^{page 1 note 2} Classical Philology, xxxiii, pp. 368 ff.

^{page 1 note 3} D.L. ix. 5 (Diels⁵, 22 A. 1):τò δ φερóμενον αὐτο βιβλίον στ μν πò το συνχοντος Φερ øσεως, διῄρηται δ εἰς τρεῖς λóγους, εἶς τε τòν περ το παντòς κα πολιτικòν κα θεολογικóν.

^{page 1 note 4} D.L. ix. 19 (Diels⁵, 21 A. 1).

^{page 1 note 5} Aristotle, Melaph. A. 5. 986b (Diels⁵, A. 30): [Xenophanes] εἰς τòν λον οὐραòν ποβλϕας τò ἔν εἶναί øησι τòν θεóν.

^{page 1 note 6} Aētius, i. 7. 26 (Diels⁵, A. 31): 77. Φ. τò κίνητον κα πεπερασμνον σφαιροειδς [θεòν εἶναι, sc.].

^{page 1 note 7} Simplicius, Phys. 1124. 1 (Diels⁵, B. 29): … τòν σφαῖρον …, ν κα θεòν νομζει.

^{page 1 note 8} Cf. Plato, Timaeus, 33^b.

^{page 2 note 1} Jacoby, , Apollodors Chronik, Philologische Untersuchungen, xvi, p. 268Google Scholar.

^{page 2 note 2} Taylor, , Plato, the Man and His Work, p. 236Google Scholar.

^{page 2 note 3} Greek Philosophy I: Thales to Plato, p. III^I.

^{page 3 note 1} Probably before 453, Busolt, , Gr. Gesck. iii. i. 504Google Scholar.

^{page 3 note 2} Krauss, H., Aesch. Socr. Reliquiae, 90, 163Google Scholar.

^{page 3 note 3} See below, p. 6.

^{page 4 note 1} Ap. Chr., p. 269.

^{page 4 note 2} A fact overlooked by Diels (80 A. 1) when Protahe uses the date to confirm the inference, There is no evidence for the Ixion's date.

^{page 4 note 3} Thuc. v. 19. 2; 24. 1.

^{page 4 note 4} SeeClinton, , Fasti Hellenici², 415. 4Google Scholar.

^{page 4 note 5} Bury, (History of Greece, p. 388)Google Scholar states categorically that Euripides is referring to Protahegoras, and on that ground alone puts his death in 415. The passage is not included in Diels, 80 A.

^{page 5 note 1} Diodorus (xii. 38–9) and Plutarch (Pericles, 31–2) both give these attacks as the reason for Pericles's refusal to repeal the Megarian decree. I accept Adcock's conclusions (C.A.H. v, note 8, xpp. 477 ff.) that the decree of Dracontides requiring Pericles to submit his accounts of public expenditure must be connected with his trial and deposition in 430, and that the decree of Diopithes was a part of the same offensive.

^{page 5 note 2} Taylor, A. E. (C.Q. xi, 1917, p. 81)CrossRefGoogle Scholar argues that Anaxagoras retired to Lampsacus, where he lived until 428, nearly twenty years before the outbreak of war. This conclusion runs contrary to the whole weight of the evidence.

(1) Diogenes Laertius, ii. 7 λγεται δ κατ τν Ξρξον διβασιν εἴκοσιν τν εἶναι, βεβιωκναι δ βδομκοντα δο øο øησ δ᾽ Ἀπολλóδωρος ν τοῖς Χρονικοῖς γεγνσθαι αὐτòν τῇ βρομηκοστῇ λυμπιδι [500–497], τεθνηκναι δ τῷ πρώτῳ ἔτει τς βδομηκοστς [γδοηκοστῖς Scaliger] γδóης [468 or Sc. 428]. ἤρξατο δ øιλοσοøεῖν Ἀθνησιν π καλλίου [456] τν εἴκοσιν ν, ς øησι δη7mu;τριος Φαληρεὺς ν τῇ τν Ἀρχóντων ναγραøῇ, ἔνθα καἰ φασιν αὐτòν τν διατρῖϕαι τρικοντα.

This may be analysed as follows:

i. Tradition A: born 500, died 428.

ii. Apollodorus: [born 540], flor. 500–497, died 468. Since γεγενσθαι is ambiguous, it is possible to bring Apollodorus into agreement with A by Scaliger's emendation; but he may have purposely placed him forty years earlier so as to enable him to be a pupil of Anaximenes, whose death he places in 499 (D.L. ii. 3: see ibid. 6).

iii. Demetrius of Phalerum: began to be a philosopher at Athens 456 at the age of twenty. In order to reconcile this statement with the tradition that he was twenty years old at ‘the passage of Xerxes’ it has been supposed that Καλλἰον = Καλλιδον. Then, by adding tradition B, we get the result that Anaxagoras began to philosophize at Athens at the age of twenty in 480, left in 450 at the age of 50, and spent the last twenty-two years of his life at Lampsacus. The conclusion is impossible because (a) twenty years of age is much too young for Anaxagoras, who had already had a thorough training in Ionian physical science, to have come to Athens; (b) there is plenty of evidence of his activity in Athens down to 430; (c) there is no evidence of his having spent more than a very short time at Lampsacus. (For (b) and (c) see below (2) and (3).) A better solution of the difficulty is to suppose that D.L. or a later annotator confused Καλλου with Καλλιδον and added τν εἴκοσιν ὦν. The whole body of tradition recorded by D.L. (with the possible exception of Apollodorus) is then in harmony: Anaxagoras came to Athens at the age of fifty-seven in 457, spent twentyseven years there (the thirty years of tradition B is a near enough approximation), and retired to Lampsacus in 429 where he died in the following year.

iv. Tradition: lived in Athens thirty years.

