Since philosophers do not write down all they think, there are logical spaces in every text. The commentator's job is to bridge these, relying upon the implications of his author's statements. He usually works on the assumption that his philosopher is a rational and, therefore, a consistent thinker. When he has to contend with statements that are ambiguous, elliptical or apparently inconsistent, or with logical gaps that are unusually wide, he chooses the interpretation that confers the maximum coherence upon the theory under review. There are hard choices to be made, especially when the philosopher has avoided committing himself explicitly on a central point. Where the philosopher has been silent, is the critic allowed to speak? It is presumptuous of him to do so, no doubt, but, I think, warranted if the philosophical theory is thereby strengthened.