq., so
sq. for sq. is to the sum of pl. and sq.. And [according to Proposition VI.4 of Euclid} as sq. is to sq., so sq. is to sq., therefore as
sq. is to sq., so sq. is to the sum of pl. and sq.. Therefore
sq. is equal to the sum of pl. and sq..
Therefore, has been cut equally at and unequally at [and we
use Proposition II.5 of Euclid]. and are parallel, therefore is equal to
.
[Proposition] 34

If some point is taken on one of asymptotes of a hyperbola, and a


straight line from it touches the hyperbola, and through the point of contact a
parallel to the asymptote is drawn, then the straight line drawn from the taken
point parallel to other asymptote will be bisected by the section 36.
Let there be the hyperbola , and asymptotes and , and let a
point be taken at random on , and through it let be drawn touching the
section, and through let be drawn parallel to , and through let
be drawn parallel to .
I say that is equal to .
[Proof]. For let be drawn through parallel to , and
through parallel to . Since then [according to Proposition II.3] is equal to
, therefore also is equal to , and is equal to .
And since [according to Proposition II,12] pl. is equal to pl.,
and is equal to and is equal to , and is equal to , therefore
pl. is equal to pl.. Therefore as is to , so is to , and is
equal to the double , therefore also is equal to the double .
Therefore is equal to .
[Proposition] 35

With the same suppositions, if from the taken point some straight
line is drawn cutting the section at two points, then as the whole straight line is
124

to the straight line cut off outside, so will the segments of the straight line cut
off inside be to each other 37.
Let there be the hyperbola and the asymptotes and , and
touching and parallel to , through let some straight line be
drawn across cutting the section at and .
I say that as is to , so is to .
[Proof]. For let , , and be drawn through ,, ,
and parallel to , and and through and parallel to .
Since then [according to Proposition II.8] is equal to , therefore
also [according to Proposition VI.4 of Euclid] is equal to .
But is equal to , therefore also is equal to . And so also
is equal to . And since is equal to , also is equal to , therefore
as is to , so is to , and as is to , so is to , and as is to
, so is to , and [according to Proposition VI.1 of Euclid] as is to
, so the parallelogram is to the parallelogram , and as is to , so
the parallelogram is to the parallelogram , therefore also as the parallelogram is to the parallelogram , so the parallelogram is to the parallelogram KN.
But the parallelogram is equal to the parallelogram [according
to Proposition II.12] and is equal to the parallelogram for [according to
Proposition II.3] is equal to and is equal to , therefore as the parallelogram is to the parallelogram , so the parallelogram is to the parallelogram . And as the remainder of the parallelogram is to the remainder
of the parallelogram , so the whole parallelogram is to the whole parallelogram . And since the parallelogram is equal to the parallelogram ,
let the common parallelogram be subtracted, therefore the parallelogram
is equal to the parallelogram .
Let the common parallelogram be added, therefore the whole
parallelogram is equal to the whole parallelogram . Therefore as the parallelogram is to the parallelogram , so the parallelogram is to the
parallelogram .
But as the parallelogram is to the parallelogram , so is to
, and so is to , and as the parallelogram is to the parallelogram ,
and so is to , and so is to , therefore as is to , so is to
, therefore also as is to , so is to .
[Proposition] 36
125

With the same suppositions if the straight line drawn across from the
point neither cuts the section at two points nor is parallel to the asymptote, it
will meet the opposite hyperbola, and as the whole straight line is to the
straight line between the section and the parallel through the point of contact,
so will the straight line between the opposite hyperbola and the asymptote be
to the straight line between the asymptote and the other hyperbola 38.
Let there be the opposite hyperbolas and whose center is and
asymptotes and , and let some point H be taken on , and from it let
be drawn tangent, and neither parallel to nor cutting the section at
two points [according to Proposition I.26].
It has been shown that continued meets and therefore also
the hyperbola . Let it meet at , and let be drawn through parallel to
.
I say that as AK is to , so is to .
[Proof}. For let and be drawn from and parallel to ,
and , , and from , , and parallel to . Since then [according to
Proposition II.16] is equal to , as is to , so is to .
But as is to , so is to , and as is to , so is to .
And therefore as is to , so is to . But as is to , so
the parallelogram is to the parallelogram , and as is to , so the parallelogram is to the parallelogram , therefore also as the parallelogram
is to the parallelogram , so the parallelogram is to the parallelogram .
And as one is to one, so are all to all, therefore the parallelogram is to
the parallelogram , so the whole parallelogram is to the sum of the whole
parallelogram and the parallelogram . And since is equal to , also
is equal to , and the parallelogram is equal to the parallelogram .
And [according to Proposition II.12] the parallelogram is equal to
the parallelogram , therefore also the parallelogram is equal to the
parallelogram .
Therefore as the parallelogram is to the parallelogram , so the
whole parallelogram is to the sum of the whole parallelogram and the
parallelogram or as the parallelogram is to the parallelogram , so the
parallelogram is to the parallelogram .
But the parallelogram is equal to the parallelogram , since also
[according to Proposition II.12] the parallelogram is equal to the parallelogram , and the parallelogram is equal to the parallelogram .
Therefore as the parallelogram is to the parallelogram , so the parallelogram is to the parallelogram .
126

But as the parallelogram is to the parallelogram , so is to


, and so is to , and as the parallelogram is to the parallelogram ,
so is to ,and so is to , therefore also as is to ,so is to
[Proposition] 37

If two straight lines touching a section of a cone or the circumference of a circle or opposite hyperbolas meet, and a straight line is joined to the
points of contact, and from the point of meeting of the tangents some straight
line is drawn across cutting the line [of the section] at two points, then as the
whole straight line is to the straight line cut off outside, so will the segments
continued by the straight line joining the points of contact be to each other 39.
Let there be the section of a cone and tangents and and
let be joined and let be drawn across.
I say that as is to , so is to .
[Proof]. For let the diameters and be drawn through and
,and through and let , , , and parallel to and be
drawn. Since then is parallel to as is to , so is to , and so
is to , and so is to , and therefore as sq. is to sq., so sq.
is to sq..
But as sq. is to sq., so the triangle is to the triangle
[according to Proposition VI.19 of Euclid], and as sq. is to sq., so the triangle is to the triangle , therefore also as the triangle is to the
triangle , so the triangle is to the triangle , and so the remainder of
the quadrangle is to the remainder of the quadrangle .
But [according to Propositions III.2 and III.11] the quadrangle is
equal to the triangle , and the quadrangle is equal to the triangle
, therefore as sq. is to sq., so the triangle is to the triangle .
But as sq. is to sq., so sq. is to sq., and as the triangle
is to the triangle , so sq. is to sq., and so sq. is to , therefore also as sq. is to sq., so sq. is to sq..
And therefore as is to , so is to .
[Proposition] 38

With the same suppositions if some straight line is drawn through


the point of meeting of the tangents parallel to the straight line joining the
points of contact and a straight line drawn through the midpoint of the straight
127

line joining the points of contact cuts the section at two points and the straight
line through the point of meeting parallel to the straight line joining the points
of contact, then as the whole straight line drawn across is to the straight line
cut off outside between the section and the parallel, so will the segments continued by the straight line joined to the points of contact be to each
other 40.
Let there be the section and tangents and and is the
straight line joining the points of contact, and and are diameters, then it
is evident that AB has been bisected at [according to Propositions II.30 and
II.39]. Let be drawn from parallel to , and let be drawn across
through
I say that as is to so is to .
[Proof]. For let and be drawn through and parallel
to , and through and let and be drawn parallel to . Then likewise
as before [in Proposition III.37] it will be shown that as sq. is to sq., so
sq. is to sq.. And as sq. is to sq., so sq. is to sq., and so sq.
is to sq., and as sq. is to sq., so sq. is to sq., therefore as sq. is
to sq., so sq. is to sq., and as is to , so is to .
[Proposition] 39

If two straight lines touching opposite hyperbolas meet, and a


straight line is drawn through the points of contact, and a straight line drawn
from the point of meeting of the tangents cuts both hyperbolas and the
straight line joining the points of contact, then as the whole straight line drawn
across is to the straight line cut off outside between the section and the
straight line joining the points of contact, so will the segments of the straight
line drawn by the segments and the point of meeting of the tangents be to
each other 41.
Let there be the opposite hyperbolas and whose center is ,and
tangents and , and let and be joined and continued, and through
let some straight line be drawn across.
I say that as is to , so is to .
[Proof]. For let be joined and continued, and through and let
and be drawn parallel to , and parallel to , , and .
Since then and are parallel, and , , and have been
drawn through them, as is to , so is to . And alternately as is to
, so is to , therefore also as sq. is to sq., so sq. is to sq..
128

But as sq. is to sq., so the triangle is to the triangle ,


and as sq. is to sq. , so the triangle is to the triangle , therefore
also as the triangle is to the triangle , so the triangle is to the triangle . And [according to Proposition III.11] the triangle is equal to the
sum of the triangles and , and the triangle is equal to the sum of
the triangles and , therefore as the triangle is to the triangle ,
so the sum of the triangles and is to the sum of the triangles and
, and the remainder of the triangle is to the remainder of the triangle
, so the triangle is to the triangle .
But as the triangle is to the triangle , so sq. is to sq., and so
sq. is to sq., and as the triangle is to the triangle , so sq. is to
sq., and so sq. is to sq.. Therefore also as is to , so is to .
[Proposition] 40

With the same suppositions, if a straight line is drawn through the


point of meeting of the tangents parallel to the straight line joining the points of
contact, and if a straight line drawn from the midpoint of the straight line joining the points of contact cuts both hyperbolas and the straight line parallel to
the straight line joining the points of contact, then as the whole straight line
drawn across is to the straight line cut off outside between the parallel and the
hyperbola, so will the straight lines segments drawn by the hyperbolas and the
straight line joining the points of contact be to each other 42.
Let there be the opposite hyperbolas and whose center is , and
tangents and , and let and be joined, therefore [according to
Proposition II.39] is equal to . And from let be drawn parallel to ,
and from let be drawn at random.
I say that as is to , so is to .
[Proof]. From and let and be drawn parallel to ,
and and parallel to , and let be drawn through.
Since then and have been drawn across the parallels
and , as is to , so is to .
But as is to , so is to , and as is to , so is to
because of the similarity of the triangles and , therefore as is to
, so is to , therefore also as sq. is to sq., so sq. is to sq..
But as sq. is to sq., so the triangle is to the triangle ,
and as sq. is to sq., so the triangle is to the triangle , therefore
129

also as the triangle is to the triangle , so the triangle is to the triangle .


And [according to Proposition III.11] the triangle is equal to the
sum of the triangles and , and the triangle is equal to the sum
of the triangles and , therefore also as the sum of the triangles is
and is to the sum of the triangles and , so the triangle is to
the triangle , therefore also as the remainder of the triangle is to the
remainder of the triangle , so the whole is to the whole.
But as the triangle is to the triangle , so sq. is to sq.,
and as the triangle is to the triangle , so sq. is to sq., therefore
also as sq. is to sq., so sq. is to sq..
But as sq. is to sq., so sq. is to sq., and as sq. is to
sq., so sq. is to sq., and as sq. is to sq., so sq. is to sq.,
therefore also as sq. is to sq., so sq. is to sq..
Therefore as is to , so is to .
[Proposition] 41

If three straight lines touching a parabola meet each other, they will
be cut in the same ratio 43.
Let there be the parabola , and tangents , and .
I say that as is to , so is to , and so is to .
[Proof]. For let be joined and bisected at . Then it is evident
[according to Proposition II.29] that the straight line from to is a diameter
of the parabola. If then is goes through is parallel to [according to
Proposition II.5] and will be bisected by , and therefore [according to Proposition I.35] is equal to , and is equal to , and what was sought is apparent.
Let it not go through , but through , and let be drawn
through parallel to , therefore it will touch the parabola at [according to
Proposition I.32], and because of already said [in Proposition I.35] is equal
to , and is equal to .
Let be drawn through parallel to , and and through
and parallel to . Since then is parallel to , is a diameter
[according to Propositions I.40 and I.51], and touches at , therefore
and have been dropped as ordinates [according to Proposition II.5 and Definition 4]. And since is a diameter, and a tangent, and an coordinate
[according to Proposition I.35] is equal to , and so also is equal to .
130

And since is equal to , and is equal to , as is to , so is to


, and corresponding as is to , so is to .
But as is to , so is to , therefore also as is to , so
is to . And as is to , so is to , therefore ex as is to , so
is to , and convertendo as is to , so is to , and separando as
is to , so is to .
Again since is a diameter and a tangent and an ordinate
[according to Proposition I,35] is equal to , and is equal to . And
also is equal to , therefore as is to , so is to , and
correspondingly as is to , so is to .
But as is to , so is to , therefore also as is to , so
is to . And also an is to , so is to , therefore ex aequa as
is to , so is to , and separando as is to , so is to .
And it was also shown that as is to , so is to , therefore
as is to , so is to .
Again since as is to , so is to , and is equal to the
double , and is equal to the double , and is equal to the double ,
and is equal to the double , therefore as is to , so is to , and
so is to , and so is to .
[ Proposition ] 42

If in a hyperbola or an ellipse or the circumference of a circle or opposite hyperbolas straight lines are drawn from the vertices of the diameter
parallel to an ordinate, and some other straight line at random is drawn tangent,
it will cut off from them straight lines under which the rectangular plane equal
to the quarter of the eidos corresponding to the same diameter 44 .
Let there be some of the mentioned sections, whose diameter is ,
and from and let and be drawn parallel to an ordinate, and let some
other straight line be tangent at .
I say that pl., is equal to the mentioned part of the eidos corresponding to .
[Proof]. For let its center be , and through it let be drawn parallel to and . Since then and are parallel, and is also parallel,
[to them], therefore [according to Definition 6] it is the diameter conjugate to
, and so sq. is equal to the quarter of the eidos corresponding to [according to Definition 11].
If then goes through in the case of the ellipse and circle
131

[according to Propositions I.32 and I.33 of Euclid] is equal to and is equal


to and it is immediately evident that pl., is equal to sq. or the quarter of the eidos corresponding to .
Then let it not go through it, and let and continued meet at ,
and let be drawn through parallel to , and parallel to .
Since then pl. is equal to sq. [according to Proposition I.37],
as is to , so is to , and [according to Proposition V.18 of Euclid] as
is to , so is to or , inversely as is to , so is to KA,
componendo or separando as is to ,so is to .
Therefore also as is to , so is to . Therefore pl., is
equal to pl., , which is equal to pl..
But [according to Proposition I.38] pl. is equal to sq., which is
equal [according to Definition 11] to the quarter of the eidos corresponding to
, therefore also pl., is equal to the quarter of the eidos corresponding to
.
[Proposition] 43

If a straight line touches a hyperbola, it will cut off from the asymptote beginning with the center of the section straight lines containing a rectangular plane equal to the plane under the straight lines cut off by the tangent at
the vertex of the hyperbola at its axis 45.
Let there be the hyperbola , and asymptotes and , and the
axis , and let be drawn through tangent, and some other tangent
be drawn at random.
I say that pl. is equal to pl..
[Proof]. For let and be drawn from and parallel to , and
and parallel to . Since then touches[according to PropositionII.3]
is equal to , and so is equal to the double , and is equal to the
double , and is equal to the double .
Therefore pl. is equal to the quadruple pl..
Then likewise it could be shown that pl. is equal to the quadruple pl..
But [according to Proposition II.12] pl. is equal to pl..
Therefore also pl. is equal to pl., then likewise it could be
shown, even if were some other diameter and not the axis.
[Proposition] 44
132

If two straight lines touching a hyperbola or opposite hyperbolas


meet the asymptotes, then the straight lines drawn to the section will be parallel to the straight line joining the points of contact 46.
Let there be either the hyperbola or the opposite hyperbolas , and
asymptotes and , and tangents and , and let , , and
be joined.
I say that they are parallel.
[Proof]. For since [according to Proposition III.43] pl. is equal to
pl., therefore as is to , so is to , therefore is parallel to .
And therefore as is to , so is to . And as is to , so is to HB.
For each is the double [according to Proposition II.3], therefore ex as is to
, so is to . Therefore is parallel to .
[Proposition] 45

If in a hyperbola or an ellipse or the circumference of a circle or


opposite hyperbolas straight lines are drawn from the vertex of the axis at right
angles, and a rectangular plane equal to the quarter of the eidos is applied to
the axis on each side and increased in the case of the hyperbola and the opposite hyperbolas, but decreased in the case of the ellipse, and some straight line
is drawn tangent to the section, and meeting the perpendicular straight lines,
then the straight lines drawn from the points of meeting to the points of the
beginnings of application make right angles at the mentioned points 47.
Let there be one of the mentioned sections whose axis is , and
and are drawn at right angles, and is tangent, and let pl. and
pl. equal to the quarter of the eidos be applied on each side [of ] as it
has been said, and let , , , and be joined.
I say that the angles and are right .
[Proof]. For since it has been shown that pl., is equal to the
quarter of the eidos corresponding to , and since also pl. is equal to the
quarter of the eidos corresponding to , therefore pl., is equal to pl..
Therefore as is to , so is to . And the angles at and
are right, therefore [according to Proposition VI.6 of Euclid] the angle is
equal to the angle , and the angle is equal to the angle . And since
the angle is right, therefore the sum of the angles and is equal to
one right angle.
And it has also been shown that the angle is equal to the angle
, therefore the sum of the angles and is equal to one right angle.
133

Therefore the angle is equal to one right angle.


Then likewise it could also be shown that the angle is equal to
one right angle 48 .
[Proposition] 46

With the same suppositions, the joined straight lines make equal angles with the tangents 49.
For with the same suppositions I say that the angle is equal to
the angle and the angle is equal to the angle .
[Proof]. For since it has been shown [in Proposition III.45] that both
angles and are right, the circle described about as a diameter will
pass through and , therefore the angle is equal to the angle for
they are on the same arc of the circle. And it was shown that the angle is
equal to the angle [according to Proposition III.45], and so the angle is
equal to the angle .
And likewise also the angle is equal to the angle 50.
[Proposition] 47

With the same suppositions the straight line drawn from the point of
meeting of the joined straight lines to the point of contact will be perpendicular
to the tangent 51.
For let the same as before be supposed and let and meet each
other at , and let continued and meet at , and let be joined.
I say that is perpendicular to .
[Proof]. For if not, let be drawn from perpendicular to . Since
then [according to Proposition III.46] the angle is equal to the angle ,
and also the right angle is equal to the right angle , therefore the triangle is similar to the triangle ..Therefore as is to , so is to
.
But as is to , so is to because the angles at and are
right [according to Proposition III.45] and the angles at are equal, but as is
to , so is to because of the similarity of the triangles and
[according to Proposition III.46], therefore as is to , so is to , and
alternately as is to , so is to .
But as is to , so is to , therefore also as is to , so
is to . Let be drawn from parallel to , therefore it will have been
134

dropped as an ordinate to [according to Proposition II.7], and as is to


, so is to [according to Proposition I.36]. And as is to , so
is to , therefore also as is to , so is to , and this is impossible.
Therefore is not perpendicular, nor is any over straight line except 52.
[Proposition] 48

With the same suppositions it must be shown that the straight lines
drawn from the point of contact to the points produced by the application make
equal angles with the tangent 53.
For let to same suppositions, and let and be joined.
I say that the angle is equal to the angle .
[Proof]. For since [according to Propositions III.45 and III.47] the angles and are right the circle described about as a diameter
will pass through and [according to Proposition III.31 of Euclid ] , and so
the angle is equal to [according to Proposition III.21 of Euclid] for they
are in the same arc. Likewise then also the angle is equal to the angle .
But the angle is equal to the angle for they are vertical angles, therefore also the angle is equal to the angle 54 .
[Proposition] 49

With the same suppositions if from one of the points [of the beginnings of application] a perpendicular is drawn to the tangent, then the straight
lines from that point to the ends of the axis make a right angle 55.
For let the same be supposed, and let the perpendicular be drawn
from to , and let and be joined.
I say that the angle is right.
[Proof]. For since the angle is right, and the angle also
[is right], the circle described about as a diameter will pass through and ,
and the angle is equal to angle .
But it was shown [in Proposition III.45] that the angle is equal to
the angle , therefore also the angle is equal to the angle ,which is
equal to the angle [according to Proposition III.21 of Euclid]. And so also
the angle is equal to the angle .
But the angle is right, therefore the angle also is right 56 .
[Proposition] 50
135

With the same suppositions if from the center of the section there
falls to the tangent a straight line parallel to the straight line drawn through the
point of contact, and one of the points [of the beginning of application] , then
it will be equal to the half of the axis 57 .
Let there be the same as before, and let be the center, and let
be joined, and let and meet at , and through let be drawn parallel
to .
I say that is equal to .
[Proof]. For let , , be joined, and through let be drawn
parallel to . Since then [according to Proposition III.45] pl. is equal to
pl., therefore is equal to .
But also is equal to , therefore also is equal to . And so
also is equal to .
And since it was shown [in Proposition III.48] that the angle is
equal to the angle , and the angle is equal to the angle , therefore
also the angle is equal to the angle . And therefore is equal to .
But it was also shown that is equal to , therefore is perpendicular to . And so through what was shown before [in Proposition III.49]
that the angle is right, and the circle described about as a diameter will
pass through . And is equal to , therefore also, since is a radius of
the semicircle, is equal to 58-59 .
[Proposition] 51

If a rectangular plane equal to the quarter of the eidos is applied


from both sides to the axis of a hyperbola or opposite hyperbolas and in
creased and straight lines are deflected from the points of beginning of application to either one of the hyperbolas, then the greater of two straight lines increases the less by exactly as much as the axis 60.
Let there be a hyperbola or opposite hyperbolas whose axis is and
the center , and let each of pl. and pl. be equal to the quarter of the
eidos, and from and let and be deflected to the line of the section.
I say that is equal to the sum of and .
[Proof]. For let be drawn tangent through , and through
parallel to , therefore the angle is equal to the angle for they are
alternate. And [according to Proposition III.48] the angle is equal to the
angle , therefore is equal to . But is equal to , since also is
136

equal to , and is equal to , and therefore is equal to . And so


is equal to the double .
And since it as been shown [in Proposition III.50] that is equal to
, therefore is equal to the sum of the double and double .
But is equal to the double , and is equal to the double ,
therefore is equal to the sum of and . And so is greater than by
.
[Proposition] 52

If in an ellipse the rectangular plane equal to the quarter of the eidos


is applied from both sides to the major axis and decreased , and from the points
of beginnings of application straight lines are deflected to the line of the section, then they will be equal to the major axis 61.
Let there be an ellipse whose major axis is , and let each of
pl. and pl. be equal to the quarter of the eidos, and from and let
and have been deflected to the line of the section.
I say that the sum and is equal to .
[Proof]. For let be drawn tangent, and be the center and
through it let be drawn parallel to . Since then [according to Proposition
III.48] the angle is equal to the angle ,and the angle is equal to the
angle , therefore also the angle is equal to the angle .
Therefore is equal to . And since is equal to , and is
equal to , therefore also is equal to , and so also is equal to .
And for this reason is equal to the double , and is equal to
the double .
But also [according to Proposition III.50], is equal to the sum of and .
[Proposition] 53

If in a hyperbola or an ellipse or the circumference of a circle or opposite hyperbolas straight lines are drawn from the vertex of a diameter parallel
to an ordinate, and straight lines drawn from the same ends to the same point
on the line of the section cut the parallels, then the rectangular plane under the
straight lines cut off is equal to the eidos corresponding to the same diameter
62.

137

Let there be one of the mentioned sections whose diameter is


, and let and be drawn parallel to an ordinate, and let and be
drawn across.
I say that pl., is equal to the eidos corresponding to .
[Proof]. For let be drawn from parallel to an ordinate. Therefore
[according to Proposition I.21 the ratio] pl. to sq. is compounded of
[the ratios] the latus transversum to the latus rectum and sq. to the eidos.
But [the ratio] pl. to sq. is compounded of [the ratios] to
and to , therefore [the ratio] the eidos to sq. is compounded of
[the ratios] to and to ,
But as is to , so is to , and as is to , so is to ,
therefore [the ratio] the eidos to sq. is compounded of [the ratios] to
and to .
And also as pl., is compounded of [the ratios] to and
to , therefore as the eidos is to sq., so pl., is to sq..
Therefore pl., is equal to the eidos corresponding to .
[Proposition] 54

If two tangents to a section of a cone or to the circumference of a


circle meet and through the points of contact parallels to the tangents are
drawn, and from the points of contact, to the some point of the line of the section straight lines are drawn across cutting the parallels, then rectangular plane
under the straight lines cut off to the square on the straight line joining the
points of contact has a ratio compounded of the ratio which the inside segment
joining the point of meeting of the tangents and the midpoint of the straight
line joining the points of contact is equal in square to the remainder, and of the
ratio which the plane under the tangents has to the quarter of the square on
the straight line joining the points of contact 63 .
Let there be a section of a cone or the circumference of a circle
and tangents and , and let be joined and bisected at , and let be
joined, and let be drawn from parallel to , and from parallel to ,
and let some point on the section be taken, and let and be joined and
continued to and .
I say that [the ratio] pl., to sq. is compounded of [the ratios]
sq. to sq. and pl. to the quarter of sq. or pl..
[Proof]. For let be drawn from parallel to , and from
let be drawn parallel to , then it is evident that is tangent [accord138

ing to Propositions II.5 , II,6 , and II.29]. Since then is equal to , also is
equal to , and is equal to , and [according to Proposition II.7] is
equal to , and is equal to .
Since then and are tangents and has been drawn parallel
to [according to Proposition III.16] as sq. is to sq., so sq. is to
pl. or as sq. is to pl., so sq. is to pl..
And [according to Propositions V.18 and VI.2 of Euclid] as pl.,
is to sq., so pl., is to sq., therefore ex as pl., is to
pl., so pl., is to pl..
But [the ratio] pl., to pl. is compounded of [the ratios]
to and to or [the ratio] pl., to pl. is compounded of [the
ratios] to and to , which is the same as pl., to sq.. Therefore as pl., is to pl., so pl., is to sq..
But with pl. taken as a mean,[the ratio] pl., to pl., is
compounded of [the ratios] pl., to pl. and pl. to pl., therefore [the ratio] pl., to sq. is compounded of [the ratios] pl., to
pl. and pl. and pl..
But as pl., is to pl., so sq. is to sq., and as pl. is
to pl., so pl. is to pl., therefore [the ratio] pl., to sq., is
compounded of [the ratios] sq. to sq. and pl. to pl..
[Proposition] 55

If two straight lines touching opposite hyperbolas meet, and through


the point of meeting a straight line is drawn parallel to the straight line joining
the point of contact, and from the points of contact parallels to the tangents
are drawn across, and straight lines are drawn from the points of contact to the
some point of one of the hyperbolas cutting the parallels, then the rectangular
plane under the straight lines cut off will have to the square on the straight line
joining the points of contact the ratio which the plane under the tangents is
equal to the square of the straight line drawn through the point of meeting parallel to the straight line joining the points of contact as far as the section 64.
Let there be the opposite hyperbolas and , and tangents to
them and , and let be joined, and from let be drawn parallel to
, and from let be drawn parallel to , and from let be drawn parallel to , and let some point be taken on the hyperbola , and let and
be joined.
I say that as sq. is to pl., so sq. is to pl.,.
139

[Proof]. For let be drawn through parallel to . Since then it


has been shown that [according to Proposition III.20] as sq. is to sq., so
pl. is to sq., and [according to Proposition II.38] is equal to and
is equal to , therefore as sq. is to sq., so pl. is to sq.. And also
[according to Propositions VI.1 and VI.2 of Euclid] as sq. is to pl., so
sq. is to pl., ,therefore ex as sq. is to pl. , so pl.
is to pl.,.
But [the ratio] pl. to pl., is compounded of [the ratios]
to and to . But as is to , so is to , and as is to , so
is to , therefore [the ratio] sq. to pl. is compounded of [the ratios]
to and to . And also [the ratio] sq. to pl., is compounded
of [the ratios] to and to , therefore as sq. is to pl., so sq.
is to pl.,.
[Proposition] 56

If two straight lines touching one of the opposite hyperbolas meet,


and parallels to the tangents are drawn through the points of contact, and
straight lines cutting the parallels are drawn from the point of contact to the
some point of the other hyperbola, then the rectangular plane under the
straight lines cut off will have to the square on the straight line joining the
points of contact the ratio compounded of the ratio of the part of the straight
line joining the point of meeting and the midpoint between the midpoint and the
other hyperbola equal in square to the part between the same hyperbola and
the point of meeting, and of the ratio of the plane under the tangents to the
quarter of the square on the straight line joining the points of contact 65.
Let there be the opposite hyperbolas and whose center is ,
and tangents and , and let be joined and be bisected at . And
let be joined and drawn across to , and let be drawn from parallel to
, and from parallel to , and let some point be taken on the hyperbola , and let and be joined.
I say that [the ratio] pl., to sq. is compounded of [the ratios] sq. to sq. and pl. to quarter of sq. or pl..
[Proof]. For let and be drawn from and parallel to ,
then it is evident that is equal to , and is equal to , and also is
equal to , and so also is equal to .

140

And since and are opposite hyperbolas, and and are


tangents, and is parallel to , therefore as sq. is to sq., so sq. is to
pl. [according to Proposition III.18].
But sq. is equal to pl., pl. is equal to pl., therefore as
sq. is to pl., so sq.BK is to pl.. And also as pl., is to sq., so
pl., is to sq., therefore ex as pl., is to pl., so pl., is to
pl..
And with pl. taken as a mean, [the ratio] pl., to pl.
is compounded of [the ratios] pl., to pl. and pl. to pl., and as
pl., is to pl., so sq. is to sq., and as pl. is to pl., so pl.
is to pl., therefore [the ratio] pl., to pl. is compounded of [the ratios] sq. to sq. and pl. to pl.. And [the ratio] pl., to pl.
is compounded of [the ratios] to and to .
But as is to , so is to , and as is to , so is to
, therefore [the ratio] pl., to sq. is compounded of [the ratios]
to and to , that is the same as [the ratios] sq. to sq. and pl.
to pl..

141

BOOK FOUR
Apollonius greets Attalus 1.
Earlier, I presented the first three books of my eight books treatise
on conics to Eudemus of Pergamum, but with his having passed away I decided
to write out the remaining books for you, because of your earnest desire to
have them. To start, then, I am sending you the fourth book. This book treats
of the greatest number of points at which sections of a cone can meet one another or meet a circumference of a circle, assuming that these do not completely coincide, and, moreover, the greatest number of points at which a section of a cone or a circumference of a circle can meet the opposite hyperbolas.
Besides these questions, there are more that a few others of a similar character
Conon of Samos presented the first mentioned question to Thrasydaeus without
giving a correct proof, for which he was rightly attacked by Nicoteles of Cyrene
2. As for the second question, Nicoteies, in replying to Conon only mentions
that it can be proved, but I have found no proof either by him or by anyone
else. Regarding the third and similar questions, however, I have not found them
even noticed by anyone. And all these things just spoken of, whose demonstrations I have not found any where, require many and various striking theorems,
of which most happen to be presented in the first three books of my treatise on
conics, and the rest in this book. The investigation of these theorems is also of
considerable use in the synthesis of problems and limits of possibility . So,
Nicoteles was not speaking truly when, for the sake of his argument with Conon,
he said that none of the things discovered by Conon were of any use for limits
of possibility, but even if the limits of possibility are able to be obtained completely without these things yet, surely, some matters are more readily perceived by means of them, for example, whether a problem might be done in
many ways, and in how many ways, or again, whether it might not be done at
all. Moreover, this preliminary knowledge brings with it a solid starting point for
investigations, and the theorems are useful for the analysis of limits of possibility. But apart from such usefulness, these things are also worthy of acceptance
for the demonstrations themselves: indeed, we accept many things in mathematics for this and no other reason.
[Proposition] 1
142

If a point is taken outside a section of a cone or the circumference of


a circle, and from this point two straight lines are drawn towards the section,
of which one touches the section and other cuts the section at two points, and
if the straight line cut off inside the section is divided in that ratio which the
whole straight line cut off has to the part outside bounded between the point
and the section, so that homologous straight lines are at the same point, then
the straight line drawn from the point of contact to the point of division will
meet the line of the section, and the straight line drawn from the point of meeting to outside point will touch the section 3.
Let there be the section of a cone or the circumference of a circle
and let be taken outside the section, from let touch the section at
and let cut the section at and , and let as is to , so is to .
I say that the straight line from to will meet the section, and the
straight line drawn from the point of meeting to will touch the section.
[Proof]. For let be drawn from touching the section, and let
be joined cutting , if possible, not at , but at . Now since and , touch
the section, is drawn from the point of contact, and goes through
cutting the section at and and meeting at , [according to Proposition
III.37] as is to , so is to . But this is impossible for it was assumed
that as is to , so is to . Therefore does not cut at a different
point from , therefore it cuts at .
[Proposition] 2
This is proved for all sections together. However regarding the hyperbola only, if touches the hyperbola and cuts it at two points and
,.and if the point of contact, , is between and , and is inside the angle
between the asymptotes, then the proof is carried out similarly for from it is
possible to draw another straight line touching the hyperbola and the rest of
the proof is done similarly 4.
[Proposition] 3
With the same suppositions if and do not contain the point of
contact, , between them, and let be inside the angle between the asymptotes. Therefore from it is possible to draw another straight line touching
the section, and rest is proved as before 5.
143

[Proposition] 4
With the same suppositions if the points of the meeting and
contain the point of contact, , and is in the angle adjacent to the angle between the asymptotes, then the straight line from the point of contact to the
point of division meets the opposite hyperbola, and the straight line drawn from
the point of meeting to will touch the opposite hyperbola 6.
[Proof]. For let and be opposite hyperbolas, let and be
asymptotes, and let be in the angle . Furthermore let be drawn from
touching, and cut one of the hyperbolas, let the points of meeting and
contain the point of contact , and let as is to , so is to . It is to be
shown that the straight line joined from to will meet the hyperbola , and
that the straight line from the point of meeting to will touch the hyperbola B.
Let be drawn from touching the hyperbola, and let the straight
line all fall, if possible, not at , but at . Therefore [according to
Proposition III.37] as is to , so is to . But it is impossible for it was
assumed that as is to , so is to .
[Proposition] 5

With the same supposition if is on an asymptote, the straight line


drawn from to will be parallel to the asymptote 7 .
[Proof]. For let the same be supposed, let be on one of the asymptotes, . It is to be shown that the straight line drawn from parallel to
will fall on . For if not, let the straight line, if possible, be . But then
[according to Proposition III.35] as is to , so is to , but it is impossible.
[Proposition] 6

If a point is taken outside a hyperbola, and from this point two


straight lines are drawn to the hyperbola, one of which touches the hyperbola,
and the other is parallel to one of the asymptotes, and if the segment of the
latter straight line inside the hyperbola is equal to the segment cut off between
the hyperbola and the point, then the straight line joined from the point of contact of the former straight line to the taken point will meet the hyperbola, and
144

the straight line drawn from the point of meeting to the point outside will touch
the hyperbola 8.
Let there be the hyperbola , let be some point taken outside it,
and, to start, let be inside the angle between the asymptotes, and from let
be drawn touching the hyperbola, let be parallel to the other of the asymptotes, and let be equal to .
I say that the straight line joining from and will meet the hyperbola and the straight line from the point of meeting to will touch the hyperbola.
[Proof]. For let be drawn touching the hyperbola, and let be
joined and cutting , if possible, not at but at some other point . Then
[according to Proposition III.30] will be equal to . But it is impossible for it
was assumed that is equal to .
[Proposition] 7

With the same suppositions be in the angle adjacent to the angle


between the asymptotes.
I say that the same will come to pass 9.
[Proof]. For let be drawn touching the hyperbola and let be
joined and let, if possible, fall not on but on . Therefore [according to Proposition III.31] is equal to . But it is impossible for it was assumed that
is equal to .
[Proposition] 8

With the same suppositions if is on one of the asymptotes and let


the remaining constructions be the same.
I say that the straight line drawn from the point of contact to the
end of the straight line cut off will be parallel to the asymptote on which is
situated 10.
[Proof]. Let there be the construction just mentioned, and let be
equal to , and from let be drawn, if possible, parallel to . Therefore
[according to Proposition III.34] is equal to . But it is impossible for it was
assumed that is equal to .
[Proposition] 9
145

If from the some point two straight lines are drawn each cutting a
section of a cone or the circumference of a circle at two points ,and if the segments cut off inside are divided in the same ratio as the wholes are to the
segments cut off outside, so that the homologous straight lines are at the same
point, then the straight line drawn through the points of division will meet the
section at two points, and straight lines drawn from the points of meeting to
the point outside will touch the section 11.
Let there be the section described by us , and from a point
[outside it] let and be drawn cutting the section at and and at and
, respectively. Furthermore let as is to , so is to , and at is to
, so is to .
I say that the straight line joining to will meet the section at
both ends, and the straight lines joining the points of meeting will touch the
section.
[Proof]. For since and both cut the section at two points, it is
possible to draw a diameter of the section through , and with that also straight
lines touching the section on either side. Let straight lines and be drawn
touching section, and let be joined not passing through , if possible, but
through only one of these two, or through neither. First, let it pass through
only and let it cut at M. Therefore [according to Proposition III.37] as is
to , so is to , but this is impossible for it has been assumed that as
is to , so is to .
If passes through neither nor then, the absurdity occurs with
regards to each straight line and .
[Proposition] 10

The reasons above are common for all sections. However regarding
the hyperbola only, if the other reasons are assumed, and if the points of meeting of the one straight line are between the points of meeting of the other
straight line, and if is inside the angle between the asymptotes, the same reasons said above will happen as we said above in Theorem 2 [Proposition IV.2]
12.

[Proposition] 11
With the same suppositions if the points of meeting of one of the
straight lines do not contain the points of meeting of the other straight line,
146

then is in the angle between the asymptotes and the diagram and the proof
will be the same as in Theorem 9 [Proposition IV.9] 13.

[Proposition] 12

With the same suppositions if the points of meeting of one of the


straight lines contain those other straight lines, and if the chosen point is in the
angle adjacent to the angle between the asymptotes, then the straight line
drawn through the points of division and continued will meet the opposite hyperbola, and the lines drawn from the points of meeting to will touch the opposite hyperbolas 14.
Let there be the hyperbola , and its asymptotes and , and
its center be . Furthermore let be in the angle , let and be drawn
cutting the hyperbola each at two points, let and be between and , and
let be that is to , so is to , and that as is to , so is to .
It is to be shown that the [straight line] through and will meet
both [the hyperbola] and also the opposite hyperbola, and the lines from the
points of meeting to will touch the hyperbolas.
[Proof]. For let M be the opposite hyperbola, and from let and
be drawn touching the hyperbola, let be joined, and, if possible, let it not
pass through and , but rather through only one of these two points for
through neither.
First let it pass through and cut at . Therefore [according to
Proposition III.37] as is to , so is to . But this is impossible for it has
been assumed that as is to , so is to .
If passes through neither nor , then the impossibility occurs
with regards to each straight line and .
[Proposition] 13

With the same suppositions if is on one of the asymptotes, and the


remaining constructions are assumed to be the same, then the straight line
drawn through the points of division will be parallel to the asymptote on which
the point is situated and continued will meet the hyperbola. Moreover the
straight line drawn from the point of meeting to the point situated on the asymptote will touch the section 15.
147

Let there be a hyperbola and its asymptotes, and let be taken on


one of the asymptotes. Let straight lines be drawn and divided as we have said
above, and let a straight line be drawn from touching the hyperbola.
I say that the straight line drawn from parallel to passes
through and .
[Proof]. For let if not so, then surely it will pass through one of these
points for two neither.
Let it pass through only, therefore [according to Proposition III.35]
as is to , so is to . But it is impossible. Therefore the straight line
drawn through parallel to will not pass through only. Therefore it will
pass through both points [ and ].
[Proposition] 14
In the same suppositions if is on one of the asymptotes, and cuts the hyperbola at two points, and parallel to the other asymptote cuts the hyperbola at only, and if as is to , so is to , and is equal to is
situated in a straight line with , then the straight line drawn through and
will be parallel to the asymptote, and will meet the hyperbola, and the straight
line drawn from the point of meeting to will touch the hyperbola for similarity
to what was said above, will touch the hyperbola.
I say that the straight line drawn from parallel to the asymptote
will pass through and .
[Proof]. Indeed, if it passed through only, will not be equal to
[according to Proposition III.34], which is impossible. And if it passes
through only then it will not be that [according to Proposition III.35] as is
to ., so is to , and if it passed neither through nor through , the impossibility will occur in both ways .Therefore it will pass through both points.
[Proposition] 15

If in opposite hyperbolas a point is taken between two hyperbolas,


and if a straight line from this point touches one of opposite hyperbolas, and
another straight line cuts each of opposite hyperbolas, and if as the straight line
between the point and the one hyperbola which the first straight line does not
touch is to the straight line between the point and the other hyperbola, so the
greater straight line between the hyperbolas is to its excess over the latter, set
in a straight line with it and with the homologous lines being at the same ends,
148

then the straight line drawn from the end of the greater straight line to the
point of contact will meet the section, and the straight line drawn from the
point of meeting to the taken point will touch the section 17.
Let there be the opposite hyperbolas and and let some point
be taken between the hyperbolas and in the angle between the asymptotes, and
from this point let be drawn touching the section and be drawn cutting
the section. Furthermore as is to , so is to . It is to be shown that
the straight line drawn from to will meet the section, and the straight line
drawn from the point of meeting to will touch the section.
[Proof]. For let since is situated in the angle containing the section, it is possible to draw from another straight line touching the section [according to Proposition II.49]. Let be drawn, let be drawn and let it pass, if
possible, not through , but through . It will then [according to Proposition
III.37] that as is to , so will be to , which is impossible for it was assumed that as is to , so is to .
[Proposition] 16
f is situated in the angle adjacent to the angle between the asymptotes, and let the remaining construction be the same 18.
I say that the straight line joining to will then continued to meet
the opposite hyperbola, and the straight line from the point of meeting to will
touch the opposite hyperbola.
[Proof]. For let the same reason be as before, and let be in the angle adjacent to the angle between the asymptotes, and let be drawn from
touching the hyperbola , let be joined and when continued let it not pass
through , but through , if possible. Then it will be that [according to Proposition III.39] as is to , so will be to , which is impossible for it was assumed that as is to , so is to .
[Proposition] 17
With the same suppositions let be on an asymptote 19.
I say that the straight line drawn from to will be parallel to the
asymptote on which is situated.
Let there be the same as before, let be on one of asymptotes let a
straight line be drawn through parallel to the asymptote, and , if possible,
149

let it not fall on but on . It will then be [according to Proposition III.36] as


is to , so will be to , which possible. Therefore the straight line from
parallel to the asymptote will fall on .
[Proposition] 18

If in opposite hyperbolas a point is taken between the hyperbolas and


from this point two straight lines are drawn cutting each of hyperbolas, and if
as the straight lines between one of hyperbolas and the point are two those
between the other hyperbola and the same point, so are straight lines greater
than those cut off between the opposite hyperbola to their excess over the latter, then the straight line drawn through the ends of the greater straight lines
will meet the hyperbolas, and the straight lines drawn from the points of meeting to the original taken point will touch the hyperbolas 20.
Let there be the opposite hyperbolas and , and let be between
the hyperbolas. Let it be assumed first that be in the angle between the asymptotes, and through let , be drawn. is greater than , and
is greater than since [according to Proposition II.16] is equal to .
Furthermore let as is to , so is to , and let as is
to , so is to .
I say that the straight line through and meets the hyperbolas,
and the straight lines from to the points of meeting will touch the section.
[Proof]. For since is inside of the angle between the asymptotes, it
is possible to draw two straight lines touching the section [according to Proposition II.49]. Let and be drawn, and let be joined. It will, thus, pass
through and for if it passes through one of these points only the other
straight line will be cut in the same ratio by another point, which is impossible. If
it passes through neither point, the same impossibility will occur in both straight
lines.
[Proposition] 19
Let be taken then in the angle adjacent to the angle between the
asymptotes and let straight lines be drawn cutting the section and divided as
said above21.
I say that the straight line drawn through and will meet each of
opposite hyperbolas, and the straight lines from the point of meeting to will
touch the section 21.
150

[Proof]. For let and be drawn from touching each of the hyperbolas. Therefore the straight line through and will pass through and
for if not so, it will surely go through one of two, or through neither, and again
one will similarly inter from this an absurdity.
[Proposition] 20

If the point is taken on an asymptote, and the remaining constructions


are the same, then the straight line drawn through the ends of the greater
straight lines will be parallel to the asymptote on which the point is situated,
and the straight line drawn from the point of meeting of the section and the
straight line drawn through the ends of the greater straight lines will touch the
section 22.
Let there be the opposite hyperbolas and , and let be on one of
the asymptotes, and let the remaining construction be the same.
I say that the straight line through and meets the section, and
the straight line from the point of meeting to will touch the section.
[Proof]. For let be drawn from touching the section, and a
straight line be drawn from parallel to the asymptote on which is situated, it
will then pass through and for if not so, it will either pass through one of
two or neither, and the same impossibilities will occur as before [according to
Proposition III.36]
[Proposition] 21
Again let there be the opposite hyperbolas and , and let be on
one of the asymptotes, let be parallel to one of two asymptotes, meet the
section at one point B only, but let meet both of hyperbolas.
Furthermore let as be to , so be to , and let be equal to .
I say that the straight line through and will meet the section and
will be parallel to the asymptote on which is situated, and that the straight
line drawn from the point of meeting to will touch the section 23.
[Proof]. For let be drawn touching the section, and let a straight
line be drawn parallel to the asymptote on which is situated. If will thus pass
through and for if not so, the absurdity said before will occur [according to
Proposition III.36]

151

[Proposition] 22
Similarly, let there be the opposite hyperbolas and their asymptotes,
and let be similarly taken. Let be taken cutting the hyperbolas, and be
taken parallel to one of two asymptotes.
Moreover as is to , let be to , and let be equal to .
I say that the straight line through and will meet each of the
opposite hyperbolas, and the straight lines from the points of meeting to will
touch the section 24.
[Proof]. For let and be drawn touching the section, let be
joined, and, if possible, let it not pass through and , but through one of
these two points or neither. If, on the one hand, it passes through only,
will not be equal to , but to some other straight line which [according to
Proposition III.31] is impossible. If, on the other hand, it passed through only,
it will not be that as is to , so is to , but, some straight line to some
other straight line [according to Proposition III.36]. If yet it passes through neither of and , then both impossibilities will occur.
[Proposition] 23
Again let there be the opposite hyperbolas and , and let be in
the angle adjacent to the angle between the asymptotes. Let be drawn cutting the hyperbola at one point only, and thus parallel to one of two asymptotes, and let be drawn similarly to the hyperbola A, and let be equal to
and to .
I say that the straight line through and meets the hyperbolas
and the straight lines drawn from the points of meeting to will touch the hyperbolas.
[Proof]. For let and be drawn touching the hyperbolas, let
be joined, and, if possible, let it not pass through . So, either it will pass
through one of these two points or through neither of them, and either will
not be equal to AK, but some other straight line, which is impossible, or will
not be equal to , or neither will be equal to neither, and again the same impossibility will occur in both cases [according to Proposition III.31]. Therefore
will pass through and .
[Proposition] 24
152

A section of a cone will not meet a section of a cone or the circumference of a circle in such way that a part of them will be the same and another
part will not be common 26.
`
[Proof]. For let, if possible, let the section of a cone meet
[other section of a cone or] the circumference of the circle , let the same
part of these sections be common and let and not be common.
Let be taken on this part, let be joined, and through an arbitrary point
draw parallel to . Moreover bisect at , and through draw the diameter . Therefore the straight line through parallel to touches each
of the sections, and also will be parallel to . Also in one section will be
equal to , and in other section [according to Propositions I.46 and I.47]
will be equal to , so that also and are equal, but this is impossible 27.
[Proposition] 25

A section of a cone does not cut a section of a cone or the circumference of a circle at more than four points 28.
[Proof]. For let, if possible, them cut at five points , , , , , and
let the points of meeting , , , , be taken in succession so the no point of
meeting between them is left out, and let and be joined and continued.
So, these straight lines will meet out side the section in the cases of the parabola and the hyperbola [according to Propositions II.24 and II.25]. Let them meet
at , and let as be to , so be to , and as be to , so be to
.
Therefore the straight line from to joined and continued will
meet the section on each side and the straight lines joining the points of meeting and [according to Proposition IV.9] will touch the section. Let the points
of contact are and and let and be joined. Hence they touch the section.
Therefore since there is no point of meeting between and the
straight line cuts each of the sections. Let it cut them at and . Therefore
in one hyperbola as is to , so is to , and in the other hyperbola as
is to , so is to . But it is impossible, so that also what was assumed
at the start is impossible.
If and are parallel, the sections will, of course, be the ellipses
or the circumference of a circle. Let and be bisected at and , and let
be joined and continued on each side. Then it will meet the sections. So let
it meet them at and . Then will be a diameter of the sections, and
153

and are drawn as ordinates [according to Proposition II.28]. Let be


drawn from parallel to and . Therefore cuts each of the sections because there is no other meeting besides , , , . Then in one of the
sections will be equal to , and in other section will be equal to [according to Definition 4], so that is equal to , but this is impossible 29-30 .
[Proposition] 26

If the lines [of the sections] mentioned above some touch at one
point, then they will not meet each other at more than two other points 31.
Let two of the above mentioned lines touch at the point .
I say that they will not meet each other at more than two other
points.
[Proof]. For let, if possible, them meet at , , , and let the points
of meeting be taken in succession with no point of meeting between them be
left out. Let be joined and continued, and from let be drawn touching
the section. Thus will touch both sections and meet . Let it meet it at .,
and let it be that as is to , so is to .
Let be joined and continued. Thus it will meet the section and the
straight lines drawn from the points of meeting to will touch the section
[according to Proposition IV.1] . Let it meet it at and , and let and
be joined. These straight lines will touch the section. Therefore the straight line
joining to will cut each of sections, and the earlier mentioned absurdity will
occur. The section will not cut one another at more than two points.
If in an ellipse or the circumference of a circle is parallel to ,
the proof will be similar to that given above once is shown to be a diameter.
[Proposition] 27

If the lines [of the sections] mentioned above some touch one
another at two points, they will not meet one another at another point 32.
Let two of lines mentioned above touch one another at two points
and . I say that they will not meet one another at another point.
[Proof]. For let, if possible, them meet also at , and to start let be
outside of the points of contact and , and let straight lines be drawn from
and touching the sections. Therefore they will touch both lines. Let them
touch and be continued to , as in the first diagram, and let be drawn. Then
it cuts each of the sections . Let it cut them at and , and let be joined.
154

Therefore in one of the sections as will be to , so will be to , and in


the other section as will be to , so [according to Proposition III.37] will
be to , but this is impossible.
[Proposition] 28
If is parallel to the straight lines touching the sections at and
as in the ellipses in the second diagram 33 , then joining we conclude that
it is a diameter [according to Proposition II.27], so that each of and are
bisected at [according to Definition 4], but it is impossible. Therefore the
lines [of the sections] do not meet one another at another point, but only at
and
[Proposition] 29
Let be between the points of contact, as in the third diagram 34 .
It is evident that the lines [of the sections] do not touch one another at
since it has been assumed that the lines [of the sections] touch at two points
only. Indeed, let them cut one another [point] at . Let and be drawn
from
and touching the sections, let be joined and bisected at . Therefore
the straight line drawn from to [according to Proposition II.29] will be a diameter. The diameter will surely not pass through for if it did pass through it
,then the straight line drawn through parallel to will touch each of the sections [according to Propositions II.5 and II.6] , and this is impossible.
So from let be drawn parallel to , then in the one section
will be equal to , and in the other section will be equal to , so that
is equal to , but this is impossible.
Similarly if the straight lines touching the sections are parallel, the
absurdity will be proved in the same way as above.
[Proposition] 30

A parabola cannot touch a parabola at more points than one 35.


[Proof]. For let, if possible, the parabolas and touch at
and , and let and be drawn touching the parabolas. They will, thus,
touch both sections and will meet at . Let be joined and bisected at , and
let be drawn.
155

Now since two lines and touch one another at and ,


[according to Propositions IV.27, IV.28, and IV.29] they will not meet each
other at another point, so that cuts each of sections. Let it cuts them at
and . In one section [according to Proposition I.35] will be equal to ,
and in the other section will be equal to , but it is impossible. Therefore a
parabola cannot touch a parabola at more points than one.
[Proposition] 31
A parabola falling outside of a hyperbola will not touch the hyperbola
at two points 36 .
[Proof]. For let there be the parabola and the hyperbola ,
and, if possible, let them touch at and . Let the straight lines be drawn from
and touching each of sections that touch at and , and let these straight
lines meet at . Let be joined and bisected at , and let be joined.
Now since the sections and touch at A and , they will
not meet at another point, therefore cuts the sections at one and then another point. Let it cut them at and and let be continued. It will [according to Proposition II.29] fall on the center of the hyperbola. According to the
properties of the hyperbola as is to , so is to and the remainders
to [according to Proposition I.37] .Therefore is greater than
But according to the properties of the parabola [proved in Proposition I.35] is equal to , but this is impossible.
[Proposition] 32

A parabola falling inside of an ellipse or the circumference of a circle


will not touch the ellipse or the circumference of the circle at two points 37.
[Proof]. For let there be the ellipse or the circumference of a circle
and the parabola , and, if possible, let them touch at two points and
, and let straight lines be drawn from and touching the sections and meeting at , let be joined and bisected at , and let be joined. will cut
each section at one point and then at another [point],as we said above. Let it
cut them at and , and let be continued to , which is the center of the
ellipse or of the circle. Therefore according to the properties of the ellipse and
of the circle as is to , so is to , and [according to Proposition I.37]
that ratio is equal to the ratio of the remainders to , and is greater
than . Therefore is greater than . But according to the properties of
156

the parabola [proved in Proposition I.35] is equal to , but this is impossible.


[Proposition] 33

A hyperbola will not touch a hyperbola with the same center at two
points

38.

[Proof]. For let, if possible, the hyperbolas and with the


same center touch at and . Let and be drawn from and touching the hyperbolas and meeting one another, and let be joined and continued. Moreover let be joined. Therefore bisects at . Then [according to Proposition IV.29] cuts the hyperbolas at and . According to the
properties of the hyperbola pl. will be equal to sq., and according to
the properties of the hyperbola pl. will be equal to sq. [according
to Proposition I.37]. Therefore sq. is equal to sq., but this is impossible.
[Proposition] 34

If an ellipse touches an ellipse or the circumference of a circle with


the same center at two points, then the straight line joining the points of contact passes through falls on the center 39.
[Proof] . For let the above mentioned lines touch one another at
and . Let be joined, and let straight lines touching the sections be pass
through and , and, if possible, meeting at . Let be bisected at , and let
be joined. Therefore [according to Proposition II.29] is a diameter of the
sections. If possible, let the center be . Therefore pl. will be equal to sq.
according to the properties of one section, but to sq. according to the properties of other section, so that [according to Proposition I.37] sq. is equal to
sq., but this is impossible. Therefore the straight lines from and touching
the sections do not meet. Therefore they are parallel, and for the same reason
is a diameter [according to Proposition II.27], so that it passes through the
center, what was to prove 40 .
[Proposition] 35

A section of a cone or the circumference of a circle will not meet a


section of a cone or the circumference of a circle not having its convexity in the
same direction at more than two points 41.

