MISZELLEN

Philologus 155 2011 2 361–366

Jaap Mansfeld

ARISTOTLE ON ANAXAGORAS IN RELATION TO EMPEDOCLES

IN METAPHYSICS A*

A well-known and often discussed phrase in chapter 3 of Book A of Aristotle’s

Metaphysics sets off Anaxagoras against Empedocles:

’Anaxagórav dè o™ Klazoméniov tñı mèn h™liκíaı próterov w£ n toútou [sc.

’Empedoκléouv] toîv d’ e ¢rgoiv uçsterov a¬peírouv ei®naí fhsi tàv a¬rcáv·
Anaxagoras of Clazomenae, earlier than him [sc. Empedocles] in date1 but later in
his works, declares that the principles are infinitely many …2.

“Earlier but later …” – a rather bizarre opposition. The problem is the meaning of
uçsterov, “later”. Two main interpretations have been defended, viz. that “later”
means “later in time”, i. e. (perhaps) “more advanced”, or that it means “inferior” 3.
These alternatives are already found in Alexander of Aphrodisias’ commentary on the
Metaphysics 4. The meaning “inferior” is justified here in a tortuous sentence:

’Anaxagóran ’Empedoκléouv próteron genómenon toîv e r¢ goiv fhsì κaì tñı

perì tøn fusiκøn dóxhı uçsteron ei®nai, ou¬ proκrínwn au¬toû pántwv tæn dóxan
tñv ’Empedoκléouv w™ v sunetwtéran κaì pléon ti e c¢ ousan, a¬ll∫ u™stéran κaì eu¬te-
lestéran h™goúmenov.
He says that Anaxagoras, born before Empedocles, is later in his works and his
physical doctrine. He does not express preference for his doctrine over that of

* Thanks for encouragement and criticism are due to Patricia Curd, Oliver Primavesi, David T. Runia,
Keimpe Algra, and the anonymous referee of Philologus.
1 For this meaning of h™liκía cf. Hdt. 2. 53, ¿Hsíodon gàr κaì √Omhron h™liκíhn tetraκosíoisi e ¢tesi doκéw

meu presbutérouv genésqai, 5. 71; cf. also below, n. 21.

2 Met. A 3.984a10–3.

3 See already Brandis (1835) 242 with n. i, Breier (1840) 85–6, Schwegler (1847) 34–6, Bonitz (1849) 67,

Zeller (1892) 1023 n. 2, and, e. g., Ross (1924) 1. 132, Mansfeld (1980) 90–1.
4 Alex. in Met. 28. 1–21.
362 Jaap Mansfeld, Aristotle on Anaxagoras in Relation to Empedocles

Empedocles in every respect as being cleverer and having the advantage, but be-
lieves it [sc. Anaxagoras’ doctrine] to be later and worth less 5.

But one should take the whole of Alexander’s exegesis into account. He points out
that, as there are passages where Aristotle prefers Empedocles to Anaxagoras in
certain respects, so there are passages where he prefers Anaxagoras to Empedocles.
According to Alexander Anaxagoras’ inferiority is at stake here, in ch. 3, because a
limited number of elements is better than an unlimited number 6. Breier, who knew
this evidence only from Brandis’ anthology of so-called scholia on Aristotle, argues
against Brandis that the passage is confused (“indessen herrscht darin eine große Ver-
wirrung”), because a little later its author propounds another and different interpre-
tation 7.
The first of Alexander’s options, viz. that Aristotle believed Anaxagoras to be
inferior to Empedocles, has been promoted for many years by D. O’Brien, who in the
last of his many publications dealing with Empedocles I have seen appears to be
satisfied that the question has been settled. Just like Alexander he argues that Aristotle
believed Anaxagoras to be inferior to Empedocles because the hypothesis of the four
elements is simpler than of infinitely many. He adds that Empedocles, adding earth to
the water, air, and fire already introduced by others, made the set of four also accepted
by Aristotle himself complete. Aristotle more than once expresses his preference for
Empedocles. O’Brien further argues that Aristotle at the end of the same chapter
points out that Anaxagoras was the first to speak of Reason as moving and ordering
cause, thus appearing like “a sober man in contrast with the random talk of those
before him” 8. So he cannot have included Empedocles among these predecessors9.
One can hardly object to this last point (it repeats what Aristotle says: “Anaxagoras is
earlier in date”), but it is hard to see how this leads to the conclusion that Anaxagoras
is inferior.
As a matter of fact the statement that someone is “earlier in date” but “inferior in
his works” is close to being a platitude 10. It is generally accepted that Aristotle, in the
first book of Metaphysics, provides a descriptive and critical analysis of the develop-

