Simple and compound shadows from two lights
Why intersecting shadows stay simple, argued against an adversary with geometric proofs
Two mounted fragments given over to the science of shadows cast by two light sources. A lettered diagram of two lights, two shadowy bodies and their shadow projections poses the problem: why simple shadow arises at certain intersections of the compound shadows but not at others. Leonardo answers that compound shadows mix light and dark while simple shadows are pure darkness, and stages an objection by an 'adversary' about shadows being annulled where both lights reach, which he rebuts by appeal to a proposition 'de proportione'. Smaller figures on the right carry geometric proof labels such as 'by the eleventh', 'corollary' and 'orthogonally'.
On this page
Simple shadow at the intersection of two compound shadows
With two lights n o and two shadowy bodies, Leonardo asks why simple shadow appears at intersections a b (and a h, m g) but not at c d. Compound shadows are mixed of light and dark, simple ones of pure darkness: each light sees the compound shadows on its own side, but neither light reaches a b, so that region is simple shadow. He then answers an adversary who claims that where both lights fall the shadows should be annulled.
Proof scaffolding for the shadow demonstration
The argument is framed as a formal proof, invoking a proposition 'de proportione' that simple power has to simple resistance the same ratio as doubled power to doubled resistance. Secondary figures are annotated 'by the eleventh', 'by the eleventh conception', 'corollary', 'circumposed' and 'orthogonally'. The Latin tags mark the geometric steps supporting the optics.
