{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_40439/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_40439","id":"gutenberg_40439","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/40439","summary":null,"tags":["Aristotle, 384 BC-322 BC","Astronomy, Greek","Category: History - Ancient","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Science - Earth/Agricultural/Farming","Earth (Planet) -- Rotation","Plato. Timaeus"],"text":"PLATO'S DOCTRINE\n\nRESPECTING THE\n\nROTATION OF THE EARTH,\n\nAND\n\nARISTOTLE'S COMMENT UPON THAT DOCTRINE.\n\n\nBY GEORGE GROTE, ESQ.\n\n\nLONDON:\nJOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET.\n1860.\n\n_The right of Translation is reserved._\n\n\nLONDON: PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, STAMFORD STREET,\nAND CHARING CROSS.\n\n\n\n\nEXAMINATION OF THE THREE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:--\n\n1. WHETHER THE DOCTRINE OF THE EARTH'S ROTATION IS AFFIRMED OR\nIMPLIED IN THE PLATONIC TIM\u00c6US?\n\n2. IF AFFIRMED OR IMPLIED, IN WHAT SENSE?\n\n3. WHAT IS THE COSMICAL FUNCTION WHICH PLATO ASSIGNS TO THE EARTH\nIN THE TIM\u00c6US?\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\nThe following paper was originally intended as an explanatory note\non the Platonic Tim\u00e6us, in the work which I am now preparing on\nPlato and Aristotle. Interpreting, differently from others, the\nmuch debated passage in which Plato describes the cosmical\nfunction of the Earth, I found it indispensable to give my reasons\nfor this new view. But I soon discovered that those reasons could\nnot be comprised within the limits of a note. Accordingly I here\npublish them in a separate Dissertation. The manner in which the\nEarth's rotation was conceived, illustrates the scientific\ncharacter of the Platonic and Aristotelian age, as contrasted with\nthe subsequent development and improvement of astronomy.\n\n\n\n\nPLATO--ON THE EARTH'S ROTATION.\n\n\nIn Plato, Tim\u00e6us, p. 40 B, we read the following words--[Greek:\nG\u00ea=n de\\ tropho\\n me\\n \u00ea(mete/ran, ei(llome/n\u00ean de\\ peri\\ to\\n\ndia\\ panto\\s po/lon tetame/non phu/laka kai\\ d\u00eamiourgo\\n nukto/s\nte kai\\ \u00ea(me/ras e)m\u00eachan\u00ea/sato, pr\u00f4/t\u00ean kai\\ presbuta/t\u00ean the\u00f4=n,\no(/soi e)nto\\s ou)ra/nou gego/nasi.] I give the text as it stands\nin Stallbaum's edition.\n\nThe obscurity of this passage is amply attested by the numerous\ndifferences of opinion to which it has given rise, both in ancient\nand in modern times. Various contemporaries of Plato ([Greek:\ne)/nioi]--Aristot. De Coelo, II. 13, p. 293 b. 30) understood it\nas asserting or implying the rotatory movement of the earth in the\ncentre of the Kosmos, and adhered to this doctrine as their own.\nAristotle himself alludes to these contemporaries without naming\nthem, and adopts their interpretation of the passage; but dissents\nfrom the doctrine, and proceeds to impugn it by arguments. Cicero\nmentions (Academic II. 39) that there were persons who believed\nPlato to have indicated the same doctrine obscurely, in his\nTimaeus: this passage must undoubtedly be meant. Plutarch devotes\na critical chapter to the enquiry, what was Plato's real doctrine\nas to the cosmical function of the earth--its movement or rest\n(Quaestion. Platonic. VII. 3, p. 1006.)\n\nThere exists a treatise, in Doric dialect, entitled [Greek:\nTi/maio** t\u00f4= Lo/kr\u00f4 Peri\\ Psucha=s Ko/sm\u00f4 kai\\\nPhu/sios], which is usually published along with the works of Plato.\nThis treatise was supposed in ancient times to be a genuine production\nof the Lokrian Timaeus, whom Plato introduces as his spokesman in the\ndialogue so called. As such, it was considered to be of much\nauthority in settling questions of interpretation as to the\nPlatonic Timaeus. But modern critics hold, I believe unanimously,\nthat it is the work of some later Pythagorean or Platonist,\nexcerpted or copied from the Platonic Timaeus. This treatise\nrepresents the earth as being in the centre and at rest. But its\nlanguage, besides being dark and metaphorical, departs widely from\nthe phraseology of the Platonic Timaeus: especially in this--that\nit makes no mention of the cosmical axis, nor of the word\n[Greek: i)llome/n\u00ean] or [Greek: ei(loume/n\u00ean].\n\nAlexander of Aphrodisias (as we learn from Simplikius ad Aristot.\nDe Coelo, fol. 126) followed the construction of Plato given by\nAristotle. \"It was improbable (he said) that Aristotle could be\nignorant either what the word signified, or what was Plato's\npurpose\" ([Greek: a)lla\\ t\u00f4=| A)ristote/lei, ph\u00easi\\n, ou(/t\u00f4\nle/gonti _i)/llesthai_, ou)k eu)/logon a)ntile/gein; \u00f4(s\na)l\u00eath\u00f4=s ga\\r ou)/te t\u00ea=s le/xe\u00f4s to\\ s\u00eamaino/menon ei)ko\\s \u00ea)=n\na)gnoei=n au)to\\n, ou)/te to\\n Pla/t\u00f4nos skopo/n.] This passage is\nnot given in the Scholia of Brandis). Alexander therefore\nconstrued [Greek: i)llome/n\u00ean] as meaning or implying rotatory\nmovement, though in so doing he perverted (so Simplikius says) the\ntrue meaning to make it consonant with his own suppositions.\n\nProklus maintains that Aristotle has interpreted the passage\nerroneously,--that [Greek: i)llome/n\u00ean] is equivalent to [Greek:\nsphiggome/n\u00ean] or [Greek: xunechome/n\u00ean]--and that Plato intends\nby it to affirm the earth as at rest in the centre of the Kosmos\n(ad Timaeum, Book iv., p. 681 ed. Schneider). Simplikius himself\nis greatly perplexed, and scarcely ventures to give a positive\nopinion of his own. On the whole, he inclines to believe that\n[Greek: i)llome/n\u00ean] might possibly be understood, by superficial\nreaders, so as to signify rotation, though such is not its proper\nand natural sense: that some Platonists did so misunderstand it:\nand that Aristotle accepted their sense for the sake of the\nargument, without intending himself to countenance it (ad Aristot.\nDe Coelo, p. 126).\n\nBoth Proklus and Simplikius, we must recollect, believed in the\ngenuineness of the Doric treatise ascribed to Timaeus Locrus.\nReasoning upon this basis, they of course saw, that if Aristotle\nhad correctly interpreted Plato, Plato himself must have\ninterpreted _incorrectly_ the doctrine of Timaeus. They had\nto ascribe wrong construction either to Plato or to Aristotle: and\nthey could not bear to ascribe it to Plato.\n\nAlkinous, in his Eisag\u00f4ge (c. 15) gives the same interpretation as\nProklus. But it is remarkable that in his paraphrase of the\nPlatonic words, he calls the earth [Greek: \u00ea(me/ras phu/lax kai\\\nnukto/s]: omitting the significant epithet [Greek: d\u00eamiourgo/s].\n\nIn regard to modern comments upon the same disputed point, I need\nonly mention (besides those of M. Cousin, in the notes upon his\ntranslation of the 'Tim\u00e6us', and of Martin in his '\u00c9tudes sur le\nTim\u00e9e') the elaborate discussion which it has received in the two\nrecent Dissertations 'Ueber die kosmischen Systeme der Griechen,'\nby Gruppe and Boeckh. Gruppe has endeavoured, upon the evidence\nof this passage, supported by other collateral proofs, to show\nthat Plato, towards the close of his life, arrived at a belief,\nfirst, in the rotation of the earth round its own axis, next, at\nthe double movement of the earth, both rotation and translation,\nround the sun as a centre (that is, the heliocentric or Copernican\nsystem): that Plato was the first to make this discovery, but that\nhe was compelled to announce it in terms intentionally equivocal\nand obscure, for fear of offending the religious sentiments of his\ncontemporaries ('Die kosmischen Systeme der Griechen, von O. F.\nGruppe,' Berlin, 1851). To this dissertation M. Boeckh--the\noldest as well as the ablest of all living philologists--has\ncomposed an elaborate reply, with his usual fulness of\nillustrative matter and sobriety of inference. Opinions previously\ndelivered by him (in his early treatises on the Platonic and\nPythagoreian philosophy) had been called in question by Gruppe: he\nhas now re-asserted them and defended them at length, maintaining\nthat Plato always held the earth to be stationary and the sidereal\nsphere rotatory--and answering or extenuating the arguments which\npoint to an opposite conclusion ('Untersuchungen \u00fcber das\nkosmische System des Platon, von August Boeckh,' Berlin, 1852).\n\nGruppe has failed in his purpose of proving that Plato adopted\neither of the two above-mentioned doctrines--either the rotation\nof the earth round its own axis, or the translation of the earth\nround the sun as a centre. On both these points I concur with\nBoeckh in the negative view. But though I go along with his reply\nas to its negative results, I cannot think it satisfactory in its\npositive aspect as an exposition of the doctrine proclaimed in the\nPlatonic Tim\u00e6us: nor can I admit that the main argument of M.\nBoeckh's treatise is sufficient to support the inference which he\nrests upon it. Moreover, he appears to me to set aside or explain\naway too lightly the authority of Aristotle. I agree with\nAlexander of Aphrodisias and with Gruppe who follows him, in\npronouncing Aristotle to be a good witness, when he declares what\nwere the doctrines proclaimed in the Platonic Tim\u00e6us; though I\nthink that Gruppe has not accurately interpreted either Tim\u00e6us or\nAristotle.\n\nThe capital argument of Boeckh is as follows: \"The Platonic Tim\u00e6us\naffirms, in express and unequivocal terms, the rotation of the\nouter celestial sphere (the sidereal sphere or Aplanes) in\ntwenty-four hours, as bringing about and determining the succession\nof day and night. Whoever believes this cannot at the same time\nbelieve that the earth revolves round its own axis in twenty-four\nhours, and that the succession of day and night is determined\nthereby. The one of these two affirmations excludes the other;\nand, as the first of the two is proclaimed, beyond all possibility\nof doubt, in the Platonic Tim\u00e6us, so we may be sure that the\nsecond of the two cannot be proclaimed in that same discourse. If\nany passage therein seems to countenance it, we must look for some\nother mode of interpreting the passage.\"\n\nThis is the main argument of M. Boeckh, and also of Messrs. Cousin\nand Martin. The latter protests against the idea of imputing to\nPlato \"un m\u00e9lange monstrueux de deux syst\u00eames incompatibles\"\n(\u00c9tudes sur le Tim\u00e9e, vol. ii. p. 86-88).