157

[Proof]. For let, if possible, a section of a cone or the circumference


of a circle meet a section of a cone or the circumference of a circle
not having its convexity in the same direction at more points than two, , , .
Since three points , , have been taken on the line , if
and are joined, they will contain an angle having concavity in the same direction as the line . For the same reason contain an angle whose concavity is in the same direction as the line . Therefore the lines we have
been speaking of have both their concave and convex parts in the same direction, but this is impossible.
[Proposition] 36

If a section of a cone or the circumference of a circle meets one of


opposite hyperbolas at two points and the lines between the points of meeting
have their concavity in the same direction, then the line drawn at the points of
meeting will not meet the other opposite hyperbola 42.
Let there be the opposite hyperbolas and , and let there be a
section of a cone or the circumference of a circle meeting one of two opposite hyperbolas at two points and , and let the sections and have
their concavity in the same direction.
I say that continued ABZ will not meet the section .
[Proof]. For let be joined. Since and are opposite hyperbolas
and cuts a hyperbola at two points, so continued it will not meet the opposite hyperbola [according to Proposition II.33]. Neither therefore will the line
meet the hyperbola .
[Proposition] 37
If a section of a cone or the circumference of a circle meets one of
the opposite hyperbolas it will not meet the remaining hyperbola at more points
than two 43 .
Let there be the opposite hyperbolas A and , and let a section of a
cone or the circumference of a circle meet the hyperbola , and let
cut the opposite hyperbola at and .
I say that it will not meet at another point.
[Proof]. For let, if possible, it meet at . Therefore meets the
section not having its concavity in the same direction at more points than
two, but [according to Proposition IV.35] it is impossible.
This is will be shown similarly if the line touches the opposite hyperbola.
158

[Proposition] 38

A section of a cone or the circumference of a circle will not meet


opposite hyperbolas at more points than four 44.
This is evident from the fact that meeting one of the opposite hyperbolas it [according to Proposition IV.37] cannot meet the remaining hyperbola at more than two points.
[Proposition] 39
If a section of a cone or the circumference of a circle touches one of
the opposite hyperbolas in the concave part of the latter it will not meet the
other opposite hyperbola 45.
Let there be the opposite hyperbolas and , and let touch the
hyperbola [from the direction of its concavity].
I say that will not meet the hyperbola .
[Proof]. For let be drawn from touching the hyperbola .
Then it touches each of the sections [ and ] at , hence [according to
Proposition II.30] it will not meet [the hyperbola] , so that neither will
meet .
[Proposition] 40

If a section of a cone or the circumference of a circle touches each


of two opposite hyperbolas at one point, it will not meet the opposite hyperbolas at other point 46.
Let there be the opposite hyperbolas and , and let a section of a
cone or the circumference of a circle touch each of the hyperbolas and at
the points A and B.
I say that the line will not meet the hyperbolas and at another point.
[Proof]. Indeed since the line touches the hyperbola A and
meets [the hyperbola] at one point, therefore it will not touch in the direction of its concavity. Similarly it will be shown that neither will it touch in the
direction of its concavity. Let and be drawn touching the hyperbolas
and , then they will touch the line . For, if possible, let one of them cut the
line [of the section] and let it be . Therefore between touching the hyperbola , and the hyperbola , a straight line is situated, but this is impos159

sible. Therefore it touches , and because of this it is evident that does


not meet the opposite hyperbolas at another point.
[Proposition] 41

If a hyperbola meets one of the opposite hyperbolas at two points


having its convexity in the opposite direction to the concavity of the touching
hyperbola, then the opposite hyperbola of the mentioned hyperbola will not
meet the other opposite hyperbola 47 .
Let there be the opposite hyperbolas and , let the hyperbola
meet at and , the former [of them] has its convexity in the opposite direction to the concavity of the latter, and let be the opposite hyperbola
of .
I say that will not meet .
[Proof]. For let be joined and continued to . Since indeed the
straight line cuts the hyperbola and continued it falls outside of each
section, it [according to Proposition II.33] will not meet the hyperbola .
Similarly because cuts the hyperbola , it will not meet the opposite hyperbola , therefore neither will meet .
[Proposition] 42

If a hyperbola meets each of two opposite hyperbolas, its opposite


hyperbola will meet neither of the opposite hyperbolas at two points 48 .
Let there be the opposite hyperbolas A and B, and let the hyperbola
meets each of the opposite hyperbolas and B.
I say that the opposite hyperbola of will not meet the hyperbolas and at two points.
[Proof]. For let, if possible, it meet one of the opposite hyperbola at
and , and let be joined and continued. Because of the hyperbola the
straight line [according to Proposition II.33] will not meet the hyperbola ,
and on the other hand because of the section [ the straight line] will not
meet the hyperbola since it passed through the three places [according to
Proposition II.33], but this is impossible. Similarly it will be shown that will
not meet B at two points.
For the same reasons neither will it touch either of the opposite hyperbolas for drawing touching it will touch each of the hyperbolas, so that,
because of the hyperbola it will not meet the hyperbola , whereas because
160

of the hyperbola will it not meet the hyperbola B, so that neither will
meet B, but this is contrary to what was assumed.

[Proposition] 43

It a hyperbola cuts each of two opposite hyperbola at two points


having its convexity in the opposite direction to each of them, the opposite hyperbola of the mentioned hyperbola will meet neither of the mentioned opposite hyperbolas 49.
Let there be the opposite hyperbolas and , and let the hyperbola
cut each of the hyperbolas and at two points containing convexities
in the opposite directions.
I say that the opposite hyperbola [of ] meets neither of the
hyperbolas and .
[Proof]. For let, if possible, it meet the hyperbola at , and let
and be joined and continued, then these straight lines will meet one another
[according to Proposition II.25]. Let them meet at situated in the angle between the asymptotes of the hyperbola [according to PropositionII.25].
And is the opposite hyperbola of . Therefore the straight line joining
to will fall in the angle . Again since is a hyperbola and and
meet, and the points of meeting and do not contain , the point will be
between the asymptotes of the hyperbola . And is the opposite hyperbola of . Therefore the straight line from to falls inside of the angle
, but this is impossible for it also fall in the angle .
Therefore will not meet one of the opposite hyperbola and .
[Proposition] 44

If a hyperbola cuts one of two opposite hyperbolas at four points,


the opposite hyperbola of the hyperbola will not meet the other of the two opposite hyperbolas 50.
Let there be the opposite hyperbolas and , and let a hyperbola cut at four points , , , , and let its opposite hyperbola be . I
say that will not meet .
[Proof]. For let , if possible, it meet it at . Let and be joined
and continued, then they will meet one another. Let them meet at , and let as
be to , so be to , and let as be to , so be to .
161

Therefore the straight line through and will meet the hyperbolas
on each side, and the straight lines from L to the points of meeting will touch
the hyperbolas [according to Proposition IV.9]. Let be joined and continued.
It will cut the angle and the hyperbolas at one and then another point. Let
it cut them at and [according to the properties of the opposite hyperbolas
and as is to , so is to , but this is impossible. Therefore
and will not meet one another.
[Proposition] 45

If a hyperbola meets one of two opposite hyperbolas at two points


having its concavity in the same direction as the hyperbola, and it meets the
other of two opposite hyperbolas at one point, then the opposite hyperbola of
the mentioned hyperbolas will meet neither of the opposite hyperbolas 51.
Let there be the opposite hyperbolas and , and let the hyperbola
meet at the points and and let it meet the hyperbola at one
point, and let be the opposite hyperbola of .
I say that will meet neither of the hyperbola and .
[Proof]. For let and be joined and continued. Therefore and
will not meet the hyperbola [according to Proposition II.33]. Neither will
they meet the hyperbola at another point besides for if they meet the hyperbola at another point they will not meet the opposite hyperbola
[according to Proposition II.33], where it is assumed that they do meet.
Therefore the straight lines and meet the hyperbola at one point , and
they do not meet at all. Therefore will be in the angle , so that the hyperbola will not meet and .
[Proposition] 46

If a hyperbola meets one of two opposite hyperbolas at three points,


the opposite hyperbola of the hyperbola will not meet the other opposite hyperbola at more than one point 52.
Let there be the opposite hyperbolas and , and let the hyperbola meet at three points , , and let be opposite hyperbola
of .
I say that will not meet at more point than one.
[Proof]. For let, if possible, them meet at and , and let and
be joined. Now they will either be parallel or not.
162

To start let them be parallel, and let and be bisected at and ,


and let be joined, therefore is a diameter for all these hyperbolas
[according to Proposition II.36], and and are drawn as ordinates. Let
be drawn from parallel to , then it will be drawn as an ordinate to the
diameter, and it will cut the hyperbolas, one and then other for if it were to cut
them at the same point, the hyperbolas would no longer meet at three points,
but as four. In the hyperbola then will be equal to , and in then
will be equal to . And therefore is equal to , but this is impossible.
So let straight lines and not be parallel, but be continued. Let
them meet at . Let be drawn parallel to and let it meet continued at
.And let and be bisected at and , through and let diameters
and be drawn, and from , , and let , , and be drawn touching the hyperbola, then will be parallel to , and and will be parallel to
and [according to Proposition II.5]. Since as sq. is to sq., so pl.
is to pl. [according to Proposition III.19], but as pl. is to pl., so
sq. is to sq., and therefore as sq. is to sq., so sq. is to sq..
For the same reasons as sq. is to sq., so pl. is to pl., as
sq. is to sq., so pl. is to pl.. Therefore pl. is equal to pl., but
this is impossible.
[Proposition] 47

If a hyperbola touches one of two opposite hyperbolas, and it cuts


the other at two points, then the opposite hyperbola of the hyperbola will meet
neither of the opposite hyperbolas. 53
Let there be the opposite hyperbolas and , and some hyperbola
cut at A and B, and touch the hyperbola at the point , and let
be the opposite hyperbola of .
I say that meets neither of the opposite hyperbolas and .
[Proof]. For let, if possible, let meet at , and let be
joined, and let a straight line be drawn through touching the hyperbola
and meeting at .
Therefore [according to Proposition II.25] will be inside of the angle
between the asymptotes of the hyperbola . And is the opposite hyperbola of . Therefore the straight line from to falls inside of the angle
. Again since is a hyperbola, and and meet, and the points of
meeting and B do not contain , the point is between the asymptotes of
the hyperbola . And is the opposite hyperbola of . Therefore the
163

straight line from falls inside of the angle , but it is impossible for it fell in
the angle . Therefore does not meet one of the opposite hyperbolas
and .
[Proposition] 48

If a hyperbola touches one of two opposite hyperbolas at one point,


and it meets it at two points, then the opposite hyperbola of the hyperbola will
not meet the other opposite hyperbola 54.
Let there be the opposite hyperbolas and , and let some hyperbola touch at , and let it meet at and , and let be the
opposite hyperbola of .
I say that will not meet .
{Proof]. For let, if possible, meet it at , let be joined and continued to , and let be drawn from touching the hyperbola. As in the
earlier proof it will be shown that is inside of the angle between the asymptotes [according to Proposition II.25]. Moreover will touch both hyperbolas,
and continued will cut the sections at and between and . Let as is
to , so is to , and let be joined and continued, it will cut the hyperbolas, one and then other [according to Proposition IV.1]. Let it cut them at
and . Therefore the straight lines from to and will touch the hyperbolas
[according to Proposition IV.1] ,and as in the earlier proof [according to the
Proposition III.37] according to the properties of the one hyperbola as is to
, so is to , and according to the properties of the other hyperbola as
is to , so is to , but this is impossible. Therefore it does not meet the
opposite hyperbola.
[Proposition] 49

If a hyperbola touching one of two opposite hyperbolas meets the


same hyperbola at another point, then the opposite hyperbola of the hyperbola
will not meet the other opposite hyperbola at more points than one 55.
Let there be the opposite hyperbolas and , and let some hyperbola touch at , and let it cut at , and let be the opposite hyperbola of .
I say that it will not meet the other opposite hyperbola at more points
than one.
164

[Proof]. For let, if possible, let it meet it at two points and , and
let be joined and through let be drawn touching the hyperbolas. Now
and will be parallel or not parallel.
To start let them be parallel, and let the diameter bisecting be
drawn, therefore it will pass through and it will be the diameter of two conjugate hyperbolas [according to Proposition II.34]. Let be drawn through
parallel to and . Therefore it will cut the hyperbolas at one and then at
another point. Then in the one hyperbola will be equal to , and in the remaining hyperbola will be equal to LB, but this is impossible.
So, let and not be parallel, let them meet at , and let
drawn parallel to meet at . Let bisecting cut the hyperbolas at
and , and let and be drawn from and touching the hyperbolas.
Therefore as sq. is to sq., so sq. is to sq., and for this reason as
pl. is to pl., and as pl. is to pl.. Therefore pl. is equal to
pl., but this is impossible.
[Proposition] 50

If a hyperbola touches one of two opposite hyperbolas at one point,


the opposite hyperbola of the hyperbola will not meet other opposite hyperbola
at more points that two 56 .
Let there be the opposite hyperbolas and , and let a hyperbola touch at , then let be the opposite hyperbola of .
I say that will not meet at more points than two.
[Proof]. For let, if possible, meet at three points , , and
, let be drawn touching hyperbolas and , let be joined and continued, and, start, let and be parallel. Let be bisected at , and let
be joined. Then be a diameter for two conjugate hyperbolas [according to
Proposition II.34] , and will cut the hyperbola between and at and . Let
be drawn from parallel to . Then in the one section will be equal to
, and in the other section will be equal to , so that also is equal to
, but this is impossible.
So let and not be parallel, but let them meet at , and let the
remaining constructions be the same. Let be continued and let it meet at
. As before we will show that [according to Proposition III.19] in the hyperbola
as pl. is to sq., so pl. is to sq., and in the hyperbola as
pl. is to sq., so pl. is to sq.. Therefore pl. is equal to
pl., but this is impossible. Therefore does not meet at more points
than two.
165

[Proposition] 51

If a hyperbola touches two opposite hyperbolas, the opposite hyperbola of the hyperbola will meet neither of the opposite hyperbolas 57.
Let there be the opposite hyperbolas and , and let the hyperbola
touch each of them at the points and , and let the opposite hyperbola of
be . I say that E will meet neither of the hyperbolas and .
[Proof]. For let, if possible, it meet at , and let straight lines be
drawn from A and B touching the hyperbolas, they will meet one another hyperbola in the angle between the asymptotes of the hyperbola [according to
Proposition II.25]. Let them meet at , and let be joined. Therefore will be
in the place between and . But it is between and , it is impossible.
Therefore does not meet and .
[Proposition] 52

If each of two opposite hyperbolas touch each of two opposite hyperbolas at one point, each having its concavity in the same direction, then
they will not meet at another point 58.
Let the opposite hyperbolas touch one another at and .
I say that they will not meet at another point.
[Proof]. For let , if possible, them meet at . Since, indeed, a hyperbola touching one of the opposite hyperbolas meets at , therefore the hyperbola will not meet the hyperbola at more points than one [according to
Proposition IV.49]. Let and be drawn from and touching the hyperbolas, let be joined, let be drawn through parallel to , and let the
second diameter of the opposite hyperbolas be drawn from [according
to Proposition II.38]. Then it will bisect at . And therefore and will be
bisected at [according to Proposition II.39]. Therefore is equal to , but
it is impossible. Therefore the hyperbolas will not meet at another point.
[Proposition] 53
If a hyperbola touches one of two opposite hyperbolas at two points,
the opposite hyperbola of the hyperbola will not meet other opposite hyperbola
59.

166

Let there be the opposite hyperbolas and , and let the hyperbola touch at two points and , and let be the opposite hyperbola
of .
I say that will not meet .
[Proof]. For let, if possible, it meet it at , and let and be
drawn from and touching the hyperbolas, let and be joined, and let
be continued, it will cut the hyperbolas at one and then at another point, let
it be as . Since and indeed touch the hyperbola, and joins the
points of contact in one of the conjugate hyperbolas as is to , so is to
, and in other hyperbola as is to , so is to , but it is impossible.
Therefore the hyperbola does not meet the hyperbola .
[Proposition] 54

If a hyperbola touches one of two opposite hyperbolas with the


convexities in the opposite directions, then the opposite hyperbola of the hyperbola will not meet other opposite hyperbola 60.
Let there be the opposite hyperbolas and , and some hyperbola
touch the hyperbola at the point , and let the opposite hyperbola of
be . I say that will not meet .
[Proof]. For let be drawn from touching the hyperbolas, therefore
because of the properties of the hyperbola [the straight line] will not
meet , and because of the properties of the hyperbola A [according to Proposition II.33] it will not meet , so that falls between the hyperbolas and .
Then it is evident that will not meet .
[Proposition] 55

Opposite hyperbolas will not meet opposite hyperbolas at more


points than four 61.
Let there be one pair of opposite hyperbolas and , and let another pair of opposite hyperbolas be and , and, to start let cut
each of and at four points , , , and containing convexities in opposite directions, as in the first diagram. Therefore the opposite hyperbola of
, that is , will not meet and [according to Proposition IV.43].
But let cut at and and at one point , as in the second diagram. Therefore does not meet the hyperbola [according to Proposition IV.41]. If meets , it will meet it at one point only for if it meets it at
167

two points, its opposite hyperbola will not meet other opposite hyperbola
[according to Proposition IV.43]. But it has been assumed that it meets it at
one point .
If, as in the third diagram, cuts at two points and , and
meets at one point, will not meet the hyperbola [according to
Proposition IV.41], where as meeting it will not meet at more points
than two.
If, as in the fourth diagram, cuts each of two opposite hyperbolas at one point, will meet neither at two points [according to Proposition
IV.42]. [So that according to already said and its converse, and will
not meet the opposite hyperbolas and at more points than four] 62. If
the hyperbolas have their concavities in the same direction and one cuts other
at four points , , , and , has in the fifth diagram, will not meet other
opposite hyperbola [according to Proposition IV.44]. Of course, will not meet
for again will not meet the opposite hyperbolas and at more
points than four [according to Proposition IV.38], neither will meet .
If, as in the sixth diagram, meets other hyperbola at three
points, will meet other hyperbola at one point only [according to Proposition
IV.46].
And we will say the same as before for the remaining cases.
So, since what was proposed is clear in all possible configurations,
opposite hyperbolas will not meet opposite hyperbolas at more points than four.
[Proposition] 56

If opposite hyperbolas touch opposite hyperbolas at one point, they


will not meet at more than two other points 63.
Let there be the opposite hyperbolas and and others and
, let touch at , let their convexities in opposite directions, and, first,
let meet at two points and , as in the first diagram.
Indeed since cuts at two points having their convexities in
opposite directions, will not meet [according to Proposition IV.41]. Again
since touches at , and their convexities are in opposite directions,
will not meet [according to Proposition IV.54]. Therefore will not meet
either the hyperbolas and , therefore these hyperbolas will meet at two
points and only.
But let cut at one point , as in the second diagram. Therefore
will not meet [according to Proposition IV.54], whereas it will meet at
168

one point only for if meets at two points, will not meet [according
to Proposition IV.41]. But it was assumed that they meet at one point.
If does not meet the hyperbola , as in the third diagram, then
according to what has been said above, will not meet [according to Proposition IV.54], whereas will not meet at more points than two
[according to Proposition IV.37].
If the hyperbolas have their concavities in the same direction, the
same proof will applied.
So, from that proof, what was proposed is clear in all possible configurations.
[Proposition] 57

If opposite hyperbolas touch opposite hyperbolas at two points, they


will not meet at another point 64.
Let there be the opposite hyperbolas and , and others and
, and first, let them touch at and , as in the first diagram.
Indeed since touches each of the hyperbolas and at and
, therefore will meet neither on the hyperbolas and [according to
Proposition IV.51].
So, let them touch as in the second diagram. It will be proved similarly that will not meet [according to Proposition IV.53].
So, let touch at and let touch at , as in the third
diagram. Indeed, since touches having their convexities in opposite directions, will not meet . Again, since touches , will not meet .
If touches at , and touches at , and their concavities
are in the same direction, as in the fourth diagram, they will not meet at another point [according to Proposition IV.52]. will not even meet .
So, from the proposed proof it is clear in all possible configurations 65 .

169

BOOK FIVE
Apollonius greets Attalus
In fifth book I have composed propositions on the maximal and minimal
straight lines. You should realize that our predecessors and contemporaries paid
(a little) attention only to the minimal straight lines : they proved thereby which
straight lines are tangent to the section and also the reverse, that is what properties are possessed by the tangents to the section1 such that when those
properties are possessed by straight lines they are tangents. But as for us, we
have proven those things in Book 1 without making use, in our proof of that, of
the topic of minimal straight lines, for we wanted to make the place where
those [things] were put near to our discussion of the derivation of the three
sections, in order to show in this way that in each of the sections there may occur an indefinite number 2 of properties and necessities of these things, as is
the case with the original diameters. As for the propositions in which we speak
of the minimal straight lines, we have separated them out and treated them
individually, after much investigation, and have attached the discussion of them
to the discussion of the maximal straight lines which we mentioned above,
because of our opinion that students of this science need them for the knowledge of analysis and determination of problems and their synthesis, not to
speak of the fact that they are one of the subjects which deserve investigation
in their own right. Farewell.
[Proposition] 1

If there is a hyperbola or an ellipse, and there is erected at the end of


one of its diameters the half of the latus rectum to that diameter at right angles, and a straight line is drawn from its end to the center of the section, and
from a place on the section is drawn a straight line as an ordinate to the diameter, then that straight line will be equal in the square to the double quadrangle
formed on the half of the latus rectum as it is described in the example 3.
Let there be the hyperbola or the ellipse whose the diameter and
the center and the latus rectum for the section , and the half of is .
Let be joined, and the ordinate be drawn, and from the straight line
parallel to BE be drawn.
I say that sq. is equal to the double quadrangle .
170

[Proof], For let be drawn from E. Then is parallel to , because


and are bisected at and [respectively]. Let be continued to [meet
at] . Then is parallel to ,and is equal to .
But is equal to , therefore is equal to .
We make common, then is equal to the sum of and . Therefore pl. is equal to pl., the sum of and .
But pl. is equal to sq., therefore pl., the sum and is equal
to sq., as is proved in Theorems 12 and 13 of Book I.
And pl., the sum and is equal to the double quadrangle .
Therefore sq. is equal to the double quadrangle 4 .
[Proposition] 2
But if the straight line drawn as an ordinate falls on which is the center
in the ellipse, and is made double , and is joined, then sq. is equal to
the double triangle 5.
[Proof]. For let be joined, then is equal to .
But is equal to , which is parallel to . Therefore pl. is equal to
the double triangle .
But pl. is equal to sq., as is proved in Theorem 13 of Book I.
Therefore sq. is equal to the double triangle ..
[Proposition] 3
But if the straight line drawn as an ordinate in the ellipse falls on the other
side of which is the center as , and is made the half of
which is the latus rectum, and is joined and continued in a straight line, and
there is drawn from a straight line parallel to , to meet , then sq.
is equal to the double triangle without the double triangle 6.
[Proof]. For let from be drawn a straight line parallel to , and
be continued until meets at , and the section be completed, and be
continued in a straight line to [meet it at] L. Then sq. is equal to the double
quadrangle , as is proved in Theorem I of this Book.
But is equal to , so sq. is equal to the double quadrangle .
And the quadrangle is equal to the triangle without the triangle .
But the triangle is equal to the triangle because is equal to .
Therefore sq. is equal to the double triangle without the double triangle
.
171

[Proposition] 4

If a point is taken on the axis of a parabola, the distance of which from


the vertex of the section is equal to the half of the latus rectum, and the
straight lines are drawn from that point to the section, then the minimal of
these [straight lines] if the straight line drawn to the vertex of the section, and
those closer to this [straight line] will be smaller than those farther [from it],
and their squares will greater than the square on it by the equal to the square
on the segment cut off on the axis towards the vertex by the perpendiculars
[drawn] to the axis from the end of each of them 7 .
Let the axis of the parabola be and let be equal to the half of the
latus rectum, and let from to the section be drawn , , , and .
I say that the least of the straight lines drawn from Z to the section
is , and that those [straight lines] which are nearer to it are smaller than
those which are farther [from it], and that the square on the segment between and the foot of the perpendicular from it [the end of the straight line].
{Proof]. For let the perpendiculars , and be drawn. Let the half
of the latus rectum be , then is equal to .
And the double pl. is equal to sq., as is proved in Theorem 11 of
Book I. But the double pl. is equal to the double pl.. Therefore the sum
of the double pl. and sq. is equal to the sum of sq. and sq..
But these two squares are equal to sq.. Therefore the sum of the double
pl. and sq. is equal to sq.. Therefore sq. is greater than sq. by
sq.. And it will be proved from this that is greater than and is
greater than .
So is the shortest and those [straight lines] that are closer to it are
shorter than those which farther. And it is proved that the excess of the square
on each of them over the square on the shortest straight line is of the another
of the square on the segment cut off from the axis towards the vertex of the
section by the perpendiculars from the ends of the straight lines.
[Proposition] 5

But is taken on the axis of a hyperbola such that its distance from the
vertex of the section is equal to the half of the latus rectum, then in this case
the same result will obtain as happened in the parabola, except that the increments of the square on the straight lines over the square on the minimal
straight line will be equal to the rectangular plane on the straight line joining the
foot of [each of] the perpendiculars to the vertex of the section which is similar
172

to the rectangular plane under the transverse diameter and a straight line equal
to the sum of the transverse diameter and the latus rectum where the transverse diameter corresponds to straight line joining [the foot of] each of the
perpendicular and the vertex of the section 8.
Let there be the hyperbola whose axis be , and let the half of the
latus rectum be . From the straight lines , , , , and .
To the section , as many as we please.
I say that is the least of the straight lines drawn from to the section,
and that those which are closer to it are shorter than those farther, and that for
each of the straight lines , , , and the square on is smaller than the
square on it by an amount equal the rectangular plane on the segment between
the foot of the corresponding perpendicular and which similar to the rectangular plane under which is the transverse diameter of the section and a straight
line equal to the sum of and the latus rectum. So let the latus rectum. So let
the latus rectum be , and the half of it be , and the center of the section
be .
[Proof]. For let the perpendiculars , , and , to be drawn
and continued, and the perpendicular be continued to , and and parallel to be drawn. Then sq. is equal to the double quadrangle , as is
proved in Theorem I of this Book. And sq. is equal to the double the triangle
because is equal to for is equal to . Therefore sq. is equal to
the sum of double triangles and for sq. is equal to the sum of sq.
and sq.. But sq. is equal to the double triangle because is equal to
. And the quadrangle is equal to the double triangle .Therefore sq.
is less than sq. by the quadrangle . And pl. is equal to pl. and as
is to , so is to . But is equal to because is equal to [for
is equal to ]. Therefore pl. is equal to , and invertendo as is ,
so is to . And componendo as the sum of and is to , so is to .
But is equal to , therefore as is to , so the sum and is to
. Let be continued to , and let be equal to . Then as is to
, so is to , and these sides that are in the same ratio and close the
equal angles. Therefore the rectangular planes and o are similar, and
, which is equal , corresponds to , which is equal to . Therefore the
rectangular plane on similar to the rectangular plane under and a straight
line equal to the sum of and the latus rectum is the quadrangle . Therefore sq. is greater than sq. by an amount equal to the rectangular plane on
similar to the rectangular plane under and the segment equal to the sum
of and the latus rectum.
173

Similarly too it will be proved that sq. is greater than sq. by an


amount equal to rectangular plane on similar to the mentioned plane.
And I say that sq. is greater than sq. by an amount corresponding to
the mentioned plane for sq. is equal to the double area , as is proved in
Theorem I of this Book.
But sq. is equal to the double triangle . Therefore sq. is greater
than sq. by the double triangle .
And similarly we will prove that the rectangular plane that the double triangle is the rectangular plane on similar to the mentioned plane. Therefore sq. is greater than sq. by an amount equal to the double rectangular
plane on similar to the mentioned plane.
But I also say that sq. is in the same case as we mentioned for
sq. is equal to the double quadrangle , as is proved in Theorem I of this
Book. But sq. is equal to the double triangle .
Therefore sq. is equal to the sum of the double triangles and ,
for sq. is equal to the sum of sq. and sq.. But the double triangle is
sq.. Therefore sq. without sq. is equal to the double triangle .
And similarly too we will prove that the rectangular plane equal to the
double triangle is the rectangular plane on GE similar to the mentioned t
plane.
And because the increments of the squares on these straight lines over
the square on are the rectangular planes on , , , and , and these
rectangular planes differ from each other, the rectangular plane on is greater
than that on , and that on is greater than that on , and that on than
that on , and is the least of the straight lines [so] drawn, and those of the
other straight lines which are closer to it are smaller than those which are farther.
And the square on each of straight lines [so] drawn is equal to the square
on the least of these straight lines together with the rectangular plane on the
segment between the foot of the perpendicular and similar to the rectangular
plane under and a segment equal to the sum of and the latus rectum 910.
[Proposition] 6

But if the same conditions as we mentioned hold, except that the section
is an ellipse, and the axis is its major axis, then least of the straight lines drawn
from that point is the one equal to the half of the latus rectum, and the great174

est of them is the remainder of the axis. As for the other straight lines, those of
them that are closer to the minimal straight line are less than those that are farther from it. And each of them is greater than it by an amount equal to rectangular plane on the segment between the foot of the perpendicular from it and
the vertex of the section similar to the rectangular plane under the transverse
diameter and the difference between the transverse diameter and the latus rectum, where the transverse diameter corresponds to the segment between the
foot of the perpendicular and the vertex of the section .
Let there be the ellipse whose major axis be , and let be equal
to the half of the latus rectum. And let from to the section , , and
are drawn.
I say that is the shortest of the straight lines drawn from , and
that is the longest of them, and that of the remaining straight lines those
which are closer to are shorter than those which are farther, and that the
square on each of them is greater than sq. by an amount equal to the rectangular plane on the segment between the foot of its perpendicular and similar to the rectangular plane under to together with excess of it over the
latus rectum.
[Proof].For let be made the half of the latus rectum, and the center
be , and the perpendiculars , , and [to the major axis] be drawn, and
[from ] a straight line parallel to the ordinates is drawn , and and
parallel to are drawn. Than sq. is equal to the double quadrangle , as
is proved in Theorem I of this Book.
And sq. is equal to the double triangle for is equal
to [because is equal to ]. Therefore sq. is equal to the sum of the
double triangles and .
But sq. is equal to the double triangle . And the quadrangle is
equal to the double triangle , therefore sq. is greater than sq. by an
amount equal to the quadrangle . And as is to , so is to latus rectum, which is is to . Therefore as is to the latus rectum, so is
to .
But is equal to therefore as is to the latus rectum, so is to
. And convertendo as is to without the latus rectum, so is to .
But is equal to UT because is equal to . Therefore as is to ,
so is to without the latus rectum.
And corresponds to , which is equal to . Therefore the rectangular plane is equal to the rectangular plane on similar to the rectangular
plane under and its excess over the latus rectum.
175

But sq. is greater than sq. by an amount equal to the rectangular


plane . Therefore sq. is greater than sq. by an amount equal to the rectangular plane on similar to the mentioned plane.
I also say that sq. is in the same case as the mentioned straight line
[] for sq. is equal to the double quadrangle . And sq. is equal to the
double triangle . Therefore sq. without sq. is equal to the double
triangle .
But the rectangular plane on similar to the mentioned plane is equal to
the double triangle . Therefore the difference between sq. and sq. is
equal to the rectangular plane on similar to the mentioned plane.
I also say that sq. is grater than sq. by an amount equal to the rectangular plane on similar to the mentioned plane for sq. is equal to the
double area , as is proved in Theorem I of this Book. And sq. is equal
to the double triangle because is equal to [for is equal to ].
Therefore sq. is equal to the sum of the double triangle and the double
area .
But the triangle is equal to the triangle . Therefore sq. is equal
to the sum of the double triangle and the double area . And these [latter] are equal to the sum of the double triangles and .
But sq. is equal to the double triangle . Therefore sq. without
sq. is equal to the double triangle . And the rectangular plane
on similar to the mentioned plane is equal to the double triangle . Therefore sq. without sq. is equal to the rectangular plane on similar to the
mentioned plane.
Furthermore sq. is equal to the double triangle . But the triangle
is equal to the triangle , so sq. is equal to the sum of the double triangles and . But sq. is equal to the double triangle . And the rectangular plane on similar to the mentioned rectangular plane is equal to the
double triangle . Therefore sq. is greater than sq. by an amount equal
to the rectangular plane on together with the excess of it over the latus rectum. And the rectangular plane on is greater than that on , and that on
is greater than that on , [and that is greater than that on , and that
on is greater than that on ].
Therefore is the smallest of the straight lines drawn from to the section, and is the greatest of them. And as for the other straight lines those of
them drawn closes to shortest straight line are smaller than those drawn farther
from it. And the square of each of them is greater than the square on the
shortest straight line by an amount equal to the mentioned plane.
176

[Proposition] 7

If a point is taken on the mentioned minimal straight lines in one of three


section, and straight lines are drawn from it to the section, then the shortest of
them is the straight line between the point and the vertex of the section, and
those of other straight lines drawn in that half of the section closer to it are
shorter than those drawn farther 11.
Let there be of a cone whose axis be . Let the minimal straight
line be . Let there be an arbitrary point on . From it to the section
straight lines , , and are drawn.
I say that is the shortest of them, and that those [of them] drawn
closer to it are smaller than those drawn farther.
[Proof]. For let be drawn . Then is greater than . Therefore the
angle is greater than the angle . By how much the more is the angle
greater than the angle , so is greater than .
Furthermore is greater than , so the angle is greater than the
angle . So by how much the more is the angle less than the angle ,
therefore is greater than .
Similarly also it will be proved that is greater than . So is the
shortest of the straight lines drawn from to the section, and as for other
straight lines those of them drawn closer to are shorter than those drawn
farther.
[Proposition] 8

If a point is taken on the axis of a parabola, the distance of which from the vertex of the section is greater than the half of the latus rectum, and there is cut
off on the axis from the point witch was taken on it towards the vertex of the
section a straight line equal to the half of the latus rectum, and from the
[other] end of that straight line which was cut off there is drawn a perpendicular to the axis, and that perpendicular is continued to meet the section, and
there is drawn from the place there it meets the section a straight line to the
taken point, then that straight line is the shortest of the straight lines drawn
from the taken point on the axis to the section, and of all other straight lines on
both sides [of it] those drawn closer to it are shorter than those drawn farther,
and the square on each of them is greater than thee square on the shortest
straight line by an amount equal to the square on the segment between the
feet of the perpendiculars to the axis from two of them. 12
177

Let there be the parabola whose axis , and let be longer than
the half of the latus rectum, and let the half of the latus rectum be . The perpendicular to is drawn and is joined.
I say that is the shortest of the straight lines drawn from to the section, and as for other straight lines drawn from [ to] those of them
drawn closer to are shorter than drawn farther on both sides. From to the
section , , , and are drawn.
I say also that the square on each of these straight lines are greater than
sq. be an amount equal to the square on the segment between the foot of
the perpendicular from it and .
[Proof]. For let the perpendiculars [, , , and ] be drawn and let
be a perpendicular [to the axis],and let be the half of the latus rectum.
Then the double pl. is equal to sq., as is proved in Theorem 11 of Book I,
and the double pl. is equal to the double pl., .
We make the sum of the double pl., sq., and sq. common. Then
the sum of the double pl., ,the double pl., sq., and sq. is equal to
the sum sq. and sq. which sq. .But the sum of the double pl., and
the double pl. is equal to the double pl.. Therefore sq.KE is equal to the
sum of the double pl., sq., and sq.. But the double pl. is equal to
sq. because is equal to . Therefore the sum of sq., sq., and sq.
is equal to sq.. But the sum of sq. and sq. is equal to sq..
Therefore sq. is equal to the sum of sq. and sq.. Therefore the amount
by which sq. is greater than sq. is equal to sq. .
Similarly also it will be proved that the difference between sq. and
sq. is equal to sq.. And since the double pl. is equal to sq. [because
is equal to ], therefore the difference between sq. and sq. is equal to
sq.. And is smaller than , which is smaller than .
Therefore EH is the least of the straight lines drawn from to the section
on the side of .
Furthermore sq. is equal to the double pl. and is equal to the double pl.. And the double pl. is equal to sq.. Therefore sq. is equal to
the sum of sq. and sq.. Therefore amount by which sq. is greater than
sq. is equal to sq..
Furthermore sq. is equal to the double pl., because is equal to
. We make sq. common. Then the sum of the double pl., the double
sq., and the double sq. is equal to sq.. But the sum of the double
pl., and the double sq. is equal to sq.. Therefore sq. without sq. is
equal to sq..
178

Similarly also it will be proved that sq. without sq. is equal to sq.DZ.
But is greater than , which is greater than .
Therefore is the least of the straight lines drawn from to the section, and those drawn closer to it are smaller than those drawn farther, and the
difference between them and it is equal to the square on the segment between
the foot of the perpendicular from it and .
[Proposition] 9

If a point is taken on the axis of a hyperbola such that the distance between it
and the vertex of the section is greater than the half of the latus rectum, and
the segment between the taken point and the center is cut in two parts such
that as one is to other, so the transverse diameter is to the latus rectum, and
the segment next to the center is one corresponding to the transverse diameter, and there is drawn from the point at which that segment was cut a perpendicular to the axis so as to meet the section and the segment between the
point of its meeting and the taken point is joined, then that joined straight line
is the least of thee straight lines drawn from the taken point to the section,
and as for the other straight lines on either side of it those of them drawn
closer [to it] are smaller than those drawn farther, and the amount by which the
square on each of them is greater than the square on it is equal to the rectangular plane on the segment between the foot the perpendiculars from two of
them similar to the rectangular plane under the transverse diameter and a segment equal to the sum of the transverse diameter and the latus rectum when
the side corresponding to the transverse diameter is the segment between two
perpendiculars 13.
Let there be the hyperbola whose external axis and center . Let
be greater than the half of the latus rectum. Let as is to , so transverse diameter is to the latus rectum [Then falls between and ] from a
perpendicular to the axis is drawn, and is joined.
I say that is the smallest of the straight lines drawn from to the section, and that [other straight lines] on both sides those drawn closer to it are
smaller than those drawn farther, and that the difference between the square
on each of them and the square on it is equal to rectangular plane on the segment between the feet of their two perpendiculars similar to the rectangular
plane under the transverse diameter and a segment equal to the sum of the
transverse diameter and the latus rectum, when the transverse diameter corresponds to the segment between two perpendicular.
179

[Proof]. For let the half of the latus rectum be made , and let the perpendicular and and other perpendicular [, , and ], be drawn and
continued in a straight line. Let be joined [to meet the perpendicular at ,
, , , and ] and be joined and continued in both directions [to meet
at , , and at ] . Then as is to , so the transverse diameter is to
the latus rectum. But as is to , so is to ,and as is to . Therefore is equal to .
But sq. is equal to the double area , as is proved in Theorem 1 of
this Book, and sq. is equal to the double triangle . Therefore sq. is
equal to the double area .
Furthermore sq. is equal to the double area , as is proved in Theorem 1 of this Book, and sq. is equal to thee double triangle .
Therefore sq. is equal to the sum of the double area and the double triangle .
But it was proved that sq. is equal to the double area . Therefore
sq. without sq. is equal to the double triangle .
Let the straight lines , , and be drawn parallel to . Then as
HG is to , so is to because is equal to .
So as is to so the transverse diameter is to the latus rectum.
Therefore as is to , so transverse diameter is to a segment
equal to the sum of the transverse diameter and the latus rectum.
But is equal to . Therefore the rectangular plane is similar to
the rectangular plane under the transverse diameter and a segment equal to the
sum of the transverse diameter and the latus rectum.
And the quadrangle is equal to the double triangle , which is the difference between sq. and sq..
And is equal to . Therefore sq. without sq. is equal to the rectangular plane on similar to the mentioned plane when the transverse diameter corresponds to .
Similarly also it will be proved that sq. without sq. is equal to
rectangular plane on similar to the mentioned plane when again the transverse diameter corresponds to .
Furthermore sq. is equal to the double triangle , and sq. is equal
to the double quadrangle , as is proved in Theorem 1 of this Book.
Therefore sq. without sq. is equal to the double triangle .
But the double triangle is equal to the rectangular plane on similar
to the mentioned . Therefore sq. without sq. is equal to the rectangular
plane on similar to the mentioned plane.
180

And is smaller than , which is smaller than . Therefore is smaller than


, which is smaller than , which is smaller than .
Therefore is the least of the straight lines drawn from to the section
on the one side that towards .
Furthermore sq. is equal to the double quadrangle , as is proved in
Theorem 1 of this Book, and it was proved that sq. is equal to the double
quadrangle . Therefore sq. without sq. is equal to the double
triangle , and the rectangular plane on similar to the mentioned plane is
equal to the double that triangle.
Furthermore sq. is equal to the double quadrangle , as is proved in
Theorem 1 of this Book, and sq. is equal to the double triangle . Therefore
sq. is equal to the sum of the double triangle and the double quadrangle
.
But it was proved that sq. is equal to the double quadrangle . And
the rectangular plane on similar to the mentioned plane is equal to the double triangle .
Similarly also it can be proved that sq. without sq. is equal to the
rectangular plane on similar to the mentioned plane. And is smaller than
which is smaller than . Therefore is smaller than which is smaller
than which is smaller . Therefore is the least of the straight lines
drawn from to the section, and of the straight lines on either side of those
of them drawn closer to are smaller than those drawn farther, and the
square on each of them is greater than the square on by an amount equal to
the rectangular plane on the segment between the feet of their perpendiculars
and the foot of its perpendicular similar to the mentioned rectangular plane.
[Proposition] 10

If a point is taken on the major axis of an ellipse such that the distance
between that point and the vertex of the section is longer than the half of the
latus rectum, and as the segment between the vertex of the section and the
taken point on the axis is cut at a point such that the segment between the
center of the section and the point at which the cut was made is to the segment between that [latter] point and the first taken point, so the transverse diameter is to the latus rectum, and from the point at which the cut was made a
perpendicular is drawn to the axis to meet the section, and from the point
where it meets [the sections] a straight line is drawn to the first taken point,
then this straight line is the smallest of the straight lines drawn from the taken
point to the section, and of the remaining straight lines [drawn from that point
181

to the section] those of them drawn closer to that straight line are smaller than
those drawn farther, and the amount by which [each of] the squares on them is
greater than the square on it is equal to the rectangular plane on the segment
between feet of the perpendiculars from them and the foot of the perpendicular
from it which is similar to the rectangular plane under the transverse diameter
and the excess of the transverse diameter over the latus rectum when the
transverse diameter corresponds to that segment 14.
Let there be the ellipse whose major axis be , and center . Let
be greater than the half of the latus rectum, and as is to , so is to
the latus rectum. From a perpendicular to the major axis is drawn, namely ,
it is continued to , and is joined.
I say that is the smallest of the straight lines, drawn from to the
section, and that of thee other straight lines [drawn from to the section]
those of them drawn closer to that straight line are smaller than those drawn
farther and that the amount by which their are squares are greater than its
square is equal to the rectangular plane on the segment between the feet of
the perpendiculars from them and similar to the rectangular plane under the
diameter and the excess of that diameter over the latus rectum then the diameter corresponds to the segment between and the foot of the perpendicular.
[Proof]. For let the straight lines [, , , and ] and the perpendiculars [, , , , and ] be drawn as in the diagram, and let be
perpendicular to , and let be the half of the latus rectum. , are
joined and continued [and is continued to meet them at and , and is
continued at ].
Then as is to , so the transverse diameter is to the latus rectum
therefore as is to , so is to . But as is to , so is to ,
therefore as is to so is to . Therefore is equal to .
Let , , and be drawn parallel to . Then sq. is equal to the
double triangle , and sq. is equal to the double quadrangle , as is
proved in Theorem 1 of this Book. Therefore sq. is equal to the double quadrangle .
Furthermore sq. is equal to the double quadrangle , as is proved in
Theorem 1 of this Book, and esq. is equal to the double triangle . Therefore
sq. is equal to the sum of the double quadrangle and the double triangle .
But sq. was shown to be equal to the double quadrangle .
182

Therefore sq. without sq. is equal to the double triangle . But the double triangle is equal to the quadrangle .
Furthermore as is to , so is to . But is to . Therefore
is equal to . And as is to , so is to .
Therefore as is to ,so is to .
But as is to , so the transverse diameter is to the latus rectum.
Therefore as is to , so the transverse diameter is to the latus rectum.
Convertendo as is to , so the transverse diameter is to the excess
of the transverse diameter over the latus rectum;
But is equal to , so the quadrangle is similar to the rectangular plane under the transverse diameter and its excess over the latus rectum.
Therefore sq. without sq. is equal to the rectangular plane on similar to
the mentioned one where corresponds to the transverse diameter.
Similarly also it will be proved that sq. without sq. is equal to the
rectangular plane on similar to the mentioned plane, and that sq. without
sq. is equal to the rectangular plane on similar to the mentioned plane.
But is smaller than , which is smaller than . Therefore is smaller
, which is smaller than , which is smaller than .
Furthermore sq. is equal to the double quadrangle , as is proved
in Theorem 1 of this Book. And sq. is equal to the double quadrangle ,
as we moved above. Therefore sq. without sq. is equal to the double
triangle .
But the double triangle is equal to the rectangular plane on similar
to the mentioned plane, and that will proved in the way described previously.
Furthermore sq. is equal to the double triangle , as is proved in
Theorem 2 of this Book. And sq. is equal to the double triangle .
Therefore sq. is equal to the sum of the double triangle and the double
quadrangle . Therefore sq. without sq. is equal to the double triangle
.
But the double triangle is equal to the rectangular plane on similar
to the mentioned plane.
Furthermore sq. is equal to the double quadrangle , as is proved
in Theorem 3 of this Book.
And sq. is equal to the double triangle . Therefore sq. is equal
to the sum of the double triangle and the double quadrangle .
But the triangle is equal to the triangle . Therefore sq.ME is equal
to the sum of the double quadrangle and the triangle . Therefore
183

sq. without sq. is equal to the double triangle . But the double triangle
is equal to the rectangular plane on similar to the mentioned plane.
Furthermore sq. is equal to the double triangle , and the triangle
is equal to the triangle . Therefore sq. is equal to the sum of the
double triangle and the quadrangle . Therefore sq. without sq. is
equal to the double triangle . But the double triangle is equal to the rectangular plane on similar to the mentioned plane.
And is smaller than which , which is smaller than . Therefore
is smaller than which is smaller than which is smaller than .
Therefore is the least of the straight lines drawn from to section
, and as for the rest of the straight lines on both sides [of ] those drawn
closer to are smaller than those drawn farther, and the amounts by which
the squares on them are greater than the square on it are equal to the rectangular planes on the segments between the feet of their perpendiculars and the
foot of its perpendicular similar to the mentioned plane 15.
[Proposition] 11

The smallest of the straight lines drawn from the center of an ellipse to
the boundary of the section is the half of the minor axis, and the graters of
them is the half on the major axis, and those straight lines drawn [from the center] closer to the longest straight line are greater than those drawn farther, and
the amount by which the square on each of those straight lines is greater than
the square on the shortest straight line is equal to the rectangular plane on the
segment between the foot of the perpendicular [from that straight line] and the
center similar to the rectangular plane under the transverse diameter and the
excess of it and over the latus rectum 16.
Let there be the ellipse whose major axis be and minor axis .
I say that the longest of the straight lines drawn from the center to the
section is , and the shortest of them is , and that of the other the straight
lines between and those of them drawn closer to are greater than
those drawn farther from it, and that the amounts by which the squares on
them are greater the square on are equal to the rectangular planes on the
segments between the feet of the perpendiculars from them onto and
similar to the rectangular plane under and the excess of over the latus
rectum.
[Proof]. For let and be drawn, and the perpendiculars and are
dropped. Let the half of the latus rectum be . Then is smaller than
184

. So let be equal to . Let and be joined, and and are continued to and , and and be drawn parallel to . Then pl. is equal
to . But is equal to , therefore is equal to . And sq. is equal to
the double quadrangle , as is proved in Theorem 1 of this Book.
And sq.IE is equal to the double triangle . Therefore sq. is equal to
the sum of the double triangles and . And sq. is equal to the double
triangle , as is proved in Theorem 2 of this Book.
And the double triangle is equal to the quadrangle . Therefore
sq. without sq. is equal to the quadrangle . And as is to , so the
transverse diameter is to the latus rectum, and as is to , so is to ,
and convertendo as is to so the transverse diameter is to the excess of
the transverse diameter over the latus rectum.
But is equal to . Therefore thee quadrangle is similar to the
rectangular plane under the transverse diameter and its excess over the latus
rectum. But is equal to . Therefore sq. without sq. is equal to the
rectangular plane on similar to the mentioned plane.
Similarly also it will be proved that sq. without is equal to the rectangular plane on similar to the plane.
Furthermore sq. is equal to the double triangle , and sq. is equal
to the double triangle . Therefore sq. without sq. is equal to the double
triangle . But the double triangle is equal to the rectangular plane on
similar to the mentioned plane.
And is greater than which is greater than . Therefore is
greater than which is greater than , which is greater than .
Therefore the longest on the straight lines drawn from is , and the
shortest of them is , and as for the other straight lines [from ] between
and those of them drawn closer to are longer than those drawn farther,
the amount by which the square on each of then is greater than the square on
is equal to the rectangular plane on the segment between the foot the perpendicular from it onto and the center similar to the mentioned plane.
[Proposition] 12

If a point is taken on one of the straight lines which has been proved to
be minimal on straight lines drawn from some point on the axis to one of the
[three] sections and straight lines are drawn from that [first] point to the section on one side, then the shortest of them is the segment of the minimal line
185

adjoining the section, and those drawn closer to it are shorter than those drawn
farther 17.
Let there be the conic section whose axis and the minimal straight
line drawn from some point on it be . On it an arbitrary point is taken. I say
that is the shortest of the straight lines drawn from in that part of the
section.
[Proof]. For let , , and be drawn, and , , , , and be
joined then is greater than , so the angle is greater than the angle
. But the angle is greater than the angle , therefore the angle
is mush greater than the angle . Therefore is greater than .
Furthermore is greater than , therefore the angle is greater
than the angle . Therefore the angle is much greater than the angle
. Therefore is greater than .
Similarly also it will be proved that is greater than . Therefore is
the smallest of the straight lines drawn in this part of the section, and those
drawn closer to it are smaller than those drawn farther.
Similarly also it will proved concerning those straight lines where they are
drawn in the other part of the section.
[Proposition] 13

If there is drawn from a point from the axis of a parabola the minimal of
the straight lines drawn from that point to the section, so as to form an angle
with the axis, then that angle which it forms with the axis will be acute,
and if a perpendicular is dropped from its [other] end to the axis, then [that
perpendicular] cuts off from it segment equal to the half of the latus rectum18.
Let there be the parabola whose axis , and the minimal straight line
drawn [from ] in the parabola, .
I say that the angle at is acute, and that the perpendicular drawn from
to cuts off from it a segment equal to the half of the latus rectum.
[Proof]. For is minimal, so is greater than the half of the latus rectum. For if it were not greater than it, would be either equal to it or less
than it.
But if it were equal to it, would minimal, as is proved in Theorem 4 of
this Book. But that is not so for the minimal is . And if were less than the
half of the latus rectum, then where a straight line equal to the half of the latus
rectum was cut off from the axis the point at which the cut was made would be
beyond . Therefore it could be proved from Theorem 4 of this Book that is
smaller than . Therefore is not smaller than the half of the latus rectum.
186

And we have proved that it is not equal to it. Therefore it is greater than it.
Therefore let the [straight line] equal to the half of the latus rectum be .
Then I say that the perpendicular drawn from meets .
[Proof]. For let if that is not so the perpendicular be . Then is the
shortest of the straight lines drawn from to the section, as is proved in Theorem 8 of this Book. But was the minimal. That is impossible.
Therefore the perpendicular drawn from meets , and is equal to the
half of the latus rectum, and the angle is acute.
[Propositions] 14

If there is drawn from the axis of a hyperbola a straight line which is


minimal of the straight lines drawn from that point, so as to form with the axis
two angles, then that angle of two which is towards the vertex of the section is
acute, and if there is drawn from the [other] end of the minimal straight line a
perpendicular to the axis, it cuts the straight line between the center of the
section and the point on the axis from which the minimal line is drawn into two
parts such that as that part adjacent to the center is to the other part, so the
transverse diameter is to the latus rectum 19.
Let there be the hyperbola whose axis , and the minimal straight
line drawn from , and the center .
I say that the angle is acute, and that the perpendicular falling from
onto axis cuts into two parts such that as one part of two is to the
other, so the transverse diameter is to the latus rectum.
[Proof]. For is longer than the half of the latus rectum, as is proved
from Theorem 4 of this Book. And is the half of the transverse diameter.
Therefore the ratio to is less than the ratio of the transverse diameter to
the latus rectum.
Therefore we cut into two parts at such that as one of them is to
the other, so the transverse diameter is to the latus rectum.
Then I say that the perpendicular drawn from to reaches for if that
is not so, let it be as perpendicular let be joined then GZ is the minimal
straight line drawn from , as is proved in Theorem 9 of this Book.
But the minimal straight line was AG, that impossible. Therefore the perpendicular drawn from reaches , therefore the angle is acute, and the
perpendicular drawn from cuts into two parts such that as one of them is
to the other, so the transverse diameter is to the latus rectum.
[Proposition] 15
187

If there is drawn from a point on the major of two axes of an ellipse a


straight line that is minimal of the straight lines drawn from that point, then
that minimal straight line, if it was drawn from the center, is a perpendicular to
the major axis 20.
Let there be the ellipse whose the major axis is and the center .
Let first from the minimal straight line be drawn to the section.
I say that is perpendicular to .
[Proof]. For let it be not so, let be perpendicular to . Then, as is
proved in Theorem 11 of this Book, is minimal straight line drawn from I to
the section. But this straight line is , and this impossible, therefore is perpendicular to .
Furthermore let other point is taken on the major axis. Then the minimal
straight line drawn from to the section is .
I say that the angle is obtuse, and that the perpendicular dropped
from to is such that as the segment between the foot of the perpendicular
and is to the segment between the foot of the perpendicular and , so the
transverse diameter is to the latus rectum. If is the minimal straight line
drawn from [to the section] then as is proved in Theorem 10 of this Book,
then the ratio of to is less than the ratio of the transverse diameter to
the latus rectum.
Let be divided at so that as is to , so the transverse diameter
is to the latus rectum. I say that the perpendicular drawn from passes
through for if that is not so, let it be as , then is minimal of the straight
lines drawn from , as is proved in Theorem 10 of this Book. But the minimal of
those straight lines was , and that is impossible. Therefore the perpendicular
drawn from passes through , and the angle is obtuse. So the perpendicular drawn from to is , and as is to , so the transverse diameter is
to the latus rectum.
[Proposition] 16

If a point is taken on the minor of two axes of an ellipse such that the
segment of the minor axis between it and the vertex of the section is equal to
the half of the latus rectum, then of the straight lines drawn from the point to
the section the greatest is the part of the minor axis which is equal to the half
of the latus rectum, and the smallest is the complement of the minor axis and
of the other straight lines [so drawn] those of them drawn closer to the maximal straight line are longer than those drawn farther, and the excess of the
188

square on it over the square on each of them is equal to rectangular plane on


the segment between the foot of the perpendicular from it and the end of the
minor axis similar to the rectangular plane under the minor axis and the excess
of the latus rectum over it 21.
Let there be the ellipse whose minor axis and center , let on
the axis be taken such that is equal to the half of the latus rectum.
I say that the greatest of the straight lines drawn from to the section
is , and the smallest of them is , and that of the remaining straight
lines those drawn nearer to are longer than those farther, and that sq. is
greater than the square on each of them by an amount equal to the rectangular
plane on the segment between the foot of the perpendicular from it and similar to the mentioned plane.
[Proof]. For let , , , and be drawn. Let be perpendicular to
, and let the half of the latus rectum be , and and be joined and
continued, and let the perpendiculars , , and be dropped, and parallel to the ordinates be drawn, and , [] parallel to be drawn. Then
is equal to . Therefore sq. is equal to the double triangle .
But sq. is equal to the double triangle , and sq. is equal to the
double quadrangle , as is proved in Theorem 1 in this Book. Therefore
sq. without sq. is equal to the double triangle .
But the double this triangle is the quadrangle , and as is to ,
so the transverse diameter is to the excess of the latus rectum over it [because
as the half of the transverse diameter is to the half of the latus rectum, so the
transverse diameter is to the latus rectum], and as is to , so is to ,
that is to . Therefore as is to , so the transverse diameter is to
the excess of the latus rectum over it.
And is equal to . Therefore sq. without sq. is equal to the rectangular plane on similar to the mentioned plane.
Similarly also it will be proved that sq. without sq. is equal to the
rectangular plane on similar to the mentioned plane.
Furthermore sq. is equal to the double quadrangle , as is proved
in Theorem 3 of this Book, and sq. is equal to the double triangle , and
the triangle is equal to the triangle . Therefore sq. without sq. is
equal to the double triangle .
But the double this triangle is equal to the rectangular plane on similar
to the mentioned plane.
Therefore is greater than , which is greater than , which is
greater than .
189

