This third argument of M. Cousin is the same as that which I have already examined in remarking upon M. Boeckh. The diurnal rotation of the earth cannot stand in the same astronomical system with the diurnal rotation of the sidereal sphere. Incontestably true (I have already said) as a point of science. But the question here is, not what opinions are scientifically consistent, but what opinions were held by Plato, and whether he detected the inconsistency between the two. I have shown grounds for believing that he did not--and not he alone, but many others along with him, Aristotle among the number. How, indeed, can this be denied, when we find M. Boeckh announcing that he is the _first_ among all the critics on the Timæus, 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 it? The first words of this argument deserve particular attention, "Si la terre suit le mouvement de l'axe du monde." Here we have an exact recital of the doctrine proclaimed by the Platonic Timæus, and ascribed to him by Aristotle (quite different from the doctrine "que la terre tourne sur elle-même"). M. Cousin here speaks very distinctly about the cosmical axis, and about its movement; thus implying that Plato conceived it as a solid revolving cylinder. This, in my judgment, is the most essential point for clearing up the question in debate. The cosmical axis being of this character, when Plato affirms that the earth is _packed or fastened round it_ (_se roule_--Cousin: _se serre et s'enroule_--Martin: _drängt sich, macht eine Kugel um ihn_--Buttmann), I maintain that, in the plainest construction of the word, the earth does and must follow the movement of the axis--or arrest the movement of the axis. The word [Greek: ei(lome/nên] or [Greek: i)llome/nên] has no distinct meaning at all, if it does not mean this. The very synonyms ([Greek: sphiggome/nên, peridedeme/nên], &c.), which the commentators produce to prove that Plato describes the earth as at rest, do really prove that he describes it as rotating round and with the cosmical axis. We ought not to be driven from this plain meaning of the word, by the assurance of M. Cousin and others that Plato cannot have meant so, because it would involve him in an astronomical inconsistency. 4. "Les divers mouvemens des huit sphères expliquent toutes les apparences célestes; il n'y a donc aucune raison pour donner un mouvement à la terre." The terms of this fourth argument, if literally construed, would imply that Plato had devised a complete and satisfactory astronomical theory. I pass over this point, and construe them as M. Cousin probably intended: his argument will then stand thus--"The movement of the earth does not add anything to Plato's power of explaining astronomical appearances; therefore Plato had no motive to suggest a movement of the earth."