\n\nAs applied to any person educated in the modern astronomy, the\nargument is irresistible. But is it equally irresistible when\napplied to Plato and to Plato's time? I think not. The\nincompatibility which appears so glaring at present, did not\nsuggest itself to him or to his contemporaries. To prove this we\nhave only to look at the reasoning of Aristotle, who (in the\ntreatise De Coelo, ii. 13-14, p. 293. b. 30, 296. a. 25) notices\nand controverts the doctrine of the rotation of the earth, with\nexpress reference to the followers of the Platonic Tim\u00e6us--and who\n(if we follow the view of Martin) imputes this doctrine with\nwilful falsehood to Plato, for the purpose of contemptuously\nrefuting it \"pour se donner le plaisir de la r\u00e9futer avec d\u00e9dain.\"\nGranting the view of M. Boeckh (still more that of Martin) to be\ncorrect, we should find Aristotle arguing thus:--\"Plato affirms\nthe diurnal rotation of the earth round the centre of the cosmical\naxis. This is both incredible, and incompatible with his own\ndistinct affirmation that the sidereal sphere revolves in\ntwenty-four hours. It is a glaring inconsistency that the same author\nshould affirm both the one and the other.\" Such would have been\nAristotle's reasoning, on the hypothesis which I am considering;\nbut when we turn to his treatise we find that he does not employ\nthis argument at all. He contests the alleged rotation of the\nearth upon totally different arguments--chiefly on the ground that\nrotatory motion is not natural to the earth, that the kind of\nmotion natural to the earth is rectilineal, towards the centre;\nand he adds various corollaries flowing from this doctrine which I\nshall not now consider. At the close of his refutation, he states\nin general terms that the celestial appearances, as observed by\nscientific men, coincided with his doctrine.\n\nHence we may plainly see that Aristotle probably did not see\nthe incompatibility, supposed to be so glaring, upon which M.\nBoeckh's argument is founded. To say the least, even if he saw it,\nhe did not consider it as glaring and decisive. He would have put\nit in the foreground of his refutation, if he had detected the\ngross contradiction upon which M. Boeckh insists. But Aristotle\ndoes not stand alone in this dulness of vision. Among the various\ncommentators, ancient and modern, who follow him, discussing the\nquestion now before us, not one takes notice of M. Boeckh's\nargument. He himself certifies to us this fact, claiming the\nargument as his own, and expressing his astonishment that all the\nprevious critics had passed it over, though employing other\nreasons much weaker to prove the same point. We read in M.\nBoeckh's second 'Commentatio de Platonico Systemate Coelestium\nGloborum et de Ver\u00e2 Indole Astronomi\u00e6 Philolaic\u00e6,' Heidelberg,\n1810, p. 9, the following words:--\n\n\"Non moveri tellurem, Proclus et Simplicius ostendunt ex Ph\u00e6done.\nParum firmum tamen argumentum est ex Ph\u00e6done ductum ad\ninterpretandum Tim\u00e6i locum: nec melius alterum, quod Locrus\nTim\u00e6us, quem Plato sequi putabatur, terram stare affirmat: quia,\nut nuper explicuimus, non Plato ex Locro, sed personatus Locrus ex\nPlatone, sua compilavit. At omnium firmissionum et certissimum\nargumentum ex ipso nostro dialogo sumptum, _adhuc, quod jure\nmirere, nemo reperit_. Etenim, quum, paulo supra, orbem\nstellarum fixarum, quem Gr\u00e6ci [Greek: a)plan\u00ea=] appellant,\ndextrorsum ferri quotidiano motu Plato statuebat, non poterat\nullum terr\u00e6 motum admittere; quia, _qui hunc admittit, illum non\ntollere non potest_.\" (This passage appears again cited by M.\nBoeckh himself in his more recent dissertation 'Untersuchungen\n\u00fcber das kosmische System des Platon,' p. 11). The writers named\n(p. 7) as having discussed the question, omitting or disregarding\nthis most cogent argument, are names extending from Aristotle down\nto Ruhnken and Ideler.\n\nIt is honourable to the penetration of M. Boeckh that he should\nhave pointed out, what so many previous critics had overlooked,\nthat these two opinions are scientifically incompatible. He\nwonders, and there may be good ground for wondering, how it\nhappened that none of these previous writers were aware of the\nincompatibility. But the fact that it did not occur to them, is\nnot the less certain, and is of the greatest moment in reference\nto the question now under debate; for we are not now inquiring\nwhat is or is not scientifically true or consistent, but what were\nthe opinions of Plato. M. Boeckh has called our attention to the\nfact, that these two opinions are incompatible; but can we\nsafely assume that Plato must have perceived such incompatibility\nbetween them? Surely not. The Pythagoreans of his day did not\nperceive it; their cosmical system included both the revolution of\nthe earth and the revolution of the sidereal sphere round the\ncentral fire, ten revolving bodies in all (Aristotel. Metaphysic.\ni. 35, p. 96 a. 10. De Coelo, ii. 13, p. 293 b. 21). They were\nnot aware that the revolutions of the one annulled those of the\nother as to effect, and that their system thus involved the two\ncontradictory articles, or \"m\u00e9lange monstrueux,\" of which Martin\nspeaks so disdainfully. Nay, more, their opponent, Aristotle,\nwhile producing other arguments against them, never points out the\ncontradiction. Since it did not occur to them, we can have no\ngreater difficulty in believing that neither did it occur to\nPlato. Indeed, the wonder would rather be if Plato _had_ seen\nan astronomical incompatibility which escaped the notice both of\nAristotle and of many subsequent writers who wrote at a time when\nastronomical theories had been developed and compared with greater\nfulness. Even Ideler, a good astronomer as well as a good scholar,\nthough he must surely have known that Plato asserted the rotation\nof the sidereal sphere (for no man can read the 'Tim\u00e6us' without\nknowing it), ascribed to him also the other doctrine inconsistent\nwith it, not noticing such inconsistency until M. Boeckh pointed\nit out.\n\nIt appears to me, therefore, that M. Boeckh has not satisfactorily\nmade good his point--\"Plato cannot have believed in the diurnal\nrotation of the earth, because he unquestionably believed in the\nrotation of the sidereal sphere as causing the succession of night\nand day.\" For, though the two doctrines really are incompatible,\nyet the critics antecedent to M. Boeckh took no notice of such\nincompatibility. We cannot presume that Plato saw what Aristotle\nand other authors, even many writing under a more highly developed\nastronomy, did not see. We ought rather, I think, to presume the\ncontrary, unless Plato's words distinctly attest that he did see\nfarther than his successors.\n\nNow let us examine what Plato's words do attest:--[Greek: g\u00ea=n de\\\ntropho\\n me\\n \u00ea(mete/ran, ei(llome/n\u00ean] (al. [Greek: ei(lome/n\u00ean,\ni)llome/n\u00ean]) [Greek: de\\ peri\\ to\\n dia\\ panto\\s po/lon\ntetame/non phu/laka kai\\ d\u00eamiourgo\\n nukto/s te kai\\ \u00ea(me/ras\ne)m\u00eachan\u00ea/sato, pr\u00f4/t\u00ean kai\\ presbuta/t\u00ean the\u00f4=n, o(/soi e)nto\\s\nou)ra/nou gego/nasi.]\n\nI explain these words as follows:--\n\nIn the passage immediately preceding, Plato had described the\nuniform and unchanging rotation of the outer sidereal sphere, or\nCircle of The Same, and the erratic movements of the sun,\nmoon, and planets, in the interior Circles of the Diverse. He now\nexplains the situation and functions of the earth. Being the first\nand most venerable of the intra-kosmic deities, the earth has the\nmost important place in the interior of the kosmos--the centre. It\nis packed, fastened, or rolled, close round the axis which\ntraverses the entire kosmos; and its function is to watch over and\nbring about the succession of night and day. _Plato conceives\nthe kosmic axis itself as a solid cylinder revolving or turning\nround, and causing thereby the revolution of the circumference or\nthe sidereal sphere._ The outer circumference of the kosmos not\nonly revolves round its axis, but obeys a rotatory impulse\nemanating from its axis, like the spinning of a teetotum or the\nturning of a spindle. Plato in the Republic illustrates the\ncosmical axis by comparison with a spindle turned by Necessity,\nand describes it as causing by its own rotation the rotation of\nall the heavenly bodies (Republ. x. p. 616, c. 617 A). [Greek: e)k\nde\\ t\u00f4=n a)/kr\u00f4n tetame/non A)na/gk\u00eas a)/trakton, di' ou(= pa/sas\ne)pistre/phesthai ta\\s peri/phoras . . . , kuklei=sthai de\\ d\u00ea\\\nstrepho/menon to\\n a)/trakton o(/lon me\\n t\u00ea\\n au)t\u00ea\\n phoran . .\n. . stre/phesthai de\\ au)to\\n e)n toi=s A)na/gk\u00eas go/nasin.][1]\n\n[Footnote 1: Proklus in his Commentary on the Platonic Tim\u00e6us (p.\n682, Schn.) notes this passage of the Republic as the proper\ncomparison from which to interpret how Plato conceived the\ncosmical axis. In many points he explains this correctly; but he\nomits to remark that the axis is expressly described as revolving,\nand as causing the revolution of the peripheral substance:--\n\n----[Greek: to\\n de\\ a)/xona mi/an theo/t\u00eata sunag\u00f4go\\n me\\n t\u00f4=n\nke/ntr\u00f4n tou= panto\\s sunektik\u00ea\\n de\\ tou= o(/lou ko/smou,\n_kin\u00eatik\u00ea\\n de\\ t\u00f4=n thei/\u00f4n periphor\u00f4=n_, peri\\ \u00ea(\\n \u00ea(\nchorei/a** t\u00f4=n o(/l\u00f4n, peri\\ \u00ea(\\n ai(\na)nakukl\u00ea/seis, a)ne/chousan to\\n o(/lon ou)rano\\n,**\n\u00ea(\\n kai\\ A)/tlanta dia\\ tou=to proseir\u00ea/kasin, \u00f4(s\na)/trepton kai\\ a)/truton e)ne/rgeian e)/chousan. kai\\ me/ntoi\nkai\\ to\\ tetame/non** e)ndei/knutai** tit\u00ea/nion ei)=nai t\u00ea\\n\nmi/an _tau/t\u00ean du/namin, t\u00ea\\n phrour\u00eatik\u00ea\\n t\u00ea=s\na)nakukl\u00ea/se\u00f4s t\u00f4=n o(/l\u00f4n_.]\n\nHere Proklus recognises the efficacy of the axis in producing and\nmaintaining the revolution of the Kosmos, but he does not remark\nthat it initiates this movement by revolving itself. The [Greek:\nTheot\u00ea\\s], which Proklus ascribes to the axis, is invested in the\nearth packed round it, by the Platonic Tim\u00e6us.]\n\nNow the function which Plato ascribes to the earth in the passage\nof the Tim\u00e6us before us is very analogous to that which in the\nRepublic he ascribes to Necessity--the active guardianship of the\naxis of the kosmos and the maintenance of its regular rotation.