,,plato',s ,,doctrine ,,respecting ,,the ,,rotation ,,of ,,the ,,earth1 ,,and ,,aristotle',s ,,comment ,,upon ,,that ,,doctrine4 ,,by ,,george ,,grote1 ,,esq4 ,,london3 ,,john ,,murray1 ,,albemarle ,,street4 #ahfj4 ,the right of ,translation is reserved4 ,,london3 ,,printed ,,by ,,william ,,clowes ,,and ,,sons1 ,,stamford ,,street1 ,,and ,,charing ,,cross4 ,,examination ,,of ,,the ,,three ,,following ,,questions3-- #a4 ,,whether ,,the ,,doctrine ,,of ,,the ,,earth',s ,,rotation ,,is ,,affirmed ,,or ,,implied ,,in ,,the ,,platonic ,,tim,,us8 #b4 ,,if ,,affirmed ,,or ,,implied1 ,,in ,,what ,,sense8 #c4 ,,what ,,is ,,the ,,cosmical ,,function ,,which ,,plato ,,assigns ,,to ,,the ,,earth ,,in ,,the ,,tim,,us8 ,,preface4 ,the following paper was originally intended as an explanatory note on the ,platonic ,timus1 in the work which ,i am now preparing on ,plato and ,aristotle4 ,interpreting1 differently from others1 the much debated passage in which ,plato describes the cosmical function of the ,earth1 ,i found it indispensable to give my reasons for this new view4 ,but ,i soon discovered that those reasons could not be comprised within the limits of a note4 ,accordingly ,i here publish them in a separate ,dissertation4 ,the manner in which the ,earth's rotation was conceived1 illustrates the scientific character of the ,platonic and ,aristotelian age1 as contrasted with the subsequent development and improvement of astronomy4 ,,plato--,,on ,,the ,,earth',s ,,rotation4 ,in ,plato1 ,timus1 p4 #dj ,b1 we read the following words--,greek3 ,gn de trophon men 7mete_/ran1 ei7llome_/nn de peri ton dia pantos po_/lon tetame_/non phu_/laka kai dmiourgon nukto_/s te kai 7me_/ras e7mchan_/sato1 pr_/tn kai presbuta_/tn then1 o7_/soi e7ntos ou7ra_/nou gego_/nasi4 ,i give the text as it stands in ,stallbaum's edition4 ,the obscurity of this passage is amply attested by the numerous differences of opinion to which it has given rise1 both in ancient and in modern times4 ,various contemporaries of ,plato 7,greek3 e7_/nioi--,aristot4 ,de ,coelo1 ,,ii4 #ac1 p4 #bic b4 #cj7 understood it as asserting or implying the rotatory movement of the earth in the centre of the ,kosmos1 and adhered to this doctrine as their own4 ,aristotle himself alludes to these contemporaries without naming them1 and adopts their interpretation of the passage2 but dissents from the doctrine1 and proceeds to impugn it by arguments4 ,cicero mentions 7,academic ,,ii4 #ci7 that there were persons who believed ,plato to have indicated the same doctrine obscurely1 in his ,timaeus3 this passage must undoubtedly be meant4 ,plutarch devotes a critical chapter to the enquiry1 what was ,plato's real doctrine as to the cosmical function of the earth--its movement or rest 7,quaestion4 ,platonic4 ,,vii4 #c1 p4 #ajjf47 ,there exists a treatise1 in ,doric dialect1 entitled ,greek3 ,ti_/maio9999 t ,lo_/kr ,peri ,psuchas ,ko_/sm kai ,phu_/sios1 which is usually published along with the works of ,plato4 ,this treatise was supposed in ancient times to be a genuine production of the ,lokrian ,timaeus1 whom ,plato introduces as his spokesman in the dialogue so called4 ,as such1 it was considered to be of much authority in settling questions of interpretation as to the ,platonic ,timaeus4 ,but modern critics hold1 ,i believe unanimously1 that it is the work of some later ,pythagorean or ,platonist1 excerpted or copied from the ,platonic ,timaeus4 ,this treatise represents the earth as being in the centre and at rest4 ,but its language1 besides being dark and metaphorical1 departs widely from the phraseology of the ,platonic ,timaeus3 especially in this--that it makes no mention of the cosmical axis1 nor of the word ,greek3 i7llome_/nn or ,greek3 ei7loume_/nn4 ,alexander of ,aphrodisias 7as we learn from ,simplikius ad ,aristot4 ,de ,coelo1 fol4 #abf7 followed the construction of ,plato given by ,aristotle4 ,it was improbable 7he said7 that ,aristotle could be ignorant either what the word signified1 or what was ,plato's purpose 7,greek3 a7lla t ,a7ristote_/lei1 phsin1 ou7_/t le_/gonti i7_/llesthai1 ou7k eu7_/logon a7ntile_/gein2 7s a7lths gar ou7_/te ts le_/xes to smaino_/menon ei7kos 7n a7gnoein au7ton1 ou7_/te ton ,pla_/tnos skopo_/n4 ,this passage is not given in the ,scholia of ,brandis74 ,alexander therefore construed ,greek3 i7llome_/nn as meaning or implying rotatory movement1 though in so doing he perverted 7so ,simplikius says7 the true meaning to make it consonant with his own suppositions4 ,proklus maintains that ,aristotle has interpreted the passage erroneously1--that ,greek3 i7llome_/nn is equivalent to ,greek3 sphiggome_/nn or ,greek3 xunechome_/nn--and that ,plato intends by it to affirm the earth as at rest in the centre of the ,kosmos 7ad ,timaeum1 ,book iv41 p4 #fha ed4 ,schneider74 ,simplikius himself is greatly perplexed1 and scarcely ventures to give a positive opinion of his own4 ,on the whole1 he inclines to believe that ,greek3 i7llome_/nn might possibly be understood1 by superficial readers1 so as to signify rotation1 though such is not its proper and natural sense3 that some ,platonists did so misunderstand it3 and that ,aristotle accepted their sense for the sake of the argument1 without intending himself to countenance it 7ad ,aristot4 ,de ,coelo1 p4 #abf74 ,both ,proklus and ,simplikius1 we must recollect1 believed in the genuineness of the ,doric treatise ascribed to ,timaeus ,locrus4 ,reasoning upon this basis1 they of course saw1 that if ,aristotle had correctly interpreted ,plato1 ,plato himself must have interpreted incorrectly the doctrine of ,timaeus4 ,they had to ascribe wrong construction either to ,plato or to ,aristotle3 and they could not bear to ascribe it to ,plato4 ,alkinous1 in his ,eisagge 7c4 #ae7 gives the same interpretation as ,proklus4 ,but it is remarkable that in his paraphrase of the ,platonic words1 he calls the earth ,greek3 7me_/ras phu_/lax kai nukto_/s3 omitting the significant epithet ,greek3 dmiourgo_/s4 ,in regard to modern comments upon the same disputed point1 ,i need only mention 7besides those of ,m4 ,cousin1 in the notes upon his translation of the ',timus'1 and of ,martin in his 'tudes sur le ,time'7 the elaborate discussion which it has received in the two recent ,dissertations ',ueber die kosmischen ,systeme der ,griechen1' by ,gruppe and ,boeckh4 ,gruppe has endeavoured1 upon the evidence of this passage1 supported by other collateral proofs1 to show that ,plato1 towards the close of his life1 arrived at a belief1 first1 in the rotation of the earth round its own axis1 next1 at the double movement of the earth1 both rotation and translation1 round the sun as a centre 7that is1 the heliocentric or ,copernican system73 that ,plato was the first to make this discovery1 but that he was compelled to announce it in terms intentionally equivocal and obscure1 for fear of offending the religious sentiments of his contemporaries 7',die kosmischen ,systeme der ,griechen1 von ,o4 ,f4 ,gruppe1' ,berlin1 #ahea74 ,to this dissertation ,m4 ,boeckh--the oldest as well as the ablest of all living philologists--has composed an elaborate reply1 with his usual fulness of illustrative matter and sobriety of inference4 ,opinions previously delivered by him 7in his early treatises on the ,platonic and ,pythagoreian philosophy7 had been called in question by ,gruppe3 he has now re-asserted them and defended them at length1 maintaining that ,plato always held the earth to be stationary and the sidereal sphere rotatory--and answering or extenuating the arguments which point to an opposite conclusion 7',untersuchungen ber das kosmische ,system des ,platon1 von ,august ,boeckh1' ,berlin1 #aheb74 ,gruppe has failed in his purpose of proving that ,plato adopted either of the two above-mentioned doctrines--either the rotation of the earth round its own axis1 or the translation of the earth round the sun as a centre4 ,on both these points ,i concur with ,boeckh in the negative view4 ,but though ,i go along with his reply as to its negative results1 ,i cannot think it satisfactory in its positive aspect as an exposition of the doctrine proclaimed in the ,platonic ,timus3 nor can ,i admit that the main argument of ,m4 ,boeckh's treatise is sufficient to support the inference which he rests upon it4 ,moreover1 he appears to me to set aside or explain away too lightly the authority of ,aristotle4 ,i agree with ,alexander of ,aphrodisias and with ,gruppe who follows him1 in pronouncing ,aristotle to be a good witness1 when he declares what were the doctrines proclaimed in the ,platonic ,timus2 though ,i think that ,gruppe has not accurately interpreted either ,timus or ,aristotle4 ,the capital argument of ,boeckh is as follows3 ,the ,platonic ,timus affirms1 in express and unequivocal terms1 the rotation of the outer celestial sphere 7the sidereal sphere or ,aplanes7 in twenty-four hours1 as bringing about and determining the succession of day and night4 ,whoever believes this cannot at the same time believe that the earth revolves round its own axis in twenty-four hours1 and that the succession of day and night is determined thereby4 ,the one of these two affirmations excludes the other2 and1 as the first of the two is proclaimed1 beyond all possibility of doubt1 in the ,platonic ,timus1 so we may be sure that the second of the two cannot be proclaimed in that same discourse4 ,if any passage therein seems to countenance it1 we must look for some other mode of interpreting the passage4 ,this is the main argument of ,m4 ,boeckh1 and also of ,messrs4 ,cousin and ,martin4 ,the latter protests against the idea of imputing to ,plato un mlange monstrueux de deux systmes incompatibles 7tudes sur le ,time1 vol4 ii4 p4 #hf-hh74 ,as applied to any person educated in the modern astronomy1 the argument is irresistible4 ,but is it equally irresistible when applied to ,plato and to ,plato's time8 ,i think not4 ,the incompatibility which appears so glaring at present1 did not suggest itself to him or to his contemporaries4 ,to prove this we have only to look at the reasoning of ,aristotle1 who 7in the treatise ,de ,coelo1 ii4 #ac-ad1 p4 #bic4 b4 #cj1 #bif4 a4 #be7 notices and controverts the doctrine of the rotation of the earth1 with express reference to the followers of the ,platonic ,timus--and who 7if we follow the view of ,martin7 imputes this doctrine with wilful falsehood to ,plato1 for the purpose of contemptuously refuting it pour se donner le plaisir de la rfuter avec ddain4 ,granting the view of ,m4 ,boeckh 7still more that of ,martin7 to be correct1 we should find ,aristotle arguing thus3--,plato affirms the diurnal rotation of the earth round the centre of the cosmical axis4 ,this is both incredible1 and incompatible with his own distinct affirmation that the sidereal sphere revolves in twenty-four hours4 ,it is a glaring inconsistency that the same author should affirm both the one and the other4 ,such would have been ,aristotle's reasoning1 on the hypothesis which ,i am considering2 but when we turn to his treatise we find that he does not employ this argument at all4 ,he contests the alleged rotation of the earth upon totally different arguments--chiefly on the ground that rotatory motion is not natural to the earth1 that the kind of motion natural to the earth is rectilineal1 towards the centre2 and he adds various corollaries flowing from this doctrine which ,i shall not now consider4 ,at the close of his refutation1 he states in general terms that the celestial appearances1 as observed by scientific men1 coincided with his doctrine4 ,hence we may plainly see that ,aristotle probably did not see the incompatibility1 supposed to be so glaring1 upon which ,m4 ,boeckh's argument is founded4 ,to say the least1 even if he saw it1 he did not consider it as glaring and decisive4 ,he would have put it in the foreground of his refutation1 if he had detected the gross contradiction upon which ,m4 ,boeckh insists4 ,but ,aristotle does not stand alone in this dulness of vision4 ,among the various commentators1 ancient and modern1 who follow him1 discussing the question now before us1 not one takes notice of ,m4 ,boeckh's argument4 ,he himself certifies to us this fact1 claiming the argument as his own1 and expressing his astonishment that all the previous critics had passed it over1 though employing other reasons much weaker to prove the same point4 ,we read in ,m4 ,boeckh's second ',commentatio de ,platonico ,systemate ,coelestium ,globorum et de ,ver ,indole ,astronomi ,philolaic1' ,heidelberg1 #ahaj1 p4 #i1 the following words3-- ,non moveri tellurem1 ,proclus et ,simplicius ostendunt ex ,phdone4 ,parum firmum tamen argumentum est ex ,phdone ductum ad interpretandum ,timi locum3 nec melius alterum1 quod ,locrus ,timus1 quem ,plato sequi putabatur1 terram stare affirmat3 quia1 ut nuper explicuimus1 non ,plato ex ,locro1 sed personatus ,locrus ex ,platone1 sua compilavit4 ,at omnium firmissionum et certissimum argumentum ex ipso nostro dialogo sumptum1 adhuc1 quod jure mirere1 nemo reperit4 ,etenim1 quum1 paulo supra1 orbem stellarum fixarum1 quem ,grci ,greek3 a7plan appellant1 dextrorsum ferri quotidiano motu ,plato statuebat1 non poterat ullum terr motum admittere2 quia1 qui hunc admittit1 illum non tollere non potest4 7,this passage appears again cited by ,m4 ,boeckh himself in his more recent dissertation ',untersuchungen ber das kosmische ,system des ,platon1' p4 #aa74 ,the writers named 7p4 #g7 as having discussed the question1 omitting or disregarding this most cogent argument1 are names extending from ,aristotle down to ,ruhnken and ,ideler4 ,it is honourable to the penetration of ,m4 ,boeckh that he should have pointed out1 what so many previous critics had overlooked1 that these two opinions are scientifically incompatible4 ,he wonders1 and there may be good ground for wondering1 how it happened that none of these previous writers were aware of the incompatibility4 ,but the fact that it did not occur to them1 is not the less certain1 and is of the greatest moment in reference to the question now under debate2 for we are not now inquiring what is or is not scientifically true or consistent1 but what were the opinions of ,plato4 ,m4 ,boeckh has called our attention to the fact1 that these two opinions are incompatible2 but can we safely assume that ,plato must have perceived such incompatibility between them8 ,surely not4 ,the ,pythagoreans of his day did not perceive it2 their cosmical system included both the revolution of the earth and the revolution of the sidereal sphere round the central fire1 ten revolving bodies in all 7,aristotel4 ,metaphysic4 i4 #ce1 p4 #if a4 #aj4 ,de ,coelo1 ii4 #ac1 p4 #bic b4 #ba74 ,they were not aware that the revolutions of the one annulled those of the other as to effect1 and that their system thus involved the two contradictory articles1 or mlange monstrueux1 of which ,martin speaks so disdainfully4 ,nay1 more1 their opponent1 ,aristotle1 while producing other arguments against them1 never points out the contradiction4 ,since it did not occur to them1 we can have no greater difficulty in believing that neither did it occur to ,plato4 ,indeed1 the wonder would rather be if ,plato had seen an astronomical incompatibility which escaped the notice both of ,aristotle and of many subsequent writers who wrote at a time when astronomical theories had been developed and compared with greater fulness4 ,even ,ideler1 a good astronomer as well as a good scholar1 though he must surely have known that ,plato asserted the rotation of the sidereal sphere 7for no man can read the ',timus' without knowing it71 ascribed to him also the other doctrine inconsistent with it1 not noticing such inconsistency until ,m4 ,boeckh pointed it out4 ,it appears to me1 therefore1 that ,m4 ,boeckh has not satisfactorily made good his point--,plato cannot have believed in the diurnal rotation of the earth1 because he unquestionably believed in the rotation of the sidereal sphere as causing the succession of night and day4 ,for1 though the two doctrines really are incompatible1 yet the critics antecedent to ,m4 ,boeckh took no notice of such incompatibility4 ,we cannot presume that ,plato saw what ,aristotle and other authors1 even many writing under a more highly developed astronomy1 did not see4 ,we ought rather1 ,i think1 to presume the contrary1 unless ,plato's words distinctly attest that he did see farther than his successors4 ,now let us examine what ,plato's words do attest3--,greek3 gn de trophon men 7mete_/ran1 ei7llome_/nn 7al4 ,greek3 ei7lome_/nn1 i7llome_/nn7 ,greek3 de peri ton dia pantos po_/lon tetame_/non phu_/laka kai dmiourgon nukto_/s te kai 7me_/ras e7mchan_/sato1 pr_/tn kai presbuta_/tn then1 o7_/soi e7ntos ou7ra_/nou gego_/nasi4 ,i explain these words as follows3-- ,in the passage immediately preceding1 ,plato had described the uniform and unchanging rotation of the outer sidereal sphere1 or ,circle of ,the ,same1 and the erratic movements of the sun1 moon1 and planets1 in the interior ,circles of the ,diverse4 ,he now explains the situation and functions of the earth4 ,being the first and most venerable of the intra-kosmic deities1 the earth has the most important place in the interior of the kosmos--the centre4 ,it is packed1 fastened1 or rolled1 close round the axis which traverses the entire kosmos2 and its function is to watch over and bring about the succession of night and day4 ,plato conceives the kosmic axis itself as a solid cylinder revolving or turning round1 and causing thereby the revolution of the circumference or the sidereal sphere4 ,the outer circumference of the kosmos not only revolves round its axis1 but obeys a rotatory impulse emanating from its axis1 like the spinning of a teetotum or the turning of a spindle4 ,plato in the ,republic illustrates the cosmical axis by comparison with a spindle turned by ,necessity1 and describes it as causing by its own rotation the rotation of all the heavenly bodies 7,republ4 x4 p4 #faf1 c4 #fag ,a74 ,greek3 e7k de tn a7_/krn tetame_/non ,a7na_/gks a7_/trakton1 di' ou7 pa_/sas e7pistre_/phesthai tas peri_/phoras 4 4 4 1 kukleisthai de d strepho_/menon ton a7_/trakton o7_/lon men tn au7tn phoran 4 4 4 4 stre_/phesthai de au7ton e7n tois ,a7na_/gks go_/nasin4#a ,footnote #a3 ,proklus in his ,commentary on the ,platonic ,timus 7p4 #fhb1 ,schn47 notes this passage of the ,republic as the proper comparison from which to interpret how ,plato conceived the cosmical axis4 ,in many points he explains this correctly2 but he omits to remark that the axis is expressly described as revolving1 and as causing the revolution of the peripheral substance3-- ----,greek3 ton de a7_/xona mi_/an theo_/tta sunaggon men tn ke_/ntrn tou pantos sunektikn de tou o7_/lou ko_/smou1 kintikn de tn thei_/n periphorn1 peri 7n 7 chorei_/a9999 tn o7_/ln1 peri 7n ai7 a7nakukl_/seis1 a7ne_/chousan ton o7_/lon ou7ranon19999 7n kai ,a7_/tlanta dia touto proseir_/kasin1 7s a7_/trepton kai a7_/truton e7ne_/rgeian e7_/chousan4 kai me_/ntoi kai to tetame_/non9999 e7ndei_/knutai9999 tit_/nion ei7nai tn mi_/an tau_/tn du_/namin1 tn phrourtikn ts a7nakukl_/ses tn o7_/ln4 ,here ,proklus recognises the efficacy of the axis in producing and maintaining the revolution of the ,kosmos1 but he does not remark that it initiates this movement by revolving itself4 ,the ,greek3 ,theots1 which ,proklus ascribes to the axis1 is invested in the earth packed round it1 by the ,platonic ,timus4 ,now the function which ,plato ascribes to the earth in the passage of the ,timus before us is very analogous to that which in the ,republic he ascribes to ,necessity--the active guardianship of the axis of the kosmos and the maintenance of its regular rotation4 ,with a view to the exercise of this function1 the earth is planted in the centre of the axis1 the very root of the kosmic soul 7,plato1 ,timus1 p4 #cd ,b74 ,it is even packed close round the axis1 in order to make sure that the axis shall not be displaced from its proper situation and direction4 ,the earth is thus not merely active and influential1 but is really the chief regulator of the march of the kosmos1 being the immediate neighbour and auxiliary of the kosmic soul4 ,such a function is worthy of the first and eldest of intra-kosmic deities1 as ,plato calls the earth4 ,with perfect propriety he may say that the earth1 in the exercise of such a function1 is guardian and artificer of day and night4 ,this is noway inconsistent with that which he says in another passage1 that the revolutions of the outer sidereal sphere determine day and night4 ,for these revolutions of the outer sidereal sphere depend upon the revolutions of the axis1 which latter is kept in uniform position and movement by the earth grasping it round its centre and revolving with it4 ,the earth does not determine days and nights by means of its own rotations1 but by its continued influence upon the rotations of the kosmic axis1 and 7through this latter7 upon those of the outer sidereal sphere4 ,it is important to attend to the circumstance last mentioned1 and to understand in what sense ,plato admitted a rotatory movement of the earth4 ,in my judgment1 the conception respecting the earth and its functions1 as developed in the ,platonic ,timus1 has not been considered with all its points taken together4 ,one point among several1 and that too the least important point1 has been discussed as if it were the whole1 because it falls in with the discussions of subsequent astronomy4 ,thus ,plato admits the rotation of the earth1 but he does not admit it as producing any effects1 or as the primary function of the earth3 it is only an indirect consequence of the position which the earth occupies in the discharge of its primary function--of keeping the cosmical axis steady1 and maintaining the uniformity of its rotations4 ,if the cosmical axis is to revolve1 the earth1 being closely packed and fastened round it1 must revolve along with it4 ,if the earth stood still1 and resisted all rotation of its own1 it would at the same time arrest the rotations of the cosmical axis1 and of course those of the entire kosmos besides4 ,the above is the interpretation which ,i propose of the passage in the ,platonic ,timus1 and which ,i shall show to coincide with ,aristotle's comment upon it4 ,messrs4 ,boeckh and ,martin interpret differently4 ,they do not advert to the sense in which ,plato conceives the axis of the kosmos--not as an imaginary line1 but as a solid revolving cylinder2 and moreover they understand the function assigned by the ,platonic ,timus to the earth in a way which ,i cannot admit4 ,they suppose that the function assigned to the earth is not to keep up and regularize1 but to withstand and countervail1 the rotation of the kosmos4 ,m4 ,boeckh comments upon ,gruppe1 who had said 7after ,ideler7 that when the earth is called ,greek3 phu_/laka kai dmiourgon nuktos kai 7me_/ras1 ,plato must have meant to designate some active function ascribed to it1 and not any function merely passive or negative4 ,i agree with ,gruppe in this remark1 and ,i have endeavoured to point out what this active function of the earth is1 in the ,platonic theory4 ,but ,m4 ,boeckh 7,untersuchungen1 c41 p4 #fi-gj7 controverts ,gruppe's remark1 observing1 first1 that it is enough if the earth is in any way necessary to the production of the given effect2 secondly1 that if active force be required1 the earth 7in the ,platonic theory7 does exercise such1 by its purely passive resistance1 which is in itself an energetic putting forth of power4 ,m4 ,boeckh's words are3--,es kommt nur darauf an1 dass er ein ,werk1 eine ,wirkung1 hervorbringt oder zu einer ,wirkung beitrgt1 die ohne ihn nicht wre3 dann ist er durch seine ,wirksamkeit ein ,werkmeister der ,sache1 sey es auch ohne active ,thtigkeit1 durch bloss passiven ,widerstand1 der auch eine mchtige ,kraft-usserung ist4 ,die ,erde ist ,werkmeisterin der ,nacht und des ,tages1 wie ,martin 7b4 ii4 p4 #hh7 sehr treffend sagt 'par son nergique existence1 c'est dire1 par son immobilit mme3' denn sie setzt der tglichen ,bewegung des ,himmels bestndig eine gleiche ,kraft in entgegengesetzter ,richtung entgegen4 ,so muss nach dem ,zusammenhange ausgelegt werden3 so meint es ,platon klar und ohne ,verhllungen3 denn wenige ,zeilen vorher hat er gesagt1 ,nacht und ,tag1 das heisst ein ,sterntag oder ,zeittag1 sei ein ,umlauf des ,kreises des ,selbigen--das ist1 eine tgliche ,umkreisung des ,himmels von ,osten nach ,westen1 wodurch also die ,erde in ,stillstand versetzt ist3 und diese tgliche ,bewegung des ,himmels hat er im vorhergehenden immer und immer gelehrt4 4 4 4 4 ,indem ,platon die ,erde nennt ,greek3 ei7lome_/nn1 nicht ,greek3 peri ton e7auts po_/lon1 sondern ,greek3 peri ton dia pantos po_/lon tetame_/non1 setzt er also die tgliche ,bewegung des ,himmels voraus 7p4 #gj-ga74b ,footnote #b3 ,we are only required to show1 that the ,earth produces a work or an effect1--or contributes to an effect which would not exist without such help3 the ,earth is then1 through such operation1 an ,artificer of what is produced1 even without any positive activity1 by its simply passive resistance1 which indeed is in itself a powerful exercise of force49999 ,the ,earth is ,artificer of night and day1 according to the striking expression of ,martin1 'par son nergique existence1 c'est--dire1 par son immobilit mme3' for the ,earth opposes1 to the diurnal movement of the ,heavens1 a constant and equal force in the opposite direction4 ,this explanation must be the true one required by the context3 this is ,plato's meaning1 plainly and without disguise3 for he has said1 a few lines before1 that ,night and ,day 7that is1 a sidereal day1 or day of time7 is a diurnal revolution of the ,heaven from ,east to ,west1 whereby accordingly the ,earth is assumed as at rest3 ,and this diurnal movement of the ,heaven he has taught over and over again in the preceding part of his discourse4--,since therefore ,plato calls the ,earth ,greek3 ei7lome_/nn1 not ,greek3 peri ton e7auts po_/lon1 but ,greek3 peri ton dia pantos po_/lon tetame_/non1 he implies thereby the diurnal movement of the ,heaven4 ,i not only admit but put it in the front of my own case1 that ,plato in the ,timus assumes the diurnal movement of the celestial sphere2 but ,i contend that he also assumes the diurnal rotation of the earth4 ,m4 ,boeckh founds his contrary interpretation upon the unquestionable truth that these two assumptions are inconsistent2 and upon the inference that because the two cannot stand together in fact1 therefore they cannot have stood together in the mind of ,plato4 ,in that inference ,i have already stated that ,i cannot acquiesce4 ,but while ,m4 ,boeckh takes so much pains to vindicate ,plato from one contradiction1 he unconsciously involves ,plato in another contradiction1 for which1 in my judgment1 there is no foundation whatever4 ,m4 ,boeckh affirms that the function of the earth 7in the ,platonic ,timus7 is to put forth a great force of passive resistance--to oppose constantly1 against the diurnal movement of the heavens1 an equal force in an opposite direction4 ,is it not plain1 upon this supposition1 that the kosmos would come to a standstill1 and that its rotation would cease altogether8 ,as the earth is packed close or fastened round the cosmical axis1 so1 if the axis endeavours to revolve with a given force1 and the earth resists with equal force1 the effect will be that the two forces will destroy one another1 and that neither the earth nor the axis will move at all4 ,there would be the same nullifying antagonism as if1--reverting to the analogous case of the spindle and the verticilli 7already alluded to7 in the tenth book of the ,republic1--as if1 while ,anank turned the spindle with a given force in one direction1 ,klotho 7instead of lending assistance7 were to apply her hand to the outermost verticillus with equal force of resistance in the opposite direction 7see ,reipubl4 x4 p4 #fag ,d74 ,it is plain that the spindle would never turn at all4 ,here1 then1 is a grave contradiction attaching to the view of ,boeckh and ,martin as to the function of the earth4 ,they have not1 in my judgment1 sufficiently investigated the manner in which ,plato represents to himself the cosmical axis3 nor have they fully appreciated what is affirmed or implied in the debated word ,greek3 ei7lo_/menon--ei7lou_/menon--i7llo_/meno n4 ,that word has been explained partly by ,ruhnken in his notes on ,timi ,lexicon1 but still more by ,buttmann in his ,lexilogus1 so accurately and copiously as to leave nothing further wanting4 ,i accept fully the explanation given by ,buttmann1 and have followed it throughout this article4 ,after going over many other examples1 ,buttmann comes to consider this passage of the ,platonic ,timus2 and he explains the word ,greek3 ei7lome_/nn or ,greek3 i7llo_/menn as meaning--sich drngen oder gedrngt werden um die ,axe3 d4 h4 von allen ,seiten her an die ,axe4 ,auch lasse man sich das ,praesens nicht irren3 die ,krfte1 welche den ,weltbau machen und zusammen halten1 sind als fortdauernd thtig gedacht4 ,die ,erde drngt sich 7ununterbrochen7 an den ,pol1 macht1 bildet eine ,kugel um ihn4 ,welcher ,gebrauch vllig entspricht dem wonach dasselbe ,verbum ein einwickeln1 einhllen1 bedeutet4 ,auch hier mengt sich in der ,vorstellung einiges hinzu1 was auf ein biegen winden1 und mitunter auf ein drehen fhrt3 was aber berall nur ein durch die ,sache selbst hinzutretender ,begriff ist1 p4 #aea4 ,and again1 p4 #aed1 he gives the result--that the word has only die ,bedeutung drngen1 befestigen1 nebst den davon ausgehenden--die von drehen1 winden1 aber ihm gnzlich fremd sind1 und nur aus der ,natur der ,gegenstnde in einigen ,fllen als ,nebengedanken hinzutreten4#c ,footnote #c3 ,to pack itself1 or to be packed1 round the axis3 that is1 upon the axis from all sides4 ,we must not be misled by the present tense3 for the forces1 which compose and hold together the structure of the universe1 are conceived as continuously in