Furthermore sq. is equal to the double quadrangle , as is proved


in Theorem 3 of this Book.
And sq. is equal to the double triangle . Therefore sq. is equal to
the sum of the double quadrangle and the double triangle .
But sq. is equal to the double triangle , and the triangle is
equal to the triangle . Therefore sq. without sq. is equal to the double
triangle .
But the double this triangle is equal to the rectangular plane on similar
to the mentioned plane.
Furthermore sq. is equal to the double triangle , and the triangle
is equal to the triangle . Therefore sq. without sq. is equal to the
double triangle .
But the double this triangle is equal to the rectangular plane on similar
to the mentioned plane.
Therefore is the greatest of the straight lines drawn from to the section, and is the shortest of them, and of the other straight lines those drawn
nearer to are greater than those drawn farther, and the excess of sq. over
the squares on the other straight lines is equal to the rectangular plane on the
segment between the foot of the perpendicular from [each of] them and similar to the mentioned plane.
[Proposition] 17
Furthermore if [which is the minor axis of the ellipse] equal to the half
of the latus rectum and the center be made , then I say that is the greatest of the straight lines drawn from to the section, and those [straight lines
drawn closer to it are greater than those drawn farther, and the difference between the square on it and the square on each of them is equal to the rectangular plane on the segment between the feet of the perpendiculars from [each of]
them and similar to the mentioned plane in the previous theorem 22.
[Proof]. For let the straight lines set up this diagram like the set up of the
previous diagram be drawn. Then it will proved in the way proved there
that sq. is greater than sq. by an amount equal to the rectangular plane
on similar to the mentioned plane.
Similarly also it will be proved that sq. is greater than sq. by an
amount equal to the rectangular plane on .
Furthermore sq. is equal to the double quadrangle , as is proved in
Theorem 3 of this Book. And sq. is equal to the double triangle .
190

Therefore sq. is equal to the double quadrangle . And sq. is


equal to the double triangle , because is equal to , and the triangle
is equal to the triangle . Therefore sq. without sq. is equal to the
double triangle . And the double this triangle is equal to the rectangular
plane on similar to the mentioned plane, that will be proved as in the preceding theorem. Therefore is greater than , which is greater than , which is
greater than .
Therefore the greatest of the straight lines drawn from [to the section]
is , and of the remaining straight lines those drawn closer to it are greater
than those drawn farther, and the excess of sq. over the square on [each of]
them is equal to the rectangular plane under the segment between the foot of
the perpendicular from [each of] them and similar to the mentioned plane.
[Proposition] 18
Furthermore if the minor axis of the ellipse is made , the center , and the
straight line equal to the half of the latus rectum [which is greater than ],
then I say that is the greatest of the straight lines drawn from to the section, and the smallest of them is , and that of the others straight lines which
cut the section those drawn closer to are greater than those drawn farther,
and for those straight lines which fall outside [the section] those drawn closer
to are smaller than those drawn farther, and that sq. is greater than the
square on each of them by the amount of the rectangular plane under the segment between and the foot of the perpendicular [from the end of the segment] similar to the plane mentioned in two preceding theorems23.
[Proof] . For let , , be drawn and set up like in the preceding
diagram. Then it will also be proved that sq. is greater than sq. by an
amount equal to the rectangular plane under similar to the mentioned plane,
and that sq. is greater than sq. by an amount equal to the rectangular
plane on similar to the mentioned plane , and that sq. is greater than
sq. by an amount equal to the rectangular plane on similar to the mentioned plane.
Furthermore sq. is equal to the double triangle [because is
equal to ], and sq. is equal to the double triangle , and the triangle
is equal to the triangle , therefore sq. without sq. is equal to the
double triangle . But the double triangle is equal to the rectangular
plane on similar to the mentioned plane.
191

Therefore is greater than , which is greater than , which is greater


than , which is greater than .
Furthermore sq. is equal to double quadrangle , as is proved in
Theorem 3 of this Book, and sq. is equal to the double triangle .
Therefore sq. s equal to the sum of the double quadrangle and
the double triangle . And sq. is equal to the double triangle , and the
triangle is equal to the triangle . Therefore sq. without sq. is
equal to the double triangle . But the double triangle is equal to the
rectangular plane on similar to the plane mentioned in two preceding theorems.
Similarly too it will be proved that sq. is greater than sq. by an
amount equal to the rectangular plane on similar to the mentioned plane, and
that the difference between sq. and sq. is equal to the rectangular plane
on similar to the mentioned plane.
And it has been shown that the difference between sq. and sq. is
equal to the rectangular plane on similar to the mentioned plane. Therefore
is smaller than which is smaller than which the smaller than .
Therefore is the greatest of the straight lines drawn from [to the
section] and is the least of them, and of the other straight lines which cut
the section those of them drawn closer to are grater than those drawn farther, and for those [straight lines] which do not cut the section, those of them
drawn closer to are smaller than those farther, and the difference between
the square on [one of those] straight lines and sq. or sq. is equal to the
rectangular plane on the segment between [or ] and the foot of the perpendicular [from the other end of the segment] similar to the mentioned plane.
[Proposition] 19

If a point is taken on the minor of two axes on a ellipse such that its
difference from the vertices of the section is a distance greater than the half of
the latus rectum, then the greatest of the straight lines drawn from that point
to the section is the straight line drawn to the vertex of the section and of the
others straight lines those drawn closer to it are greater than those drawn farther24.
Let there be the ellipse whose minor axis , and let for it is taken
and let be greater than the half of the latus rectum,

192

I say that is the greatest of the straight lines drawn from to the section, and that of the other straight lines those drawn closer to are greater
than those drawn farther.
[Proof]. For let the half of the latus rectum be , from , , and
are drawn and , and are joined, and , , , and are joined.
Then is greater than , because it was proved in three preceding theorems.
Therefore the angle is greater than the angle , and is greater than
.
Furthermore is greater than . Therefore the angle is greater
than the angle . Therefore the angle is much greater than the angle
. Therefore is greater than .
Similarly it will be proved that is greater than .
Therefore is the greatest of the straight lines drawn from to the section, and the remaining straight lines those drawn closer to it are greater than
those drawn farther.
[Proposition] 20

If a point is taken on the minor of two axes on a ellipse such that the
segment between that point and the vertex of the section is smaller than the
half of the latus rectum, but greater than the half of the [transverse]
diameter, and the segment between the vertex of the section and its center
is divided at a point such that as the segment between the center and that
point at which the segment was divided is to the segment between that point
and the first taken point, so the transverse diameter is to the latus rectum, and
there is drawn from this last point which was taken a perpendicular to the axis
to meet the section, and a straight line id drawn from the point where it
reaches [the section] to the first taken point, then the greatest of the straight
lines drawn to the section from that first taken point is the straight line which
was joined, and of the other straight lines those drawn closer to it are greater
than those drawn farther, and the amount by which the square on it is greater
than the square on each of them is equal to the rectangular plane on the segment between the second taken point and the foot of the perpendicular from
[the end of] the segment similar to the rectangular plane under the transverse
diameter and the amount by which the latus rectum is greater than it 25.
Let there be the ellipse whose minor axis , and let there be on it
a point such that is greater than the half of the transverse diameter which
is , but smaller than the half of the latus rectum. Let the center be , and let
be divided at such that as is to , so the transverse diameter which
193

is is to the latus rectum. [that is possible because the half of the latus rectum is greater than ]. Let from a perpendicular to is drawn, namely ,
and let be joined.
I say that is the greatest of the straight lines drawn from to the section, and that of the straight lines drawn on both sides [of ] those drawn
nearer to it are greater than those drawn farther, and that the amount by which
sq. is greater than the square on each of them is equal to the rectangular
plane under the segment between and the foot of the perpendicular from it
similar to the mentioned plane.
[Proof]. For let , , , and arbitrary positions be drawn, let be
a perpendicular to the axis, and let the half of the latus rectum be , and let
perpendiculars , , , be drawn and, be joined and continued, and
the perpendiculars and the straight lines parallel to , as we did in the preceding theorems, be drawn. Then as is to , so the transverse diameter is to
the latus rectum, that is is to . But as is to , so is to . Therefore is equal to , and sq. is equal to the double be triangle . And
sq. is equal to the double quadrangle , as is proved in Theorem 1 of
this Book. Therefore sq. is equal to the sum of the double triangle and
the double quadrangle .
Furthermore sq. is equal to the double quadrangle , and sq. is
equal to the double triangle . Therefore sq. is equal to the sum of the
double triangle and the double quadrangle , and sq. without sq. is
equal to the double triangle .
But this double triangle is equal to the rectangular plane on , which is
equal to the mentioned plane [that will be proved in a way similar to that described in the proof of Theorem 16 of this Book].
Similarly also it will be proved that sq. without sq. is equal to the
rectangular plane on similar to the mentioned plane.
Furthermore sq. is equal to the double triangle . Therefore sq.
without sq. is equal to the double triangle , which is equal to the rectangular plane on similar to the mentioned plane.
Therefore is greater than which greater than which is greater
than .
Furthermore sq. is equal to the double quadrangle , as is proved
in Theorem 3 of this Book. And it has already been shown that sq. is equal to
the sum of the double triangles and . But the triangle is equal to
the triangle . Therefore sq. without sq. is equal to the double triangle
. And the double triangle is equal to the rectangular plane on simi194

lar to the mentioned plane [that will be proved in a way similar to the way
which was in the proof of Theorem 16 of this Book].
Similarly also it will be proved that sq. without sq. is equal to the
rectangular plane on similar to the mentioned plane.
Therefore is the longest of the straight lines drawn from to the section, and for the others straight lines those of them drawn closer to are
longer than those drawn farther, and the amount by which sq. is greater than
the square on each of them is equal to the rectangular plane on the segment
between and the foot of the perpendicular from it [the other end of the segment] similar to the mentioned plane.
Similarly also it will be proved that the half of the latus rectum is greater
than the [transverse] diameter is equal to the minor axis, or if it is greater than
it, then of the straight lines drawn from the point of first diagram, or from
the point of the second diagram, or from a point such as the point outside
the point of the third diagram, the greatest is the mentioned straight line.
That will be proved in the second and third diagrams by a method similar to the
one stated for the first diagram.
[Proposition] 21

If a point is taken on the maximal straight line mentioned in the preceding


theorem in the ellipse such that the distance between it and that
end of the maximal straight line which lies on the section is greater than the
maximal straight line, then the greatest of the straight lines drawn from that
point [to the section] in one part of the section is the straight line of which the
maximal is a part, and as for the straight line on either side of it, those of them
nearer to the straight line are greater than those drawn farther 26.
Let there be the ellipse whose [minor] axis , and let be the
maximal straight line drawn from , that is one mentioned in the theorem preceding this. Let be drawn and be taken on it in such a way that is
greater than the maximal straight line .
I say that the greatest of the straight lines drawn from to the section is
, and that of the other straight lines those drawn closer to it are greater than
those drawn farther.
[Proof]. For let and be drawn, and , , and [also] , , ,
and be joined.
Then is greater than . Therefore the angle is greater than the
angle . Therefore the angle is much greater than the single , and
is greater than .
195

Furthermore is greater than . Therefore the angle is greater


than the angle . Therefore the angle is much greater than the angle
, and therefore is greater than .
Similarly also it will be proved that is greater than .
Therefore is the longest of the straight lines drawn from to the section in this part of the section, and of the others straight lines those drawn
closer to are greater than those drawn farther.
Similarly also what we asserted will be proved if the maximal straight line
proceeds from or from one of the other points which lie on the continued axis
.
[Proposition] 22.

If there is drawn from a point on the minor of two axes on an ellipse a


straight line such that it encloses together with the axis an angle, and that the
straight line is maximal of the straight lines drawn from that point to the section, then, if that point is the center of the section, the maximal straight line is
perpendicular to the minor axis, but if it is not the center, then the angle enclosed between it and that part of the axis towards the center is acute, and if
there is drawn from the [other] end of the straight line a perpendicular to the
axis, then as the segment between the foot of its perpendicular and the center
of the section is to the segment between the foot and the taken point, so the
transverse diameter is to the latus rectum 27.
Let there be the ellipse whose minor axis . First let the maximal
straight line come from the center, and be , then I say that is perpendicular to .
[Proof]. For let if that is not so, the perpendicular be . Then is the
greatest straight line drawn from , as is proved in Theorem 11 of this Book.
But the greatest was , which is impossible. Therefore is perpendicular to
.
Now let the maximal straight line come from another point namely , and
let the straight line be . Then I say that the angle is acute, and that the
perpendicular drawn from to is such that as the length between its foot
and is to the length between its foot and , so the transverse diameter is to
he latus rectum.
[Proof]. For let be either greater than the half of the latus rectum, or
smaller or equal to it. But if it were equal to it, it would be the maximal straight
line, as we proved in Theorems 16 , 17, and 18 of this Book, and if it were
196

greater than, then again would be the maximal, as is proved in Theorem 19


of this Book. Therefore is smaller than the half of the latus rectum.
Therefore if we make the ratio of a straight line adjoining to the sum
of and that adjoining straight line equal to the ratio of the transverse diameter to the latus rectum, then that adjoining straight line is less than ,
let it be . Therefore as is to , so transverse diameter is to the
latus
rectum.
Then I say that straight line drawn from perpendicular to meets .
[Proof]. For if it did not meet it, but fell like , then would be maximal, as is proved in Theorem 20 of this Book. But that is not so, therefore the
perpendicular drawn from meets , and as is to , so the transverse diameter is to the latus rectum.
[Proposition] 23

If there is drawn from a point on the minor of two axes of an ellipse one
of the mentioned maximal straight lines, then that part of it intercepted between the section and the major axis is the smallest straight line that can be
drawn [to the section] from the point of its meeting with the major axis 28.
Let there be the ellipse whose major axis and minor axis .
And let be the maximal straight line drawn from K.
I say that is the shortest of the straight lines from Z to meet the section.
[Proof]. For let from a perpendicular to , and a perpendicular
to , be drawn.
Then as is to the latus rectum, so the latus rectum is to , as is
proved in Theorem 15 of Book I.
And as is to [its] latus rectum, so is to . Therefore as the latus
rectum [of ] is to , so is to , as is proved in Theorem 22 of this
Book. But as is to , so is to . Therefore as is to , so
is to latus rectum [of ].
And is a perpendicular [to ], and has been joined, and is the
major axis. Therefore is the shortest straight line drawn from to the section, has is proved in Theorem 10 of this Book.
[Preposition] 24

If a point is taken on any conic section whatever, then only one of the
minimal straight lines drawn from the axis meets it 29 .
197

Let the section be, first, a parabola whose axis .


Let on thee section the point be taken.
I say that only one of the minimal straight lines can be drawn from the
axis to .
[Proof]. For let if possible, two [minimal] straight lines and . Let
from a perpendicular to , be drawn. Then is equal to the half of the
latus rectum, as is proved in Theorem 13 of this Book. And similarly also is
equal to the half of the latus rectum, but that is impossible. Therefore only
one of the minimal straight lines can be drawn from the axis to .
[Proposition] 25
Furthermore let the section is the hyperbola or the ellipse whose the
axis and the center , and let on the section an arbitrary point be taken.
I say that only one of the minimal straight lines can be drawn from the
axis to 30 .
[Proof]. For if it is possible to draw more than one minimal straight line let
two [minimal] straight lines and be drawn, and from , a perpendicular
to , be drawn.
Then as is to , so the transverse diameter is to the latus rectum, as
is proved in Theorems 14 and 15 of this Book.
Similarly also as is to , so the transverse diameter is to the latus
rectum, but that is impossible. Therefore two minimal straight lines cannot be
drawn from the axis to .
[Proposition] 26

If a point is taken on an ellipse not on the minor axis, then only one of the
maximal straight lines can be drawn from it to the minor axis 31 .
Let there be the ellipse whose minor axis and a point on the
section.
I say that only one maximal straight line can be drawn from to .
[Proof]. For let, if possible, two [maximal] straight lines and be
drawn, and the perpendicular [to ] be drawn, and let the center be .
Then is one of the maximal straight lines drawn from the axis, therefore as is to , so the transverse diameter is to the latus rectum, as is
proved in Theorem 22 of this Book.

198

Similarly also it will be proved that as is to , so the transverse diameter is to the latus rectum, but that is impossible. Therefore only one maximal straight line can be drawn from to the [minor] axis.
[Proposition] 27

The straight line drawn from the end of one of the mentioned minimal
straight lines tangent to the section is perpendicular to minimal of straight line
32.
Let the section be, first, a parabola whose axis .
I say that the straight line drawn from the end of a minimal straight line
tangent to the section is perpendicular to the minimal straight line.
[Proof]. If the minimal straight line is a part of , then what we said is
evidently true].
But if minimal straight line is , we draw a straight line tangent to the
section , namely , that the angle is right.
We draw the perpendicular . Then is equal to the half of the latus
rectum, as is proved in Theorem 13 of this Book.
Furthermore is tangent to the parabola, and the perpendicular has
been drawn from [to the axis]. Therefore is equal to , as is proved in
Theorem 35 of Book I.
Therefore as is to the latus rectum, so is to , therefore pl. is
equal to the rectangular plane under and the latus rectum which is equal to
sq., therefore sq. is equal to pl..
And the angle is right, therefore the angle [also] is right.
[Proposition] 28
Furthermore let the section be the hyperbola or the ellipse whose axis
.
I say that the straight line drawn from the end of the minimal straight line
tangent to the section is perpendicular to the minimal straight line 33.
[Proof]. If the minimal straight line is a part of , then it is evident that
the straight line drawn from tangent to the section is perpendicular to the
minimal straight line because is the axis.
But if it is not a part of , let the minimal straight line be , and let the
tangent be . Then I say that the angle is right.
Let the perpendicular [to the axis] be drawn, and let the center be .
Then since is the minimal straight line, and is a perpendicular, as is to
199

, so the transverse diameter is to the latus rectum, as is proved in Theorems


14 and 15 of this Book.
But as is to , so pl. is to pl.. Therefore as pl. is to
pl., so the transverse diameter is to the latus rectum. But as the transverse
diameter is to the latus rectum, so pl. is to sq., as is providing Theorem
37 of Book 1. Therefore pl. is equal to sq..
And is a perpendicular [to the axis]. Therefore the angle is right.
[Proposition] 29
That may be proved in another way, that is as follows : let the conic section be and its axis be . Then I say that the straight line drawn from the
end of the minimal straight line tangent to the section is perpendicular to the
minimal straight line 34 .
Let the minimal straight line be and the tangent . Then I say that
the angle is right.
[Proof]. For if that is not so, we draw the perpendicular to .
Then is greater than .
Therefore how much the greater is it than . [But] that is impossible for
is minimal straight line, therefore the angle is so right.
[Proposition] 30

If a straight line is drawn from the end of one of the maximal straight lines
drawn in the ellipse whichever one it may be, so as to be tangent to the section,
then it is a perpendicular to the maximal straight line 35.
Let the ellipse be whose minor axis , and let there be drawn from a
point on the axis to the section one of the maximal lines . Let from a
straight line tangent to the section be drawn.
I say that the angle is right.
[Proof]. For let from the center of the section a perpendicular to the
[minor axis], be drawn. Then is the half of the major axis, and is the minor axis. And since has cut one of the maximal straight lines, then the part
of that straight line which fails between the section and the major axis is one of
the minimal straight lines, as is proved in Theorem 23 of this Book.
Therefore is one of the minimal straight lines, and is tangent,
therefore is a perpendicular to it, as is proved in three preceding Theorems.
[Proposition] 31
200

If there is drawn from the end of a minimal straight line that is drawn in
one of the [conic] sections a straight line at right angles [to the minimal
straight line], and that end is one point on the section, then the drawn straight
line is tangent to the section 36.
Let there be the conic section with a minimal straight line .
I say that the straight line drawn from such that it is a perpendicular
to is tangent to the section.
[Proof]. For let, if it is possible for it not be tangent, let it cut it, as .
Let from a point outside the section, between it and , the straight line
be drawn, and from a perpendicular to , be drawn. Then the angle
is acute and the angle is right.
Therefore is smaller than , and is much smaller than . But
was minimal, that is impossible.
Therefore the straight line drawn from perpendicular to is tangent to
the section.
[Proposition] 32
If there is a tangent to one of [conic] sections and a perpendicular is
drawn to that straight line from the point of contact to meet the axis, then
that drawn straight line is the minimal straight line that reaches that point
[from the axis] 37.
Let there be the conic section , and let be a tangent to it.
Let the point of contact a perpendicular to , be drawn and continued until
it reaches the axis .
I say that is one of the minimal straight lines.
[Proof]. For let, if that is not so, the minimal straight line which reaches
[from the axis] be . Then the angle is right, as is proved in Theorems 27,
28, and 29 of this Book. But the angle also was right, that is impossible.
Therefore is one of the minimal straight lines.
[Proposition] 33

If a perpendicular is drawn to one of the maximum straight lines, from


that and of it, which is on the section, then it is tangent to the section 38.
Let there be the conic section , and in it one of the maximal straight
lines .
I say that the straight line drawn from perpendicular to is a tangent
to the section.
201

[Proof]. For let if that is not so, if cut it as . Let from a straight line
cutting , be drawn. Then is greater than , and is greater than
.
Therefore is much greater than . But was one of the maximal
straight lines, and that is impossible. Therefore the straight line drawn from
perpendicular is tangent to the section.
[Proposition] 34

If a point is taken outside a conic section on a continued maximal or


minimal straight line, then the smallest length intercepted between that point
and the section [on the straight lines drawn from that point on either side of
the section but not continued to cut the section at more than one point] is the
straight line which is the continued maximal or minimal straight line, and of the
other straight lines those drawn closer to it are smaller than those drawn farther
39.
Let there be a conic section with a maximal or minimal straight line
in it. Let it be continued in a straight line, and let on it be taken, after it is
continued [outside the section] an arbitrary point . Let from to the section
, , and be drawn, let each of them cut the section in one point only.
I say that is the smallest of the straight lines drawn from to the
section, and that of the other straight lines those of them drawn closer to it
are smaller than those drawn farther.
[Proof]. For let be drawn tangent to the section then the angle is
right because of what was proved in Theorems 27, 28, 29, and 30 of this Book.
Therefore is greater than and is much greater than .
Let and be joined. Then the angle is obtuse, and is greater
than .
Similarly also it will be proved that is greater than .
And similarly it is possible for us to prove the same concerning the
straight lines drawn to the other side of .
[Proposition] 35

In every conic section, when minimal straight lines are drawn, the angle
between a straight line drawn farther from the vertex of the section and the
axis is greater than the angle between the straight line drawn closer [to the vertex] and the axis 40.
Let the section be, first the parabola whose axis .
202

Let and be two of the minimal straight lines.


I say that the angle is greater than the angle .
[Proof]. For let two perpendiculars and [to the axis] be drawn.
Then is one of the minimal straight lines and [hence] is equal to the half
of the latus rectum, as is proved in Theorem 13 of this Book.
Similarly also it will proved that is equal to the half of the latus rectum.
Therefore is equal to .
But the perpendicular is greater than the perpendicular . Therefore
the angle is greater than the angle .
[Proposition] 36
[Next] let the section [] be the hyperbola or the ellipse whose axis
and center . Let and be two of the minimal straight lines.
Then I say that the angle is greater than the angle 41 .
[Proof]. For let two perpendiculars and [to the axis] be drawn ,
and the straight line be joined.
Then as is to , so the transverse diameter is to the latus rectum, as
is proved in Theorems 14 and 15 of this Book.
Similarly as is to [so the transverse diameter is to the latus rectum]. Therefore as is to , so is to . And permutando as is to ,
so is to .
But as is to , so is to , therefore as is to , so is to
. And the angles and are right. Therefore the triangles and
are similar. Therefore the angle is greater than the angle .
[Proposition] 37

If there be a hyperbola, and one of the minimal straight lines is drawn in it


so as to make an angle with the axis, then that angle is smaller than the angle
between each of the asymptote to the section and the straight line drawn from
the vertex of the section perpendicular to the axis 42.
Let the hyperbola be whose axis . Let its asymptotes be and ,
and let the minimal straight line be let through B pass the perpendicular ZBH
to the axis.
I say that the angle is smaller than the angle .
[Proof]. For let the half of the latus rectum be made , so that falls
between and or beyond them. Let be joined.
203

Then as is to , so the transverse diameter is to the latus rectum,


and as is to , also so the transverse diameter is to the latus rectum, as
was proved Theorem 14 of this Book. Therefore as is to , so is to .
And as is to , so is to . Therefore ex as is to , so is
to . But the ratio to is smaller than the ratio to , and as is to
, so is to , as is proved in Theorem 3 of Book II . Therefore the ratio
to is smaller than the ratio to . And these
sides and close right angles. Therefore the angle is greater than the angle
.
[Proposition] 38

If there are drawn in one of conic sections two minimal straight lines ending at the axis, then, when they are continued in a straight line, they will meet
the other part of the section 44.
Let there be the conic section whose axis , and let there be in the
section two of the minimal straight lines and .
I say that and , when continued towards the other side [of the axis]
will meet each other 43.
[Proof]. The angle is greater than the angle , as is proved in
Theorems 35 and 36 of this Book. Therefore the sum of the angles and
is greater than two right angles.
For that reason two angles adjoining them are less than two right angles.
Therefore two minimal straight lines and , when continued towards
the other side of the section, will meet each other.
[Proposition] 39

Maximal straight lines drawn in an ellipse to the minor axis cut each other
in that part [of the ellipse] 44.
Let there be the ellipse whose minor axis .
I say that the maximal straight lines drawn in the ellipse cut one another in the half of the section .
[Proof]. For let if it is possible, they not cut one another, as the maximal
straight lines and . Let the perpendiculars and be drawn, and let
the center be . Then as is to , so the transverse diameter is to the latus
rectum, as is proved in Theorem 22 of this Book.

204

Similarly as is to also [so the transverse diameter is to the latus


rectum. Therefore as is to , so is to ]. And dividendo as is to
, so is to , and permutando as is to , so is to .
But is smaller than . Therefore is smaller than also, but that
is impossible. Therefore and meet.
[Proposition] 40

The point of meeting of the minimal straight lines drawn in an ellipse is


within the angle between the half of the axis from which the minimal straight
lines are drawn and the other axis 45.
Let there be the ellipse whose major axis and minor axis . Let
and two of the minimal straight lines.
I say that and will meet within the angle .
[Proof]. For let these two straight lines be continued from and until
they meet at and . Then and are minimal straight lines, therefore
is one of the maximal straight line, as is proved from the reverse of Theorem
23 of this Book.
Similarly also when continued meets as , and [hence] is one
of the maximal straight lines.
But and , when continued, meet on the other side of the [major]
axis, as is proved in Theorem 38 of this Book. And when and are maximal
straight lines, then they cut each other on the side [of the minor axis] on which
they are, as is proved in Theorem 39 of this Book. Therefore, the place of meeting is within the angle between and .
[Proposition] 41

The minimal straight lines drawn in a parabola or an ellipse to its axis,


when continued, fall on the other side of the section 46.
Now as to the fact that that is the case in the ellipse, that is evident.
Therefore let there be the parabola [] whose axis , and minimal
straight line .
I say that , when continued, meets the part of the section.
[Proof]. The section is a parabola, and has been drawn from its
diameter, therefore , when continued falls on the section , as is proved in
Theorem 27 of Book 1.
[Proposition] 42
205

If there is a hyperbola whose transverse diameter is not greater than the


latus rectum, then none of the minimal straight lines drawn in it meet the other
side of the section, but if the transverse diameter is greater than the latus rectum, then some of the minimal straight lines in the section will, when continued
meet the section on the other side [of the axis] , and some of them will not
meet it 47.
Let there be the hyperbola whose axis and center . Let the
minimal straight line be .
[First] let the transverse diameter be not greater than the latus rectum.
Then I say that will not meet the section when continued.
[Proof]. For let the asymptotes be and , and be a perpendicular
to , and let the half of the latus rectum be . Then, since the transverse diameter is not greater than the latus rectum is not greater than .
And as is to , so sq. is to sq., as is proved in Theorem 3 of
Book II. Therefore is not greater than sq., and is not greater than .
Therefore the angle is not greater than the angle . But the angle is
greater than the angle , as is proved in Theorem 37 of this Book.
Therefore the angle is greater than the angle . And the angle
is equal to the angle . Therefore the angle is greater than the angle
. And the angle adjacent to the angle is made common [to both sides],
this angle together with the angle is equal to two right angles, and [hence]
the angle together with the angle adjacent to the angle is greater than
two right angles. Therefore and , when continued on the side , will not
meet each other. Therefore will not meet side of the section for if it met
it, would meet , as is proved in Theorem 8 of Book II .
[Proposition] 43
Next let the transverse diameter be longer than the latus rectum, then I
say that some of the minimal straight lines which occur in the section ,
when continued will meet the section on the other side [of the axis] and some
of them will not meet it 48.
[Poof]. For let the asymptotes and be drawn, and the transverse
diameter be longer than the latus rectum. Then is greater than [equal
to the half of the latus rectum, and [hence] as the ratio to is greater
than to .

206

Therefore let as be to , so be to , and let be joined and


continued, then it will meet the section, as is proved in Theorem 2 of Book II .
Let it meet it at . Let from the perpendicular to be drawn,
let as be to , so be to , and be joined . Then as is to , so
is to , that is so the transverse diameter is to the latus rectum. And the
perpendicular has been from , and is joined. Therefore is one of
the minimal straight lines, as is proved in Theorem 9 of this Book.
Furthermore as is to , so is to , and as is to , so is
to . Therefore ex as is to , so is to .
But as is to , so is to . Therefore as is to , so is to
. And the angles and are equal since they are right, therefore the
triangles and are similar, therefore the angle is equal to the angle
, and [the angle ] is equal to the angle . Therefore the angle is
equal to the angle . Therefore and are parallel, and, when continued,
will not cut each other.
Therefore since they do not cut each other, will not meet the section
anywhere but at , even if it is continued in a straight line for if it did meet it,
it would meet and , as is proved in Theorem 8 of Book II .
But has been shown to be parallel to , which is impossible. Therefore does not meet the section at a point other than .
And as for the minimal straight lines drawn between and , the angles
which they form with are smaller than the angle , as is proved in Theorem 36 of this Book.
But the angle is equal to the angle . Therefore the angles which
the minimal straight lines drawn between and form [with the axis] are
smaller than the angle , therefore when they are continued, they will not
meet or the section [for the reason mentioned above].
As for the other minimal straight lines, since they form with the axis the
angles greater than the angle , they will meet , and hence will meet the
section .
[Proposition] 44

If two of the minimal straight lines are drawn from the axis of one of the
conic sections, and continued until they meet, and another straight line is drawn
from their point of meeting cutting the axis and ending at the section, then the
part of it falling between the section and the axis is not one of the minimal
straight lines, and if the drawn straight line is not between two minimal straight
207

lines, and a minimal straight line is drawn from the point at which it reaches the
section, then [that minimal straight line] cuts off from the axis adjacent to the
vertex of the section a segment greater than that cut off by the drawn straight
line, but if the drawn straight line is between two minimal straight lines, then
the minimal straight line drawn from the point at it reaches [the section] cuts
off from the axis adjacent to the vertex of the section a segment smaller than
the segment cut off [by the drawn straight line], and in the case of the ellipse
the above said holds when two minimal straight lines and the drawn straight
line all cut one and the same half of two halves of the major axis 49.
First let the section be the parabola whose axis . Let two minimal
straight lines that are in it be and , and let them meet at .
Let there be drawn from , first, a straight line outside and .
I say that is not one of minimal straight lines, and that the minimal
straight line which is drawn cuts of off from the axis next to the vertex of the
section, which is , a straight line longer than .
[Proof]. For let the perpendiculars , , , and be drawn. Let the
half of the latus rectum be . Then is one of the minimal straight lines, and
be is a perpendicular, therefore is equal to the half of the latus rectum,
as is proved in Theorem 13 of this Book. Therefore is equal to , and is
equal to , and as is to , so is to .
But as is to , so is to . Therefore pl. is equal to pl..
And similarly also we will prove that pl. is equal to pl.. Therefore
pl. is equal to pl.. And therefore as is to , so is to . So we
join and continue it until it meets at , and draw the perpendicular
and continue it to [meet at] .
Then as is to , so is to , therefore as is to , so is
to , and is to . Therefore is smaller than , and the ratio to
is greater than the ratio to . And componendo the ratio to
[equal to the ratio to ] is greater than the ratio to . Therefore
pl. is greater than pl..
Therefore pl. is much greater than pl..
But we have [already] proved that pl. is equal to pl.. Therefore
pl. is greater than pl., therefore the ratio to [equal to the ratio
to ] is greater than the ratio to , and is greater than .
But is equal to the half of the latus rectum. Therefore is smaller
than the half of the latus rectum, and [hence] the minimal straight line drawn
from cuts off from the axis adjacent to a straight line greater than .
208

Therefore it cuts off from the axis adjacent to a straight line greater than .
So is not one of the minimal straight lines, as is proved in Theorem 24
of this Book.
Furthermore we draw on the other side if and the straight line
[cutting at ], then I say that is not one of the minimal straight lines,
and that the minimal straight line drawn from cuts off from the axis a
segment greater than .
[Proof]. For let be a perpendicular to . Now it has been proved that
is equal to . Therefore is greater than , and the ratio to is
smaller than the ratio to . And divedendo the ratio to is smaller
than the ratio to . And componendo the ratio to is smaller than the
ratio to , and the ratio to is smaller than the ratio to .
Therefore pl. is smaller than pl.. Therefore pl. is much smaller than
pl..
But pl. is equal to pl.. Therefore pl. is smaller than pl.,
and the ratio to [equal to the ratio to ] is smaller than the ratio
to . Therefore is greater than .
But is equal to the half of the latus rectum. Therefore is smaller
than the half of the latus rectum, and the minimal straight line drawn from
cuts off a segment greater than . Therefore the segment cut off [by the
minimal straight line from ] adjacent to , which is the vertex of the section ,
is greater than , which is cut off by . Therefore is not one of the minimal straight lines, as is proved in Theorem 24 of this Book.
Furthermore let the drawn straight line fall between and . Then
I say that is not one of the minimal straight lines, and that the minimal
straight line drawn from cuts off from the axis adjacent to a straight line
smaller than .
[Proof]. For let the perpendicular be drawn. Then it has been proved
that is equal to . Therefore is greater than , and the ratio to
is smaller than the ratio to . And componendo the ratio to is
smaller than the ratio to .
But as is to , so is to . Therefore the ratio to is smaller
than ratio to , and the ratio to is smaller than the ratio to .
Therefore the ratio to is smaller than the ratio to .
But pl. is equal to pl.. Therefore pl. is smaller than pl..
Therefore the ratio to is smaller than the ratio to .

209

But as is to , so is to , and the ratio to is smaller than


the ratio to . Therefore is smaller than . And H is equal to the half
of the latus rectum.
Therefore the minimal straight line drawn from cuts off next to a
straight line smaller than , and therefore it cuts next to the vertex of the
section [a segment] smaller than .
Therefore is not the minimal straight line, and the minimal straight line
cuts off next to the vertex of the section a segment smaller than .
[Proposition] 45
Furthermore let the section be the hyperbola or the ellipse whose
axis and center , and let there be drawn in the section two minimal
straight lines and , and let them meet at , and let be drawn from
to the section. Then I say that , which is between the axis and the section, is
not one of the minimal straight lines, but that the minimal straight line drawn
from cuts off the axis next to a segment longer than
50 .
[Proof]. For let be the perpendicular from to the axis, and there be
a straight line through parallel to , namely , and pass and through a
straight line parallel to , namely , and let be continued until it meets
and , let it meets them at b and q [respectively]. Let each of the ratios
to and to be equal to the ratio of the transverse diameter to the
latus rectum.
Let , , , and are drawn as perpendiculars to the axis, and let
be joined and continued in a straight line, and let through pass a straight
line parallel to , and let it be continued to [meet the continued at] .
Then since is one of minimal straight lines, and is a perpendicular,
as is to , so the transverse diameter is to the latus rectum, as is proved
in Theorems 9 and 10 of this Book. Therefore as is to , so is to .
And componendo for the hyperbola and convertendo for the ellipse as is to
, so is to .
And when subtract two lesser from two greater, we set as is to ,
so is to . But is to , therefore as is to so is to .
And since the ratio to also is equal to the ratio of the transverse
diameter, as is to , so is to .
And componendo in the case of the hyperbola and dividendo in the case
of the ellipse as is to , so is to .
210

But as is to , so is to because of the similarity of the triangles.


And adding in the case of the hyperbola and subtracting the lesser from
the greater in the case of the ellipse as is to , so is to , that is the
ratio to . Therefore as is to so is to .
Furthermore the ratio of the quadrangle to the quadrangle is compounded of [the ratios] to and to .
But we have [already] proved that as is to , so is to , and we
have [already] proved that as is to , so is to . Therefore the ratio
of the quadrangle to the quadrangle is compounded of [the ratios] to
and to . But the quadrangle is equal to pl., , because as is
to so is to . Therefore the quadrangle is equal to pl..
Similarly also it will be proved that the quadrangle is equal to pl..
Therefore pl. is equal to pl., and as is to , so is to . But as Bs
is to , so is to , and as is to , so is to . And dividendo as is
to , so is to . Therefore is equal to , and is greater
than . Therefore the ratio to is greater than the ratio to , and
componendo the ratio to is greater than the ratio to .
But as is to , so is to . Therefore the ratio to is greater
than the ratio to , and pl. is greater than pl.. Therefore pl. is
much greater than pl..
But pl. was equal to the quadrangle . Therefore the quadrangle
is greater than pl.. And the quadrangle is equal to the quadrangle
because as is to , so is to . Therefore the quadrangle is
greater than pl.. But the quadrangle is equal to pl., therefore
pl. is greater than pl.. Therefore the ratio to is greater than the
ratio to . But as is to , so is to . Therefore the ratio to is
greater than the ratio to . And componendo the ratio to is greater
than the ratio to . Therefore is greater than , and the ratio to is
smaller than the ratio to .
But as is to , so is to because of the similarity of the triangles.
Therefore the ratio to is smaller than the ratio to and
is equal to , and is equal to . Therefore the ratio to is
smaller than the ratio to . But as is to , so is to because
each of these two ratios to and to is equal to the ratio of the
transverse diameter to the latus rectum. Therefore the ratio to is smaller
than the ratio to . And subtracting two lesser from two greater in the case
of the hyperbola and adding in the case of the ellipse the ratio
211

to is greater than the ratio to because is equal to .


But as is to , so is to because of the similarity of the
triangles. Therefore the ratio to is greater than the ratio to .
And dividendo in the case of the hyperbola and componendo in the case
of the ellipse the ratio to is greater than the ratio to .
But the ratio to is equal to the ratio on the transverse diameter
to the latus rectum. Therefore the ratio to is greater than the ratio of
the transverse diameter to the latus rectum.
Therefore if we make the ratio of to another straight line equal to the
ratio of the transverse diameter to the latus rectum, that other straight line
will be longer than .
Therefore the minimal straight line drawn from cuts off from the axis
adjoining a straight line longer than , because of what is proved in Theorems 9 and 10 of this Book, and [hence] is not one of minimal straight lines,
because of what is proved in Theorem 25 of this Book.
Furthermore let be drawn. Then I say that is not one of minimal
straight lines, and that the minimal straight line drawn from cuts off from the
axis a segment longer than .
[Proof]. For let to the axis the perpendicular be drawn and continued
to [meet continued at] . Then since is equal to , is greater than
, and the ratio to is greater the ratio to . And componendo the ratio
to is greater than the ratio to . But as is to , so is to .
Therefore the ratio to is greater than the ratio
to . Therefore the ratio to is much greater than the ratio to .
Therefore pl. is greater than pl..
But we have shown that pl. is equal to the quadrangle , therefore
the quadrangle is greater than pl..
But the quadrangle is equal to the quadrangle because the ratio
to equal to the ratio to is equal also to the ratio to which is
equal to the ratio to . Therefore the quadrangle is greater than
pl. .
But the quadrangle is pl.. Therefore pl. is greater than pl.,
therefore the ratio to is greater than the ratio to . But as is to
, so is to . Therefore the ratio to is greater than the ratio to .
And componendo the ratio to is smaller than the ratio to .
Therefore is greater than .
Let be common, then is greater than . Therefore the ratio to
is smaller than the ratio to .
212

But as is to , so is to . Therefore the ratio to is greater


than to .
But as for , that is equal to , and as for , that is equal to .
Therefore the ratio to is greater than the ratio is to . But as is
to , so is to , therefore the ratio to is greater than the ratio
to .
So when we subtract two smaller from two greater in the case of the hyperbola, and add [them] in the case on the ellipse, the ratio to is greater
than the ratio to . But as is to , so is to . Therefore the ratio
to is greater than the ratio to .
And dividendo in the case of the hyperbola and componendo in the case
of the ellipse, the ratio two is greater than the ratio to .
But as is to , so transverse diameter is to the latus rectum. And we
make the ratio of to another straight line equal to the ratio of the transverse
diameter to the latus rectum, that straight line is greater than . Therefore the
minimal straight line drawn from cuts off from the axis a segment longer than
, because of what is proved in Theorems 9 and 10 of this Book. And is not
one of minimal straight line because of what is proved in Theorem 25 of this
Book.
Furthermore let the straight line between two minimal straight lines
and , then I say that is not one of minimal straight lines, and that the
minimal straight line drawn from cuts off from the axis a segment smaller
than .
[Proof]. For let as a perpendicular to the axis be drawn. Then since we
have proved that is equal to , is smaller than , and the ratio to
is greater than the ratio to . And componendo the ratio to is greater
than the ratio to . But as is to , so is to . Therefore the ratio
to is greater than the ratio to , and pl. is greater than pl..
But greater than . Therefore pl. is much greater than pl..
And we have proved that pl. is equal to the quadrangle , and that
the quadrangle is equal to the quadrangle . Therefore pl. is greater
than the quadrangle , therefore pl. is greater than the quadrangle .
But the quadrangle is equal to pl., therefore pl. is greater than
pl., and the ratio to is greaten than the ratio to .
But as is to , so is to , therefore the ratio to is
greater than the ratio to . And componendo the ratio to is greater
than the ratio to ,therefore is smaller than and the ratio to is
greater than the ratio to .
213

But as is to , so is to because of the similarity of the


triangles. Therefore the ratio to is greater than the ratio to .
But is equal to and is equal to . Therefore the ratio to
is greater than the ratio to . But as is to , so is to .
Therefore the ratio to is greater than the ratio to .
And when we subtract two lesser from two greater in the case of the
hyperbola, and add [them] in the case of the ellipse, the ratio to is
greater than the ratio to .
But as is to , so is to because of the similarity of the triangles. Therefore the ratio to is greater than the ratio to .
And dividendo in the case of the hyperbola and componendo in the case
of the ellipse, the ratio to is greater than the ratio to .
But as is to , so the transverse diameter
is to the latus rectum.
Therefore the ratio of the transverse diameter to the latus rectum is greater
than the ratio to .
And if we make the ratio of Nm to another straight line equal to the ratio
of the transverse diameter to the latus rectum, that straight line is smaller than
.
Therefore the minimal straight line drawn from cuts off from the axis a
segment shorten than , as is proved in Theorems 9 and 10 of this Book.
Therefore is not one of minimal straight lines because of what is proved in
Theorem 25 of this Book.
[Proposition] 46

If there are drawn in one of quadrants of an ellipse two minimal straight


lines to major axis, one of which passes through the center, and they are continued until they meet, then no [other] straight line can be drawn from the
point where they meet to that quadrant of the section such that part of it intercepted between the axis and the section is one of minimal straight lines, and
if straight lines are drawn from the point of meeting of two straight lines to the
section, then the minimal straight lines drawn from the ends of those [straight
lines] to the axis cut off from the axis adjacent to the vertex of the section a
segment greater than the segment cut off by the straight lines themselves 51.
Let there be the ellipse whose major axis and center . Let from
the center the perpendicular to the axis be drawn and continued. Let be
one of minimal straight lines, and let it meet at . Let [an arbitrary] straight
line be drawn.
214

I say that is not one of minimal straight lines, and that the minimal
straight line drawn from to cuts off a segment greater than .
[Proof]. As for [the statement] that is not one of minimal straight
lines, that is evident because is one of minimal straight lines, and the point
of meeting of the minimal straight lines [falls] within the angle , as is proved
in Theorem 40 of this Book.
And meets only at , therefore is not one of minimal straight
lines.
As for [the statement] that the minimal straight line drawn from meets
and cuts off from it a segment greater than , that will be proved from
the fact that the minimal straight line drawn from meets [being a minimal
straight line] within the angle , as is proved in Theorem 40 of this Book.
Therefore it is evident that its cuts off from the axis a segment greater
than .
[Proposition] 47

When minimal straight lines are drawn in a segment of an ellipse and are
cut off by the major axis, no four of them meet at a single point 52.
Let there be the ellipse whose major axis .
I say that if there are drawn from the axis to the section four
minimal straight lines, they do not [all] meet at a single point.
[Proof]. For let, if possible there be drawn [minimal] straight lines , ,
, and meeting at . Then either one of these straight lines is perpendicular to or there is no perpendicular to among them.
First let one of them be perpendicular to it. Then since is one of
the minimal straight lines and is perpendicular to , then is the center, as is
proved in Theorem 15 of this Book. And since one of minimal straight lines,
has been drawn from the center, and is also one of minimal straight lines,
and these two straight lines have met at , and has been drawn from , then
is not one of minimal straight lines, has it proved in Theorem 46 of this
Book. But it was a minimal straight line, which is impossible.
Therefore let none of , , , and be a perpendicular to the axis
, and let the center be . Then if is between and , then three minimal
straight lines have been drawn from one of two halves of the axis, so
as to meet at a single point, but it is impossible, because of what is proved in
Theorem 45 of this Book. But if is between and , then we draw from it a
215

perpendicular to , then the point of meeting of two straight lines and


occurs within the angle , as is proved in Theorem
40 in this Book.
And similarly also two straight lines and must necessarily meet
within the angle . But the point of meeting of all [four] of them is , which
is impossible.
Therefore four drawn straight lines do not meet at a single point.
[Proposition] 48

When maximal straight lines are drawn in one of the quadrants of an ellipse, no three of them meet at a single point 53.
Let there be the ellipse whose minor axis and major axis .
I say that no three of maximal straight lines drawn in the section
from one of quadrants meet at a single point.
[Proof]. For let, if it is possible, let there be drawn the [maximal] straight
lines , , and , and let them meet at a single point .
Then since , , and are maximal, and , , and are minimal
straight lines, as is proved in Theorem 23 of this Book.
So there have fallen in one of quadrants of this section three minimal
straight lines so as to meet at a single point, that is impossible of what is
proved in Theorems 45 and 46 of this Book. Therefore it is not the case that
three maximal straight lines drawn from one of quadrants of the section
meet at a single point 54 .
[Proposition] 49

If there is a conic section, and there is drawn from its axis a perpendicular
to the axis such that that perpendicular cuts off from the axis on the side adjacent to the vertex of the section the segment no greater than the half of the
latus rectum 55 , and a point is taken on that perpendicular and any straight
line is drawn from it to the other part of the section between the perpendicular
and the vertex of the section, then the minimal straight line drawn from the extremity of the straight line is not a part of that straight line, but it cuts off from
the axis on the side of the vertex of the section a segment greater than that
cut off by the drawn straight line.
In the case of the ellipse it is necessary that it be the major axis on which
the perpendicular falls, and that the drawn straight line cut that the half of the
axis on which the perpendicular falls 56.
216

First let the section be the parabola whose axis , and the perpendicular . Let the segment cut from the axis by that perpendicular , be not
greater than the half of the latus rectum. We take on an arbitrary point ,
and draw from it the straight line .
I say that is not one of minimal straight lines.
[Proof]. For let the perpendicular be drawn. Now is not greater
than the half of the latus rectum. Therefore is smaller than the half of the
latus rectum. Let the segment equal to the half of the latus rectum be , and
be joined. Then is a minimal straight line, as is proved in Theorem 8 of
this Book.
And is not a minimal straight line, as is proved in Theorem 24 of this
Book.
Rather the minimal straight line drawn from cuts off from the axis a
segment greater than and falls on the side [of the perpendicular ] opposite to the vertex of the section.
[Proposition] 50
Furthermore let the section be the hyperbola or the ellipse 57 whose
axis and center , and let the perpendicular to the axis be drawn, and let
be not greater than the half of the latus rectum, and let be taken on
and from it the straight line [to meet the section at ] be drawn, then I say
that is not of minimal straight lines, and that the minimal straight line drawn
from cuts off from the axis a segment longer than 57.
[Proof]. For let the perpendicular [to the axis] be drawn. Then is
not greater of the half of the latus rectum, and is the half of the transverse
diameter. Therefore the ratio of the transverse diameter to the latus rectum is
not greater than the ratio to .
And the ratio to is greater than the ratio to . Therefore the
ratio to is greater than the ratio of the transverse diameter to the latus
rectum.
So we make the ratio to equal to the ratio of the transverse diameter to the latus rectum. Then is one of minimal straight lines, as is
proved in Theorems 9 and 10 of this Book. Therefore is not one of minimal
straight lines, as is proved in Theorem 25 of this Book.
[Proposition] 51

217

But if the mentioned perpendicular cuts off from the axis a segment
greater than the half of the latus rectum, then I say that it is possible to generate a straight line such that when the drawn perpendicular is measured against
it.
[1] if it is less than the perpendicular drawn to the axis then no straight
line can be drawn from the end of the perpendicular to the section such that
the part of it cut off [by the axis] is one of minimal straight lines,
but the minimal straight line drawn from it to the section cuts off from the axis
adjacent to the vertex of the section a segment greater than that cut off by
the straight line itself.
But [2] if the perpendicular is equal to the generated straight line, then it
is possible to draw from its end only one straight line such that the part of it
cut off [by the axis] is one of minimal straight lines, and the minimal straight
line drawn from the ends of the others straight lines drawn from that point cut
off from the axis adjacent to the vertex of the section straight lines greater
than those cut off by the straight lines themselves.
[3] if the perpendicular is less than the generated straight line, then it is
possible to draw from its end only two straight lines such that the part of each
of them cut off [by the axis] is one of minimal straight lines, and the minimal
straight line drawn from the ends of the other straight lines which fall between
two straight lines from which two minimal straight lines are cut off from the axis
adjacent to the vertex of the section segments less than those cut off by the
straight lines themselves, but those drawn from the ends of the straight lines
which are not between two minimal straight lines cut off from the axis straight
lines greater than those cut off by the straight lines themselves.
However in the case of the ellipse our statement requires that the axis on
which the perpendicular falls be the major axis 58.
First we make the section the parabola whose axis . We draw
the perpendicular to it, let the part cut off by it from the axis, namely , be
greater than the half of the latus rectum.
I say that, if a certain straight line is cut off from , and [another]
straight line is drawn from its end under the conditions stated above, what we
stated in the enunciation will necessarily occur.
[Proof]. is greater than the half of the latus rectum. So let the half of
the latus rectum be . We cut at such that is double , and draw
the perpendicular .
Let some straight line be to as to be to 59 .
We take on and, first, let be greater than .
218

Then I say that no straight line can be drawn from such that the axis
cuts off from it a minimal straight line.
We join [meeting at ]. [And I say that is not one of minimal
straight lines].
Then as is to , so is to . And is smaller than . Therefore
the ratio to [equal to the ratio to ] is greater than the ratio to
. And componendo the ratio to is greater than the ratio to .
Therefore [equal to the half of the latus rectum] is greater than , and
is smaller than the half of the latus rectum. Therefore the minimal straight line
drawn from [to the axis] falls on the side of [from ], as is proved from
Theorem 8 of this Book. Therefore is not one of minimal
straight lines, as is proved in Theorem 24 of this Book.
Furthermore we draw [where is between and ], then I say that
is not of minimal straight lines.
[Proof]. For let from a straight line tangent to the section be drawn
and the perpendicular be drawn and continued to [meet at] .
Then since the section in a parabola, is equal to , as is proved in Theorem
35 of Book I . Therefore is equal to the double .
But had been [made equal to] the double . Therefore is equal to
. And [thus] turns out to be greater than . Therefore the ratio to
is greater than the ratio to . And componendo the ratio to
[equal to the ratio to ] is greater than the ratio to , and pl. is
greater than pl..
Therefore pl. is much greater than pl.. But pl. is greater than
pl. because the ratio to is greater than the ratio to , as we
have proved above. Therefore pl. is greater than pl., and the ratio to
[equal to the ratio to ] is greater than the ratio to . And componendo the ratio to is greater than the ratio to . Therefore is
greater than .
But is equal to the half of the latus rectum. Therefore is smaller
than the half of the latus rectum. Therefore is not one of minimal straight
lines, but the minimal straight line drawn from falls on the axis toward [from
I], as is proved from Theorems 8 and 24 of this Book.
Furthermore we draw the straight line [where is between and ],
then I say that is not one of minimal straight lines.
For let the perpendicular be drawn and continued to [meet the tangent at] . Then is equal to , as we said above. And [therefore turns
out to be greater than , therefore the ratio to is smaller than the ra219

tio to . And componendo the ratio to is smaller than the ratio


to . But as is to , so is to . Therefore the ratio to is
smaller than the ratio to , and pl. is smaller than pl..
Therefore pl. is much smaller than pl..
But we have [already] proved that pl. is greater than pl..
Therefore pl. is smaller than , and the ratio to is smaller than
the ratio to .
But as is to , so is to . Therefore the ratio to is smaller
than the ratio to , and the ratio to is greater than the ratio SH to
. And componendo the ratio to is greater than the ratio to .
Therefore is greater than .
But is equal to the half of the latus rectum. Therefore is smaller
than the half of the latus rectum. Therefore is not one of minimal straight
lines, but the minimal straight line drawn from falls to the side of [from ],
as is proved from Theorems 8 and 24 of this Book.
Therefore when is grater than , no straight line can be drawn from
to the section such that the axis cuts off from it a segment, which is one of
minimal straight lines.
Furthermore [secondly] we make equal to . Then I say that only one
straight line can be drawn from such that a minimal straight line is cut off
from it [by the axis], and that other minimal straight lines drawn from the
points where the straight lines from meet the section fall on the farther side
[of the original straight lines] from .
[Proof]. As is to , so [equal to ] is to . But as is to ,
so is to . Therefore as is to , so is to , and is equal to .
But is equal to the half of the latus rectum. Therefore also is equal
to the half of the latus rectum, and is one of minimal straight lines,
as is proved in Theorem 8 of this Book.
Then I say that no other minimal straight line will be cut off [by the axis]
from other straight lines drawn from .
[Proof]. For let some straight line be drawn, and the perpendicular
be drawn and continued to [meet the section at] . Let be a tangent to
the section.
Then we will prove as we proved previously that pl. [equal to pl.]
is greater than pl..
And we will prove from that, as we proved above, that [equal to the
half of the latus rectum] is greater than . Therefore is not one of minimal
220

straight lines, but the minimal straight line drawn from falls towards [from
].
But it is drawn like , then is not of the minimal straight lines, but
the minimal straight line drawn from falls towards .
[Proof]. For let the perpendicular be drawn and continued to [meet
the section at] .
Similarly too [to the above] it will be proved that pl. is smaller pl.
[equal to pl.].
Hence we will prove, as we proved previously that is smaller than .
But is smaller than the half of the latus rectum. Therefore is not of minimal straight lines, but the minimal straight line drawn from falls towards
[from ].
Furthermore [thirdly] we make smaller than . Then I say that one can
draw from to the section two straight lines such that two minimal
straight lines can be cut off from them [by the axis] and that when minimal
straight lines are drawn from the ends of other straight lines which fall between
these two straight lines, they cut off from the axis segments smaller than the
segments cut off by the drawn straight lines, and as for other straight lines, the
minimal straight lines drawn from their ends cut of segments greater than those
cut off by the straight lines themselves.
[Proof]. is smaller than . Therefore the ratio to is smaller than
the ratio to [equal to the ratio to ], and pl. is smaller than
pl..
Let pl. be equal to pl., and let be a perpendicular to .
We pass through the hyperbola 60 whose asymptotes and ,
as we showed in Problem 4 of Book II.
Then it cuts the parabola, let it cut it at and . We join and and
draw the perpendiculars and then the section is a hyperbola and its
asymptotes are and , and , , and have been drawn from the
section at right angles [to an asymptote].
Therefore pl. is equal to pl., as is proved in Theorem 12 of Book
II, and pl. is equal to pl.. Therefore as is to , so is to .
But as is to , so is to , therefore as is to , so is to .
And componendo as is to , so is to .
Therefore is equal to , which is equal to the half of the latus rectum.
Therefore is one of minimal straight lines as is proved in Theorem
8 of this Book.
Similarly also it will be proved that is one of minimal straight lines.
221

And since , and are minimal straight lines, and they meet at ,
therefore of the straight lines drawn from to the section for [any of] those
falling between and , if a minimal straight line is drawn from the place
where it reaches [the section] it falls towards the vertex of the section, and has
for the other straight lines falling outside and [the minimal straight lines
drawn from their ends] will fall on the side [of the straight lines] farther from
the vertex of the section, as was proved in Theorem 44 of this Book 61-63 .
[Proposition] 52
Furthermore we make the section the hyperbola or the ellipse whose
axis and center , and draw from the axis perpendicular , and let be
greater than the half of the latus rectum.
Then I say that in this case [too] the same property necessarily results
as in the parabola 64.
[Proof]. is the half on the transverse diameter, and is greater than
of the half of the latus rectum. Therefore the ratio to is smaller than the
ratio of the transverse diameter to the latus rectum.
Therefore if we make the ratio to equal to the ratio of the transverse diameter to the latus rectum, the point falls between and .
We take two straight lines and in continuous proportion between
and .
Let be a perpendicular to the axis, and let the ratio of some straight
line , to be equal to the ratio compounded of the ratios to and to
65-66 .
In the first instance we make greater than .
Then I say that it is not possible to draw from to the section any
straight line such that what is cut off from it [by the axis] is one of minimal
straight lines, and that the minimal straight lines drawn from the ends of the
straight lines drawn from to the section cut off from the axis adjacent to the
vertex of the section segments greater than those cut off by the straight lines
[from ] themselves.
[Proof]. For let the straight line be joined then I say that is not
one of minimal straight lines for we make the ratio to equal to the ratio
of the transverse diameter to the latus rectum, and draw the straight lines
and parallel to , and draw and parallel to . Then since is
greater than , the ratio to is greater than the ratio to .