\nWith a view to the exercise of this function, the earth is planted\nin the centre of the axis, the very root of the kosmic soul\n(Plato, Tim\u00e6us, p. 34 B). It is even \"packed close round the\naxis,\" in order to make sure that the axis shall not be displaced\nfrom its proper situation and direction. The earth is thus not\nmerely active and influential, but is really the chief regulator\nof the march of the kosmos, being the immediate neighbour and\nauxiliary of the kosmic soul. Such a function is worthy of \"the\nfirst and eldest of intra-kosmic deities,\" as Plato calls the\nearth. With perfect propriety he may say that the earth, in the\nexercise of such a function, \"is guardian and artificer of day and\nnight.\" This is noway inconsistent with that which he says in\nanother passage, that the revolutions of the outer sidereal sphere\ndetermine day and night. For these revolutions of the outer\nsidereal sphere depend upon the revolutions of the axis, which\nlatter is kept in uniform position and movement by the earth\ngrasping it round its centre and revolving with it. The earth does\nnot determine days and nights by means of its own rotations, but\nby its continued influence upon the rotations of the kosmic axis,\nand (through this latter) upon those of the outer sidereal sphere.\n\nIt is important to attend to the circumstance last mentioned, and\nto understand in what sense Plato admitted a rotatory movement of\nthe earth. In my judgment, the conception respecting the earth and\nits functions, as developed in the Platonic Tim\u00e6us, has not been\nconsidered with all its points taken together. One point among\nseveral, and that too the least important point, has been\ndiscussed as if it were the whole, because it falls in with the\ndiscussions of subsequent astronomy. Thus Plato admits the\nrotation of the earth, but he does not admit it as producing any\neffects, or as the primary function of the earth: it is only an\nindirect consequence of the position which the earth occupies in\nthe discharge of its primary function--of keeping the cosmical\naxis steady, and maintaining the uniformity of its rotations. If\nthe cosmical axis is to revolve, the earth, being closely packed\nand fastened round it, must revolve along with it. If the earth\nstood still, and resisted all rotation of its own, it would at the\nsame time arrest the rotations of the cosmical axis, and of course\nthose of the entire kosmos besides.\n\nThe above is the interpretation which I propose of the passage in\nthe Platonic Tim\u00e6us, and which I shall show to coincide with\nAristotle's comment upon it. Messrs. Boeckh and Martin interpret\ndifferently. They do not advert to the sense in which Plato\nconceives the axis of the kosmos--not as an imaginary line, but as\na solid revolving cylinder; and moreover they understand the\nfunction assigned by the Platonic Tim\u00e6us to the earth in a way\nwhich I cannot admit. They suppose that the function assigned to\nthe earth is not to keep up and regularize, but to withstand\nand countervail, the rotation of the kosmos. M. Boeckh\ncomments upon Gruppe, who had said (after Ideler) that when the\nearth is called [Greek: phu/laka _kai\\ d\u00eamiourgo\\n_ nukto\\s\nkai\\ \u00ea(me/ras], Plato must have meant to designate some active\nfunction ascribed to it, and not any function merely passive or\nnegative. I agree with Gruppe in this remark, and I have\nendeavoured to point out what this active function of the earth\nis, in the Platonic theory. But M. Boeckh (Untersuchungen,\n&c., p. 69-70) controverts Gruppe's remark, observing, first,\nthat it is enough if the earth is in any way necessary to the\nproduction of the given effect; secondly, that if active force be\nrequired, the earth (in the Platonic theory) does exercise such,\nby its purely passive resistance, which is in itself an energetic\nputting forth of power.\n\nM. Boeckh's words are:--\"Es kommt nur darauf an, dass er ein Werk,\neine Wirkung, hervorbringt oder zu einer Wirkung beitr\u00e4gt, die\nohne ihn nicht w\u00e4re: dann ist er durch seine Wirksamkeit ein\nWerkmeister der Sache, sey es auch ohne active Th\u00e4tigkeit, durch\nbloss passiven Widerstand, der auch eine m\u00e4chtige Kraft-\u00e4usserung\nist. Die Erde ist Werkmeisterin der Nacht und des Tages, wie\nMartin (b. ii. p. 88) sehr treffend sagt 'par son \u00e9nergique\nexistence, c'est \u00e0 dire, par son immobilit\u00e9 m\u00eame:' denn sie setzt\nder t\u00e4glichen Bewegung des Himmels best\u00e4ndig eine gleiche Kraft in\nentgegengesetzter Richtung entgegen. So _muss_ nach dem\nZusammenhange ausgelegt werden: so meint es Platon klar und ohne\nVerh\u00fcllungen: denn wenige Zeilen vorher hat er gesagt, Nacht und\nTag, das heisst ein Sterntag oder Zeittag, sei ein Umlauf des\nKreises des Selbigen--_das ist, eine t\u00e4gliche Umkreisung des\nHimmels von Osten nach Westen, wodurch also die Erde in Stillstand\nversetzt ist:_ und diese t\u00e4gliche Bewegung des Himmels hat er\nim vorhergehenden immer und immer gelehrt.\" . . . . \"Indem Platon\ndie Erde nennt [Greek: ei(lome/n\u00ean], nicht [Greek: peri\\ to\\n\ne(aut\u00ea=s po/lon], sondern [Greek: peri\\ to\\n dia\\ panto\\s po/lon\ntetame/non], setzt er also die t\u00e4gliche Bewegung des Himmels\nvoraus\" (p. 70-71).[2]\n\n[Footnote 2: \"We are only required to show, that the Earth\nproduces a work or an effect,--or contributes to an effect which\nwould not exist without such help: the Earth is then, through such\noperation, an _Artificer_ of what is produced, even without\nany positive activity, by its simply passive resistance, which\nindeed is in itself a powerful exercise of force.**\nThe Earth is Artificer of night and day, according to the striking\nexpression of Martin, 'par son \u00e9nergique existence, c'est-\u00e0-dire,\npar son immobilit\u00e9 m\u00eame:' for the Earth opposes, to the diurnal\nmovement of the Heavens, a constant and equal force in the opposite\ndirection. This explanation _must_ be the true one required\nby the context: this is Plato's meaning, plainly and without\ndisguise: for he has said, a few lines before, that Night and Day\n(that is, a sidereal day, or day of time) is a diurnal revolution\nof the Heaven from East to West, whereby accordingly the Earth is\nassumed as at rest: And this diurnal movement of the Heaven he has\ntaught over and over again in the preceding part of his\ndiscourse.\"--\"Since therefore Plato calls the Earth [Greek:\nei(lome/n\u00ean], not [Greek: peri\\ to\\n e(aut\u00ea=s po/lon], but [Greek:\nperi\\ to\\n dia\\ panto\\s po/lon tetame/non], he implies thereby the\ndiurnal movement of the Heaven.\"]\n\nI not only admit but put it in the front of my own case, that\nPlato in the Tim\u00e6us assumes the diurnal movement of the celestial\nsphere; but I contend that he also assumes the diurnal rotation of\nthe earth. M. Boeckh founds his contrary interpretation upon the\nunquestionable truth that these two assumptions are inconsistent;\nand upon the inference that because the two cannot stand together\nin fact, therefore they cannot have stood together in the mind of\nPlato. In that inference I have already stated that I cannot\nacquiesce.\n\nBut while M. Boeckh takes so much pains to vindicate Plato from\none contradiction, he unconsciously involves Plato in another\ncontradiction, for which, in my judgment, there is no foundation\nwhatever. M. Boeckh affirms that the function of the earth (in the\nPlatonic Tim\u00e6us) is to put forth a great force of passive\nresistance--\"to oppose constantly, against the diurnal movement of\nthe heavens, an equal force in an opposite direction.\" Is it not\nplain, upon this supposition, that the kosmos would come to a\nstandstill, and that its rotation would cease altogether? As the\nearth is packed close or fastened round the cosmical axis, so, if\nthe axis endeavours to revolve with a given force, and the earth\nresists with equal force, the effect will be that the two forces\nwill destroy one another, and that neither the earth nor the axis\nwill move at all. There would be the same nullifying antagonism as\nif,--reverting to the analogous case of the spindle and the\nverticilli (already alluded to) in the tenth book of the\nRepublic,--as if, while Anank\u00e9 turned the spindle with a given\nforce in one direction, Klotho (instead of lending assistance)\nwere to apply her hand to the outermost verticillus with equal\nforce of resistance in the opposite direction (see Reipubl. x. p.\n617 D). It is plain that the spindle would never turn at all.\n\nHere, then, is a grave contradiction attaching to the view of\nBoeckh and Martin as to the function of the earth. They have not,\nin my judgment, sufficiently investigated the manner in which\nPlato represents to himself the cosmical axis: nor have they fully\nappreciated what is affirmed or implied in the debated word\n[Greek: ei(lo/menon--ei(lou/menon--i)llo/menon]. That word has\nbeen explained partly by Ruhnken in his notes on Tim\u00e6i Lexicon,\nbut still more by Buttmann in his Lexilogus, so accurately and\ncopiously as to leave nothing further wanting. I accept fully the\nexplanation given by Buttmann, and have followed it throughout\nthis article. After going over many other examples, Buttmann comes\nto consider this passage of the Platonic Tim\u00e6us; and he explains\nthe word [Greek: ei(lome/n\u00ean] or [Greek: i)llo/men\u00ean] as\nmeaning--\"_sich dr\u00e4ngen oder gedr\u00e4ngt werden_ um die Axe: d. h.\nvon allen Seiten her an die Axe. Auch lasse man sich das Praesens\nnicht irren: die Kr\u00e4fte, welche den Weltbau machen und zusammen\nhalten, sind als fortdauernd th\u00e4tig gedacht. Die Erde dr\u00e4ngt sich\n(ununterbrochen) an den Pol, _macht, bildet eine Kugel um\nihn_. Welcher Gebrauch v\u00f6llig entspricht dem wonach dasselbe\nVerbum ein _einwickeln_, _einh\u00fcllen_, bedeutet. Auch\nhier mengt sich in der Vorstellung einiges hinzu, was auf ein\n_biegen_ _winden_, und mitunter auf ein _drehen_\nf\u00fchrt: was aber _\u00fcberall nur ein durch die Sache selbst\nhinzutretender Begriff ist_,\" p. 151. And again, p. 154, he\ngives the result--that the word has only \"die Bedeutung\n_dr\u00e4ngen_, _befestigen_, nebst den davon ausgehenden--die\nvon _drehen_, _winden_, aber ihm _g\u00e4nzlich\nfremd_ sind, _und nur aus der Natur der Gegenst\u00e4nde in\neinigen F\u00e4llen als Nebengedanken hinzutreten_.