ANAXAGORAS Plutarch in vita Periclis. ²⁷.

Anaxagoras, one of the most illustrious philosophers of antiquity, was born at Clazomenæ, in Ionia, about the seventieth Olympiad, and was a disciple of Anaximenes. His noble extraction, his riches, and the generosity which induced him to resign his whole patrimony to his relations, made him very famous. He applied himself wholly to the study of nature, without intermeddling in any public affairs. Accordingly he placed the supreme good, or the end of human life, in contemplation, and that freedom of condition which it produces. He was but twenty years of age when he began to philosophize at Athens. Some authors say he was the first who removed the school of philosophy thither, which had flourished in Ionia from the time of its founder Thales. It is certain that he had several famous disciples at Athens, and particularly Pericles and Euripides; and some add Themistocles and Socrates, but chronology is

against them as to the former. There is scarcely any thing which gives us a greater idea of his abilities, than the nature of the progress which Pericles made under him; for he inspired him with those grave and majestic manners which enabled him to govern the Republic; he qualified him for that sublime and victorious eloquence, which rendered him so powerful; and he taught him to fear the gods without superstition. Add to this, that his councils assisted him greatly in supporting the weight of government. He not only slighted all honours, but did not so much as take care to procure to himself what was necessary for his subsistence. He did not seek to heap up riches by the credit and friendship of Pericles, nor did he consider the necessities of old age. His inquiries into the secrets of nature swallowed up all his other passions. He found at last that his contempt of riches should not have been so great; for in his old age he was reduced to want, and in this necessity he took up a calm resolution to starve himself to death. Let us hear Plutarch:—“Pericles,” says he Bayle does not however act as if he thought so, for with the exception of quoting the well-known objections of Lucretius, he proceeds most scholastically to overthrow the doctrine by arms of his own. In the present stage of physical science, there is little necessity to dilate on the doctrine of the Homœomeriæ.—Ed. ²⁸, “ assisted several poor people with his riches, and among others Anaxagoras; of whom it is said, that Pericles being so busy that he had no leisure to think of him, he found himself forsaken by every body in his old age; and having muffled up his head, laid himself down with a resolution to die by hunger. Pericles being informed thereof, went immediately to him in great concern, and begged of him most earnestly, that he would alter his mind and live, bemoaning himself that he should lose so faithful and wise a counsellor in the occurrences of public affairs. Then Anxagoras uncovered his face, and told him; “Pericles, those who want the light of a lamp, put oil in to feed it.”

The constancy of this philosopher was very great: on learning that the Areopagus had passed sentence of death against his sons, he exclaimed, “ Nature has long ago pronounced the same sentence against both them and me.” And again, “ I knew very well that I had begotten them mortal.” When his friends at Lampsacus asked if he would after his death be carried to Clazomenæ, where he was born, “ It is not necessary,” he replied; “ the way to the Elysian fields is not farther from one place than from another.” When they offered to pay to his memory all the honours he could desire, he rejected that favour, and requested nothing but that the day of his death might be a play-day for the scholars. Anaxagoras died at Lampsacus at the age, as it is said, of seventy-two, and was honoured with a magnificent funeral. An altar was also consecrated to him, and his tomb was adorned with the following epitaph, which has been preserved by Ælean and Diogenes Lærtius.

Ένθάδε πλεῖστον ἀληθείας ἐπὶ τέρμα περῄσας
Ὀυρανίου κόσμου, κεῖται Αναξαγόρασ

Ilic situs ille est, cui rerum patuere recessus,
Atque arcana poli, magnus Anaxagoras.

Entomb’d here Anaxagoras lies,
Who taught the secret of the skies.

It is asserted that Anaxagoras was the first philosopher who published books, and these did not satisfy Socrates, as will be hereafter shown. He also distinguished himself by the novelty and singularity of his doctrines. He taught, that there were hills, valleys, and inhabitants in the moon; and that the sun was a fiery mass of matter, and bigger than Peloponnesus. He believed that our eyes are incapable of discerning the true colour of objects, and that our senses deceive us; and therefore that it is the business of reason and not of our eyes to judge of things. He moreover admitted