222

But the ratio to is compounded of the ratios to and to


because is equal to .
And as for the ratio to we had made it equal to the ratio compounded of the ratios to and to , then the ratio compounded of
the ratios to and to is greater than the ratio compounded of the
ratios to and to .
But as is to , so is to , because both of the ratios to
and to are equal to the ratio of the transverse diameter to the latus rectum. Therefore the remaining ratio to is greater than the ratio to .
Therefore pl. is greater than pl..
But pl. is the quadrangle . Therefore pl. is smaller than the
quadrangle .
We make the quadrangle that is pl. common [to both sides] then
pl. is smaller than the quadrangle . But the quadrangle is equal to the
quadrangle because as to , so is to . Therefore pl. is smaller
the quadrangle .
And we had proved in the proof of Theorem 45 of this Book that, when
that is the case, then is not one of minimal straight lines, and that the
minimal straight line drawn from cuts off from the axis adjacent to the vertex
of the section a segment longer than .
Furthermore we draw to a point other than , then I say that is not
one of minimal straight lines, and that the minimal straight line drawn from
cuts off from the axis adjacent to the vertex of the section a segment longer
than .
[Proof]. We draw from a tangent to the section, and draw to the
axis the perpendicular and continue it to [meet the tangent at] . Then,
since the ratio to is greater than the ratio to , we make the ratio
to equal to the ratio to , and draw through a straight line
parallel to . Then since is tangent to the section, and is perpendicular to the axis, pl. is equal to sq., as is proved in Theorem 37 of
Book I . Therefore as is to , so is to .
Therefore the third proportional to and is . And the third proportional to and was . And as is to , so is to . Therefore, as
is to , so is to .
And when we subtract two lesser from two greater, the ratio of the remainders to is equal to the ratio to .
But as is to , so is to because the ratio to was made
equal to the ratio to . Therefore as is to , so is to .
223

But as is to , so is to . Therefore as is to , so is to , and


is equal to .
But is equal to . Therefore is equal to , and is smaller than
, and the ratio to is greater than the ratio to .
And componendo the ratio to is greater than the ratio to . But as
is to , so is to , and the ratio to is greater than the ratio to
. Therefore pl. is greater than pl..
Therefore pl. is much greater than pl..
Furthermore as is to , so is to . Therefore pl. is equal to
pl..
We make pl. common [to both sides].
Then pl. is equal to pl., because is equal to . And pl.,
is the quadrangle . Therefore pl. is equal to the quadrangle .
But pl. was [shown to be] greater than pl., therefore the quadrangle is greater than pl..
In the case of the hyperbola we make pl.. Then pl. is smaller than
the sum of the quadrangles and .
In the case of the ellipse when we subtract pl. [from both sides] the
quadrangle without the quadrangle is greater than pl..
Thus pl. is much smaller than the quadrangle [in both cases].
But the quadrangle is equal to the quadrangle because as is to
, so is to . Therefore pl. is smaller than the quadrangle .
But we showed in the proof of Theorem 45 of this Book that in that case
is not one of minimal straight lines, and that minimal straight line drawn from
cuts off from the axis adjacent to the vertex of the section longer than .
Furthermore we draw [on the other side of ], then I say that
is not one of minimal straight lines, and that the minimal straight line drawn
from cuts off from the axis adjacent to the vertex of the section a segment
longer than .
[Proof]. For let the perpendicular be drawn and continued to [meet
the tangent at] . We have already proved that is equal to . Therefore
is smaller than . Therefore the ratio to is greater than the ratio to
. And componendo the ratio to is grater than the ratio to .
But as is to , so is to . Therefore the ratio to is greater
than the ratio to , and pl. is greater than pl..
And we will prove by the method that we followed previously that pl.
is smaller than the quadrangle .
224

And it will be proved from that as was shown in the proof of Theorem 45
of this Book, that is not one of minimal straight lines, and that the
minimal straight line drawn from cuts off from the axis adjacent to the vertex
of the section a segment longer than .
Furthermore [secondly] we make equal to , then I say that only one
straight line can be drawn from such that the part of it cut off [by the axis] is
one of minimal straight lines, and that the minimal straight lines drawn from the
ends of the remaining straight lines cut off from the axis adjacent to the vertex
of the section segments longer than those cut off by the straight lines themselves.
[Proof]. We proceed as we did in the first case for the construction of the
perpendicular , and join . Then the ratio to , is equal to the ratio
to . Now to is compounded of the ratios to and to for
is equal to , and the ratio to is compounded of the ratios to
and to according to our previous construction the ratio compounded of
the ratios to and to is equal to the ratio compounded of the ratios
to and to .
But as is to , so is to . Therefore the remaining ratio to
is equal to the ratio to .
Therefore pl. [which is the quadrangle ] is equal to pl..
We make pl. common [to both sides], by adding in the case of the
hyperbola and subtracting in the case of the ellipse, then pl. is equal to the
quadrangle . But the quadrangle is equal to the quadrangle .
Therefore the quadrangle is equal to pl..
And we had shown in the proof of Theorem 45 of this Book that, when
that is the case, is one of minimal straight lines.
I say that no other straight line can be drawn from such that the part of
it cut off [by the axis] in one of minimal straight lines.
[Proof] For let and the perpendicular be drawn. Then we will prove
by the same method as before that is equal to . Therefore is smaller
than , and the ratio to is greater than the ratio to .
And componendo the ratio to is greater than the ratio to .
But as is to , so is to . Therefore the ratio to is greater
than the ratio to , and pl. is greater than pl..
Therefore pl. is much greater than pl..
And we had proved that pl. is equal to the quadrangle . Therefore
pl. is smaller than the quadrangle .
225

But we showed in the proof of Theorem 45 of this Book that, when that is
the case, is not one of minimal straight lines, and that the minimal straight
line drawn from cuts off from the axis adjacent to the vertex of the section a
segment greater than .
Similarly too it can be proved that is not one of two minimal straight
lines, and that the minimal straight line drawn from cuts off from the axis adjacent to the vertex of the section a segment longer than .
Furthermore [thirdly] we make smaller than . Then I say that only
two straight lines can be drawn from such that the part of [each of] these
two cut off [by the axis] is one of minimal straight lines, and that the minimal
straight lines drawn from the ends of the straight lines drawn between these
two minimal straight lines cut off from the axis adjacent to the vertex of the
section segments smaller than those cut off by the straight lines themselves,
and that the minimal straight lines drawn from the ends of the remaining
straight lines cut off from the axis adjacent to the vertex to the sections segments greater than those cut of by the straight lines themselves.
[Proof]. The ratio to is smaller than the ratio . And hence it will
be proved by a method similar to the preceding that the ratio to is
smaller than the ratio to , and that the quadrangle is smaller than
the ratio to . Therefore we make pl. equal to the quadrangle , and
draw a hyperbola 67 passing through I with asymptotes and , then it is
constructed as we showed Problem 4 of Book II, that is the section .
We draw the perpendiculars and . Then each of pl. and pl.
is equal to pl. because of what is proved in Theorem 12 of Book II .
And pl. was made equal to the quadrangle . Therefore pl. is
equal to pl., which is equal to the quadrangle .
And when that is the case, then it will be proved as we showed in the
preceding part of this Theorem, that each of two straight lines and is one
of minimal straight lines.
And they have been drawn, so as to meet at , and we have shown in
Theorem 45 of this Book, that when that is the case no other straight line can
be drawn from such that the part of it cut off [by the axis] is one of minimal
straight lines, and that for the straight lines drawn from between and ,
when minimal straight lines are drawn from their ends to the axis, they cut off
from the axis adjacent to the vertex of the section segments smaller than the
segments cut off by the straight lines themselves, and that the minimal
straight lines drawn from the ends of the remaining straight lines are in the op226

posite case, that is they cut of segments greater [than those cut of by the
straight lines themselves].
In the case of the ellipse this enunciation depends on the axis, which is
used the major axis 68-73 .
[Proposition] 53

If a point is taken outside of one of two halves of an ellipse into which the
major axis divides it, such that the perpendicular drawn from it to the axis falls
on the center of the section, and [such that] the ratio of that perpendicular
together with the half of the minor axis to the half of the minor axis is not
smaller than the ratio on the transverse diameter to the latus rectum, then no
straight line can be drawn from that point to the section such that the part of it
falling between the axis and the section is one of straight lines, rather the minimal straight line drawn from its extremity falls on that side of the drawn
straight line which is farther from the vertex of the section 74.
Let there be the half of the ellipse with major axis . We take a
point outside of it [such that] when a perpendicular [to the major axis] is drawn
from it, it falls on the center, that [taken point] is . We draw from a perpendicular to . Let on which the perpendicular falls be the center of the
section, and let the ratio to be not smaller than the ratio of the transverse diameter to the latus rectum.
Then I say that no straight line can be drawn from such that the part of
it cut off between the section and is one of minimal straight lines, and that,
if a straight line is drawn from it, such as , then the minimal straight line
drawn from falls on the side [of ] towards .
[Proof]. For let two perpendiculars and be drawn. Then the ratio
to is not smaller than the ratio of the transverse diameter to the latus
rectum.
But the ratio to is smaller than the ratio to . Therefore the
ratio to [equal to the ratio to ] is greater than the ratio of the
transverse diameter to the latus rectum.
So let the ratio to be equal to the ratio of the transverse diameter
to the latus rectum. Then is one of minimal straight lines, as is proved in
Theorem 10 of this Book, therefore is not one of minimal straight lines, as is
proved in Theorem 25 of this Book, and the minimal straight line drawn from
falls on the side of from .
[Proposition] 54
227

If a point is taken outside of one of two halves of an ellipse into which the
major axis divides it, and a perpendicular is drawn from it to [the major axis]
such that it ends at the center, and the ratio of that perpendicular together
with the half of the minor axis to the half of the minor axis is smaller than the
ratio of the transverse diameter to the latus rectum, then amongst the straight
lines drawn from that point to the section in each of two quadrants [into which
the minor axis divides the half of the ellipse] there is only one straight line such
that the part of it cut of between the section and the major axis is minimal
straight line, and for other straight lines drawn on that side no minimal straight
line is cut off from them [between the axis and the section, but for those of
them drawn closer to the vertex of the section than the straight line from which
a minimal straight line is cut off, the minimal straight lines drawn from their
ends are farther [from the vertex]. And for those of them that are farther [from
the vertex of the section than is the minimal straight line], the minimal straight
lines drawn from their ends are drawn closer [to the vertex].
Let there be the ellipse whose major axis , and the let us take outside of it a point such that when a perpendicular is drawn from it, it falls on the
center, that is . We draw from it a perpendicular to let it fall on the
center, and let the ratio to be smaller than the ratio of the transverse diameter to the latus rectum.
I say that of straight lines drawn from in one of two quadrants only one
is such that the part of it cut off between and is a minimal straight line
and that for those of the remaining straight lines drawn closer to the minimal
straight line drawn from the end [of each] of them is farther [from ] and for
those of them drawn farther from the minimal straight line drawn from the
end [of each] of them is closer [to ].
[Proof]. The ratio to is smaller than the ratio of the transverse diameter to the latus rectum. We make the ratio to equal to the ratio of
the transverse diameter to the latus rectum, and draw and parallel to
and , and join [cutting at ].
Then I say that , which is a part of , is a minimal straight line because the ratio to [equal to the ratio to ] is equal to the ratio of
the transverse diameter to the latus rectum, and is the center of the section.
Therefore is one of minimal straight lines as is proved in Theorem 10 of this
Book.
And is also one of minimal straight lines, as is proved in Theorem 11 of
this Book.
And both these straight lines meet at .
228

So for those of straight lines drawn from whose distance from is


greater than the distance of [from ], the minimal straight line drawn from
the end of [each of] them is closer to than it, and for those of them whose
distance from is smaller [than that of ], the minimal straight line drawn
from the end of [each of] them is farther from than it, as is proved in Theorem 46 of this Book 75.
[Proposition] 55

If a point is taken outside of one of two halves of an ellipse into which the
major of its two axes divides it and a perpendicular is drawn from it to the axis,
so as not to fall on the center, then there can be drawn from that point to the
section a straight line such that the part of it cut off between the section and
the major axis is one of minimal straight lines, and it cuts the other of two
halves of the major axis on which the perpendicular does not fall, and no other
straight line can be drawn from that point cutting that half [of the axis] such
that the part of it cut off is a minimal straight line76.
Let there be the ellipse whose major axis and center , and let
the taken point be , and the perpendicular drawn from it to the axis be the
perpendicular , where the center is not .
I say that there can be drawn from a straight line cutting such that
the part of it falling between and is one of minimal straight lines.
For let the ratio to be made equal to the ratio of the transverse
diameter to the latus rectum, and likewise be made the ratio to .
We draw through a straight line parallel to , and draw through a
straight line parallel to .
We construct a hyperbola passing through with asymptotes and ,
as is shown in Problem 4 of Book II . Let that section be , and let it cut the
ellipse at .
Then I say that, when we join this straight line is one of minimal
straight lines.
[Proof]. For let be continued to meet and . Let it meet them at
and .
We draw two perpendiculars and to . Then is equal to , as
is proved in Theorem 8 of Book II . Therefore is equal to , and the ratio
to is equal to the ratio of the transverse diameter to the latus rectum,
and is equal to the ratio to . Therefore the ratio to is equal to the
ratio of the transverse diameter to the latus rectum.
229

But the ratio to was also [made] equal to the ratio of the transverse diameter to the latus rectum. Therefore the ratio to is equal to the
ratio to .
But is equal to , and [hence] is equal to the sum of and .
So, when we subtract and from , and from , the ratio of the
remainder to the remainder is equal to the ratio of the whole , to the
whole , which is equal to the ratio of the transverse diameter to the latus
rectum.
Therefore the ratio to is equal to the ratio of the transverse diameter to the latus rectum. And is a perpendicular [to the axis] and is the
center. Therefore is one of minimal straight lines, as is proved in Theorem 10
of this Book.
[Proposition] 56
And what we said in the preceding theorem concerning the fact that the
hyperbola will meet the ellipse will be proved by us drawing from a tangent
Go to the ellipse. Then the ratio to is equal to the ratio of the transverse
diameter to the latus rectum.
But the ratio to is smaller than the ratio to . Therefore the
ratio to is greater than the ratio of the transverse diameter to the latus
rectum, which is equal to the ratio to . Therefore the ratio to is
greater than the ratio to , and pl., is greater than pl.,
But is equal to , and is equal to , therefore pl. is greater than
pl..
So the hyperbola passing through with asymptotes and cuts ,
as is proved from the converse of Theorem 12 of Book II . And is tangent to the section [at ]. Therefore the mentioned hyperbola cuts the
section .
[Proposition] 57
Furthermore now we make the ellipse whose major axis , and take
the point below the axis, and draw from it the perpendicular , and let the
center be , and draw from the straight line from which one of minimal
straight lines is cut off [between the axis and the section], let the minimal
straight line be , and let it cut , and draw and [on either side of
, meeting at and ] and from the center draw parallel to , now
230

is one of minimal straight lines, so it meets the minimal straight line drawn
from the center inside the angle , let it meet it at . Then the straight line
joining and cannot have a minimal straight line cut off from it between the
section and its [major axis], but the minimal straight line drawn from is closer
to [than ],as is proved in Theorem 46 of this Book.
Therefore is not one of minimal straight lines, as is proved in Theorem
25 of this Book.
Similarly too it will be proved that is not one of minimal straight lines,
and that the minimal straight line drawn from falls on the side of [from ].
[Proposition] 58

For every point taken outside one of conic sections provided that it is not
of the axis wherever the axis is continued in a straight line, it is possible for us
to draw from it some straight line such that the part of it which falls between
the section and its axis is one of minimal straight lines 77.
Let the section first be the parabola whose its continued axis .
We take outside of the section the point , not on the axis.
I say that there can be drawn from a straight line such that the part of
it which falls between and is one of minimal straight lines.
[Proof]. For let the perpendicular to wherever it falls on it be
drawn let be equal to the half of the latus rectum, and let be a perpendicular to .
We construct the hyperbola passing through with asymptotes
and , as is shown in Problem 4 of Book II .
Then it will cut the parabola, let it cut it at . We join and continue it
[on both sides] to and , and drop a perpendicular from onto .
Then is equal to , as is proved in Theorem 8 of Book II ,therefore
is equal to .
But is equal to the half of the latus rectum. Therefore is equal to
the half of the latus rectum. And is a perpendicular [from the axis to the
section]. Therefore is one of minimal straight lines, as is proved in Theorem
8 of this Book.
[Proposition] 59
Furthermore we make the section the hyperbola or the ellipse whose
axis and center , and take outside of the section the point not on the
231

continuation of the axis, and draw from it the perpendicular to , and first
let that perpendicular not fall on the center.
I say that it is possible for us to draw from a straight line such that the
part of it falling between and is a minimal straight line.
[Proof]. For let the ratio to be equal to the ratio of the transverse
diameter to the latus rectum. We draw at right angles [to ], and make
the ratio to equal to the ratio of the transverse diameter to the latus
rectum, and pass through a straight line parallel to . We construct the
hyperbola passing through E with the asymptotes and , as is shown in
Problem 4 of Book II . Then it will meet the section . Let that hyperbola be
, and let it meet the section at . We join and continue it a straight
line [on both sides] to and and draw the perpendicular [to ]. Then
is equal to , as is proved in Theorem 8 of Book II, therefore is equal to
, and [hence] is equal to , and is equal to .
And the ratio to is equal to the ratio to , which is equal to
the ratio to because both ratios to and to are equal to the
ratio of the transverse diameter to the latus rectum. Therefore the ratio to
is equal to the ratio to .
And when we add the ratios in the case of the hyperbola and separate
them in the case of the ellipse, the ratio to is equal to the ratio to .
And convertendo in the case of the ellipse and dividendo in the case of
the hyperbola the ratio to [equal to the ratio of the transverse diameter
to the latus rectum] is equal to the ratio to , and is a perpendicular to
. So is one of minimal straight lines, as is proved in Theorems 9 and 10 of
this Book.
The proof is similar if the perpendicular falls outside of .
[Proposition] 60
Furthermore we make the perpendicular which is drawn from the point taken
outside of the hyperbola fall on the center as the perpendicular , and make
the ratio to equal to the ratio of the transverse diameter to the latus rectum and draw parallel to [to meet the section at ], and join and continued it to [meet the axis at] , then I say that is one of minimal straight
lines 79.
[Proof]. For let from the perpendicular to be drawn. Then the ratio to is equal to the ratio of the transverse diameter to the latus rectum,
and is equal to the ratio to .
232

But the ratio to is equal to the ratio to . Therefore the ratio


to is equal to the ratio of the transverse diameter to the latus rectum.
And is a perpendicular [from the section to the axis]. Therefore is one of
minimal straight lines, as is proved in Theorem 9 of this Book.
[Proposition] 61
Furthermore [in the case of the hyperbola] we make the perpendicular falling from the taken point be on the other side of the center as the perpendicular
, and let the center be , and the section , and make the ratio to
equal to the ratio of the transverse diameter to the latus rectum, and also make
the ratio to equal to the ratio of the transverse diameter to the latus
rectum, and draw parallel to , and and parallel to , and construct
the hyperbola passing through with the asymptotes and , then [that
hyperbola] will cut the section , let it cut it at , and let the hyperbola be .
We join and continue it to [meet at] .
I say that is one of minimal straight lines 80 .
[Proof]. For let perpendicular to be drawn . Then the ratio to
is equal to the ratio to . Therefore pl. [equal to pl.,] is equal
to pl. [equal to pl.,].
But pl. is equal to pl. because of the asymptotes, as is proved in
Theorem 12 of Book II.
Therefore pl. is equal to pl., and the ratio to is equal to
the ratio to . But the ratio to is equal to the ratio to .
Therefore the ratio to is equal to the ratio to , and [equal to
] is equal to . Therefore the ratio to is equal to the ratio to ,
and [also] is equal to the ratio to . Therefore the ratio to is
equal to the ratio to .
But the ratio to is equal to the ratio to . Therefore the ratio
to is equal to the ratio to . But the ratio to is equal to the
ratio to , and the ratio to is equal to the ratio to .
Therefore the ratio of the remainder [of without , namely ], to
the remainder [ of without , namely ], is equal to the ratio to .
And dividendo the ratio to is equal to the ratio to , which is
equal to the ratio of the transverse diameter to the latus rectum.
Therefore the ratio to is equal to the ratio of the transverse diameter to the latus rectum. Therefore is one of minimal straight lines, as is
proved in Theorem 9 of this Book.
233

[Proposition] 62
It is possible for us to draw one of minimal straight lines through any
point, which is between one of conic sections and its axis 81.
Let the section first be the parabola whose axis . We take in the
mentioned place the point .
Then I say that it is possible for us to draw through one of minimal
straight lines.
[Proof]. For let from the perpendicular [to the axis] be drawn.
Let the half of the latus rectum be .
We draw from the perpendicular to , and construct a hyperbola
passing through with asymptotes and , then this hyperbola will cut the
parabola. So [let it cut it at , and] let the hyperbola be . We join the
straight line and continue it to [meet at] [and to meet at ].
Then I say that is one of minimal straight lines.
[Proof]. For let The perpendicular be drawn. Then is equal to ,
as is proved in Theorem 8 of Book II. Therefore is equal to .
But is the half of the latus rectum. Therefore is the half of the latus
rectum. So is one of minimal straight lines, as is proved in Theorem 8 of this
Book.
[Proposition] 63
Furthermore we make the section the hyperbola or the ellipse whose
axis and center , and take in the mentioned place the point .
I say that it is possible for us to draw through one of minimal straight
82
lines .
[Proof]. For let the perpendicular [to the axis] be drawn, and make the
ratio to equal to the ratio of the transverse diameter to the latus rectum,
and likewise [make] the ratio to [equal to the ratio of the transverse diameter to the latus rectum].
We draw [through ] parallel to , and parallel to , and construct a hyperbola passing through with asymptotes and . Then this
section will cut the hyperbola and the ellipse, so [let it cut it at , and let the
section be . We join the straight line and continue it [on both sides] to
and , and drop the perpendicular .
Then I say that is one of minimal straight lines.
234

[Proof]. is equal to , as is proved in Theorem 8 of Book II .


Therefore is equal to , and the ratio of to the difference between
and is equal to the ratio to .
But is equal to , and is equal to . Therefore the ratio of
to the difference between and is equal to the ratio to .
But the ratio to is equal to the ratio to . Therefore the ratio
of to the difference between and is equal to the ratio to , and
dividendo in the case of the ellipse and componendo in the case of the hyperbola the ratio to is equal to the ratio to .
But the ratio to is equal to the ratio of the transverse diameter to
the latus rectum, and is a perpendicular to . Therefore is one of minimal straight lines.
[Proposition] 64

If a point is taken below the axis of a parabola or a hyperbola, such that


the straight line drawn from it to the vertex of the section forms with the axis
an acute angle, and [such that] it is not possible to draw from that point to the
section a straight line such that the part of it falling between the section and
the axis is one of the minimal straight lines, or if only one of straight lines drawn
from that point to one side [of the axis], which is different from the side where
the point is, can have cut off from it [by the axis and the section] a minimal
straight line, then the straight line drawn from that point to the vertex of the
section is the shortest of the straight lines drawn from that point to that side
of the section, and of the remaining straight lines those drawn closer to it are
shorter than those drawn farther 83.
Let the section first be the parabola whose axis , and let there
be the point below the axis and let there be the point below the axis,
and let the angle which is formed by the straight line drawn from to
vertex of the section and the axis be an acute angle, and first let it not be
possible to draw from to the section any straight line such that the part of it
cut off between the section and the axis is one of minimal straight lines
Then I say that the shortest of straight lines drawn from to the section
is , and that of the remaining straight lines [drawn from to the section]
those drawn closer to it are shorter than those drawn farther .
That will be proved after we prove that when straight lines drawn from
ending at points of the section, in the case where not one of these straight lines
can have a minimal cut off from it [between the axis and the section],
235

then the minimal straight lines drawn from the points on the section and falling
on the axis fall on that side of the straight lines drawn from which is farther
from . We prove that as follows.
We draw from the perpendicular , then is either equal to the half
of the latus rectum, or greater [than it], or smaller than it.
First let it be equal to it or smaller than it. Then for straight lines from
drawn from to the section the part of them cut off between the section and
the axis is not one of minimal straight lines, but the minimal straight lines drawn
to the axis from the points to which [the straight lines drawn from ] reach fall
on that side of drawn straight lines which is farther from , as is proved in
Theorem 49 of this Book.
Furthermore we make greater than the half of the latus rectum, and
let the half of the latus rectum be , and let be the double , and draw
from the perpendicular to , and [let be such that] the ratio to is
equal to the ratio to , then is either equal to , or smaller than it, or
greater than it.
Now that is not equal is evident for it was proved in Theorem 51 of
this Book that when is equal to , then one straight line can be drawn from
such that the part of it cut off between the section and the axis is a minimal
straight line, but we have stated that no straight line can be drawn from such
that the part of it cut off between the section and the axis is a minimal straight
line. Therefore is not equal to .
Similarly too it will be proved that cannot be smaller than for it was
proved in Theorem 51 of this Book that, when is smaller than , then there
can be drawn from two straight lines such that the part which the axis cuts
off from each of them is a minimal straight line, but we had made a point such
that it is not possible to draw from it a straight line such that a minimal straight
line is cut off from it between the axis and the section.
Therefore is not smaller than . And it was proved that is not equal to
it.
And it was also proved in Theorem 51 of this Book that, when is
greater than , then no straight line can be drawn from such that the part of
it falling between the section and its axis is a minimal straight line, and the for
the straight lines drawn from to the section, when minimal straight lines are
drawn from their ends to the axis, they fall on the axis [removed] from those
straight lines on the side which farther from .
Therefore it has been proved that if is equal to for smaller than the
half of the latus rectum, then it must be that for the straight lines drawn from
236

to the section, when minimal straight lines are drawn from the points of their
ends, they fall on the side which is farther from [than the original straight
lines], and [it has also been proved that] if is greater than the half of the
latus rectum, then is greater than , as we proved, and in that case it must
also be that for the straight lines drawn from to the section, when minimal
straight lines are drawn from the points of their ends, they fall on the side which
is farther from .
Therefore since that has been proved, then I say that is the shortest
of the straight lines drawn from to the section , and that of the remaining
straight lines [drawn to from ], those drawn closer to it are shorter than
those drawn farther.
[Proof]. For let and be drawn. Then, if possible, first let be equal
to . We draw from the straight line tangent to the section. Then is
perpendicular to the axis , as is proved in Theorem 17 of Book I because it is
parallel to the ordinates dropped on the axis. Therefore the angle is obtuse.
Therefore we draw from the perpendicular to , then it falls in side of
the section because it is not possible for any other straight line to fall between
the tangent and section, as is proved in Theorem 32 of Book I .
We draw from the tangent to the section. Then the minimal straight
line drawn between and the axis falls on the side of farther from , as we
proved above. And [that minimal straight line] forms a right angle with , as is
proved in Theorem 27 of this Book. Therefore the angle is acute.
So if we make center, and with radios draw a circle, then [that circle] will cut . And will be outside of it for the angle is acute, and the
angle is right.
Therefore let the circle be the circle .Then it cuts the section ,
let it cut it at .
We join and draw tangent to the section. Then falls outside of
the circle, and the minimal straight line drawn between and the axis is farther
from than , as we proved [above].
And it forms a right angle with , as is proved in Theorem 27 of this
Book. Therefore the angle is acute, and cuts the circle. But it [also] fell
outside of it, which is impossible. Therefore is not equal to .
So, if possible, let be greater than . Then, when we make center,
and with the radius draw a circle, the circle will cut . And a part of will
be inside of the circle, as we proved. And the circle will cut the section because
it cuts . Let [it cut the section at , and let] the circle be .
237

We join , and draw from a tangent to the section. Then it falls inside the circle for the minimal straight line drawn between the axis and falls
on the side of farther from , and [hence] the angle is acute. Therefore
cuts the circle.
But we had proved that it falls outside of it, which is impossible. Therefore is not greater than , and we had proved that it is not equal to it.
Therefore it is smaller than it.
Then I say that of the remaining straight lines [drawn from to the section] those drawn closer to are smaller than those drawn farther.
[Proof]. For let the tangent be continued to . Then the angle is
acute [hence] the angle is obtuse. So we draw from the perpendicular
to , then falls inside of the section. We draw from the tangent
to the section.
First let , if that is possible, be equal to . Then if we describe a circle
on the center with the radius , it will fall outside of because the angle
is acute. But it falls inside of because is perpendicular to . Therefore it cuts the section.
And when we joined the point at which it cuts it and with a straight line,
the absurdity of that is proved as is was in the case of the equality of and
.
Similarly too if is greater than the impossibility is proved as it was
proved in the case of and , where was made greater than . Therefore is the smallest of the straight lines drawn from to the section ,
and of the remaining straight lines those drawn closer to it are shorter than
those drawn farther.
Therefore it has been proved that, if is in the situation that there cannot be drawn from it to the section any straight line such that the part of it cut
off [between the axis and the section] is one of minimal straight lines, and the
angle is acute, then the smallest of straight lines drawn from to the section is , and that those [of the other straight lines] drawn closer to are
shorter than those drawn farther.
But if a minimal straight line can be cut off from only one of straight lines
drawn from to the section, and the angle is again acute , then it will be
proved, in Theorem 67 of this Book, that is again the smallest of straight
lines drawn from to the section, and that of the remaining straight lines those
drawn closer to it are smaller than those drawn farther.
[Proposition] 65
238

Furthermore if we make the section the hyperbola with axis and


center , and take some point below the axis such that, when we join , the
angle is acute and [such] that for none of straight lines drawn from to
the section is the part of it cut off between the section and the axis one of
minimal straight lines, then I say that is the shortest of straight lines drawn
from to the section , and that of the remaining straight lines those drawn
closer to it are shorter than those drawn farther 84.
[Proof]. All of minimal straight lines drawn from each of the points on the
section to the axis fall on the side farther from than the straight line
joining that point to for we draw from the perpendicular to the axis then
is either equal to or greater than or smaller than the half of the latus rectum.
Now if it is equal to it or smaller than it, then for straight lines drawn from
to the section , when minimal straight lines are drawn from their ends to
the axis, they are farther from than those [straight lines], as is proved in
Theorem 50 of this Book.
But if is greater than the half of the latus rectum, then we make the
ratio to equal to the ratio of the transverse diameter to the latus rectum,
and we imagine two straight lines and in continuous proportion between
and , and draw from the perpendicular to , And construct[the
straight line such that] the ratio to is equal to the ratio pl., to
pl.,.
Then I say that is greater than .
[Proof]. For let, if it is possible, for it not to be greater than it, then first
let it be equal to it. Then it was proved Theorem 52 of this Book that in this
case one can draw from a [single] straight line such that the part of it
cut off [between the axis and the section] is one of minimal straight lines.
But that is not so, therefore is not equal to .
Similarly too it will be shown that is not smaller than for if it were
smaller than it, then it would be possible to draw from two straight lines such
that the part of [each of] them cut off [between the axis and the section] is
one of minimal straight lines, therefore is greater than .
And it was proved in Theorem 52 of this Book that, when is greater
than , no straight line can be drawn from such that the pare of it cut off between the section and the axis is one of minimal straight lines, and that the
minimal straight lines drawn from the ends of those straight lines are farther
from than the straight lines themselves.
239

Therefore it has been proved that for all of straight lines drawn from to
the section, when minimal straight lines are drawn from their ends two the axis,
then these [minimal straight lines] are farter from than other straight lines.
And that will be proved by the method similar to that by which it was
proved in the case of the parabola in the preceding theorem, that is smaller
than all [other] straight lines drawn from to the section , and that of the
remaining straight lines those drawn closer to it are smaller than those drawn
farther.
[Proposition] 66
Furthermore we make the section the ellipse whose major axis
and center , with the point below the major axis, and let the angle be
acute, and draw from center the perpendicular to the axis, and let be a
point such that it is not possible to draw from it to [the quadrant] a straight
line such that the part of it cut off between the section and the axis is one of
minimal straight lines, then I say that is the shortest of straight lines drawn
from to [the quadrant] , and that of the remaining straight lines those
drawn closer to it are shorter than those drawn
farther 85.
[Proof]. For the perpendicular drawn from to the axis falls between
and , for if it were possible for it to fall between and , then it would be possible to draw from to the section a straight line such that the part of it cut off
between the section and the axis is one of minimal straight lines, as is proved in
Theorem 55 of this Book, but that is not so, therefore the perpendicular does
not fall between and .
Furthermore it does not fall on the center for if it fell on the center ,
when it is continued in a straight line, the part of it falling between the section
and the axis would be one of minimal straight lines, as is proved in Theorem 11
of this Book. Therefore it falls between and , as the perpendicular .
Now is either equal to the half of the latus rectum, or smaller than it,
or greater than it.
But if it is smaller than it or equal to it, then for the straight lines drawn
from to the section , no minimal straight line can be cut off from them
[between the axis and the section], and when minimal straight lines are drawn
from their ends to the axis, they fall on the side which is farther from than
the straight lines themselves, as is proved in Theorem 50 of this Book.

240

And if is greater than the half of the latus rectum, we make the ratio
to equal to the ratio of the transverse diameter to the latus rectum, and
take two straight lines and in continuous proportion between and ,
and draw at right angles [to the axis], and construct [a straight line such
that] as is to , so pl., is to pl.,. Then is either equal to or
greater than it or smaller than it.
Now if is equal to , then a [single] straight line can be drawn from
to such that the part of it cut off [between the axis and the section] is one
of minimal straight lines, as is proved in Theorem 52 of this Book. But that is
not so.
And if were smaller than , then there could be drawn [from to ]
two straight lines such that the parts of them cut off [between the axis and the
section] are both minimal straight lines, and if is greater than , then no
straight line can be drawn from to such that the part of it cut off [between the axis and the section] is one of minimal straight lines, and when a
straight line is drawn from to the section , the minimal straight line drawn
from its and end to the axis is farther from than the straight line itself, as is
proved in Theorem 52 of this Book.
Thus it has been proved in every case that the minimal straight lines
drawn from every point of the section to the axis are farther from than
the straight lines joining those points to .
Next we can prove, as we did in the case of the parabola that is
shorter than all [other] straight lines drawn from to the section , and that
of the remaining straight lines those drawn closer to it are shorter than those
drawn farther.
And the proof for that is the same for all three sections, now that we
have proved for each of the sections that the minimal straight lines drawn from
the section to the axis fall on the side which is farther from than the straight
lines themselves.
[Proposition] 67
Furthermore we make the section the parabola or the hyperbola
whose axis , and let there be some point below the axis, and let the angle
be acute, and let there be just one straight line among those drawn from
to the section such that the part of it cut off [between the axis and the section] is one of minimal straight lines, then I say again that is the shortest of

241

straight lines drawn from to the section , and that of the remaining
straight lines those drawn closer to it are shorter than those drawn farther 86 .
[Proof] . For let from to the axis perpendicular be drawn. Then I say
that for all straight lines drawn from to the section , then minimal straight
lines are drawn from their ends to the axis, these straight lines are farther from
than the straight lines themselves, except for one single straight line.
For in the cases of the parabola and the hyperbola is greater than the
half to the latus rectum, for if it were not greater than it, then it would not be
possible to draw from a straight line such that the part of it cut off [between
the axis and the section] is one of minimal straight lines, as is proved in Theorems 49 and 50 of this Book. Therefore is greater than the half to the latus
rectum.
Then if the section is a parabola we cut off from next to a straight
line equal to the half of the latus rectum, and do the other construction as we
did in Theorem 64 of this Book, until we find the constructed the straight line
against which we measured . Then is equal to it for if it were smaller than
it, then it would be possible to draw from two straight lines such that the part
cut off from [each of] them [between the axis and the section] is one of minimal straight lines, as is proved in Theorem 51 of this Book. But that is not so.
Therefore is equal to the constructed straight line. And it was proved
in that theorem that when that is so, then only one straight line can be drawn
from [to the section] such that the part of it cut off is one of minimal straight
lines, and that the minimal strait lines drawn from the ends of other straight
lines [between and the section] are farther from than the straight lines
themselves.
That will also be shown in the same way in this section if it is a hyperbola
for we make the center and divide into two parts such that the ratio of
one to other is equal to the ratio of the transverse diameter to the latus rectum, and carry out the rest of the construction as we did in Theorem 65 of this
Book until we find the constructed straight line against which we measured .
Then in this case too, as in the case on the parabola, is equal to the
found straight line. Therefore only one straight line can be drawn from [to the
section] such that the part of it cut off [ between the axis and the section] is
one of minimal straight lines, and for other straight lines drawn from to the
section, when minimal straight lines are drawn from their ends to the axis, these
[minimal] straight lines are farther from than the straight lines themselves, as
is proved in Theorem 52 of this Book.

242

And a similar was shown too in the case of the parabola. Then let the
straight line drawn from to the section such that the part of it cut off by
the axis is one of minimal straight lines .
We draw from to the section between and two straight lines and
. Then we prove as we proved in Theorem 64 of this Book that is the
shortest of straight lines drawn from and ending at the section between and
, and that of the remaining straight lines such as and between those
two points, those drawn closer to it are shorter than those drawn farther.
Then I say that is shorter than . For if it is not shorter than it,
first, let it be equal to it. We draw [to the section between and ], then
is greater than as we proved previously. Therefore it is greater than .
So we cut off from a straight line greater than but shorter
than , and make center and draw a circle with the radius . Then it will
cut the straight line and the arc of the section. So let it cut them as the
circle [where N is on the section]. We join , then is closer than to
. Therefore is smaller than . But is equal to . is smaller than
. But it was [constructed as] greater than it, that impossible. Therefore
and are not equal.
Again we make, if possible, greater than , and cut off from the
straight line greater than but smaller than . We make center and
draw a circle with the radius , then that circle will cut the straight line
and will cut the arc of the section. So let it cut them as the arc , we join
. Then is smaller than because it is closer to .
But is equal to . Therefore is smaller than , but that is impossible. Therefore is not greater than .
And we had [already] proved that it is not equal to it. Therefore it is
smaller than it.
Thus it has been proved that all straight lines drawn from to [the arc]
are shorter than .
Again we draw and in the remaining arc of the section, on the
other side of . Then I say that is smaller than , and that is smaller
than .
[Proof]. For let the tangents and to the section be drawn. Then
the angles and are obtuse because the minimal straight lines
drawn from and to the axis are farther from than straight lines drawn from
their vertices to , each [being farther from ] than its corresponding [straight
line].
243

Therefore we draw from the perpendicular to then it falls inside of


the section. Then from that we can prove, as we proved in Theorem 64 of this
Book that is shorter than .
Similarly of the straight lines drawn from on the other side of all of
those drawn closer to are smaller than those drawn farther.
And I say that is the shortest of them.
[Proof]. The axis cuts off from a minimal straight line. Therefore the
angle between the tangent drawn from and is right.
First we make, if possible, equal to , and draw between them.
Then is smaller than because it is closer to . Therefore is smaller
than .
We make [on ] smaller than but greater than , and make
center, and draw a circle with the radius , then it will cut between and .
Let the circle be , and let it cut it at . We join . Then is smaller
because it is closer to .
But is equal to . Therefore is smaller than . But it is [also ]
greater than it, which is impossible. Therefore is not equal to .
Therefore, if possible, let it be smaller than it. We make [on ]
greater than but smaller than . Therefore when we make center and draw
a circle with the radius , it will cut the arc of the section let it cut it at ,
and let it be the circle . We join . Then is smaller than because it is
closer to .
But is equal to . Therefore is smaller than . But it is [also]
greater than it, which is impossible. Therefore is not smaller than .
And we had [already] proved that it is not equal to it. Therefore it is greater
than it . Therefore is the shortest of straight lines drawn from to the arc
of the section.
Thus it has been proved from what we said, that is shorter than all
straight lines drawn from to , and that of the remaining straight lines
those drawn closer to it are shorter than those drawn farther.
[Proposition] 68
If is the parabola whose axis , and and are the tangents to
the section [where is closer to the vertex than ], then is smaller than
87 .
[Proof]. For let be joined and from the straight line [meeting
244

at ] parallel to be drawn. Then is equal to , as is proved in Theorem 30 of Book II . We draw from the perpendicular to the axis. Then the
angle is right, therefore the angle is obtuse. And is common to the
triangles and . Therefore the sides and are [respectively] equal
to the sides and . And the angle is smaller than the angle .
Therefore the base is smaller than the base .
[Proposition] 69
If there is the hyperbola whose axis and center , and two tangents
to it and [where is closer to the vertex ], is smaller than 88.
[Proof]. For let is joined and continued in a straight line two [meet
at] , and be joined. Then is equal to , as is proved in Theorem 30 of
Book II . Therefore we draw the perpendicular , and continue to [meet it
at] . Then the angle is right, and the angle is greater than the angle
therefore the angle is obtuse, and the angle is obtuse. Therefore
the angle is smaller than the angle . And is equal to , and is
common to the triangles and . Therefore the base is smaller than
the base .
[Proposition] 70
If there is the ellipse whose major axis and minor [axis] , and
there are drawn between and on one of the quadrants of the section, and
two tangents and to the section, then the closer of these two to the
minor axis is greater than the farther 89.
[Proof]. For let be joined, and be drawn from to the center
[cutting at ]. Then is equal to , as is proved in Theorem 30 of
Book II. And is closer to , the half of the minor axis, than , and is
closer to , the half of the major axis. Therefore is greater than .
And and are [respectively] equal to and . Therefore the angle
is greater than the angle , and the angle is greater than the .
And and are [respectively] equal to and . Therefore the base is
greater than the base .
[Proposition] 71
If is the ellipse whose major axis and minor axis [and center
], and and are perpendiculars to the major axis, being greater than
245

, and and are tangent to the section, and it is evident that they will
meet each because of that we said in Theorem 27 of Book II, then is greater
than 90.
[Proof]. For let and be joined, and let be continued to [meet
the section at] , and let be joined and continued to [meet the section at]
. Then is equal to , as is proved in Theorem 30 of Book I .
And is equal to , and is a perpendicular to . Therefore is
equal to .
But was [shown to be] equal to . Therefore is equal to .
We join , then it is parallel to . And when we draw the perpendicular [to the major axis], it is also parallel to , therefore it is equal to it.
But was [assumed] greater than . Therefore is greater than
. Therefore is closer to [the half of the major axis] than . Therefore
is greater than , as is proved in Theorem 11 of this Book.
And we had proved that is equal to . Therefore is greater than
.
But is equal to as is proved in Theorem 30 of Book II. Therefore
the angle is greater than the angle , and the angle is greater than
the angle . And the sides and are [respectively] equal to the sides
and . Therefore the base is greater than the base .
[Proposition] 72

If a point is taken below the axis of a parabola or a hyperbola, and it is


possible to draw from it two straight lines such that the part which the axis cuts
off from each of them is one of minimal straight lines, then the closer of those
two straight lines to the vertex of the section is greater than all [other] straight
lines drawn from that point to the arc of the section from the vertex of the section to the other, second, straight line, and of the remaining straight lines drawn
to that arc on both sides those drawn closer to it are greater than those drawn
farther, and second straight line is smaller than all straight lines drawn from the
point to the remaining [part] on that side of the section, that is the complement of the first arc on that side, and of the remaining straight lines drawn to
that other [complementary] arc those drawn closer to it are smaller than those
drawn farther 91.
Let the section be with the axis , and the point below it, and two
straight lines and drawn from it to the section such that the parts that
cuts off them are two minimal straight lines.
246

I say that is greater than all [other straight lines drawn from to the
arc] , and that those [straight lines] on both sides, which are closer to
are greater than those drawn farther, and that is smaller than all straight
lines drawn from to [where is an arbitrary point on the other side of
from ], and that of those straight lines those drawn closer to are smaller
than those drawn farther.
[Proof]. For let from the perpendicular to be drawn. We construct against the straight line which we measure as we constructed it in
Theorems 64 and 65 of this Book. Then is smaller than that straight line for
if it were greater than it, it would not be possible to draw from a straight line
such that the part of it cut off [between the axis and the section] is one of
minimal straight lines, and if it were equal to it, then it would be possible to
draw only one straight line [of that kind], as is proved in Theorems 51 and 52
of this Book.
Therefore since is smaller than the constructed straight line, then only
two straight lines can be drawn from it such that the part of [each of]
them cut off is one of minimal straight lines, and the minimal straight lines
drawn from the ends of the straight lines between and are closer to
than the straight lines themselves, but as for minimal straight lines drawn from
the ends of the remaining straight lines, they are farther [from the vertex], as is
proved in Theorems 51 and 52 of this Book.
Now as to [the statement] that is greater than all [other] straight
lines drawn from to [the arc] , which will be proved as we proved it in Theorem 64 of this Book.
And similarly it will be proved that of those straight lines which are on the
side of [from ] those drawn closer to are greater than those drawn farther.
But as to [the statement] that is the greatest of the straight lines
drawn [from ] to [the arc] , and that of those straight lines drawn closer to
it are greater than those drawn farther, that will be proved as follows. We draw
and [between and ] and draw from and tangents and
to the section. Then is one of minimal straight lines, and is tangent to
the section, so the angle is right, as is proved in Theorems 27 and 28 of
this Book, and the angle is obtuse because the minimal straight line drawn
from to [the axis] is closer to than , as is proved in Theorems 51 and
52 of this Book. And [thus] the angle is right, and the angle is obtuse.
Therefore the sum of sq. and sq. is greater than the sum of sq. and
sq..
247

But is smaller than , as is proved in Theorems 68 and 69 of this


Book. Therefore is greater than .
Similarly too it will be proved that is greater than because the angle is acute, and, when we make tangent the angle is obtuse.
Similarly also it will be proved that is greater than .
Therefore is greater than all [other] straight lines drawn from to the
arc of the section, and of those straight lines drawn closer to it are greater
than those drawn farther.
Now as to [the statement] that is smaller than all straight lines drawn
from to [the arc] , which will be proved by a method like we followed in
Theorem 64 of this Book.
And similarly too it will be proved that of straight lines drawn [from ] to
those [straight lines] drawn closer to are smaller than those drawn farther.
[Proposition] 73

If a point is taken below the major or two axes of an ellipse not on the
continuation of the minor axis, and of straight lines drawn from that point to
the section only one can have cut off from it [between the major axis and the
section] one of minimal straight lines, then only that [minimal] straight line is
greater than all other straight lines [drawn from that point to the section], and
of the remaining straight lines those drawn closer to it are greaten than those
drawn farther, and the shortest on straight lines drawn from that point to that
half of the section to which the greatest straight line is drawn is the straight
line joining that point and the vertex of the section adjacent to that point 92.
Let there be the ellipse whose [major] axis and center . We draw
through the perpendicular to the axis, and take below the axis the point
, let be a point such that only one straight line can be drawn from it to
such that the part of it which the axis cuts off is one of minimal straight
lines.
Now concerning this straight line from which a minimal straight line is cut
off, since no other straight line can be drawn from that point to the section
such that the axis cuts from it one of minimal straight lines, but it is [always]
possible for us to draw from [just one] straight line such that the part of it
cut off by the axis is one of minimal straight lines, provided that it cuts the
other one of two halves of the axis, that is to say the half on which the perpendicular drawn from [to the axis] does not fall, as is proved in Theorem 55 of
248

this Book, Therefore the straight line drawn from to such that the part
cut off from it is one of minimal straight lines cuts .
So let that straight line be , we join .
Then I say that is the greatest of straight lines drawn from to ,
and that of straight lines on either side of it those drawn closer to it are greater
than those drawn farther, and that the shortest of all them is .
[Proof]. The section is the ellipse, and has been taken below its
major axis, being a point such that only one straight line can be drawn from it
to the section such that a minimal straight line can be cut off from it.
Now it has been proved in Theorem 57 of this Book that, when that is the
case, the remaining minimal straight lines drawn from a point on the section to
the axis, whatever point that may be, are farther from or from , than the
straight lines joining that point to , and that can be proved for any of straight
lines whether they are farther from , or from . So we draw some straight lines
, , and from to the section [where and are on , and is on
], and draw from a tangent to the section, then the angle is obtuse. So we draw from the perpendicular to , then it falls in side of the
section, as is proved in Theorem 32 of Book I.
We draw from the tangent to the section. Then the minimal
straight line drawn from to the axis is farther from than , as is proved in
Theorem 57 of this Book. Therefore the angle is acute. But the angle
was [made] right . So we can prove as we proved in Theorem 64 of this Book
by drawing the perpendicular [to ] from , that is not greater than ,
and not equal to it. Therefore is smaller than .
Furthermore is tangent to the section, and the angle is obtuse,
so we draw from the perpendicular to . Then it falls in side of the section, since no straight line can fall between the tangent and the section, as is
proved in Theorem 32 of Book I.
We also draw through the tangent to the section. Then the minimal
straight line drawn from is farther from than , as is proved in Theorem 57
of this Book. Therefore the angle is acute. So again it can be proved as it
was proved in Theorem 64 of this Book that is smaller than .
Furthermore we join and draw through the tangent to the section, then the angle is right, and the angle is acute. And therefore
is smaller than , as is proved in Theorem 64 of this Book.
I also say that is shorter than for we draw through the tangent
to the section. Then since is an ellipse, and the perpendicular to
its axis, has been drawn through its center, and and are tangents, then
249

is greater than , as is proved in Theorem 70 of this Book. But the sum


of sq. and sq. is smaller than the sum of sq. and sq. because the
angle is obtuse, and the angle is acute. Therefore is smaller than
.
Similarly too it will be proved that is smaller than by drawing
[the tangent] .
So it has been proved that of these straight lines those drawn closer
to are greater than those drawn farther.
Now I say that is greater than . We draw tangent to the section.
Then the angle is right, as is proved in Theorem 28 of this Book, and the
angle is obtuse, and is greater than , as is proved in Theorem 71 of
this Book. Therefore is greater than . Therefore is the greatest of
straight lines drawn from to [the arc] , and of these straight lines those
drawn closer to it are greater than those drawn farther,
and is the shortest of them.
So we draw , and to [the arc] , and draw from the tangent
Go to the section, and perpendicular to . Then it falls in side of the section, as is proved in Theorem 32 of Book I .
So we draw from the tangent to the section. Then the minimal
straight line drawn from to the axis is farther from than , therefore the
angle is acute. Hence it will be proved that is smaller than , and we
will prove as we proved in Theorem 64 of this Book that of straight lines drawn
from to the section between and those drawn closer to are shorter
than those drawn farter. Therefore is smaller than .
Then I say that is smaller than .
[Proof]. If it is not smaller than it, then it is equal to it or greater than it.
So it possible let it be greater than it. We make greater than and
smaller than .Then when we make center, and draw a circle with the radius
, then it will cut the arc of the section, let it cut it at the point , as the
circle . We join , then is farther from than . Therefore is
greater than .
But is equal to , therefore is greater than . But it is [also]
smaller than it, that is impossible. So is not greater than .
So, if possible, let it be equal to it. We draw between these two straight
lines . Then is greater than , therefore is greater than . So we make
greater than and smaller than . Then when we make center, and draw
a circle , with the radius it will cut the arc of the section, let it cut it
at . We join . Then is greater than because it is farther from .
250

But is equal to , therefore is greater than . But it is [also]


smaller than it, which is impossible. Therefore is greater than .
So is the greatest of straight lines drawn from to the section ,
and those [straight lines] drawn closer to it are greater than those drawn farter,
and is the shortest of straight lines drawn from to [the arc] . But is
greater than .
Therefore is the shortest of straight lines drawn from to the section
, and the greatest of them is , and those [straight lines] drawn closer to
it are greater than those drawn farther.
[Proposition] 74

If a point is taken below the major of the axes of an ellipse, and it is possible for us to draw from that point to the arc of the section opposite to it just
two straight lines such that the parts cut off from them [by the axis] are minimal straight lines, then the greatest of straight lines drawn from that point to
that side of the section is that one of two straight lines from each of which a
minimal straight line can be cut off which meets the minor axis, and of straight
lines on either side of it those drawn closer to it are greater than those drawn
farther, and the shortest of those straight lines is the straight line drawn from
that point to that one of two vertices of the section which is closer to it 93.
Let the ellipse be whose major axis , and let there be a point below the major axis, and let the center of the section be .
We draw through the perpendicular to the axis. Let it be possible
for us to draw from just two straight lines such that the parts of them cut off
between and the axis of the section are minimal straight lines, let those
two straight lines which we stated to be drawn from be and ,
and let there be no other straight line apart from them which can be drawn from
it so that the part of it cut off [by the axis] is one of minimal straight lines.
Then I say that which cuts the minor axis is the greatest of all straight
lines drawn from to the section , and that [for straight lines] on both
sides of it those drawn closer two are greater than those drawn farther, and
that is the shortest of mentioned those straight lines.
[Proof]. For let from the perpendicular to the axis be drawn. Then it
is evident that does not fall on the center for if it were to fall on the center,
then it would be impossible to draw from a straight line such that the part of
it which the axis cuts off is one of minimal straight lines except for perpendicular alone [when continued to meet the section], or [else] would be possible
to draw two straight lines besides it such that the part of each of them cut off
251

[by the axis] is one of minimal straight lines, as is proved in Theorems 53 and
54 of this Book. But that is not the case [here by hypothesis].
So let the perpendicular fall between and . Then is greater than
the half of the latus rectum for, if it were not greater than it, then it would not
be possible to draw from a straight line between and such that the part
of it cut off [by the axis] is one of minimal straight lines, as is proved in Theorem 50 of this Book. Therefore , as we said, is greater than the half of the
latus rectum.
So we make the ratio to equal to the ratio of the transverse diameter to the latus rectum, and take two mean proportionals between and
, and construct the perpendicular as we constructed it in Theorem 64 of this
Book, and do the rest of what we did so as to generate the straight line against
which we measure .
Then is equal to that generated straight line for if it were greater than
it, then it would not be possible to draw from to a straight line such that
the part of it cut off [by the axis] is one of minimal straight lines, and if it were
smaller than it, then it would be possible to draw to [the quadrant] two
straight lines such that the part of them cut off [by the axis] is one of minimal
straight lines, as is proved in Theorem 52 of this Book, and it would also be
possible to draw from another, third, straight line to [the quadrant] , as is
proved in Theorem 55 of this Book. Therefore, is equal to the generated
straight line.
And it was proved in Theorem 52 of this Book that, when that is the case,
then only one straight line can be drawn from to [the quadrant] such that
the part of it cut off [by the axis] is one of minimal straight lines, and that the
minimal straight lines drawn from the ends of the remaining straight lines drawn
two are farther from than the straight lines themselves.
So we draw from to the section the straight lines , , and . Then
it will be proved, as we proved in Theorems 72 and 73 [of this Book] that is
smaller than , and is smaller than .
Then I say that is smaller than for if it is not smaller than it, let it
be greater than it or equal to it, and, first it be equal to it. We draw between
them , where is greater than , and is equal to . Therefore is
greater than . So we cut off from the straight line shorter than , but
greater than , make center and draw the circle with the radius , then
it cuts the arc [of the section], Let it cut it at . We join . Then is
greater than because it is farther from .
252

And is equal to , therefore is greater than . But it is [also]


smaller than it, which is impossible.
In a similar way it will be proved that is not smaller than . Therefore
it is greater than it. So is greatest of straight lines drawn from to [the arc]
, and of these straight lines those drawn closer to it are greater than those
drawn farther, and the shortest of them is .
Similarly too it will be proved that is the greatest of straight lines
drawn between and , and that of these straight lines those drawn closer to it
are greater than those drawn farther, just as we proved the matter of straight
lines drawn to [the arc] .
Then I also say that is the smallest of straight lines drawn to [the arc]
.
[Proof]. For let be drawn [to ]. Then, if it is possible, for not to
be greater than , it is equal to it or smaller than it.
First, let it be equal to it. We draw between and . Then is
smaller than , therefore is smaller . We make greater than but
smaller than and make center, and draw the circle with the radius .
Then it will cut the arc [of the section], let it cut it at . We join . Then
is smaller than because it is farther from , and is equal to . Therefore is smaller . But it is [also] greater than it, which is impossible. So
is not equal to .
Similarly too it will be proved that it is not greater than it.
Therefore is greater than all [other] straight lines drawn from to
[the quadrant] , and of these straight lines those drawn closer to it are
greater than those drawn farther.
Now is the ellipse whose major axis and minor axis , with
inside of the angle , from which has been drawn to the arc of the
section. So it will be proved as we proved in the preceding theorem that is
the greatest of straight lines drawn from to , and that of these straight
lines those drawn closer to it are greater than those drawn farther.
And it has [already] been proved that is the greatest if straight lines
drawn to [the arc] , and that of these straight lines those drawn closer to it
are greater than those drawn farther.
So is the greatest of straight lines drawn from to the section ,
and of the remaining straight lines those drawn closer to it are greater than
those drawn farther, and is the smallest of them.
[Proposition] 75
253

If a point is taken below the major of two axes an ellipse, and it is possible
to draw from it to the section three straight lines such that the parts of them
which the axis cuts off are minimal straight lines, two of these straight lines being on that one of two sides of the minor axis on which is the point, and one
straight line being on the opposite side, then of straight lines drawn from that
point to the arc of the section between the midmost of three straight lines and
that vertex of the section which is farther from the point, the greatest is that
one of three straight lines which is drawn on the side opposite to that in which
is the point, and those of these straight lines drawn closer to it are greater than
those drawn farther, but as for straight lines drawn from that point to the section which is between the midmost of three straight lines and that vertex of the
section which is next to the point, the greatest of them is the straight line next
to that vertex of the section which is on the side on which is the point, and
those of these straight lines which are closer to it are greater than those which
are farther, and the greatest of these straight lines and [also] of other straight
lines mentioned previously is that one of three straight lines which is drawn to
the side opposite to the side on which is the point 94.
Let there be the ellipse whose major axis and center . Let the
perpendicular passing through the center be , and the point below the axis be
. And let there be drawn from it three straight lines , , and such that
the parts cut off from them [by the axis] are minimal straight lines , two of
these straight lines and are on the side [of the minor axis] on which is ,
and one straight line is on other side.
Then I say that is the greatest of straight lines drawn from to the
section , and that of straight lines between and those drawn closer to it
on both sides are greater than those drawn farter, and that is the greatest
of straight lines drawn between and , and that those of these straight lines
that are closer to it are greater than those drawn farther.
[Proof]. and are minim al straight lines. So we will prove as we
proved in the case of the parabola in Theorem 72 of this Book that is the
greatest of straight lines drawn from to [the arc] , and that of these
straight lines those drawn closer to it are greater than those drawn farther.
Furthermore is one of minimal straight lines, and is also one of
minimal straight lines. So it will be proved then, as is was proved in the preceding theorem that is the greatest of straight lines drawn from to[the arc]
.
And I also say that is greater than . For let from , , and the
perpendiculars , , and be drawn. Then the ratio to is equal to
254

the ratio of the transverse diameter to the latus rectum as is proved in Theorem 15 of this Book.
And likewise too the ratio to is equal to the ratio of the transverse
diameter to the latus rectum, as is proved in Theorem 15 of this Book. Therefore the ratio to is equal to the ratio to .
But the ratio to is smaller than ratio to . Therefore the
ratio to is smaller than the ratio to . Therefore the ratio to
is much smaller than the ratio to . And dividendo the ratio to
is smaller than the ratio to .
Now as for the ratio to , it is equal to the ratio to , and as
for the ratio to , it is equal to the ratio to . Therefore the ratio
to is smaller than the ratio to . Therefore is greater than .
Therefore the straight line drawn from parallel to is farter from
than , let that straight line be [which cuts at ].
We continue the perpendicular to [meet at] . Then is equal to
. Therefore is greater than .
And is common to the triangles and , and is a perpendicular to
. Therefore is greater than . But is greater than . Therefore is
greater than . So is the greatest of straight lines drawn from to the section .
And the situation with to straight lines drawn closer to and farter from it
is as we declared in the enunciation.
[Proposition] 76

If a perpendicular is drawn some point to the major axis of an ellipse, so


as to fall on its center, and no other straight line can be drawn from that point
to one of quadrants of the section which are on the opposite side of the section
to the side in which is the point, such that the part of it cut off [by the axis] is
one of minimal straight lines, then the greatest of straight lines drawn from that
point to the section is that perpendicular, when continued [to meet the section], and of the remaining straight lines [drawn from that point], those drawn
closer to it are greater than those drawn farther 95.
Let the ellipse be whose major axis , and the taken point be , and
the perpendicular drawn from it to the center be , which has been continued
to [meet the section at] . And let it not be possible to draw from to [the
quadrant] any straight line except such that the part of it cut off [by the
major axis] is one of minimal straight lines.
255

Then I say that is the greatest of straight lines drawn from to [the
quadrant] .
[Proof]. No straight line can be drawn from to the section between
and such that the part of it cut off is one of minimal straight lines.
And [so] the minimal straight lines drawn from the ends of those straight
lines are farther from than the straight lines themselves, as is proved in Theorem 53 of this Book. Hence it will be proved by means of the tangents, as it was
proved in Theorem 72 of this Book, that is the greatest of straight lines
drawn from to the quadrant .
And similarly it will be proved that it is the greatest of straight lines
drawn [from ] to the other quadrant. Therefore it is the greatest of straight
lines drawn from to the section.
And [it will be proved] that those of these straight lines that are closer to
it are greater than those drawn farther.
[Proposition] 77

If a perpendicular is drawn from some point to the major of two axes on


an ellipse, so that it falls on the center, and it is possible to draw from that
point to a quadrant of the section [one] straight line such that the part of it cut
off by the axis is one of minimal straight lines, then that straight line is greatest
of straight lines drawn from that point to that quadrant, and of these straight
lines those drawn closer to it are greater than those drawn farther 96.
Let the ellipse be whose major axis and center , and the point
taken below is from which the perpendicular has been drawn to , and let
it be possible to draw from it to only one straight line such that the part of
it cut off [by the axis] is one of minimal straight lines, let that straight line be
.
Then I say that is the greatest of straight lines drawn from to
[the quadrant] , and that those [straight lines] drawn closer to it on both
sides are greater than those drawn farter.
[Proof]. For let and are two minimal straight lines which have been
continued to meet at . So the minimal straight lines drawn from [any] point on
the section between and are farter from than the straight lines joining
that point and , as is proved in Theorem 46 of this Book. And the minimal
straight lines drawn from [any] point on the section between and are closer
to than the straight lines joining that point and , as is proved in Theorem 46
of this Book. And when that is the case, then it can be proved, as it was proved
in Theorem 72 of this Book by means of the tangents, that is the greatest of
256

the straight lines drawn from to , and that of these straight lines those
drawn closer to it are greater than those drawn farther.

