thought and opinion of our time and country without admitting, however unwillingly, a certain portion of this element into its discussions.

But, in order to counteract its evil consequences as far as possible, we invite the attention of our readers, from time to time, to some of the great thinkers of antiquity. It is in this spirit we have discussed, at intervals, the intellectual characteristics of Pythagoras, Epicurus, Diogenes the Cynic, and Seneca, as well as those of Homer, Sophocles, Euripides, Eschylus, Lucretius and Virgil, endeavoring to show how much our civilization is indebted to each. Nor have we any different object now in attempting to recall, in this article, some of the noble efforts and sublime ideas of Anaxagoras.

Before entering into any particulars in regard to the Ionian sage and scientist it may be well, for our present purposę, to remember that the most learned of the Greek philosophers were indebted to several nationalities, especially to the Egyptians and Hindoos, for much of the knowledge and wisdom which, while enabling them to become, as they did, benefactors of mankind, rendered their names imperishable. As the Romans were in the habit of deriving the most important part of their learning from the Greeks, so were the Greeks for many ages in the habit of regarding the Egyptians as the world's best educators. For more than three centuries no Greek was regarded as thoroughly educated until he had availed himself, to a greater or less extent, of the great schools of Egypt. Those who were unable to visit Egypt for that purpose felt that, in order to acquire the reputation of scholars of the first rank, it was at least necessary that they should receive some part of their education from Egyptian teachers. Now, when it is borne in mind that these three centuries embraced the golden age of Greek culture-the age of Pericles-some idea, however vague, may be formed of the high civilization attained by the Egyptians. Then how much did the Egyptians owe to the Hindoos? How much to the 'Phoenicians? How much to the Chaldeans?

There was not one of these nationalities which had not discoveries and inventions to boast of, as well as a high state

of culture; but the records of none have reached us, save those of the Greeks and Hindoos, and all we inherit even from these, though of inestimable value, are but fragments. Hence, that many sciences and arts have been lost is beyond question. A large proportion have, indeed, been re-discovered in modern times, but certainly not the whole. Of those rediscovered some have been improved upon, and been made more subservient to the use and benefit of mankind; but it is quite as certain that some are more imperfectly understood now than they were thousands of years ago.

This fact, incredible though it may seem to most people, might be easily illustrated. But it is sufficient for our present purpose to ask the reader to compare the thinkers of the present day to those of the time of Pericles, bearing in mind that even in that brilliant age—an age that sheds a peculiar lustre on the human intellect—those who promulgated their discoveries or inventions did so at the imminent peril of their lives. Yet how little do the most successful of our scientists reveal to us at the present day which is not foreshadowed in one form or another, if not enunciated in language sufficiently explicit for those for whom it was intended! Instances sufficiently striking of this will be seen as we proceed. Let those who doubt-those that think it impossible that there could have been any such scientific men thousands of years ago as there are now-ask themselves why were there such poets, such dramatists, such historians, such orators, such artists? Not indeed such poets, dramatists, historians, orators and artists as those of the present day, but incomparably greater.

But a great poem, a great drama, a great oration, or even a great work of art, is much more likely, for obvious reasons, to escape the ravages of time, than the most lucid treatise on science or art. And when the treatise is lost it is not likely that its author will be long remembered; when the discovery is forgotten it is not likely that the memory of the discoverer will long survive it.

Apart from these facts it must be admitted, on reflection, that neither discoverers nor inventors belong to the greatest

1

class of minds, since a portion of the most important discoveries and inventions have resulted from accident. In no country, ancient or modern, have scientists occupied so high a rank, intellectually, as those whose works have been devoted to the cultivation of the intellect, or the development and entertainment of the mind. Even Newton forms no exception in this respect. No competent judge will pretend that, brilliant and sublime as his discoveries have been, he will be as long remembered as Shakespeare or Bacon. Nor can it be said that the great astronomer has produced so profound, so powerful and beneficial, or so enduring an influence on English civilization, or English modes of thought, as either the great dramatist or the great inductive philosopher. We might pass through every country in Europe making similar comparisons, without overlooking Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Leibnitz or Laplace, and still be obliged to admit that the country of the most renowned discoverers has produced nonscientific men who will preserve their niches in the world's pantheon much longer, and be much longer held in veneration as benefactors of mankind, than those discoverers.