as many sorts of principles as of compound bodies; for he supposed that each kind of body was made up of many similar particles, which he calledhomœomeriœ, by reason of their conformity. According to this doctrine the production of a herb is nothing else but the assemblage of several small herbs: the destruction of a tree is nothing but the separation and dispersion of several trees. “ We see,” added he, “ that the simplest food, as bread and water, is converted into hair, veins, arteries, nerves, bones,; there must be therefore little hairs, veins, arteries, &c. which indeed our senses do not discover; but they are not invisible to our reason or understanding.” It is evident that he went upon the false supposition, that something would be made out of nothing, if the parts of bread, which supply the bones with nourishment, had not the nature of bones, in the bread itself. It is surprising that so great a genius should reason in this strange manner. Could he not perceive that a house is not made out of nothing, though it be built with materials which are not a house Î Do not four lines, none of which are squares, make a square? Is it not enough, that they are placed in a certain manner? Is not a doublet made of several pieces of cloth, none of which is a doublet? Is there any creation in this? Since then, in artificial things, the bare change of figure and situation of parts is sufficient to form a whole, which, as to its species and properties, differs from each of its parts, could he not apprehend that nature, which infinitely exceeds human art, can form bones and veins, without putting together parts which are already bones and veins; and that it need only work upon such particles, as are capable of receiving such or such a situation or figure? By this means, without any creation, properly so called, that which was not flesh, will become flesh, &c.,is sufficient to destroy this hypothesis of Anaxagoras Vide Plutarch in the Life of Lysander. ²⁹. The chief excellence of his system was, that whereas his predecessors had reasoned about the formation of the world by admitting on the one side unformed matter, and on the other a mere chance, or blind fatality, as the agent; he was the first who supposed that an intelligence produced the motion of matter and disentangled chaos. This no doubt is the true reason why he was surnamed Νοῦς, or Understanding. His orthodoxy was however still deficient, which is the less to be wondered at, seeing the ignorance of the philosophers who preceded him in regard to a great truth which had been so often sung by the poets.

I must not forget to observe, that the strength and sublimity of the genius of Anaxagoras, his labours, his application, and his various discoveries led him only to uncertainty, for he complained that “every thing was full of obscurity that “all consisted in opinion,” and that “ objects are such as we would have them;” that is only as they appear to our deceiving senses. He taught that the soul of man was an aerial being, yet believed it to be animated. He honoured it more than the world; for he thought that heaven and earth would perish. He also believed that beasts possessed a reasonable soul as well as man, and that all the difference consisted in the power of man to analyse his determinations, which could not be done by beasts.

It is pretended that Anaxagoras predicted that a star would fall from the sun, and that one fell accordingly in the river Egos, which was honoured

as a holy relic This exposition of the objections of Socrates to the lucubrations of Anaxagoras, forms an admirable reproof of a species of theological jealousy, in respect to the pursuit and diffusion of practical science, which has been observable in all ages of the world, but especially on the dawn of the light which followed the darkness of the middle ages. It also shrewdly hints at the danger of cultivating science on the principle of a detection of tinal causes, a most illusive species of research, as may be proved by Derham’s Physico-Theology, and other books of that class, whose assignment of the creation of this thing for one purpose, and that for another, the further discoveries of science have proved to be in the highest degree imaginary. In fact, Socrates requires what no research can furnish, and on that account will not receive what it really may supply; being the opposite defect to that of the common sense philosophy, which inculcates the propriety of inquiry within a circle, but is somewhat too much inclined to bound it. Socrates may however be pardoned; visionary and purely intellectual hypotheses in regard to the origin and principles of things, occupied attention in his days as fruitlessly as the quibbles of the schoolmen at a later date, and impressed with their futility, he carried his objections too far—a common case.—Ed. ³⁰. He applied himself to geometry, and he wrote in prison concerning the square of the circle. He also cultivated astronomy, calculated eclipses, and reasoned upon comets, earthquakes, the origin of wind, thunder, and other phenomena of nature. His capacious mind sufficed for all; nor did his philosophical speculations prevent him from studying the poems of Homer with the attention of a man who was desirous of making discoveries and improving literature. He was the first who supposed that these poems contained premeditated morals, in which wisdom and virtue were taught under allegorical narrative.

His particular sentiments were the cause or rather the pretext of a vexatious prosecution before the Areopagus. The facts and the issue of the process are differently described: some asserting that he was condemned, others that he was acquitted. What may be relied upon is, that his accusers were of a contrary faction to Pericles. It was not therefore out of zeal for religion that they persecuted that philosopher; but with a design to maintain their cabal, and weaken the authority of Pericles. They could not better succeed than by maliciously causing the suspicion of irreligion to fall upon him, by accusing Anaxagoras of impiety. This is generally the first cause of this sort of accusations: when men will be revenged of any body or remove an obstacle to authority and fortune, they call the passions of the people to their assistance, pretending that the honour of God is concerned in it. It is not true, therefore, as Vossius asserts, that the accusers of Anaxagoras grounded their accusations on his acknowledging that the divine Intelligence made the world; they maintained, that by saying the sun was a stone, he