BOOK SIX
Preface
Apollonius greets Attalus
I have sent you the sixth Book of the Conics. My aim in it is to report on
conic sections which are equal1 to each other and those unequal to each other,
and those unequal to each other, and on those similar to each other and dissimilar to each other, and on segments of conic sections. In this we have enunciated more than what was composed by others among our predecessors. In
this Book there is also how to find a section in a given right cone equal to a
given section, and 257or to find a right cone, containing a given conics section,
similar 2 to a given cone. What we have stated on this [subject] is fuller and
clearer than the statements of our predecessors. Farewell.
Definitions
1. Conic sections which are called equal are those which can be fit one on
another, so that the one does not exceed the other3 Those which are said to be
unequal are those for which that is not so.
2. And similar [conic section] are such that, when ordinates are drawn in
them to fall on the axes, the ratios of the ordinates are drawn in them to the
lengths they cut off from the vertex of the section are equal to one another,
while the ratios to each other of the portions which the ordinates cut off from
the axes are equal ratios 4. Sections that are dissimilar are those in which what
we stated above does not occur.
3. The line that subtends a segment of the circumference of a circle or of
a conic section is called the base of that segment 5 .
4. The line that bisects all the lines drawn in that segment parallel to the
base is called the diameter to that segment 6 .
5. And the point on the section from which the diameter is drawn is called
the vertex of the segment 7.
6. Segments that are called equal from their bases up are those that can
be applied, one to another, so that one does not exceed the other. And seg257

ment that are called unequal are those for which what we stated is not the
case.
7.And segments that are called similar are those in which the angles
formed between their bases and their diameters are equal, and for which, an
equal number of lines having been drawn in each of them parallel to their base,
the ratios of these lines, and also the ratio of each base, to the ratios of these
lines, and also the ratio of each base to the lengths which they cut off from the
diameter from the vertex of the section are equal for every segment similarly
the ratio of the part cut off from the diameter of one to the part cut off from
the diameter of the other.
8.A conic section is said to the be placed in a cone, or a cone is said to
contain a conic section, when the whole of the section is in the surface bounding the cone between its vertex and its base, or in that surface after it has been
produced beyond the base, so that the whole of the section is in the surface
below the base, or else some of the section is in this surface and some in the
other surface.
9. Right cones that are said to be similar are those for which the ratios of
their axes to the diameters of their bases are equal.
10.The eidos that I call the eidos of the section corresponding to the axis
or to the diameter is that [eidos] under the axis or diameter together with the
latus rectum 8.
[Proposition] 1

Parabolas in which the latera recta which are perpendiculars to the axes
are equal, them selves equal, and if parabolas are equal, their latera recta are
equal 9.
Let there be two parabolas whose axes and and equal latera recta
and .
I say that these sections are equal.
[Proof]. When we apply the axis to the axis , then the section will
coincide with the section so as to fit on it for if it does not fit on it, let there be
a part of the section that does not fit on the section . We take the point
on the part of it that does not coincide with , and draw from it [to the
axis] the perpendicular , and complete the rectangular plane . We make
equal to , and draw from the perpendicular to the axis [meeting the
section at ], and complete the rectangular plane . Then and are
equal to and each to its correspondent.
258

Therefore the quadrangle is equal to the quadrangle . And is


equal in square to the quadrangle , as is proved in Theorem 11 of Book I.
And similarly too is equal in square to the quadrangle . Therefore
is equal to .
Therefore when the axis [of one section] is applied to the axis [of the
other], will coincide with , and will coincide with , and will coincide
with . But it was supposed not to fall on the section , which is impossible.
Therefore it is impossible for the section [] not to be equal to the section
[]
Furthermore we make the section [] equal to the section [], and
make equal to , and draw the perpendiculars [to the axis] from and ,
and complete rectangular planes and , then the section will coincide
with the section , and therefore the axis will coincide with the axis for
if it does not coincide with it, the parabola has two axes which is impossible.
Therefore let it coincide with it. Then will coincide with L because is
equal to , and will coincide with . Therefore is equal to , the quadrangle is equal to the quadrangle , is equal to , and is equal to
.
[Proposition] 2

If the eidoi corresponding to the transverse axes of hyperbolas of ellipses


are equal and similar10, then the sections will be equal, and if the sections are
equal, then the eidoi corresponding to their transverse axes are equal and similar, and their situation is similar11 .
Let there be two hyperbolas or ellipses and whose axes and .
Let the eidoi corresponding to their transverse axes be equal and similar, these
are and .
I say that the sections and are equal.
[Proof]. We apply the axis to the axis , then the section [] will
coincide with the section [] for if that it no so, let a part of the section
not coincide with the section we take the point on that part, and draw
from it the perpendicular to the axis, and complete the rectangular plane
We cut off from a segment equal to , and draw from the perpendicular to , and complete the rectangular plane . Then and are
[respectively] equal to and . Therefore the quadrangle is equal to the
quadrangle .
259

Furthermore the rectangular planes and are similar and similarly


situated because they are similar to the rectangular planes and [respectively], and is equal to . Therefore the quadrangle is equal to the quadrangle . And the rectangular planes and were [already proved] equal.
Therefore the quadrangle is equal to the quadrangle , and the straight
lines equal to them in square are [respectively] and , as is proved in
Theorems 12 and 13 of Book I.
Therefore when the axis is applied to the axis, will coincide with ,
and will coincide with . But it was supposed to fall on the section , which
is impossible. Therefore the whole section will fit on the section .
Furthermore we make two sections equal, and make and equal,
and draw from them the perpendiculars and , and complete [the rectangular planes] , , , and , then the section will fit on the section ,
and the axis will coincide with the axis for if it did not coincide with it,
then the hyperbola would have two axes and the ellipse three axes, which is impossible. Therefore coincides with , and it is equal to it. So will coincide
with , and will coincide with , and [hence] will coincide with , and
will fit on , therefore is equal to .
For that reason the quadrangle is equal to the quadrangle .
But is equal to , therefore is equal to .
Furthermore we make equal to , then it will be proved, as we
proved above, that is equal to . Therefore is equal to , and is
equal to . Therefore the rectangular planes and are equal and similar.
Therefore the quadrangle is similar to the quadrangle , and also the
quadrangle is similar to the quadrangle . But is equal to . Therefore
is equal to . But it was [assumed] that is equal to . Therefore is
equal to and the quadrangle is similar to the quadrangle . Therefore
is equal to , and the quadrangle is equal to the quadrangle . And these
are the eidoi corresponding to the axes.
Porisms
If there are [a number of] parabolas, and ordinates falling on one of their
diameters meet the diameters at equal angles, and their latera recta are equal,
then the sections are equal, and if there are [a number of] hyperbolas or ellipses, and the ordinates falling on one of their diameters meet the diameter at
equal angles, and eidoi corresponding to those diameters are equal and similar,
then the sections are equal 12 .
260

That is proved as it was proved for the axes.


[Proposition] 3

As for the ellipse it is evident that it cannot be equal to any of other sections because it is bounded, but they are unbounded.
Then I also say that no parabola can be equal to a hyperbola 13 .
[Proof]. For let there be the parabola and the hyperbola . Then,
if possible, let it be equal to it, and let the axes of the sections be and ,
and let the transverse axis of the hyperbola be , and let and be equal
to and [respectively]. We draw from the axes the perpendiculars , ,
, and . Now the section fits on the section because it is equal to it, and
[hence] , , , and coincide with , , , and [respectively], and as is
to , so is to , as is proved in Theorem 20 of Book I. Therefore as is
to , so is to . But that is impossible because as sq. is to sq., so
pl. is to pl., as is proved in Theorem 21 of Book I.
Therefore the parabola is not equal the hyperbola.
[Proposition] 4

If there is an ellipse and a straight line passes through its center such
that its extremities end at the section, then it cuts the boundary of the section
into two equal parts. And the surface is also bisected [by it] 14 .
Let there be the ellipse whose center , and let the straight line AB
pass through its center. And first let be one of the axes of the section.
Then I say that the line fits on the line , when it is applied to it,
and the surface coincides with the surface .
[Proof]. For let, if possible, the line not coincide wholly with the line
. We take on the part of it that does not coincide with it, and draw from
it the perpendicular to , and continue it to [meet the section again at] .
Then coincides with because the angles at are right, and is equal to
. Therefore coincides with .
But it had been assumed not to coincide with it, which is impossible.
Therefore the line coincides with the line so as to fit to it, and the surface will coincide with the surface . Hence the line is equal to the
line , and the surface to the surface .
[Proposition] 5
261

Furthermore we do not make one of the axes 15 . And let the axes be
and , and we draw two perpendiculars and [to the axis], then the
line fits on the line , as was proved in the preceding theorem, and Z coincides with , and the surface coincides with the surface . Furthermore [the line] coincides with [the line] , and coincides with ,
and with because is equal to , and to BH, and the surface
coincides with the surface . Therefore the surface coincides with the
surface . So it is equal to it, and [hence] the line is equal to the line .
Furthermore [] is equal to []. Therefore [the surface] is
equal to [the surface] , hence the remainder [line] is equal to the remainder [line] . And [hence] the line is equal to the line . Therefore
the whole surface is equal to the whole surface , and the line
is equal to the line .
[Proposition] 6

If there is a conic section, and a part of it coincides with another part of


another section so as to fit on it, then the [first] section is equal to
the[second] section 16 .
Let the arc of the section , when applied to the arc of the section fit on it. I say that the section is equal to the section .
[Proof]. For let, if that is not so, then the part coincide with the part
, and let the remainder of the section not coincide with the other section, but
let them be as the sections and . We take the point on , and
join it to , and draw in the section the diameter bisecting . Then the
tangent to the section at is parallel to , and the diameter bisects
the straight lines parallel to . Therefore we draw from the straight line
parallel to . Then bisects it, and it is parallel to the tangent to the section
at . And that [tangent] is also the tangent to the section . Therefore
is a diameter to the section , as is proved in Theorem 7 of Book II.
Therefore it bisects the diameter at L. But was [assumed to be] bisected
at [the same point] , which is impossible. Therefore the whole section coincides with the section so as to fit on it, therefore it is equal to it.
[Proposition] 7

262

The perpendiculars drawn from a parabola or a hyperbola to its axis, and


continued to the other side, cut off from the section on both sides of the axis
the segments which, when one is applied to an other fit so as not to exceed or
fall short of it, but do not fit on any other part of the section if placed on it17 .
Let there be the parabola or the hyperbola whose axis . We take
on the section two points and , and draw from them two perpendiculars to
, and continue them to the other side of the section, these are and .
Let them cut off from the section two segments and . I say that the
line fits on the line , and the line on the line and the surface on
the surface , and the arc of the section on the arc .
[Proof]. The proof of that is like the preceding proofs for all perpendiculars drawn from the arc to the axis are equal in square to figures that
are equal to those figures to which the perpendiculars drawn from the arc
to the axis , being continuous with those perpendiculars, are equal in square.
Therefore is equal to , and is equal to , and the angles at and
are right.
Therefore the arc , when applied to the arc , will fit on it, and the arc
will coincide with the arc , and the [corresponding] surfaces will coincide
with the surfaces.
Therefore let the arc be another arc which is not cut off by these two
perpendiculars. Then I say that the arc , if applied to it, will not fit on it.
[Proof]. For let if that it not so, and if possible, it fit. Then, when is
applied to so as to fit on it, the line will coincide with the arc, which is
adjacent to the arc , as is proved in the preceding theorem. And the point
of the arc will fall on a place different from its position on the arc because the arc is not equal to the arc , and the axis will fall on a
place different from the position it has [now]. Therefore the parabola or the hyperbola has two axes, which is impossible. So the arc does not coincide with
the arc .
[Proposition] 8

In every ellipse perpendiculars which are drawn to the axis and continued
in a straight line to the other side of it cut off from the section on either side of
the axis arcs which fit when one is applied to another, and if they are applied to
the arcs cut off by the perpendiculars whose distance from the center towards
other side is equal to the distance of the perpendiculars drawn [above], they
will fit on them, but will not fit on [any] other arc of the section 18 .
263

Let there be the ellipse whose axis and . Let there be drawn
in it two perpendiculars to , and let them be continued in a straight line to
both sides [of the section], let them be and . And let them cut off from it
two arcs and . And let there also be drawn in the section two other perpendiculars of this kind whose distance from the center is [respectively] equal
to the distance of those two perpendiculars, these are and .
Now as to [the statement] that when one of and is applied to the
other, it will fit on it, which will be proved as it was proved in the preceding
theorem.
And similarly it will be proved that will fit on . And because the
surface , when applied to the surface , lies on it, as is proved in Theorem 4 of this Book, will coincide with because the distance of each from
the center is one and the same.
And will coincide with , and [hence] the arc will coincide with the
arc .Therefore it will fit on the arc because one of them fits on other.
And likewise too the arc [will fit on and ].
Therefore let there be another arc of the section, apart from these
four. Then I say that none of these arc will fit on it.
[Proof]. For let if possible the arc fit on it. Then it will necessarily follow, as it did in the preceding theorems, that the ellipse would have more than
two axes, which is impossible. Therefore will not fit on .
[Proposition] 9

In equal sections those parts of them at equal distances from their vertices will fit one on another, and those [parts] not at equal distances from
their vertices will not fit one on another 19 .
Let there be two equal sections with axes and . Let the distance of
the arc from be equal to the distance of the arc from .
Then I say that will fit on .
[Proof]. Then the section is applied to the section , the point will
coincide with H because the distance of each from the vertices of two sections
is equal. And A will coincide with , and [hence] the section will coincide
with the section . Then I say that it will not coincide with any other arc so as
to fit on it.
[Proof]. For let, if possible, it coincide with the arc . Now we have
proved that it fits on . Therefore the arc will fit on the arc . But the
264

arcs and are not the arcs cut off by two perpendiculars, and their distances from the vertices are not equal. That is impossible as is proved in two
preceding theorems two.
[Proposition] 10

In the sections that are unequal no part of one of them will fit on a part of
another20 .
Let there be two unequal sections and .
That no part of one of them will fit on a part of another.
[Proof]. For let, if possible, the part fit on a part . Then the whole
section will fit on the section , as is proved in Theorem 6 of this
Book. Therefore the section is equal to the section , which is impossible. So no part of fits on a part of .
[Proposition ] 11

Every parabola is similar to every parabola 21 .


Let there be two parabolas and whose axes and .
I say that two sections are similar.
[Proof]. For let their latera recta and , and let as be to , so
be to . We cut at two arbitrary points and , and cut into the
same number of arcs with the same ratio at the points and . We draw from
the axes and the perpendiculars , , , , , and [and continue them to meet the sections again at , , , , , and ]. Then as is to
, so is to , and is the mean proportional between and , and
is the mean proportional between and , because of what is proved in
Theorem 11 of Book I.
As is to , so is to . And is equal to the double , and
is equal to the double . Therefore as is to , so is to .
Furthermore as is to , so is to . And as is to , so is
to , and as is to , so is to .
Hence it will be proved, as we proved above, that as is to , so is
to .
And similarly too it will be proved that as is to , so is to .
Therefore the ratio of [each of] , , and ,which are perpendiculars
to the axis, to the amounts , , and which they cut off from the axis is
265

equal to the ratio of , , and ,which are perpendiculars to the axis, to


the amounts , , and which they cut off from the axis.
And the ratios of the segments cut of from one of the axes to the segments cut off from the other are equal. Therefore the section is similar to
the section .
[Proposition] 12

Hyperbolas and ellipses in which the eidoi corresponding to their axes are
similar are also [themselves] similar, and if the sections are similar, then the eidoi corresponding to their axes are similar 22.
Let there be two hyperbolas or ellipses and whose eidoi corresponding to their axes and are similar, the transverse diameters of these
conic are and . We cut off from the axes the segments and and let
as be to , so be to .
We cut arbitrarily at and , and cut into the same number of
segments as , and in the same ratios at and we draw from , , , , ,
and the , , , , , and to the axes, [and continue them to
meet the sections again at , , , , , and ].
Then because the eidoi of the sections are similar as sq. is to pl. ,
so sq. is to pl., as may be proved from Theorem 21 of Book I.
But as pl. is to sq., so pl. is to sq.. Therefore as sq. is to
sq., so sq. is to sq. , and as is to , so is to , and as is
to , so is to .
Furthermore as is to , so is to , and as is to , so is
to . Therefore as is to , so is to . Hence it will proved, as we
proved above, that as is to , so is to , and that as is to , so

is to .
Therefore the ratios of the perpendiculars , and to the amounts
, , and they cut of from the axis are [respectively] equal to the ratios
of the perpendiculars , , and to the amounts , , and they cut
off from the axis.
And the ratios of the parts of that the perpendiculars cut of to the
parts of which the perpendiculars cut off are equal. Therefore the section
is similar to the section .
Furthermore we make the section similar to the section . Then since
two sections are similar we draw in the section some perpendiculars , ,
and to the axis, and in the section the perpendiculars , , and , and
266

let the ratios of these perpendiculars to the amounts they cut off from the axes
be equal [respectively], and likewise the ratios of the parts they cut off from
one of the axes to the parts they cut off from other axis, then as is to ,
so is to , and as is to , so is to , and as is to , so is
to . Therefore as is to , so is to .
And as sq. is to sq., so sq. is to sq.. Therefore as pl. is to
pl., so pl. is to pl. because of what was proved in Theorem 21 of
Book I. and because as is to , so is to , [and as is to , so
is to ], as is to , so is to , and [hence] as is to , so is to
. But as is to , so is to . Therefore as is to , so is to
And [hence] as pl. is to sq., so pl. is to sq..
But as sq. is to sq., so sq. is to sq.. Therefore as pl. is to
sq., so pl. is to sq..
But the ratio pl. to sq. is equal to the ratio of to the latus rectum [of ], as is proved in Theorem 21 of Book I. Therefore the eidoi corresponding to and are equal 23-24 .
[Proposition] 13
Let there be two hyperbolas or ellipses whose centers and I, and diameters and . Let the angles that those diameters form with their ordinates be equal, and let the eidoi corresponding to L and be similar.
If those eidoi of hyperbolas or ellipses that are corresponding to diameters other than the axes are similar, and the ordinates falling on those diameters
form equal angles with the diameters, then the sections are similar25.
I say that the sections are similar.
[Proof]. For let from and the tangents and to the sections be
drawn. Then these tangents are parallel to the ordinates fallen. We draw
through and the straight lines and parallel to the tangents.
Now the eidoi corresponding to and are similar latus rectum proved in
Theorem 37 of Book I. And likewise [the ratio pl. to sq.] is equal to the
ratio of the [transverse] diameters to [its] the latus rectum. Therefore the ratios of the transverse diameter to [its] latus rectum. Therefore two ratios of
the [transverse] axes and to their latera recta are equal. And the eidoi
corresponding to the axes of these sections are similar. Therefore two sections
are similar as is proved in the preceding theorem .
And it is evident too that in the case on two ellipses this requires that the
axes and both be the major axes or the both be the minor axes because
267

the ratio of to its latus rectum in both cases is equal to the ratio of to its
latus rectum. And the rule is one and the same for major and minor [axes].
[Proposition] 14

A parabola is not similar to a hyperbola and to an ellipse 27.


Let there be the parabola whose axis , and the hyperbola or the ellipse similar to it. And let the axis of be the straight line , and let the
side of the eidos of the section, the transverse axis, be .
Let there be the perpendiculars and in the sections [in the parabola],
and and [in the hyperbola on the ellipse], and let the ratios of these
[perpendiculars] to the segments they cut off from the axes in one of the
sections be equal to [their] ratios to the segments they cut off from the axis of
other section, and let the ratios of the segments cut off from one of the axes
to the segments cut off from the other axis be equal. Then as is to , so
is to , and as is to , so is to .
But as is to , so is to . Therefore as is to , so is to
, and as sq. is to sq., so sq. is to sq..
But as sq. is to sq., so is to , as is proved in Theorem 20 of
Book I. And as is to , so is to . Therefore as sq. is to sq., so
is to , but as is to sq., so pl. is to pl., as is proved in Theorem 21 of Book I. Therefore as is to , so pl. is to pl.. Therefore
is equal to , but that is impossible. Therefore the parabola is not equal to
any other section
[Proposition] 15

A hyperbola is not similar to an ellipse 28.


Let there be the hyperbola and the ellipse . Let their axes be
[respectively] and , and let their transverse diameters be and .
Then, if these two sections are similar, then there are in the sections
some perpendiculars, for instance , , , and , such that the ratios of
these [perpendiculars] to the segments they cut off from the axes in both sections are [respectively] equal. Then we will prove as we proved in the preceding
theorem that as sq. is to sq., so sq. is to sq. , and pl. is to
pl., and pl. is to pl.. Therefore as pl. is to pl., so pl. is to
pl.. And when what is so and as is to , so is to , and [hence] as
268

is to , so is to , that is impossible, therefore the section is not


similar to the section .
[Proposition] 16

Opposite hyperbolas are similar and equal 29.


Let there be two opposite hyperbola and whose axis .
I say that the hyperbolas and are similar and equal.
[Proof]. The latera recta of the hyperbolas and are equal, as is proved
in the proof of Theorem 14 of Book I.
And the straight line is a side common to their eidoi. Therefore the eidoi corresponding to the axis of the hyperbolas and are similar and equal.
Therefore the hyperbola is similar to the hyperbola and is equal to it, as is
proved in Theorem 12 of this Book.
[Proposition] 17

If there are similar sections, and tangents are drawn to them ending at
their axes and forming equal angles with the axes, and diameters are drawn to
the sections from the points of contact, and a point is taken on each of those
diameter, and the ratios of the segments between the taken points and the vertices of those diameter to the tangents are equal and straight lines are drawn
through [each] taken point parallel to the tangents so that they cut off segments from the sections then those segments are similar, and their position is
similar, and if segments are similar and their position is similar, then the ratios
of their diameters to the [corresponding] tangents are equal, and the angles
which the tangents form with the axes are equal 30.
First let the similar sections be two parabolas and , let their axis be
and , and the tangents to them are and . Let the angles and
be equal. We draw through and the diameters and to the sections. Let as is to , so be to . We draw through and the straight
lines and parallel to and .
I say that the segments and are similar and similarly situated.
[Proof]. We draw from and the perpendiculars and to the axes
[cutting and at and ] , and continue the diameters and until
they meet them at and .
We make the ratio to the double equal to the ratio to , and
the ratio to the double equal to the ratio to . Then and are
269

latera recta corresponding to the diameters and [respectively]. Therefore sq. is equal to pl., as is proved in Theorem 49 of Book I. And likewise
sq. is equal to pl.. And the angle is equal to the angle , the angle is equal to the angle , and the angle is equal to the angle
because and EH are parallel to and [respectively], as is proved from
Theorem 46 of Book I. Therefore the angle is equal to the angle ,and
the angles at and are equal, therefore the triangle is similar to the triangle , and [hence] as is to , so is to . Therefore as is to
, so is to .
But the ratio to had been made equal to the ratio to therefore as is to , so is to .
Hence it will be proved, as we proved in Theorem 11 of this Book that, if
the straight lines are drawn to parallel to and the straight lines are drawn
to parallel to , and the ratio of these straight lines which are parallel to
[the segment] bases and to the segments they cut off from the [corresponding] diameters adjacent to and M are equal, and the ratios of the segments cut off from one of the diameters to those cut off from other diameter
are also equal, and the angles formed by the coordinates to parallel to these
bases and the diameters in both sections are equal [because the angles at and
are equal], then the segment is similar to the segment , and its position is similar to its position.
Furthermore we make the segment of one section similar to the
segment of other section, and let their diameters be and , and their
bases be and , and the points of their vertices be and and let and
MO be tangents to the sections at these points. Then I say that the angle is
equal to the angle , and that as is to , so to .
We draw the straight lines that we drew previously. Then since the sections are similar, two angles formed by and are equal to two angles
formed by and . And and are parallel to and [respectively].
Therefore the angles at , , , and are equal.
Therefore, since that is so, and [since] the angles and are obtuse, the angle is equal to the angle . Therefore the angle at is equal
to the angle at .
Furthermore as is to , so is to because of the similarity of
the segments of the sections, and [hence] as is to , so is to , and
as is to , so is to , and as is to , so is to . Therefore as
is to , so is to . And as is to , so is to because that
270

the triangle is similar to the triangle . Therefore as is to , so


is to . And we had [already] proved that the angles at and are equal .
[Proposition] 18
Furthermore we make the mentioned sections hyperbolas or ellipses,
and let every thing else be as we stated in the preceding theorem 31 , and let
the diameters and end at the centers and of the sections, and let
the ratio of [abscissa] to the tangent be equal to the ratio of [abscissa]
to [the tangent] , and let the angles and be equal, then I say
that the segments and are similar, and let the ratio to the double
be equal to the ratio to , and let the ratio to the double MO be
equal to the ratio to . Then and are latera recta corresponding to
the diameters and [respectively], as is proved in Theorem 50 of Book I.
Therefore we draw from , , , and the perpendiculars , , ,
and to the axes. Then, since two sections are similar, the eidoi corresponding to their axes are also similar, as is proved in Theorem 12 of this Book, and
since the eidoi of these two sections corresponding to their axes are similar, as
pl. is to sq., so pl. is to sq. because of what is proved in Theorem
37 of Book I.
And we had constructed the angles at and as equal, and the angles at
and are equal because they are right. Therefore the triangle is similar
to the triangle .
And we had [already] proved that as pl. is to sq., so pl. is to
sq.. Therefore the triangle is similar to the triangle 32 .
And [hence] the angle at I is equal to the angle at , and the angle is
equal to the angle . And the angles at and are equal because the tangent is parallel to the ordinates. And the angles at and are right, and the
angles at and I have [already] been proved equal. Therefore the remaining angles [in the triangles and ] at and are equal. And it has [already]
been proved that the angle is equal to the angle . Therefore the
triangle is similar the triangle , and [hence] as is to , so is to
. But we had made the ratio to the double equal to the ratio to ,
and the ratio to the double equal to the ratio to . Therefore as
is to , so is to .
But as is to , so is to . Therefore as is to , so is to
, and as is to , so is to . Therefore the eidoi of which one is
pl. and the other is pl.TM are similar.
271

Furthermore as is to , so is to , and we had made the ratio


to equal to the ratio to .Therefore as is to , so is to .
And since that is so, and since the eidos pl. is similar to the eidos
pl.TMO, then, when we divide into partitions and draw through the points of
partition straight lines parallel to which is the base of the segment [],
and divide in the same ratios as the partitions of , and again draw through
the points of partition straight lines parallel to which is the base of the segment [], then it will be proved, as we proved in Theorem 12 of this Book,
that the ratios of the parallel straight lines cutting to the portions they cut
off from it adjacent to are equal to the ratios of the parallel straight lines cutting to the portions they cut off from it adjacent to M. And the angles
formed by the base with are equal to the angles formed by the base
with , because these angles are equal to the angles at and continued by
the tangent and the diameter.
Therefore two segments and are similar, and their position is
similar.
Furthermore we make the segment similar to the segment , then
I say that the angle is equal to the angle , and that as is to , so
is to .
[Proof]. For, since two segments are similar, there can be drawn in them
some straight lines parallel to and equal, to number, cutting and
at equal angles, and [then] the ratios between them and [also] the ratios of the
bases and to the portions they cut off from the diameters are equal, and
also the ratios of the partitions of [continued by these straight lines] to the
partitions of are equal to each other, and the straight lines drawn to in
the segment parallel to are equal in square to the rectangular planes applied to and greater than it [in the case of the hyperbola] or smaller than
it [in the case of the ellipse] by are rectangular plane similar to pl., as is
proved in Theorem 50 of Book I, and likewise too the straight lines drawn to
in the segment parallel to are equal in square to the rectangular planes
applied to and greater and smaller than it by a plane similar to pl.TM.
Therefore, since that is so, then it will be proved, as we proved in Theorem of this Book, that as is to , so is to .
And when that is so, and the ordinate meet two diameters at equal angles, and [for that reason] as pl. is to sq., so pl. is to sq., and the
angles at and are right, and the angle is equal to the angle , then
the triangle is similar to the triangle .
And that will be proved in the case of the hyperbola by a proof that is
272

universally applicable, but in the case of the ellipse it will be proved [only] by
the axes and being either both major or both minor axes.
Then, since as is to , so MT is to M, as pl. is to sq., so
pl.
is to sq., as is proved in Theorem 21 of Book I. And as sq. is to sq., so
sq. is to sq.. Therefore as pl. is to sq., so pl. is to sq., and
as is to , so is to .
But as is to , so is to because of the similarity of the
triangles and . And is equal to the double , and M is equal to the
double . Therefore as is to , so is to . And the angles at and
are equal.
[Proposition] 19

When straight lines are drawn in a parabola or a hyperbola as perpendiculars to the axis, then two segments cut off by each pair of perpendiculars on either side [of the axis] are similar and similarly situated, but as for other segments [in that section], they are dissimilar to them 34.
Let there be the parabola or the hyperbola whose axis , and let a pair
of straight lines be drawn in the section as perpendiculars and to the
axes, and let them cut off from the section the segments and , and let
the segments and be two segments not cut off by the same [pair of]
perpendiculars. Then I say that the segments and are similar, and that
the segments and are dissimilar.
[Proof]. As for [the statement] that the segments and are similar,
that is evident because each of them will fit on other, as is proved in Theorem7
of this Book. But as for [the statement] the segments and are dissimilar,
that will be proved as follows. Let, if possible, the segments and be similar. We join and , and continue them to [meet the continued axis at]
and . Now the segments and are similar, therefore the segment
will fit on the segment , as is proved in Theorem 7 of this Book. Therefore
the section is similar to the section . Therefore when the straight lines
and are continued in a straight line, they will meet the axis at equal angles
because of what was proved in two preceding theorems. We draw bisecting
and , draw from [lying on the section] parallel to . Then is
the diameter to the section because of what is proved in Theorem 28 of Book II.
And is parallel to the ordinates falling on it, therefore it is tangent to the
section. And the segments and are similar, therefore as is to , so
273

is to , as is proved in two preceding theorems. But that is impossible.


Therefore the segment is dissimilar to the segment .
[Proposition] 20

When straight lines are drawn in an ellipse as perpendiculars to its axis,


then every pair of these perpendiculars cuts off on either side [of the axis] two
segments similar to each other and similar to two segments cut off by the pair
of perpendiculars whose distance from the center is equal to the distance of
that pair of perpendiculars, and the position of these four segments is similar,
and no other segment [in that ellipse] is similar [to these]34.
Let there be the ellipse whose axis , and let there be in it the pair of
straight lines and cutting the axis at right angles. And let there be the
other pair of straight lines and cutting the axis at right angles, the distance of which from the center is equal to the distance of those [straight lines].
Then I say that the segments , , , and are similar, and that none of
other segments is similar to them.
[Proof]. As for [the statement] that the segments , , , and are
similar and similarly situated, that is evident because these segments will fit
one on another as is proved in Theorem 8 of this Book.
But as for [the statement] that no other segment is similar to them; this
will be proved as follows. Let, if possible the segment be similar to those
segments. We join and . Then, when they continued, if one of them meets
the axis, the other will meet it at the same angle as the first, as is proved in
Theorem 18 of this Book. Therefore and are parallel. Therefore we bisect
them and draw through two points of bisection . Then is a diameter to
two segments, as is proved in Theorem 28 of Book II. Therefore since the segments and are similar, as is to , so is to . That is impossible
for when we join and and continue them, they will not pass through
and . Therefore the segment is dissimilar to the segment .
[Proposition] 21

When straight lines are drawn in parabolas so as to be perpendiculars to


the axes and to cut off from the axes in the directions of the vertices of the
sections the segments whose ratios to the latera recta in all sections are equal,
then the segments that those perpendiculars cut off from one on the sections
are similar to the segments that the other perpendiculars cut off from the other
274

section, and their situation is similar, but they are not similar to any of other
segments that are taken from those sections 35.
Let there be two parabolas and whose axes and BY and their
latera recta be and . We draw in one of two sections the perpendiculars
and , and in other section the perpendiculars and Y, and let as be
to , so F be to , and let as be to , so be to .
Then I say that the segment is similar to the segment , and that
the arc is similar to the arc , and that the arc is similar to the arc .
[Proof]. Now as to [the statement] that the segment is similar to
the segment ; this will be proved as we proved [it] in Theorem 11 of this
Book. Therefore we join and and continue them in a straight line to [meet
the respective axes at] and . We bisect and at and , and draw
through them and parallel to the axes, and draw from and the
perpendiculars and to the axes cutting and at and ] .
Then the ratio of to each of and is equal to the ratio of to
each of [respectively].
Therefore it will be proved from that, as we proved in Theorem 11 of this
Book, that as sq. is to sq., so sq. is to sq.. Therefore as is to ,
so is to , and as is to , so is to .
And convertendo as is to , so is to .
Furthermore as sq. is to sq., so sq. is to sq.. Therefore as
is to , so is to because of what is proved in Theorem 20 of Book I.
And convertendo as is to , so is to .
But we have proved that as is to , so is to . Therefore as
is to , so is to .
But as is to , so is to . Therefore as is to , so is to
. And the angles at and are right. Therefore the triangle is similar to
the triangle , and [hence] the angles at and are equal, and as is to
, so is to .
And convertendo as is to ,so is to .
And was bisected at , and was bisected at . Therefore is to
, so is to .
But is equal to and is equal to . Therefore as is to , so
is to .
And therefore as is to , so is to , axis proved in Theorem 20
of Book I.
And convertendo as is to , so is to .
275

But we have proved that as is to , so is to . Therefore as


is to , so is to . And therefore as is to , so is to .
And separando as is to , so is to .
But it was shown that as is to , so is to . Therefore as is
to , so is to .
But as is to , so is to because the triangle is similar to the
triangle . Therefore as is to , so is to .
But is equal to the tangent drawn from to the axis because it is parallel to , and they are between parallel straight lines [ and ].
Similarly too is equal to the tangent drawn from to the axis. Therefore the ratio of the tangent drawn from to is equal to the ratio of the
tangent drawn from to .And it was proved in Theorem 17 of this Book
that, when that is the case, and when the angles formed by the tangent and the
axis are equal [in both sections], then the segments from the vertices of which
the tangents are drawn are similar. Therefore the segments and are
similar and similarly situated.
Furthermore, we make the segment
a segment which is not cut off
by the mentioned perpendiculars, then I say that it is not similar to the segment
.
[Proof]. For the segment is similar to the segment , but the segment is dissimilar to the segment ,as is proved in Theorem 19 of this
Book because it is not cut off by the same pair of perpendiculars [as the segment ]. Therefore the segment is not similar to the segment .
[Proposition] 22

For similar hyperbolas and ellipses the same properties hold as we proved
hold for parabolas in the preceding theorem 36.
Let the situation described for the parabola remain the same [for the hyperbola and the ellipse], and let the diameters and end at centers and
[respectively].
We draw from and tangents and to the and tangents and
the sections. Then they are parallel to and [respectively].
`
Now the ratio of to the latus rectum [of ] is equal to the ratio of
to the latus rectum of other section. Therefore ,since the sections are similar, then their eidoi are also similar, as is proved in Theorem 12 of this Book

276

Therefore the ratio of the transverse diameter of one of the sections to the
latus rectum is equal to the ratio of the transverse diameter of other section to
its latus rectum.
And we had made the ratio of two latera recta to and [respectively] equal. Therefore, since that is the case, and since the eidoi of two sections are similar, then it will be proved, as was proved in Theorem 12 of this
Book, that the straight lines can be drawn in the segment parallel to ,
and in the segment o parallel to , and the number of the straight lines
drawn in the segment is equal to the number of the straight lines drawn in
the segment , and their ratios are equal to their ratios, and the ratios of the
straight lines drawn in the segment , and [also] of to the portions they
cut off from the axis adjoining are equal to the ratios of the straight lines
drawn in [the segment] , and [also] of to the portions they cut off from
the axis adjoining and [also] the ratios of the portions cut off the axis to
the portions cut off from the axis are equal, therefore the segment
and are similar.
Furthermore the ratio to is equal to the ratio to . And also
as is to , so is to . Therefore as is to ,so is to , and as
is to , so is to . And as is to , so is to , and as AM is
to , so is to . Therefore as is to , so is to , and as is to
, so is to . And convertendo as is to , so is to .
But as is to , so is to because as is to , so is to
. Therefore as is to , so is to .
But as is to , so is to . Therefore as is to , so is to
. And the angles at and are right. Therefore the angles at and are
also equal. Therefore the angles at and are equal. And the sections are similar, therefore their eidoi are similar.
And and are tangents. Therefore as pl. is to sq. , so
pl. is to sq. , because of what is proved in Theorem 37 of Book I. And as
sq. is to sq., so sq. is to because of the similarity of the triangles
and .Therefore as pl. is to sq., so pl. is to
sq. .Therefore as is to is to , so is to .
But as is to , so is to because of the similarity of the triangles [ and ]. Therefore as is to , so is to , and the angles
[at] and are right. Therefore the triangle is similar to the triangle .
Therefore the angles at and are equal.

277

But it was [already] shown that the angles at and are equal. Therefore as is to , so is to , and as is to , so is to because
is parallel to , and to .
Furthermore the eidoi of two section are similar, therefore as is to
, so is to .
But as is to , so is to . Therefore as is to , so is
to . And dividendo as is to , so is to .
Furthermore as is to , so is to because as is to , so
is to , and as is to , so is to . Therefore as is to , so
is to , and as is to , so is to .
Furthermore as is to , so is to because of the similarity of
the triangles. But as is to , so sq. is to sq. because of what is
proved in Theorem 37 of Book I. And likewise as is to , so sq. is to
sq. .Therefore sq. is to sq., so sq. is to sq. , and [hence] as is
to , so is to .
But we have proved that as is to , so is to . Therefore as
is to , so is to , therefore as is to , so is to . And as is
to , so is to because the triangle is similar to the triangle
, therefore as is to , so is to .
But we have proved above that as is to , so is to , therefore
as is to , so is to .
And the angles at and
are equal. Therefore the segments and
are similar and similarly situated, as is proved in Theorem 18 of this Book.
Furthermore we make a segment not cut off by the mentioned perpendiculars, and also [in the case of the ellipse] not cut off by perpendiculars
whose distances from the center is equal to that of others
perpendiculars, then I say that it is dissimilar to the segment .
[Proof]. For let, if possible, it be similar to it. Now the segment is similar to the segment . Therefore the segment is similar to the segment .
But it is not cut off by the same perpendiculars [as ], nor [in the case of the
ellipse] by perpendiculars whose distance from the center is equal to the distance of [those perpendiculars]. But that is impossible, as is proved in Theorems 19 and 20 of this Book. Therefore the segment is not similar to the
segment , nor to the segment .
[Proposition] 23

278

In sections that are not similar no segment of one of them is similar to an


segment of another 37.
Let there be two dissimilar sections and . And first let them both be
hyperbolas or ellipses.
Then I say that no segment of is similar to an segment of .
[Proof]. For let, if that is possible, the segment be similar to the segment .We join and , and bisect them at and . Let the centers of the
sections be and We join and , then they are diameter to the sections, as is proved in Theorem 47 of Book I. Now and are either axes
or not. Therefore, if they are axes, and the segments and are similar, then
there can be drawn to the axis straight lines parallel to such that the ratios
of them and the ratio of to the portions cut off [by these straight lines], and
the ratio of to the portions cut off [by these straight lines} from the axis adjacent to its vertex are equal to the ratios of the straight lines equal in number
to those [first straight lines] drawn to other axis parallel to and [to the ratio]
of to the portions cut off [by them] from the axis of other section adjacent
to its vertices, and [such that] the ratios of the segments cut off from one of
the axes to the segments cut off from other axis are [all] equal, and the parallel straight lines are perpendiculars to the axes, therefore the sections and
will be similar.
But if the diameters and are not axes then we make the axes
and , and draw from and also draw from them [] tangents to the
section and . Then, since the segments and are similar, and the
tangents and have been drawn from their vertices it will be proved
thence, as was proved in Theorem 18 of this Book that the triangle is similar to the triangle . And and are perpendiculars [to the axes]. Therefore as pl. is to sq., so pl. is to sq. 38.
But the ratio pl. to sq. is equal to the ratio of the transverse diameter of the section to its latus rectum, as is proved in Theorem 37 of
Book I. And likewise the ratio pl. to sq. is equal to the ratio of the transverse diameter of the section to its latus rectum.
Therefore the ratio of the transverse diameter of the section to its
latus rectum is equal to the ratio of the transverse diameter of the section
to its latus rectum. Therefore the eidoi of the sections and are similar.
But then that is the case, then the sections are similar, as is proved in
Theorem 12 of this Book. Therefore the sections and are similar, but we
had made them dissimilar, that is impossible. Therefore the segment is not
similar to the segment .
279

[Proposition] 24
Furthermore if we make the section a parabola and the section a
hyperbola for an ellipse, then it is evident that one section is not similar to
other, because of what we said in Theorem 14 of this Book.
Then I say that the segments and are dissimilar 39.
[Proof]. For if they are similar, then it is possible to draw in them straight
lines, equal in number parallel to the straight lines and [respectively] ,
such that the ratios of these [straight lines] to the portions they cut off from
one of the diameters adjacent to the vertices [] of the [first] segment are
equal to the ratios of the straight lines cutting other diameter to the portions
they cut off from it adjacent to the vertices [] of the segment, and also that
the ratio of the base [of the first segment] to [its] diameter is equal to the
base [of the second segment] to [its] diameter, and [also that] the ratios of
the divisions of one of the diameters [formed by these straight lines] are equal
to the ratios of the divisions of other diameter. Then if will be proved, as it was
proved for the sections in their entirety in Theorem 14 of this Book, but that
impossible. But if one of sections is a hyperbola and other is an ellipse, then
impossibility of that will be proved at it was proved in Theorem 16 of this Book.
[Proposition] 25

It is not possible for a part of any of three conic sections to be an arc of a


circle

40.

Let there be the [conic] section .


