Download ebooks file (eBook PDF) Mechanics of Materials 9th Editin by Barry J. Goodno all chapters

Download the full version of the ebook now at ebooksecure.
com
(eBook PDF) Mechanics of Materials 9th Editin

by Barry J. Goodno
https://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-
mechanics-of-materials-9th-editin-by-barry-j-
goodno/
Explore and download more ebook at https://ebooksecure.com

Recommended digital products (PDF, EPUB, MOBI) that
you can download immediately if you are interested.
Mechanics of Materials 9th Edition Barry J. Goodno - eBook

PDF
https://ebooksecure.com/download/mechanics-of-materials-ebook-pdf/
ebooksecure.com
(eBook PDF) Mechanics of Materials, SI Edition 9th Edition
https://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-mechanics-of-materials-si-
edition-9th-edition/
ebooksecure.com
(eBook PDF) Mechanics of Materials by Paul S. Steif
https://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-mechanics-of-materials-by-
paul-s-steif/
ebooksecure.com
(eBook PDF) Introduction to Java Programming and Data

Structures, Comprehensive Version, 11th Global Edition
https://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-introduction-to-java-
programming-and-data-structures-comprehensive-version-11th-global-
edition/
ebooksecure.com
(eBook PDF) SAS Certified Specialist Prep Guide: Base
Programming Using SAS 9.4
https://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-sas-certified-specialist-
prep-guide-base-programming-using-sas-9-4/
ebooksecure.com
(eBook PDF) Biological Psychology 12th Edition by Kalat
https://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-biological-psychology-12th-
edition-by-kalat/
ebooksecure.com
(eBook PDF) Netter's Atlas of Human Embryology: Updated

Edition
https://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-netters-atlas-of-human-
embryology-updated-edition/
ebooksecure.com
(Original PDF) Automotive Technology: A Systems Approach

3rd Edition
https://ebooksecure.com/product/original-pdf-automotive-technology-a-
systems-approach-3rd-edition/
ebooksecure.com
(eBook PDF) Linux+ and LPIC-1 Guide to Linux Certification

5th Edition
https://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-linux-and-lpic-1-guide-to-
linux-certification-5th-edition/
ebooksecure.com
(eBook PDF) Business and Company Law, 2nd Edition
https://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-business-and-company-
law-2nd-edition/
ebooksecure.com
Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203
vi Contents
5.4 Longitudinal Strains in Beams 449 7.4 Mohr’s Circle for Plane Stress 656
5.5 Normal Stress in Beams (Linearly 7.5 Hooke’s Law for Plane Stress 669
Elastic Materials) 453 7.6 Triaxial Stress 675
5.6 Design of Beams for Bending 7.7 Plane Strain 679
Stresses 466 Chapter Summary and Review 694
5.7 Nonprismatic Beams 476 Problems 697
5.8 Shear Stresses in Beams of Rectangular
Cross Section 480 8. Applications of Plane Stress
5.9 Shear Stresses in Beams of Circular (Pressure Vessels, Beams, and
Cross Section 488 Combined Loadings) 719
5.10 Shear Stresses in the Webs of Beams 8.1 Introduction 720
with Flanges 491 8.2 Spherical Pressure Vessels 720
*5.11 Built-Up Beams and Shear Flow 498 8.3 Cylindrical Pressure Vessels 726
*5.12 Beams with Axial Loads 502 8.4 Maximum Stresses in Beams 733
*5.13 Stress Concentrations in Bending 509 8.5 Combined Loadings 741
Chapter Summary and Review 514
Problems 518
Problems 768
6. Stresses in Beams (Advanced Topics) 553
9. Deflections of Beams 787
6.1 Introduction 554
6.2 Composite Beams 554
9.2 Differential Equations of the Deflection
6.3 Transformed-Section Method 563
Curve 788
6.4 Doubly Symmetric Beams with Inclined
9.3 Deflections by Integration of the
Loads 571
Bending-Moment Equation 793
6.5 Bending of Unsymmetric Beams 578
9.4 Deflections by Integration of the Shear-
6.6 The Shear-Center Concept 589 Force and Load Equations 804
6.7 Shear Stresses in Beams of Thin-Walled 9.5 Method of Superposition 809
Open Cross Sections 590
9.6 Moment-Area Method 818
6.8 Shear Stresses in Wide-Flange
9.7 Nonprismatic Beams 826
Beams 593
9.8 Strain Energy of Bending 831
6.9 Shear Centers of Thin-Walled Open
Sections 597 *9.9 Castigliano’s Theorem 836
*6.10 Elastoplastic Bending 605 *9.10 Deflections Produced by Impact 848
Chapter Summary and Review 614 *9.11 Temperature Effects 850
Problems 616 Chapter Summary and Review 854
Problems 856
7. Analysis of Stress and Strain 639
7.1 Introduction 640 10. Statically Indeterminate Beams 883
7.2 Plane Stress 640 10.1 Introduction 884
7.3 Principal Stresses and Maximum Shear 10.2 Types of Statically Indeterminate
Stresses 648 Beams 884
Contents vii
10.3 Analysis by the Differential Equations References and Historical notes 1019
of the Deflection Curve 887
APPenDIX A: Systems of Units and Conversion
10.4 Method of Superposition 893
Factors 1029
*10.5 Temperature Effects 907
*10.6 Longitudinal Displacements at the Ends APPenDIX B: Problem Solving 1043
of a Beam 914
APPenDIX C: Mathematical Formulas 1051
Problems 919 APPenDIX D: Review of Centroids and Moments
of Inertia 1057
11. Columns 933
APPenDIX e: Properties of Plane Areas 1083
11.2 Buckling and Stability 934 APPenDIX F: Properties of Structural-Steel
11.3 Columns with Pinned Ends 942 Shapes 1089
11.4 Columns with Other Support APPenDIX G: Properties of Structural
Conditions 951 Lumber 1101
11.5 Columns with Eccentric Axial
Loads 960 APPenDIX H: Deflections and
11.6 The Secant Formula for Columns 965 Slopes of Beams 1103
11.7 Elastic and Inelastic Column APPenDIX I: Properties of Materials 1109
Behavior 970
Answers to Problems 1115
11.8 Inelastic Buckling 972
11.9 Design Formulas for Columns 977 Index 1153
Problems 996
*A star attached to a section number indicates a specialized and/or advanced topic.
A B o U T T H eCAoUnTTHe on RT S
Barry J. Goodno
Barry John Goodno is Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at
Georgia Institute of Technology. He joined the Georgia Tech faculty in 1974. He
was an Evans Scholar and received a B.S. in Civil Engineering from the University
of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, in 1970. He received M.S. and Ph.D. degrees
in Structural Engineering from Stanford University, Stanford, California, in 1971
and 1975, respectively. He holds a professional engineering license (PE) in Georgia,
is a Distinguished Member of ASCE and an Inaugural Fellow of SEI, and has
held numerous leadership positions within ASCE. He is a past president of the
ASCE Structural Engineering Institute (SEI) Board of Governors and is also a
member of the Engineering Mechanics Institute (EMI) of ASCE. He is past-chair
of the ASCE-SEI Technical Activities Division (TAD) Executive Committee, and
past-chair of the ASCE-SEI Awards Committee. In 2002, Dr. Goodno received
© Barry Goodno
the SEI Dennis L. Tewksbury Award for outstanding service to ASCE-SEI. He
received the departmental award for Leadership in Use of Technology in 2013 for
his pioneering use of lecture capture technologies in undergraduate statics and
mechanics of materials courses at Georgia Tech. He is a member of the Earth-
quake Engineering Research Institute (EERI) and has held several leadership posi-
tions within the NSF-funded Mid-America Earthquake Center (MAE), directing
the MAE Memphis Test Bed Project. Dr. Goodno has carried out research, taught
graduate courses and published extensively in the areas of earthquake engineering
and structural dynamics during his tenure at Georgia Tech.
Dr. Goodno is an active cyclist, retired soccer coach and referee, and a
retired marathon runner. Like co-author and mentor James Gere, he has com-
pleted numerous marathons including qualifying for and running the Boston
Marathon in 1987.
James M. Gere
James M. Gere (1925-2008) earned his undergraduate and master’s degree in
Civil Engineering from the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in 1949 and 1951,
respectively. He worked as an instructor and later as a Research Associate for
Rensselaer. He was awarded one of the first NSF Fellowships, and chose to study
at Stanford. He received his Ph.D. in 1954 and was offered a faculty position
in Civil Engineering, beginning a 34-year career of engaging his students in
challenging topics in mechanics, and structural and earthquake engineering. He
served as Department Chair and Associate Dean of Engineering and in 1974
co-founded the John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center at Stanford. In
1980, Jim Gere also became the founding head of the Stanford Committee on
Earthquake Preparedness. That same year, he was invited as one of the first for-
eigners to study the earthquake-devastated city of Tangshan, China. Jim retired
Courtesy of James and
from Stanford in 1988 but continued to be an active and most valuable member
Janice Gere Family Trust
of the Stanford community.
ix
x About the Authors
Jim Gere was known for his outgoing manner, his cheerful personality and
wonderful smile, his athleticism, and his skill as an educator in Civil Engi-
neering. He authored nine textbooks on various engineering subjects starting
in 1972 with Mechanics of Materials, a text that was inspired by his teacher
and mentor Stephan P. Timoshenko. His other well-known textbooks, used
in engineering courses around the world, include: Theory of Elastic Stability,
co-authored with S. Timoshenko; Matrix Analysis of Framed Structures and
Matrix Algebra for Engineers, both co-authored with W. Weaver; Moment
Distribution; Earthquake Tables: Structural and Construction Design Manual,
co-authored with H. Krawinkler; and Terra Non Firma: Understanding and
Preparing for Earthquakes, co-authored with H. Shah.
In 1986 he hiked to the base camp of Mount Everest, saving the life of a
companion on the trip. James was an active runner and completed the Boston
Marathon at age 48, in a time of 3:13. James Gere will be long remembered by
all who knew him as a considerate and loving man whose upbeat good humor
made aspects of daily life or work easier to bear.
P R e FAC e
Mechanics of Materials is a basic engineering subject that, along with statics,