active operation4 ,the ,earth packs itself1 or is packed1 on to the axis--makes or forms a ball round the axis3 which corresponds fully to that other usage of the word1 in the sense of wrapping up or swathing round4 ,here too there is a superadded something blended with the idea1 which conducts us to turning1 winding1 and thus to revolving3 but this is every where nothing more than an accessory notion1 suggested by the circumstances of the case4 ,the word has only the meaning1 to pack1 to fasten--the senses1 to wind1 to revolve1 are altogether foreign to it1 and can only be superadded as accessory ideas1 in certain particular instances1 by the special nature of the case4 ,in these last words ,buttmann has exactly distinguished the true1 constant1 and essential meaning of the word1 from the casual accessories which become conjoined with it by the special circumstances of some peculiar cases4 ,the constant and true meaning of the word is1 being packed or fastened close round1 squeezing or grasping around4 ,the idea of rotating or revolving is quite foreign to this meaning1 but may nevertheless become conjoined with it1 in certain particular cases1 by accidental circumstances4 ,let us illustrate this4 ,when ,i say that a body ,a is ,greek3 ei7lo_/menon or ,greek3 i7llo_/menon 7packed or fastened close round1 squeezing or grasping around71 another body ,b1 ,i affirm nothing about revolution or rotation4 ,this is an idea foreign to the proposition per se1 yet capable of being annexed or implicated with it under some accidental circumstances4 ,whether in any particular case it be so implicated or not depends on the question ,what is the nature of the body ,b1 round which ,i affirm ,a to be fastened8 #a4 ,it may be an oak tree or a pillar1 firmly planted and stationary4 #b4 ,it may be some other body1 moving1 but moving in a rectilinear direction4 #c4 ,lastly1 it may be a body rotating or intended to rotate1 like a spindle1 a spit1 or the rolling cylinder of a machine4 ,in the first supposition1 all motion is excluded3 in the second1 rectilinear motion is implied1 but rotatory motion is excluded3 in the third1 rotatory motion is implied as a certain adjunct4 ,the body which is fastened round another1 must share the motion or the rest of that other4 ,if the body ,b is a revolving cylinder1 and if ,i affirm that ,a is packed or fastened close round it1 ,i introduce the idea of rotation2 though only as an accessory and implied fact1 in addition to that which the proposition affirms4 ,the body ,a1 being fastened round the cylinder ,b1 must either revolve along with it and round it1 or it must arrest the rotation of ,b4 ,if the one revolves1 so must the other2 both must either revolve together1 or stand still together4 ,this is a new fact1 distinct from what is affirmed in the proposition1 yet implied in it or capable of being inferred from it through induction and experience4 ,here we see exactly the position of ,plato in regard to the rotation of the earth4 ,he does not affirm it in express terms1 but he affirms what implies it4 ,for when he says that the earth is packed1 or fastened close round the cosmical axis1 he conveys to us by implication the knowledge of another and distinct fact--that the earth and the cosmical axis must either revolve together or remain stationary together--that the earth must either revolve along with the axis or arrest the revolutions of the axis4 ,it is manifest that ,plato does not mean the revolutions of the axis of the kosmos to be arrested3 they are absolutely essential to the scheme of the ,timus--they are the grand motive-agency of the kosmos4 ,he must1 therefore1 mean to imply that the earth revolves along with and around the cosmical axis4 ,and thus the word ,greek3 ei7lo_/menon or ,greek3 i7llo_/menon1 according to ,buttmann's doctrine1 becomes accidentally conjoined1 through the specialities of this case1 with an accessory idea of rotation or revolution2 though that idea is foreign to its constant and natural meaning4 ,now if we turn to ,aristotle1 we shall find that he understood the word ,greek3 ei7lo_/menon or ,greek3 i7llo_/menon1 and the proposition of ,plato1 exactly in this sense4 ,here ,i am compelled to depart from ,buttmann1 who affirms 7p4 #aeb71 with an expression of astonishment1 that ,aristotle misunderstood the proposition of ,plato1 and interpreted ,greek3 ei7lo_/menon or ,greek3 i7llo_/menon as if it meant directly as well as incontestably1 rotating or revolving4 ,proklus1 in his ,commentary on the ,timus1 had before raised the same controversy with ,aristotle--,greek3 i7llome_/nn de1 tn sphiggome_/nn dloi kai sunechome_/nn ou7 gar 7s ,a7ristote_/ls oi7_/etai1 tn kinoume_/nn 7,procl4 p4 #fha74 ,let us1 therefore1 examine the passages of ,aristotle out of which this difficulty arises4 ,the passages are two1 both of them in the second book ,de ,coelo2 one in cap4 #ac1 the other in cap4 #ad 7p4 #bic b4 #cj1 #bif a4 #be74 #a4 ,the first stands--,greek3 e7_/nioi de kai keime_/nn 7tn gn7 e7pi tou ke_/ntrou phasin au7tn i7_/llesthai peri ton dia pantos tetame_/non po_/lon1 7_/sper e7n t ,timai_/9999 ge_/graptai49999 ,such is the reading of ,bekker in the ,berlin edition3 but he gives various readings of two different ,,mss4--the one having ,greek3 i7_/llesthai kai kineisthai--the other ei7leisthai9999 kai kineisthai4 #b4 ,the second stands1 beginning chap4 #ad--;,greek3 7meis de le_/gmen prton po_/teron 7the earth7 ,greek3 e7_/chei ki_/nsin 7 me_/nei2 katha_/per gar ei7_/pomen1 oi7 men au7tn e7n tn a7_/strn poiousin1 oi7 d' e7pi9999 tou me_/sou the_/ntes i7_/llesthai kai kineishai_/ phasi peri ton po_/lon me_/son4 ,now1 in the first of these two passages1 where ,aristotle simply brings the doctrine to view without any comment1 he expressly refers to the ,timus1 and therefore quotes the expression of that dialogue without any enlargement4 ,he undoubtedly understands the affirmation of ,plato--that the earth was fastened round the cosmical axis--as implying that it rotated along with the rotations of that axis4 ,aristotle thus construes ,greek3 i7_/llesthai1 in that particular proposition of the ,timus1 as implying rotation4 ,but he plainly did not construe ,greek3 i7_/llesthai as naturally and constantly either denoting or implying rotation4 ,this is proved by his language in the second passage1 where he reproduces the very same doctrine with a view to discuss and confute it1 and without special reference to the ,platonic ,timus4 ,here we find that he is not satisfied to express the doctrine by the single word ,greek3 i7_/llesthai4 ,he subjoins another verb--,greek3 i7_/llesthai kai kineisthai3 thus bringing into explicit enunciation the fact of rotatory movement1 which1 while ,greek3 i7_/llesthai stood alone1 was only known by implication and inference from the circumstances of the particular case4 ,if he had supposed ,greek3 i7_/llesthai by itself to signify revolving the addition of ,greek3 kineisthai would have been useless1 unmeaning1 and even impertinent4 ,aristotle1 as ,boeckh remarks1 is not given to multiply words unnecessarily4 ,it thus appears1 when we examine the passages of ,aristotle1 that he understood ,greek3 i7_/llesthai quite in conformity with ,buttmann's explanation4 ,rotatory movement forms no part of the meaning of the word2 yet it may accidentally1 in a particular case1 be implied as an adjunct of the meaning1 by virtue of the special circumstances of that case4 ,aristotle describes the doctrine as held by some persons4 ,he doubtless has in view various ,platonists of his time1 who adopted and defended what had been originally advanced by ,plato in the ,timus4 ,m4 ,boeckh1 in a discussion of some length 7,untersuch4 p4 #gf-hd71 maintains the opinion that the reading in the first passage of ,aristotle is incorrect2 that the two words ,greek3 i7_/llesthai kai kineisthai ought to stand in the first as they do in the second1--as he thinks that they stood in the copy of ,simplikius3 that ,aristotle only made reference to ,plato with a view to the peculiar word ,greek3 i7_/llesthai1 and not to the general doctrine of the rotation of the earth3 that he comments upon this doctrine as held by others1 but not by ,plato--who 7according to ,boeckh7 was known by everyone not to hold it4 ,m4 ,boeckh gives this only as a conjecture1 and ,i cannot regard his arguments in support of it as convincing4 ,but even if he had convinced me that ,greek3 i7_/llesthai kai kineisthai were the true reading in the first passage1 as well as in the second1 ,i should merely say that ,aristotle had not thought himself precluded by the reference to the ,timus from bringing out into explicit enunciation what the ,platonists whom he had in view knew to be implied and intended by the passage4 ,this indeed is a loose mode of citation1 which ,i shall not ascribe to ,aristotle without good evidence4 ,in the present case such evidence appears to me wanting4#d ,footnote #d3 ,exactness of citation is not always to be relied on among ancient commentators4 ,simplikius cites this very passage of the ,timus with more than one inaccuracy4--7ad ,aristot4 ,de ,coelo1 fol4 #abe47 ,m4 ,martin attributes to ,aristotle something more than improper citation4 ,he says 7tudes sur le ,time1 vol4 ii4 p4 #hg71 ,si ,aristote citait l'opinion de la rotation de la terre comme un titre de gloire pour ,platon1 je dirais--il est probable que la vrit l'y a forc4 ,mais ,aristote1 qui admettait l'immobilit complte de la terre1 attribue ,platon l'opinion contraire1 pour se donner le plaisir de la rfuter avec ddain4 ,a few lines before1 ,m4 ,martin had said that the arguments whereby ,aristotle combated this opinion ascribed to ,plato were very feeble4 ,i am at a loss to imagine in which of ,aristotle's phrases ,m4 ,martin finds any trace of disdain or contempt1 either for the doctrine or for those who held it4 ,for my part1 ,i find none4 ,the arguments of ,aristotle against the doctrine1 whatever be their probative force1 are delivered in that brief1 calm1 dry manner which