5 Alex. in Met. 27. 28–28. 3, my transl. Dooley (1989) 51 n. 104, argues that “Alexander understand tois

ergois with both proteros, so that the phrase means ‘in his literary activity’, and with husteros (28, 1), were the
phrase has the sense of ‘in the merit of his works …’”. But in Alexander’s sentence toîv e ¢rgoiv, explained by
tñı perì tøn fusiκøn dóxhı, goes with uçsteron only.
6 Alex. in Met. 28. 3–6.

7 Breier (1840) 85–6 with n. h, citing Brandis (1836) 17 for the text and Brandis (1835) 242 n. i for the

interpretation; note however that in the text Brandis assumes that Anaxagoras “weiterging als Empedokles”,
and only in the footnote suggests that perhaps uçsterov is “tadelnd”.
8 Met. A 3. 984b18–9.

9 O’Brien (1968) 97–105, (2005) 319–21.

10 See already Schwegler (1847) 34–35, and Bonitz (1949) 67: “si quis est h™liκíaı próterov, ei non potest

vitio dari quod non pariter elaboravit, sed ut [sc. membrum toîv d’ e r¢ goiv uçsterov] recte opponi possit priori
membro, laudem debet significari”.
 Philologus 155 (2011) 2 363

ment of philosophy from first beginnings to a culmination in Plato. What is earlier is

not as good as what is later. Progress exists 11. The translation “inferior” is therefore
unsatisfactory.
In her book on Anaxagoras P. Curd admits that the phrase is ambiguous, but argues
in favour of “later” in a temporal sense. Aristotle “seems to be explaining why, even
though Anaxagoras was older than Empedocles, he mentions Anaxagoras after
Empedocles” 12. As a matter of fact Aristotle in ch. 3 lists in succession Thales and
Hippo, Anaximenes and Diogenes, Hippasus and Heraclitus, and Empedocles 13.
Then comes “Anaxagoras …, earlier in date but later in his works”. Curd’s argument,
though on the right track, is not sufficient, because Hippo and Diogenes, mentioned
as the secondary partners of the two pairs of physicists listed before the mention of
Empedocles, are later than Anaxagoras and Empedocles. I submit that Aristotle is not
looking back to the name of Empedocles he has just mentioned, but forward to what
is still to come. He must have a motive for saying that Anaxagoras, though earlier
chronologically, is “later in his works”.
To understand this motive we must first look at a parallel. In ch. 7 of Book II of the
Meteorology Aristotle discusses earthquakes:

e¢sti dè tà pareilhmména mécri ge toû nûn crónou tría κaì parà triøn, ’Ana-
xagórav te gàr o™ Klazoméniov κaì próteron ’Anaximénhv o™ Miläsiov a¬pe-
fänanto, κaì toútwn uçsteron Dhmóκritov o™ ’Abdhríthv.
Up to the present three theories have been put forward by three separate men. For
Anaxagoras of Clazomenae and before him Anaximenes of Miletus both published
views on the subjects, and after them Democritus of Abdera 14.

