either right or oblique, by simply varying the inclination of the cutting plane. The importance of this generalization cannot be overestimated; it is of more than historical interest, for it remains the basis upon which certain authorities introduce the study of these curves. To comprehend more exactly the discovery of Apollonius, imagine an oblique cone on a circular base, of which the line joining the vertex to the centre of the base is the axis. The section made by a plane containing the axis and perpendicular to the base is a triangle contained by two generating lines of the cone and a diameter of the basal circle. Apollonius considered sections of the cone made by planes at any inclination to the plane of the circular base and perpendicular to the triangle containing the axis. The points in which the cutting plane intersects the sides of the triangle are the vertices of the curve; and the line joining these points is a diameter which Apollonius named the latus transversum. He discriminated the three species of conics as follows:—At one of the two vertices erect a perpendicular (latus rectum) of a certain length (which is determined below), and join the extremity of this line to the other vertex. At any point on the latus transversum erect an ordinate. Then the square of the ordinate intercepted between the diameter and the curve is equal to the rectangle contained by the portion of the diameter between the first vertex and the foot of the ordinate, and the segment of the ordinate intercepted between the diameter and the line joining the extremity of the latus rectum to the second vertex. This property is true for all conics, and it served as the basis of most of the constructions and propositions given by Apollonius. The conics are distinguished by the ratio between the latus rectum (which was originally called the latus erectum, and now often referred to as the parameter) and the segment of the ordinate intercepted between the diameter and the line joining the second vertex with the extremity of the latus rectum. When the cutting plane is inclined to the base of the cone at an angle less than that made by the sides of the cone, the latus rectum is greater than the intercept on the ordinate, and we obtain the ellipse; if the plane is inclined at an equal angle as the side, the latus rectum equals the intercept, and we obtain the parabola; if the inclination of the plane be greater than that of the side, we obtain the hyperbola. In modern notation, if we denote the ordinate by 𝑦, the distance of the foot of the ordinate from the vertex (the abscissa) by 𝑥, and the latus rectum by 𝑝, these relations may be expressed as 𝑦2<𝑝𝑥 for the ellipse, 𝑦2＝𝑝𝑥 for the parabola, and 𝑦2>𝑝𝑥 for the hyperbola. Pappus in his commentary on Apollonius states that these names were given in virtue of the above relations; but according to Eutocius the curves were named the parabola, ellipse or hyperbola, according as the angle of the cone was equal to, less than, or greater than a right angle. The word parabola was used by Archimedes, who was prior to Apollonius; but this may be an interpolation.
We may now summarize the contents of the Conics of Apollonius. The first book deals with the generation of the three conics; the second with the asymptotes, axes and diameters; the third with various metrical relations between transversals, chords, tangents, asymptotes, &c.; the fourth with the theory of the pole and polar, including the harmonic division of a straight line, and with systems of two conics, which he shows to intersect in not more than four points; he also investigates conics having single and double contact. The fifth book contains properties of normals and their envelopes, thus embracing the germs of the theory of evolutes, and also maxima and minima problems, such as to draw the longest and shortest lines from a given point to a conic; the sixth book is concerned with the similarity of conics; the seventh with complementary chords and conjugate diameters; the eighth book, according to the restoration of Edmund Halley, continues the subject of the preceding book. His proofs are generally long and clumsy; this is accounted for in some measure by the absence of symbols and technical terms. Apollonius was ignorant of the directrix of a conic, and although he incidentally discovered the focus of an ellipse and hyperbola, he does not mention the focus of a parabola. He also considered the two branches of a hyperbola, calling the second branch the “opposite” hyperbola, and shows the relation which existed between many metrical properties of the ellipse and hyperbola. The focus of the parabola was discovered by Pappus, who also introduced the notion of the directrix.
The Conics of Apollonius was translated into Arabic by Tobit ben Korra in the 9th century, and this edition was followed by Halley in 1710. Although the Arabs were in full possession of the store of knowledge of the geometry of conics which the Greeks had accumulated, they did little to increase it; the only advance made consisted in the application of describing intersecting conics so as to solve algebraic equations. The great pioneer in this field was Omar Khayyám, who flourished in the 11th century. These discoveries were unknown in western Europe for many centuries, and were re-invented and developed by many European mathematicians. In 1522 there was published an original work on conics by Johann Werner of Nuremburg. This work, the earliest published in Christian Europe, treats the conic sections in relation to the original cone, the procedure differing from that of the Greek geometers. Werner was followed by Franciscus Maurolycus of Messina, who adopted the same method, and added considerably to the discoveries of Apollonius. Claude Mydorge (1585–1647), a French geometer and friend of Descartes, published a work De sectionibus conicis in which he greatly simplified the cumbrous proofs of Apollonius, whose method of treatment he followed.
Johann Kepler (1571–1630) made many important discoveries in the geometry of conics. Of supreme importance is the fertile conception of the planets revolving about the sun in elliptic orbits. On this is based the great structure of celestial mechanics and the theory of universal gravitation; and in the elucidation of problems more directly concerned with astronomy, Kepler, Sir Isaac Newton and others discovered many properties of the conic sections (see Mechanics). Kepler’s greatest contribution to geometry lies in his formulation of the “principle of continuity” which enabled him to show that a parabola has a “caecus (or blind) focus” at infinity, and that all lines through this focus are parallel (see Geometrical Continuity). This assumption (which differentiates ancient from modern geometry) has been developed into one of the most potent methods of geometrical investigation (see Geometry: Projective). We may also notice Kepler’s approximate value for the circumference of an ellipse (if the semi-axes be 𝑎 and 𝑏, the approximate circumference is π(𝑎+𝑏)).
An important generalization of the conic sections was developed about the beginning of the 17th century by Girard Desargues and Blaise Pascal. Since all conics derived from a circular cone appear circular when viewed from the apex, they conceived the treatment of the conic sections as projections of a circle. From this conception all the properties of conics can be deduced. Desargues has a special claim to fame on account of his beautiful theorem on the involution of a quadrangle inscribed in a conic. Pascal discovered a striking property of a hexagon inscribed in a conic (the hexagrammum mysticum); from this theorem Pascal is said to have deduced over 400 corollaries, including most of the results obtained by earlier geometers. This subject is mathematically discussed in the article Geometry: Projective.
While Desargues and Pascal were founding modern synthetic geometry, René Descartes was developing the algebraic representation of geometric relations. The subject of analytical geometry which he virtually created enabled him to view the conic sections as algebraic equations of the second degree, the form of the section depending solely on the coefficients. This method rivals in elegance all other methods; problems are investigated by purely algebraic means, and generalizations discovered which elevate the method to a position of paramount importance. John Wallis, in addition to translating the Conics of Apollonius, published in 1655 an original work entitled De sectionibus conicis nova methodo expositis, in which he treated the curves by the Cartesian method, and derived their properties from the definition in plano, completely ignoring the connexion between the conic sections and a cone. The analytical method was also followed by G. F. A. de l’Hôpital in his Traité analytique des sections coniques (1707). A mathematical investigation of the conics by this method is given in the article Geometry: Analytical. Philippe de la Hire, a pupil of Desargues, wrote several works on the conic sections, of which the most important is his Sectiones Conicae (1685). His treatment is synthetic, and he follows his tutor and Pascal in deducing the properties of conics by projection from a circle.
A method of generating conics essentially the same as our modern method of homographic pencils was discussed by Jan de Witt in his Elementa linearum curvarum (1650); but he treated the curves by the Cartesian method, and not synthetically.