\"[3]\n\n[Footnote 3: \"To _pack itself_, or to _be packed_, round\nthe axis: that is, upon the axis from all sides. We must not be\nmisled by the present tense: for the forces, which compose and\nhold together the structure of the universe, are conceived as\ncontinuously in active operation. The Earth _packs itself_,\nor _is packed_, on to the axis--_makes or forms a ball\nround the axis:_ which corresponds fully to that other usage of\nthe word, in the sense of _wrapping up_ or _swathing\nround_. Here too there is a superadded something blended with\nthe idea, which conducts us to _turning_, _winding_, and\nthus to _revolving_: but this is every where nothing more\nthan an accessory notion, suggested by the circumstances of the\ncase. The word has only the meaning, to _pack_, to\n_fasten_--the senses, to _wind_, to _revolve_, are\naltogether foreign to it, and can only be superadded as accessory\nideas, in certain particular instances, by the special nature of\nthe case.\"]\n\nIn these last words Buttmann has exactly distinguished the true,\nconstant, and essential meaning of the word, from the casual\naccessories which become conjoined with it by the special\ncircumstances of some peculiar cases. The constant and true\nmeaning of the word is, _being packed or fastened close\nround_, _squeezing or grasping around_. The idea of\n_rotating_ or _revolving_ is quite foreign to this\nmeaning, but may nevertheless become conjoined with it, in certain\nparticular cases, by accidental circumstances.\n\nLet us illustrate this. When I say that a body _A_ is\n[Greek: ei(lo/menon] or [Greek: i)llo/menon] (packed or fastened\nclose round, squeezing or grasping around), another body _B_,\nI affirm nothing about revolution or rotation. This is an idea\nforeign to the proposition _per se_, yet capable of being\nannexed or implicated with it under some accidental circumstances.\nWhether in any particular case it be so implicated or not depends\non the question \"What is the nature of the body _B_, round\nwhich I affirm _A_ to be fastened?\" 1. It may be an oak tree\nor a pillar, firmly planted and stationary. 2. It may be some\nother body, moving, but moving in a rectilinear direction. 3.\nLastly, it may be a body rotating or intended to rotate, like a\nspindle, a spit, or the rolling cylinder of a machine. In the\nfirst supposition, all motion is excluded: in the second,\nrectilinear motion is implied, but rotatory motion is excluded: in\nthe third, rotatory motion is implied as a certain adjunct. The\nbody which is fastened round another, must share the motion or the\nrest of that other. If the body _B_ is a revolving cylinder,\nand if I affirm that _A_ is packed or fastened close round\nit, I introduce the idea of rotation; though only as an accessory\nand implied fact, in addition to that which the proposition\naffirms. The body _A_, being fastened round the cylinder\n_B_, must either revolve along with it and round it, or it\nmust arrest the rotation of _B_. If the one revolves, so must\nthe other; both must either revolve together, or stand still\ntogether. This is a new fact, distinct from what is affirmed in\nthe proposition, yet implied in it or capable of being inferred\nfrom it through induction and experience.\n\nHere we see exactly the position of Plato in regard to the\nrotation of the earth. He does not affirm it in express terms, but\nhe affirms what implies it. For when he says that the earth is\npacked, or fastened close round the cosmical axis, he conveys to\nus by implication the knowledge of another and distinct fact--that\nthe earth and the cosmical axis must either revolve together or\nremain stationary together--that the earth must either revolve\nalong with the axis or arrest the revolutions of the axis. It is\nmanifest that Plato does not mean the revolutions of the axis of\nthe kosmos to be arrested: they are absolutely essential to the\nscheme of the Tim\u00e6us--they are the grand motive-agency of the\nkosmos. He must, therefore, mean to imply that the earth revolves\nalong with and around the cosmical axis. And thus the word [Greek:\nei(lo/menon] or [Greek: i)llo/menon], according to Buttmann's\ndoctrine, becomes accidentally conjoined, through the specialities\nof this case, with an accessory idea of rotation or\nrevolution; though that idea is foreign to its constant and\nnatural meaning.\n\nNow if we turn to Aristotle, we shall find that he understood the\nword [Greek: ei(lo/menon] or [Greek: i)llo/menon], and the\nproposition of Plato, exactly in this sense. Here I am compelled\nto depart from Buttmann, who affirms (p. 152), with an expression\nof astonishment, that Aristotle misunderstood the proposition of\nPlato, and interpreted [Greek: ei(lo/menon] or [Greek:\ni)llo/menon] as if it meant directly as well as incontestably,\n_rotating_ or _revolving_. Proklus, in his Commentary on\nthe Tim\u00e6us, had before raised the same controversy with\nAristotle--[Greek: i)llome/n\u00ean de\\, t\u00ea\\n sphiggome/n\u00ean d\u00ealoi=\nkai\\ sunechome/n\u00ean ou) ga\\r \u00f4(s A)ristote/l\u00eas oi)/etai, t\u00ea\\n\nkinoume/n\u00ean] (Procl. p. 681). Let us, therefore, examine the\npassages of Aristotle out of which this difficulty arises.\n\nThe passages are two, both of them in the second book De Coelo;\none in cap. 13, the other in cap. 14 (p. 293 b. 30, 296 a. 25).\n\n1. The first stands--[Greek: e)/nioi de\\ kai\\ keime/n\u00ean (t\u00ea\\n\ng\u00ea=n) e)pi\\ tou= ke/ntrou phasi\\n au)t\u00ea\\n i)/llesthai peri\\ to\\n\ndia\\ panto\\s tetame/non po/lon, \u00f4(/sper e)n t\u00f4=| Timai/\u00f4|**\nge/graptai.** Such is the reading of Bekker in the Berlin edition:\nbut he gives various readings of two different MSS.--the one having\n[Greek: i)/llesthai kai\\ kinei=sthai]--the other ei(lei=sthai**\nkai\\ kinei=sthai].\n\n2. The second stands, beginning chap. 14--[Greek: \u00ea(mei=s de\\\nle/g\u00f4men pr\u00f4=ton po/teron] (the earth) [Greek: e)/chei ki/n\u00easin\n\u00ea)\\ me/nei; katha/per ga\\r ei)/pomen, oi( me\\n au)t\u00ea\\n e(\\n t\u00f4=n\na)/str\u00f4n poiou=sin, oi( d' e)pi\\** tou= me/sou\nthe/ntes i)/llesthai kai\\ kinei=shai/ phasi peri\\ to\\n po/lon me/son.]\n\nNow, in the first of these two passages, where Aristotle simply\nbrings the doctrine to view without any comment, he expressly\nrefers to the Tim\u00e6us, and therefore quotes the expression of that\ndialogue without any enlargement. He undoubtedly understands the\naffirmation of Plato--that the earth was fastened round the\ncosmical axis--as implying that it rotated along with the\nrotations of that axis. Aristotle thus construes [Greek:\ni)/llesthai], _in that particular proposition_ of the Tim\u00e6us,\nas implying rotation. But he plainly did not construe [Greek:\ni)/llesthai] as naturally and constantly either denoting or\nimplying rotation. This is proved by his language in the second\npassage, where he reproduces the very same doctrine with a view to\ndiscuss and confute it, and without special reference to the\nPlatonic Tim\u00e6us. Here we find that he is not satisfied to express\nthe doctrine by the single word [Greek: i)/llesthai]. He subjoins\nanother verb--[Greek: i)/llesthai kai\\ kinei=sthai]: thus bringing\ninto explicit enunciation the fact of rotatory movement, which,\nwhile [Greek: i)/llesthai] stood alone, was only known by\nimplication and inference from the circumstances of the\nparticular case. If he had supposed [Greek: i)/llesthai] by itself\nto signify _revolving_ the addition of [Greek: kinei=sthai]\nwould have been useless, unmeaning, and even impertinent.\nAristotle, as Boeckh remarks, is not given to multiply words\nunnecessarily.\n\nIt thus appears, when we examine the passages of Aristotle, that\nhe understood [Greek: i)/llesthai] quite in conformity with\nButtmann's explanation. Rotatory movement forms no part of the\nmeaning of the word; yet it may accidentally, in a particular\ncase, be implied as an adjunct of the meaning, by virtue of the\nspecial circumstances of that case. Aristotle describes the\ndoctrine as held by _some persons_. He doubtless has in view\nvarious Platonists of his time, who adopted and defended what had\nbeen originally advanced by Plato in the Tim\u00e6us.\n\nM. Boeckh, in a discussion of some length (Untersuch. p. 76-84),\nmaintains the opinion that the reading in the first passage of\nAristotle is incorrect; that the two words [Greek: i)/llesthai\nkai\\ kinei=sthai] ought to stand in the first as they do in the\nsecond,--as he thinks that they stood in the copy of Simplikius:\nthat Aristotle only made reference to Plato with a view to the\npeculiar word [Greek: i)/llesthai], and not to the general\ndoctrine of the rotation of the earth: that he comments upon this\ndoctrine as held by others, but not by Plato--who (according to\nBoeckh) was known by everyone not to hold it. M. Boeckh gives this\nonly as a conjecture, and I cannot regard his arguments in support\nof it as convincing. But even if he had convinced me that [Greek:\ni)/llesthai kai\\ kinei=sthai] were the true reading in the first\npassage, as well as in the second, I should merely say that\nAristotle had not thought himself precluded by the reference to\nthe Tim\u00e6us from bringing out into explicit enunciation what the\nPlatonists whom he had in view knew to be implied and intended by\nthe passage. This indeed is a loose mode of citation, which I\nshall not ascribe to Aristotle without good evidence. In the\npresent case such evidence appears to me wanting.[4]\n\n[Footnote 4: Exactness of citation is not always to be relied on\namong ancient commentators. Simplikius cites this very passage of\nthe Tim\u00e6us with more than one inaccuracy.--(ad Aristot. De Coelo,\nfol. 125.)]\n\nM. Martin attributes to Aristotle something more than improper\ncitation. He says (\u00catudes sur le Tim\u00e9e, vol. ii. p. 87), \"Si\nAristote citait l'opinion de la rotation de la terre comme un\ntitre de gloire pour Platon, je dirais--il est probable que la\nv\u00e9rit\u00e9 l'y a forc\u00e9. Mais Aristote, qui admettait l'immobilit\u00e9\ncompl\u00e8te de la terre, attribue \u00e0 Platon l'opinion contraire,\n_pour se donner le plaisir de la r\u00e9futer avec d\u00e9dain_.\" A few\nlines before, M. Martin had said that the arguments whereby\nAristotle combated this opinion ascribed to Plato were \"very\nfeeble.