The relative chronology, accordingly, is Anaximenes first (earlier than Anaxagoras),

Anaxagoras second, Democritus third (later than Anaximenes and Anaxagoras). One
may well wonder why Aristotle takes the trouble to be so unusually specific about
dates. The answer is that in what follows he discusses the three theories concerned not
in a chronological but a systematic order, viz. first that of Anaxagoras, then that of
Democritus, and, as last, that of Anaximenes 15. No doubt it is above all the fact that

11 Cf. SE 33. 183b17–34, Met. A 1. 981b13–22, 2. 982b14 proióntev, 3. 984a18 proióntwn, EN

1. 7. 1098a21–25, and Poet. 4. 1449a7–22. See, for instance, Aubenque (1962) 77–83, Edelstein (1967) 87–95,
and Berti (1990) 33–34, who put Aristotle’s view of the development of philosophy in the context of his views
on the development of civilization.
12 Curd (2007) 133 with n. 15; italics in the original.

13 Met. A 3. 984a2–11.

14 Meteor. 2. 7. 365a16–9. Tr. Lee (Loeb).

15 I note in passing that in the chapter “On earthquakes” of the Placita, for the most part extant only in

ps.Plu. 3. 14, lemmata 1 to 4 list in succession the doxai of (Thales and) Democritus, (the Stoics), Anaximenes,
and Anaxagoras in a systematic order that to some extent also takes the relative chronology into account
(cf., e. g., Runia 1999, 40–1). The doxai of Democritus, Anaximenes, and Anaxagoras are clearly dependent on
Arist. Meteor. 2. 7.
364 Jaap Mansfeld, Aristotle on Anaxagoras in Relation to Empedocles

Anaximenes, the earliest chronologically (as everyone in Aristotle’s audience knows,

we may surmise), is treated last, which prompted the little chronological introduc-
tion; Aristotle wants us to be sure that he knows his dates.
Going back to Metaphysics A, and to Curd’s insight, we now begin to see why
Aristotle points out that Anaxagoras is earlier in date than Empedocles but later in
his works. For in ch. 8, where he criticizes the preplatonic thinkers, the order of treat-
ment is (1) the Monists, (2) Empedocles, and (3) Anaxagoras. According to Aristotle’s
relative chronology one would have expected Anaxagoras to come before Empe-
docles. But this order has been reversed, and Aristotle now explains why. When one
interprets Anaxagoras correctly, which means going beyond his unarticulated
statements, one finds that he recognized two principles, viz. (Reason as) the One and
(the Stuffs as) the Other, that is, as the Indefinite16. This interpretation, already cited
by Alexander as well, succeeds in placing his doctrine in the vicinity of Plato’s two
ultimate principles, the One and the In(de)finite Two 17, critically described by
Aristotle in ch. 6 and further criticized in ch. 9 of Book A. For Empedocles such a
creative interpretation is impossible, because even Aristotle cannot reduce Love
and Strife to a single principle, or the four elements to infinity 18.
If Anaxagoras is “later than Empedocles in his works” because he is closer to Plato,
he is “later” in the sense of being “more modern”, “more advanced”. Therefore one
need not be surprised when Aristotle tells us disertis verbis that he is more modern:

ei ¢ tiv a¬κolouqäseie sundiarqrøn aÇ boúletai légein, i s¢ wv a£n faneíh κaino-

prepestérwv légwn […] boúletai méntoi ti parapläsion toîv te uçsteron
légousi κaì toîv fainoménoiv mâllon.
if one were to follow his doctrine carefully and interpret its meaning, it would
presumably be seen to be more up-to-date […] his meaning approximates to what
later people say and resembles more what is believed today 19.

These phrases are paraphrased, and even cited verbatim, by Alexander 20. Com-
menting on the word κainoprepestérwv, he refers back to his earlier discussion and

16 Met. A 8. 989a30–b21, esp. b16–8, tàv a¬rcàv tó te eçn (toûto gàr a™ploûn κaì a¬migév) κaì qáteron,

oi©on tíqemen tò a¬óriston.