deprived it of its divinity; which was also the ground of the sentence of condemnation. He was not merely condemned because of the distinction which he made between God and his works; but because he did not teach as the poets did, that the sun was both the work of God, and a god; that is to say, Apollo the son of Jupiter, one of the great deities. Eusebius has reason to think it strange that Anaxagoras should have been nearly stoned as an atheist, notwithstanding his orthodoxy as to the existence of a God, the author of this world; a doctrine which he taught first of all among the Greeks. Is it not astonishing that in so learned a town as Athens, a philosopher might not explain the properties of the stars by physical reasons, without running the hazard of his life? Is it not deplorable rather than advantageous, for a man to be more knowing than a superstitious mob, guided by senseless men? To what purpose serves this superiority of genius and knowledge among such people? Is it not a crime? does it not expose a man to a thousand infamies and dangers? Arc not the conveniences of life much better enjoyed by following the current of ignorance and superstition? Pericles on this occasion rendered a great service to Athens, and the most general opinion is, that he saved his preceptor’s life by making him quit it. This transaction gave rise to a fine passage in Lucian, in which he supposes that the greatest of gods endeavoured to crush Anaxagoras to pieces, but that he missed him because Pericles turned aside the thunderbolt, which burnt a neighbouring temple, and was nearly broken to pieces against a rock. For the rest, it is only surprising that such a remarkable trial as that of Anaxagoras, in which Pericles the chief man of Athens was so far concerned, has not been better known to historians. They mention it with a thousand variations; and some of them affirm on the chief point exactly what others deny; which is not for the honour of antiquity.

Objections of Socrates to the books of Anaxagoras» I have observed, that Socrates was not satisfied with the books of Anaxagoras. I will now lay two things before you, an abridgment of his complaint, and some reflections upon the nature of it. “ When I came to know (says he) that Anaxagoras laid down in one of his books that an understanding produces and governs all things, I was well pleased with that sort of cause, and imagined that from thence it would result that each being was qualified and situated in the best manner possible. I joyfully hoped to find in Anaxagoras, a master who would instruct me in the causes of each thing, and inform me whether the earth was round or flat, and then give me the reason of what he had determined. I also believed and hoped that as this reason would be grounded upon the idea of the highest perfection, he would show me that the state the earth is in, is the best wherein it could be placed; and that if he placed it in the centre he would tell me why that situation was the best of all. I resolved to look for no other cause, provided he made that clear to me; and only to inquire, with respect to the proportions of swiftness, revolution, &c. which are found between the sun, moon, and other planets, what is the best reason that can be assigned, why these bodies, in quality of agents and patients, are just what they are? I could never have imagined, that a philosopher, who says, that an Intelligence governs all these things, would allege any other cause, but prove, that the state in which they are, is the best that can be. I believed likewise, that having in this manner explained the particular nature of each

body by such a cause, he would in general explain their common good. Full of this hope, I applied myself with the greatest eagerness to the reading of his writings, that I might speedily know what is most excellent, and what is wrong; but I found that this philosopher does not employ an Intelligence, nor any cause of arrangement, but refers all things to the air, the ether, the water, and such other impertinent subjects, as to their original. This is just as if any one, after having said, that whatever I do, I do by my understanding, should afterwards account for all my particular actions after this manner:—Socrates sits, because his body is composed of bones and nerves, which, by the rules of mechanism are the cause that he can bend his limbs. He speaks, because the motion of his tongue impels the air, and conveys its impression to the ear, Such a one would forget the true cause, to wit, that the Athenians having judged it best to condemn me, I have thought it better for me to sit down here; and that it was befitting, that I should suffer the punishment which they have ordained. Now, if any one objects, that, without my bones, nerves, &c.,I cannot perform what I would, he judges rightly; but if he pretend, that I perform it because of my bones, nerves, &c., and not through a choice of what is best, since he supposes that I act by my understanding, his discourse is very absurd.”

You see plainly the taste of Socrates. He had forsaken the study of natural philosophy, and applied himself wholly to moral; wherefore he required that all natural things should be explained by moral reasons, and by the ideas of order and perfection. I venture to assert that he censured Anaxagoras improperly. Every philosopher, who has once supposed, that an Intelligence has moved matter, and ranged the parts of the universe in order