is usual with him1 without a word of sentiment or rhetoric1 or anything ,greek3 e7_/x tou pra_/gmatos4 ,indeed1 among all philosophers who have written much1 ,i know none who is less open to the reproach of mingling personal sentiment with argumentative debate than ,aristotle4 ,plato indulges frequently in irony1 or sneering1 or rhetorical invective2 ,aristotle very rarely4 ,moreover1 even apart from the question of contempt1 the part which ,m4 ,martin here assumes ,aristotle to be playing1 is among the strangest anomalies in the history of philosophy4 ,aristotle holds1 and is anxious to demonstrate1 the doctrine of the earth's immobility2 he knows 7so we are required to believe7 that ,plato not only holds the same doctrine1 but has expressly affirmed it in the ,timus3 he might have produced ,plato as an authority in his favour1 and the passage of the ,timus as an express declaration2 yet he prefers to pervert1 knowingly and deliberately1 the meaning of this passage1 and to cite ,plato as a hostile instead of a friendly authority--simply to give himself the pleasure of contemptuously refuting ,plato's opinion6 ,but this is not all4 ,m4 ,martin tells us that the arguments which ,aristotle produces against the doctrine are1 after all1 very feeble4 ,but he farther tells us that there was one argument which might have been produced1 and which1 if ,aristotle had produced it1 would have convicted ,plato of an enormous contradiction 7p4 #hh7 in affirming that the earth revolved round the cosmical axis4 ,aristotle might have said to ,plato--,you have affirmed1 and you assume perpetually throughout the ,timus1 the diurnal revolution of the outer sidereal sphere2 you now assert the diurnal revolution of the earth at the centre4 ,here is an enormous contradiction2 the two cannot stand together4--,yet ,aristotle1 having this triumphant argument in his hands1 says not a word about it1 but contents himself with various other arguments which ,m4 ,martin pronounces to be very feeble4 ,perhaps ,m4 ,martin might say--,the contradiction exists2 but ,aristotle was not sharpsighted enough to perceive it2 otherwise he would have advanced it4 ,i am quite of this opinion4 ,if ,aristotle had perceived the contradiction1 he would have brought it forward as the strongest point in his controversy4 ,his silence is to me a proof that he did not perceive it4 ,but this is a part of my case against ,m4 ,martin4 ,i believe that ,plato admitted both the two contradictory doctrines without perceiving the contradiction2 and it is a strong presumption in favour of this view that ,aristotle equally failed to perceive it--though in a case where1 according to ,m4 ,martin1 he did not scruple to resort to dishonest artifice4 ,it appears to me that the difficulties and anomalies1 in which we are involved from supposing that ,aristotle either misunderstood or perverted the meaning of ,plato--are far graver than those which would arise from admitting that ,plato advanced a complicated theory involving two contradictory propositions1 in the same dialogue1 without perceiving the contradiction2 more especially when the like failure of perception is indisputably ascribable to ,aristotle--upon every view of the case4 ,m4 ,cousin maintains the same interpretation of the ,platonic passage as ,boeckh and ,martin1 and defends it by a note on his translation of the ,timus 7p4 #cci74 ,the five arguments which he produces are considered both by himself and by ,martin to be unanswerable4 ,as he puts them with great neatness and terseness1 ,i here bestow upon them a separate examination4 #a4 ,platon a toujours t considr dans l'antiquit comme partisan de l'immobilit absolue de la terre4 ,m4 ,cousin had before said1 ,aristote se fonde sur ce passage pour tablir que ,platon a fait tourner la terre sur elle-mme3 mais ,aristote est1 dans l'antiquit1 le seul qui soutienne cette opinion4 ,my reply is1 that ,aristotle is himself a portion and member of antiquity1 and that the various ,platonists1 whom he undertakes to refute1 are portions of it also4 ,if ,m4 ,cousin appeals to the authority of antiquity1 it must be to antiquity1 not merely minus ,aristotle and these contemporary ,platonists1 but against them4 ,now these are just the witnesses who had the best means of knowledge4 ,besides which1 ,aristotle himself1 adopting and anxious to demonstrate the immobility of the earth1 had every motive to cite ,plato as a supporter1 if ,plato was such--and every motive to avoid citing ,plato as an opponent1 unless the truth of the case compelled him to do so4 ,i must here add1 that ,m4 ,cousin represents ,aristotle as ascribing to ,plato the doctrine that la terre tourne sur elle-mme4 ,this is not strictly exact4 ,aristotle understands the ,platonic ,timus as saying1 ,that the earth is packed and moved round the axis of the kosmos--a different proposition4 #b4 ,dans plusieurs endroits de ses ouvrages o ,platon parle de l'quilibre de la terre1 il ne dit pas un mot de sa rotation4 ,i know of only one such passage--,phdon1 p4 #ajh--where undoubtedly ,plato does not speak of the rotation of the earth2 but neither does he speak of the rotation of the sidereal sphere and of the kosmos--nor of the axis of the kosmos4 ,it is the figure and properties of the earth1 considered in reference to mankind who inhabit it1 that ,plato sketches in the ,phdon2 he takes little notice of its cosmical relations1 and gives no general theory about the kosmos4 ,m4 ,cousin has not adverted to the tenth ,book of the ,republic1 where ,plato does propound a cosmical theory1 expressly symbolising the axis of the kosmos with its rotatory functions4 #c4 ,si la terre suit le mouvement de l'axe du monde1 le mouvement de la huitime sphre1 qui est ,le ,mme1 devient nul par rapport elle1 et les toiles fixes1 qui appartiennent elle1 demeurent en apparence dans une immobilit absolue3 ce qui est contraire l'exprience et au sens commun1 et l'opinion de ,platon1 exprime dans ce mme passage4 ,this third argument of ,m4 ,cousin is the same as that which ,i have already examined in remarking upon ,m4 ,boeckh4 ,the diurnal rotation of the earth cannot stand in the same astronomical system with the diurnal rotation of the sidereal sphere4 ,incontestably true 7,i have already said7 as a point of science4 ,but the question here is1 not what opinions are scientifically consistent1 but what opinions were held by ,plato1 and whether he detected the inconsistency between the two4 ,i have shown grounds for believing that he did not--and not he alone1 but many others along with him1 ,aristotle among the number4 ,how1 indeed1 can this be denied1 when we find ,m4 ,boeckh announcing that he is the first among all the critics on the ,timus1 who has brought forward the inconsistency as a special ground for determining what ,plato's opinion was--that no other critic before him had noticed it8 ,the first words of this argument deserve particular attention1 ,si la terre suit le mouvement de l'axe du monde4 ,here we have an exact recital of the doctrine proclaimed by the ,platonic ,timus1 and ascribed to him by ,aristotle 7quite different from the doctrine que la terre tourne sur elle-mme74 ,m4 ,cousin here speaks very distinctly about the cosmical axis1 and about its movement2 thus implying that ,plato conceived it as a solid revolving cylinder4 ,this1 in my judgment1 is the most essential point for clearing up the question in debate4 ,the cosmical axis being of this character1 when ,plato affirms that the earth is packed or fastened round it 7se roule--,cousin3 se serre et s'enroule--,martin3 drngt sich1 macht eine ,kugel um ihn--,buttmann71 ,i maintain that1 in the plainest construction of the word1 the earth does and must follow the movement of the axis--or arrest the movement of the axis4 ,the word ,greek3 ei7lome_/nn or ,greek3 i7llome_/nn has no distinct meaning at all1 if it does not mean this4 ,the very synonyms 7,greek3 sphiggome_/nn1 peridedeme_/nn1 c471 which the commentators produce to prove that ,plato describes the earth as at rest1 do really prove that he describes it as rotating round and with the cosmical axis4 ,we ought not to be driven from this plain meaning of the word1 by the assurance of ,m4 ,cousin and others that ,plato cannot have meant so1 because it would involve him in an astronomical inconsistency4 #d4 ,les divers mouvemens des huit sphres expliquent toutes les apparences clestes2 il n'y a donc aucune raison pour donner un mouvement la terre4 ,the terms of this fourth argument1 if literally construed1 would imply that ,plato had devised a complete and satisfactory astronomical theory4 ,i pass over this point1 and construe them as ,m4 ,cousin probably intended3 his argument will then stand thus--,the movement of the earth does not add anything to ,plato's power of explaining astronomical appearances2 therefore ,plato had no motive to suggest a movement of the earth4 ,i have already specified the sense in which ,i understand the ,platonic ,timus to affirm1 or rather to imply1 the rotation of the earth2 and that sense is not open to the objections raised in ,m4 ,cousin's fourth and fifth arguments4 ,the rotation of the earth1 as it appears in the ,platonic ,timus1 explains nothing1 and is not intended to explain anything4 ,it is a consequence1 not a cause3 it is a consequence arising from the position of the earth1 as packed or fastened round the centre of the cosmical axis1 whereby the earth participates1 of necessity and as a matter of course1 in the movements of that axis4 ,the function of the earth1 thus planted in the centre of the kosmos1 is to uphold and regulate the revolutions of the cosmical axis2 and this function explains1 in the scheme of the ,platonic ,timus1 why the axis revolves uniformly and constantly without change or displacement4 ,now upon these revolutions of the cosmical axis all the revolutions of the exterior sphere depend4 ,this is admitted by ,m4 ,cousin himself in argument #c4 ,there is therefore every reason why ,plato should assign such regulating