17 Alex. in Met. 28. 9–10, “later on, however, he shows that Anaxagoras’ doctrine agrees with that of Plato,

who was born later”, proelqœn méntoi tæn dóxan au¬toû súmfwnon deíκnusi tñı Plátwnov, oÇv uçsterov
e¬géneto. Alexander then pararaphrases and cites Arist. Met. A 8. 989a30–3 + b19–21. It is this second interpre-
tation which is accepted by Breier (1840) 85–6, Schwegler (1847) 34–6, and Bonitz (1849) 67. Also see Cher-
niss (1935) 237, and the detailed discussion of Primavesi (2011) of Aristotle on Anaxagoras in Met. A, ch. 8.
18 He reduces the four elements to two at Met. A 4. 985a33–b1, and points out that Empedocles, the first

to divide the moving cause into two contrary forces (A 4. 985a29–31), did not argue entirely correctly or even
reasonably as to the question whether one or two moving causes should be assumed (A 8. 989a25–26).
19 Met. A 8. 989b4–6 + b19–21 (tr. Tredennick (Loeb) and Dooley, slightly modified), see Breier, Schweg-

ler, and Bonitz, above n. 17.

20 Above, n. 17.
 Philologus 155 (2011) 2 365

says that the term may mean the same as Aristotle’s earlier remark about Anaxagoras
being earlier in date but later in his works. This is certainly inconsistent on Alexan-
der’s part 21.
Aristotle is the first we know of to use the rather rare word κainoprepésterov,
which does not just mean “novel”, or “up-to-date”, but also “stylish”, “sophisticat-
ed”22: Anaxagoras as esprit raffiné. Cherniss’ suggestion that the word κainopre-
pestérwv only means that Anaxagoras’ doctrine as interpreted by Aristotle is more
modern than as formulated by Anaxagoras himself, and not that it is more modern
than that of Empedocles23, is unnecessarily brilliant, and fails to take the reversed
order of treatment in ch. 8 of the two philosophers as announced in ch. 3 into account.
The ambiguous phrase in ch. 3 is meant to show that Aristotle is fully aware of the
temporal sequence, but that as to doctrine the position of these two physicists on the
developmental line from Thales to Plato in his view deviates from the chronological
order.
The oxymoron consisting of the contrast between “earlier in date” and “more
advanced in doctrine” is much better from a stylistic point of view, too, than the
purported contrast between “earlier in date” and “inferior in doctrine”.
I have followed the standard translations in rendering toîv d’ e r¢ goiv as “in his
works”, but the Greek expression also allows the meaning “in fact”, “in reality”24.
According to Aristotle, in actual fact the doctrine of Anaxagoras concerning the
principles as expressed in his work is more advanced than that of Empedocles,
although Empedocles’ work is more recent. We need not believe that Aristotle means
that Anaxagoras, though born earlier, wrote his treatise later than Empedocles wrote
his physical poem25. But his remark in Met. A 3 is not incompatible with a date of
publication (in whatever sense of the word) for Anaxagoras in the years of his stay at
Athens, so between 456/5 and 427/8 26. Because the “date” (h™liκía) of Empedocles
and Anaxagoras can hardly pertain to anything else than the period of activity charac-
terized by the writing and making publicly available by whatever means of their
respective works, we may infer that Anaxagoras’ treatise was made available before

21 See Dooley (1989) 51 n. 104, and already Breier, above n. 7 and text thereto. Also Aubenque (1962) 82,
who adduces the parallel already cited by Schwegler (1847) 35, viz. Arist. Cael. 4. 2. 308b30–2, κaíper o¢ntev
a¬rcaióteroi taîv h™liκíaiv [cf. above. n. 1] κainotérwv e¬nóhsan perì tøn nûn lecqéntwn, “although they
were older in date their views on the present subject were more advanced” (tr. Guthrie (Loeb), modified).
κainoprepestérwv is not precisely the same as κainotérwv, but comes close.
22 Cf. Arist. Pol. 2. 6. 1265a12, tò mèn ou®n perittòn e ¢cousi pántev oi™ toû Swκrátouv lógoi κaì tò κomyòn

κaì tò κainotómon κaì tò zhthtiκón, “The discourses of Socrates [in Plato’s Republic] are never common-
place; they always exhibit grace and originality and thought” (tr. Barnes).
23 Cherniss (1935) 400.

