Diog., Joc. cit. In any case, it is not a mere calculation of Apollodoros’s ; for he would certainly have made Anaxagoras forty years old at the date of his arrival in Athens, and this would give at most twenty-eight years for his residence there. The trial cannot have been later than 432 B.C., and may have been earlier.
* Arist. Met. A, 3. 984 a 11 (R. P. 150 a).
3 Phys. Op. fr. 3 (Dox. p. 477), ap. Simpl. Phys. p. 25, 19 (R. P. 162 e).
4 Diog. ix. 41 (R. P. 187). On the date of Demokritos, see Chap. IX. § 171.
> Phys. Op. fr. 4 (Dox. p. 478), repeated by the doxographers.
5 Plato, Hipp. ma. 283 a, τοὐναντίον γὰρ ᾿Αναξαγόρᾳ φασὶ συμβῆναι ἢ ὑμῖν καταλειφθέντων γὰρ αὐτῷ πολλῶν χρημάτων καταμελῆσαι καὶ ἀπολέσαι πάντα" οὕτως αὐτὸν ἀνόητα σοφίζεσθαι. Cf. Plut. Per. 16.
7 Arist. Hth. Nic. K, 9. 1179 4 13. Cf. Eth. Hud. A, 4. 1215 Ὁ 6 and 15, 1216 ἃ 10.
Early life.
Relation to the Ionic school.
292 Early Greek Philosophy
by the historical novelist and tricked out with the usual apophthegms. These do not concern us here.
One incident belonging to the early manhood of
Anaxagoras is recorded, namely, his observation of the
huge meteoric stone which fell into the Aigospotamos
in 468-67 B.c.' Our authorities tell us that he predicted
this phenomenon, which is plainly absurd. But we
shall see reason to believe that it may have occasioned
one of his most striking departures from the earlier
cosmology, and led to his adoption of the very view
for which he was condemned at Athens. At all events,
the fall of the stone made a profound impression at the
time, and it was still shown to tourists in the days of
Pliny and Plutarch.’
122. The doxographers speak of Anaxagoras as
the pupil of Anaximenes.* This is, of course, out of
the question; Anaximenes most probably died before
Anaxagoras was born. But it is not enough to say
that the statement arose from the fact that the name of
Anaxagoras followed that of Anaximenes in the
Successtons. That is true, no doubt; but it is not the
whole truth. We have its original source in a fragment
of Theophrastos himself, which states that Anaxagoras
had been “an associate of the philosophy of Anaxi-
1 Diog. ii. 10 (R. P. 149 a). Pliny, WV. Z. ii. 149, gives the date as Ol. LXXVIII. 2; and Eusebios gives it under Ol. LXXVIII. 3. But cf. Marm. Par. 57, ἀφ᾽ οὗ ἐν Αἰγὸς ποταμοῖς ὁ λίθος ἔπεσε. . . ἔτη HHI, ἄρχοντος ᾿Αθήνησι Θεαγενίδου, which is 468-67 B.c. The text of Diog. ii. 11 is corrupt.. For suggested restorations, see Jacoby, p. 244, n. 2; and Diels, Vors. p. 294, 28.
2 Pliny, /oc. cz¢., ‘‘ qui lapis etiam nunc ostenditur magnitudine vehis. colore adusto.” Cf. Plut. Zys. 12, kal δείκνυται. . . ἔτι viv.
3 Cicero, de nat. D. i. 26 (after Philodemos), ‘‘ Anaxagoras qui accepit ab Anaximene disciplinam (2.6. διήκουσε) ; Diog. i. 13 (R. P. 4) and ii. 6 3: Strabo, xiv. p. 645, Κλαζομένιος δ᾽ ἣν ἀνὴρ ἐπιφανὴς ᾿Αναξαγόρας ὁ φυσικός, ᾿Αγναξιμένους ὁμιλητής; Euseb. 2.32. p. 504; ee Hist. Phil. 33. Augustine, de Civ. Det, viii. 2.
Anaxagoras of Klazomenai 293
menes.”* Now this expression has a very distinct
meaning if we accept the view as to “schools” of
science set forth in the Introduction (§ XIV.). It means
that the old Ionic school survived the destruction of
Miletos in 494 B.C. and continued to flourish in
the other cities of Asia. It means, further, that it
produced no man of distinction after its third great re-
presentative, and that “the philosophy of Anaximenes ”
was still taught by whoever was now at the head of
the society.