I say that it is not possible for a part of it to be an arc of a circle.
[Proof]. For let, if it is possible, be an arc of a circle. We draw in it
two straight lines and not parallel to each other in arbitrary positions.
We also draw in it not parallel not to them, and draw parallel to and
parallel to , and [also] draw parallel to . We bisect the straight lines
we draw at , , , , , and , and join , , and , then these straight
lines are diameters to the circle, and they bisect the straight lines drawn by us,
therefore they are perpendiculars to them. But they are also diameters to the
section because of what was proved in Theorem 28 of Book II. Therefore ,
, and are axes of the section. But none of them lies on a straight line with
its follow because three original straight lines are not parallel. That is impossible
for none of sections has more than two axes, as is proved in Theorem 50 of
280

Book II. Therefore if is not possible for a part of any of sections to be an arc of
a circle.
[Proposition] 26

If ones are cut on one side [of their axes] by parallel planes from the
class of planes which, when continued on the side of the vertex of the cone,
subtend its exterior angle, then the hyperbolas generated [by these planes] are
similar but not equal 41.
Let there be the cone , and let it be cut by two parallel planes, and let
their intersections with the base [of the cone] be and . We draw from
the center of the base of the cone the perpendicular to these straight
lines. Let the cone be cut by [another] plane passing through and the axis of
the cone, and let this plane cut the surface of the cone in and . Let the
intersections of this plane with two parallel planes be and , we continue
them to [meet continued at] and [respectively].Then I say that the section is similar to the section , but not equal to it.
[Proof]. We draw from a straight line parallel to and ZH. We
make the ratio to equal to the ratio sq. to pl., and also the ratio
to equal to the ratio sq. to pl.. Then since is perpendicular to
, the straight lines drawn in the hyperbola to parallel to are equal
in square to the rectangular planes applied to [which is the latus rectum] and
in increasing it by a rectangular plane similar to pl. as is proved in Theorem
12 of Book I .
Similarly too the straight lines drawn in the hyperbola to parallel
to are equal in square to the rectangular planes applied to [which is the
latus rectum] and exceeding it by a rectangular plane similar to pl.. And the
angles formed by with are equal to the angles formed by with because they are parallel to them.
Therefore the sections are similar, as is proved in Theorem 12 of this Book.
And pl. s smaller than pl.. Therefore the sections and are
unequal because of what is proved in Theorem 2 of this Book.
[Proposition] 27

If a cone is cut by parallel planes that meet two sides of the triangle
passing through its axis, but not parallel to the base of the cone and not antiparallel to it, then the ellipses [by these planes] are similar, but unequal 42.
281

Let the cone be cut by two parallel planes, and let the intersections
of these planes with the plane of the base of the cone be and . We draw
through the center of the base of the cone a straight line which is a perpendicular to and , we cut the cone with [another] plane passing through
this straight line and through the axis of the cone, and let the intersections of
this plane with two parallels planes be and .
Then I say that sections and are similar but not equal.
[Proof]. We draw from A a straight line parallel to and . Let each
of the ratios to and to be equal to the ratio sq. to pl.. Then
since is perpendicular to , the straight lines drawn in the ellipse to
parallel to are equal in square to the rectangular planes applied to
[which is the latus rectum] and decreasing of it by the rectangular planes similar
to pl., as is proved in Theorem 12 of Book I. Similarly too the straight lines
drawn in the ellipse to parallel to are equal in square the rectangular
planes applied to [which is the latus rectum] and de creasing of it by the rectangular planes similar to pl.. And the angle is equal to the angle
because and are parallel to and [respectively]. And pl. is similar to pl.. But when that is the case, then two sections are similar, as is
proved in Theorem 12 of this Book.
Therefore the sections and are similar. But then are unequal because pl. is greater than pl., and it was proved in Theorem 2 of this Book
that, when that is so then two sections are unequal.
[Proposition] 28

Want to show how to find in a given right cone a parabola equal to a


given parabola 43.
Let the given right cone be the cone with the axial triangle . Let the
given parabola be the section with axis and the latus rectum , and let
as is to , so sq. is to pl.. We draw to . We cut the cone with a
plane passing through and erected at right angles to the plane , let [this
plane] generate the section whose axis is .
Then I say that the section is equal to the section .
[Proof]. The perpendiculars drawn in the section to are equal in
square to the rectangular plane applied a straight line whose ratio to is equal
to the ratio sq. to pl., as is proved in Theorem 11 of Book I.
But the ratio to also is equal to the ratio sq. to pl.. Therefore is equal to the latus rectum of the section . And it was proved in
282

Theorem 1 of this Book that, when that is the case, these two sections are
equal. Therefore the section is equal to the section .
Then I say that no other section ,apart from this one, can be found in [this]
cone such that the point of its vertex [which is the end of the axis] lies on the
straight line [and such that it is equal to the section ] 44 for ,if it is possible to find another parabola equal to the section , then its plane cuts the
plane of the axial triangle of the cone at right angles, and the axis of the section lies in the plane of the triangle because the cone is a right cone [and
similarly for the axis of every section in a right cone].
Therefore if it is possible for another section whose vertex lies on to
be equal to the section , then its axis is parallel to , and the point of its
vertex is different from . And the ratio of its latus rectum to the straight line
cut off by that section from adjacent to is equal to the ratio sq. to
pl.. But this [latter] ratio is equal to the ratio to . Therefore is not
equal to the latus rectum of that other section.
But these two sections are [supposed to be] equal, that is impossible
because of that was proved in Theorem 1 of this Book.
Therefore there cannot be found on the vertex of the axis of another
section equal to the section .
[Proposition] 29

We wait to show how to find in a given right cone a section equal to a


given hyperbola, when the ratio of the square on the axis of the cone to the
square on the half of the diameter of the base is not greater than the ratio of
the transverse diameter [which is the axis of the given section] to the latus
rectum 45.
Let the given cone be the cone on its axial triangle , with axis , and
let the given hyperbola be whose axis and the eidos pl..
And first let the ratio sq. to sq. is equal to the ratio to . We
draw in [exterior] angle the straight line parallel to and equal to ,
And draw through a plane at right angles to the plane of the triangle ,
then it will cut the cone, and its intersection will be the hyperbola whose axis .
Then, since is parallel to , the ratio of [which the transverse diameter] to the latus rectum of [that] section is equal to the ratio sq. to pl.,
as is proved in Theorem 12 of Book I, and [therefore] it also it equal to the ratio
to .
283

But is equal to . Therefore is equal to the latus rectum of the


section whose axis . Therefore the eidos of the section whose axis is equal
to the eidos of the section , and the section and the section whose axis
are equal because of what is proved in Theorem 2 of this Book.
[Furthermore] no other section can be found equal to the section with
the vertex of its axis on the straight line .
[Proof]. For, if that is possible, then the axis of that section lies in the
plane of the triangle , as is proved in the preceding theorem ,and the
triangle will be at right angles to the plane in which that other section lies.
And since that section is a hyperbola, and is equal to the section , its axis will
meet beyond , and the portion of the axis drawn from the triangle to the
point where it meets will be equal to the straight line , as is proved in
Theorem 2 of this Book.
But this [portion] is not , nor is it parallel to it, for if it were parallel to
it, it would be unequal to it. And, when that is the case, if a straight line is
drawn from A parallel to that axis, it will fall either between and , or between and .
Therefore let the straight line that is parallel to it [the axis of other section] be . Then as sq. is to pl., so is to , as is proved in Theorem 12 of Book I and Theorem 2 of this Book. But that is impossible for sq.AM
is greater than sq., and pl. is smaller than pl..
Furthermore we [now] make the ratio sq. to sq. smaller than the ratio to , and describe on the triangle a circle circumscribing it,
and continue to [meet the circle at] , then the ratio to is smaller
than the ratio to .
Therefore let the ratio to be equal to the ratio to , and let
be parallel to . We join and . Let each of and be equal to
, and let be parallel to , and parallel to AK. We draw through
and planes at right angles to the plane of , therefore as to generate in
the cone two hyperbolas on the axes and .Then the ratio to is equal
to the ratio to , and to the ratios to and sq. to pl.. But
pl. is equal to pl.. Therefore as is to , so sq. is to pl.. But
the ratio sq. to pl. is equal to the ratio of [which is the transverse
diameter of the eidos of the section on the axis ] to its latus rectum, as is
proved in Theorem 12 of Book I.
Therefore the eidoi of the section and the section on the axis are
equal. And it was proved in Theorem 2 of this Book that, when that is the case,
then the section and the section on the axis are equal.
284

Similarly too it will be proved that the section is equal to the section
on the axis .
[Furthermore] no other, third section can be found with the vertex of its
axis on one of and equal to the section .
[Proof]. For, if it is possible to find a section other than those mentioned
sections, then its axis lies in the plane of , as was proved in the case of the
parabola. Therefore we draw parallel to that axis then we will prove, as we
proved above, that does not coincide with , nor with , and that the ratio to is equal to the ratio sq. to pl., and is equal to the ratio
sq. to pl. because pl. is equal to pl.. But the ratio sq. to
pl. is equal to the ratio to . Therefore as is to , so is to .
That is impossible because as is to , so is to , and as is to ,
so is to .
Furthermore we [now] make the ratio sq. to sq. greater than the
ratio to . Then I say that no section can be found in the cone equal to the
section .
[Proof]. For, if it can be found, then we draw parallel to the [transverse] diameter of that section. Then as sq. is to pl., so is to But
the ratio sq. to pl. is greater than the ratio to . Therefore the ratio
sq. to pl. is smaller than the ratio sq. to pl.. But sq. is
greater than sq. and pl. is smaller than pl.. That is impossible , therefore no section can be found in the cone equal to the section .
[Proposition] 30

We want to show how to find in a given right cone a section equal to a


given ellipse 46.
Let there be the given right cone on the axial triangle , and let the
given ellipse be the section whose axis and the latus rectum .
We draw on the triangle the circle circumscribing it, and make
the ratio to equal to the ratio to , it is evident that this is easily
possible, and draw in the triangle the straight line parallel to and
equal to . We draw through a plane cutting the cone and erected at right
angles to the plane of the triangle . Then this will generate in the cone the
ellipse whose axis , and the ratio of to its latus rectum will be equal to
the ratio sq. to pl., as is proved in Theorem 13 of Book I.
But pl. is equal to pl.. Therefore the ratio of , which is the
transverse diameter of that section to its latus rectum, is equal to the ratio
285

sq. to pl..
But the ratio sq. to pl. is equal to the ratio to , and as
is to , so is to . Therefore the ratio of to the latus rectum of the
section with axis is equal to the ratio to , and the eidoi of the section
and of the section with axis are similar and equal. Therefore the sections
themselves are equal, as is proved in Theorem 2 of this Book.
I [also] say that no other section can be found in this cone with that vertex which is closer to lying on , which is equal to the section .
[Proof].For, if that is possible. Then we will prove, as we proved in Theorem 28 of this Book. That is its axis lies in the plane of the triangle , and
that its plane is at right angles to the plane of the triangle .
And, since that section is an ellipse, its axis will meet , and since it is
equal to the section , its axis is equal to , as is proved in Theorem 2 of this
Book. And that vertex which is closer to lies on . Therefore its axis does
not coincide with , nor it is parallel to it, and [hence]. When we draw from
a straight line parallel to that axis it will not coincide with .
Therefore let it be as . Then will cut the arc because it is not
parallel to . And the ratio of the transverse diameter [of the section] to its
latus rectum will be equal to the ratio sq. to pl., as is proved in Theorem
13 of Book I. And it also is equal to the ratio to .
But pl. is equal to pl. . Therefore the ratio sq. to pl. is
equal to the ratio to .
But the ratio sq. to pl. is equal to the ratio to , and as
is , so is to . Therefore the ratio to is equal to the ratio to
, which is impossible. Therefore no other section besides the section with
axis can be found in this cone equal to the section with the point of that
vertex which is closer to lying on .
[Proposition] 31

We want to show how to find a right cone containing a given parabola


and similar to a given right cone 47.
Let the parabola be whose axis , and the latus rectum for that
section, and the given one with the axial triangle .
We draw through a plane at right angles to the plane of the section , and draw in that plane the straight line , which we make the form
together with the angle equal to the angle . We make the ratio to
equal to the ratio to ,and draw on the triangle similar to the tri286

angle , and draw and from and , and construct the cone with
vertex and base the circle drawn on as its diameter, and perpendicular to
the plane . Then the angle is equal to the angle .
But the angle is equal to the angle . Therefore the angle is
equal to the angle .Therefore is parallel to being a side of the axial
triangle [of the cone]. Therefore the plane in which lies the given section generates in the cone a parabola. And the ratio to is equal to the ratio to
and to the ratio to . Therefore the ratio to is equal to the ratio to because is equal to . Therefore the ratio sq. to sq. is
equal to the ratio to ..But sq. is equal to pl.. Therefore the ratio
sq. to pl. is equal to the ratio to . Therefore the latus rectum of
the section generated in the cone is . But it is also the latus rectum of the
section .
And the parabolas with equal latera recta are [them selves] equal, as is
proved in Theorem 1 of this Book. Therefore the section is placed in the
cone that we constructed, and the cone that we constructed is similar to the
cone because the triangle is similar to the triangle . Then I say
that this section is not found in any other cone a part from this one similar to
the cone with its vertex on this side of the plane of the section.
[Proof]. For let, if that is possible, there be another cone containing this
section and similar to the cone . The vertex of this cone is . Let there pass
through the axis of [this] cone a plane perpendicular to the plane of the given
section, then it will cut it, and the position of the intersection in which this
plane cuts that plane will be the axis of the section.
But is the axis of the section, therefore is the intersection of these
two planes.
But the plane is at right angles to the plane in which lies the section
and it passes through Therefore I lies in the plane . Let and be the
sides of the cone. Then is parallel to , and the angle is equal to the
angle and to the angle . Therefore lies on the same straight line as
, and we continue to [meet at] . Now the section is in the cone
with vertex . Therefore if we make the ratio of some straight line to equal to
the ratio sq. to pl., then that straight line will be the latus rectum of the
section .
But is the latus rectum of the section . Therefore as sq. is to
pl., so is to . And the ratio sq. is to pl. was shown be equal to
the ratio to .
287

But as sq. is to pl., so sq. is to pl. because of the similarity


of the triangles. Therefore as is to , so is to , that is impossible.
Therefore no other cone can be found containing that section, similar to
the cone , and such that the point of its vertex is on this side of the plane
in which the section lies.
[Proposition] 32

We want to show how to construct a right cone similar to a given right


cone containing a given hyperbola 48.
[For this problem to be soluble] it is necessary that the ratio of the
square on the axis of that cone to the square on the radius of its base be not
greater than the ratio of the transverse diameter of the eidos corresponding to
the axis of the section to its latus rectum.
Let there be the given hyperbola whose axis and transverse diameter , and let the eidos corresponding to the axis of this sections be
pl.. Let the given cone be the cone with the axial triangle .
We continue to , and draw through the plane at right angles
to the plane in which lies the section. We draw in this plane on the segment
of a circle admitting an angle equal to the angle , and complete the
circle and bisect the arc at . We draw from the perpendicular to
[and continue it to meet the circle again at ].
And first let the ratio of the square on [which is the axis of the cone]
to the square on ZH be equal to the ratio to . We continue in a
straight line from as , and draw parallel to . Then, since the arc
is equal to the arc , the angle is equal to the angle .
Therefore the angle is equal to the angle .
Therefore we construct the equilateral cone with vertex , and base the
circle with diameter AM and plane at right angles to the plane .
Then, when that is so, the plane in which lies the given section generates
in [this] cone the hyperbola with whose axis and the transverse diameter
. And the angle is equal to the angle because the segment
admits an angle equal to the angle . And is equal to , and is equal to
. Therefore we draw the perpendicular [to AM].
Then as sq. is to pl., so sq. is to pl..
But as sq. is to pl., so is to . Therefore as sq. is to
pl., so is to . Therefore the ordinates in the generated section falling
on are equal in square to the rectangular planes applied to and increasing
it by a rectangular plane similar to pl. as is proved in Theorem 12 of Book I.
288

And the perpendiculars falling from the section on are also equal in
square to the rectangular planes applied to and increasing it by a rectangular
plane similar to pl.. Therefore the section is equal to the section generated in the cone with vertex and base the circle on the diameter as is
proved in Theorem 2 of this Book.
And it lies in its plane, and its axis coincides with its axis. Therefore the
cone with vertex contains the section , and it is similar to the cone
because as is to , so is to . Then I say that no cone, apart from
one we constructed which is similar to the cone and has the point of its
vertex on the same side of the plane in which lies the section as , contains this section.
[Proof]. For let, if it is possible, another cone with its vertex at I contain it .
Then it will be proved, as we proved in the preceding theorem; that I lies in the
plane . Therefore let the sides of [that] cone be and . Now that cone
is similar to the cone . Therefore the angle is equal to the angle ,
and the angle is equal to the angle . Therefore lies on the arc ,
and ,when continued, will pass through . So we join and draw from A the
straight line parallel to it, and from the straight line parallel to . Then
the section lies in the cone with vertex , and its axis has been continued to . Therefore the ratio as sq. is to pl. is equal to the ratio of ,
the transverse diameter, to , the latus rectum.
But as is to , so sq. is to pl.. Therefore as sq. is to
pl., so sq. is to pl., and the angle is equal to the angle , and
they are equal to the angles and [respectively]. Therefore the angle
is equal to the angle . And the angle is equal to the angle .
Therefore the triangle is similar to the triangle . And we had proved that
as sq. is to pl., so sq. is to pl..
But is equal to . Therefore is equal to . And the ratio to
is equal to the ratio to and to the ratio to .Therefore is equal
to . But that is impossible because is a diameter of the circle, and has cut
at right angles at . Therefore no cone can be found other than the cone
which we constructed, which is similar to the cone and contains the section
. Furthermore we make the ratio sq. to sq. smaller than the ratio
to , and carry out the construction as we did before, then as sq. is to
pl., so sq. is to pl. because of the similarity of two triangles [
and ]. And pl. is equal to sq. and to sq.. And sq. is equal to
sq.. Therefore as sq. is to pl., so sq. is to sq.. But sq. is equal
289

to pl.. Therefore the ratio sq. to pl. is equal to the ratio sq. to
sq. and equal to the ratio pl. to sq., and equal to the ratio to .
But the ratio sq. to sq. is smaller than the ratio to . Therefore
the ratio to is smaller than the ratio to . Therefore we make the
ratio to equal to the ratio to , and draw through a straight line
o parallel to . We join , , and , and draw from the straight line
parallel to .
Then it will be proved, as we proved in the preceding theorem, that the
triangles and are isosceles and similar. Therefore if we construct a cone
with vertex I and base the circle with the diameter and in the plane perpendicular to the plane , then the plane in which lies the section will cut
that cone, and from the cutting of the one by the other will result a hyperbola,
and the axis of that section will be ,and its transverse diameter and the
ratio to is equal to the ratio to and to the ratio to . But the
ratio to is equal to the ratio pl. to sq., and pl. is equal to pl.,
therefore as pl. is to sq., so is to .
But as pl. is to sq., so sq. is to pl. because the quadrangle
is a parallelogram. Therefore as is to , so sq. is to pl..
Therefore is the latus rectum of the section generated in the cone
. Thence it will be proved, as we proved in the preceding part of this theorem, that the cone with the vertex I contains the section , and it will also be
contained by another equal to this cone, with the vertex , when and
are joined and continued. And these two cones will be similar to the cone
. Then I say that no third cone similar to the cone , and with the point
of its vertex on the same side of the plane in which lies the section as I can
contain it.
[Proof]. For the point of its vertex will lie on the arc , as we proved if
the preceding theorem. Therefore let it be , we join . Then we will prove by
the converse of the proof we made previously that as is to , so is to
. But that is impossible because the ratio to was made equal to the
ratio to . Therefore no third one similar to the cone contains this
section.
But if the ratio sq. to sq. is greater than the ratio to , then it
is not possible for a cone similar to the cone to contain the section .
[Proof]. For let, if it is impossible, it be contained by the cone with vertex .
Then we will prove by a method like the preceding theorem that as is to ,
so is to . But the ratio to is smaller than the ratio sq. to sq.,
which we proved to be equal to the ratio to . Therefore the ratio to
290

is smaller than the ratio to , which is impossible. Therefore no cone [of


this kind] similar to the cone will contain the section .
[Proposition] 33
Let the given ellipse be whose major axis , and latus rectum ,
and let given right cone be the cone .
We want to show how to construct a right cone similar to a given right
cone containing a given ellipse 49.
We draw through a plane at right angles to the plane in which lies the
section , and draw in it on the arc [of a circle] admitting an angle
equal to the angle . We bisect it at , and draw from the straight line
in such way that as is to , so is to .
Similarly too we draw in such way that it is cut [by the circle] in the
same ratio. We join and , and draw parallel to , and parallel to
[cutting at ]. We construct the cone whose vertex I and base the circle
with diameter . Then I say that this cone is similar to the cone EZK, and that
it contains the section .
[Proof]. The angle is equal to the angle because they are in the
same arc. But the angle also is equal to the angle because and
are parallel. But the angle is equal to . Therefore the remaining angle
[in the triangle ] the angle is equal to the angle . Therefore the triangle is similar to the triangle .
But the triangle is similar to the triangle , and these triangles are
isosceles. Therefore the triangle is isosceles and similar to the triangle
. Therefore the cone with vertex and base the circle on diameter is
similar to the cone . And the plane in which lies the section generates
in this cone the ellipse whose major axis . And the ratio to is equal to
the ratio to and to the ratio pl. to sq.. But pl. is equal to pl..
Therefore as is to , so pl. is to sq..
But as pl. is to sq., so sq. is to pl. because thee quadrangle
is a parallelogram. Therefore as is to , so sq. is to pl.. And
is the transverse diameter, therefore is the latus rectum of the section generated in the cone. And it is also the latus rectum of the section .
Therefore the section is contained in the cone that we constructed
because of what is proved in Theorem 2 of this Book.
Similarly too it will be proved that it is contained in another cone with vertex whenever and are drawn.
291

[Furthermore] no other, third cone similar to the cone with the point
of its vertex on this side of the plane [of ] contains this section.
[Proof]. For, if it is possible that some other contains it, then we will
prove, as we proved in the preceding theorem, that if there is drawn through
its axis a plane at right angles to the plane in which the section lies, then that
intersection of these two planes is the major of two axes of the section.
And we will also prove, as we proved in the case of the hyperbola in the
preceding theorem that the point of vertex of the cone lies on the arc . Let
this point be , and let the sides of the cone be and . We draw through
and the straight line and draw parallel to , and parallel to .
Then the triangle is as isosceles, and as sq. is to pl., so is to .
Therefore as sq. is to pl., so pl. is to sq. because the quadrangle
is a parallelogram.
But pl. is equal to pl.. Therefore as is to , so pl. is to
sq., and this [latter] ratio is equal to the ratio to . Therefore as is
to , so is to .
But the ratio to was also equal to the ratio to . Therefore the
ratio to is equal to the ratio to , which is impossible. Therefore it is
not possible for there to be a third cone similar to the cone containing this
section.

292

BOOK SEVEN
Apollonius greets Attalus.
Peace be on you. I have sent to you with this letter of mine the seventh
book of the treatise on Conics. In this book are many wonderful and beautiful
things on the topics of diameters and the eidoi corresponding to them1, set out
in detail. All of this is of great use in many types of problems, and there is much
need for it in the kind of problems which occur in conic sections which we mentioned, among those which will be discussed and proved in the eighth book of
this treatise 2 .
[Proposition] 1

If the axis of a parabola is continued in a straight line outside of the section to a point such that the part of it which falls outside of the section is equal
to the latus rectum, and furthermore a straight line is drawn from the vertex of
the section to any point on the section and a perpendicular to the axis dropped
from where it meets it, then the straight line which was drawn [from the vertex
is equal in square to the rectangular plane under the straight line between the
293

foot of the perpendicular and the vertex of the section, and the straight line between of the foot of the perpendicular and the point two which the axis was
continued 3.
Let there be the parabola whose axis . We continue to , let
be equal to the latus rectum. We draw from the straight line in any position [so as to cut the section again at ], and drop as perpendicular to .
Then I say that sq. is equal to pl..
[Proof]. is the axis of the section, is perpendicular to it, and is
equal to the latus rectum. Therefore sq. is equal to pl., as is proved in
Theorem 11 of Book I.
Therefore we make sq. common. Then the sum of sq. and sq. is
equal to the sum of pl. and sq..
But the sum of sq. and sq. is equal to sq., and the sum of pl.
and sq. is equal to pl.. Therefore sq. is equal to pl..
[Proposition] 2

If the axis in a hyperbola is continued in a straight line so that the part of


it falling outside of the section in the transverse diameter, and a straight line is
cut off adjacent one of the ends of the transverse diameter such that the
transverse diameter is divided into two parts in the ratio of the transverse diameter to the latus rectum, and the straight line cut off corresponds to the
latus rectum, and a straight line is drawn from that end of the transverse diameter which is the end of the straight line which was cut of to the section, in
any position, and from the place where [that straight line] meets it, a perpendicular is dropped to the axis, then the ratio of the square on the straight line
drawn from the end of the transverse diameter to the corresponding plane under two straight lines between the foot of the perpendicular and two ends of
the straight line which was cut off is equal to the ratio of the transverse diameter to the excess of it over the straight line which was cut off. And let the
straight line that was cut off be called the homologue 4 .
Let the hyperbola be the section whose continued axis , and let the
eidos of the section . Let be cut off from , and let as is to , so
is to , which is the latus rectum.
We draw from to the section the arbitrary straight line , and drop
perpendicular to the axis. Then I say that as sq. is to pl., so is to .
[Proof]. We make pl. equal to sq.. Therefore as pl. is to pl.,
so sq. is to pl.. But the ratio sq. to pl. is equal to the ratio of the
294

latus rectum [which is ] to the transverse diameter [which is ], as is


proved in Theorem 21 of Book I. Therefore the ratio pl. to pl. is equal to
the ratio to and to the ratio to , and as is to , so is to .
Therefore the ratio to is equal to the ratio to . So the ratio to
is equal to the ratio to , and the ratio to is equal to the ratio
to . But, when we make a common height, as is to , so pl. is to
pl.. Therefore as is to , so pl. is to pl.. But pl. is equal to
sq.. Therefore as sq. is to pl., so is to .
.
[Proposition] 3
Let there be the ellipse whose axis and eidos . Let the straight line
constructed on the continuation of the axis be , and let as is to , so
is to .
If a straight line is constructed on the continuation of one of axes of an
ellipse, whichever axis it may be, and one of its ends is one of the ends of the
transverse diameter, and the other end is outside of the section and the ratio of
it to the straight line between its other end and the remaining and of the
transverse diameter is equal to the ratio of the latus rectum to the transverse
diameter, and a straight line is drawn from the common end to the transverse
diameter and the straight line constructed on the axis to any point on the section and from the place where its meet the section a perpendicular is dropped
to the axis, then the ratio of the square on the straight line which was drawn
[to the section] to the pl. two straight lines between the foot of the perpendicular and two ends of the straight line which was constructed on the axis is
equal to the ratio of the transverse diameter to the straight line between those
two ends of the transverse diameter and the straight line which was constructed that are different from each other. Let the straight line that was constructed be called the comologue6.
From let be drawn to the section, and let us drop perpendicular
to the axis. Then I say that sq. is to pl., so is to .
[Proof].We make pl. equal to sq.. Then as pl. to pl., so
sq. is to pl..
But the ratio sq. to pl. is equal to the ratio of the latus rectum
which is to the transverse diameter which is , as is proved in Theorem 21
of Book I. Therefore the ratio pl. to pl. is equal to the ratio to

295

and to the ratio to , and as is to , so is to . Therefore as is


to , so is to . And as is to , so is to , and as is to , so
is to .
But, when we make a common height, as is to , so pl. is to
pl.. Therefore as is to , so pl. is to pl.. But pl. is equal to
sq.. Therefore as sq. is to pl., so is to 7.
[Proposition] 4

If a straight line is tangent to a hyperbola or an ellipse, so as to fall on one


of its diameter, and an ordinate is drawn from the point of contact to that diameter, and from the center a straight line is drawn parallel to the tangent and
equal to the half of the diameter conjugate with the diameter passing through
the point of contact, then the ratio of the square on the tangent to the square
on the straight line parallel to it is equal to the ratio of the straight line between
the point of intersection of the tangent and the diameter and the foot of the
perpendicular to the straight line between the foot of the perpendicular and the
center 8.
Let the diameter of the hyperbola or the ellipse be , and its center ,
and the straight line tangent to the section be . Let be an ordinate to
and let be parallel to , and let be equal to the half of the diameter
conjugate with the diameter passing through .
Then I say that sq. is to sq., so is to .
[Proof]. We draw from the diameter , and draw and parallel
to [and let meets at ]. Let the ratio of the straight line to be
equal to the ratio to . Then is the half of the straight line such that,
when the rectangular planes applied to it in the hyperbola with the addition of a
rectangular plane similar to the plane under and the double , and in the ellipse with the subtraction of a rectangular plane similar to the plane under the
double and , the ordinates falling on are equal to those rectangular
planes. And that has been proved in Theorem 50 of Book I. And is the half of
the diameter conjugate with the diameter . Therefore pl., is equal to
sq., as is proved in Theorems 1 and 21 of Book II. And the ratio to is
equal to the ratio to and to the ratio to . Therefore pl., is equal
to sq.. But the ratio pl., to pl., is equal to the ratio to . Therefore the ratio sq. to pl., is equal to the ratio to .
But as for the ratio BK to , it is equal to the ratio to . And as for
the rectangular plane pl., ,it is has we have shown, equal to sq..
296

[Proposition] 5

If there is a parabola and one of its diameters is drawn in it, and from the
vertex of that diameter a perpendicular is dropped to the axis, then the straight
line such that straight lines drawn from the section to the diameter parallel to
the tangent drawn from the vertex of the diameter [as ordinates] are equal in
square to the rectangular planes under the mentioned straight line and the
segment cut off from the diameter by ordinates [that straight line is the latus
rectum corresponding to the diameter] is equal to the latus rectum corresponding to the axis larger by the quadruple amount cut off from it by the perpendicular from the axis adjacent to the vertex of the section 9.
Let there be the parabola whose axis , and one of its diameters , and
let the straight lines such that the perpendiculars dropped to are equal in
square analogous rectangular planes be this is corresponding to the axis .
We draw from the perpendicular to the axis.
Then I say that the straight lines drawn from the section to parallel to
the tangent [] from are equal in square to the eidos applied to the straight
line equal to in creased by the quadruple , that straight line is the latus
rectum corresponding to the diameter
[Proof]. We draw perpendicular to the axis and continue to and
draw tangent to the section at , and draw so that it forms a right angle
with . Then the triangle is similar to the triangle . Therefore as is
to , so is to . Therefore is equal to the half of the latus rectum corresponding to the diameter , as is proved in Theorem 49 of Book I.
But pl. is equal to sq. because the angle is right and is perpendicular [to ]. And sq. is equal to pl.. Therefore pl. is equal to
pl..
But is equal to the double , as is proved in Theorem 35 of Book I.
Therefore is equal to the double , and the quadruple is equal to the
double . Therefore the sum and the quadruple is equal to the double
. And we have [already] shown that the double is the latus rectum corresponding to the diameter . Therefore the latus rectum corresponding to the
diameter is equal to the sum of and the quadruple .
[Proposition] 6

297

If there are constructed on the continuation of the axis of a hyperbola


two straight lines adjacent to two ends of the axis which is the transverse diameter, each of them equal to the straight line which we called homologue,
and placed as it is placed, and two conjugate diameters from among the diameters of the section are drawn, and from the vertex of the section a straight line
is drawn parallel to the upright diameter of two opposite hyperbolas to cut the
section, and from the place where it meets it a perpendicular is dropped to the
axis, then the ratio of the transverse diameter of two conjugate diameters to
the upright one is equal in square to the ratio of the straight line between the
foot of the perpendicular and the end of the more remote of two homologues
to the straight line between the foot of the perpendicular and the end of the
nearer of two homologues, and the ratio of the transverse diameter to the latus
rectum corresponding to it parallel to the second diameter is in length equal to
the ratio of two straight lines which we mentioned previously to each other in
length 10.
Let there be the hyperbola whose axis , and transverse diameter ,
as the continuation of the axis, and center . Let each of two straight lines
and be equal to the homologue. Let two conjugate diameters and
pass through , and let us draw parallel to , and draw the perpendicular
to . Then I say that the ratio of the square on the transverse diameter
to the square on the upright diameter is equal to the ratio to .
[Proof]. We join , and draw the perpendicular from , and draw from it
also parallel to . Then that straight line [] is tangent to the section.
And since is equal to , and is equal to , is parallel to . Therefore as is to , so is to because of the similarity of the triangles.
But as is to , so sq. is to sq., as is proved in Theorem 4 of this
Book. Therefore as is to , so sq. is to sq.. And since as sq. is
sq., so sq. is to sq. because of the similarity of the triangles [ and
], and as sq. is to sq., so is to , the ratio sq. to sq.H is
compounded of [the ratios] sq. to sq. and to .
But the ratio sq. to sq. is compounded of [the ratios] sq. to
pl. , pl. to pl. , and pl. to sq.. Therefore the ratio sq.
to sq. is compounded of [the ratios] sq. to pl., pl. to pl.,
pl . to sq., and to . But the ratio sq. to pl. is equal to the ratio to , as is proved in Theorem 2 of this Book, and the ratio pl. to
sq. is equal to the ratio to , as is also proved in Theorem 2 of this
Book, and the ratio pl. to pl. is compounded of [the ratios] to
and to . Therefore the ratio sq. to sq. is compounded of [the ra298

tios] to , to , to , to , and to . And the ratio


compounded of these ratios which we mentioned is equal to the ratio to
because the part of it to , when combined with to , is equal to
the ratio to , and is equal to , and as for the part of it to ,
when combined with to , it is equal to the ratio of to itself. Therefore
the ratio compounded of these ratios is equal to the remaining ratio, which is
the ratio to . Therefore the ratio sq. to sq. is equal to the ratio
to , and [hence] the ratio sq. to sq. is equal to the ratio to .
Furthermore the ratio sq. to sq. is equal to the ratio of to the
straight line such that straight lines drawn from the section to parallel to
[are equal in square to corresponding rectangular plane] as is proved in Theorems 1 and 21 of Book II. Therefore the ratio of to the mentioned straight
line [that is the latus rectum corresponding to ] is equal to the ratio to
.
[Proposition] 7

If there are constructed on the continuation of the axis of an ellipse two


straight lines at two ends of it, each of them equal to the homologue straight
lines, and two conjugate diameters are drawn in the section, and from the vertex of the section a straight line is drawn parallel to one of the conjugate diameters so as to meet the section [again], and from the place there it meets
[the section] a perpendicular is dropped to the axis, then the ratio of the diameter which is not parallel to the straight line drawn to other diameter is equal
in square to the ratio to each other of two parts [of the straight line between
the ends of two homologues straight lines which are not the ends of the diameter] into which it is cut by the perpendicular, according to how two homologues
are placed, if [they are found on the major axis , they are outside the section,
and if in minor axis, then they are on the axis itself. And the ratio of the mentioned diameter to the straight line such that the ordinates dropped on it are
equal in square to corresponding rectangular planes is [also] equal to the mentioned ratio 11.
Let there be the ellipse whose axis . Let two homologues straight lines
be and . Let the diameters and be conjugate, in any position. We
draw parallel to the diameter , and drop from the perpendicular to
the axis. Then I say that the ratio sq. to sq. is equal to the ratio to
,and that the ratio of to the straight line such that straight lines drawn to
it in the section parallel to are equal in square to corresponding rectangular
299

planes, this straight line is the latus rectum, also is equal to the ratio to .
[Proof]. We join , and drop the perpendicular from and draw from
it too the straight line parallel to . Then that line is tangent to the section. And since is equal to and is equal to , is parallel to .
Therefore as is to , so is to because of the similarity of the
triangles.
But as is to , so sq. is to sq., because of what is proved in
Theorem 4 of this Book. Therefore as is to , so sq. is to sq.. And
since as sq. is to sq., so sq. is to sq. because of the similarity of two
triangles, and as sq. is to sq., so is to .
The ratio sq. to sq. is compounded of [the ratios] sq. to sq.
and to .
But the ratio sq. to sq. is compounded of [the ratios] sq. to
pl., pl. to pl. , and pl. to sq.. Therefore the ratio sq. to
sq. is compounded of [the ratios sq. to pl., pl. to pl., pl.
to sq., and to .
But the ratio sq. to pl. is equal to the ratio to , as is proved
in Theorem 3 of this Book, and the ratio pl. to sq. is equal to the ratio
to , as is also proved in Theorem 3 of this Book, and the ratio pl. to
pl. is compounded of [the ratios] to and to , therefore the
ratio sq. to sq. is compounded of [the ratios] to , to , to
, to , and to .
And the ratio compounded of those ratios mentioned by us is equal to the
ratio to because the part of it to , when combined with to
is equal to the ratio to , and is equal to , and as for the part of it
to , when combined with to , it is equal to the ratio of to itself. Therefore the ratio compounded of these ratios is equal to the remaining
ratio to . Therefore the ratio sq. to sq. is equal to the ratio to
. And furthermore the ratio sq. to sq. is equal to the ratio of to the
straight line by which straight lines drawn from the section to parallel to
are equal in square to corresponding rectangular planes. Therefore the ratio of
to the latus rectum corresponding to it is equal to the ratio to .
Hence it will be proved that if the perpendicular dropped from on the
axis passes through the center , then the diameter will be equal to the diameter because is equal to 12 .
[Proposition] 8
300

Furthermore we set the diagram for the hyperbola and the ellipse in the
way it was in Theorems 6 and 7 of this Book, then I say that the ratio of the
square on which is the transverse diameter to the square on and
which are two conjugate diameters, when whey are joined together in a straight
line is equal to the ratio of pl., to the square on the straight line equal to
the sum of and the straight line equal in square to pl. 13.
[Proof]. We make a mean proportional between and . Then as
sq. is to sq., so sq. is to sq.. But sq. is equal to pl., as is
proved in Theorems 37 and 38 of Book I. Therefore as sq. is to sq., so
pl. is to sq..
But as pl. is to sq., so pl. is to sq. because and are
parallel to and [respectively]. Therefore the ratio pl. to sq. is
equal to the ratio sq. to sq.. And when we make a common height, as
is to , so pl. is to . And the ratio sq. to pl. is equal to the
ratio to , as is proved in Theorems 2 and 3 of this Book. And is equal
to because and are two homologue straight lines. Therefore as
pl. is to pl., so sq. is to pl..
Therefore permutando as pl. is to sq., so pl. is to pl..
But we have [already] proved that as pl. is to sq., so sq. is to
sq.. Therefore the ratio sq. to sq. is equal to the ratio pl. to
pl. and is equal to the ratio to . And as is to , so pl., is to
sq.. Therefore as sq. is to sq., so pl., is to sq..
Furthermore as sq. is to sq., so is to , as was proved in two
preceding theorems. Therefore as is to , so is to because is the
mean proportional between and . Therefore the ratio to the sum of
and is equal to the ratio is to , and the ratio of sq. to the square
on the sum of and is equal to the ratio sq. to sq..
But we have [already] proved that as sq. is to sq., so pl., is to
sq.. Therefore ex a equali the ratio sq. to the square on the sum of
and is equal to the ratio pl., to sq., and is equal to the sum
and the straight line whose square is equal to pl.. Therefore the ratio of
sq. to the square on the sum of two conjugate diameters and is equal
to the ratio of pl., to the square on which is equal to the sum of
and the straight line whose square is equal to pl..
[Proposition] 9

301

Furthermore we set out what we have mentioned in the situation of Theorems 6 and 7 of this Book, then I say that the ratio sq. to the square on the
difference of and is equal to the ratio of pl., to the square on the
difference of and Xi, where is the straight line equal in square to
pl..
[Proof]. The ratio of to is equal to the ratio to , as is shown
in the proof of the preceding theorem. Therefore the ratio sq. to the square
of the difference of and is equal to the ratio sq. to the square of the
difference and .
But as sq. is to sq., so pl., is to sq., as is proved in the preceding theorem. Therefore ex the ratio sq. to the square on the difference
and is equal to the ratio pl., to the square on the difference of
and . But sq. is equal to pl.. Therefore the ratio sq. to the square on
the difference of and is equal to the ratio pl., to the square on the
difference of and , where is the straight line equal in square to pl..
[Proposition] 10
We again set the diagram as it was in Theorems 6 and 7 of this Book.
Then I say that the ratio sq. to pl., is equal to the ratio of to the
straight line equal in square to pl. 15.
[Proof]. It has been shown in the proof of Theorem 8 of this Book that as
sq. is to sq., so is to . And is was proved there also that as sq. is
to pl., , so is to because the ratio to is equal to the ratio
to . Therefore as sq. is to pl., ,so is to .
But sq. is equal to pl.. Therefore the ratio sq. to pl., is
equal to the ratio of to the straight line equal in square to pl..
[Proposition] 11
Furthermore we set things in the state that we prescribed for the hyperbola in Theorem 6 of this Book, then I say that the ratio sq. to the sum of
sq. and sq. is equal to the ratio to the sum of and 16.
[Proof]. As sq. is to sq., so is to , as was proved in Theorem
8 of this Book. And the ratio sq. to the sum of sq. and sq.BK is equal to
the ratio to the sum of and because it was proved in Theorem 6 of
this Book that as sq. is to sq., so is to . Therefore a equali the ratio
sq. to the sum of sq. and sq. is equal to the ratio to the sum of
302

and .
[Proposition] 12

In any ellipse the sum of the squares on any two of its conjugate diameters what ever is equal to the sum of the squares on its two axes 17.
Let the diagram for the ellipse be as it was in Theorem 7 of this Book.
Then the axis is , two conjugate diameters and , and two homologue straight lines and . And the ratio of sq. to the square on other of
two axes of the section is equal to the ratio of which is the transverse diameter to the latus rectum corresponding [to it], as is proved in Theorem 15 of
Book I.
But the ratio of to its latus rectum is equal to the ratio to because is the homologue straight line. And is equal to . Therefore the
ratio of sq. to the square other of two axes of the section is equal to the ratio to . And for that reason the ratio of sq. to the sum of sq. and
the square on other of two axes of the section is equal to the ratio to .
Furthermore as sq. is to sq., so is to , as is proved in the
proof of Theorem 8 of this Book. And the ratio sq. to the sum sq. and
sq. is equal to the ratio to the sum and because it was proved in
Theorem 7 of this Book that as sq. is to sq., so is to .
But the sum of and is equal to . Therefore the ratio sq. to
the sum of sq. and sq. is equal to the ratio to . And we had
[already] proved that the ratio to is equal to the ratio sq. to the sum
of the squares on two axes. Therefore the sum of the squares on two axes is
equal to the sum of sq. and sq..
[Proposition] 13

In every hyperbola the difference between the squares on its axes is equal
to the difference between the squares on any pair of its other conjugate diameters whatever 18.
Let the diagram of the hyperbola be as it was in Theorem 6 of this Book.
Then the ratio of the square on , which is one of the axes to the square on
the other of two axes of the section, is equal to the ratio of to its latus rectum, as was proved in Theorem 16 of Book I. But the ratio of to its latus
rectum is equal to the ratio to because is the homologue straight
line. And is equal to . Therefore the ratio of sq. to the square on the
303

other of two axes of the section is equal to the ratio to , and therefore
the ratio of sq. to the difference between sq. and the square on the other
on two axes of the section is equal to the ratio to .
Furthermore as sq. to is sq., so is to , as is proved in
Theorem 8 of this Book. And the ratio sq. to the difference between sq.
and sq. is equal to the ratio to because it was proved in Theorem 6 of
this Book that as sq. is to sq., so is to .
Therefore ex a equali the ratio sq. to the difference between sq. and
sq. is equal to the ratio to . And we had [already] proved that the ratio
of sq. to the difference between sq. and the square on the other of two
axes of the section is equal to that ratio which is the ratio to . Therefore
the difference between sq. and the square on the other of two axes of the
section is equal to the difference between sq. and sq..
[Proposition] 14
Furthermore we let the diagram of the ellipse as we represented it in
Theorem 7 of this Book, then I say that the ratio of the square on the axis
to the difference between the squares on and is equal to the ratio to
the double when is parallel to the diameter and is the perpendicular to the axis 19.
[Proof]. The ratio sq. to sq. is equal to the ratio to , as is
proved in Theorem 8 of this Book. And the ratio sq. to the difference between sq. and sq. is equal to the ratio to the difference between
and because it was proved in Theorem 7 of this Book that as sq. to
sq., so is to . But the difference between and is equal to the
double . Therefore the ratio sq. to the difference between sq. and
sq. is equal to the ratio to the double .
[Proposition] 15
Furthermore we set the diagram for the hyperbola and the diagram for
the ellipse in the situation we represented in Theorems 6 and 7 of this Book,
then I say that the ratio of sq. to the square on the straight line which
bounds together with the diameter the eidos of the section, this straight line
is the latus rectum corresponding to the diameter , is equal to the ratio of
pl., to sq. 20.
[Proposition] 16
304

Furthermore we set the diagram as it was in Theorems 6 and 7 of this


Book, and let the latus rectum corresponding to be , then I say that the ratio sq. to the square on the difference between and is equal to the ratio
pl., to the square on the difference between and 21.
[Proof]. The ratio to the difference between and is equal to the
ratio to the difference between and for it was proved in Theorems 6
and 7 of this Book that as is to , so is to . Therefore the ratio sq.
to the square on the difference between and is equal to the ratio sq. to
the square on thee difference between and .
[Proposition] 17
[Proof]. As is to , so is to , as is proved in Theorems 6 and 7
of this Book. Therefore the ratio sq. to the square on the sum of and is
equal to the ratio sq. to the square on the sum of and . But as sq.
is to sq., so pl., is to sq.. Therefore the ratio sq. to the square on
the sum of and is equal to the ratio pl., to the square on the sum of
and .
[Proposition]18
Furthermore we set the diagram as it was in Theorems of this Book, then I
say that as sq. is to pl., ,so is to 23.
[Proof]. As sq. is to sq., so is to , as is proved in the proof of
Theorem 8 of this Book. But as sq. is to pl., ,so is to , and as is
to , so is to , as is proved in Theorems 6 and 7 of this Book. Therefore
as sq. is to pl., , so is to .
[Proposition] 19
Furthermore we set the diagram as is was in Theorems 6 and 7 of this
Book, then I say that the ratio sq. to the sum of sq. and sq. is equal to
the ratio pl., to the sum of sq. and sq. 24.
[Proof]. As sq. is to sq., so pl., is to sq. , as is proved in
Theorem 8 of this Book. But the ratio to the sum of sq. and sq. is equal
to the ratio sq. to the sum of sq. and sq. because it was proved in the
proof of Theorems 6 and 7 of this Book that as is to , so is to .
305

Therefore the ratio sq. to the sum of sq. and sq. is equal to the ratio
pl., to the sum of sq. and sq..
[Proposition] 20
Furthermore we set the diagram as is was in Theorems 6 and 7 of this
Book, then I say that the ratio sq. to the difference between sq. and
sq.T is equal to the ratio pl., to the difference between sq. and
sq. 25.
[Proof]. As sq. is to sq., so pl., to sq. , as is proved in the
proof of Theorem 8 of this Book.
But the ratio sq. to the difference between sq. and sq. is equal to
the ratio sq. to the difference between sq. and sq. because it was
proved in Theorems 6 and 7 of this Book that as is to , so is to .
Therefore the ratio sq. to the difference between sq. and sq.T is equal to
the ratio pl., to the difference between sq. and sq..
[Proposition] 21
If there is a hyperbola, and its transverse axis is greater than its upright
axis, then the transverse diameter of each pair of conjugate diameters among
its other diameters is greater than the upright diameter of that pair, and the
ratio of the greater axis to the smaller axis is greater than the ratio of the
transverse diameter to the upright diameter among the other conjugate diameters, and the ratio of a transverse diameter nearer to the greater axis to the
upright diameter conjugate with it is greater than the ratio of a transverse diameter farther [from that axis] to the upright diameter conjugate with it 26.
Let there be the hyperbola whose axes and , and let there be two
other transverse diameters and , and let be greater than .
Then I say that is greater than the upright diameter conjugate with it,
and that the diameter also is greater than the upright diameter conjugate
with it, and that the ratio to is greater than the ratio of to the upright
diameter conjugate with it and than the ratio of to the upright diameter conjugate with it, and that the ratio of to the upright diameter conjugate with it
is greater than the ratio of to the upright diameter conjugate with it.
[Proof]. We make each of the ratios to and to equal to the
ratio of to its latus rectum. Then and belong to the class of straight
lines called homologues.
306

Therefore we draw parallel to the tangent to the section at , and


make parallel to the tangent to the section at , and drop to the greater
axis the perpendiculars and . Then the ratio of sq. to the square on the
upright diameter conjugate with it is equal to the ratio to , as is proved in
Theorem 6 of this Book.
And likewise the ratio of sq. to the square on the upright diameter conjugate with it is equal to the ratio to . Therefore is greater than the
upright diameter conjugate with it, and likewise too the diameter is greater
than the upright diameter conjugate with it.
Furthermore the ratio of to its latus rectum is equal to the ratio to
and is equal to the ratio to . Therefore is equal to , and as is
to , so is to . But the ratio to is smaller than the ratio to
AN. Therefore the ratio to is greater than the ratio to EN.
Similarly too it will be proved that the ratio to is greater than the
ratio to .
But as is to , so sq. is to sq. because each of these two ratios
is equal to the ratio of to its latus rectum, as is proved in Theorem 16 of
Book I. Therefore the ratio sq. to sq. is greater than the ratio to and
is greater than ratio to .
But the ratio to is equal to the ratio of sq. to the square on the
upright diameter conjugate with it, and the ratio to is equal to the ratio
of sq. to the square on the upright diameter conjugate with it.
Therefore the ratio sq. to sq. is greater than the ratio of sq. to
the square on the upright diameter conjugate with it, and is greater than the ratio of sq. to the square on the upright diameter conjugate with it.
Therefore the ratio to is greater than the ratio of to the upright
diameter conjugate with it, and is greater than the ratio of to the upright diameter conjugate with it.
Furthermore the ratio to which is equal to the ratio of sq. to the
square on the upright diameter conjugate with it is greater than the ratio to
which is equal to the ratio of sq. to the square on the upright diameter
conjugate with it. Therefore the ratio of to the upright diameter conjugate
with it is greater than the ratio of to the upright diameter conjugate with it.
[Proposition] 22

If there is a hyperbola and its transverse axis is smaller than its upright
axis, then the transverse diameter of each pair of diameters among the other
307

conjugate diameters is smaller than the upright diameter of that pair, and the
ratio of the smaller axis to the greater axis is smaller than the ratio of any of
the other transverse diameters to the upright diameter conjugate with it, and
the ratio of a transverse diameter nearer to the smaller axis to the upright diameter conjugate with it is smaller than the ratio of [a transverse diameter] farther [from that axis] to the diameter conjugate with it 27.
Let there be the hyperbola whose axes and and center , and with
two of its diameter and , and let [the transverse axis] be smaller than
[the upright axis] .
Then I say that each of and is smaller than the upright diameter
conjugate with it, and that the ratio to is smaller than the ratio of to
the upright diameter conjugate with it, and [is smaller] than the ratio of to
the upright diameter conjugate with it, and that the ratio of to the upright
diameter conjugate with it is smaller than the ratio of to the upright diameter conjugate with it.
[Proof]. We make the ratios to equal to the ratio of the diameter
to its latus rectum, and also equal to the ratio to . Then and
belong to the class of straight lines called homologues.
We draw parallel to the tangent passing through ,and parallel to
the tangent passing through , and drop from and the perpendiculars
and to the axis. Then the ratio of the square on the diameter to the
square on the upright diameter conjugate with it is equal to the ratio to ,
as is proved in Theorem 6 of this Book.
And likewise the ratio of sq. to the square on the upright diameter conjugate with it is equal to the ratio to . Therefore the diameter BK is
smaller than the upright diameter conjugate with it, and the diameter is
smaller than the upright diameter conjugate with it.
Furthermore the ratio of to its latus rectum is equal to the ratio to
and is equal to the ratio to . Therefore is equal to , and as i
28.
For we set the diameter conjugate with it 29 .
[Proof]. Let the major of two axes of the ellipse be , and its minor axis
, and [two pairs of] its conjugate diameters be and , and and .
Let EZ be greater than , its conjugate, and be greater than , its conjugate, [and let be closer to the major axis than ].
We drop from and the perpendiculars and to the axis , and
drop from and the perpendiculars and to .
308

Then the ratio pl. to sq. is equal to the ratio pl.ALB to sq., as is
proved in Theorem 21 of Book I.
But pl. is greater than sq., therefore pl. is greater than sq..
Therefore is greater , and [hence] is greater than .
Furthermore as pl. is to sq., so pl. is to sq..
But pl. is smaller than sq.. Therefore pl. is smaller than sq..
Therefore is smaller than , and [hence] is smaller than .
But it was proved that is greater than . Therefore the ratio to
is greater than ratio to . And the diameter is conjugate with the diameter , and is parallel to the tangent to the section at .
[Furthermore] the diameter is conjugate with the diameter , and it
[] is parallel to the tangent to the section at . And the diameter is
closer to the major axis than is the diameter .
And as pl. is to pl., so sq. is to sq., as is proved in Theorem
21 of Book I.
But pl. is greater than pl.. Therefore sq. is greater than sq..
And the difference between pl.ARB and pl. is greater than the difference between sq. and sq. because it has been proved that pl. is
greater than sq..
But the difference between pl. and pl. is equal to the difference
between sq. and sq.. Therefore the difference between sq. and sq. is
greater than the difference between sq. and sq.. Therefore the sum of
sq. and sq. is greater than the sum of sq. and sq.. Therefore is
greater than , and [hence] the diameter is greater than the diameter .
Furthermore as pl. is to pl., so sq. is to sq., as is proved in
Theorem 21 of Book I. But pl. is smaller than sq., and pl. is smaller
than sq.. Therefore the difference between pl. and is smaller than
the difference between sq. and sq..
But the difference between pl. and pl. is equal to the difference
between sq. and sq.. Therefore the difference between sq. and sq.
is smaller than the difference between sq. and sq.. Therefore the sum of
sq. and sq. is smaller than sq. and sq.. Therefore is smaller than
, and [hence] the diameter is smaller than the diameter .
And when the diameter conjugate with is greater than the diameter conjugate with , and the diameter is smaller than the diameter ,
then the ratio of to its conjugate is greater than the ratio of to its
conjugate .
309

[Porism 1]
And hence it becomes clear that the difference between and is
greater than the difference between and , and that the difference between and is greater than the difference between and , and that
the difference between sq. and sq. s greater the difference between sq.
and sq. which is greater than the difference between esq. and
sq..
[Porism 2]
Then I say that the straight line under which and the eidos of the
section is formed is smaller than the straight line under which and the eidos
of the section is formed, and that the straight line under which and the eidos
of the section is formed ,is smaller than the straight line under which and the
eidos of the section is formed, and that the straight line under which and
the eidos of the section is formed is smaller than the straight line under
which and the eidos of the section is formed 30.
[Proof]. For let be greater than , and be greater than , and
be greater than , and be smaller than , and be smaller than ,
and be smaller than . And sq. is equal to the rectangular plane under
and the straight line under which and the eidos of the section is formed,
as is proved in Theorem 15 of Book I. And sq. is equal to the eidos of the
section corresponding to , and sq. is equal to the eidos of the section
corresponding to , and sq. is equal to the eidos of the section corresponding to .
[Proposition] 25

In every hyperbola the straight line equal to [the sum of] its two axes is
smaller than the straight line equal to [the sum of] any other pair whatever of
its conjugate diameters, and the straight line equal to the sum of a transverse
diameter closer to the greater axis together with its conjugate diameter is
smaller than the straight line equal to the sum of a transverse diameter farther
from the greater axis together with its conjugate diameter 31.
Let there be the hyperbola whose axis and center , with the some
of its conjugate diameters and , and and . Then the axis is either
equal to the other of two axes of the section or it is unequal to it. Now if it is
310

equal to it, then the diameters and are equal, as is proved in Theorem 23
of this Book, and likewise the diameter is equal to the diameter .
But the diameter is greater than the axis , and the diameter is
greater than diameter . Thus what we desired has been proved.
But as form [what happens] if the axis is unequal to the other of two
axes of the section, the difference between sq. and the square on the other
of two axes of the section is equal to the difference between sq. and sq.
as is proved in Theorem 13 of this Book.
Therefore the straight line equal to [the sum of] two axes is smaller than
the straight line equal to [the sum of] diameters and . And because the
difference between sq. and sq. is equal to the difference between sq.
and sq. the straight line equal to [the sum of] diameters and is smaller
than the straight line equal to [the sum of] the diameters and .
[Proposition] 26

In every ellipse the sum of its two axes is smaller than [the sum] of any
conjugate pair of its diameters, and the sum of any conjugate pair of its diameters which is closer to two axes is smaller than the sum of any conjugate pair of
its diameters farther from two axes, and the sum of the conjugate pair of its diameter each of which is equal to the other is greater than that of any [other]
conjugate pair of its diameter 32.
Let there be the ellipse whose major axis and minor axis , and conjugate diameters and , and and , and and , and let be
greater than [its conjugate , and let be greater than [its conjugate] ,
and let be equal to [its conjugate] .
Then I say that the straight line equal to [the sum of] two axes and
is smaller than the straight line equal to [the sum of] two diameters and
, and that the straight line equal to [the sum of] two diameters and ,
and that the greatest of them [the sums of the pairs of conjugate diameters]
is the straight line equal to [the sum of] two diameters and .
[Proof]. The ratio to is greater than the ratio to , as is
proved in Theorem 24 of this Book. Therefore the ratio of the square on the
sum and to the sum of sq. and sq. is smaller than the square on the
sum and to the sum of sq. and sq.. But the sum of sq. and sq.
is equal to the sum of sq. and sq., as is proved in Theorem 12 of this
Book. Therefore the square on the sum and is smaller than the square on
the sum of and . Therefore the straight line equal to the sum of two axes
311

and is smaller than the straight line equal to the sum of two diameters
and .
Similarly too if will be proved that the straight line equal to [the sum of]
and is smaller than the straight line equal to the sum of two diameters
and .
[Proposition] 27

In every ellipse or hyperbola in which two axes are unequal the increment
of the greater axis over the smaller is greater than the increment of [the
greater of] any conjugate diameter among its diameters over the diameter conjugate with it, and the increment of [the greater of a pair of] them nearer to
the greater axis over the diameter conjugate with it is greater than the increment of [the greater of a pair of them] farther [from the major axis] over the
diameter conjugate with it 33 .
Now it has been proved in Theorem 24 of this Book that in case of the
ellipse that is as we stated, but as for the hyperbola it will be proved as follows.
We make the axis of the hyperbola . Let some of its conjugate diameters be
and , and and .
Then I say that the difference between and the other axis is greater
than the difference between and , and that the difference between
and is greater than the difference between and .
[Proof]. The difference between sq. and the square on the other of
two axes of the section is equal to the difference between sq. and sq., as
is proved in Theorem 13 of this Book. And the diameter is greater than the
axis . Therefore the difference between and the axis conjugate with it is
greater than the difference between and .
Similarly too it will be proved that the difference between and ZH is
greater than the difference between and .
[Proposition] 28

In every hyperbola or ellipse the rectangular plane under its two axes is
smaller than the rectangular plane under any conjugate pair whatever of its diameters, and of the conjugate diameters for those in which the greater [of the
pair] is closer to the greater axis ,the rectangular plane under the diameter and
the diameter conjugate with it is smaller than rectangular plane under one of
those in which it is farther from it [the greater axis] and the diameter conjugate
with it 34 .
312

Now as for the case of the hyperbola, that will be proved from what we
said in that precedes. For each of two axes is smaller than the diameter adjacent to it of any pair of conjugate diameters, and those of the [diameters]
closer two axes are smaller than those farther.
But as for the case of the ellipse we make its major axis and the minor
, and let some of its conjugate diameters be and , and , and
and , then I say that pl., is smaller than pl., and that pl., is
smaller than pl.,, and pl., is smaller than pl.,.
[Proof].The sum of two axes and is smaller than the sum of two
diameters and , as is proved in Theorem 26 of this Book, and [hence] the
square on the sum and is smaller than the square on the sum and .
But the sum sq. and sq. is equal to the sum of sq. and sq., as
is proved in Theorem 12 of this Book. Therefore the by subtraction the double
pl., is smaller than the double pl., . Therefore pl., is smaller than
pl., .
Similarly too it will be proved that pl., is smaller than pl., ,and
pl., is smaller than pl., .
[Proposition] 29

The differences between the eidoi corresponding to [each of] the diameters of any hyperbola and [each of] the squares onthose diameters are equal 35
.
Let there be the hyperbola whose axis and center , and let some of
its conjugate diameters be and , and and , then I say that the difference between the eidos of the section corresponding to and sq. is
equal to the difference between the eidos of the section corresponding to
and sq., and [also is equal to] the difference between the eidos corresponding to and sq..
[Proof]. The difference between sq. and the square on the other of the
two axes of the section is equal to the difference between sq. and sq., and
[also is equal to] the difference between sq. and sq., as was proved in
Theorem 13 in this Book.
But as for the eidos of the section corresponding to , it is equal to the
square on the other of two axes of the section, has we stated in Theorem 16 of
Book I. And as for the eidos of the section corresponding to , it is equal to
sq., and as for the eidos of the section corresponding to , it is equal to
313

sq.. Therefore the difference between the eidos of the section corresponding
to and sq. is equal to the difference between the eidos of the section
corresponding to and sq., and [also is equal to] the difference between
the eidos of the section corresponding to and sq..
[Proposition] 30

If there is added to [one of] the eidoi corresponding to any of the diameters of an ellipse the square of that diameter [the sum always] comes out equal
36.
Let the center of the ellipse be , and some of its conjugate diameters be
BK and , and and .
Then I say that the eidos of the section corresponding to together
with sq. is equal to the eidos of the section corresponding to together
with sq..
[Proof]. The sum of sq. and sq. is equal to the sum of sq. and
sq., as is proved in Theorem 12 of this Book.
But as for the eidos of the section corresponding to , is equal to sq.,
and as for sq., it is equal to the eidos of the section corresponding to , as
is proved in Theorem 15 of Book I.
Therefore the eidos of the section corresponding to together with
sq. is equal to the eidos of the section corresponding to together with
sq.
[Proposition] 31

When a pair of conjugate diameters is drawn in an ellipse or between conjugate opposite hyperbolas, then the parallelogram under that pair of diameters
with angles equal to the angles under the diameter at the center is equal to the
rectangular plane under two axes 37.
Let there be the ellipse or the conjugate opposite hyperbolas whose center and axes and , and with one pair of its conjugate diameters and
.
Let the tangents [to these section] pass through and , and and be
and , and and . Then and are parallel to the diameter ,
and and are parallel to the diameter , as is proved in Theorems 5 and
20 of Book II. Therefore the quadrangle is a parallelogram, and its angles are
equal to the angles under the diameters and at the center .
314

Then I say that the quadrangle is equal to the rectangular plane under
two axes and .
[Proof]. We drop from the perpendicular to , and make the
straight line a mean proportional between and . Then as sq. is to
sq., so pl. is to sq., as is proved in Theorem 37 of Book I. But pl.
is equal to sq.. Therefore as sq. is to sq., so sq. is to sq., and as
is to , so is to , and as sq. is to pl., so pl., is to
pl., .
And permutando as sq. is to pl., , so pl. is to pl., .
But sq. is equal to pl., as is proved in Theorem 37 of Book I.
Therefore as pl. is to pl., , so pl. is to pl.. . And is parallel
to . Therefore as sq. is to sq., so is to , as is proved in Theorem 4
of this Book. And as the triangle is to the triangle , so sq. is to
sq. because two triangles are similar. Therefore as the triangle is to the
triangle , so is to , and as the double triangle is to the double
the triangle , so is to . But the quadrangle is a mean proportional between the double triangle and the double triangle .
And similarly is a mean proportional between and . Therefore as
the double triangle is to the parallelogram , so is to .
But as is to , so pl., is to pl.. Therefore as the double triangle is to the quadrangle , so pl., is to pl..
And we had [already] proved that as pl., is to pl., so pl., is
to pl.. Therefore as the double triangle is to the quadrangle , so
pl., is to pl.. But the double triangle is equal to pl.,. Therefore, the quadrangle is equal to pl., and [hence] the quadruple quadrangle with is [the quadrangle] is equal to the quadruple pl. with is
equal to the rectangular plane under two axes and . Therefore the quadrangle is equal to the rectangular plane under two axes and .
[Porisms]

Thus it has been shown from the preceding theorems that:


1) in every hyperbola the sum of the squares on its two axes is smaller
than [the sum of] the squares on any conjugate pair whatever of its
diameter , and [the sum is] the squares on a pair of conjugate diameters closer
to two axes is smaller than [the sum of] the squares on a pair of conjugate diameters farther from two axes 38,
315

2) and that in every ellipse the difference between the squares on its
two axes is greater than the difference between the squares on any conjugate
pair whatever of its diameters ,and the difference between the squares on [a
pair of] conjugate diameters close to two axes is grater than the difference between the squares on [a pair of] conjugate farther from two axes 39,
3) and that if there is a hyperbola in which the transverse diameter of the
sides of the eidos of the section corresponding to the axis is greater than the
latus rectum, then the transverse diameter of [each of] eidoi of the section corresponding to the other diameters is greater than its latus rectum and [in that
case] the rate of the transverse diameter of the eidos corresponding to that
axis to the latus rectum is greater than the ratio of every [other] transverse diameter to the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it , this ratio in the
eidoi corresponding to those transverse diameters closer to the axis is greater
than in those corresponding to transverse diameters farther from the axis 40 ,
4) but if the transverse diameter of the eidos corresponding to the axis
of the hyperbola is smaller than the latus rectum, then other transverse diameters of other eidoi are smaller than their latera recta, and the ratio of the
transverse diameter of the eidos corresponding to that axis to its latus rectum
is smaller than the ratio of every [other] transverse diameter to the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it, and this ratio in the eidoi corresponding to
those transverse diameters closer to the axis is smaller than in those corresponding to transverse diameter farther from the axis 41,
5) and if the eidos of the hyperbola corresponding to the axis is equilateral, then the eidoi of the section corresponding to other diameters are equilateral 42,
It has also been shown that
6) in every ellipse the transverse diameter of the eidos of the section
corresponding to the diameters drawn between the major axis and two equal
conjugate diameters is greater than their latus rectum, and the ratio of it [the
transverse diameter] to it [the latus rectum in the eidoi corresponding to these
diameters closer to the major axis is greater than in those corresponding to
transverse diameters farther from it 43 ,
7) but as for the transverse diameter of the eidoi of the ellipse corresponding to the diameters between the minor axis and two equal conjugate diameters, it is smaller than latus rectum, and the ratio of it [the transverse diameter] to it [the latus rectum in these eidoi corresponding to those diameters
closer to the minor axis is smaller than in those corresponding the diameters
farther from it 44.
These are theorems which can be proved from what we proved in the
316

treatment of the diameters and eidoi of sections and their sides, and the ratios
of the conjugate diameters and corresponding latera recta.
[Proposition] 32

In every parabola the latus rectum which is the straight line such that the
ordinates dropped to the axis are equal in square to the rectangular planes under that straight line and the segments of the axis cut off by ordinates is the
smallest of the latera recta which are the straight lines such that the ordinates
dropped on the other diameters are equal in square to corresponding rectangular planes, and the latus rectum corresponding to [one of] those diameters
closer to the axis is smaller than the latus rectum corresponding to the diameter farther 45.
Let there be the parabola whose axis and with two other of its diameters and , and let the latera recta [correspondingly to the diameters
, , and ] be , and [respectively] .
I say that is smaller than , and that is smaller than .
[Proof]. We drop from and the perpendiculars and to the axis.
Then is equal to the sum of and the quadruple , as is proved in Theorem 5 of this Book. And similarly is equal to the sum of and the quadruple . Therefore is smaller than , and is smaller than .
[Proposition ] 33

If there is a hyperbola, and the transverse diameter of the eidos corresponding


to the axis is not smaller than its latus rectum, then the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to the axis is smaller than the latus rectum of [any of] the
eidoi corresponding to other diameters of the section, and the latus rectum of
[any of] the eidoi corresponding to diameters closer to the axis is smaller than
the latus rectum of the eidoi corresponding to the diameters farther from the
axis 46 .
Let there be the hyperbola whose axis and center , and with two of
its diameters and .
Then I say that the latus rectum of the eidos of the section corresponding
to is smaller than the latus rectum of the eidos of the section corresponding
to , and that the latus rectum of the eidos of the section corresponding to
is smaller than the latus rectum of the eidos of the section corresponding to
.
317

[Proof]. First we make the axis equal to the latus rectum to the eidos
corresponding to it. Then the diameter is equal to the latus rectum of the
eidos corresponding to it, which can be proved from Theorem 23 of this Book
and Theorem 16 of Book I.
But is smaller than . Therefore the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to is smaller than the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to
.
Furthermore the diameter is equal to the latus rectum of the eidos of
the section corresponding to it. But the diameter is smaller than the diameter . Therefore the latus rectum of the eidos of the section corresponding to
is smaller than the latus rectum of the eidos of the section corresponding to
.
Furthermore we make the axis greater than the latus rectum of the
eidos of the section corresponding to it, and [then] the ratio of to the latus
rectum of the eidos corresponding to it is greater than the ratio of to its
latus rectum, as is proved from Theorem 21 of this Book and Theorem 16 of
Book I. And similarly the ratio of to its latus rectum is greater than the ratio
of to its latus rectum. But the axis is smaller than the diameter , and
the diameter is smaller than the diameter . Therefore the latus rectum of
the axis is smaller than the latus rectum of the diameter , and the latus
rectum of the diameter BK is smaller than the latus rectum of the diameter .
[Proposition] 34
Furthermore we make smaller than the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it, but not smaller than the half of the latus rectum of the eidos
corresponding to it, then I say that again the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to is smaller than the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to
, and that the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to is smaller than
the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to 47 .
[Proof]. We make each of the ratios to and to equal to the
ratio of to the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it , and draw from
the straight line parallel to , and the straight line parallel to , and
drop from and the perpendiculars and to the axis. Then, since each
of the ratios to and to is equal to the ratio of to the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to if. is equal to and equal to .
Therefore the ratio of sq. to the square on the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it is equal to the ratio pl., to sq..
318

But the diameter is smaller than its latus rectum . But not smaller
than the half of the latus rectum. Therefore is greater than but not
greater than the double . And the sum of and is greater than the
double . Therefore the rectangular plane under and the sum and
to the rectangular plane under and the sum of and is smaller than
the rectangular plane under and the sum and to sq.. Therefore
the ratio to is smaller than the rectangular plane under and the sum
and to sq., and [hence] the ratio to is smaller than the ratio of
the sum of sq. and the rectangular plane under and the sum of and
to sq.. But the sum of sq. and the rectangular plane under and the
sum of and is equal to sq.. Therefore the ratio to is smaller
than the ratio sq. to sq..
But the ratio to is equal to the ratio pl., to pl. ,.
Therefore the ratio pl., to pl.. is smaller than the ratio sq. to
sq.. And permutando the ratio pl., to sq. is smaller than the ratio
pl., to sq..
Now as for the ratio pl., to sq., is equal to the ratio of sq. to
the square on the latus rectum of the diameter , as is proved in Theorem 15
of this Book, and as for the ratio pl., to sq., we have [already] proved
that it is equal to the ratio of sq. to the square of the diameter .
Therefore the ratio of sq. to the square of the diameter is smaller
than the ratio of sq. to the square on the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it. Therefore the latus rectum of the diameter is smaller than
the latus rectum of the diameter .
Furthermore is not greater than the double . Therefore is
smaller than the double . And the sum of and is greater than the
double . Therefore pl., the sum of and is greater than sq..
Therefore the ratio pl. , the sum of and .to pl., the ratio [the rectangular plane] under and the sum and is smaller than the ratio of
[the rectangular plane] under and the sum and to sq.. But the
ratio [the rectangular plane] under and the sum and to [the rectangular plane] under and the sum of and is equal to the ratio to
. Therefore the ratio to is smaller than the ratio [the rectangular
plane] under and the sum and to sq.. Therefore the ratio to
is smaller than the ratio of the sum sq. and [rectangular plane] under
and the sum and to sq.. But the sum of sq. and [the rectangular
plane] under and the sum of and is equal to sq.. Therefore the ratio to is smaller than the ratio sq. to sq..
319

But the ratio to is equal to the ratio pl., to pl.,.


