A HISTORY OF SCIENCE 



tions that have exercised the commentators we have 

 but scant concern. Following Aristotle, most histori- 

 ans of philosophy have been metaphysicians ; they have 

 concerned themselves far less with what the ancient 

 thinkers really knew than with what they thought. 

 A chance using of a verbal quibble, an esoteric phrase, 

 the expression of a vague mysticism these would suf- 

 fice to call forth reams of exposition. It has been the 

 favorite pastime of historians to weave their own an- 

 achronistic theories upon the scanty woof of the half- 

 remembered thoughts of the ancient philosophers. 

 To make such cloth of the imagination as this is an 

 alluring pastime, but one that must not divert us here. 

 Our point of view reverses that of the philosophers. 

 We are chiefly concerned, not with some vague saying 

 of Anaxagoras, but with what he really knew regard- 

 ing the phenomena of nature; with what he observed, 

 and with the comprehensible deductions that he de- 

 rived from his observations. In attempting to answer 

 these inquiries, we are obliged, in part, to take our 

 evidence at second-hand ; but, fortunately, some frag- 

 ments of writings of Anaxagoras have come down to 

 us. We are told that he wrote only a single book. It 

 was said even (by Diogenes) that he was the first man 

 that ever wrote a work in prose. The latter statement 

 would not bear too close an examination, yet it is true 

 that no extensive prose compositions of an earlier day 

 than this have been preserved, though numerous 

 others are known by their fragments. Herodotus, 

 "the father of prose," was a slightly younger contem- 

 porary of the Clazomenaean philosopher; not unlikely 

 the two men may have met at Athens. 



142 