\" I am at a loss to imagine in which of Aristotle's phrases\nM. Martin finds any trace of disdain or contempt, either for the\ndoctrine or for those who held it. For my part, I find none. The\narguments of Aristotle against the doctrine, whatever be their\nprobative force, are delivered in that brief, calm, dry manner\nwhich is usual with him, without a word of sentiment or rhetoric,\nor anything [Greek: e)/x\u00f4 tou= pra/gmatos]. Indeed, among all\nphilosophers who have written much, I know none who is less open\nto the reproach of mingling personal sentiment with argumentative\ndebate than Aristotle. Plato indulges frequently in irony, or\nsneering, or rhetorical invective; Aristotle very rarely.\nMoreover, even apart from the question of contempt, the part which\nM. Martin here assumes Aristotle to be playing, is among the\nstrangest anomalies in the history of philosophy. Aristotle holds,\nand is anxious to demonstrate, the doctrine of the earth's\nimmobility; he knows (so we are required to believe) that Plato\nnot only holds the same doctrine, but has expressly affirmed it in\nthe Tim\u00e6us: he might have produced Plato as an authority in his\nfavour, and the passage of the Tim\u00e6us as an express declaration;\nyet he prefers to pervert, knowingly and deliberately, the meaning\nof this passage, and to cite Plato as a hostile instead of a\nfriendly authority--simply \"to give himself the pleasure of\ncontemptuously refuting Plato's opinion!\" But this is not all. M.\nMartin tells us that the arguments which Aristotle produces\nagainst the doctrine are, after all, very feeble. But he farther\ntells us that there was one argument which might have been\nproduced, and which, if Aristotle had produced it, would have\nconvicted Plato of \"an enormous contradiction\" (p. 88) in\naffirming that the earth revolved round the cosmical axis.\nAristotle might have said to Plato--\"You have affirmed, and you\nassume perpetually throughout the Tim\u00e6us, the diurnal revolution\nof the outer sidereal sphere; you now assert the diurnal\nrevolution of the earth at the centre. Here is an enormous\ncontradiction; the two cannot stand together.\"--Yet Aristotle,\nhaving this triumphant argument in his hands, says not a word\nabout it, but contents himself with various other arguments which\nM. Martin pronounces to be very feeble.\n\nPerhaps M. Martin might say--\"The contradiction exists; but\nAristotle was not sharpsighted enough to perceive it; otherwise he\nwould have advanced it.\" I am quite of this opinion. If Aristotle\nhad perceived the contradiction, he would have brought it forward\nas the strongest point in his controversy. His silence is to me a\nproof that he did not perceive it. But this is a part of my case\nagainst M. Martin. I believe that Plato admitted both the two\ncontradictory doctrines without perceiving the contradiction; and\nit is a strong presumption in favour of this view that Aristotle\nequally failed to perceive it--though in a case where, according\nto M. Martin, he did not scruple to resort to dishonest artifice.\n\nIt appears to me that the difficulties and anomalies, in which we\nare involved from supposing that Aristotle either misunderstood or\nperverted the meaning of Plato--are far graver than those which\nwould arise from admitting that Plato advanced a complicated\ntheory involving two contradictory propositions, in the same\ndialogue, without perceiving the contradiction; more especially\nwhen the like failure of perception is indisputably ascribable to\nAristotle--upon every view of the case.\n\nM. Cousin maintains the same interpretation of the Platonic\npassage as Boeckh and Martin, and defends it by a note on his\ntranslation of the Tim\u00e6us (p. 339). The five arguments which he\nproduces are considered both by himself and by Martin to be\nunanswerable. As he puts them with great neatness and terseness, I\nhere bestow upon them a separate examination.\n\n1. \"Platon a toujours \u00e9t\u00e9 consid\u00e9r\u00e9 dans l'antiquit\u00e9 comme\npartisan de l'immobilit\u00e9 absolue de la terre.\" M. Cousin had\nbefore said, \"Aristote se fonde sur ce passage pour \u00e9tablir que\nPlaton a fait tourner la terre sur elle-m\u00eame: mais Aristote est,\ndans l'antiquit\u00e9, le seul qui soutienne cette opinion.\"\n\nMy reply is, that Aristotle is himself a portion and member of\nantiquity, and that the various Platonists, whom he undertakes to\nrefute, are portions of it also. If M. Cousin appeals to the\nauthority of antiquity, it must be to antiquity, not merely\n_minus_ Aristotle and these contemporary Platonists, but\n_against_ them. Now these are just the witnesses who had the\nbest means of knowledge. Besides which, Aristotle himself,\nadopting and anxious to demonstrate the immobility of the earth,\nhad every motive to cite Plato as a supporter, if Plato was\nsuch--and every motive to avoid citing Plato as an opponent, unless\nthe truth of the case compelled him to do so. I must here add, that\nM. Cousin represents Aristotle as ascribing to Plato the doctrine\nthat \"la terre tourne sur elle-m\u00eame.\" This is not strictly exact.\nAristotle understands the Platonic Tim\u00e6us as saying, \"That the\nearth is packed and moved _round the axis of the kosmos_\"--a\ndifferent proposition.\n\n2. \"Dans plusieurs endroits de ses ouvrages o\u00f9 Platon parle de\nl'\u00e9quilibre de la terre, il ne dit pas un mot de sa rotation.\"\n\nI know of only _one_ such passage--Ph\u00e6don, p. 108--where\nundoubtedly Plato does not speak of the rotation of the earth; but\nneither does he speak of the rotation of the sidereal sphere and\nof the kosmos--nor of the axis of the kosmos. It is the figure and\nproperties of the earth, considered in reference to mankind who\ninhabit it, that Plato sketches in the Ph\u00e6don; he takes little\nnotice of its cosmical relations, and gives no general theory\nabout the kosmos. M. Cousin has not adverted to the tenth Book of\nthe Republic, where Plato does propound a cosmical theory,\nexpressly symbolising the axis of the kosmos with its rotatory\nfunctions.\n\n3. \"Si la _terre suit le mouvement de l'axe du monde_, le\nmouvement de la huiti\u00e8me sph\u00e8re, qui est Le M\u00eame, devient nul par\nrapport \u00e0 elle, et les \u00e9toiles fixes, qui appartiennent \u00e0 elle,\ndemeurent en apparence dans une immobilit\u00e9 absolue: ce qui est\ncontraire \u00e0 _l'exp\u00e9rience et au sens commun_, et \u00e0 l'opinion\nde Platon, exprim\u00e9e dans ce m\u00eame passage.\"\n\nThis third argument of M. Cousin is the same as that which I have\nalready examined in remarking upon M. Boeckh. The diurnal rotation\nof the earth cannot stand in the same astronomical system with the\ndiurnal rotation of the sidereal sphere. Incontestably true (I\nhave already said) as a point of science. But the question here\nis, not what opinions are scientifically consistent, but what\nopinions were held by Plato, and whether he detected the\ninconsistency between the two. I have shown grounds for believing\nthat he did not--and not he alone, but many others along with him,\nAristotle among the number. How, indeed, can this be denied, when\nwe find M. Boeckh announcing that he is the _first_ among all\nthe critics on the Tim\u00e6us, who has brought forward the\ninconsistency as a special ground for determining what Plato's\nopinion was--that no other critic before him had noticed it?\n\nThe first words of this argument deserve particular attention, \"Si\nla terre suit le mouvement de l'axe du monde.\" Here we have an\nexact recital of the doctrine proclaimed by the Platonic Tim\u00e6us,\nand ascribed to him by Aristotle (quite different from the\ndoctrine \"que la terre tourne sur elle-m\u00eame\"). M. Cousin here\nspeaks very distinctly about the cosmical axis, and about its\nmovement; thus implying that Plato conceived it as a solid\nrevolving cylinder. This, in my judgment, is the most essential\npoint for clearing up the question in debate. The cosmical axis\nbeing of this character, when Plato affirms that the earth is\n_packed or fastened round it_ (_se roule_--Cousin: _se\nserre et s'enroule_--Martin: _dr\u00e4ngt sich, macht eine Kugel\num ihn_--Buttmann), I maintain that, in the plainest\nconstruction of the word, the earth does and must follow the\nmovement of the axis--or arrest the movement of the axis. The word\n[Greek: ei(lome/n\u00ean] or [Greek: i)llome/n\u00ean] has no distinct\nmeaning at all, if it does not mean this. The very synonyms\n([Greek: sphiggome/n\u00ean, peridedeme/n\u00ean], &c.), which the\ncommentators produce to prove that Plato describes the earth as at\nrest, do really prove that he describes it as rotating round and\nwith the cosmical axis. We ought not to be driven from this plain\nmeaning of the word, by the assurance of M. Cousin and others that\nPlato cannot have meant so, because it would involve him in an\nastronomical inconsistency.\n\n4. \"Les divers mouvemens des huit sph\u00e8res expliquent toutes les\napparences c\u00e9lestes; il n'y a donc aucune raison pour donner un\nmouvement \u00e0 la terre.\"\n\nThe terms of this fourth argument, if literally construed, would\nimply that Plato had devised a complete and satisfactory\nastronomical theory. I pass over this point, and construe them as\nM. Cousin probably intended: his argument will then stand\nthus--\"The movement of the earth does not add anything to Plato's\npower of explaining astronomical appearances; therefore Plato had\nno motive to suggest a movement of the earth.\"\n\nI have already specified the sense in which I understand the\nPlatonic Tim\u00e6us to affirm, or rather to imply, the rotation of the\nearth; and that sense is not open to the objections raised in M.\nCousin's fourth and fifth arguments. The rotation of the earth, as\nit appears in the Platonic Tim\u00e6us, explains nothing, and is not\nintended to explain anything. It is a consequence, not a cause: it\nis a consequence arising from the position of the earth, as packed\nor fastened round the centre of the cosmical axis, whereby the\nearth participates, of necessity and as a matter of course, in the\nmovements of that axis. The _function_ of the earth, thus\nplanted in the centre of the kosmos, is to uphold and regulate the\nrevolutions of the cosmical axis; and this function explains, in\nthe scheme of the Platonic Tim\u00e6us, why the axis revolves uniformly\nand constantly without change or displacement. Now upon these\nrevolutions of the cosmical axis all the revolutions of the\nexterior sphere depend. This is admitted by M. Cousin himself\nin argument 3. There is therefore every reason why Plato should\nassign such regulating function to the earth, the \"first and\noldest of intra-kosmic deities.