At this point, it may be well to indicate briefly the
conclusions to which we shall come in the next few
chapters with regard to the development of philosophy
during the first half of the fifth century B.c. We shall
find that, while the old Ionic school was still capable
of training great men, it was now powerless to keep
them. Anaxagoras went his own way; Melissos
and Leukippos, though they still retained enough of
the old views to bear witness to the source of their
inspiration, were too strongly influenced by the Eleatic
dialectic to remain content with the theories of An-
aximenes. It was left to second-rate minds like
Diogenes to champion the orthodox system, while
third-rate minds like Hippon of Samos even went
back to the cruder theory of Thales. The details of
this anticipatory sketch will become clearer as we go
on; for the present, it is only necessary to call the
reader’s attention to the fact that the old Ionic Philo-
sophy now forms a sort of background to our story,
1 Phys. Op. fr. 4 (Dox. p. 478), ᾿Αναξαγόρας μὲν γὰρ ᾿Ηγησιβούλου Κλαζομένιος κοινωνήσας τῆς ᾿Αναξιμένους φιλοσοφίας κιτ.λ. In his fifth edition (p. 973, n. 2) Zeller adopts the view given in the text, and confirms
it by comparing the very similar statement as to Leukippos, κοινωνήσας Παρμενίδῃ τῆς φιλοσοφίας. See below, Chap. IX. ὃ 172.
Anaxagoras at Athens.
294 Early Greek Philosophy
just as Orphic and Pythagorean religious ideas have done in the preceding chapters.
123. Anaxagoras was the first philosopher to take
up his abode at Athens. We are not to suppose,
however, that he was attracted thither by anything in
the character of the Athenians. No doubt Athens
had now become the political centre of the Hellenic
world ; but it had not yet produced a single scientific
man. On the contrary, the temper of the citizen body
was and remained hostile to free inquiry of any kind.
Sokrates, Anaxagoras, and Aristotle fell victims in
different degrees to the bigotry of the democracy,
though, of course, their offence was political rather
than religious. They were condemned not as heretics,
but as innovators in the state religion. Still, as a
recent historian observes, “Athens in its flourishing
period was far from being a place for free inquiry to
thrive unchecked.”' It is this, no doubt, that has
been in the minds of those writers who have represented
philosophy as something un-Greek. It was in reality
thoroughly Greek, though it was thoroughly un-
Athenian.
It seems most reasonable to suppose that Perikles.
himself brought Anaxagoras to Athens, just as he
brought everything else he could. Holm has shown
with much skill how the aim of that great statesman
was, so to say, to Ionise his fellow-citizens, to impart
to them something of the flexibility and openness of
mind which characterised their kinsmen across the
sea. It is possible that it was Aspasia of Miletos who
introduced the Ionian philosopher to the Periklean
1 Holm, Gr. Gesch, ii. 334. The whole chapter is well worth reading in this connexion.
Anaxagoras of Klazomenai 295
circle, of which he was henceforth a chief ornament. The Athenians in derision gave him the nickname of Nous.'
The close relation in which Anaxagoras stood to
Perikles is placed beyond the reach of doubt by the
testimony of Plato. In the Phaedrus® he makes
Sokrates say: “For all arts that are great, there is
need of talk and discussion on the parts of natural
' science that deal with things on high; for that seems
to be the source which inspires high-mindedness and
effectiveness in every direction. Perikles added this
very acquirement to his original’ gifts. He fell in, it
seems, with Anaxagoras, who was a scientific man ;
and, satiating himself with the theory of things on high,
and having attained 'to a knowledge of the true nature
of intellect and folly, which were just what the dis-
courses of Anaxagoras were mainly about, he drew
from that source whatever was of a nature to further
him in the art of speech.”
A more difficult question is the alleged relation of
Euripides to Anaxagoras. The oldest authority for
it is Alexander of Aitolia, poet and librarian, who
lived at the court of Ptolemy Philadelphos (c. 280 B.C.).
He referred to Euripides as the “nursling of brave
Anaxagoras.”* A great deal of ingenuity has been
expended in trying to find the system of Anaxagoras
in the choruses of Euripides; but, it must now be
admitted, without result* The famous fragment on
Plut. Per. 4 (R. P. 148 c). I follow Zeller, p. 975, n. 1 (Eng. trans. ii. p. 327, ἢ. 4), in regarding the sobriquet as derisive.
2 270 a(R. P. 148 c).
3. Gell. xv. 20, ‘‘ Alexander autem Aetolus hos de Euripide versus composuit”; ὁ δ᾽ ᾿Αναξαγόρου τρόφιμος χαιοῦ (so Valckenaer for ἀρχαίου) K.T.A.