function to the earth1 the first and oldest of intra-kosmic deities4 ,the movement of the earth 7as ,i before observed7 is only an incidental consequence of the position necessary for the earth to occupy in performing such function4 #e4 ,enfin ,platon assigne un mouvement aux toiles fixes1 et deux mouvemens aux plantes2 puisqu'il ne range la terre ni avec les unes ni avec les autres1 il y a lieu de croire qu'elle ne participe aucun de leurs mouvemens4 ,in so far as this argument is well-founded1 it strengthens my case more than that of ,m4 ,cousin4 ,the earth does not participate in the movements either of the fixed stars or of the planets2 but it does participate in the revolutions of the cosmical axis1 upon which these movements depend--the movements of the outer sphere1 wholly and exclusively--the movements of the planets1 to a very great degree1 but not exclusively4 ,the earth is not ranked either among the fixed stars or among the planets2 it is a body or deity sui generis1 having a special central function of its own1 to regulate that cosmical axis which impels the whole system4 ,the earth has a motion of its own1 round and along with the cosmical axis to which it is attached2 but this motion of the earth 7,i will again repeat1 to prevent misapprehension7 is a fact not important by itself1 nor explaining anything4 ,the grand and capital fact is the central position and regulating function of the earth1 whereby all the cosmical motions1 first those of the axis1 next those of the exterior kosmos1 are upheld and kept uniform4 ,m4 ,cousin adds1 as a sixth argument3-- ,on peut ajouter ces raisons que ,platon aurait ncessairement insist sur le mouvement de la terre1 s'il l'avait admis2 et que ce point toit trop controvers de son temps et trop important en lui-mme1 pour qu'il ne ft que l'indiquer en se servant d'une expression quivoque4 ,in the first place1 granting ,plato to have believed in the motion of the earth1 can we also assume that he would necessarily have asserted it with distinctness and emphasis1 as ,m4 ,cousin contends8 ,i think not4 ,gruppe maintains exactly the contrary2 telling us that ,plato's language was intentionally obscure and equivocal--from fear of putting himself in open conflict with the pious and orthodox sentiment prevalent around him4 ,i do not carry this part of the case so far as ,gruppe1 but ,i admit that it rests upon a foundation of reality4 ,when we read 7,plutarch1 ,de ,facie in ,orbe ,lun1 p4 #ibc7 how the motion of the earth1 as affirmed by ,aristarchus of ,samos 7doubtless in a far larger sense than ,plato ever imagined1 including both rotation and translation71 was afterwards denounced as glaring impiety1 we understand the atmosphere of religious opinion with which ,plato was surrounded4 ,and we also perceive that he might have reasons for preferring to indicate an astronomical heresy in terms suitable for philosophical hearers1 rather than to proclaim it in such emphatic unequivocal words1 as might be quoted by some future ,meltus in case of an indictment before the ,dikasts4 ,we must remember that ,plato had been actually present at the trial of ,sokrates4 ,he had heard the stress laid by the accusers on astronomical heresies1 analogous to those of ,anaxagoras1 which they imputed to ,sokrates--and the pains taken by the latter to deny that he held such opinions 7see the ,platonic ,apology74 ,the impression left by such a scene on ,plato's mind was not likely to pass away3 nor can we be surprised that he preferred to use propositions which involved and implied1 rather than those which directly and undisguisedly asserted1 the heretical doctrine of the earth's rotation4 ,that his phraseology1 however indirect1 was perfectly understood by contemporary philosophers1 both assentient and dissentient1 as embodying his belief in the doctrine--is attested by the two passages of ,aristotle4 ,upon these reasons alone ,i should dissent from ,m4 ,cousin's sixth argument4 ,but ,i have other reasons besides4 ,he rests it upon the two allegations that the doctrine of the earth's motion was the subject of much controversial debate in ,plato's time1 and of great importance in itself4 ,now the first of these two allegations can hardly be proved1 as to the time of ,plato2 for ,aristotle1 when he is maintaining the earth's immobility1 does not specify any other opponents than the ,pythagoreians and the followers of the ,platonic ,timus4 ,and the second allegation ,i believe to be unfounded1 speaking with reference to the ,platonic ,timus4 ,in the cosmical system therein embodied1 the rotation of the earth round the cosmical axis1 though a real part of the system1 was in itself a fact of no importance1 and determining no results4 ,the capital fact of the system was the position and function of the earth1 packed close round the centre of the cosmical axis1 and regulating the revolutions of that axis4 ,plato had no motive to bring prominently forward the circumstance that the earth revolved itself along with the cosmical axis1 which circumstance was only an incidental accompaniment4 ,i have thus examined all the arguments adduced by ,m4 ,cousin1 and have endeavoured to show that they fail in establishing his conclusion4 ,there is1 however1 one point of the controversy in which ,i concur with him more than with ,boeckh and ,martin4 ,this point is the proper conception of what ,plato means by the cosmical axis4 ,boeckh and ,martin seem to assume this upon the analogy of what is now spoken of as the axis of the earth3 ,m4 ,boeckh 7p4 #ac7 declares the axis of the kosmos to be a prolongation of that axis4 ,but it appears to me 7and ,m4 ,cousin's language indicates the same7 that ,plato's conception was something very different4 ,the axis of the earth 7what astronomers speak of as such7 is an imaginary line traversing the centre of the earth2 a line round which the earth revolves4 ,now the cosmical axis1 as ,plato conceives it1 is a solid material cylinder1 which not only itself revolves1 but causes by this revolution the revolution of the exterior circumference of the kosmos4 ,this is a conception entirely different from that which we mean when we speak of the axis of the earth4 ,it is1 however1 a conception symbolically enunciated in the tenth book of the ,republic1 where the spindle of ,necessity is said to be composed of adamant1 hard and solid material1 and to cause by its own rotation the rotation of all the verticilli packed and fastened around it4 ,what is thus enunciated in the ,republic is implied in the ,timus4 ,for when we read therein that the earth is packed or fastened round the cosmical axis1 how can we understand it to be packed or fastened round an imaginary line8 ,i will add that the very same meaning is brought out in the translation of ,cicero--trajecto axe sustinetur 7terra74 ,the axis1 round which the earth is fastened1 and which sustains the earth1 must be conceived1 not as an imaginary line1 but as a solid cylinder1 itself revolving2 while the earth1 being fastened round it1 revolves round and along with it4 ,the axis1 in the sense of an imaginary line1 cannot be found in the conception of ,plato4 ,those contemporaries of ,plato and ,aristotle1 who all agreed in asserting the revolution of the celestial sphere1 did not all agree in their idea of the force whereby such revolution was brought about4 ,some thought that the poles of the celestial sphere exercised a determining force3 others symbolised the mythical ,atlas1 as an axis traversing the sphere from pole to pole and turning it round4 7,aristotel4 ,de ,motu ,animal4 #c4 p4 #fii a4 #ae-cj47 ,aristotle himself advocated the theory of a primum movens immobile acting upon the sphere from without the sphere4 ,even in the succeeding centuries1 when astronomy was more developed1 ,aratus1 ,eratosthenes1 and their commentators1 differed in their way of conceiving the cosmical axis4 ,most of them considered it as solid3 but of these1 some thought it was stationary1 with the sphere revolving round it--others that it revolved itself3 again1 among these latter1 some believed that the revolutions of the axis determined those of the surrounding sphere--others1 that the revolutions of the sphere caused those of the axis within it4 ,again1 there were some physical philosophers who looked at the axis as airy or spiritual--,greek3 to dia me_/sou ts sphai_/ras dikon pneuma4 ,then there were geometers who conceived it only as an imaginary line4 7,see the ,phaenomena of ,aratus #bj-be--with the ,scholia thereon2 ,achilles ,tatius ad ,arati ,phaenom4 apud ,petavium--,uranolog4 p4 #hh2 also ,hipparchus ad ,arat4 ib4 p4 #add47 ,i do not go into these dissentient opinions farther than to show1 how indispensable it is1 when we construe the passage in the ,platonic ,timaeus1 ,greek3 peri ton dia pantos po_/lon tetame_/non1 to enquire in what sense ,plato understood the cosmical axis3 and how unsafe it is to assume at once that he must have conceived it as an imaginary line4 ,proklus argues that because the earth is mentioned by ,plato in the ,phdon as stationary in the centre of the heaven1 we cannot imagine ,plato to affirm its rotation in the ,timus4 ,i agree with ,m4 ,boeckh in thinking this argument inconclusive2 all the more1 because1 in the ,phdon1 not a word is said either about the axis of the kosmos1 or about the rotation of the kosmos2 all that ,sokrates professes to give is ,greek3 tn i7de_/an ts gs kai tous to_/pous au7ts9999 7p4 #ajh ,e74 ,no cosmical system or theory is propounded in that dialogue4 ,when we turn to the ,phdrus1 we find that1 in its highly poetical description1 the rotation of the heaven occupies a prominent place4 ,the internal circumference of the heavenly sphere1 as well as its external circumference or back 7,greek3 nton71 are mentioned2 also its periodical rotations1 during which the gods are carried round on the back of the heaven1 and contemplate the eternal ,ideas occupying the super-celestial space 7p4 #bdg1 #bdh71 or the plain of truth4#e ,but the purpose of