(2) Close connexion with Pericles: teacher, D.L. ii. 13, Plat. Phaedr. 269 e, Isocr. xv. 235, Plut. Pericl. 6 (incident shortly before 442), Cic. Orat. iii. 138: political adviser, Plut. Pericl. 16 (when an old man).

(3) His imprisonment, flight, and death: Suidas ἔøυγε δ ξ Ἀθηνν Περικλους αὐτῷ σɛνειπóντος. κα λθὼν ν Ἀαμϕκῳ κεῖσε καταστρφει τòν βίον ποκαρτερσας. ξpγαγε δ τοῖ ζν αυτν τν ō, διóτι ὑπ' Ἀθηναίων νεβλθη ν δεσμωτηρίῳ οἷ τινα καιν δóξαν το θεο παρεισφρων; D.L. ii. ɛρμιππος δ' ν τοῖς βίοις φησν τι καθείρχθη ν τῷ δεσμωτηρίῳ τεθνηξóμενος Περικλς δ παρελβὼν εἶπεν … κα φείθη. οὐκ νεγκν δ τν ὕβριν αυτòν ξγαγεν;ibid. 14 'Iερώνυμος δ' ν τῷ δευτρῳ τν σπορδην ὑπομνημτων φησν τι Περικλς παργαγεν αὐτòν π τò δικαστριον, διερρυηκóτα κα λεπ;τòν ὑπò ν óσου, ὦστε λῳ μλλον ἤ κρίσει φεθναι.

There is no reason to doubt the tradition that he was a very sick man at the time of his trial. This lends colour to the inference that the trial was the result of the decree of Diopithes (430) which Plutarch (Pericles, 32.I) says was directed against Anaxagoras (cf. Diodorus, xii. 39); and that it was immediately followed by his flight and death.

One authority alone is in disagreement with this conclusion. According to D.L. ii. 12 ‘Satyrus in the Lives says that the charge [against Anaxagoras] was brought by Thucydides [son of Melesias] in his campaign against Pericles; and that it was a charge of medism as well as impiety; and that he was condemned to death in his absence.’ It is not at all unlikely that in the struggle which resulted in the ostracism of Thucydides and the final triumph of Pericles attacks were made on the friends of the latter, just as they were when his position was beginning to weaken in 430. This may have been one of the reasons for Protagoras's mission to Thurii in 443. It may be noted that the charge of medism is hardly compatible with the story (1. iii above) that Anaxagoras came to Athens at the time of the expedition of Xerxes. If he came with the invaders, he is unlikely to have remained as a guest.

^{page 6 note 1} Transl. B. Perrin, Loeb Library.

^{page 9 note 1} Diodorus i. 8. §I. The primitive state of man: ἄτακτος κα θηριώδης βίος: they lived separately (σπορδην), feeding on herbs and the fruit of wild trees.

^{page 9 note 2} The first association of man with I Diodorus, i. 7: Analysis: §§ I–2 Cosmogony.

(a) First Stage: Heaven and Earth were one form, their ‘physis’ being intermingled.

(b) Second Stage: the ‘bodies’ separated out, the general effect being that ‘the universe took on the ordered form in which it is now seen’; the particular effect that:

i. the air set up a continual motion;

ii. the fiery part of the cosmos ran together towards the highest regions (the moving force is inverted gravity: ‘by reason of its lightness’);

iii. ‘all that was mud-like and thick and had an admixture of water sank because of its weight into one place’;

iv. ‘this being continually turned about upon itself and compressed’ separated into sea and land.

§§3–6 Zoogony.

As the sun dried the earth, the surface becoming fermented by the heat, ‘portions of the wet swelled up in masses in many places, and, in these, pustules (σηπεδóνες) covered with delicate membranes made their appearance.… And the wet being impregnated with life by the heat in the manner described, the living things forthwith received their nourishment by night from the mist which fell from the enveloping air, and by day were made solid by the heat.’ Finally all forms of animal life were produced, which went to their respective places according to the amount of each element within them. When the earth's crust became too hard, this process of spontaneous generation ceased.

Reinhardt, (Hekataeus von Abdera und Demokritus, Hermes, 1912, pp. 492 ff.)Google Scholar rightly Protagoras, 321 c ff.

