is is a matter of minor importance, that Aristotle, as
Proclus and Simplicius supposed, understood (Greek) in the Timaeus to
mean 'revolving.' For the second passage, in which motion on an axis is
expressly mentioned, refers to the first, but this would be unmeaning
unless (Greek) in the first passage meant rotation on an axis. (4)
The immobility of the earth is more in accordance with Plato's other
writings than the opposite hypothesis. For in the Phaedo the earth is
described as the centre of the world, and is not said to be in motion.
In the Republic the pilgrims appear to be looking out from the earth
upon the motions of the heavenly bodies; in the Phaedrus, Hestia,
who remains immovable in the house of Zeus while the other gods go in
procession, is called the first and eldest of the gods, and is probably
the symbol of the earth. The silence of Plato in these and in some other
passages (Laws) in which he might be expected to speak of the rotation
of the earth, is more favourable to the doctrine of its immobility than
to the opposite. If he had meant to say that the earth revolves on its
axis, he would have said so in distinct words, and have explained the
relation of its movements to those of the other heavenly bodies. (5)
The meaning of the words 'artificer of day and night' is literally true
according to Plato's view. For the alternation of day and night is not
produced by the motion of the heavens alone, or by the immobility of the
earth alone, but by both together; and that which has the inherent force
or energy to remain at rest when all other bodies are moving, may be
truly said to act, equally with them. (6) We should not lay too much
stress on Aristotle or the writer De Caelo having adopted the other
interpretation of the words, although Alexander of Aphrodisias thinks
that he could not have been ignorant either of the doctrine of Plato
or of the sense which he intended to give to the word (Greek). For the
citations of Plato in Aristotle are frequently misinterpreted by him;
and he seems hardly ever to have had in his mind the connection in which
they occur. In this instance the allusion is very slight, and there
is no reason to suppose that the diurnal revolution of the heavens was
present to his mind. Hence we need not attribute to him the error from
which we are defending Plato.

After weighing one against the other all these complicated
probabilities, the final conclusion at which we arrive is that there