must be understood by anyone concerned with the strength and physical per-
formance of structures, whether those structures are man-made or natural. At
the college level, statics is usually taught during the sophomore or junior year
and is a prerequisite for the follow-on course in Mechanics of Materials. Both
courses are required for most students majoring in mechanical, structural, civil,
biomedical, petroleum, nuclear, aeronautical, and aerospace engineering. In
addition, many students from such diverse fields as materials science, industrial
engineering, architecture, and agricultural engineering also find it useful to study
mechanics of materials.
Mechanics of Materials
In many university engineering programs today, both statics and mechanics of
materials are taught in large sections of students from the many engineering
disciplines. Instructors for the various parallel sections must cover the same
material, and all of the major topics must be presented so that students are
well prepared for the more advanced courses required by their specific degree
programs. An essential prerequisite for success in a first course in mechanics of
materials is a strong foundation in statics, which includes not only understanding
fundamental concepts but also proficiency in applying the laws of static equi-
librium to solutions of both two- and three-dimensional problems. This ninth
edition begins with an updated section on statics in which the laws of equilib-
rium and an expanded list of boundary (or support) conditions are reviewed, as
well as types of applied forces and internal stress resultants, all based upon and
derived from a properly drawn free-body diagram. Numerous examples and end-
of-chapter problems are included to help students review the analysis of plane
and space trusses, shafts in torsion, beams and plane and space frames, and to
reinforce basic concepts learned in the prerequisite course.
Many instructors like to present the basic theory of say, beam bending, and
then use real world examples to motivate student interest in the subject of beam
flexure, beam design, etc. In many cases, structures on campus offer easy access to
beams, frames, and bolted connections that can be dissected in lecture or in home-
work problems, to find reactions at supports, forces and moments in members
and stresses in connections. In addition, study of causes of failures in structures
and components also offers the opportunity for students to begin the process of
learning from actual designs and past engineering mistakes. A number of the new
example problems and also the new and revised end-of-chapter problems in this
ninth edition are based upon actual components or structures and are accompa-
nied by photographs so that the student can see the real world problem alongside
the simplified mechanics model and free-body diagrams used in its analysis.
An increasing number of universities are using rich media lecture (and/
or classroom) capture software (such as Panopto and Tegrity) in their large
undergraduate courses in mathematics, physics, and engineering. The many
new photos and enhanced graphics in the ninth edition are designed to support
this enhanced lecture mode.
xi
xii Preface
Key Features
The main topics covered in this book are the analysis and design of structural
members subjected to tension, compression, torsion, and bending, including
the fundamental concepts mentioned above. Other important topics are the
transformations of stress and strain, combined loadings and combined stress,
deflections of beams, and stability of columns. Some additional specialized top-
ics include the following: stress concentrations, dynamic and impact loadings,
non-prismatic members, shear centers, bending of beams of two materials (or
composite beams), bending of unsymmetric beams, maximum stresses in beams,
energy based approaches for computing deflections of beams, and statically
indeterminate beams.
Each chapter begins with a Chapter Overview highlighting the major top-
ics covered in that chapter and closes with a Chapter Summary and Review in
which the key points as well as major mathematical formulas in the chapter
are listed for quick review. Each chapter also opens with a photograph of
a component or structure that illustrates the key concepts discussed in the
chapter.
new Features
Some of the notable features of this ninth edition, which have been added as
new or updated material to meet the needs of a modern course in mechanics of
materials, are:
• Problem-Solving Approach—All examples in the text are presented in a
new Four-Step Problem-Solving Approach which is patterned after that
presented by R. Serway and J. Jewett in Principles of Physics, 5e, Cengage
Learning, 2013. This new structured format helps students refine their
problem-solving skills and improve their understanding of the main con-
cepts illustrated in the example.
• Statics Review—The Statics Review section has been enhanced in Chapter
1. Section 1.2 includes four new example problems which illustrate calcu-
lation of support reactions and internal stress resultants for truss, beam,
circular shaft and plane frame structures. Thirty-four end-of-chapter prob-
lems on statics provide students with two- and three-dimensional structures
to be used as practice, review, and homework assignment problems of
varying difficulty.
• Expanded Chapter Overview and Chapter Summary and Review sections—
The Chapter Overview and Chapter Summary sections have been expanded
to include key equations and figures presented in each chapter. These sum-
mary sections serve as a convenient review for students of key topics and
equations presented in each chapter.
• Continued emphasis on underlying fundamental concepts such as equilib-
rium, constitutive, and strain-displacement/ compatibility equations in
problem solutions. Example problem and end-of-chapter problem solu-
tions have been updated to emphasize an orderly process of explicitly writ-
ing out the equilibrium, constitutive and strain-displacement/ compatibility
equations before attempting a solution.
Preface xiii
• Expanded topic coverage—The following topics have been updated or have

received expanded coverage: stress concentrations in axially loads bars
(Sec. 2.10); torsion of noncircular shafts (Sec. 3.10); stress concentrations
in bending (Sec. 5.13); transformed section analysis for composite beams
(Sec. 6.3); generalized flexure formula for unsymmetric beams (Sec. 6.5);
and updated code provisions for buckling of steel, aluminum and timber
columns (Sec. 11.9).
• Many new example and end-of-chapter problems—More than forty new
example problems have been added to the ninth edition. In addition, there
are more than 400 new and revised end-of-chapter problems out of the
1440 problems presented in the ninth edition text. The end-of-chapter
problems are now grouped as Introductory or Representative and are
arranged in order of increasing difficulty.
• Centroids and Moments of Inertia review has moved to Appendix D to free
up space for more examples and problems in earlier chapters.
Importance of example Problems

• Examples are presented throughout the book to illustrate the theoretical
concepts and show how those concepts may be used in practical situations.
All examples are presented in the Four-Step Problem-Solving Approach
format so that the basic concepts as well as the key steps in setting up and
solving each problem are clearly understood. New photographs have been
added showing actual engineering structures or components to reinforce
the tie between theory and application. Each example begins with a clear
statement of the problem and then presents a simplified analytical model
and the associated free-body diagrams to aid students in understanding
and applying the relevant theory in engineering analysis of the system. In
most cases, the examples are worked out in symbolic terms so as to better
illustrate the ideas, and then numeric values of key parameters are substi-
tuted in the final part of the analysis step. In selected examples through-
out the text, graphical display of results (e.g., stresses in beams) has been
added to enhance the student’s understanding of the problem results.
example 1-1 In many cases, the problem

involves the analysis of a
real physical structure, such
Figure 1-6 Figure 1-7 as this truss structure (Fig.
Free-body diagram of truss model 1-6) representing part of
y
the fuselage of a model air
P plane. Begin by sketching
C
the portion of the structure
2P
θC = 80° of interest showing
a members, supports,
b
θB = 40° dimensions and loadings.