When man, last of the creatures, emerged from the earth, Prometheus ‘in perplexity as to what means of preservation he could devise for man’ stole from Heaven ‘wisdom in the arts together with fire’. Thus man acquired wisdom

observed that these sections are not Epicurean but go back to Hecataeus of Abdera in common with the later chapters (10 ff.): he concluded that they contain the doctrine of Democritus.Dahlmann, (De philosoph. graec. sententiis ad loquellae originem pertinentibus: Diss. Lips. 1928, pp. 23 ff.)Google Scholar argues against this attribution: his main contention, with which I agree, is that is impossible that a cosmology which exhibits not the slightest trace of Atomistic doctrine (the ‘bodies’, σώματα, of § I are no more Atomistic than the μρη of Empedocles) should be Democritean: it must then be pre-Atomistic. This conclusion is confirmed by the remarkable resemblance between the second stage of the Diodorian cosmogony and the description of Chaos in the Timaeus (52 d ff.), which, asComford, (Plato's Cosmology, pp. 198 ff.)Google Scholar points out, is certainly pre-Atomistic. The next stage in the Timaeus is the intervention of the demiurge, who takes over Chaos and begins to give the elements ‘distinct configurations by means of shapes and numbers’: the Diodorian cosmogony continues to be purely mechanical. Plato only uses the materialistic account as a foundation for his idealistic superstructure: Diodorus sets out the materialistic theory itself.

The Diodorian zoogony recalls the famous theory of Anaximander (Aëtius, v. 19. 4: cf. Censorinus, 4. 7) that ‘the first living creatures were engendered in the wet element enclosed spiny membranes’: and it is likely that Diogenes of Apollonia propounded a similar doctrine, since Aristophanes, who attributes to the scientists the Socratic phrontisterion other theories Diogenes, calls them γηγενεῖς? (Clouds, 853).

^{page 10 note 1} The close connexion of the anthropology with the cosmogony and zoogony is shown by the similar process of evolution of types by the action of the ‘like-to-like’ principle in all three.

^{page 10 note 2} I use, with slight alterations, Lamb's translation (Loeb).

^{page 10 note 3} πολεμεῖσθαι D., πóλεμος P.: of war with wild beasts. Both use θρίζεσθαι of association, and διαρθρον of the articulation of speech: also the word σπορδην of the existence of primitive man.

^{page 10 note 4} Cf. Anonymus Iamblichi, Diels⁵, 89. 3. 6: wild τοτο γρ [τò δίκαιον] τς τε πóλεις κα τοὺς νθρώπους τò συνικίζον κα τò συνχον [εἴναι]. Democritus, Diels⁵, 68 B. 252: ‘A man must rate the good order of his city as the highest political aim, not indulging in rivalry beyond what is seemly nor making himself powerful to the prejudice of the common good’ (a good definition of aidos and dike). ‘For a well ordered city is the greatest human achievement: in it all is embraced; and while it is preserved all is preserved, and when it perishes all perishes.’

^{page 11 note 1} I use Professor Cornford's translation. Plato's Theory of Knowledge, p. 70 f.

^{page 11 note 2} e.g. Hippias in Xen. Memor. IV. iv. 14.

^{page 12 note 3} Cf. Soph. O.T. 865 f.: νóμοι ὑϕίποδες, οὐρανίαν δι' αἰθρα τεκνωθντες.

^{page 11 note 4} Walker, E. M., C. A. H. iv, p. 155Google Scholar.

^{page 12 note 1} Cf. [Xen.] Ἀθ. πολ. i. 3: οὔτε τν στρατηγιν κληρῷ οἴονταί σφιοι χρναι μετεῖναι οὔτε τν ἱππαρχιν—γιγνώσκει γρ δμος τι πλείω ὠφελεῖται ν τῷ μ αὐτòς ἄρχειν τς ρχς λλ' ν τοὺς δυνατωττους ἄρχειν.

^{page 12 note 2} Powell, J. E., The History of Herodotus, p. 38Google Scholar.

^{page 12 note 3} e.g. 34, 43.

^{page 12 note 4} e.g. i. 5: ἔστι δ πση γῇ τò βλτιστον ναντίον τῇ δημοκρατίᾳ· ν γρ τοῖς βελτίστοις ἔνι κολασία τε λιγίστη κα δικία, κρίβεια δ πλείςτη εἰς τ χρηστ, ν δ τῷ δμῳ μαθία τε πλείστη κα ταξία κα πονηρία, and 9: εἰ δ εὐνομίαν ζητεῖς, … κολσονσιν οἱ χρηστο τοὺς πονηροὺς … κα οὐκ σονσι μαινομνους ǰνθρώπους βουλεειν οὐδ λγειν οὐδ κκλησιζειν.

^{page 15 note 1} Philologus, , lxvii, 1908. p. 533Google Scholar.

^{page 16 note 1} Diels⁵, B. 4.

^{page 16 note 2} Theaetelus, 162 d–e.

^{page 16 note 3} Meno, 91 e: in an article, Meno of Pharsalus, which it is hoped will shortly appear in the C.Q. I attempt to establish 403 as the dramatic date of the Meno.