* The question was first raised by Valckenaer (Diatribe, p. 26). Cf. also Wilamowitz, Analecta Euripidea, pp. 162 sqq.
The trial.
296 Early Greek Philosophy
the blessedness of the scientific life might just as well
refer to any other cosmologist as to Anaxagoras, and
indeed suggests more naturally a thinker of a more
primitive type.’ On the other hand, there is one
fragment which distinctly expounds the central thought
of Anaxagoras, and could hardly be referred to any
one else.” We may conclude, then, that Euripides
knew the philosopher and his views, but it is not safe
to go further.
124. Shortly before the outbreak of the Pelopon-
nesian War, the enemies of Perikles began a series of
attacks upon him through his friends.* Pheidias was
the first to suffer, and Anaxagoras was the next. That
he was an object of special hatred to the religious
party need not surprise us, even though the charge
made against him does not suggest that he went out
of his way to hurt their susceptibilities. The details
of the trial are somewhat obscure, but we can make
out a few points. The first step taken was the intro-
duction of a psephism by Diopeithes—the same whom
Aristophanes laughs at in 7he Birds *—enacting that an
impeachment should be brought against those who did
not practise religion, and taught theories about “the
things on high.”® What happened at the actual trial
is very differently related. Our. authorities give
See Introd. p. 12, n. 1. The fragment is quoted R. P. 148 c. The
words ἀθανάτου φύσεως and κόσμον ἀγήρω carry us back rather to the older Milesians.
2 R. P. 150 b.
3. Both Ephoros (represented by Diod. xii. 38) and the source of Plut. Per. 32 made these attacks immediately precede the war. This may, however, be pragmatic ; they perhaps occurred earlier.
4 Birds, 988. Aristophanes had no respect for orthodoxy when combined with democratic opinions.
5 Plut. Per. 32 (R. P. 148), where some of the original words have been preserved. The phrase τὰ θεῖα and the word μετάρσια are archaisms from the ψήφισμα.
Anaxagoras of Klazomenai 297
hopelessly conflicting accounts.’ It is no use attempting
to reconcile these ; it is enough to insist upon what is
certain. Now we know from Plato what the accusation
was. It was that Anaxagoras taught the sun was a
red-hot stone, and the moon earth; and we shall see
that he certainly did hold these views (§ 133). For
the rest, the most plausible account is that he was got
out of prison and sent away by Perikles.2 We know
that such things were possible at Athens.
Driven from his adopted home, Anaxagoras
naturally went back to Ionia, where at least he would
be free to teach what he pleased. He settled at
Lampsakos, and we shall see reason to believe that he
founded a school there.* Probably he did not live
long after his exile. The Lampsakenes erected an
altar to his memory in their market-place, dedicated to
Mind and Truth; and the anniversary of his death was
long kept as a holiday for school-children, it was said
at his own request.°
1 These accounts are repeated by Diog. ii. 12-14. It is worth while to
put the statements of Satyros and Sotion side by side in order to show the unsatisfactory character of the biographical tradition :—
Sotion. Satyros. Accuser. Kleon. Thoukydides s. of Melesias. Charge. Calling the sun a red-hot Impiety and Medism. mass, Sentence. Fined five talents. Sentenced to death in absence.
Hermippos represents Anaxagoras as already in prison under sentence of death when Perikles shamed the people into letting him off. Lastly, Hieronymos says he never was condemned at all. Perikles brought him into court thin and wasted by disease, and the judges acquitted him out of compassion! The Medism alleged by Satyros no doubt comes from Stesimbrotos, who made Anaxagoras the friend of Themistokles instead of Perikles. This, too, explains the accuser’s name (Busolt, Gr. Gesch. p- 306, n. 3).
2 Apol, 26 d.
% Plut. Wie. 23 (R. P. 148 c). Cf. Per. 32 (R. P. 148).
4 See the account of Archelaos in Chap. X. § 191.
Ὁ The oldest authority for the honours paid to Anaxagoras is Alkidamas,
Writings.
iL-
298 Early Greek Philosophy |
125. Diogenes includes Anaxagoras in his list of
philosophers who left only a single book, and he has
also preserved the accepted criticism of it, namely, that
it was written “in a lofty and agreeable style.”*
There is no evidence of any weight to set against this
testimony, which comes ultimately from the librarians
of Alexandria.” The story that Anaxagoras wrote a
treatise on perspective as applied to scene-painting is
° and the statement that he com-