θA = 60° This Conceptualization
Ax A B
D x step in the analysis often
Ay By leads to a free-body
c/2 c/2 diagram (Fig. 1-7).
xiv Preface
Solution:
The solution involves the following steps:
The next step is to simplify 1. Conceptualize [hypothesize, sketch]: First sketch a free-body dia-
the problem, list known gram of the entire truss model (Figure 1-7). Only known applied
data and identify all
forces at C and unknown reaction forces at A and B are shown and
unknowns, and make
necessary assumptions to then used in an equilibrium analysis to find the reactions.
create a suitable model 2. Categorize [simplify, classify]: Overall equilibrium requires that the
for analysis. This is the
Categorize step. force components in x and y directions and the moment about the z
axis must sum to zero; this leads to reaction force components Ax,
Ay, and By. The truss is statically determinate (unknowns: m 1 r 5 5
Write the governing 1 3 5 8, knowns: 2j 5 8) so all member forces can be obtained using
equations, then use the method of joints. . . .
appropriate mathematical
3. Analyze [evaluate; select relevant equations, carry out mathematical
and computational
techniques to solve the solution]: First find the lengths of members AC and BC, which are
equations and obtain needed to compute distances to lines of action of forces.
results, either in the form
of mathematical formulas Law of sines to find member lengths a and b: Use known angles u A, u B,
or numerical values. The and uC and c 5 10 ft to find lengths a and b:
Analysis step leads to
support reaction and sin(u B ) sin(408 )
b 5c 5 (10 ft) 5 6.527 ft,
member forces in the truss. sin(uC ) sin(808 )
sin(u A ) sin(608 )
a 5c 5 (10 ft) 5 8.794 ft
sin(uC ) sin(808 )
Check that computed lengths a and b give length c by using the law
of cosines:
c 5 (6.527 ft)2 1 (8.794 ft)2 2 2(6.527 ft)(8.794 ft) cos(808 ) 5 10 ft

List the major steps in your
analysis procedure so that it 4. Finalize [conclude; examine answer—does it make sense? Are units
is easy to review or check at
a later time. correct? How does it compare to similar problem solutions?]: There
are 2 j 5 8 equilibrium equations for the simple plane truss consid-
ered above and, using the method of joints, these are obtained by
applying SFx 5 0 and SFy 5 0 at each joint in succession. A com-
puter solution of these simultaneous equations leads to the three
reaction forces and five member forces. The method of sections is an
efficient way to find selected member forces.
List the major steps in the Finalize step,

review the solution to make sure that it is
presented in a clear fashion so that it can
be easily reviewed and checked by others.
Are the expressions and numerical values
obtained reasonable? Do they agree with
your initial expectations?
Visit https://testbankfan.com
now to explore a rich
collection of testbank or
solution manual and enjoy
exciting offers!
Preface xv
Problems
In all mechanics courses, solving problems is an important part of the learning
process. This textbook offers more than 1440 problems, many with multiple
parts, for homework assignments and classroom discussions. The problems
are placed at the end of each chapter so that they are easy to find and don’t
break up the presentation of the main subject matter. Also, problems are
generally arranged in order of increasing difficulty, thus alerting students to
the time necessary for solution. Answers to all problems are listed near the
back of the book.
Considerable effort has been spent in checking and proofreading the text so
as to eliminate errors. If you happen to find one, no matter how trivial, please
notify me by e-mail (bgoodno@ce.gatech.edu). We will correct any errors in the
next printing of the book.
Units
Both the International System of Units (SI) and the U.S. Customary System
(USCS) are used in the examples and problems. Discussions of both systems
and a table of conversion factors are given in Appendix A. For problems involv-
ing numerical solutions, odd-numbered problems are in USCS units and even-
numbered problems are in SI units. This convention makes it easy to know
in advance which system of units is being used in any particular problem. In
addition, tables containing properties of structural-steel shapes in both USCS
and SI units may be found in Appendix F so that solution of beam analysis
and design examples and end-of-chapter problems can be carried out in either
USCS or SI units.
Supplements
Instructor Resources
An Instructor’s Solutions Manual is available in both print and digital versions,
and includes solutions to all problems from this edition with Mathcad solutions
available for some problems. The Manual includes rotated stress elements for
problems as well as an increased number of free body diagrams. The digital
version is accessible to instructors on http://login.cengage.com. The Instructor
Resource Center also contains a full set of Lecture Note PowerPoints.
Student Resources
FE Exam Review Problems has been updated and now appears online. This
supplement contains 106 FE-type review problems and solutions, which cover
all of the major topics presented in the text and are representative of those likely
to appear on an FE exam. Each of the problems is presented in the FE Exam
format and is intended to serve as a useful guide to the student in preparing for
this important examination.
Many students take the Fundamentals of Engineering Examination upon
graduation, the first step on their path to registration as a Professional Engi-
neer. Most of these problems are in SI units which is the system of units used
xvi Preface
on the FE Exam itself, and require use of an engineering calculator to carry out
the solution. The student must select from four available answers, only one of
which is the correct answer. Go to http://www.cengagebrain.com to find the
FE Exam Review Problems and the resources below, which are available on
the student website for this book:
• Answers to the FE Exam Review Problems
• Detailed Solutions for Each Problem
S.P. Timoshenko (1878–1972)

and J.M. Gere (1925–2008)
Many readers of this book will recognize the name of Stephen P. Timoshenko—
probably the most famous name in the field of applied mechanics. A brief
biography of Timoshenko appears in the first reference in the References and
Historical Notes section. Timoshenko is generally recognized as the world’s most
outstanding pioneer in applied mechanics. He contributed many new ideas and
concepts and became famous for both his scholarship and his teaching. Through
his numerous textbooks he made a profound change in the teaching of mechan-
ics not only in this country but wherever mechanics is taught. Timoshenko was
both teacher and mentor to James Gere and provided the motivation for the
first edition of this text, authored by James M. Gere and published in 1972.
The second and each subsequent edition of this book were written by James
Gere over the course of his long and distinguished tenure as author, educator,
and researcher at Stanford University. James Gere started as a doctoral student
at Stanford in 1952 and retired from Stanford as a professor in 1988 having
authored this and eight other well-known and respected text books on mechan-
ics, and structural and earthquake engineering. He remained active at Stanford
as Professor Emeritus until his death in January of 2008.
Acknowledgments
To acknowledge everyone who contributed to this book in some manner is clearly
impossible, but I owe a major debt to my former Stanford teachers, especially my
mentor and friend, and co-author James M. Gere.
I am grateful to my many colleagues teaching Mechanics of Materials at
various institutions throughout the world who have provided feedback and con-
structive criticism about the text; for all those anonymous reviews, my thanks.
With each new edition, their advice has resulted in significant improvements
in both content and pedagogy.
My appreciation and thanks also go to the reviewers who provided specific
comments for this ninth edition:
Erian Armanios, University of Texas at Arlington
Aaron S. Budge, Minnesota State University, Mankato
Virginia Ferguson, University of Colorado, Boulder
Preface xvii
James Giancaspro, University of Miami
Paul Heyliger, Colorado State University
Eric Kasper, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
Richard Kunz, Mercer University
David Lattanzi, George Mason University
Gustavo Molina, Georgia Southern University
Suzannah Sandrik, University of Wisconsin—Madison
Morteza A.M. Torkamani, University of Pittsburgh
I wish to also acknowledge my Structural Engineering and Mechanics

colleagues at the Georgia Institute of Technology, many of whom provided
valuable advice on various aspects of the revisions and additions leading to
the current edition. It is a privilege to work with all of these educators and to
learn from them in almost daily interactions and discussions about structural
engineering and mechanics in the context of research and higher education.
I wish to extend my thanks to my many current and former students who have
helped to shape this text in its various editions. Finally, I would like to acknowl-
edge the excellent work of Edwin Lim who suggested new problems and also
carefully checked the solutions of many of the new examples and end of chapter
problems.
I wish to acknowledge and thank the Global Engineering team at Cengage
Learning for their dedication to this new book:
Timothy Anderson, Product Director; Mona Zeftel, Senior Content Developer;

