There exists a treatise, in Doric dialect, entitled [Greek: Ti/maio** tô= Lo/krô Peri\ Psucha=s Ko/smô kai\ Phu/sios], which is usually published along with the works of Plato. This treatise was supposed in ancient times to be a genuine production of the Lokrian Timaeus, whom Plato introduces as his spokesman in the dialogue so called. As such, it was considered to be of much authority in settling questions of interpretation as to the Platonic Timaeus. But modern critics hold, I believe unanimously, that it is the work of some later Pythagorean or Platonist, excerpted or copied from the Platonic Timaeus. This treatise represents the earth as being in the centre and at rest. But its language, besides being dark and metaphorical, departs widely from the phraseology of the Platonic Timaeus: especially in this--that it makes no mention of the cosmical axis, nor of the word [Greek: i)llome/nên] or [Greek: ei(loume/nên]. Alexander of Aphrodisias (as we learn from Simplikius ad Aristot. De Coelo, fol. 126) followed the construction of Plato given by Aristotle. "It was improbable (he said) that Aristotle could be ignorant either what the word signified, or what was Plato's purpose" ([Greek: a)lla\ tô=| A)ristote/lei, phêsi\n, ou(/tô le/gonti _i)/llesthai_, ou)k eu)/logon a)ntile/gein; ô(s a)lêthô=s ga\r ou)/te tê=s le/xeôs to\ sêmaino/menon ei)ko\s ê)=n a)gnoei=n au)to\n, ou)/te to\n Pla/tônos skopo/n.] This passage is not given in the Scholia of Brandis). Alexander therefore construed [Greek: i)llome/nên] as meaning or implying rotatory movement, though in so doing he perverted (so Simplikius says) the true meaning to make it consonant with his own suppositions. Proklus maintains that Aristotle has interpreted the passage erroneously,--that [Greek: i)llome/nên] is equivalent to [Greek: sphiggome/nên] or [Greek: xunechome/nên]--and that Plato intends by it to affirm the earth as at rest in the centre of the Kosmos (ad Timaeum, Book iv., p. 681 ed. Schneider). Simplikius himself is greatly perplexed, and scarcely ventures to give a positive opinion of his own. On the whole, he inclines to believe that [Greek: i)llome/nên] might possibly be understood, by superficial readers, so as to signify rotation, though such is not its proper and natural sense: that some Platonists did so misunderstand it: and that Aristotle accepted their sense for the sake of the argument, without intending himself to countenance it (ad Aristot. De Coelo, p. 126). Both Proklus and Simplikius, we must recollect, believed in the genuineness of the Doric treatise ascribed to Timaeus Locrus. Reasoning upon this basis, they of course saw, that if Aristotle had correctly interpreted Plato, Plato himself must have interpreted _incorrectly_ the doctrine of Timaeus. They had to ascribe wrong construction either to Plato or to Aristotle: and they could not bear to ascribe it to Plato.