[Footnote 2: "We are only required to show, that the Earth produces a work or an effect,--or contributes to an effect which would not exist without such help: the Earth is then, through such operation, an _Artificer_ of what is produced, even without any positive activity, by its simply passive resistance, which indeed is in itself a powerful exercise of force.** The Earth is Artificer of night and day, according to the striking expression of Martin, 'par son énergique existence, c'est-à-dire, par son immobilité même:' for the Earth opposes, to the diurnal movement of the Heavens, a constant and equal force in the opposite direction. This explanation _must_ be the true one required by the context: this is Plato's meaning, plainly and without disguise: for he has said, a few lines before, that Night and Day (that is, a sidereal day, or day of time) is a diurnal revolution of the Heaven from East to West, whereby accordingly the Earth is assumed as at rest: And this diurnal movement of the Heaven he has taught over and over again in the preceding part of his discourse."--"Since therefore Plato calls the Earth [Greek: ei(lome/nên], not [Greek: peri\ to\n e(autê=s po/lon], but [Greek: peri\ to\n dia\ panto\s po/lon tetame/non], he implies thereby the diurnal movement of the Heaven."] I not only admit but put it in the front of my own case, that Plato in the Timæus assumes the diurnal movement of the celestial sphere; but I contend that he also assumes the diurnal rotation of the earth. M. Boeckh founds his contrary interpretation upon the unquestionable truth that these two assumptions are inconsistent; and upon the inference that because the two cannot stand together in fact, therefore they cannot have stood together in the mind of Plato. In that inference I have already stated that I cannot acquiesce.