D. Jean Buttrom, Content Project Manager; Kristin Stine, Marketing Manager;
Elizabeth Brown and Brittany Burden, Learning Solutions Specialists; Ashley
Kaupert, Associate Media Content Developer; Teresa Versaggi and Alexander
Sham, Product Assistants; and Rose Kernan of RPK Editorial Services, Inc.
They have skillfully guided every aspect of this text’s development and
production to successful completion.
I am deeply appreciative of the patience and encouragement provided by
my family, especially my wife, Lana, throughout this project.
Finally, I am very pleased to continue this endeavor begun so many years
ago by my mentor and friend, Jim Gere. This ninth edition text has now reached
its 45th year of publication. I am committed to its continued excellence and wel-
come all comments and suggestions. Please feel free to provide me with your
critical input at bgoodno@ce.gatech.edu.
Barry J. Goodno
Atlanta, Georgia
M I n DTA P o n L I n e C o U R S e
Mechanics of Materials is also available

through MindTap, Cengage Learning’s dig-
ital course platform. The carefully-crafted
pedagogy and exercises in this trusted text-
book are made even more effective by an
interactive, customizable eBook, automati-
cally graded assessments, and a full suite of
learning tools.
As an instructor using MindTap, you
have at your fingertips the full text and
a unique set of tools, all in an interface
designed to save you time. MindTap makes
it easy for instructors to build and custom-
ize their course, so you can focus on the
most relevant material while also lowering
costs for your students. Stay connected
and informed through real-time student
tracking that provides the opportunity
to adjust your course as needed based on
analytics of interactivity and
performance. End-of-chapter
quizzes and problem sets test
students’ knowledge of con-
cepts and numerics. Wrong
answers in the algorithmi-
cally generated problem sets
pop up custom step-by-step
solutions to guide students
how to solve the problems.
xviii
MindTap Online Course xix
Videos provide views of real world structures

discussed in each chapter.
Step-through-tutorials
help students master con-
cepts and solve problems
explained in examples.
How does MindTap benefit

instructors?
• You can build and personalize your course by
integrating your own content into the MindTap
Reader (like lecture notes or problem sets to
download) or pull from sources such as RSS
feeds, YouTube videos, websites, and more.
Control what content students see with a
built-in learning path that can be customized to
your syllabus.
• MindTap saves you time by providing you and your students with
automatically graded assignments and quizzes. These problems include
immediate, specific feedback, so students know exactly where they need
more practice.
Exploring the Variety of Random
Documents with Different Content
of the sequence of events.[85] The Donatists demanded that
judgment should be given against the absent bishop by default, but
Constantine refused and ordered them to follow him to Milan, where
affairs of state necessitated his presence. If Augustine is to be
trusted, the Emperor secured the attendance of the Donatists by
clapping them under guard (ab officialibus custoditos). This time
Cæcilianus did not fail his patron. Constantine, who was strongly
averse from taking upon himself to revise, as it were, the judgments
passed by so many bishops in council, deprecated their possible
resentment by assuring them that his sole desire was to close the
mouths of the Donatists.
After hearing the case all over again, Constantine pronounced
judgment on Nov. 16, 316. St. Augustine says that the Emperor’s
letters prove his diligence, caution, and forethought. The praise may
be deserved, but it is evident that he had made up his mind
beforehand. He re-affirmed the absolute innocence of Cæcilianus
and the shamelessness of his accusers. In an interesting fragment of
a letter written by the Emperor to Eumalius, one of his vicars, occurs
this sentence: “I saw in Cæcilianus a man of spotless innocence,
one who observed the proper duties of religion and served it as he
ought, nor did it appear that guilt could be found in him, as had been
charged against him in his absence by the malice of his enemies.”
The publication of the Emperor’s verdict was followed by an edict
prescribing penalties against the schismatics. St. Augustine speaks
of a “most severe law against the party of Donatus,”[86] and, from
other scattered references, we learn that their churches were
confiscated and that they were fined for non-obedience. The author
of the Edict of Milan, who had promised absolute freedom of
conscience to all, was so soon obliged to invoke the arm of the
temporal authority for the correction of religious disunion!
But the Donatists, whose only raison d’être was their passionate
insistence upon the obligation of the Christian to make no
compromise with conscience, however sharp the edge of the
persecutor’s sword, were obviously not the kind of people to be
overawed by so mild a punishment as confiscation of property. The
Emperor’s edicts were fruitless, and in 320, only four years later, we
find Constantine trying a change of policy and recommending the
African bishops to see once more what toleration would do. Active
repression only made martyrs, and martyrdom was the goal of the
fanatical Donatist’s ambition. Hence the terms in which the Emperor
addresses the Catholic Church of Africa. After enumerating the
repeated efforts he has made in order to restore unity, and dwelling
upon the deliberate and abandoned wickedness of those who have
rendered his intervention nugatory, he continues:
“We must hope, therefore, that Almighty God may shew pity and
gentleness to his people, as this schism is the work of a few. For it is
to God that we should look for a remedy, since all good vows and
deeds are requited. But until the healing comes from above, it
behoves us to moderate our councils, to practise patience, and to
bear with the virtue of calmness any assault or attack which the
depravity of these people prompts them to deliver.
“Let there be no paying back injury with injury: for it is only the fool
who takes into his usurping hands the vengeance which he ought to
reserve for God.[87] Our faith should be strong enough to feel full
confidence that, whatever we have to endure from the fury of men
like these, will avail with God with all the grace of martyrdom. For
what is it in this world to conquer in the name of God, unless it be to
bear with fortitude the disordered attack of men who trouble the
peaceful followers of the law!
“If you observe my will, you will speedily find that, thanks to the
supreme power, the designs of the presumptuous standard-bearers
of this wretched faction will languish, and all men will recognise that
they ought not to listen to the persuasion of a few and perish
everlastingly, when, by the grace of penitence, they may correct their
errors and be restored to eternal life.”
Patience, leniency, and toleration, however, were as futile as force