Therefore the ratio pl., to pl., is smaller than sq. to sq..
And permutando the ratio pl., to sq. is smaller than pl., to
sq.. But as for the ratio pl., to sq., it is equal to the ratio of sq. to
the square on the latus rectum of the diameter , as is proved in Theorem 15
of this Book, and as for the ratio pl., to sq., it is equal to the ratio of
sq. to the square on the latus rectum of the diameter , as is proved in
Theorem 15 of this Book.
Therefore the ratio of sq. to the square on the latus rectum of the diameter is smaller than the ratio of it [sq.] to the square on the latus rectum of the diameter .
Therefore the latus rectum of the diameter is smaller than the latus
rectum of the diameter . And it has already been shown that the latus rectum
of the diameter is smaller than the latus rectum of the diameter .
[Proposition] 35
Furthermore we make smaller than the half of the latus rectum of the
eidos of the section corresponding to it, then I say that there are two diameters [one] on either side of this axis such that the latus rectum of the eidos
corresponding to each of them is the double that [diameter], and that [latus
rectum] is smaller than the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to any
other of the diameters on that side [of the axis],and the latus rectum of eidoi
corresponding to the diameters closer to those two diameters is smaller than
the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to a diameter farther from them48 .
[Proof]. has been cut into two parts such that the ratio to is
equal to the ratio of to its latus rectum, and likewise the ratio to
[is the same ratio]. And the diameter is smaller than the half of its latus rectum. Therefore is greater than the double . Therefore is greater than
.
Therefore let be equal to , and let be the perpendicular to the
axis meeting the section at . We join and draw the diameter parallel to
. Then the ratio to is equal to the ratio of to the latus rectum of
the eidos corresponding to it, as is proved in Theorem 6 of this Book.
Therefore the diameter is the half of the latus rectum of the section
corresponding to it.
Therefore we draw between and the diameters and , and draw
from the straight line parallel to the diameter and the straight line
320

parallel to the diameter , and drop from and the perpendiculars and
to the axis.
Now is equal to . Therefore pl. is smaller than sq. we make
[the rectangular plane] under and the sum of and common [to both
sides], then [rectangular plane] under and the sum of and is smaller
than sq.. Therefore the ratio [the rectangular plane] under and the sum of
and to [the rectangular plane] under and the sum of and is
greater than the ratio [the rectangular plane] under and the sum of and
to sq.. But the ratio [the rectangular plane] under and the sum of
and to [the rectangular plane] under and the sum of and is equal to
the ratio to . Therefore the ratio to is greater than [the rectangular
plane] under and the sum of and to sq.. Therefore the ratio to
is greater than the ratio the sum sq. and [the rectangular plane] under
and the sum of and to sq..
But the sum of sq. and [the rectangular plane] under and the sum of
and is equal to sq.. Therefore the ratio to is greater than the
ratio sq. to sq..
But the ratio to is equal to the ratio pl., to pl.,. Therefore
the ratio pl., to pl. is greater than the ratio sq. to sq.
And permutando the ratio pl., to sq. is greater than pl., to
sq,.
But as for the ratio pl., to sq., it is equal to the ratio of sq.
to the square on the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to as is
proved in Theorem 15 of this Book. And as for the ratio pl., to sq. , it is
equal to the ratio of sq. to the square on the latus rectum of the eidos
corresponding to as is proved in Theorem 15 of this Book.
Therefore the ratio of sq. to the square on the latus rectum of the
eidos corresponding to KB is greater than the ratio of sq. to the latus rectum
of the eidos corresponding to . Therefore the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to is smaller than the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to
.
Furthermore pl. is smaller than sq.. Therefore it will be proved
from that, as we proved previously that the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to is smaller than the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to
.
Furthermore pl. is smaller than sq.. Therefore the latus rectum of
the eidos corresponding to is smaller than the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to .
321

Furthermore we draw two diameters and farther from the axis


than is the diameter , then I say that the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to is smaller than the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to
, and that the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to is smaller than
the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to .
[Proof]. Now we draw from two straight lines and parallel to
and , and drop from Y and the perpendiculars and to the axis. Then
pl. is greater than sq. . Therefore when we go through a procedure like
the preceding one, it is shown that the ratio pl., to sq. is smaller than
the ratio pl., to sq., and from that it will be proved that the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to is greater than the latus rectum of the
eidos corresponding to . And because pl. is greater than sq. the latus
rectum of the eidos corresponding to is greater than the latus rectum of
the eidos corresponding to .
[Proposition] 36
Let there be the hyperbola whose axis and center , and with two
other of its diameters and .
If there is a hyperbola, and the eidos corresponding to its axis is not
equilateral, then the difference between two sides of the eidos corresponding to
its axis is greater than the difference between the sides of [any of] the eidoi
corresponding to other diameters , and the difference between the sides of the
eidoi corresponding to those diameters closer to the axis is greater than the difference between the sides of the eidoi corresponding to those diameters farther
from it 49.
Then I say that the difference between two sides of the eidos corresponding to is greater than the difference between two sides of the eidos
corresponding to , and that this [latter] difference is greater than the difference between two sides of the eidos corresponding to .
But we draw and parallel to the diameters and , and drop
from and the perpendiculars and to the axis and make each of the
ratios to and to equal to the ratio of to the latus rectum of
the eidos corresponding to it. Then the ratio of sq. to the square on the difference between and the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it
is equal to the ratio pl., to sq.. And is parallel to the diameter ,
and is the perpendicular to the axis. Therefore the ratio pl., to the
square on the difference between and is equal to the ratio of sq. to
322

the square of the difference between and the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it, as is proved in Theorem 16 of this Book.
But the difference between and is equal to . Therefore the ratio of sq. to the square on the difference between and the latus rectum of
the eidos corresponding to it is equal to the ratio pl., to sq..
And the ratio pl., to sq. is greater than the ratio pl., to sq. .
Therefore the ratio of sq. to the square on the difference between
and the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it is greater than the ratio of sq. to the square of the difference between it and the latus rectum of
the eidos corresponding to it. Therefore the difference between and the
latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it is smaller than the difference between and the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it.
Furthermore is parallel to the diameter , and is the perpendicular to the axis. Therefore the ratio pl., to the square on the difference
between and is equal to the ratio of sq. to the square on the difference between and the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it as is
proved in Theorem 16 of this Book.
And the ratio pl., to sq. is greater than the ratio pl., to
sq. .Therefore the ratio of sq. to the square on the difference between
and the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it is greater than the ratio of
sq. to the square on the difference between and the latus rectum of the
eidos corresponding to it.
Therefore the difference between and the latus rectum of the eidos
corresponding to it is greater than the difference between and the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it.
[Proposition] 37

In every ellipse for the eidoi of the section corresponding to the diameters greater than their [corresponding] latera recta the difference between two
sides of the eidos corresponding to the major axis is greater than the difference
between two sides of [any of] the eidoi corresponding to the remaining diameters, and the difference between two sides of those eidoi corresponding to the
diameters closer to the major axis is greater than the difference between two
sides of those eidoi corresponding to the diameters farther [from the major
axis].
But in the case when the diameters on which the which the
corresponding eidoi are smaller than the latera recta, the difference between
323

two sides of the eidos corresponding to the minor axis is greater than difference between two sides of the others of these eidoi and the difference between two sides of those of the eidoi corresponding to the diameters closer to
the minor axis is greater than the difference between two sides of those eidoi
corresponding to the diameters farther from it.
And the difference between two sides of the eidos corresponding to the
major axis is greater than the difference between two sides of the eidos corresponding to the minor axis 50.
Let there be the ellipse whose major axis and minor axis , and
with two of its diameters and , both and being greater than the
latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it.
Then I say that the difference between and the latus rectum of the
eidos corresponding to it is greater than the difference between and the
latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it, and that the difference between
and the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it is greater than the difference between and the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it.
[Proof]. is greater than the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding
to it, and also is greater than the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to
it, and also the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to is greater than
the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to , as is proved in Theorem 24
of this Book. Therefore the difference between and the latus rectum of the
eidos constructed to it is greater than the difference between and the latus
rectum of the eidos corresponding to it.
Similarly too it will be proved that the difference between and the
latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it is greater than the difference between and the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it.
Furthermore, we make each of and smaller than the latus rectum
of the eidos corresponding on it, then I say that the difference between and
the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it is greater than the difference
between and the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it, and that the
difference between and the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it is
greater than the difference between KB and the latus rectum of the eidos
corresponding to it.
[Proof]. is smaller than , and the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to is grater than the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to
, as is proved in this Book. Therefore the difference between and the latus
rectum of the eidos corresponding to it is greater than the difference between
and the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it.
324

Similarly too it will be proved that the difference between and the
latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it is greater than the difference between and the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it.
Furthermore the ratio of the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to
to is equal to the ratio of to the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to , as is proved in Theorem 15 of Book I. And the latus rectum of
the eidos corresponding to is greater than , as is proved from Theorem 15
of Book I. Therefore the difference between and the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it is greater than the difference between and the latus
rectum of the eidos corresponding to it.
[Proposition] 38

If there is a hyperbola, and the transverse side of the eidos corresponding to its axis is not smaller than one third of its latus rectum, then the sum of
the straight lines bounding each of the eidoi corresponding to its diameters
which are nor the axes is greater than the sum of the straight lines bounding
the eidos corresponding to its axis, and the sum the straight lines bounding the
eidoi corresponding to those diameters closer to the axis is smaller than [the
sum of] the sides bounding the eidoi corresponding those diameters farther
from it 51 .
Let there be the hyperbola whose axis , being not smaller then
one third of the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it. Let two of its diameters be and .
Then I say that [the sum of] the sides bounding the eidos corresponding to is smaller than [the sum of] the sides bounding the eidos corresponding to , and that [the sum of] the sides bounding the eidos corresponding to
, is smaller than [ the sum of] the sides bounding the eidos corresponding to
.
[Proof]. We make first the axis not smaller than the latus rectum of
the eidos corresponding to it.
Now the diameter is greater than the axis , and the diameter is
greater than the diameter , and the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding
to is greater than the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to , as is
proved in Theorem 33 of this Book, and likewise too the latus rectum of the
eidos corresponding to is greater than the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding two . Therefore the sum of the diameter and the latus rectum of
the eidos corresponding to it is greater than the sum of the diameter and
325

the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it, and the sum of the diameter
and the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it is greater than the
sum of the diameter and the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it.
Therefore the sum of the sides bounding the eidos corresponding to is
greater than the sum of the sides bounding the eidos corresponding to , and
the sum of these [latter] sides is greater than the sum of the sides bounding
the eidos corresponding to .
[Proposition] 39
Furthermore we make smaller than the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it, but not smaller than one third of the latus rectum of the eidos
corresponding to it, and let each of the ratios to and to be equal
to the ratio of to the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it, and draw
from two straight lines and parallel to the diameters and [respectively], and drop from and the perpendiculars and to the axis.
Then the ratio of to the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it is
equal to the ratio to , and is not smaller than one third of the latus
rectum of the eidos corresponding to it. Therefore is not smaller than one
third of . Therefore is not smaller than the quarter of the sum of and
. Therefore [the rectangular plane] under the quadruple and the sum of
and is not smaller than the square of the sum of and . Therefore
the ratio the quadruple [the rectangular plane] under and the sum and
to the quadruple [the rectangular plane] under and the sum of and
is not greater than the quadruple [the rectangular plane] under and the
sum p\of and to the square on the sum of and . Therefore the ratio to is not greater than the ratio the quadruple [the rectangular plane]
under and the sum of and to the square on the sum and . And
componendo the ratio to is not greater than the ratio the quadruple sum
of the square on the sum of and and [the rectangular plane] under
and the sum of and to the square on the sum of and .
But the quadruple sum of the square of the sum of and and [the
corresponding plane] under and the sum of and is smaller than the
square on the sum of and . Therefore the ratio to is smaller than
the ratio of the square on the sum of and to the square on the sum of
and .
But the ratio to is equal to the ratio of pl., to pl., .
326

Therefore the ratio pl., to pl., is smaller than the ratio square
on the sum of and to the square on the sum of and .
And the ratio pl., to the square on the sum of and is smaller
than the ratio pl., to the square of the sum of and .
But as for the ratio pl., to the square on the sum of and , it
is equal to the ratio of sq. to the square on the diameter together with
the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it, as is proved in Theorem 17 of
this Book, and as for the ratio pl., to the square on the sum of and ,
it is equal to the ratio of sq. to the square on the diameter together with
the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it.
Therefore the ratio of sq. to the square on [the sum of] two sides of
the eidos corresponding to KB is smaller than the ratio of sq. to the square
on [the sum of] two sides of the eidos corresponding to . Therefore the sum
of two sides of the eidos corresponding to is greater than the sum of two
sides of the eidos corresponding to . And therefore the sum of the sides
bounding the eidos corresponding to is greater than the sum of the sides
bounding the eidos corresponding to .
Furthermore is greater than the quarter of the sum of and ,
therefore the quadruple [the rectangular plane] under and the sum and
is greater then the square on the sum of and . Therefore it will be
proved from that, as it was proved above, that the ratio pl., to the square
on the sum of and is smaller than the ratio pl., to the square for the
sum of and .
But as for the ratio pl., to the square on the sum of and , it is
equal to the ratio of sq. to the square on [the sum of] two sides of the eidos corresponding to , as is proved in Theorem 17 of this Book. And for that
reason the ratio pl., to the square on the sum of and is equal to
the ratio of sq. to the square on [the sum of] two sides of the eidos corresponding to . Therefore the ratio of sq. to the square on [the sum of] two
sides of the eidos corresponding to is smaller than its ratio to the square on
[the sum of] two sides of the eidos corresponding to . Therefore the sum of
two sides of the eidos corresponding to is greater than the sum of two sides
of the eidos corresponding to . And therefore the sum of [four] sides of the
eidos corresponding to is greater than the sum of [four] sides of the eidos
corresponding to .
[Proposition] 40
327

If there is a hyperbola, and its transverse axis is smaller than one third of
its latus rectum, then there are two diameters, [one] on either side of its axis,
each of which is equal to one third of the latus rectum of the diameter, and the
sum of the sides bounding the eidos corresponding to each of two diameters is
smaller than [the sum of] sides bounding any of the eidoi corresponding to the
diameters on that side [of the axis], and sum of the sides bounding the eidoi
constructed on the diameters closer to [that diameter] is smaller than [the sum
of] the sides bounding the eidoi corresponding to [the diameters] farther from
it 53.
Therefore we make the diagram in Theorem 35 in the same way as it was.
Then is smaller than , and therefore is smaller than one the half of .
Therefore we make equal to the half of , and drop from the perpendicular to the axis, and join and draw the diameter parallel to .
Then the ratio to is equal to the ratio of to the latus rectum of the
eidos corresponding to it, as is proved in Theorem 6 of this Book.
But is equal to one third of . Therefore is one third of the latus
rectum of the eidos corresponding to it.
Therefore let two diameters and fall anywhere between and ,
we draw and [respectively] parallel to them, and drop and as perpendiculars to the axis. Then is equal to the quarter of the sum and .
Therefore the square of the sum of and is greater than the quadruple
[rectangular plane] under and the sum of and . Therefore we subtract
the quadruple [rectangular plane] under and the sum of and from both
of two [sides] and there remains the square on the sum of and is greater
than the quadruple [rectangular plane] under and the sum of and .
Therefore the ratio of the quadruple [rectangular plane] under and the sum
of and to the quadruple [rectangular plane] under and the sum of
and is greater than its ratio to the square on the sum of and .
But the ratio the quadruple [rectangular plane] under and the sum of
and to the quadruple [rectangular plane] under and the sum of and
is equal to the ratio to . Therefore the ratio to is greater than the
ratio the quadruple [rectangular plane] under and the sum of and to
the square on the sum of and .
And componendo the ratio to is greater than the ratio of the sum
of the square on the sum of and and the quadruple [rectangular plane}
under and the sum of and to the square on the sum of and .
But the sum of the square on the sum of and and the quadruple
328

[rectangular plane] under and the sum of and is equal to the square
on the sum of and . Therefore the ratio to is greater than the ratio
the square on the sum of and to the square on the sum of and .
But the ratio to is equal to pl., to pl.. Therefore the ratio
pl., to pl., is greater than the ratio of the square on the sum of
and to the square on the sum of and .
And permutando the ratio pl., to the square on the sum of and
is greater than pl., to the square on the sum of and .
Bur as for the ratio pl., to the square on the sum of and , it
is equal to the ratio of sq. to the square on [the sum of] two sides of the eidos corresponding to , as is proved in Theorem 17 of this Book, and as for
the ratio pl., to the square on the sum of and , it is equal to the ratio
of sq. to the square on the sum of two sides of the eidos corresponding to
, as is also proved in Theorem 17 of this Book. Therefore the ratio of sq.
to the square on the sum of two sides of the eidos corresponding to is
greater than its ratio to the square on the sum of two sides of the eidos corresponding to .
Therefore the sum of the sides bounding the eidos corresponding to is
smaller than the sum of the sides of the eidos corresponding to .
Furthermore the square on the sum of and is greater than the quadruple [rectangular plane] under and the sum of and . Therefore it will
be proved thence, as we proved previously, that the sum of the straight lines
bounding the eidos corresponding to is smaller than the sum of the sides
bounding the eidos corresponding to .
Furthermore the quadruple [rectangular plane] under and the sum of
and is smaller the square on the sum of and . Therefore it will be
proved thence also as we proved [previously] that the sum of the straight lines
bounding the eidos corresponding to is smaller than the sum of the sides
bounding the eidos corresponding to .
Furthermore we draw the diameters and making them farther from
than is the diameter , and draw from two straight lines and
parallel to and [respectively], and drop from and the perpendiculars
and to the axis. Then the quadruple [rectangular plane] under and
the sum of and is greater than the square on the sum and .
Therefore when we make the sum of and the quadruple [rectangular plane]
under and common [to both sides], it will be proved from that, as we
proved previously, that the sum of the straight lines bounding the eidos corre329

sponding to is greater than the sum of the straight lines bounding the eidos
corresponding to .
Furthermore the quadruple [rectangular plane] under and the sum of
and is greater than the square on the sum of and . Therefore it will
be proved thence also that the sum of the straight lines bounding the eidos corresponding to is the greater than the sum of the sides bounding the eidos
corresponding to .
[Proposition] 41

In every ellipse the sum of [four] sides bounding the eidos corresponding
to its major axis is smaller than the sum of the sides bounding any eidos corresponding to another of its diameter, and the sum of the sides bounding [one
of] the eidoi corresponding to those diameters closer to the major axis is
smaller than the sum of the sides bounding an eidos corresponding to a diameter farther from it, and the sum of the sides bounding the eidos corresponding
to the minor axis is greater than the sum of the sides bounding the eidoi corresponding to other diameters 54.
[Proof]. Let the major of two axes of the ellipse be , and its minor axis
be , and let there be other diameters and .
Let and be parallel to these two diameters and let us drop two perpendiculars and to the [major] axis. Let the ratio to be equal to
the ratio of to the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it, and likewise
we make the ratio to [equal to that ratio].
Then the ratio of sq. to the square of the straight line equal to the sum
of the diameter and the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it is
equal to the ratio sq. to sq., and is equal to the ratio pl., to sq.
because pl., is equal to sq..
And the ratio sq. to sq. is equal to the ratio to because it was
proved in Theorem 15 of Book I that the ratio sq. to sq. is equal to the ratio of to its latus rectum, and the ratio to is equal to the ratio
pl. to sq., and the ratio of sq. to square on the straight line equal to
the sum of and the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it is equal to
the ratio sq. to sq. also because of what was proved in Theorem 15 of
Book I. Therefore the ratio of sq. to the square on the straight line equal to
the sum of the diameter and the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to
it is equal to the ratio pl. to sq..
330

And it was shown that the ratio pl., to sq. is equal to the ratio of
sq. to the square on the straight line equal to the sum of and the latus
rectum of the eidos corresponding to it.
Therefore the ratio of to the sum of and its latus rectum is greater
than the ratio of to the sum of and its latus rectum. Therefore the sum
of the sides bounding the eidos corresponding to is smaller than the sum of
the sides of the eidos corresponding to .
And [also] the ratio of pl., to sq. is equal to the ratio of sq. to
the square on the straight line equal to the sum of the diameter and the
latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it, as is proved in Theorem 17 of
this Book.
Therefore the ratio of to the sum of and its latus rectum is greater
than the ratio of to the sum of and its latus rectum. Therefore the sum
of the sides bounding the eidos corresponding to is smaller than the
sum of the sides of the eidos corresponding to .
Furthermore the ratio pl., to sq. is equal to the ratio of sq. to
the square on the straight line equal to the sum of the diameter and the
latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it, as is proved in Theorem 17 of
this Book, and likewise also the ratio pl., to sq. is equal to the ratio of
sq. to the square on the straight line equal to the sum of the diameter
and its latus rectum.
Therefore the ratio of to the sum of and its latus rectum is greater
than the ratio of to the sum of and its latus rectum. Therefore the sum
of the sides bounding the eidos corresponding to is smaller than the sum of
the sides of the eidos corresponding to .
Furthermore the ratio pl., to sq. is equal to the ratio of sq. to
the square on the straight line equal to the sum of the diameter and the
latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it, as is proved in Theorem 17 of
this Book.
And we have [already] proved that the ratio pl. to sq. is equal to
the ratio of sq. to the square on the sum of and its latus rectum.
Therefore the ratio to the sum of and its latus rectum is greater than
the ratio of to the sum of and its latus rectum.
Therefore the sum of the sides bounding the eidos corresponding to is
smaller than the sum of the sides of the eidos corresponding to .
[Proposition] 42
331

The smallest of the eidoi corresponding to the diameters of a hyperbola is


the eidos corresponding to its axis, and those eidoi corresponding to the
diameters closer to the axis are smaller than those eidoi corresponding to the
diameters farther from it 55 .
Let there be the hyperbola whose axis and two of its diameters
and .
Then I say that the eidos corresponding to is smaller than the eidoi
corresponding to other diameters of the section, and that the eidos corresponding to is smaller than the eidos corresponding to .
[Proof]. We draw the straight lines and parallel to the diameters
and [respectively], and drop to the axis the perpendiculars and , and
make the ratio to equal to the ratio of to the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it. Then the ratio to is equal to the ratio of sq.
to the eidos corresponding to . And the ratio to is equal to the ratio
of sq. to the eidos corresponding to , as is proved in Theorem 18 of this
Book.
And the ratio to is greater than the ratio to .
Therefore the ratio of sq. to the eidos corresponding to is greater
than its ratio to the eidos corresponding to .
Therefore the eidos corresponding to is smaller than the eidos corresponding to .
Furthermore the ratio to is equal to the ratio of sq. to the eidos
corresponding to , as is proved in Theorem 18 of this Book.
And likewise also the ratio to is equal to the ratio of sq. to the
eidos corresponding to .
And the ratio to is greater than the ratio to . Therefore the
ratio of sq. to the eidos corresponding to is greater than its ratio to the
eidos corresponding to .
[Proposition] 43

The smallest of the eidoi constructed to the diameters on an ellipse is the


eidos corresponding to the major axis, and the greatest of them is the eidos
corresponding to the minor axis, and those eidoi corresponding to the diameters
closer to the major axis are smaller than those corresponding to the diameters
farther from it 56 .
Let there be the ellipse whose major axis and minor axis , and with
two other of its diameters and .
332

Then, I say that the eidos corresponding to is smaller than the eidos
corresponding to , and that the eidos corresponding to is smaller than the
eidos corresponding to , and that the eidos corresponding to is smaller
than the eidos corresponding to .
[Proof]. We draw and parallel to the diameters and [respectively], and drop as perpendicular to the axis and . We make the ratio
to equal to the ratio of to the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to
it. Then the ratio of sq. to the eidos corresponding to is equal to the ratio
to .
But sq. to equal to the eidos corresponding to , as is proved in
Theorem 15 of Book I. Therefore the eidos corresponding to is smaller than
the eidos corresponding to .
Now the ratio to is equal to the ratio of sq. to the eidos corresponding to . As is proved in Theorem 18 of this Book. And likewise the ratio
to is equal to the ratio of sq. to the eidos corresponding to .
And the ratio to is equal to the ratio of sq. to the eidos corresponding to . But is smaller than , and is smaller than , and
is smaller than . Therefore the eidos corresponding to is smaller than the
eidos corresponding to , and the eidos constructed on is smaller than the
eidos corresponding to , and the eidos corresponding to is smaller than
the eidos corresponding to .
[Proposition] 44

If there is a hyperbola, and the transverse side of the eidos corresponding


to its axis is either [1] not smaller than its latus rectum, or [2] smaller than it,
but [such that] its square is not smaller than the half of the square of the difference between it [the transverse side] and it [the latus rectum], then the
sum of the squares of two sides of the eidos corresponding to the axis is
smaller than [the sum of] the squares of two sides of any eidos corresponding
to one of its other diameter 57.
Let ther be the hyperbola whose axis is , and with two of its diameters
and . Let be either not smaller than the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it, or let be smaller than it, but let sq. be not smaller than
the half of the square of the difference between it [] and it [its latus rectum].
Then I say that the sum of the squares of two sides of the eidos corresponding to is smaller than [the sum of] the squares of two sides
333

of the eidos corresponding to , and that [the sum of] the squares of two
sides of the eidos corresponding to is smaller that [the sum of] the squares
of two sides of the eidos corresponding to .
[Proof]. First we make not smaller than the latus rectum of the eidos
corresponding to it. Then the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to is
greater than the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to , as is proved in
Theorem 33 of this Book. And likewise the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to is greater than the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to
. And is smaller than , and is smaller than . Therefore [the sum
of] the squares on two sides of the eidos corresponding is smaller than [the
sum of] the squares on two sides of the eidos corresponding to , and [the
sum of] the squares on two sides of the eidos corresponding to is smaller
than [the sum of] the squares on two sides of the eidos corresponding to .
[Proposition] 45
Furthermore we make smaller than the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it, but [such that] its square is not smaller than the half of the
square on the difference between it [] and it [its latus rectum] and set the
diagram as it was in the preceding theorem, and let each of two ratios to
and to be equal to the ratio of to the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it, then the double sq. is not smaller than sq. because is
equal to , and the ratio of to its latus rectum is equal to the ratio to
, and sq. is not smaller than the half of the square on the difference between its latus rectum. We draw two diameters and , and draw and
parallel to them, and drop to the axis the perpendiculars and .
Then the ratio of to the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it
is equal to the ratio to and is equal to the ratio to . And the double
sq. is not smaller than sq., and [hence] the double pl. is greater than
sq. . Therefore we make the double pl. common [to both sides]. Therefore the double pl. sum of the double pl and sq. is greater than the
sum of the double pl. and sq.. Therefore the double pl. and the sum
of and is greater than the sum of sq. and sq. is greater than the
sum of sq and sq Therefore the double [rectangular plane] under and
the sum and is greater than the sum of the double pl. and sq..
Therefore the double [rectangular plane] under and the sum of and is
greater than the sum of sq. and sq..
58

334

Therefore the ratio the double [rectangular plane] under and the sum
of and to the double [rectangular plane] under and the sum of
and is smaller than the ratio the double [rectangular plane] under and
the sum of and to the sum of sq. and sq.. But the ratio the double
[rectangular plane] under and the sum and to the double [rectangular plane] under and the sum of and is equal to the ratio to .
Therefore the ratio to is smaller than the ratio the double [rectangular
plane] under and the sum of and to the sum of sq. and sq..
[And componendo the ratio to is smaller than the ratio the sum of the
double [the rectangular plane] under and the sum of ( and ) and
sq. and sq. to the sum of sq. and sq.]59
And the sum of sq. and sq. is smaller than the sum of sq., sq.,
and the double [rectangular plane] under and the sum of and . Therefore the ratio to is smaller than the ratio the sum of sq. and sq. to
sum of sq. and sq..
But the ratio to is equal to the ratio pl., to pl.,. Therefore the ratio pl., to pl., is smaller than the ratio the sum of sq.
and sq. to the sum of sq. and sq.. And permutando the ratio pl.,
to the sum of sq. and sq. is smaller than pl., to the sum of sq.
and sq..
But the ratio pl., to thee sum of sq. and sq. is equal to the
ratio of sq. to [the sum of] the squares on two sides of the eidos
corresponding to , as is proved in Theorem 19 of this Book. And the ratio
pl., to the sum of sq. and sq. is equal to the ratio of sq. to the
[sum of the] squares on two sides of the eidos corresponding to , as is
proved from the preceding topic in this theorem. Therefore the ratio of sq.
to [the sum of] the squares on two sides of the eidos constructed on is
smaller than its ratio to [the sum of] the squares on two sides of the eidos corresponding to . Therefore [the sum of] the squares on two sides of the eidos
corresponding to is greater than [thee sum of] the squares on two sides of
the eidos corresponding to .
Furthermore the double sq. is greater than sq., and [hence] the
double pl. is greater than sq.. Therefore it will be proved, as we proved in
the preceding, that [the sum of] the squares on two sides of the eidos corresponding to is greater than [the sum of] the squares on two sides of the eidos corresponding to .
[Proposition] 46
335

But if the square on the transverse diameter [] is less than the half of
the square on the difference between it and the latus rectum of the eidos
corresponding to it, then on either side of the axis are two diameters, the
square on each of which is equal to the half of the square on the difference between it and the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it, and the sum of
the squares of two sides of the eidos corresponding to it is smaller than [the
sum of] the squares of two sides of any eidos corresponding to [one of] the diameters drawn on the side [of the axis] on which it lies, and [the sum of] the
squares of two sides of those eidoi corresponding to the diameters on its side
[of the axis] closer to it is smaller than [the sum of] the squares of two sides
[of eidoi] corresponding to those diameters farter from it 60.
Let the axis of the section be , and let sq. be smaller than the half of
the square on the difference between it and the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it. Let each of the ratios to and to be equal to the
ratio of to the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it. Then the double sq. is smaller than sq.. We make the double sq. equal to sq., and
drop from the perpendicular to the axis, and join and draw the diameter parallel to . Then the ratio to is equal to the ratio of to the
latus rectum of the eidos constructed on it, as is proved in Theorem 6 of this
Book. And hence sq. is equal to the half of the square on the difference between it the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it.
So we draw between and two diameters and , and draw and
parallel to them [respectively], drop the perpendiculars and to the
axis.
Now the double sq. is equal to sq. . Therefore the double pl. is
smaller than sq.. We make the double pl. common [to both sides]. Then
the double [rectangular plane] under and the sum of and is smaller
than the sum of sq. and sq..
Thence it will be proved, as we proved in the preceding theorem that
[the sum of] the squares on two sides of the eidos corresponding to is less
than [the sum of] the squares on two sides of the eidos corresponding to .
Furthermore the double pl. is smaller than sq.. Therefore we make
the double pl. common [to both sides]. Then the double [rectangular plane]
under and the sum of and than the sum of sq. and sq., and it
will be proved thence also, as it was proved in the preceding theorem that [the
sum of] the squares on two sides of the eidos constructed on is smaller than
[the sum of] the squares on two sides of the eidos corresponding to .
336

Furthermore the double pl. is smaller than sq., and it will proved
thence also, as we proved previously, that [the sum of] the squares on two
sides of the eidos corresponding to is smaller than [the sum of] the squares
on two sides of the eidos corresponding to .
Furthermore we draw two diameters and , and let them be farther
from the axis than is the diameter , and we draw and parallel to them,
and drop to the axis to the perpendiculars and , then the double pl. is
greater than sq., therefore it will be proved thence also, as we proved previously, that [the sum of] the squares on two sides of the eidos corresponding to
is greater than [the sum of] the squares on two sides of the eidos corresponding to .
Furthermore the double pl. is greater than sq., therefore it will be
proved thence, as we proved previously, that [the sum of] the squares on two
sides of the eidos corresponding to is greater than [the sum of] the squares
on two sides of the eidos corresponding to .
[Proposition] 47

If there is an ellipse, and the square on the transverse side of the eidos
corresponding to its major axis is not greater than the half of the square on the
sum of two sides of the eidos corresponding to it, then [the sum of] the
squares on two sides of the eidos corresponding to the major axis is smaller
than [the sum of] the squares on two sides of [all] other eidoi corresponding to
its diameters, and [the sum of] the squares and two sides of those eidoi corresponding to diameters closer to it is smaller than [the sum of] the squares on
two sides of those eidoi corresponding to the diameters farther from it, and the
greatest of them is [the sum of] the squares on two sides of the eidos corresponding to the minor axis 61.
Let there be the ellipse whose major axis and minor axis . Let sq.
not be greater than the half of the square on [the sum of] two sides of the eidos corresponding to it, and let there be in the section two other diameters KB
and . We draw and parallel to them [respectively], and drop to the axis
the perpendiculars and , and make each of the ratios to and to
equal to the ratio of to the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it.
Then the ratio pl., to the sum of sq. and sq. is equal to the ratio of
sq. to [the sum of] the squares on two sides of the eidos corresponding to
. And the ratio of the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to to is
equal to the ratio to because the ratio to is equal to the ratio of
337

to its latus rectum, and the ratio of to its latus rectum is equal to the ratio of the latus rectum of the diameter to because of what is proved in
Theorem 15 of Book I.
Similarly too the ratio of the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to
to is equal to the ratio of the square on the latus rectum of the eidos
corresponding to to sq.. And the ratio to is equal to the ratio
pl. to sq.. Therefore the ratio of the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to to is equal to the ratio pl. to sq., and is equal to the
ratio of the square on the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to to
sq.. [And the ratio of the square on the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to to sq. is equal to the ratio sq. to sq.].
And the ratio of sq. to [the sum of] the squares on two sides of the
eidos corresponding to is equal to the ratio sq. to the sum of sq. and
sq.. Therefore the ratio pl. to the sum of sq. and sq. is equal to the
ratio of sq. to [the sum of] the squares on two sides of the eidos corresponding to .
And the ratio pl., to sq. is equal to the ratio of sq. [to the
sum of] the squares on two sides of the eidos corresponding to it.
[Therefore the ratio sq. to the sum of the squares on two sides of the
eidos corresponding to is greater than the ratio sq. to the sum of the
squares on two sides of the eidos corresponding to . Therefore the sum of
the squares on two sides of the eidos corresponding to is smaller than the
sum of the squares on two sides of the eidos corresponding to ]62.
Now sq. is not greater than the half of the square on [the sum of] two
sides of the eidos corresponding to . Therefore the double pl., is not
greater than sq. , and [hence] the double pl., is smaller than sq..
Therefore we subtract the double pl. from both [sides] alike, and there remains the double pl. is smaller than the sum of sq. and sq.. Therefore the ratio the double pl. to the double pl. is greater than the ratio
double pl. to the sum of sq. and sq.. Therefore the ratio to is
greater than the ratio the double pl. to the sum of sq. and sq..
But the sum of the double pl., sq., and sq. is equal to the sum
of sq. and sq. because is equal to . Therefore componendo the ratio
to is greater than the ratio of the sum of sq. and sq. to the sum of
sq. and sq.. But the ratio to is equal to the ratio pl., to
pl.,. Therefore the ratio pl., to pl., is greater than the ratio the
sum of sq. and sq. to the sum of sq. and sq..
338

And permutando the ratio pl., to the sum of sq. and sq. is
greater than the ratio pl., to the sum of sq. and sq..
But as for the ratio pl., to the sum of sq. and sq., we have
proved that it is equal to the ratio of sq. to [the sum of] the square on two
sides of the eidos corresponding to it, and as for the ratio pl.NG,MX to the sum
of sq. and sq. it is equal to the ratio of sq. to [the sum of] the squares
on two sides of the eidos corresponding to , as is proved in Theorem 19 of
this Book. Therefore the ratio of sq. to [the sum of] the squares on two
sides of the eidos corresponding to it is greater than its ratio to [the sum of]
the squares on two sides of the eidos corresponding to . Therefore [the sum
of] the squares on two sides of the eidos corresponding to is smaller than
[the sum of] the squares on two sides of the eidos corresponding to .
Furthermore is either smaller than or it is not smaller than it.
Therefore first let it be smaller than it. Then the sum of sq. and sq.
is greater than the sum sq. and sq.. But the sum of sq. is greater than
the double [rectangular plane] under and the difference between and
. Therefore the ratio the double [rectangular plane] under and the difference between and to the double [rectangular plane] under and the
difference between and is greater than the ratio the double [rectangular
plane] under and the difference between and to the sum of sq.
and sq.. Therefore the ratio to is greater than the ratio the double
[rectangular plane] under and the difference between and to the
sum of sq. and sq.. But the sum of the double [rectangular plane] under
and the difference between and , sq., and sq. is equal to sq.
and sq. because the difference between (the sum of sq. and sq.) and
(the sum sq. and sq.) is equal to the difference between the double sq.
and sq.. Therefore componendo the ratio to is greater than the ratio
the sum of sq. and sq. to the sum of sq. and sq.. But the ratio
to is equal to the ratio pl., to pl.,. Therefore the ratio pl.,
to pl., is greater than the ratio the sum of sq. and sq. to the sum of
sq. and sq..
And permutando the ratio pl., to the sum and sq. is greater
than pl., to the sum of sq. and sq..
But as for the ratio pl., to the sum of sq. and sq., it is equal
to the ratio of sq. to [the sum of] the squares on two sides of the eidos corresponding to , as is proved in Theorem 19 of this Book, and as for the ratio
pl., to the sum of sq. and sq., it is equal to the ratio of sq. to
[the sum of] the squares on two sides of the eidos corresponding to .
339

Furthermore we make not smaller than , then the sum sq. and
sq. is notgreater the sum of sq. and sq.. Therefore the ratio pl..
to the sum of sq. and sq. is greater than the ratio pl., to the sum of
sq. and sq.. Therefore it will be proved thence also, as we proved in the
preceding part of this theorem, that [the sum of] the squares on two sides of
the eidos corresponding to is smaller than [the sum of] the squares on two
sides of the eidos corresponding to .
Similarly too what we stated will be proved if the perpendicular drawn
from falls between and or on itself for in every case turns out to be
smaller than the distance which the perpendicular [] cuts off from it [the major axis towards and ].
Now the ratio pl. to the sum of sq. and sq. is equal to the ratio
of sq. to [the sum of] the squares on two sides of the eidos corresponding
to , as we proved in the first part of this theorem, and the ratio pl., to
the sum of sq. and sq. is equal to the ratio of sq. to [the sum of] the
squares on two sides of the eidos corresponding to , as is proved in Theorem
19 of this Book. Therefore it will be proved thence, as we proved above, that
[the sum of] the squares on two sides of the eidos corresponding to is
smaller than [the sum of] the squares on two sides of the eidos corresponding
to .
[Proposition] 48

If there is an ellipse, and the square on its major axis is greater than the
half of the square on the sum of two sides of the eidos corresponding to it,
then there are two diameters [one] on either side of the axis, such that the
square on each of them is equal to the half of the square on the sum of two
sides of the eidos corresponding to it, and [the sum of] the square on two sides
of the eidos corresponding to it is smaller thin [the sum of] the squares on two
sides of [any of] other eidoi corresponding to diameters drawn in that quadrant
in which [that diameter] is, and [the sum of] the squares on two sides of eidoi
corresponding to those diameters in that quadrant closer to it is smaller than
[the sum of] the squares on two sides of eidoi corresponding to those diameters farther [from it] 63.
Let the diagram be as we drew it in the theorem preceding this one.
Then it will be proved, as it was proved there, that the double sq. is
greater than sq.. We make the double sq. equal to sq., and drop from

340

the perpendicular to the axis to meet the section, and join , and draw
in the section the diameter parallel to .
Then the ratio to is equal to the ratio of to [the sum of] two
sides of the eidos corresponding to it, as is drawn from the proof of Theorem 7
of this Book. And therefore the ratio sq. to sq. is equal to the ratio of
sq. to the square on the sum of two sides of the eidos corresponding to it.
But sq. is equal to the half of sq. .Therefore sq. is equal to the half of
the square on [the sum of] two sides of the sides of the eidos corresponding to
it.
Therefore we draw two diameters and between and , and draw
from two straight lines and [respectively] parallel to them, and drop to
the axis the perpendiculars and .
Now sq. is equal to the half sq., and pl. also is equal to the half
of sq.. Therefore pl. is equal to sq.. Therefore pl. is equal to
pl.. And when we subtract two smaller [members] from two greater [members] , we get the ratio of the remainder to the remainder equal to the
ratio of the whole to the whole . Therefore pl., is equal to pl..
Therefore pl., is greater than pl., ,and the double pl., is
greater than the double pl.,. Therefore the quadruple pl. is greater
than the double pl., .
We make the double pl. common [to both sides], then the sum of the
quadruple pl. and the double pl. is greater than the double pl..
Furthermore we make the quadruple sq. common [to both sides], then
the sum of the quadruple pl. , the double pl., and the quadruple sq.
is greater than the sum of the double pl. and the quadruple sq..
But the sum of the quadruple , the double pl., and the quadruple
sq. is equal to the double [rectangular plane] under and the sum of
and , and the sum of the double pl. and the quadruple sq. is equal to
the sum of sq. and sq.. Therefore the double [rectangular plane] under
and the sum of and is greater than the sum of sq. and sq.. And
therefore the ratio the double [rectangular plane] under Mi and the sum of
and to the double [rectangular plane] under and the sum of and
is smaller than the double [rectangular plane] under and the sum of and
to the sum of sq. and sq.. Therefore the ratio to is smaller
than the double [rectangular plane] under and the sum of and to the
sum of sq. and sq..

341

But the sum of sq. and sq. is greater than the sum of sq. and
sq. by an amount equal to the double the [rectangular plane] under and
the sum of and .
Therefore componendo the ratio to is smaller than the ratio the
sum of sq. and sq. to the sum of sq. and sq.. Then it will be proved
thence, as it was proved in the preceding theorem, that [the sum of] the
squares on two sides of the eidos corresponding to is smaller than [the sum
of] the squares on two sides of the eidos corresponding to .
Furthermore the double pl., is greater than the double pl.,,
therefore it will be proved thence, as we proved in the preceding part of this
theorem, that the sum of the squares on two sides of the eidos corresponding
to is smaller than the sum of the squares on two sides of the eidos corresponding to .
Furthermore the double pl., is greater than the double pl.,
therefore it will be proved thence that the ratio to is smaller than the ratio the sum of sq. and sq. to the sum of sq. and sq..
But the ratio to is equal to the ratio pl., to pl.,. Therefore the ratio pl., to pl., is smaller than the ratio the sum of
sq. and sq. to the sum of sq. and sq.. Therefore it will be proved
thence, as we proved previously, that [the sum of] the squares on two sides of
the eidos corresponding to is smaller than [the sum of] the squares on two
sides of the eidos corresponding to .
Furthermore we draw in the section in those two quadrants [in which the
diameters are already drawn] two other diameters and farther from the
major axis than is the diameter , and draw from two straight lines and
parallel to them, and drop to the axis two perpendiculars and , it will be
proved by means of a procedure like the preceding, that [the sum of] the
squares on two sides of the eidos corresponding to is smaller than [the sum
of] the squares on two sides of the eidos corresponding to , and that [the
sum of] these [latter] two squares is smaller than [the sum of] the squares on
two sides of the eidos corresponding to , whether and are both between
and , or whether one of them is on the center and the other between
and or between and .
Hence [the sum of] the squares on two sides of the eidos corresponding
to equal in square to the half of the square on [the sum of] two sides of the
eidos corresponding to it is smaller than [the sum of] the squares on two sides
of any of the eidoi corresponding to other diameters drawn in the two quad342

rants and , and [the sum of] the squares on two sides of those eidoi corresponding to the diameters drawn in two quadrants and closer to it
[] is smaller than [the sum of] the squares on two sides of those eidoi corresponding to the diameters farther [from it].
Therefore [the sum of] the squares on two sides of the eidos corresponding to turns out to be greater than the sum of the squares on two sides of
the eidoi corresponding to any of the remaining diameters.
[Proposition] 49

If there is a hyperbola, and the transverse side of the eidos corresponding


to its axis is greater than its latus rectum, then the difference between the
squares on two sides of that eidos is smaller than the difference between the
squares on two sides of any of the eidoi corresponding to other diameters, and
the difference between the squares on two sides of those eidoi corresponding
to diameters closer [to the axis] is smaller than the difference between the
squares on two sides of those eidoi corresponding to diameters farther from it,
and the difference between the squares on two sides of any of the eidoi corresponding to diameters which are not axes is greater than the difference between the square on the axis and the eidos64 corresponding to it, but smaller
than double that difference.
Let there be the hyperbola whose axis and center , and let be
greater than the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it.
And let each of the ratios to and to be equal to the ratio of
to the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it. We draw two diameters
and .
Then I say that the difference between sq. and the square on its latus
rectum is smaller than the difference between sq. and the square on the
latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to , and that the difference between
sq. and the square on its latus rectum is smaller than the difference between
sq. and the square on its latus rectum.
[Proof]. We draw and parallel to the diameters and [respectively], and drop to the axis the perpendiculars and . Then the ratio of
to its latus rectum is equal to the ratio to and also is equal to the ratio
to . Therefore the ratio pl., to the difference between sq. and
sq. is equal to the ratio of sq. to the difference between it [sq.] and the
square on its latus rectum.