\" The movement of the earth (as I\nbefore observed) is only an incidental consequence of the position\nnecessary for the earth to occupy in performing such function.\n\n5. \"Enfin Platon assigne un mouvement aux \u00e9toiles fixes, et deux\nmouvemens aux plan\u00e8tes; puisqu'il ne range la terre ni avec les\nunes ni avec les autres, il y a lieu de croire qu'elle ne\nparticipe \u00e0 aucun de leurs mouvemens.\"\n\nIn so far as this argument is well-founded, it strengthens my case\nmore than that of M. Cousin. The earth does not participate in the\nmovements either of the fixed stars or of the planets; but it does\nparticipate in the revolutions of the cosmical axis, upon which\nthese movements depend--the movements of the outer sphere, wholly\nand exclusively--the movements of the planets, to a very great\ndegree, but not exclusively. The earth is not ranked either among\nthe fixed stars or among the planets; it is a body or deity _sui\ngeneris_, having a special central function of its own, to\nregulate that cosmical axis which impels the whole system. The\nearth has a motion of its own, round and along with the cosmical\naxis to which it is attached; but this motion of the earth (I will\nagain repeat, to prevent misapprehension) is a fact not important\nby itself, nor explaining anything. The grand and capital fact is\nthe central position and regulating function of the earth, whereby\nall the cosmical motions, first those of the axis, next those of\nthe exterior kosmos, are upheld and kept uniform.\n\nM. Cousin adds, as a sixth argument:--\n\n\"On peut ajouter \u00e0 ces raisons que Platon aurait n\u00e9cessairement\ninsist\u00e9 sur le mouvement de la terre, s'il l'avait admis; et que\nce point \u00e9toit trop controvers\u00e9 de son temps et trop important en\nlui-m\u00eame, pour qu'il ne f\u00eet que l'indiquer en se servant d'une\nexpression \u00e9quivoque.\"\n\nIn the first place, granting Plato to have believed in the motion\nof the earth, can we also assume that he would necessarily have\nasserted it with distinctness and emphasis, as M. Cousin contends?\nI think not. Gruppe maintains exactly the contrary; telling us\nthat Plato's language was intentionally obscure and\nequivocal--from fear of putting himself in open conflict with the\npious and orthodox sentiment prevalent around him. I do not carry\nthis part of the case so far as Gruppe, but I admit that it rests\nupon a foundation of reality. When we read (Plutarch, De Facie in\nOrbe Lun\u00e6, p. 923) how the motion of the earth, as affirmed by\nAristarchus of Samos (doubtless in a far larger sense than Plato\never imagined, including both rotation and translation), was\nafterwards denounced as glaring impiety, we understand the\natmosphere of religious opinion with which Plato was surrounded.\nAnd we also perceive that he might have reasons for preferring to\nindicate an astronomical heresy in terms suitable for\nphilosophical hearers, rather than to proclaim it in such emphatic\nunequivocal words, as might be quoted by some future Mel\u00eatus in\ncase of an indictment before the Dikasts.\n\nWe must remember that Plato had been actually present at the trial\nof Sokrates. He had heard the stress laid by the accusers on\nastronomical heresies, analogous to those of Anaxagoras, which\nthey imputed to Sokrates--and the pains taken by the latter to\ndeny that he held such opinions (see the Platonic Apology). The\nimpression left by such a scene on Plato's mind was not likely to\npass away: nor can we be surprised that he preferred to use\npropositions which involved and implied, rather than those which\ndirectly and undisguisedly asserted, the heretical doctrine of the\nearth's rotation. That his phraseology, however indirect, was\nperfectly understood by contemporary philosophers, both assentient\nand dissentient, as embodying his belief in the doctrine--is\nattested by the two passages of Aristotle.\n\nUpon these reasons alone I should dissent from M. Cousin's sixth\nargument. But I have other reasons besides. He rests it upon the\ntwo allegations that the doctrine of the earth's motion was the\nsubject of much controversial debate in Plato's time, and of great\nimportance in itself. Now the first of these two allegations can\nhardly be proved, as to the time of Plato; for Aristotle, when he\nis maintaining the earth's immobility, does not specify any other\nopponents than the Pythagoreians and the followers of the Platonic\nTim\u00e6us. And the second allegation I believe to be unfounded,\nspeaking with reference to the Platonic Tim\u00e6us. In the cosmical\nsystem therein embodied, the rotation of the earth round the\ncosmical axis, though a real part of the system, was in itself a\nfact of no importance, and determining no results. The capital\nfact of the system was the position and function of the earth,\npacked close round the centre of the cosmical axis, and regulating\nthe revolutions of that axis. Plato had no motive to bring\nprominently forward the circumstance that the earth revolved\nitself along with the cosmical axis, which circumstance was only\nan incidental accompaniment.\n\nI have thus examined all the arguments adduced by M. Cousin,\nand have endeavoured to show that they fail in establishing his\nconclusion. There is, however, one point of the controversy in\nwhich I concur with him more than with Boeckh and Martin. This\npoint is the proper conception of what Plato means by the\n_cosmical axis_. Boeckh and Martin seem to assume this upon\nthe analogy of what is now spoken of as the axis of the earth: M.\nBoeckh (p. 13) declares the axis of the kosmos to be a\nprolongation of that axis. But it appears to me (and M. Cousin's\nlanguage indicates the same) that Plato's conception was something\nvery different. The axis of the earth (what astronomers speak of\nas such) is an imaginary line traversing the centre of the earth;\na line round which the earth revolves. Now the cosmical axis, as\nPlato conceives it, is a solid material cylinder, which not only\nitself revolves, but causes by this revolution the revolution of\nthe exterior circumference of the kosmos. This is a conception\nentirely different from that which we mean when we speak of the\naxis of the earth. It is, however, a conception symbolically\nenunciated in the tenth book of the Republic, where the spindle of\nNecessity is said to be composed of adamant, hard and solid\nmaterial, and to cause by its own rotation the rotation of all the\n_verticilli_ packed and fastened around it. What is thus\nenunciated in the Republic is implied in the Tim\u00e6us. For when we\nread therein that the earth is packed or fastened round the\ncosmical axis, how can we understand it to be packed or fastened\nround an imaginary line? I will add that the very same meaning is\nbrought out in the translation of Cicero--\"_trajecto axe\nsustinetur_\" (terra). The axis, round which the earth is\nfastened, and which sustains the earth, must be conceived, not as\nan imaginary line, but as a solid cylinder, itself revolving;\nwhile the earth, being fastened round it, revolves round and along\nwith it. The axis, in the sense of an imaginary line, cannot be\nfound in the conception of Plato.\n\nThose contemporaries of Plato and Aristotle, who all agreed in\nasserting the revolution of the celestial sphere, did not all\nagree in their idea of the force whereby such revolution was\nbrought about. Some thought that the poles of the celestial sphere\nexercised a determining force: others symbolised the mythical\nAtlas, as an axis traversing the sphere from pole to pole and\nturning it round. (Aristotel. De Motu Animal. 3. p. 699 a. 15-30.)\nAristotle himself advocated the theory of a _primum movens\nimmobile_ acting upon the sphere from without the sphere. Even\nin the succeeding centuries, when astronomy was more developed,\nAratus, Eratosthenes, and their commentators, differed in\ntheir way of conceiving the cosmical axis. Most of them considered\nit as solid: but of these, some thought it was stationary, with\nthe sphere revolving round it--others that it revolved itself:\nagain, among these latter, some believed that the revolutions of\nthe axis determined those of the surrounding sphere--others, that\nthe revolutions of the sphere caused those of the axis within it.\nAgain, there were some physical philosophers who looked at the\naxis as airy or spiritual--[Greek: to\\ dia\\ me/sou t\u00ea=s sphai/ras\ndi\u00ea=kon pneu=ma]. Then there were geometers who conceived it only\nas an imaginary line. (See the Phaenomena of Aratus 20-25--with\nthe Scholia thereon; Achilles Tatius ad Arati Phaenom. apud\nPetavium--Uranolog. p. 88; also Hipparchus ad Arat. ib. p. 144.) I\ndo not go into these dissentient opinions farther than to show,\nhow indispensable it is, when we construe the passage in the\nPlatonic Timaeus, [Greek: peri\\ to\\n dia\\ panto\\s po/lon\ntetame/non], to enquire in what sense Plato understood the\ncosmical axis: and how unsafe it is to assume at once that he must\nhave conceived it as an imaginary line.\n\nProklus argues that because the earth is mentioned by Plato in the\nPh\u00e6don as stationary in the centre of the heaven, we cannot\nimagine Plato to affirm its rotation in the Tim\u00e6us. I agree with\nM. Boeckh in thinking this argument inconclusive; all the more,\nbecause, in the Ph\u00e6don, not a word is said either about the axis\nof the kosmos, or about the rotation of the kosmos; all that\nSokrates professes to give is [Greek: t\u00ea\\n i)de/an t\u00ea=s g\u00ea=s kai\\\ntou\\s to/pous au)t\u00ea=s**] (p. 108 E). No cosmical system or theory\nis propounded in that dialogue.\n\nWhen we turn to the Ph\u00e6drus, we find that, in its highly poetical\ndescription, the rotation of the heaven occupies a prominent\nplace. The internal circumference of the heavenly sphere, as well\nas its external circumference or back ([Greek: n\u00f4=ton]), are\nmentioned; also its periodical rotations, during which the gods\nare carried round on the back of the heaven, and contemplate the\neternal Ideas occupying the super-celestial space (p. 247, 248),\nor the plain of truth.