in dealing with the Donatists, who bluntly told the Emperor that his
protégé, Cæcilianus, was a “worthless rascal” (antistiti ejus
nebuloni), and refused to obey his injunctions. Donatus, surnamed
the Great in order to distinguish him from the other Donatus, who
had been Bishop of Casæ Nigræ, had by this time succeeded to the
leadership of the schism on the death of Majorinus, and the
extraordinary ascendency which he obtained over his followers, in
spite of the powerful Imperial influence which was always at the
support of Cæcilianus, warrants the belief that he was a man of
marked ability. Learned, eloquent, and irreproachable in private life,
he is said to have ruled his party with an imperious hand, and to
have treated his bishops like lackeys. Yet his authority was so
unbounded and unquestioned that his followers swore by his name
and grey hairs, and, at his death, ascribed to him the honours paid
only to martyrs.
Under his leadership the Donatists rapidly increased in numbers.
They were schismatics rather than heretics. They had no great
distinctive tenet; what they seem to have insisted upon chiefly was
absolute purity within the Church and freedom from worldly taint.
That was their ideal, as it has been the ideal of many other wild
sectaries since their day. They claimed special revelations of the
Divine Will; they insisted upon rebaptising their converts, compelling
even holy virgins to take fresh vows on joining their communion,
which they boasted was that of the one true Church. Such a sect
naturally attracted to itself all the fanatical extremists of Africa and all
those who had any grievance against the Catholic authorities. It
became the refuge of the revolutionary, the bankrupt, and the
criminal, and thus, inside the Donatist movement proper, there grew
up a kind of anarchist movement against property, which had little or
no connection with religious principles.
Constantine, during the remainder of his reign, practically ignored
the African Church. He had done what he could and he wiped his
hands of it. There soon arose an extravagant sect which took the
name of Circumcelliones, from their practice of begging food from
cell to cell, or cottage to cottage. They renounced the ordinary
routine of daily life. Forming themselves into bands, and styling
themselves the Champions of the Lord (ἀγωνιστικόι), they roamed
through the countryside, which they kept in a state of abject terror.
St. Augustine, in a well-known passage, declares that when their
shout of “Praise be to God!” was heard, it was more dreaded than
the roar of a lion. They were armed with wooden clubs, which they
named “Israels,” and these they did not scruple to use upon the
Catholics, whose churches they entered and plundered, committing
the most violent excesses, though they were pledged to celibacy.
Gibbon justly compares them to the Camisards of Languedoc at the
commencement of the 18th century, and others have likened them to
the Syrian Assassins at the time of the Crusades and the Jewish
Sicarii of Palestine during the first century of the Christian era. They
formed, it seems, a sort of Christian Jacquerie, possessed in their
wilder moments with a frantic passion for martyrdom and imploring
those whom they met to kill them. The best of them were fit only for a
madhouse; the worst were fit only for a gaol. Probably they had little
connection with the respectable Donatists in the cities, whose
organisation was precisely the same as that of the Catholics, and
their operations were mainly restricted to the thinly populated
districts on the borders of the desert.
On one occasion, however, Constantine was obliged to interfere.
The Donatists in Cirta,—the capital of Numidia,—which had been
renamed Constantina in honour of the Emperor, had forcibly seized
the church of the Catholics, that had been built at Constantine’s
command. The Catholics, therefore, appealed to the Emperor, and
knowing that he was pledged to a policy of non-interference, they did
not ask for punishment against the Donatists, or even for the
restoration of the church in question, but simply that a new site might
be given them out of public moneys. The Emperor granted their
request, ordering that the building as well as the site should be paid
for by the State, and granting immunity from all public offices to the
Catholic clergy of the town. In his letter Constantine does not mince
his language with respect to the Donatists.
“They are adherents,” he says, “of the Devil, who is their father;
they are insane, traitors, irreligious, profane, ranged against God and
enemies of the Holy Church. Would to Heaven!” he concludes, “that
these heretics or schismatics might have regard even now for their
own salvation, and, brushing aside the darkness, turn their eyes to
see the true light, leaving the Devil, and flying for refuge, late though
it be, to the one and true God, who is the judge of all! But since they
are set upon remaining in their wickedness and wish to die in their
iniquities, our warning and our previous long continued exhortations
must suffice. For if they had been willing to obey our
commandments, they would now be free from all evil.”
Evidently the Emperor was thoroughly weary of the whole

controversy, and disgusted at such unreasoning contumacy. The
same feelings find powerful expression in the letters and
manifestoes of St. Augustine, a century later, when the great Bishop
of Hippo constituted himself the champion of the Catholic Church
and played the foremost part in the stormy debates which preceded
the final disappearance of the Donatist schism, after the Council of
Carthage in 410. Then the momentous decision was reached that all
bishops who, after three appeals to them to return to the Church, still
refused submission, should be brought back to the Catholic fold by
force. The point in dispute was still just what it had been in the days
of Constantine, whether a Christian Church could be considered
worthy of the name if it had admitted faithless and unworthy
members, or if the ministers had been ordained by bishops who had
temporised with their consciences and fallen short of the loftiest ideal
of duty. That was the great underlying principle at stake in the
Donatist controversy, though, as in all such controversies, the
personal element was paramount when the schism began, and was
still the cause of the bitterness and fury with which the quarrel was
conducted long after the intrigues of Lucilla and the personal
animosities between Cæcilianus and the Numidian bishops had
ceased to be of interest or moment to the living Church. And it is
interesting to note that while it was the Donatists themselves who
had made the first appeal unto Cæsar by asking Constantine to
judge between them and Cæcilianus, in St. Augustine’s day the
Donatists hotly denied the capacity of the State to take cognisance
of spiritual things. What, they asked, has an Emperor to do with the
Church? Quid est Imperatori cum Ecclesia?
STATUE OF CONSTANTINE FROM THE
PORCH OF SAN GIOVANNI IN LATERAN, AT
ROME.
CHAPTER X
THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY
If Constantine beheld with impatience the irreconcilable fury of the