And if we turn back to Athens we shall find that the same principle holds good when applied to the intellectual capital of the ancient world; the world which has furnished models for all time in every department of human thought. Thus, for example, if it be asked who of all the Greek philosophers is held in highest veneration and esteem at the present day in any enlightened country, there will be no hesitancy among intelligent men in pointing to Socrates, the philosopher who of all others paid least attention to science, his chief precept being that made so familiar to the English reader by Pope, i.e.,

แ "The proper study of mankind is man."

We have ample testimony on this point, but need only turn to Plato or Xenophon. "He (Socrates) was of opinion," says Xenophon, "that one should devote some time to astronomy, in order to be able to tell the hour by the stars, what day of the month and what season it is, in order to know when, during the night, to relieve a sentinel; when it is best to go to

sea, or make a voyage. And he says that all this may be learned easily by conversations with sailors, or with those who hunt at night. But to wish to penetrate further, to know what stars are not in the same declination; to wish to explain all the different movements of the planets, and know how far they are from the earth, in what times they perform their revolutions, what are their influences; to all this he was strongly opposed, for to him these sciences seemed entirely useless; not that he was ignorant of them, but because they required a man's whole time and diverted him from many other good occupations."*

But the subject of our present article was not alone a scientist. He was a philosopher in the best signification of the term, and as such his pupils include some of the greatest names that have reached our time. Anaxagoras was born at Clazomenæ, in Ionia, about the 70th olympiad, 500 years before Christ. He belonged to an ancient and honorable family, and inherited a large fortune from his father. But it was not on riches, but on knowledge, that Anaxagoras set his heart; nor was he satisfied with acquiring knowledge without imparting it to all who would appreciate it. First, he studies under the tuition of the most famous educators of his time, including Anaximander, the philosopher.

Having attained the highest distinction among his fellowstudents at Athens, he travels into Egypt and learns all he can from the priests of that country, who were universally regarded as the greatest scientists of their time. Returning to his native city he came to the conclusion that the possession of riches was incompatible with success as a teacher. Accordingly, he partly bestowed his inheritance on his friends and partly divided it among the poor, retaining scarcely sufficient to procure him the necessaries of life. Even this small portion he parted with in time, resolving to depend exclusively on the voluntary contributions of his pupils.† At the same time he

* Memorabilia of Socrates.

The student of the classics will hardly object to be reminded that Cicero has some fine thoughts on this love of knowledge and tranquility: "Eadem autem alii prudentia sed consilio ad vitæ studia dispari quietem

resolved to take no part in public affairs. The latter resolution prompted one of his friends to ask him did he care nothing for his country. His reply was characteristic. While raising his hand to the skies, he said, "Yes, I have an extreme care for my country."*

Diogenes Laertes informs us that he was but twenty years old when he settled at Athens, and that he continued to teach there for thirty years. Among his pupils, according to the most reliable authorities, were Archelaus, Empedocles and Euripides, as well as Pericles. Some claim that Socrates and Themistocles were also his pupils. There is good reason to believe that the claim is well founded in regard to the former, but if we are to accept the chronology of Plutarch, who is rarely much wrong in that particular, Anaxagoras cannot have been the instructor of Themistocles. This, however, is not material. If he was not the teacher of the hero of Salamis. and the conqueror of Xerxes, he was the teacher of much greater men. Had he numbered none among his pupils but Pericles and Euripides, they would have shed sufficient lustre on his name as an educator. Whether Socrates was instructed by him or not, it is certain that the great ethical philosopher knew him intimately; but, Socrates being rather opposed, as we have shown above, to devoting much time to any of the sciences not regarded as more or less useful, he was sometimes disposed to be satirical in discussing the scientific doctrines of Anaxagoras.

Anaxagoras was not the founder of the Ionian school to which he belonged. This honor belonged to Thales, the Milesian. To the same school belonged Anaximander and Anaxamines, both of whom were also Milesians. But in order to estimate approximately how much credit is due to Anaxagoras-nay, in order to be prepared to judge intelligently

atque otium sequenti, ut Pythagoras, Democritus, Anaxagoras, a regendis civitatibus toto se ad cognitionem rerum transtulerunt, qua vita propter tranquilitatem, et propter ipsius scientiæ suavitatem, qua nihil est hominibus jucundius; plures quam utile fuit rebus publicis, delectant.-De Oratore, 1. iii.

*

Diog. Laert., lib. ii., sec. 6.

+ Vide Life of Themistocles.