is no longer obliged to have recourse to this cause, when he is to give a reason for each effect of nature. His business is to explain, by the action and reaction of bodies, by the qualities of the elements, by the configuration of the parts of matter,&c., the vegetation of plants, meteors, light, gravity, opacity, fluidity,&c. Such is the method of the Christian philosophers, of whatever sect they are. The schoolmen have an axiom, that a philosopher ought not to have recourse to God, “ Non est Philosophi recurrere ad Deum they call this recourse the sanctuary of ignorance. And indeed what could you say more absurd, in a piece of physics than this;—stones are hard, fire is hot, and cold freezes rivers, because God has ordered it so? The Cartesians themselves, who make God not only the first mover, but also the only, continual, and perpetual mover of matter, make no use of his will and actions in explaining the effects of fire, the properties of the loadstone, colours, smells,&c., they only consider the second cause, the motion, figure, and situation of the corpuscles. So that if the remark of Clemens Alexandrinus, mentioned above, were grounded only on this discourse of Socrates, it would be very unjust. To approve of it, we should know, not merely that Anaxagoras explained many things without mentioning the divine intelligence, but that he expressly excluded it, in explaining part of the phenomena of nature. I do not condemn Socrates for desiring such an explication of the universe, as he mentions; for what could be more excellent or curious than to know distinctly and particularly why the perfection of the machine of the world required that each planet should have the figure, magnitude, situation, and swiftness, which it has, and so of all the rest? But this science was not designed for man; and it was very unjust to expect it from Anaxagoras. Unless we had the idea which God followed in creating the world, it will be impossible to give the explications which Socrates desired. All that the greatest philosophers can say upon this occasion, amounts to this: that since the earth is round, and situated at such a distance from the sun, this figure and situation were necessary to the beauty and symmetry of the universe; the Author of this vast machine having infinite intelligence and wisdom. Hence we know, in general, that every thing is right in this machine, and that there is no defect in it; but, if we should undertake to make it appear, piece by piece, that every thing is in the best state possible we should infallibly assign very wrong reasons. We should act like a peasant, who, having no notion of a clock, undertakes to prove that the wheel, which he sees through a chink, must necessarily be of such a thickness, and bigness, and precisely placed there, because if it were less, thinner, and set in another place, great inconveniences would follow. He would judge of this machine, as a blind man doth of colours, and without doubt he would be a wretched reasoner. The philosophers are not much better qualified to judge of the machine of the world, than this peasant of a clock. They know but a small part of it, and are ignorant of the model of the artist, his design, his ends, and the reciprocal relation of all the parts. If you say that the earth must be round, that it may turn the easier on its axis, you may be answered, that it would be better if it were square that it might turn more slowly and afford us longer days. What could you reasonably reply, if you were obliged to specify the inconveniencies the world would suffer if Mercury were greater or nearer the earth? Would sir Isaac Newton, who has discovered so many mathematical and mechanical beauties in the heavens, pretend to warrant, that if things were not such as he supposes them, as to magnitude, distances, and velocities, the world would be an irregular work, ill built, or ill contrived? Is not the divine understanding infinite? God has therefore the ideas of an infinity of worlds, different from each other, all of them beautiful, regular, and mathematical to the last degree. Do you think he could not, from an earth of a square figure and nearer Saturn, draw such uses as would be equivalent to those of our earth? Let us conclude then, that Socrates ought not to have expected that Anaxagoras should prove to him, by a particular deduction, that the present state of every thing is the best it can be. God alone can prove it after this manner.

How should we perform what Socrates required, with regard to the machine of the world, since we are at a loss to do it, with respect to the machine of an animal, after so many dissections, and so many lectures of anatomy, which have taught us the number, situation, and use of its principal organs? By what particular reasons can it be proved, that the perfection of man, and that of the universe require that our two eyes be situated as they are, and that six eyes placed round the head would occasion a disorder in our body, and in the universe? It may be reasonably pretended that, in order to give a man six eyes round his head, without departing from the general laws of mechanism, the other organs must have been so altered, that man’s body would have been framed after another model, and would have been another kind of machine: but no particular reasons can be given for this; for all that you could say would be opposed with objections as probable as your proofs. We must adhere to this general reason. The wisdom of the artificer is infinite, therefore the work is such as it ought to be; the particulars are out of our reach,

and they who pretend to engage in a detail of them, generally expose themselves to ridicule Voltaire, indignant at the superstitious accusations against him, sides with the comparative innocence of the marshal d’Ancre. Bayle gives some strong reasons for a different decision, and makes some judicious reflections on the baleful influence of queen-regents in France; as also on the baseness of the nobility and people, for suffering their king for many years to be enslaved by a foreigner. In fact the French aristocracy have during the whole course of their history since the reign of Louis XI, exhibited the extremes of insolence and servility. With respect to the figure presented by Louis XIII in this curious sketch, it may be once for all observed, that there is not such a very slave in the world, as a weak-minded despot.—Ed. ³¹.

We can prove by this discourse of Socrates, that he was not the disciple of Anaxagoras; for, if he were, would he have stood in need of being informed by one who had read the books of Anaxagoras, that according to that philosopher a divine Intelligence was the cause of all things.—Art.Anaxagoras.