this poetical representation appears to be metaphysical and intellectual1 to illustrate the antithesis presented by the world of ,ideas and ,truth on one side--against that of sense and appearances on the other4 ,astronomically and cosmically considered1 no intelligible meaning is conveyed4 ,nor can we even determine whether the rotations of the heaven1 alluded to in the ,phdrus1 are intended to be diurnal or not2 ,i incline to believe not 7,greek3 me_/chri ts e7te_/ras perio_/dou--p4 #bdh--which can hardly be understood of so short a time as one day74 ,lastly1 nothing is said in the ,phdrus about the cosmical axis2 and it is upon this that the rotations of the earth intimated in the ,timus depend4 ,footnote #e3 ,whether ,greek3 ,e7sti_/a in the ,phdrus1 which is said to remain alone stationary in the house of the ,gods1 can be held to mean the ,earth1 is considered by ,proklus to be uncertain 7p4 #fha74 ,among the different illustrations1 given by ,plato in his different dialogues respecting the terrestrial and celestial bodies1 ,i select the tenth book of the ,republic as that which is most suitable for comparison with the ,timus1 because it is only therein that we learn how ,plato conceived the axis of the kosmos4 ,m4 ,boeckh 7,untersuchungen1 p4 #hf7 wishes us to regard the difference between the view taken in the ,phdon1 and that in the ,republic1 as no way important2 he affirms that the adamantine spindle in the ,republic is altogether mythical or poetical1 and that ,plato conceives the axis as not being material4 ,on this point ,i dissent from ,m4 ,boeckh4 ,the mythical illustrations in the tenth book of the ,republic appear to me quite unsuitable to the theory of an imaginary1 stationary1 and immaterial axis4 ,here ,i much more agree with ,gruppe 7p4 #ae1 #bf-bi71 who recognises the solid material axis as an essential feature of the cosmical theory in the ,republic2 and recognises also the marked difference between that theory and what we read in the ,phdon4 ,yet1 though ,gruppe is aware of this important difference between the ,republic and the ,phdon1 he still wishes to illustrate the ,timus by the latter and not by the former4 ,he affirms that the earth in the ,timus is conceived as unattached1 and freely suspended1 the same as in the ,phdon2 but that in the ,timus it is conceived1 besides1 as revolving on its own axis1 which we do not find in the ,phdon 7p4 #bh1 #bi74 ,here ,i think ,gruppe is mistaken4 ,in construing the words of ,timus1 ,greek3 ei7lome_/nn 7i7llome_/nn7 peri ton dia pantos po_/lon tetame_/non1 as designating the unattached earth revolving round its own axis1 he does violence not less to the text of ,plato than to the expository comment of ,aristotle4 ,neither in the one nor the other is anything said about an axis of the earth2 in both1 the cosmical axis is expressly designated2 and1 if ,gruppe is right in his interpretation of ,greek3 ei7lome_/nn1 we must take ,plato as affirming1 not that the earth is fastened round the cosmical axis1 but that it revolves1 though unattached1 around that axis1 which is a proposition both difficult to understand1 and leading to none of those astronomical consequences with which ,gruppe would connect it4 ,again1 when ,gruppe says that ,greek3 ei7lome_/nn peri does not mean packed or fastened round1 but that it does mean revolving round1 he has both the analogies of the word and the other commentators against him4 ,the main proof1 if not the only proof1 which he brings1 is that ,aristotle so construed it4 ,upon this point ,i join issue with him4 ,i maintain that ,aristotle does not understand ,greek3 ei7lome_/nn or ,greek3 i7llome_/nn peri as naturally meaning revolving round1 and that he does understand the phrase as meaning fastened round4 ,when we find him1 in the second passage of the treatise ,de ,coelo1 not satisfied with the verb ,greek3 i7_/llesthai alone1 but adding to it the second verb ,greek3 kai kineisthai1 we may be sure that he did not consider ,greek3 i7_/llesthai as naturally and properly denoting to revolve or move round4 ,agreeing as ,i do with ,gruppe in his view1 that the interpretation put by ,aristotle is the best evidence which we can follow in determining the meaning of this passage in the ,timus1 ,i contend that the authority of ,aristotle contradicts instead of justifying the conclusion at which he arrives4 ,aristotle understands ,greek3 i7llome_/nn as meaning packed or fastened round2 he does not understand it as meaning1 when taken by itself1 revolving round4 ,the two meanings here indicated are undoubtedly distinct and independent4 ,but they are not for that reason contradictory and incompatible4 ,it has been the mistake of critics to conceive them as thus incompatible2 so that if one of the two were admitted1 the other must be rejected4 ,i have endeavoured to show that this is not universally true1 and that there are certain circumstances in which the two meanings not only may come together1 but must come together4 ,such is the case when we revert to ,plato's conception of the cosmical axis as a solid revolving cylinder4 ,that which is packed or fastened around the cylinder must revolve around it1 and along with it4 ,both ,m4 ,boeckh and ,gruppe assume the incompatibility of the two meanings2 and we find the same assumption in ,plutarch's criticisms on the ,timus 7,plutarch4 ,qust4 ,platon4 p4 #ajjf ,c71 where he discusses what ,plato means by ,greek3 o7_/rgana chro_/nou2 and in what sense the earth as well as the moon can be reckoned as ,greek3 o7_/rganon chro_/nou 7,timus1 p4 #da ,e1 #db ,d74 ,plutarch inquires how it is possible that the earth1 if stationary and at rest1 can be characterised as among the instruments of time2 and he explains it by saying that this is true in the same sense as we call a gnomon or sun-dial an instrument of time1 because1 though itself never moves1 it marks the successive movements of the shadow4 ,this explanation might be admissible for the phrase ,greek3 o7_/rganon chro_/nou2 but ,i cannot think that the immobility of the earth can be made compatible with the attribute which ,plato bestows upon it of being ,greek3 phu_/lax kai dmiourgos nuktos te kai 7me_/ras4 ,the difficulty1 however1 vanishes when we understand the function ascribed by ,plato to the earth as ,i have endeavoured to elucidate it4 ,the earth not only is not at rest1 but cannot be at rest1 precisely because it is packed round the solid revolving cosmical axis1 and must revolve along with it4 ,the function of the earth1 as the first and oldest of intra-kosmic deities1 is to uphold and regulate the revolutions of this axis1 upon which depend the revolutions of the sidereal sphere or outer shell of the kosmos4 ,it is by virtue of this regulating function 7and not by virtue of its rotation7 that the earth is the guardian and artificer of night and day4 ,it is not only an instrument of time1 but the most potent and commanding among all instruments of time4 ,what has just been stated is1 in my belief1 the theory of the ,platonic ,timus1 signified in the words of that dialogue1 and embodied in the comment of ,aristotle4 ,the commentators1 subsequent to ,aristotle1 so far as we know them1 understood the theory in a sense different from what ,plato intended4 ,i think we may see how this misconception arose4 ,it arose from the great development and elaboration of astronomical theory during the two or three generations immediately succeeding ,plato4 ,much was added by ,eudoxus and others1 in their theory of concentric spheres3 more still by others of whom we read in ,cicero 7,academ4 ,,ii4 #ci47 ,hicetas ,syracusius1 ut ait ,theophrastus1 coelum1 solem1 lunam1 stellas1 supera denique omnia1 stare censet1 neque praeter terram rem ullam in mundo moveri3 quae cum circum axem se summ celeritate convertat et torqueat1 eadem effici omnia1 quae si stante terr coelum moveretur4 ,atque hoc etiam ,platonem in ,timaeo dicere quidam arbitrantur1 sed paullo obscurius4 ,the same doctrine is said to have been held by ,herakleides of ,pontus1 the contemporary of ,aristotle1 and by others along with him4 7,simplikius ad ,aristot4 ,physic4 p4 #fd--;,de ,coelo1 p4 #acb--,plutarch4 ,plac4 ,phil4 ,,iii4 #ac47 ,the doctrine of the rotation of the ,earth here appears along with another doctrine--the immobility of the sidereal sphere and of the celestial bodies4 ,the two are presented together1 as correlative portions of one and the same astronomical theory4 ,there are no celestial revolutions1 and therefore there is no solid celestial axis4 ,moreover1 even ,aristarchus of ,samos 7who attained to a theory substantially the same as the ,copernican1 with the double movement of the ,earth1 rotation round its own axis1 and translation round the sun as a centre7 comes within less than a century after ,plato's death4 ,though the quidam alluded to by ,cicero looked upon the obscure sentence in ,plato's ,timaeus as a dim indication of the theory of ,hicetas1 yet the two agree only in the supposition of a rotation of the earth1 and differ essentially in the pervading cosmical conceptions4 ,hicetas states distinctly that which his theory denies1 as well as that which it affirms4 ,the negation of the celestial rotations1 is in his theory a point of capital and coordinate importance1 on which he contradicts both ,plato and ,aristotle as well as the apparent evidence of sense4 ,i cannot suppose that this theory can have been proclaimed or known to ,aristotle when his works were composed3 for the celestial revolutions are the keystone of his system1 and he could hardly have abstained from combating a doctrine which denied them altogether4 ,in the hands of ,hicetas 7perhaps in those of ,herakleides1 if we may believe what is said about him7 astronomy appears treated as a science by itself1 with a view to provide such hypotheses as may save the phenomena 7,greek3 s_/zein ta phaino_/mena1 ,simpl4 ad ,aristot4 ,de ,coelo1 p4 #dih1 ,schol4 ,brandis74 ,it becomes detached from those religious1 ethical1 poetical1 teleological1 