Donatists, who refused either to respect his wishes for Christian
unity or to obey the bishops of the Western Church; if he angrily
washed his hands of their stubborn factiousness and committed
them in despair to the judgment of God, we may imagine with what
bitterness of soul he beheld the gathering of the storm of violent
controversy which is associated with the two great names of Arius
and Athanasius. This was a controversy, and Arianism was a heresy,
which, unlike the Donatist schism, were confined to no single
province of the Empire, but spread like a flood over the Eastern
Church, raising issues of tremendous importance, vital to the very
existence of Christianity. It started in Alexandria. No birthplace could
have been more appropriate to a system of theology which was
professedly based upon pure reason than the great university city
where East and West met, the home of Neo-Platonism, the inheritor
of the Hellenic tradition, and the chief exponent of Hellenism, as
understood and professed by Greeks who for centuries had been
subject to and profoundly modified by Oriental ideas and thought.
We must deal very briefly with its origin. Arius was born in the third
quarter of the third century, according to some accounts in Libya,
according to others in Alexandria. He was ordained deacon by the
Patriarch Peter and presbyter by Achillas, who appointed him to the
church called Baucalis, the oldest and one of the most important of
the city churches of Alexandria. Arius had been in schism in his
earlier years. He had joined the party of Meletius, Bishop of
Lycopolis, who was condemned by a synod of Egyptian bishops in
306 for insubordination and irregularity of conduct; but he had made
submission to Achillas, and during the latter’s short tenure of the
see, Arius became a power in Alexandria. We are told, indeed, that
on the death of Achillas in 312 or 313 Arius was a candidate for the
vacant throne, and Theodoretus states that he was greatly mortified
at being passed over in favour of Alexander. But there is no
indication of personal animosity or quarrel between the bishop and
the parish priest until five or six years later. On the contrary,
Alexander is said to have held Arius in high esteem, and the fame of
the priest of Baucalis spread abroad through the city as that of an
earnest worker, a strict and ascetic liver, and a powerful preacher
who dealt boldly and frankly with the great principles of the faith. In
person, Arius was of tall and striking presence, conspicuous
wherever he moved by his sleeveless tunic and narrow cloak, and
gifted with great conversational powers and charm of manner. He
was also capable of infecting others with the enthusiasm which he
felt himself. Arius has been described for us mainly by his enemies,
who considered him a very anti-Christ, and attributed his remarkable
success to the direct help of the Evil One. We may be sure that, like
all the great religious leaders of the world,—among whom, heretic
though he was, he deserves a place,—he was fanatically sincere
and the doctrine which he preached was vital and fecund, even
though the vitality and fecundity were those of error.
It was not, apparently, until the year 319 that serious disturbance
began in the Christian circles of Alexandria. There would first of all
be whispers that Arius was preaching strange doctrine and handling
the great mysteries somewhat boldly and dogmatically. Many would
doubt the wisdom of such outspokenness, quite apart from the
question whether the doctrine taught was sound; others would
exhibit the ordinary distrust of innovation; others would welcome this
new kindling of theological interest from the mere pleasure of debate
and controversy. We do not suppose that any one, not even Arius
himself, foresaw—at any rate, at first—the extraordinary and
lamentable consequences that were to follow from his teaching. The
Patriarch Alexander has been blamed for not crushing the infant
heresy at its birth, for not stopping the mouth of Arius before the
mischief was done. It is easy to be wise after the event. Doubtless
Alexander did not appreciate the danger; possibly also he thought
that if he waited, the movement would subside of itself. He may very
well have believed that this popular preacher would lose his hold,
that some one else would take his place as the fashionable
clergyman of the hour, that the extravagance of his doctrines would
speedily be forgotten. Moreover, Arius was a zealous priest, doing
good work in his own way, and long experience has shewn that it is
wise for ecclesiastical superiors to give able men of marked power
and originality considerable latitude in the expression of their views.
As time went on, however, it became clear that Alexander must
intervene. Arius was now the enthusiastic advocate of theories which
aimed at the very root of the Christian religion, inasmuch as they
denied the essential Godhead of Christ. It was no longer a case of a
daring thinker tentatively hinting at doctrines which were hardly in
accord with established belief. Arius was devoting himself just to
those points where he was at variance with his fellows, was insisting
upon them in season and out of season, and was treating them as
the very essence of Christianity. He had issued his challenge;
Alexander was compelled to take it up. The Patriarch sent for him
privately. He wished either to convince him of his error or to induce
him to be silent. But the interview was of no avail. Arius simply
preached the more. Alexander then summoned a meeting of the
clergy of Alexandria, and brought forward for discussion the
accepted doctrine of the Holy Trinity which Arius had challenged.
Arius and his sympathisers were present and the controversy was so
prolonged that the meeting had to be adjourned; when it
reassembled, the Patriarch endeavoured to bring the debate to a
close by restating the doctrine of the Holy Trinity in a form which he
hoped would be unanimously approved. But this merely precipitated
an open rupture. For Arius immediately rose and denounced
Alexander for falling into the heresy of Sabellianism and reducing the
Second Person in the Trinity to a mere manifestation of the First.
It is to be remembered that the doctrine of the Holy Trinity—
difficult as it is even now, after centuries of discussion, to state in
terms that are free from all equivocation—must have been far more
difficult to state then, before the Arian controversy had, so to speak,
crystallised the exact meaning of the terms employed. It seems quite
clear, moreover, from what subsequently took place, that Alexander
was no match for Arius in dialectical subtlety and that Arius found it
easy to twist his chief’s unskilful arguments and expressions into
bearing an interpretation which Alexander had not intended. At any
rate the inevitable result of the conference was that both sides
parted in anger, and Arius continued as before to preach the doctrine
that the Son of God was a creature. For this was the leading tenet of
Arianism and the basis of the whole heresy, that the Son of God was
a creature, the first of all creatures, it is true, and created before the
angels and archangels, ineffably superior to all other creatures, yet
still a creature and, as such, ineffably inferior to the Creator, God the
Father Himself.
It does not fall within the scope of this book to discuss in detail the
theological conceptions of Arius and the mysteries of the Holy Trinity.
But it is necessary to say a few words about this new doctrine which
was to shake the world, and to shew how it came into being. Arius
started from the Sonship of Christ, and argued thus: If Christ be
really, and not simply metaphorically, the Son of God, and if the
Divine Sonship is to be interpreted in the same way as the
relationship between human father and son, then the Divine Father
must have existed before the Divine Son. Therefore, there must
have been a time when the Son did not exist. Therefore, the Son
was a creature composed of an essence or being which had
previously not been existent. And inasmuch as the Father was in
essence eternal and ever existent, the Son could not be of the same
essence as the Father. Such was the Arian theory stated in the
fewest possible words. “Its essential propositions,” as Canon Bright
has said,[88] “were these two, that the Son had not existed from
eternity and that he differed from other creatures in degree and not
in kind.” There can be nothing more misleading than to represent the
Arian controversy as a futile logomachy, a mere quarrel about words,
about a single vowel even, as Gibbon has done in a famous
passage. It was a vital controversy upon a vital dogma of the
Christian Church.
Two years seem to have passed before Bishop Alexander, finding
that Arius was growing bolder in declared opposition, felt compelled
to make an attempt to enforce discipline within his diocese. The
insubordinate priest of Baucalis had rejected the personal appeal of
his bishop and disregarded the wishes of a majority of the
Alexandrian clergy, and we may reasonably suppose that his
polemics would grow all the more bitter as he became aware of the
rapidly deepening estrangement. He would sharpen the edge of his
sarcasm upon the logical obtuseness of his nominal superiors, for
his appeal was always to reason and to logic. Given my premises,
he would say, where is the flaw in my deductions, and wherein do
my syllogisms break down? By the year 321 Arius was the typical
rebellious priest, profoundly self-confident, rejoicing in controversy,
dealing hard blows all around him, and prepared to stoop to any
artifice in order to gain adherents. To win over the mob, he was
ready to degrade his principles to the mob’s understanding.
Alexander summoned a provincial synod of a hundred Egyptian
and Libyan bishops to pronounce judgment upon the doctrines and
the person of Arius. Attended by his principal supporters, Arius
appeared before the synod and boldly stood to his guns. He
maintained, that is to say, that God had not always been Father; that
the Word was the creature and handiwork of the Father; that the Son
was not like the Father according to substance and was neither the
true Word nor the true Wisdom, having been created by the Word
and Wisdom which are in God; that by His nature He was subject to
change like all other rational creatures; that the Son does not
perfectly know either the Father or His own essence, and that Jesus
Christ is not true God. The majority of the bishops listened with
horror as Arius thus unfolded his daring and, in their ears,
blasphemous creed. One of them at length put a searching test
question. “If,” he asked, “the Word of God is subject to change,
would it have been possible for the Word to change, as Satan had
changed, from goodness to wickedness?” “Yes,” came the answer.
Thereupon the synod promptly excommunicated Arius and his
friends, including two bishops, Secundus of Ptolemais in the
Pentapolis and Theonas of Marmorica, together with six priests and
six deacons. The synod also anathematised his doctrines. The Arian
heresy had formally begun.
Arius quitted Alexandria and betook himself to Palestine, where he
and his companions received hospitable treatment at the hands of
some of the bishops, notably Eusebius of Cæsarea and Paulinus of
Tyre. He bore himself very modestly, assuming the rôle not of a rebel
against authority, but of one who had been deeply wronged, because
he had been grievously misunderstood. He was no longer the
turbulent priest, strong in the knowledge of his intellectual superiority
over his bishop, but a minister of the Church who had been cast out
from among the faithful and whose one absorbing desire was to be
restored to communion. He did not ask his kindly hosts to associate
themselves with him. He merely begged that they should use their
good offices with Alexander to effect a reconciliation, and that they
should not refuse to treat him as a true member of the Church. A
few, like Macarius of Jerusalem, rejected his overtures, but a large
number of bishops in the Province—if we may so term it—of the
Patriarch Antioch acceded to his wishes. No doubt Arius presented
his case, when he was suing for recognition and favour, in a very
different form from that in which he had presented it from the rostrum
of his church at Baucalis. He was as subtle in his knowledge of the
ways of the world as in his knowledge of the processes of logic.
Nevertheless, he cannot possibly have disguised the main doctrine
which he had preached for years—the doctrine, that is to say, that
the Son was inferior to the Father and had been created by the
Father out of a substance other than His own—and the fact that the
champion of such a doctrine received recognition at the hands of so
many bishops seems to prove that the Church had not yet
formulated her belief in respect of this mystery with anything like
precision; that theories similar to those advocated by Arius were rife
throughout the East and were by no means repugnant to the general
tendency of its thought.
Arianism would naturally, and did actually, make a most potent
appeal to minds of very varying quality and calibre. It appealed, for
example, to those Christians who had not quite succeeded in
throwing off the influences of the paganism around them, a class
obviously large and comprising within it alike the educated who were
under the spell of the religious philosophy of the Neo-Platonists, and
the uneducated and illiterate who believed, or at any rate spoke as if
they believed, in a multiplicity of gods. To minds, therefore, still
insensibly thinking in terms of polytheism one can understand the
attraction of the leading thought of Arianism, viz., one supreme,
eternal, omnipotent God, God the Father, and a secondary God, God
the Son, God and creature in one, and therefore the better fitted to
be intermediary between the unapproachable God and fallen
humanity. For how many long centuries had not the world believed in
demi-gods as it had believed in gods? Arianism, on one side of its
character, enabled men to cast a lingering look behind on an
outworn creed which had not been wholly gross and which had not
been too exacting for human frailty. Moreover, there were many texts
in Holy Scripture which seemed in the most explicit language to
corroborate the truth of Arius’s teaching. “My Father is greater than
I,” so Christ had Himself said, and the obvious and literal meaning of
the words seemed entirely inconsistent with any essential co-equality
of Son and Father. The text, of course, is subject to another—if more
recondite—interpretation, but the history of religion has shewn that
the origin of most sects has been due to people fastening upon
individual texts and founding upon them doctrines both great and
small.
Again,—and perhaps this was the strongest claim that Arianism
could put forward,—it appealed to men’s pride and belief in the
adequacy of their reason. Mankind has always hungered after a
religious system based on reason, founded in reason; secure against
all objectors, something four-square and solid against all possible
assailants. Arianism claimed to provide such a system, and it
unquestionably had the greater appearance—at any rate to a
superficial view—of being based upon irrefutable argument. Canon
Bright put the case very well where he wrote[89]:
“Arianism would appeal to not a few minds by adopting a position

