prove, that this very experiment proves nothing against my
theory. And first, it is false that the ball sinks and the board
not; for the board will sink, too, if you do to both the figures
as the words of our question require; that is, if you put them
both in the water; for to be in the water implies to be placed in
the water, and by Aristotle's own definition of place, to be
placed imports to be environed by the surface of the ambient
body; but when my antagonists show the floating board of ebony,
they put it not into the water, but upon the water; where, being
detained by a certain impediment (of which more anon), it is
surrounded, partly with water, partly with air, which is contrary
to our agreement, for that was that bodies should be in the
water, and not part in the water, part in the air.

"I will not omit another reason, founded also upon experience,
and, if I deceive not myself, conclusive against the notion that
figure, and the resistance of the water to penetration, have
anything to do with the buoyancy of bodies. Choose a piece of
wood or other matter, as, for instance, walnut-wood, of which a
ball rises from the bottom of the water to the surface more
slowly than a ball of ebony of the same size sinks, so that,
clearly, the ball of ebony divides the water more readily in
sinking than the ball of wood does in rising. Then take a board
of walnut-tree equal to and like the floating one of my
antagonists; and if it be true that this latter floats by reason
of the figure being unable to penetrate the water, the other of
walnut-tree, without a question, if thrust to the bottom, ought
to stay there, as having the same impeding figure, and being less
apt to overcome the said resistance of the water. But if we find
by experience that not only the thin board, but every other