[5] But the purpose of this poetical\nrepresentation appears to be metaphysical and intellectual, to\nillustrate the antithesis presented by the world of Ideas and\nTruth on one side--against that of sense and appearances on the\nother. Astronomically and cosmically considered, no\nintelligible meaning is conveyed. Nor can we even determine\nwhether the rotations of the heaven, alluded to in the Ph\u00e6drus,\nare intended to be diurnal or not; I incline to believe not\n([Greek: me/chri t\u00ea=s _e(te/ras_ perio/dou]--p. 248--which\ncan hardly be understood of so short a time as one day). Lastly,\nnothing is said in the Ph\u00e6drus about the cosmical axis; and it is\nupon this that the rotations of the earth intimated in the Tim\u00e6us\ndepend.\n\n[Footnote 5: Whether [Greek: E)sti/a] in the Ph\u00e6drus, which is\nsaid \"to remain alone stationary in the house of the Gods,\" can be\nheld to mean the Earth, is considered by Proklus to be uncertain\n(p. 681).]\n\nAmong the different illustrations, given by Plato in his different\ndialogues respecting the terrestrial and celestial bodies, I\nselect the tenth book of the Republic as that which is most\nsuitable for comparison with the Tim\u00e6us, because it is only\ntherein that we learn how Plato conceived the axis of the kosmos.\nM. Boeckh (Untersuchungen, p. 86) wishes us to regard the\ndifference between the view taken in the Ph\u00e6don, and that in the\nRepublic, as no way important; he affirms that the adamantine\nspindle in the Republic is altogether mythical or poetical, and\nthat Plato conceives the axis as not being material. On this point\nI dissent from M. Boeckh. The mythical illustrations in the tenth\nbook of the Republic appear to me quite unsuitable to the theory\nof an imaginary, stationary, and immaterial axis. Here I much more\nagree with Gruppe (p. 15, 26-29), who recognises the solid\nmaterial axis as an essential feature of the cosmical theory in\nthe Republic; and recognises also the marked difference between\nthat theory and what we read in the Ph\u00e6don. Yet, though Gruppe is\naware of this important difference between the Republic and the\nPh\u00e6don, he still wishes to illustrate the Tim\u00e6us by the latter and\nnot by the former. He affirms that the earth in the Tim\u00e6us is\nconceived as unattached, and freely suspended, the same as in the\nPh\u00e6don; but that in the Tim\u00e6us it is conceived, besides, as\nrevolving on its own axis, which we do not find in the Ph\u00e6don (p.\n28, 29). Here I think Gruppe is mistaken. In construing the words\nof Tim\u00e6us, [Greek: ei(lome/n\u00ean (i)llome/n\u00ean) peri\\ to\\n dia\\\npanto\\s po/lon tetame/non], as designating \"the unattached earth\nrevolving round its own axis,\" he does violence not less to the\ntext of Plato than to the expository comment of Aristotle. Neither\nin the one nor the other is anything said about _an axis of the\nearth_; in both, the cosmical axis is expressly designated;\nand, if Gruppe is right in his interpretation of [Greek:\nei(lome/n\u00ean], we must take Plato as affirming, not that the earth\nis fastened round the cosmical axis, but that it revolves, though\nunattached, around that axis, which is a proposition both\ndifficult to understand, and leading to none of those astronomical\nconsequences with which Gruppe would connect it. Again, when\nGruppe says that [Greek: ei(lome/n\u00ean peri\\] does _not_ mean\n_packed or fastened round_, but that it _does_ mean\n_revolving round_, he has both the analogies of the word and\nthe other commentators against him. The main proof, if not the\nonly proof, which he brings, is that Aristotle so construed it.\nUpon this point I join issue with him. I maintain that Aristotle\ndoes _not_ understand [Greek: ei(lome/n\u00ean] or [Greek:\ni)llome/n\u00ean peri\\] as naturally meaning _revolving round_,\nand that he does understand the phrase as meaning _fastened\nround_. When we find him, in the second passage of the treatise\nDe Coelo, not satisfied with the verb [Greek: i)/llesthai]\nalone, but adding to it the second verb [Greek: _kai\\\nkinei=sthai_], we may be sure that he did not consider [Greek:\ni)/llesthai] as naturally and properly denoting _to revolve_\nor _move round_.\n\nAgreeing as I do with Gruppe in his view, that the interpretation\nput by Aristotle is the best evidence which we can follow in\ndetermining the meaning of this passage in the Tim\u00e6us, I contend\nthat the authority of Aristotle contradicts instead of justifying\nthe conclusion at which he arrives. Aristotle understands [Greek:\ni)llome/n\u00ean] as meaning _packed or fastened round_; he does\nnot understand it as meaning, when taken by itself, _revolving\nround_.\n\nThe two meanings here indicated are undoubtedly distinct and\nindependent. But they are not for that reason contradictory and\nincompatible. It has been the mistake of critics to conceive them\nas thus incompatible; so that if one of the two were admitted, the\nother must be rejected. I have endeavoured to show that this is\nnot universally true, and that there are certain circumstances in\nwhich the two meanings not only may come together, but must come\ntogether. Such is the case when we revert to Plato's conception of\nthe cosmical axis as a solid revolving cylinder. That which is\npacked or fastened around the cylinder must revolve around it, and\nalong with it.\n\nBoth M. Boeckh and Gruppe assume the incompatibility of the two\nmeanings; and we find the same assumption in Plutarch's criticisms\non the Tim\u00e6us (Plutarch. Qu\u00e6st. Platon. p. 1006 C), where he\ndiscusses what Plato means by [Greek: o)/rgana chro/nou]; and in\nwhat sense the earth as well as the moon can be reckoned as\n[Greek: o)/rganon chro/nou] (Tim\u00e6us, p. 41 E, 42 D). Plutarch\ninquires how it is possible that the earth, if stationary and at\nrest, can be characterised as \"among the instruments of time;\" and\nhe explains it by saying that this is true in the same sense as we\ncall a gnomon or sun-dial an instrument of time, because, though\nitself never moves, it marks the successive movements of the\nshadow. This explanation might be admissible for the phrase\n[Greek: o)/rganon chro/nou]; but I cannot think that the\nimmobility of the earth can be made compatible with the attribute\nwhich Plato bestows upon it of being [Greek: phu/lax kai\\\n_d\u00eamiourgo\\s_ nukto\\s te kai\\ \u00ea(me/ras].\n\nThe difficulty, however, vanishes when we understand the function\nascribed by Plato to the earth as I have endeavoured to elucidate\nit. The earth not only is not at rest, but cannot be at rest,\nprecisely because it is packed round the solid revolving cosmical\naxis, and must revolve along with it. The function of the earth,\nas the first and oldest of intra-kosmic deities, is to uphold and\nregulate the revolutions of this axis, upon which depend the\nrevolutions of the sidereal sphere or outer shell of the kosmos.\nIt is by virtue of this regulating function (and not by virtue of\nits rotation) that the earth is the guardian and artificer of\nnight and day. It is not only \"an instrument of time,\" but the\nmost potent and commanding among all instruments of time.\n\nWhat has just been stated is, in my belief, the theory of the\nPlatonic Tim\u00e6us, signified in the words of that dialogue, and\nembodied in the comment of Aristotle. The commentators, subsequent\nto Aristotle, so far as we know them, understood the theory in a\nsense different from what Plato intended. I think we may see how\nthis misconception arose. It arose from the great development and\nelaboration of astronomical theory during the two or three\ngenerations immediately succeeding Plato. Much was added by\nEudoxus and others, in their theory of concentric spheres: more\nstill by others of whom we read in Cicero (Academ. II. 39.)\n\"Hicetas Syracusius, ut ait Theophrastus, coelum, solem, lunam,\nstellas, supera denique omnia, stare censet, neque praeter terram\nrem ullam in mundo moveri: quae cum circum axem se summ\u00e2\nceleritate convertat et torqueat, eadem effici omnia, quae si\nstante terr\u00e2 coelum moveretur. Atque hoc etiam Platonem in Timaeo\ndicere quidam arbitrantur, sed paullo obscurius.\" The same\ndoctrine is said to have been held by Herakleides of Pontus, the\ncontemporary of Aristotle, and by others along with him.\n(Simplikius ad Aristot. Physic. p. 64--De Coelo, p. 132--Plutarch.\nPlac. Phil. III. 13.) The doctrine of the rotation of the Earth\nhere appears along with another doctrine--the immobility of the\nsidereal sphere and of the celestial bodies. The two are presented\ntogether, as correlative portions of one and the same astronomical\ntheory. There are no celestial revolutions, and therefore there is\nno solid celestial axis. Moreover, even Aristarchus of Samos (who\nattained to a theory substantially the same as the Copernican,\nwith the double movement of the Earth, rotation round its own\naxis, and translation round the sun as a centre) comes within less\nthan a century after Plato's death.\n\nThough the _quidam_ alluded to by Cicero looked upon the\nobscure sentence in Plato's Timaeus as a dim indication of the\ntheory of Hicetas, yet the two agree only in the supposition of a\nrotation of the earth, and differ essentially in the pervading\ncosmical conceptions. Hicetas states distinctly that which his\ntheory denies, as well as that which it affirms. The negation of\nthe celestial rotations, is in his theory a point of capital and\ncoordinate importance, on which he contradicts both Plato and\nAristotle as well as the apparent evidence of sense. I cannot\nsuppose that this theory can have been proclaimed or known to\nAristotle when his works were composed: for the celestial\nrevolutions are the keystone of his system, and he could hardly\nhave abstained from combating a doctrine which denied them\naltogether. In the hands of Hicetas (perhaps in those of\nHerakleides, if we may believe what is said about him) astronomy\nappears treated as a science by itself, with a view \"to provide\nsuch hypotheses as may save the phenomena\" ([Greek: s\u00f4/zein ta\\\nphaino/mena], Simpl. ad Aristot. De Coelo, p. 498, Schol.