virtually rationalistic, and by promising to secure a Christianity which
should stand clear of philosophical objections, and Catholics would
answer by insisting that the truths pertaining to the Divine Nature
must be pre-eminently matter of adoring faith, that it was rash to
speculate beyond the limit of revelation, and that the Arian position
was itself open to criticism from reason’s own point of view. Arians
would call on Catholics to ‘be logical’; to admit the prior existence of
the Father as involved in the very primary notion of fatherhood; to
halt no more between a premiss and a conclusion, to exchange their
sentimental pietism for convictions sustainable by argument. And
Catholics would bid them in turn remember the inevitably limited
scope of human logic in regard to things divine and would point out
the sublime uniqueness of the divine relation called Fatherhood.”
If we consider the subsequent history of the Arian doctrine, its

continual rebirth, the permanent appeal which, in at least some of its
phases, it makes to certain types of intellect including some of the
loftiest and shrewdest, there can be no reason for surprise that Arius
met with so much recognition and sympathy, even among those who
refused him their active and definite support. Alexander was both
troubled and annoyed to find that so many of the Eastern bishops
took Arius’s part, and he sent round a circular letter of remonstrance
which had the effect of arousing some of these kindly ecclesiastics to
a sense of the danger which lurked in the Arian doctrine. But Arius
was soon to find his ablest and most influential champion in the
person of another Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia in Bithynia. This
Eusebius had been Bishop of Berytus (Beyrout), and it has been
thought that he owed his translation from that see to the more
important one of Nicomedia to the influence of Constantia, sister of
Constantine and wife of Licinius. He had, at any rate, been
sufficiently astute to obtain the good-will of Constantine on the fall of
his old patron and he stood well with the court circle.
He and Arius were old friends, for they had been fellow-pupils of
the famous Lucian of Antioch. It has been suggested that Eusebius
was rather the teacher than the pupil of Arius, but probably neither
word expresses the true relationship. They were simply old friends
who thought very much alike. Arius’s letter to Eusebius asking for his
help is one of the most interesting documents of the period. Arius
writes with hot indignation of the persecution to which he has been
subjected by Alexander, who, he says, had expelled him and his
friends from Alexandria as impious atheists because they had
refused to subscribe to the outrageous doctrines which the Bishop
professed. He then gives in brief his version of Alexander’s teaching
and of his own, which he declares is that of Eusebius of Cæsarea
and all the Eastern bishops, with the exception of a few. “We are
persecuted,” he continues, “because we have said, ‘the Son has a
beginning, but God is without a beginning,’ and ‘the Son is made of
that which is not,’ and ‘the Son is not part of God nor is he of any
substance.’” It is the letter of a man angry at what he conceives to be
the harsh treatment meted out to him, and it has the ring of honesty
about it, for even though it distorts the views put forward by
Alexander, there never yet was a convinced theologian who stated
his opponent’s case precisely as that opponent would state it for
himself.
We have not Eusebius’s answer to this letter, the closing sentence
of which begged him as “a true fellow-pupil of Lucian” not to fail him.
But we know at least that it was favourable, for we next find Arius at
Nicomedia itself, under the wing of the popular and powerful Bishop,
who vigorously stood up for his friend. Eusebius wrote more than
once to Alexander pleading the cause of the banished presbyter, and
Arius himself also wrote to his old Bishop, restating his convictions
and reopening the entire question in a temperate form. The tone of
that letter certainly compares most favourably with that of the famous
document which Alexander addressed to his namesake at
Byzantium, warning him to be on guard against Arius and his friends.
He can find no epithets strong enough in which to describe them.
They are possessed of the Devil, who dwells in them and goads
them to fury; they are jugglers and tricksters, clever conjurors with
seductive words; they are brigands who have built lairs for
themselves wherein day and night they curse Christ and the faithful;
they are no better than the Jews or Greeks or pagans, whose good
opinion they eagerly covet, joining them in scoffing at the Catholic
doctrine and stirring up faction and persecution. The Bishop in his
fury even declares that the Arians are threatening lawsuits against
the Church at the instance of disorderly women whom they have led
astray, and accuses them of seeking to make proselytes through the
agency of the loose young women of the town. In short, they have
torn the unbroken tunic of Christ. And so on throughout the letter.
The historians of the Church have done the cause of truth a poor
service in concealing or glossing over the outrageous language
employed by the Patriarch, whose violence raises the suspicion that
he must have been conscious of the weakness of his own dialectical
power in thus disqualifying his opponents and ruling them out of
court as a set of frantic madmen. “What impious arrogance,” he
exclaims. “What measureless madness! What vainglorious
melancholy! What a devilish spirit it is that indurates their unholy
souls!” Even when every allowance is made, this method of
conducting a controversy creates prejudice against the person
employing it. It is, moreover, in the very sharpest contrast with the
method employed by Arius, and with the tenor of the letter written by
Eusebius of Nicomedia to Paulinus of Tyre, praying him to write to
“My lord, Alexander.” Eusebius hotly resented the tone of the
Patriarch’s letter, and, summoning a synod of Bithynian bishops, laid
the whole matter before them for discussion. Sympathising with
Arius, these bishops addressed a circular letter “to all the bishops
throughout the Empire,” begging them not to deny communion to the
Arians and also to seek to induce Alexander to do the same.
Alexander, however, stood out for unconditional surrender.
Arius returned to Palestine, where three bishops permitted him to
hold services for his followers, and the wordy war continued.
Alexander drew up a long encyclical which he addressed “to all his
fellow-workers of the universal Catholic Church,” couched in
language not quite so violent as that which he had employed in
writing to the Bishop of Byzantium, yet denouncing the Arians in no
measured terms as “lawless men and fighters against Christ,
teaching an apostasy which one may rightly describe as preparing
the way for anti-Christ.” In it he attacks Eusebius of Nicomedia by
name, accusing him of “believing that the welfare of the Church
depended upon his nod,” and of championing the cause of Arius not
because he sincerely believed the Arian doctrine so much as in
order to further his own ambitious interests. Evidently, this was not
the first time that the two prelates had been at variance, and private
animosities accentuated their doctrinal differences. The more closely
the original authorities are studied, the more evident is the need for
caution in accepting the traditional character sketches of Arius and
Eusebius of Nicomedia. Alexander declares that he is prostrated with
sorrow at the thought that Arius and his friends are eternally lost,
after having once known the truth and denied it. But he adds, “I am
not surprised. Did not Judas betray his Master after being a
disciple?” We are sceptical of Alexander’s sorrow. He closes his
letter with a plea for the absolute excommunication of the Arians.
Christians must have nothing to do with the enemies of Christ and
the destroyers of souls. They must not even offer them the
compliment of a morning salutation. To say “Good-morning” to an
Arian was to hold communication with the lost. Such a manifesto
merely added fuel to the fire, and the two parties drew farther and
farther apart.
Nor was Arius idle. It must have been about this time that he
composed the notorious poem, Thalia, in which he embodied his
doctrines. He selected the metre of a pagan poet, Sotades of Crete,
of whom we know nothing save that his verses had the reputation of
being exceedingly licentious. Arius did this of deliberate purpose. His
object was to popularise his doctrines. Sotades had a vogue; Arius
desired one. What he did was precisely similar to what in our own
time the Salvation Army has done in setting its hymns to the popular
tunes and music-hall ditties of the day. This was at first a cause of
scandal to many worthy people, who now admit the cleverness and
admire the shrewdness of the idea. Similarly, Arius got people to
sing his doctrines to the very tunes to which they had previously
sung the indecencies of Sotades. He wrote ballads, so we are told
by Philostorgius—the one Arian historian who has survived—for
sailors, millers, and travellers. But it is certainly difficult to understand
their popularity, judging from the isolated fragments which are
quoted by Athanasius in his First Discourse Against the Arians
(chap. xi.). According to Athanasius, the Thalia opened as follows:
“According to faith of God’s elect, God’s prudent ones,