343

Now the ratio to is smaller than the ratio to . Therefore the


ratio to is smaller than the ratio the sum of and to the sum of
and which is smaller than the ratio [the rectangular plane] under and
the sum of and to [the rectangular plane] under and the sum of
and . But the ratio to is equal to the ratio pl., to pl.,.
Therefore the ratio pl., to pl., is smaller than [the rectangular
plane] under and the sum of and to [the rectangular plane] under
and the sum of and .
Now as for [the rectangular plane] under and the sum and , it
is equal to the difference between sq. and sq., and as for [the rectangular
plane] under and the sum and , it is equal to the difference between
sq. and sq.. Therefore the ratio pl., to pl., is smaller than the
ratio the difference between sq. and sq. to the difference between sq.
and sq.
And permutando the ratio pl., to the difference between sq. and
sq. is smaller than pl., to the difference between sq. and sq..
But as for the ratio pl., to the difference between sq. and sq., it is
equal to the ratio of sq. to the difference between the squares on two sides
of the eidos corresponding to , as is proved in Theorem 20 of this Book, and
as for the ratio pl., to the difference between sq. and sq., we have
shown that it is equal to the ratio of sq. to the difference between the
square on it [] and the square on the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding
to it. Therefore the ratio of sq. to the difference between the squares on two
sides of the eidos corresponding to is smaller than its ratio to the difference
between the squares on two sides of the eidos corresponding to . Therefore,
the difference between the squares on two sides of the eidos corresponding to
is greater than the difference between the squares on two sides of the eidos
corresponding to .
Furthermore, the ratio to is smaller than to ; therefore the
ratio to is smaller than the ratio of the sum of and to the sum of
and . Therefore it will be proved thence, as we proved above, that the
difference between the squares on two sides of the eidos corresponding to
is greater than the difference between the squares on two sides of the eidos
corresponding to .
Furthermore we make the straight line equal to the latus rectum of
the eidos corresponding to , then the difference between sq. and sq. is
equal to the sum of the double pl. and sq.. Therefore the difference be344

tween sq. and sq. is greater than pl. and is smaller than the double
pl.. But pl. is equal to the difference between sq. and the eidos
corresponding to it, and the difference between sq. and the eidos corresponding to it is equal to the difference between sq. and the eidos corresponding , as is proved in Theorem 29 of this Book.
Therefore de difference between sq. and the square on the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it is greater than the difference between
sq. and the eidos corresponding to it, but is smaller than the double that difference.
[Proposition] 50

If there is a hyperbola, and the transverse side of the eidos corresponding to its axis is smaller than its latus rectum, then the difference between the
squares on two sides of the eidos corresponding to the axis is greater than the
difference between the squares on two sides of any of the eidoi corresponding
to the diameters other than it, and the difference between the squares on two
sides of those eidoi corresponding to the diameters closer to the axis is greater
than the difference between the squares on two sides of those eidoi corresponding to the diameters farther from it, and the difference between the
square on any of those diameters and the square on the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it is greater than the double difference between the
square on the axis and the eidos corresponding to the axis 65.
Let the axis of the hyperbola be , and let each of the ratios to
and to be equal to the ratio of to its latus rectum, and we make the
rest of the diagram which preceded in the theorem before this remain the same.
Then the ratio pl., to the difference between sq. and sq. is
equal to the ratio of sq. to the difference between sq. and the square on
the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it. And the ratio to is
greater than the ratio to . Therefore the ratio to is greater than
the ratio of the sum and to the sum of and . Therefore the ratio
pl., to pl., is greater than the ratio of the sum and to the
sum of and .
But the ratio of the sum of and to the sum of and is equal
to the ratio pl., the sum of and to pl., the sum of and .
Therefore the ratio pl., to pl., is greater than the ratio pl., the sum
of and to pl., the sum of and .
345

Therefore it will proved thence by [a method] similar to that which we


used above that the difference between sq. and the square on the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it is smaller than the difference between
sq. and the square on the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it.
Then we make equal to the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to
. Therefore pl. is equal to the difference between sq. and the eidos
corresponding to because of what was proved in Theorem 29 of this Book.
And the difference between sq. and sq. equal to the sum of the
double pl. and sq., which is greater than the double pl..
Therefore the difference between the squares on two sides of the eidos
corresponding to is greater than the double difference between sq. and
the eidos corresponding to .
[Proposition] 51

The difference between the squares on two sides of the eidos corresponding to the major axis of an ellipse is greater than the difference between
the squares on two sides of any eidos corresponding to other diameters which
are greater than the latus rectum of the eidoi corresponding to them, and the
difference between the squares on two sides of those eidoi constructed to
those of these diameters closer to the major axis is greater than the difference
between the squares on two sides of those eidoi corresponding to those diameters farther from it, and the difference between the squares on two sides of the
eidos corresponding to its minor axis is greater than the difference between the
squares on two sides of any eidos corresponding to other diameters which are
smaller than the latera recta of the eidoi corresponding to them, and the difference between the squares on two sides of those eidoi corresponding to those
of these diameters closer to the minor axis is greater than the difference between the squares on two sides on those eidoi corresponding to the diameters
farther from it.
Let there be the ellipse whose major axis and minor axis , and one
of two equal conjugate diameters . Let two diameters and be drawn
between and , and let and [respectively] be parallel to them, and let
there be dropped to the axis the perpendiculars and .
We construct in the diagram [elements] corresponding to the constructions in the hyperbola in the theorem preceding this.
Then I sat that the amount by which sq. is greater than the square on
the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it is greater than the amount by
which sq. is greater than the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it,
346

and that the latter amount is greater than the amount by which sq. is
greater than the square on the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it.
[Proof]. The ratio to is smaller than the ratio to . Therefore
the ratio pl., to pl., is smaller than the ratio the double pl.. to
the double pl.,.
But as for the double pl., , it is equal to the difference between
sq. and sq., and as for the double pl., , it is equal to the difference
between sq. and sq.. Therefore the ratio pl., to pl., is smaller
than the ratio the difference between sq. and sq. to the difference between sq. and sq..
And permutando the ratio pl., to the difference between sq. and
sq. is smaller than pl., to the difference between sq. and sq. .
But as for the ratio pl., to the difference between sq. and sq.,
it is equal to the ratio of sq. to the difference between it [sq.] and the
square on the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it because each of the
ratios to and to is equal to the ratio of to its latus rectum because both and are homologues. And as for the ratio pl.. to the difference between sq. and sq., it is equal to the ratio of sq. to the difference between sq. and the square on the latus rectum on the eidos corresponding to it, as is proved in Theorem 20 of this Book. Therefore the ratio of
sq. to the difference between it and the square on the latus rectum of the
eidos corresponding to it is smaller than the ratio of sq. to the difference
between sq. and the square on the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding
to it therefore the difference between the squares on two sides of the eidos
corresponding to is greater than the difference between the squares on two
sides of the eidos corresponding to .
Furthermore we will prove, as we proved in the preceding part of this
theorem, that the ratio pl., to pl., is smaller than the ratio the difference between sq. and sq. to the difference between sq. and sq..
And permutando the ratio pl., to the difference between sq. and
sq. is smaller than the ratio pl., to the difference between sq. and
sq. .
And it will be proved thence that the difference between the squares on
two sides of the eidos corresponding to is greater than the difference between the squares on two sides of the eidos corresponding to .
Furthermore we draw two diameters and between and , and
draw from two straight lines and parallel to them, and drop to the axis
perpendiculars and , then I say that the difference between sq. and the
347

square on the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it is greater than the
difference between sq. and the square on the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it, and that this [latter] difference is greater than the difference
between sq. and the square on the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding
to it.
[Proof]. The ratio pl., to pl., is greater than the ratio to
because is greater than and is smaller than , and the ratio to
is equal to the ratio the double pl., to the double pl., .
Now as for the double pl., , it is equal to the difference between
sq. and sq., and as for the double pl., , it is equal to the difference
between sq. and sq. . Therefore the ratio pl., to pl., is greater
than the ratio the difference between sq. and sq. to the difference between sq. and sq. .
And permutando the ratio pl., to the difference between sq. and
sq. is greater than the ratio pl., to the difference between sq. and
sq. .
Therefore it will be proved thence, by [a method] similar to that which we
used above, that the ratio of sq. to the difference between sq. and the
square on the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to is greater than the
ratio of sq. to the difference between sq. and the square on the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it []. Therefore the difference between
sq. and the square on the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it is
greater than the difference between sq. and the square on the latus rectum
of the eidos corresponding to it.
Furthermore the ratio to is greater than the ratio to because is greater than and is smaller than , therefore the ratio
pl., to pl. is greater than the ratio the double pl., to the double
pl.,, and it will be proved thence, as we proved previously, that the difference between sq. and the square on the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it is greater than the difference between sq. and the square on
the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it.

348

APOLLONIUS OF PERGACONICS. BOOKS ONE - SEVEN


INTRODUCTION
A. Apollonius at Perga
Apollonius was born at Perga () on the Southern coast of Asia Minor, near the modern Turkish city of Bursa. Little is known about his life before
he arrived in Alexandria, where he studied. Certain information about Apollonius
life in Asia Minor can be obtained from his preface to Book 2 of Conics.
The name Apollonius(Apollonius) means devoted to Apollo, similarly
to Artemius or Demetrius meaning devoted to Artemis or Demeter.
In the mentioned preface Apollonius writes to Eudemus of Pergamum that
he sends him one of the books of Conics via his son also named Apollonius. The
coincidence shows that this name was traditional in the family, and in all probability Apollonius ancestors were priests of Apollo.
Asia Minor during many centuries was for Indo-European tribes a bridge to
Europe from their pre-fatherland south of the Caspian Sea.
The Indo-European nation living in Asia Minor in 2nd and the beginning of the
1st millennia B.C. was usually called Hittites.
Hittites are mentioned in the Bible and in Egyptian papyri. A military
leader serving under the Biblical king David was the Hittite Uriah. His wife Bathsheba, after his death, became the wife of king David and the mother of king
Solomon.
Hittites had a cuneiform writing analogous to the Babylonian one and hieroglyphs analogous to Egyptian ones.
The Czech historian Bedrich Hrozny (1879-1952) who has deciphered
Hittite cuneiform writing had established that the Hittite language belonged to
the Western group of Indo-European languages [Hro]. Hence it is clear that such
nations of Europe as Greeks and Romans, Galls and Goths, Slavies and Lithuanians were descendants of Hittite tribes. As the masculine words in the most ancient of these languages have the endings of -os, -us, -as, -es, -is, the Hittite
masculine words had ending of -ash, -ush, -ish.
The Hittite word vadar for water is near to the Russian and Czech
voda, English water, German Wasser, and Greek . The Hittite word
pahhur for fire is near to the English word fire, German Feuer, and Greek
. The Hittite word gordion for town is near to Russian gorod and
ograda, Czech hrad, English garden, and German Garten. The Hittite
0

word eshmi for I am is near to Russian yesm , Czech jsem, Latin sum,
Greek and English I am.
In the first millennium B.C., after migration of Hittite tribes from the East
to the west of Asia Minor and to Europe, the Hittite Empire disintegrated and
many separate Hittite kingdoms appeared. The most important of these kingdoms were situated in the Western part of Asia Minor. The most famous cities
of these Hittite kingdoms were Ilion in Troy, Pergamum in Moesia, Sardis in
Lydia, Gordion in Phrygia, and Myres in Lycia. The king of Lydia Croeses was famous for his richness; with the name of the king of Phrygia Gordias was connected the legend of Gordias knot. City of Pergamum was the first city where
pergament was made.
In the same millennium on the Jonian coast of Asia Minor the Greek cities
Miletus, Ephesus and others appeared.
During the Greek - Persian wars all of Asia Minor was occupied by the Persians. After the victory of Greeks all Hittite states of Asia Minor became Greek
states. In this period Pergamum was the cultural and scientific center of Asia
Minor.
Later all these states were conquered by Romans and became provinces
of the Roman Empire. After the division of this empire into Western and Eastern
parts, Asia Minor entered into Byzantium. In 14-15th centuries Asia Minor was
conquered by Turks and entered into Turkey.
The Greek state where the city Perga was located had the name Pamphylia. This name, as well as its Hittite prototype, meant belonging to all
tribes. This name shows that Pamphylia played an exclusive role among Hittite
states.
It is explained by the fact that main shrines common for all Hittite tribes
were situated there. B.Hrozny proved that Greeks borrowed from Hittites the
cults of the god of thunder, Zavaya, the god of Sun, Apulunash, and his sistertwin goddess of Moon, Artimu, whom they called Zeus, Apollo and Artemis [Hro,
p.147].
The Hittite name Perga is near to Greek and German Burg
and means tower, castle; in the original sense of the word perga, rock, is
near to German Berg - mountain. This word was connected with the words
perunash and perginash meaning god of thunder, destroyer of rocks. The
word perga enters in the name of the city Pergamum.
Hittite Perga was the center of the cults of Zavaya, Apulunash, and Artimu.
When Perga became a Greek town, the main shrines of Zeus and Apollo
were moved to Olympia and Delphi, and the main shrine of Artemis was left in
1

Perga. The other shrine of Artemis, one of the Seven Wonders of the World,
was also situated in Asia Minor at Ephesus.
Herodotus in his History wrote that kings of some Hittite states sent rich
gifts to the Apollos shrine in Delphi, where the shrine was situated in his time.
No doubt that they in fact sent their gifts into Perga.
It is very probable that Apollonius kin comes from priests of Apulunash.
B. Apollonius at Ephesus
In the preface to Book 2 of Conics, Apollonius writes to Eudemus of Pergamum that he sends him his son Apollonius bringing the second book of Conics. He asks Eudemus to acquaint with this book Philonides, the geometer,
whom Apollonius introduced to Eudemus in Ephesus, if ever he happens to be
about Pergamum.
German historian Cronert [Cro] reports that Philonides was a student of
Eudemus, mathematician and philosopher - Epicurean, who later worked at the
court of Seleucid kings Antioch IV Epiphanus (183-175 B.C.) and Demetrius I
Soter (162-150 B.C.).
Eudemus was the first teacher of Philonides. No doubt that Eudemus was
also the teacher of Apollonius at Ephesus, and it is natural that Apollonius sent
him his main work.
When Apollonius finished his study at Ephesus, Eudemus recommended
that he continue his study at Alexandria.
C. Apollonius at Alexandria
Apollonius teachers at Alexandria were pupils of Euclid. In the preface to
Book 1 of Conics, Apollonius writes that he composed this work at Alexandria.
Apollonius nickname in this scientific capital of the Hellenistic world was
Epsilon. Since the nickname of Eratosthenes was Beta, it is clear that the
most great Alexandria mathematicians had as nicknames the first letters of the
Greek alphabet: Euclid - Alpha, Archimedes - Gamma, and Conon of Samos Delta
Apollonius first works were on astronomy. Claudius Ptolemy quotes in
Chapter 1 of Book 12 of Almagest Apollonius non-extant work on equivalence
of epicyclic and eccentric hypotheses of motion of planets. This quotation
shows that Apollonius was one of the initiators of the theory of motion of planets by means of deferents and epicycles presented in Almagest.

Further works of Apollonius were devoted to mathematics. Since his main


work Conics and many treatises were on geometry, Apollonius was called at Alexandria Great Geometer.
D. Conic sections before Apollonius
The appearance of conic sections was also connected with the cult of
Apollo. There sections were used for solving the so-called Delic problem of duplication of cube.
This problem was connected with following legend: on the island Delos,
believed to be the place of birth of Apollo and Artemis, a plague epidemic broke
out. The inhabitants of the island appealed to the shrine of Apollo at Delphi for
aid. The priests of the shrine told them that they must duplicate the cubic altar
of the shrine. The Delians made the second cube equal to the first one and
stood over it, but the plague did not cease. Then the priests told that the double altar must be cubic like the old one. If the edge of the old altar was equal to
a, the edge of the new altar must be equal to the root of the equation
x3 = 2a3 .

(0.1)

It is possibly that the legend on the duplication of Apollos cubic altar appeared earlier when the main shrine of Apollo was at Perga.
The problem of duplication of a cube was solved by some Greek mathematicians of the 4th c. B.C. Menaechmus found that this problem can be reduced to the finding two mean proportionals between a and b, that is
a:x=x:y=y:b

(0.2)

for b = 2a.
Menaechmus found that the solution x of equation (0.1) is equal to the
abscissa of the point of intersection of two parabolas x2 = ay and y2 = 2ax or of
one of these parabolas with the hyperbola xy = 2a2.
Menaechmus defined a parabola as the section of the surface of a right
circular cone with right angle at its vertex by a plane orthogonal to a rectilinear
generator of the cone, and a hyperbola as the analogous section of the surface
of a right circular cone with obtuse angle at its vertex. The equations of these
conic sections are determined by equalities (0.2).
The works of Menaechmus are lost. The first known titles of works on
conic sections are On Solid Loci ( ) by Aristaeus and Elements
3

of Conics ( ) by Euclid. Both of these works are also non-extant,


but it is known that Aristaeus work consisted of 5 books and Euclids work consisted of 4 books.
Ancient mathematicians used the word locus for lines and surfaces.
Modern mathematicians regard lines and surfaces as sets of points, but this
viewpoint was impossible for ancient scientists because they could not conceive
that a set of points having no sizes has a non-zero length or a non-zero area.
Aristotle wrote in his Physics: Nothing that is continuous can be composed of
indivisible parts: e.g., a line cannot be composed of points, the line being continuous and the point indivisible [Ar, p. 231a]. Therefore ancient mathematicians regarded lines and surfaces only as loci (), that is places for points.
Greek mathematicians called straight lines and circumferences of circles
that can be drawn by a ruler and compass plane loci and conic sections they
called solid loci.
Conic sections are considered in many works of Archimedes who called a
parabola a section of right-angled cone, single branch of a hyperbola - a section of obtuse-angled cone, and an ellipse - a section of acute-angled cone.
Archimedes called a paraboloid of revolution a right-angled conoid and a single
sheet of a hyperboloid of revolution of two sheets an obtuse-angled conoid.
No doubt that Menaechmus, Aristaeus, and Euclid used the same names of conic
sections.
The equations of parabolas used by Menaechmus for solving the Delic
problem are particular cases of the equation
y2 = 2px

(0.3)

in the system of rectangular coordinates whose axis 0x is the axis of


symmetry of this parabola and whose axis 0y is the tangent to this parabola at
its vertex. The magnitude p is now called the parameter of the parabola.
Euclid in Prop. II.14 of Elements proves that if is an arbitrary point of
the circumference of a circle with the diameter , and is the basis of the
perpendicular dropped from onto , the line is mean proportional between and , that is : = :. If we denote = x, = x,
= y, we obtain the equation
y2 = xx

(0.4)

of the circumference with two abscissas in the system of rectangular


coordinates whose axis 0x = and axes 0y and 0y are tangents to the circumference at the points and .
Archimedes in Prop. I.4 of his treatise On Conoids and Spheroids proves
that an ellipse can be obtained from a circumference of a circle by the contraction to its diameter in the direction perpendicular to this diameter
x = x , y = ky

(0.5)

where k < 1. Therefore the equation with two abscissas of an ellipse in


the system of rectangular coordinates whose axis 0x is the major axis of the ellipse and axes of ordinates are tangents to the ellipse at the ends of its major
axis has the form
y2 = k2xx .

(0.6)

The branch of a hyperbola used by Menaechmus in the system of rectangular coordinates whose axes are asymptotes of the hyperbola is determined by
the equation xy = const. In another system of rectangular coordinates, whose
axis 0x is the axis of symmetry of the hyperbola, and axes of ordinates are tangents to both branches of the hyperbola at their vertices, this hyperbola is determined by equation (0.4).
An arbitrary hyperbola can be obtained from the equilateral hyperbola
used by Menaechmus by transformation (0.5), which is a contraction to the axis
of symmetry of this hyperbola for k <1 and a dilatation from this axis for k >1.
Therefore the equation with two abscissas of an arbitrary hyperbola in the system of rectangular coordinates whose axis 0x is the axis of symmetry of the
hyperbola and the axes of ordinates are tangents to both branches of the hyperbola at their vertices has form (0.6).
Archimedes determined ellipses and hyperbolas by equations (0.6).
If the major axis of an ellipse and the real axis of a hyperbola are equal to
2a and the minor axis of an ellipse and the imaginary axis of a hyperbola are
equal to 2b, the coefficient k in equations (0.6) is equal to b/a. in the case of
the ellipse x= 2a - x and in the case of the hyperbola x = 2a + x.
Therefore these equations have the form
y2 = (b2/a2)x(2a - x)
for the ellipse and
5

(0.7)

y2 = (b2/a2)x(2a + x) .

(0.8)

for the hyperbola. If we denote b2/a = p, equations (0.7) of an ellipse


can be rewritten as
y2 = 2px - (p/a)x2 ,

(0.9)

equations (0.8) of a hyperbola can be rewritten as


y2 = 2px + (p/a)x2 .

(0.10)

Equations (0.9) and (0.10) are given in the systems of the rectangular
coordinates whose axis 0x is the major axis of the ellipse and the real axis
of the hyperbola, and whose axis 0y is tangent to the ellipse at the left end of
its major axis and tangent to the hyperbola at the right end of its real axis.
Magnitudes p in these equations are called parameters of the ellipse and hyperbola.
E. Structure of Conics
Apollonius Conics consisted of 8 books. Books 1-4 are extant in Greek
original, Books 5-7 are extant only in medieval Arabic translations by Thabit ibn
Qurra edited by his teachers Ahmad and al-Hasan banu Musa ibn Shakir, Book 8
is lost.
The books of Conics consist of prefaces addressed to Eudemus or Attalus
of Pergamum, definitions, and propositions.
Apollonius propositions, like propositions of Euclids Elements, are theorems or problems.
In the beginning of every proposition, its general statement in italic and
its formulation with notations of points and lines are given. The formulations of
propositions Apollonius begins with the words - I say.
After that, the proof of a theorem or the solution of a problem follows. In
beginning of the solution of every problem its analysis is given, where known
points and lines are indicated; next, the synthesis, that is the required construction, is described.
Apollonius style is very concise, therefore the translators insert in the
text explanatory words in brackets and references to Euclid and Apollonius
propositions in parentheses.
6

F. Editions of Conics
The most important editions of Apollonius Conics are:
[Ap1] - the first Latin translation of Books 1-4 published by Federigo
Commandino (1509-1575).
[Ap 2] - the Greek text of Books 1-4 and the Latin translation of all 7
books published by Edmund Halley (1656-1742).
[Ap 3] - the critical Greek text of Books 1-4 established by Johan Ludvig
Heiberg (1854-1928) and published by him with the Latin translation.
[Ap 4] - the English translation of Books 1-3 by Robert Catesby Taliaferro
(1907-1987) published by Encyclopedia Britannica in the Great Books of the
Western World series. The translation of Book 1 was first published in 1939 by
St. Johns College at Annapolis in The Classics of the St. Johns Program series.
[Ap 5] - the revised edition of the translation [Ap4] published by Dana
Densmore and William H. Donahue.
[Ap 6] - the English translation of Book 4 by Michael N. Fried (b. 1960). This
translation was first published as Appendix to the book [FU](pp.416 -485).
[Ap 7] - the critical Arabic text of Books 5-7 established by Gerald James
Toomer (b. 1934) and published by him with the English translation and commentary
Critical Arabic text is based on 3 manuscripts: Oxford one, translated by
Halley; Istanbul one, published in [Ap12]; and Teheran one.
[Ap 8] - the detailed English exposition of all 7 books on the basis of the
editions [Ap 2] and [Ap3] published by Thomas Little Heath (18611940).
[Ap9] - commented French translation of all 7 books published by Paul Ver
Eecke.
[Ap10] - German translation of Books 1- 4 published by Arthur Czwalina.
[Ap11] - the Greek text of Heiberg reproduced and published with the
Modern Greek translation of all 7 books by Euangelos Stamatis (1898-1990).
[Ap12] - facsimile edition of the Istanbul manuscript of the medieval Arabic translation of all 7 books by Hilal al-Himsi and Thabit ibn Qurra copied by the
famous mathematician and physicist al-Hasan Ibn al-Haytham (965-ca.1050)
prepared by Nazim Terzioglu (1912- 1976).
[Ap13] - commented Russian translation of 20 propositions by I. Yagodinsky
(1928).
[Ap14] - commented Russian translation of all 7 books published by B. A.
Rosenfeld - in press.
7

Many mathematicians undertook attempts of restoration of Book 8. Let


us mention the attempt by Ibn al-Haytham [IH] published with the English translation by Jan Pieter Hogendijk (b.1955) and the attempt by Halley added to his
translation [Ap2].
Let us mention the excellent exposition of Apollonius Conics: [Ze] The Theory of Conic Sections in Antiquity by Hieronymus Georg Zeuthen
(1839-1920).
[Hea, pp.126-196] - in the book A History of Greek Mathematics by T.L.
Heath.
[VdW, pp.241-261] - in the book The Science Awakening by Bartel
Leendert Van der Waerden (1903-1996).
[VZ, pp.97-108] - in the book History of Mathematics by Michail E. Vashchenko-Zakharchenko (1825-1912).
[IM, pp.129-139] - in the book History of Mathematics from most ancient
times to beginning of 19th century, vol.1 by Adolf P. Yushkevich (1906-1993).
[Too] - the article Apollonius of Perga by G. J. Toomer. See also Introduction to
his edition [Ap7],
[FU] Apollonius of Pergas Conica. Text, Context, Subtext by M.N.Fried
and Sabetai Unguru.
[Rho] - Apollonius of Perga, Doctoral Thesis by Diana L. Rodes (2005)
[Ro3] - Apollonius of Perga (in Russian by B.A.Rosenfeld 2003). See also
his article [Ro4].
G. Other mathematical works of Apollonius
Besides Conics Apollonius was the author of following mathematical
works:
1) Cutting off of a ratio ( ) in two books.
2) Cutting off of an area ( ) in two books.
3) Determinate section ( ) two books.
4) Inclinations () in two books.
5) Tangencies () in two books
6) Plane loci ( ) in two books.
7) Comparison of dodecahedron and isocahedron
( ).
8) On non-ordered irrationals ( ).
9) Rapid obtaining of a result ().
10) Screw lines ().
11) Treatise on great numbers.
8

12) General treatise ( ).


From these works only treatise (1) is extant in medieval Arabic translation. There are the Latin translation [Ap15] by E. Halley and the English translation [Ap16] by E.M.Macierowski of this treatise.
The short expositions of treatises (1) - (6) are given by Pappus of Alexandria (3rd c. A.D.) in Book 7 of Mathematical Collection [Pa, pp. 510 -546;
Ap11, vol.1, pp.100 - 120].
The fragments of medieval Arabic translations of these treatises and English translations of these fragments are published by J.P.Hogendijk [Ho].
In works (1) and (2) the following problems are solved: given two straight
lines and with fixed points and , to find two points and , such that,
in the case of treatise (1), the ratio / would be equal to the given ratio,
and, in the case of treatise (2), the product . would be equal to the given
area.
In treatise (3) the problems of the following type are solved: given four
points , , , on a straight line, to find a point such that ratio
./. would have the given or an extremal value. The last problem is
equivalent to the problem of determining an extremum of a function that is a
ratio of two quadratic polynomials.
In work (4) the problems equivalent to quadratic and cubic equations are
solved by geometrical means called inclinations.
In treatise (5) the problem of construction of a circle tangent to given
objects of three kinds, which can be circles, straight lines, and points, is solved.
In treatise (6) theorems on plane loci, which is on circles and straight
lines, are proven. In this treatise, homotheties, inversions with respect to circles, and other transformations mapping plane loci to plane loci are considered.
There is only the commentary on work (7) by Hypsicles (2nd -1st c. B.C.)
added to Euclids Elements as Book 14 [Ap11, vol.1, pp.60-66]. In this work,
Aristaeus treatise Comparison of five solids is mentioned, where the theorem,
that if a cube and a regular octahedron are inscribed in the same sphere, then
as their volumes are one to the other, so their surfaces are one to the other, is
proven. Apollonius proves analogous theorem on regular dodecahedron and
icosahedron inscribed in the same sphere.
The commentary by Pappus on the work (8) is extant only in the medieval
Arabic translation [Ap11, vol.1, pp. 134-144]. This commentary shows that in
this treatise, besides quadratic irrationals considered in Book 10 of Euclids Elements, cubic and higher irrationals are also considered.
Work (9) is mentioned by Eutocius (6th c. A.D.) on Archimedes Measuring
a circle [Ap11, vol.1, p. 48]. This information shows that in the treatise, the
9

approximate value of the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter


was found in a more rapid way than in Archimedes work.
The work (10) is mentioned by Proclus Diadochus (5th c. A.D.) in his
commentary on Book 1 of Euclids Elements [Ap11, vol.1, p. 144]. According to
this information, in the work (10) screw lines in the surface of a right circular
cylinder are considered.
The commentary by Pappus on the work (11) is extant in Book 2 of his
Mathematical Collection [Ap.11, vol.1, pp. 70-72]. The beginning of this book
containing the title of the work (11) is lost. The commentary shows that in this
work a system of names of great numbers was proposed, which later was improved by Archimedes in Psammites.
The work (12) is mentioned by Marinus (5th c. A.D.) in his commentary to
Euclids Data together with Apollonius Inclinations [Ap11, vol.1, pp.68-70]
Therefore it is clear that this work is geometrical. Probably, in it, like in Inclinations, problems equivalent to algebraic equations were solved by geometrical
methods. The title of the work (12) shows that these methods were more general than inclination. Probably, in this work Apollonius described the methods
used by him for obtaining proportions from which he derived in Prop. I.11 - I.13
of Conics equations of parabola, hyperbola and ellipse and proportions equivalent to algebraic equations of evolutes of conics given by him in Prop. V.51 and
V.52.
Some mathematicians of Western Europe undertook attempts to restore
lost works of Apollonius. F.Viete (1540-1603) in [Vi] and M.Ghetaldi (15661622) in [Ghe1] restored Tangencies. Ghetaldi in [Ghe2] - Inclinations. F.van
Schooten (1615-1660) [Sch] and P.Fermat (1601-1665)[Fe] -Plane loci.
H. Letters and their numerical values
The Greek alphabet of the classic epoch consisted of 24 letters, which
had following numerical values:
, -- alpha=1, , -- bta=2, , -- gamma=3, , -- delta =4, , -- epsilon=5,
, -- zta=7, , -- ta= 8, , -- theta=9, , -- iota=10, , -- kappa=20, , -lambda=30, , -- mu=40, , -- nu=50, , -- xi =60, , -- omicron=70, , -pi=80, , -- rho=100, , -- sigma=200, , -- tau=300, , -- upsilon=400,
, -- phi=500, , -- chi= 600, , -- psi=700, , -- omga=800. Numbers 6,
90, 900 were represented by 3 archaic letters -- wau, -- koppa, sabi or
sampi.
The last of these letters was not in use in the most ancient times, the
first and second ones were used during the time when the Latin alphabet was
10

created, on the base of the Greek one. From them, Latin letters F and Q were
derived.
The numbers 1000, 2000,3000, etc. were represented by , ,
, etc.
Apollonius used these letters for numbering propositions in Conics.
Claudius Ptolemy, who borrowed from Babylonian astronomers not only
information on their observations but also sexagesimal fractions, used these letters from =1 to =59 for recording of sexagesimal fractions. Zero in these
fractions was denoted by the first letter of the word -- nothing, hence
our figure 0 came.
The Greek letters and their names came from Phoenician letters. These
letters were invented in the city of Biblos where Egyptians imported Lebanese
cedars. Phoencians replaced Egyptian hieroglyphs denoted the things imaging
by them by the letters denoting the first sounds of the names of these things.
Phoenician letters are images of things whose names begin from these letters,
for instance, the letter aleph meaning bull head, has the form of the turned
A, and hence Greek alfa came, the letters beth meaning house has the form
of the rectangle with the gap in the lower side, hence Greek beta came
Phoenician letters likewise have numerical values.
The Greek letters from to have the same numerical values as corresponding Phoenician letters. The value 90 was denoted by the Phoenician letter
cade from which the letter came, whose name is sampi or sabi. The numerical values of the Phoenician letters corresponding to Greek letters
, , , and are 100, 200, 300, and 400.
From Phoenician letters also Hebrew and Arabic letters came .The names
of Hebrew letters are the same as of Phoenician ones. Arabs added to these letters, which came from Phoenician ones, six new letters. The names of Arabic
letters are simplified Phoenician names. The numerical values of Hebrew and
Arabic letters, which came from the same Phoenician letters, have the same
values of these letters.
The names and numerical values of arabic letters are as follows:
alif 1, ba2, te400, tah500, jiv3, ta, dal4, dhal600, ra200, za7, sin
60, shin300, ad90, ad800, ta9, a900, ain70, gain1000, fa80, qaf100,
kaf20, lam30, mim40, nun50, waw6, ha5, ia10.
In editions [Ap5] and [Ap6], Greek letters in Apollonius diagrams and
text are represented by Latin letters. In edition [Ap5], Greek letters are represented by the different Latin letters.
In proposition 53 of Book 2 in edition [Ap5], the archaic letters and
are represented by the letters X and Y.
In edition [Ap7] Arabic letters in Thabit ibn Qurras diagrams are represented by Greek letters with the same numerical values. The letter waw with
11

numerical value 6 is represented not by F, but by , the letter ghayn with numerical value 1000 is represented not by A but by .
Edition [Ap12] shows that in the translation by Hilal al-Himsi of Books 1-4
Greek letters in Apollonius diagrams are represented by Arabic letters which
came from the same Phoenician letters, but in the translation by Thabit ibn
Qurra of Books 5-7 Greek letters of Apollonius are represented by Arabic letters
according to a more complicate rule. For instance, the first three letters , ,
and he transcribes by the first three Arabic letters alif, ba, and ta.
In our translation we transcribe Arabic letters in diagrams and text in
Books 5-7 by the same Greek letters as in the translation by Toomer.

COMMENTARY ON BOOK ONE


Preface to Book I
1. Apollonius dedicated Books 1-3 of Conics to his teacher Eudemus of
Pergamum (see Introduction, B), with whom he discussed the structure of this
work. Last books of Conics finished after Eudemus death Apollonius dedicated
to Eudemus student Attalus.
The preface to Book1 is essentially the general preface to the whole of
Conics.
2. Apollonius information on geometer Naucrates is the only known to us
mention of this scholar. Naucrates was a friend of Apollonius, visited him at Alexandria, discussed with him theory of conics, and Apollonius gave him the first
variant of Conics.
The name of Naucrates is connected with the word - power of
seamen. The name Naucratis of the town founded by Greek seamen in the
delta of Nilus in 5th c. B.C. is connected with the same word.
3. Apollonius words that the first four books of Conics contain the elements of theory of conics show that these four books are revisions of Euclids
Elements of conics.
12

4. Three sections are three conics which Euclid and Archimedes called
sections of right, obtuse and acute cones. Apollonius called them a parabola,
a hyperbola, and an ellipse. Like his precursors, Apollonius used the term hyperbola only for a single branch of a hyperbola.
Unlike his precursors, Apollonius considers two branches of a hyperbola
and calls them - opposite. In [Ap5], [Ap6], and [Ap7], this term
is translated as opposite sections.
5. A locus with respect to three straight lines l1 , l2 , and l3 is a locus of
points whose distances di from the lines li satisfy the equation
d1d3 = kd22 .

(1.1)

A locus with respect to four straight lines l1, l2 , l3 , and l4 is a locus of


points whose distances di from the lines li satisfy the equation
d1d3 = kd2 d4 .

(1.2)

The loci with respect to three or four straight lines are conic sections.
Apollonius believes that Euclids proof of this fact in his Elements of Conics is
not sufficient and can be completed by the theorems in Book 3 of Conics.
This proof was fulfilled by R.C.Taliaferro in Appendix A to his translation of Conics [Ap5, pp.267-275].
This fact was proved by means of analytic geometry by the creator of
this discipline Rene Descartes (1596 - 1650) in his Geometry.

First Definitions
6. Apollonius defines a conic surface as a surface described by a straight
line of an indefinite length passing through a fixed point called the vertex and
through points of the circumference of a circle the plane of which does not pass
through the vertex. This surface consists of two surfaces located vertically on
both sides of the vertex.
The straight line joining the vertex of a conic surface with the center of
the circumference determining this surface Apollonius calls the axis of this surface.
13

Apollonius definition differs from the one by Euclid. For Euclid a conic
surface was the surface of a right circular cone formed by a rectangular triangle
revolving around one of its catheti.
The Greek word originally meant pine cone.
Ancient mathematicians used the terms straight line only for rectilinear
segments, plane- only for bounded parts of planes, usually rectangles, surface- only for bounded parts of surfaces.
Ancient mathematicians never used the term infinite for lines, planes,
and surfaces and replaced it by words of indefinite length and of indefinite
size.
7. Apollonius defines the cone as a solid bounded by a conic surface and
the circle whose the circumference determines this surface. Apollonius calls the
vertex of the conic surface vertex of the cone, the circle with circumference
determining the conic surface the base of the cone, and the segment of the
axis of the conic surface between the vertex and the base of a cone the axis of
the cone.
Unlike Euclid who considered only right circular cones, Apollonius considered cones that can be both right and oblique.
8. In the case when a plane curve has a family of parallel chords whose
midpoints are on a straight line, Apollonius calls this straight line a diameter
() of this plane curve.
Apollonius definition of a diameter of a plane curve is the generalization
of Euclids definition of a diameter for the circumference of a circle. Diameters
of circumferences are perpendicular to the chords bisected by them. Diameters
of plane curves in a general case are not perpendicular to such chords.
If on the plane there is a system of oblique coordinates whose axis 0x coincides with a diameter of a plane curve and axis 0y is parallel to the bisected
chords, the curve maps to itself by reflection
x = x , y = -y .

(1.3)

This reflection is said to be either right or oblique depending on whether


the coordinate angle x0y is right or acute, respectively.
The points of intersection of a diameter of a plane curve with its diameters Apollonius calls vertices of this curve.
The term diameter for curves that are not circumferences of circles was
used by Archimedes, but only in the cases when the diameter is perpendicular
to the bisected chords.
Diameters of conic sections are considered by Apollonius below.
14

9. An oblique reflection (1.3) is a particular case of an affine transformation in a plane, which is a bijective transformation in a plane mapping straight
lines to straight lines.
Right and oblique contractions to a straight line and right and oblique dilatations from a straight line (0.4) are also affine transformations.
Since parallel lines have no common points, affine transformations map
parallel straight lines to parallel ones. Therefore affine transformations map parallelograms to parallelograms and vectors to vectors, and if vectors x and y are
mapped to vectors x and y, the sum x + y is mapped to the sum x + y and a
product kx by an arbitrary real number k is mapped to the product kx. Therefore if , , are three points in a straight line, the affine transformations preserve simple ratios of oriented segments = /, and, in a general case, affine transformations in rectangular and oblique coordinates have the form
x = x + y + ,

y = x + y + . (1.4)

Under the affine transformation (1.4) the areas of all figures in the plane
are multiplied by the absolute value of the determinant AE-BD. In the case when
this value is equal to 1, the transformation (1.4) is an equiaffine one.
Since the determinants - of the reflections (1.3) are equal to -1,
they are equiaffine transformations too. In particular, if transformation (1.3)
maps a point to a point and points and are fixed points of this transformation, the triangles and have the same base and equal heights
and, therefore, equal areas.
Equiaffine and general affine transformations were used by Thabit ibn
Qurra and by his grandson Ibrahim ibn Sinan (908-946), respectively.
For the affine geometry and its history see [Ro1, pp.106-114] and [Ro2,
pp. 130-133, 143-146].
10. The segments of the bisected chords between the curve and the diameter are called by Apollonius -- applied in order.
Federigo Commandino (1509-1575) in his Latin translation [Ap1] of
Conics wrote the above expression as ordinatim applicatae from which the
term ordinates had come. Therefore in editions [Ap5], [Ap6], [Ap7] this
Apollonius expression is translated as lines drawn ordinatewise.
11. If two plane curves have a family of parallel chords whose midpoints
are on a straight line, Apollonius calls this line a transverse diameter of the two
plane curves. The points of intersection of the transverse diameter with the
curves Apollonius calls vertices of these curves.
15

If the midpoints of the parallel straight lines joining two plane curves are
on a straight line, Apollonius calls this line an upright diameter of these plane
curves.
The segments of parallel chords between the curves and the transverse
diameter are called the ordinates of points of these curves.
Transverse and erect diameters were used by Apollonius for two opposite hyperbolas.
12. The diameter drawn in the direction of parallel chords is called by
Apollonius a conjugate one with the diameter bisecting these chords.
13. The diameter of a plane curve as well as transverse and upright diameters of two plane curves are called by Apollonius axes when these diameters are perpendicular to the chords bisected by them. Two perpendicular axes
of one or of two plane curves Apollonius calls conjugate axes.
Later Apollonius considers axes of conics.
14. Modern mathematicians use the terms diameter and axis for
conic sections in the same sense as Apollonius, while the term vertex is used
in the same sense as by Apollonius precursors, i.e. as a point of intersection of
a conic section with its axis.
Propositions I.1-I.5 on cones
15. In Prop. I.1 Apollonius proves that a straight line joining the vertex of
a conic surface and any point on the latter lies entirely on this surface.
In the porism (corollary) to this proposition, Apollonius proves that the
straight line joining the vertex of a conic surface with any point which is within
this surface lines entirely within this surface, and the straight line joining the
vertex of the conic surface with any point which is outside this surface lies entirely outside this surface.
16. In Prop. I.2 Apollonius proves that the segment joining two points of a
vertical sheet of this conic surface and its continuation and not passing through
the vertex of the cone lies within the cone, and continuations of this segment
lie outside the cone.
Apollonius does not prove an analogous proposition: the segment joining
two points of two vertical sheets of a conic surface and not passing through the
vertex of the cone lies outside the conic surface and continuations of this segment lie within the conic surface.
No doubt that Apollonius did not prove this proposition since it was not in
Euclids Elements of conics.
16

Note that the line which is the sum of two abscissas of a point of the ellipse (0.7) joins two points of a surface of a cone, and the line which is the difference of two abscissas of a point of the hyperbola (0.8) joins two points of
different sheets of a conic surface. Apollonius calls these segments latera
transversa of an ellipse and a hyperbola.
17. In Prop. I.3 Apollonius proves that the section of a cone by a plane
passing through its vertex and meeting its base is a triangle.
18. In Prop. I.4 Apollonius proves that the section of the surface of a circular cone by a plane parallel to its base is the circumference of a circle.
19. In Prop. I.5 Apollonius proves that the surface of an oblique circular
cone besides sections parallel to its base has another family of circular sections.
It can be explained by the fact that the section of the surface of an oblique circular cone by a plane perpendicular to its axis is an ellipse, therefore the solid
bounded by this plane and the conic surface is a right elliptic cone. Since the ellipse has two perpendicular axes of symmetry, the right elliptic cone and its surface have two perpendicular planes of symmetry passing through the axes of
symmetry of an ellipse and the vertex of a cone.
The reflection with respect to one of these planes maps any circular section of the cone parallel to its base to itself. The reflection with respect to the
second plane maps circular sections parallel to the base of the cone to circular
sections of the second family. Apollonius calls the circles bounded by circumferences of different families and the planes of these circles , which we
following P. Ver Eecke [Ap 9, p.10] translate as antiparallel. The expressions
of Apollonius the line is equal in square to the rectangular plane means that
the square on the line is equal to mentioned plane.
20. Apollonius abbreviations , , , and ,
which mean a rectangular plane with sides and , a rectangular plane with
sides and , and a square with a side , we translate by the abbreviations
pl., pl., and sq., respectively.
Prepositions and mean under and on.
The expressions of Apollonius the line is equal in square to the rectangular plane means that the square on the line is equal to mentioned plane.
21. Prop. I.5 forms the basis for the theory of stereographic projection,
that is the projection of a sphere from its point P onto the plane tangent to the
sphere at its antipodal point. If a curve on the sphere, not passing through the
point P under this projection is mapped onto the circumference of a circle, then
the projecting lines are rectilinear generators of a circular cone.
If this cone is right, the plane of the projected curve is parallel to the
plane of projection. If the cone is oblique, the plane of the projected curve is
17

antiparallel to the plane of projection. In both cases, the projected curve is the
circumference of a circle. Thus stereographic projection maps circumferences of
circles on the sphere not passing through the point P to circumferences of circles on the plane.
If the circumference of a circle on the sphere passes through the point P,
its plane intersects the plane of projection in a straight line, and the stereographic projection maps these circumferences to straight lines.
Apollonius knew stereographic projection. This is clear from the description by a Roman architect of the 1st c. B.C. Vitruvius Pollio in his Ten Books on
Architecture of an astronomical instrument called spider ( ), invented
by the astronomer Eudoxus, or as some say, Apollonius [Vi1, p.256; Vi2,
p.320].
Vitruvius wrote that the instrument contained bronze rods and behind
these rods there is a drum on which the firmament and zodiac are drawn and
figured: the drawing being figured with the twelve celestial signs [Vi1, p.261
Vi2, p. 322].
Daniele Barbaro (1513-1570) in his commentary on this Vitruvius work
describes the projection (analemma) in a spider as follows: Analemma is projected from the pole of the sphere onto a plane. To project the sphere onto the
plane [by means of an analemma] is to describe in the plane all circles and all
[zodiacal] signs that are on the sphere. Thus all that is on the sphere is represented in the plane according to the same optical mode as in making of the table of an astrolabe [Vi2, p. 322].
These words show that the projection in a spider is stereographic.
Therefore this instrument could not have been invented by Eudoxus who lived in
4th c. B.C. when the stereographic projection based on Proposition I.5 of Apollonius Conics was not known yet.
The drum portrays the tropics, the ecliptic (the zodiacal circle), and the
images of some most bright stars. These circles and images of stars form the
figure similar to a spider, this fact explains the name of the instrument. The
drum can rotate by means of a hydraulic machine.
The rods form a motionless part of the instrument. This part portrays the
celestial equator, the tropics, the horizon, and circles of altitude over the horizon that is the parallels of the horizon. These circles form the spider-web in
which the spider movies.
The ecliptic is the circumference of the great circle on celestial sphere
where the visual annual way of the Sun is realized. Every day the Sun
makes its way along the ecliptic about 1o . The ecliptic is divided into 12 zodiacal signs corresponding to the months. The ecliptic intersects the celestial
18

equator at the beginnings of the signs of Aries and Libra where the Sun is on
the days of the spring and autumn equinoxes. The Sun is at the maximal distance from the celestial equator at the beginnings of the signs of Cancer and
Capricorn where the Sun is on the days of the summer and winter solstices.
These last points under diurnal rotation of the celestial sphere describe the circumference of circles called tropics of Cancer and Capricorn.
The celestial equator as well as tropics is invariant under the diurnal rotation of the celestial sphere.
No doubt Apollonius knew that stereographic projection is conformal, that
is it preserves the magnitudes of the angles between curves, because this property can be proved by means of Euclids Elements. Let the stereographic projection with the pole maps the point and circular arcs on the sphere with the
tangents and to point and the circular arcs on the plane with tangents
and . Let the points and be the points of the intersection of the
tangents and with the plane tangent to the sphere at . The segments
and are equal as two tangents to the sphere drawn from one point, and,
analogously, =. Therefore the triangles and are equal, because the
angles and are equal.
Since the lines and are parallel, as the lines and , the angle
is equal to the angle . This equality means that stereographic projection is conformal.
It is well known that the celestial equator on the terrestrial equator is
perpendicular to the horizon, and at the terrestrial poles it coincides with the
horizon. If an observer is at the point with latitude , he sees that the celestial
equator intersects the horizon under an angle equal to 90o - .
The celestial equator and the tropics are represented by rods by circumferences of three concentric circles. Since the ecliptic touches both tropics, the
image of it also touches the images of the tropics.
If the instrument is used at night, the altitude of a bright star is measured; at daytime, the altitude of the Sun is measured. The drum is turned to
such position that the image of the star with the measured altitude or the image of the point of the ecliptic corresponding to the day of measuring the altitude of the Sun will be under the image of a circle of the measured altitude.
Then the image of the whole firmament will be obtained at the moment of the
observation and the spherical coordinates of all its points and stars can be
found too. The altitude of a celestial point over the horizon is determined according to the altitude circle passing through the image of this point, the azimuth of this point is determined by the position of the image of this point on
the altitude circle. In particular, the position of the horoscope, that is the
19

point of intersection of the ecliptic and the eastern part of the horizon, which is
important for astrological predictions, will be found.
The angle by which the drum turns determines the exact time of the moment of the observation.
Probably, the invention by Apollonius of an instrument for measuring time
connected with a hydraulic machine described by an architect was known in medieval East, and therefore an Arabic treatise on a water clock dedicated to an
architect (al-najjr al-muhandis) was ascribed to Apollonius. There are three
manuscripts of this work entitled Treatise on construction of [an instrument
with] a flute (Risala san a [cla] al-amr) kept in Paris, London, and Beirut. The
German translation of this treatise according to all manuscripts was published
by E. Wiedemann [Wie]. When the surface of the water in this clock is dropped
to a certain level, the sound of the flute is heard. F.Sezgin [Sez, p.143] also believes that this treatise is only ascribed to Apollonius.
An instrument similar to Apollonius one called horoscopical instrument
was described by Claudius Ptolemy in Planispherium.
Later, analogous instrument called - little [instrument]
seizing stars was invented by Theon of Alexandria in 4th c. A.D. He replaced
Apollonius motionless spider-web by a motionless metallic continuous disk
called tympanum, and the rotating drum - by a rotating fretted disk, also
called spider. Unlike in Apollonius instrument, in Theons astrolabon the
motionless tympanum is located under the rotating spider.
This instrument was very popular in the medieval East by the name asturlab and in medieval Europe as astrolabium.
Now these instruments are called astrolabes. Medieval astrolabes were
portative circular cylinders, with a radius of 10 to 20 cm and a height of 4 to 5
cm. The cylinders contained 10 to 20 tympanums for different latitudes.
The operations with the medieval astrolabes were similar to ones with
Apollonius instrument.
On the lower base of medieval astrolabes the instrument for measuring
altitudes of the Sun and the stars was situated. This instrument contained
an alhidad with two diopters and arrows at the ends, which could rotate around
the center of the cylinder base and whose arrows pointed out altitude on the
degree scale on the circumference of the base. To measure the altitude of a celestial point, the astrolabe was suspended vertically, and the ahidad was directed to this point. The arrow of the alhidad showed the altitude of this point
Both Apollonius instrument and the medieval astrolabes can be regarded
as transparent nomograms, in which the role of the transparent is played by the
upper part of the instrument.
20

On the stereographic projection and astrolabes see [Ro1, pp.116-117;


295-206] and [Ro2, pp. 121-130].
Propositions I.6 - I.10 on diameters and ordinates of conics
22. In Prop. I.6 Apollonius considers a circular cone, right or oblique, with
the vertex and the base . The triangle containing the axis of the cone
is called an axial triangle. From the point of the circumference of the base, the
perpendicular to the diameter of the base is dropped.
Apollonius proves that the line that is drawn from the point on the
surface of the cone parallel to and reaches the surface of the cone again is
bisected by the plane .
23. In Prop. I.7 Apollonius considers the same cone as in Prop. I.6. This
cone is cut by the plane passing through the point of the rectilinear generator
of the cone and along the line in its base perpendicular to the diameter
of the base or to continuation of this diameter. This plane cuts off from the
surface of the cone the conic section . Apollonius proves that chords of this
conic parallel to are bisected by the plane , and the line of the intersection of the planes and is a diameter of this conic.
Apollonius proves that these chords are perpendicular to the diameter bisecting them if the cone is right, and if the cone is oblique, and the axial triangle
is perpendicular to the plane of the base of the cone.
The plane can be inclined to the line under an arbitrary angle unequal to the angle of the inclination of planes parallel or antiparallel to the plane
of the base of the cone. Therefore an arbitrary section of the cone that is not a
pair of intersecting straight lines can be obtained from the circumference of the
base of the cone by the central projection from the vertex of the cone.
24. Since every section of a cone that is not a pair of intersecting
straight lines can be obtained from a circumference of a circle by a central projection, every such conic section can be obtained from the circumference of a
circle by a projective transformation.
Projective transformations in a plane can be defined as follows. If the
plane is located in the space and is projected from a point which is outside
this plane onto another plane , the plane is projected from a point onto a
plane , the plane is projected from a point onto a plane , and after
several such projections the plane (k) is projected from a point (k) onto the
plane E, we obtain a projective transformation in the plane . This transformation is not bijective, and for it to become bijective all planes , , , . . ., ( k )
must be supplemented by new points ,so that the supplemented planes will be
21

in a bijective correspondence with a bundle of straight lines through a point in


the space. These supplemented planes are called projective planes, the new
points of these planes are called points at infinity.
The point in the plane is represented by the infinite straight line in
the space or by vectors directed along this line. These vectors are determined
up to a non-zero real multiplier. Elie Cartan (1869-1951) called these vectors
analytic points. Points at infinity are represented by lines and vectors parallel
to the plane .
If three linearly independent vectors e1 , e2 , e3 are given in the space,
vectors x representing the point M in the projective plane can be written in the
form of x1e1 +x2e2 +x3e3. The numbers xi are called projective coordinates of
points in the projective plane. These coordinates, as well as the vectors x representing the points, are determined up to a non-zero multiplier.
If vectors e1 and e2 are parallel to the plane , then affine coordinates x
and y of a point in the plane are connected with projective coordinates xi
of this point by correlations x = x1/x3 , y = x2/x3 .
Points in the projective plane that are on one straight line are represented
by the lines of the bundle that are in one plane. These lines form a plane pencil
of straight lines. Therefore straight lines in the projective plane are determined
by equations
u1x1 + u2x2 + u3x3 =0 .

(1.5)

Numbers ui , called tangential coordinates of straight lines, as well as


projective coordinates of points, are determined up to a non-zero real multiplier.
Since points at infinity of parallel straight lines in the plane E are represented by the same straight line of the bundle, parallel straight lines in the projective plane have a common point at infinity, that is they meet at this point. All
points at infinity in the projective plane are represented by straight lines of a
plane pencil and form a straight line called the straight line at infinity.
Projective transformations in the projective plane can be defined as bijective transformations in this plane preserving straight lines. These transformations map points at infinity to usual points, and therefore they map parallel lines
to intersecting ones.
In projective coordinates, projective transformations have the form
xi = jji xj .
22

(1.6)

In affine coordinates, these transformations have the form


x= (x + y +)/(x + y + ) ,
y = (x + y + )/(x + y + ). (1.7)
Since conics can be obtained from the circumferences of circles by projective transformations, these transformations map conics to conics.
Conics in the projective plane that have no common points with the
straight line at infinity are ellipses. Conics that touch this line are parabolas.
Conics that intersect this line at two points are hyperbolas, the straight line at
infinity divides hyperbolas into two branches.
In Apollonius Conics many theorems of projective geometry are proved,
but he never uses the term point at infinity. This term was first mentioned in
Optical Part of Astronomy by Johannes Kepler (1571-1630).
Important theorems of projective geometry were proved by Pappus of Alexandria in his commentary on Euclids Porisms.
Ibrahim ibn Sinan considered the projective transformation x = a2/x,
y = ay/x mapping the circumference of a circle x2 + y2 = a2 to the equilateral
hyperbola x2 -y2 = a2. More complicated projective transformations were considered by Abul-Rayhan al-Biruni (973-1048) in the theory of an astrolabe
based not on a stereographic projection but on the central projection from an
arbitrary point of the axis of the celestial sphere.
On projective geometry and its history see [Ro1. pp.114-122, 125-128],
[Ro2, pp.116-121, 133-142, 147-150], and [RoY, pp. 470-475].
25. In Prop. I.8 Apollonius finds the conditions for conics to be continued
indefinitely, that is, as modern geometers say, to extend to infinity. These conics are parabolas or hyperbolas.
26. In Prop. I.9 Apollonius proves that sections of an oblique circular cone
by planes intersecting both lateral sides of an axial triangle are not circumferences of circles if these planes are not parallel or antiparallel to the plane of the
base of the cone. In this proof, Apollonius supposes that the section of a cone
by a plane not parallel to the plane of the base of the cone is a circumference of
a circle and proves that this plane is antiparallel to the plane of the base of the
cone.
27. In Prop. I.10 Apollonius proves that conic sections are convex curves.
In this proposition the notions of interior and exterior points of conics are
mentioned for the first time. The propositions on these points are analogous to
the propositions of Book 3 of Euclids Elements on interior and exterior points of
circles. The interior and exterior points of a circle are points whose distances
23

from its center are less or greater than its radius, respectively. This metric definition is impossible for conics.
Apollonius does not give the definitions of interior and exterior points of
conics but essentially transfers these notions from circles to conics by projective transformations.
Propositions I.11- I.16 on equations of conics
28. In Prop. I.11-I.13 Apollonius finds the equations of conics in systems
of coordinates whose axis 0x is a diameter of a conic, ordinates are parallel to
the diameter conjugate to this diameter and the point is the end of first diameter.
Apollonius called any such equation , meaning case, coincidence. The ordinates of points of a conic in these equations were determined
in Prop. I.7. The abscissas of these points are segments of the diameter from
the vertex to the ordinate. See Note 9 for the term ordinate. Apollonius called
abscissa -- cut off from the vertex . Our term
abscissa came from Latin translation by Commandino in [Ap1] of these words
by expression ex verticis abscissa.
Apollonius proves that the equations of conics in these coordinates which
can be rectangular or oblique have the same forms (0.3), (0.9), and (0.10) as
given by his precursors in rectangular coordinates.
In those equations Apollonius uses the expression the line is equal in
square to a rectangular plane (see Note 19 on this book).
29. In Prop. I.11 a circular cone has the same vertex , base , and axial
triangle , as in Prop. I.7. This cone may be right or oblique, the angle at the
vertex of this cone can be an arbitrary angle less than 180 o. This cone is cut by
a plane meeting the line at a point , parallel to the line and intersecting
the diameter of the base of the cone at a point . This plane cuts off the
conic from the surface of the cone. The line is perpendicular to the line
and meets it at the point . The line is a diameter of this conic.
If is an arbitrary point of the conic, its ordinate y = is parallel to the
line and its abscissa x = .
To obtain the equation of the conic, Apollonius determines the line ,
which he called - right side (some rectangular plane).
We, like the majority historians of mathematics, translate this term of Apollonius by Latin translation latus rectum . The line is the perpendicular to the
diameter at point . The length of the line is given by the proportion
/ = 2/. . (1.8)
24

Apollonius often calls the latus rectum by one word and by long expression the straight line of application [of rectangular planes] to which the
ordinates to the diameter are equal in square, but we in all cases call this
straight line the latus rectum. We denote latus rectum by 2p. Proportion (1.8)
shows that latus rectum 2p is proportional to the segment . Therefore every
diameter of a conic corresponds to a certain value of latus rectum.
Since the segment p in the equations of conics in rectangular coordinates
is called parameter, sometimes the segment 2p in oblique coordinates is also
called parameter.
30. The term compounded ratio was used by ancient mathematicians
for ratios of geometrical magnitudes which modern mathematicians call products of ratios. This is explained by the fact that the term product ancient
mathematicians used only for integer and rational numbers.
In Book 5 of Euclids Elements, only particular cases of compounded ratios
were defined - double, triple and multiple ratios, that is ratios compounded from
equal ratios. The general compounded ratio was considered by Euclid only in
Prop. VI.23 of Elements where in he proved that the ratio of two equiangular
parallelograms is compounded from the ratios of corresponding sides of these
parallelograms.
The definition of a compounded ratio in the original text of Elements was
absent. It was added only by Theon of Alexandria in 4th c. A.D., who defined
compounded ratio by means of multiplication of quantities of ratios, which
was not used by Euclid. But the proof of proposition VI.23 shows that a ratio
: is compounded from ratios : and : if there are such magnitu