\nBrandis). It becomes detached from those religious, ethical,\npoetical, teleological, arithmetical decrees or fancies, in which\nwe see it immersed in the Platonic Timaeus, and even (though\nsomewhat less) in the Aristotelian Treatise De Coelo. Hence the\nmeaning of Plato, obscurely announced from the beginning, ceased\nto be understood: the solid revolving axis of the Kosmos, assumed\nwithout being expressly affirmed in his Timaeus, dropped out of\nsight: the doctrine of the rotation of the earth was presented in\na new point of view, as a substitute for the celestial\nrevolutions. But no proper note was taken of this transition. The\ndoctrine of Plato was assumed to be the same as that of Hicetas.\n\nWhen we read Plutarch's criticism (Qu\u00e6st. Plat. p. 1006 C) upon\nthe word [Greek: i)llome/n\u00ean], we see that he puts to himself the\nquestion thus--\"Does Plato in the Tim\u00e6us conceive the earth as\nkept together and stationary--or as turning round and revolving,\nagreeably to the subsequent theory of Aristarchus and Seleukus?\"\nHere we find that Plutarch conceives the alternative thus--Either\nthe earth does not revolve at all, or it revolves as Aristarchus\nunderstood it. One or other of these two positions must have been\nlaid down by Plato in the Tim\u00e6us.--So we read in Plutarch. But the\nfact is, that Plato meant neither the one nor the other. The\nrotation of the earth round the solid cosmical axis, which he\naffirms in the Tim\u00e6us--is a phenomenon utterly different from\nthe rotation of the earth as a free body round the imaginary line\ncalled its own axis, which was the doctrine of Aristarchus.\n\nWhen expositors in Plutarch's day, and since his day, enquired\nwhether or not the Platonic Tim\u00e6us affirmed the rotation of the\nearth, they meant to designate the rotation of the earth in the\nsense of Aristarchus, and in the sense in which modern astronomy\nunderstands that capital fact. Now speaking the language of modern\nastronomy, I think it certain that the rotation of the earth is\n_not_ to be found affirmed in the Platonic Tim\u00e6us; and I\nagree with M. Boeckh when he says (Untersuch. p. 77), \"Granting\nthat Aristotle ascribed to Plato the doctrine of the rotation of\nthe earth, he at least did not ascribe to him the doctrine as\nGruppe assumes, and as now understood.\" As between Gruppe--who\nholds that the Platonic Tim\u00e6us affirms the rotation of the earth,\nand that Aristotle ascribes it to him, in our sense of the\nwords--and M. Boeckh, who denies this--I stand with the latter for\nthe negative. But when M. Boeckh assumes that the only alternative\ndoctrine is the immobility of the earth, and tries to show that\nthis doctrine is proclaimed in the Platonic Tim\u00e6us--nay, that no\nopposite doctrine _can_ be proclaimed, because the discourse\nexpressly announces the rotation of the sidereal heaven in\ntwenty-four hours--I am compelled to dissent from him as to the\nconclusion, and to deny the cogency of his proof. M. Boeckh has\nhardly asked himself the question, whether there was not some\nother sense in which Plato might have affirmed it in the Tim\u00e6us. I\nhave endeavoured to show that there was another sense; that there\nare good analogies in Plato to justify the belief that he intended\nto affirm the doctrine in that other sense; and that the comments\nof Aristotle--while thoroughly pertinent, if we thus understand\nthe passage in the Tim\u00e6us--become either irrelevant, dishonest, or\nabsurd, if we construe the passage as signifying either what is\nmaintained by M. Boeckh or what is maintained by Gruppe.\n\nThe eminent critics, whose opinions I here controvert, have been\napparently misled by the superior astronomical acquirements of the\npresent age, and have too hastily made the intellectual exigencies\nof their own minds a standard for all other minds, in different\nages as well as in different states of cultivation. The question\nbefore us is, not what doctrines are scientifically true or\nscientifically compatible with each other, but what doctrines were\naffirmed or implied by Plato. In interpreting him, we are required\nto keep our minds independent of subsequent astronomical\ntheories. We must look, first and chiefly, to what is said by\nPlato himself; next, if that be obscure, to the construction and\ncomments of his contemporaries so far as they are before us. In no\ncase is this more essential than in the doctrine of the rotation\nof the earth, which in the modern mind has risen to its proper\nrank in scientific importance, and has become connected with\ncollateral consequences and associations foreign to the ideas of\nthe ancient Pythagoreans, or Plato, or Aristotle. Unless we\ndisengage ourselves from these more recent associations, we cannot\nproperly understand the doctrine as it stands in the Platonic\nTim\u00e6us.\n\nThis doctrine, as I have endeavoured to explain it, leads to an\ninstructive contrast between the cosmical theories of Plato (in\nthe Tim\u00e6us) and Aristotle.\n\nPlato conceives the kosmos as one animated and intelligent being\nor god, composed of body and soul. Its body is moved and governed\nby its soul, which is fixed or rooted in the centre, but stretches\nto the circumference on all sides, as well as all round the\nexterior. It has a perpetual movement of circular rotation in the\nsame unchanged place, which is the sort of movement most worthy of\na rational and intelligent being. The revolutions of the exterior\nor sidereal sphere (Circle of the Same) depend on and are\ndetermined by the revolutions of the solid cylinder or axis, which\ntraverses the kosmos in its whole diameter. Besides these, there\nare various interior spheres or circles (Circles of the\nDifferent), which rotate by distinct and variable impulses in a\ndirection opposite to the sidereal sphere. This latter is so much\nmore powerful than they, that it carries them all round with it;\nyet they make good, to a certain extent, their own special\nopposite movement, which causes their positions to be ever\nchanging, and the whole system to be complicated. But the grand\ncapital, uniform, overpowering, movement of the kosmos, consists\nin the revolution of the solid axis, which determines that of the\nexterior sidereal sphere. The impulse or stimulus to this movement\ncomes from the cosmical soul, which has its root in the centre.\nJust at this point is situated the earth, \"the oldest and most\nvenerable of intra-kosmic deities,\" packed round the centre of the\naxis, and having for its function to guard and regulate those\nrevolutions of the axis, and through them those of the outer\nsphere, on which the succession of day and night depends--as well\nas to nurse mankind.\n\nIn all this we see that the ruling principle and force of the\nkosmos ([Greek: to\\ \u00ea(gemoniko\\n tou= ko/smou]) is made to\ndwell in and emanate from _its centre_.\n\nWhen we come to Aristotle, we find that the ruling principle or\nforce of the kosmos is placed, not in its centre, but in its\ncircumference. He recognises no solid revolving axis traversing\nthe whole diameter of the kosmos The interior of the kosmos is\noccupied by the four elements--earth, water, air, fire--neither of\nwhich can revolve except by violence or under the pressure of\nextraneous force. To each of them rectilinear motion is\n_natural_; earth moves naturally towards the centre--fire\nmoves naturally towards the circumference, away from the centre.\nBut the peripheral substance of the kosmos is radically distinct\nfrom the four elements: rotatory motion in a circle is\n_natural_ to it, and is the only variety of motion natural to\nit. That it is moved at all, it owes to a _primum movens\nimmobile_ impelling it: but the two are coeternal, and the\nmotion has neither beginning nor end. That when moved, its motion\nis rotatory and not rectilinear, it owes to its own nature. It\nrotates perpetually, through its own nature and inherent virtue,\nnot by constraining pressure communicated from a centre or from a\nsoul. If constraint were required--if there were any contrary\ntendency to be overcome--the revolving periphery would become\nfatigued, and would require periods of repose; but, since in\nrevolving it only obeys its own peculiar nature, it persists for\never without knowing fatigue. This peripheral or fifth essence,\nperpetually revolving, is the divine, venerable, and commanding\nportion of the kosmos, more grand and honourable than the interior\nparts or the centre. Aristotle lays this down (De Coelo, ii. 13,\np. 293, b. 10) in express antithesis to the Pythagoreans, who\n(like Plato) considered the centre as the point of grandeur and\ncommand, placing fire in the centre for that reason. The earth has\nno positive cosmical function in Aristotle; it occupies the centre\nbecause all its parts have a natural movement towards the centre:\nand it is unmoved because there _must be_ something in the\ncentre which is always stationary, as a contrary or antithesis to\nthe fifth essence or peripheral substance of the kosmos, which is\nin perpetual rotation by its own immutable nature.\n\nI do not here go farther into the exposition of these ancient\ncosmical theories. I have adverted to Aristotle's doctrine only so\nfar as was necessary to elucidate, by contrast, that which I\nbelieve to be the meaning of the Platonic Tim\u00e6us about the\nrotation of the earth.\n\n\nLONDON: PRINTED BY W. CLOWES AND SONS, STAMFORD STREET,\nAND CHARING CROSS.\n\n\n\n****************************************************************\nTranscriber's Note\n\nThe text is based on versions made available by the Internet Archive.\n\nFor the Greek transcriptions the following conventions have been used:\n) is for smooth breathing; ( for hard; + for diaeresis; / for acute\naccent; \\ for grave; = for circumflex; | for iota subscript.\nch is used for chi, ph for phi, ps for psi, th for theta;\n\u00ea for eta and \u00f4 for omega; u is used for upsilon in all cases.\n\nCorrections to the text, indicated with **\n\nText                         Correction\nTi/ma/i\u00f4                     Ti/maio\nchore/ia                     chorei/a\nou)/ranon                    ou)rano\\n\ntetamenon                    tetame/non\ne)ndeiknutai                 e)ndei/knutai]\nforge                        force\nTima/i\u00f4|                     Timai/\u00f4|\ngegraptai                    ge/graptai]\ne(ilei=sthai                 ei(lei=sthai\ne)/pi\\                       e)pi\\\na)ut\u00ea=s                      au)t\u00ea=s","title":"Plato's Doctrine Respecting the Rotation of the Earth and Aristotle's Comment Upon That Doctrine","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":13103}