To the left is the facsimile of the beginning of the text belonging to it.]
184.
OF SIMPLE SHADOWS.
Why, at the intersections a, b of the two compound shadows e f and m e, is a simple shadow pfoduced as at e h and m g, while no such simple shadow is produced at the other two intersections c d made by the very same compound shadows?
ANSWER.
Compound shadow are a mixture of light and shade and simple shadows are simply darkness. Hence, of the two lights n and o, one falls on the compound shadow from one side, and the other on the compound shadow from the other side, but where they intersect no light falls, as at a b; therefore it is a simple shadow. Where there is a compound shadow one light or the other falls; and here a difficulty arises for my adversary since he says that, where the compound shadows intersect, both the lights which produce the shadows must of necessity fall and therefore these shadows ought to be neutralised; inasmuch as the two lights do not fall there, we say that the shadow is a simple one and where only one of the two lights falls, we say the shadow is compound, and where both the lights fall the shadow is neutralised; for where both lights fall, no shadow of any kind is produced, but only a light background limiting the shadow. Here I shall say that what my adversary said was true: but he only mentions such truths as are in his favour; and if we go on to the rest he must conclude that my proposition is true. And that is: That if both lights fell on