arithmetical decrees or fancies1 in which we see it immersed in the ,platonic ,timaeus1 and even 7though somewhat less7 in the ,aristotelian ,treatise ,de ,coelo4 ,hence the meaning of ,plato1 obscurely announced from the beginning1 ceased to be understood3 the solid revolving axis of the ,kosmos1 assumed without being expressly affirmed in his ,timaeus1 dropped out of sight3 the doctrine of the rotation of the earth was presented in a new point of view1 as a substitute for the celestial revolutions4 ,but no proper note was taken of this transition4 ,the doctrine of ,plato was assumed to be the same as that of ,hicetas4 ,when we read ,plutarch's criticism 7,qust4 ,plat4 p4 #ajjf ,c7 upon the word ,greek3 i7llome_/nn1 we see that he puts to himself the question thus--,does ,plato in the ,timus conceive the earth as kept together and stationary--or as turning round and revolving1 agreeably to the subsequent theory of ,aristarchus and ,seleukus8 ,here we find that ,plutarch conceives the alternative thus--,either the earth does not revolve at all1 or it revolves as ,aristarchus understood it4 ,one or other of these two positions must have been laid down by ,plato in the ,timus4--,so we read in ,plutarch4 ,but the fact is1 that ,plato meant neither the one nor the other4 ,the rotation of the earth round the solid cosmical axis1 which he affirms in the ,timus--is a phenomenon utterly different from the rotation of the earth as a free body round the imaginary line called its own axis1 which was the doctrine of ,aristarchus4 ,when expositors in ,plutarch's day1 and since his day1 enquired whether or not the ,platonic ,timus affirmed the rotation of the earth1 they meant to designate the rotation of the earth in the sense of ,aristarchus1 and in the sense in which modern astronomy understands that capital fact4 ,now speaking the language of modern astronomy1 ,i think it certain that the rotation of the earth is not to be found affirmed in the ,platonic ,timus2 and ,i agree with ,m4 ,boeckh when he says 7,untersuch4 p4 #gg71 ,granting that ,aristotle ascribed to ,plato the doctrine of the rotation of the earth1 he at least did not ascribe to him the doctrine as ,gruppe assumes1 and as now understood4 ,as between ,gruppe--who holds that the ,platonic ,timus affirms the rotation of the earth1 and that ,aristotle ascribes it to him1 in our sense of the words--and ,m4 ,boeckh1 who denies this--,i stand with the latter for the negative4 ,but when ,m4 ,boeckh assumes that the only alternative doctrine is the immobility of the earth1 and tries to show that this doctrine is proclaimed in the ,platonic ,timus--nay1 that no opposite doctrine can be proclaimed1 because the discourse expressly announces the rotation of the sidereal heaven in twenty-four hours--,i am compelled to dissent from him as to the conclusion1 and to deny the cogency of his proof4 ,m4 ,boeckh has hardly asked himself the question1 whether there was not some other sense in which ,plato might have affirmed it in the ,timus4 ,i have endeavoured to show that there was another sense2 that there are good analogies in ,plato to justify the belief that he intended to affirm the doctrine in that other sense2 and that the comments of ,aristotle--while thoroughly pertinent1 if we thus understand the passage in the ,timus--become either irrelevant1 dishonest1 or absurd1 if we construe the passage as signifying either what is maintained by ,m4 ,boeckh or what is maintained by ,gruppe4 ,the eminent critics1 whose opinions ,i here controvert1 have been apparently misled by the superior astronomical acquirements of the present age1 and have too hastily made the intellectual exigencies of their own minds a standard for all other minds1 in different ages as well as in different states of cultivation4 ,the question before us is1 not what doctrines are scientifically true or scientifically compatible with each other1 but what doctrines were affirmed or implied by ,plato4 ,in interpreting him1 we are required to keep our minds independent of subsequent astronomical theories4 ,we must look1 first and chiefly1 to what is said by ,plato himself2 next1 if that be obscure1 to the construction and comments of his contemporaries so far as they are before us4 ,in no case is this more essential than in the doctrine of the rotation of the earth1 which in the modern mind has risen to its proper rank in scientific importance1 and has become connected with collateral consequences and associations foreign to the ideas of the ancient ,pythagoreans1 or ,plato1 or ,aristotle4 ,unless we disengage ourselves from these more recent associations1 we cannot properly understand the doctrine as it stands in the ,platonic ,timus4 ,this doctrine1 as ,i have endeavoured to explain it1 leads to an instructive contrast between the cosmical theories of ,plato 7in the ,timus7 and ,aristotle4 ,plato conceives the kosmos as one animated and intelligent being or god1 composed of body and soul4 ,its body is moved and governed by its soul1 which is fixed or rooted in the centre1 but stretches to the circumference on all sides1 as well as all round the exterior4 ,it has a perpetual movement of circular rotation in the same unchanged place1 which is the sort of movement most worthy of a rational and intelligent being4 ,the revolutions of the exterior or sidereal sphere 7,circle of the ,same7 depend on and are determined by the revolutions of the solid cylinder or axis1 which traverses the kosmos in its whole diameter4 ,besides these1 there are various interior spheres or circles 7,circles of the ,different71 which rotate by distinct and variable impulses in a direction opposite to the sidereal sphere4 ,this latter is so much more powerful than they1 that it carries them all round with it2 yet they make good1 to a certain extent1 their own special opposite movement1 which causes their positions to be ever changing1 and the whole system to be complicated4 ,but the grand capital1 uniform1 overpowering1 movement of the kosmos1 consists in the revolution of the solid axis1 which determines that of the exterior sidereal sphere4 ,the impulse or stimulus to this movement comes from the cosmical soul1 which has its root in the centre4 ,just at this point is situated the earth1 the oldest and most venerable of intra-kosmic deities1 packed round the centre of the axis1 and having for its function to guard and regulate those revolutions of the axis1 and through them those of the outer sphere1 on which the succession of day and night depends--as well as to nurse mankind4 ,in all this we see that the ruling principle and force of the kosmos 7,greek3 to 7gemonikon tou ko_/smou7 is made to dwell in and emanate from its centre4 ,when we come to ,aristotle1 we find that the ruling principle or force of the kosmos is placed1 not in its centre1 but in its circumference4 ,he recognises no solid revolving axis traversing the whole diameter of the kosmos ,the interior of the kosmos is occupied by the four elements--earth1 water1 air1 fire--neither of which can revolve except by violence or under the pressure of extraneous force4 ,to each of them rectilinear motion is natural2 earth moves naturally towards the centre--fire moves naturally towards the circumference1 away from the centre4 ,but the peripheral substance of the kosmos is radically distinct from the four elements3 rotatory motion in a circle is natural to it1 and is the only variety of motion natural to it4 ,that it is moved at all1 it owes to a primum movens immobile impelling it3 but the two are coeternal1 and the motion has neither beginning nor end4 ,that when moved1 its motion is rotatory and not rectilinear1 it owes to its own nature4 ,it rotates perpetually1 through its own nature and inherent virtue1 not by constraining pressure communicated from a centre or from a soul4 ,if constraint were required--if there were any contrary tendency to be overcome--the revolving periphery would become fatigued1 and would require periods of repose2 but1 since in revolving it only obeys its own peculiar nature1 it persists for ever without knowing fatigue4 ,this peripheral or fifth essence1 perpetually revolving1 is the divine1 venerable1 and commanding portion of the kosmos1 more grand and honourable than the interior parts or the centre4 ,aristotle lays this down 7,de ,coelo1 ii4 #ac1 p4 #bic1 b4 #aj7 in express antithesis to the ,pythagoreans1 who 7like ,plato7 considered the centre as the point of grandeur and command1 placing fire in the centre for that reason4 ,the earth has no positive cosmical function in ,aristotle2 it occupies the centre because all its parts have a natural movement towards the centre3 and it is unmoved because there must be something in the centre which is always stationary1 as a contrary or antithesis to the fifth essence or peripheral substance of the kosmos1 which is in perpetual rotation by its own immutable nature4 ,i do not here go farther into the exposition of these ancient cosmical theories4 ,i have adverted to ,aristotle's doctrine only so far as was necessary to elucidate1 by contrast1 that which ,i believe to be the meaning of the ,platonic ,timus about the rotation of the earth4 ,,london3 ,,printed ,,by ,w4 ,,clowes ,,and ,,sons1 ,,stamford ,,street1 ,,and ,,charing ,,cross4 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999 ,transcriber's ,note ,the text is based on versions made available by the ,internet ,archive4 ,for the ,greek transcriptions the following conventions have been used3 7 is for smooth breathing2 7 for hard2 for diaeresis2 _/ for acute accent2 for grave2 for circumflex2 for iota subscript4 ch is used for chi1 ph for phi1 ps for psi1 th for theta2 for eta and for omega2 u is used for upsilon in all cases4 ,corrections to the text1 indicated with 9999 ,text ,correction ,ti_/ma_/i ,ti_/maio chore_/ia chorei_/a ou7_/ranon ou7ranon tetamenon tetame_/non e7ndeiknutai e7ndei_/knutai forge force ,tima_/i ,timai_/ gegraptai ge_/graptai e7ileisthai ei7leisthai e7_/pi e7pi a7uts au7ts