Holy children, rightly dividing, God’s Holy Spirit receiving,
Have I learned this from the partakers of wisdom,
Accomplished, divinely taught, and wise in all things.
Along their track have I been walking, with like opinions.
I am very famous, the much suffering for God’s glory,
And taught of God, I have acquired wisdom and knowledge.”
It is rather the unspeakable tediousness and frigidity of this

exordium than its arrogant impiety that strike the modern reader.
Athanasius then proceeds to quote examples of Arius’s “repulsive
and most impious mockeries.” For example, “God was not always a
Father; there was once a time when God was alone and was not yet
a Father. But afterwards He became a Father.” Or, “the Son was not
always,” or “the Word is not very God, but by participation in Grace,
He, as all others, is God only in name.” If these are good specimens
of what Athanasius calls “the fables to be found in Arius’s jocose
composition,” the standard of the jocose or the ridiculous must have
altered greatly. Why such a poem should have been called the
Thalia or “Merrymaking,” it is hard to conceive.
Yet, one can understand how the ribald wits of Alexandria gladly
seized upon this portentous controversy and twisted its prominent
phrases into the catch-words of the day. There is a passage in
Gregory of Nyssa bearing on this subject which has frequently been
quoted.
“Every corner of Constantinople,” he says, “was full of their

discussions, the streets, the market-place, the shops of the money-
changers and the victuallers. Ask a tradesman how many obols he
wants for some article in his shop, and he replies with a disquisition
on generated and ungenerated being. Ask the price of bread to-day,
and the baker tells you, ‘The Son is subordinate to the Father.’ Ask
your servant if the bath is ready and he makes answer, ‘The Son
arose out of nothing.’ ‘Great is the only Begotten,’ declared the
Catholics, and the Arians rejoined, ‘But greater is He that begot.’”
It was a subject that lent itself to irreverent jesting and cheap

profanity. The baser sort of Arians appealed to boys to tell them
whether there were one or two Ingenerates, and to women to say
whether a son could exist before he was born. Even in the present
day, any theological doctrine which has the misfortune to become
the subject of excited popular debate is inevitably dragged through
the mire by the ignorant partisanship and gross scurrilities of the
contending factions. We may be sure that the “Ariomaniacs”—as
they are called—were neither worse nor better than the champions
of the Catholic side, and the result was tumult and disorder. In fact,
says Eusebius of Cæsarea,
“in every city bishops were engaged in obstinate conflict with
bishops, people rose against people, and almost, like the fabled
Symplegades, came into violent collision with each other. Nay, some
were so far transported beyond the bounds of reason as to be guilty
of reckless and outrageous conduct and even to insult the statues of
the Emperor.”
Constantine felt obliged to intervene and addressed a long letter to

Alexander and Arius, which he confided to the care of his spiritual
adviser, Hosius, Bishop of Cordova, bidding him go to Alexandria in
person and do what he could to mediate between the disputants. We
need not give the text in full. Constantine began with his usual
exordium. His consuming passion, he said, was for unity of religious
opinion, as the precursor and best guarantee of peace. Deeply
disappointed by Africa, he had hoped for better things from “the
bosom of the East,” whence had arisen the dawn of divine light.
Then he continues:
“But Ah! glorious and Divine Providence, what a wound was

inflicted not alone on my ears but on my heart, when I heard that
divisions existed among yourselves, even more grievous than those
of Africa, so that you, through whose agency I hoped to bring healing
to others, need a remedy worse than they. And yet, after making
careful enquiry into the origin of these discussions, I find that the
cause is quite insignificant and entirely disproportionate to such a
quarrel.[90]... I gather then that the present controversy originated as
follows. For when you, Alexander, asked each of the presbyters what
he thought about a certain passage in the Scriptures, or rather what
he thought about a certain aspect of a foolish question, and you,
Arius, without due consideration laid down propositions which never
ought to have been conceived at all, or, if conceived, ought to have
been buried in silence, dissension arose between you; communion
was forbidden; and the most holy people, torn in twain, no longer
preserved the unity of a common body.”
The Emperor then exhorts them to let both the unguarded

question and the inconsiderate answer be forgotten and forgiven.

Download ebooks file (eBook PDF) Mechanics of Materials 9th Editin by Barry J. Goodno all chapters

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Download ebooks file (eBook PDF) Mechanics of Materials 9th Editin by Barry J. Goodno all chapters

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Download ebooks file (eBook PDF) Mechanics of Materials 9th Editin by Barry J. Goodno all chapters

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Download the full version of the ebook now at ebooksecure.

(eBook PDF) Mechanics of Materials 9th Editin

Explore and download more ebook at https://ebooksecure.com

Mechanics of Materials 9th Edition Barry J. Goodno - eBook

(eBook PDF) Mechanics of Materials, SI Edition 9th Edition

(eBook PDF) Mechanics of Materials by Paul S. Steif

(eBook PDF) Introduction to Java Programming and Data

(eBook PDF) Biological Psychology 12th Edition by Kalat

(eBook PDF) Netter's Atlas of Human Embryology: Updated

(Original PDF) Automotive Technology: A Systems Approach

(eBook PDF) Linux+ and LPIC-1 Guide to Linux Certification

*A star attached to a section number indicates a specialized and/or advanced topic.

Mechanics of Materials is a basic engineering subject that, along with statics,

• Expanded topic coverage—The following topics have been updated or have

Importance of example Problems

example 1-1 In many cases, the problem

θB = 40° dimensions and loadings.

c 5 (6.527 ft)2 1 (8.794 ft)2 2 2(6.527 ft)(8.794 ft) cos(808 ) 5 10 ft

List the major steps in the Finalize step,

S.P. Timoshenko (1878–1972)

Erian Armanios, University of Texas at Arlington

Aaron S. Budge, Minnesota State University, Mankato

Virginia Ferguson, University of Colorado, Boulder

James Giancaspro, University of Miami

Paul Heyliger, Colorado State University

Eric Kasper, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

Richard Kunz, Mercer University

David Lattanzi, George Mason University

Gustavo Molina, Georgia Southern University

Suzannah Sandrik, University of Wisconsin—Madison

Morteza A.M. Torkamani, University of Pittsburgh

I wish to also acknowledge my Structural Engineering and Mechanics

Timothy Anderson, Product Director; Mona Zeftel, Senior Content Developer;

Mechanics of Materials is also available

Videos provide views of real world structures

How does MindTap benefit

Patience, leniency, and toleration, however, were as futile as force

Evidently the Emperor was thoroughly weary of the whole

If Constantine beheld with impatience the irreconcilable fury of the

“Arianism would appeal to not a few minds by adopting a position

If we consider the subsequent history of the Arian doctrine, its

“According to faith of God’s elect, God’s prudent ones,

It is rather the unspeakable tediousness and frigidity of this

“Every corner of Constantinople,” he says, “was full of their

It was a subject that lent itself to irreverent jesting and cheap

Constantine felt obliged to intervene and addressed a long letter to

“But Ah! glorious and Divine Providence, what a wound was

The Emperor then exhorts them to let both the unguarded

You might also like