Now, in the first of these two passages, where Aristotle simply brings the doctrine to view without any comment, he expressly refers to the Timæus, and therefore quotes the expression of that dialogue without any enlargement. 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 axis. Aristotle thus construes [Greek: i)/llesthai], _in that particular proposition_ of the Timæus, as implying rotation. But he plainly did not construe [Greek: i)/llesthai] as naturally and constantly either denoting or implying rotation. This is proved by his language in the second passage, where he reproduces the very same doctrine with a view to discuss and confute it, and without special reference to the Platonic Timæus. Here we find that he is not satisfied to express the doctrine by the single word [Greek: i)/llesthai]. He subjoins another verb--[Greek: i)/llesthai kai\ kinei=sthai]: thus bringing into explicit enunciation the fact of rotatory movement, which, while [Greek: i)/llesthai] stood alone, was only known by implication and inference from the circumstances of the particular case. If he had supposed [Greek: i)/llesthai] by itself to signify _revolving_ the addition of [Greek: kinei=sthai] would have been useless, unmeaning, and even impertinent. Aristotle, as Boeckh remarks, is not given to multiply words unnecessarily. It thus appears, when we examine the passages of Aristotle, that he understood [Greek: i)/llesthai] quite in conformity with Buttmann's explanation. Rotatory movement forms no part of the meaning of the word; yet it may accidentally, in a particular case, be implied as an adjunct of the meaning, by virtue of the special circumstances of that case. Aristotle describes the doctrine as held by _some persons_. He doubtless has in view various Platonists of his time, who adopted and defended what had been originally advanced by Plato in the Timæus.