panto\s po/lon tetame/non], as designating "the unattached earth revolving round its own axis," he does violence not less to the text of Plato than to the expository comment of Aristotle. Neither in the one nor the other is anything said about _an axis of the earth_; in both, the cosmical axis is expressly designated; and, if Gruppe is right in his interpretation of [Greek: ei(lome/nên], we must take Plato as affirming, not that the earth is fastened round the cosmical axis, but that it revolves, though unattached, around that axis, which is a proposition both difficult to understand, and leading to none of those astronomical consequences with which Gruppe would connect it. Again, when Gruppe says that [Greek: ei(lome/nên peri\] does _not_ mean _packed or fastened round_, but that it _does_ mean _revolving round_, he has both the analogies of the word and the other commentators against him. The main proof, if not the only proof, which he brings, is that Aristotle so construed it. Upon this point I join issue with him. I maintain that Aristotle does _not_ understand [Greek: ei(lome/nên] or [Greek: i)llome/nên peri\] as naturally meaning _revolving round_, and that he does understand the phrase as meaning _fastened round_. When we find him, in the second passage of the treatise De Coelo, not satisfied with the verb [Greek: i)/llesthai] alone, but adding to it the second verb [Greek: _kai\ kinei=sthai_], we may be sure that he did not consider [Greek: i)/llesthai] as naturally and properly denoting _to revolve_ or _move round_. Agreeing as I do with Gruppe in his view, that the interpretation put by Aristotle is the best evidence which we can follow in determining the meaning of this passage in the Timæus, I contend that the authority of Aristotle contradicts instead of justifying the conclusion at which he arrives. Aristotle understands [Greek: i)llome/nên] as meaning _packed or fastened round_; he does not understand it as meaning, when taken by itself, _revolving round_. The two meanings here indicated are undoubtedly distinct and independent. But they are not for that reason contradictory and incompatible. It has been the mistake of critics to conceive them as thus incompatible; so that if one of the two were admitted, the other must be rejected. I have endeavoured to show that this is not universally true, and that there are certain circumstances in which the two meanings not only may come together, but must come together. Such is the case when we revert to Plato's conception of the cosmical axis as a solid revolving cylinder. That which is packed or fastened around the cylinder must revolve around it, and along with it.