24 See Schwegler (1847) 35; Bonitz (1870) 286a37–51 (“saepe e r ¢ gon et e r¢ ga id significant, quod in re et
veritate est”).
25 For this view see, e. g., Ross (1924) 1. 132, Mansfeld (1980) 91–3, Rossitto (2009) 65.

26 See Mansfeld (1980) 87–8, 89–95, where however I argued for a date close to 437/6 BCE, the year he left

for Lampsacus.
366 Jaap Mansfeld, Aristotle on Anaxagoras in Relation to Empedocles

Empedocles’ physical poem – this, at any rate, is what Aristotle had reason to
believe 27.

Bibliography
P. Aubenque, Le problème de l’être chez Aristote, Paris 1962.
E. Berti, Il metodo della filosofia pratica secondo Aristotele, in: A. Alberti (ed.), Studi sull’etica di Aristotele
(Elenchos 19), Napoli 1990, 23–63.
H. Bonitz, Aristotelis Metaphysica, 2 Bde., Bonn 1848–9.
H. Bonitz, Index Aristotelicus, Berlin 1870.
C. A. Brandis, Handbuch der Geschichte der griechisch-römischen Philosophie, Bd. 1, Berlin 1835.
C. A. Brandis (ed.), Scholia in Aristotelem (Aristoteles, Opera, Bd. 4), Berlin, 1836.
F. Breier, Die Philosophie des Anaxagoras nach Aristoteles. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Philosophie,
Berlin 1840.
H. Cherniss, Aristotle’s Criticism of Presocratic Philosophy, Baltimore 1935.
P. Curd, Anaxagoras of Clazomenae. Fragments and Testimonia. A Text and Translation with Notes and
Essays (Phoenix pre-Socratics 6), Toronto/Buffalo/London 2007.
W. E. Dooley, Alexander of Aphrodisias. On Aristotle Metaphysics 1. Translated by W. E. D., London 1989.
L. Edelstein, The Idea of Progress in Classical Antiquity, Baltimore 1967.
J. Mansfeld, The chronology of Anaxagoras’ Athenian period and the date of his trial, Mnemosyne 32, 1979,
39–69, Mnemosyne 33, 1980, 18–95, partly repr. in: J. Mansfeld, Studies in the Historiography of Greek
Philosophy, Assen/Maastricht 1990, 264–306.
D. O’Brien, The relation of Anaxagoras and Empedocles, JHS 88, 1968, 93–113.
D. O’Brien, Empedocles: A Synopsis, in: G. Rechenauer (Hrsg.), Frühgriechisches Denken, Göttingen 2005,
316–42.
O. Primavesi, Second thoughts on some Presocratics: Aristotle Metaphysics I 8, 989a18–990a32, in: C. Steel (ed.),
Aristotle’s Metaphysics A. With a new critical edition of the Greek text by O. Primavesi, Oxford, forthc.
W. D. Ross, Aristotle’s Metaphysics, A Revised Text with Introduction and Commentary, 2 vols., Oxford 1924.
C. Rossitto, Il duplice carattere della critica aristotelica a Empedocle e Anassagora in Metafisica A, in:
R. L. Cardullo, (ed.), Il libro Alpha della Metafisica di Aristotele tra storiografia e teoria (Symbolon 35),
Catania 2009, 55–76.
D. T. Runia, Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato (Philosophia Antiqua 44), Leiden 1986.
D. T. Runia, “What is doxography?”, in: P. J. van der Eijk (ed.), Ancient Histories of Medicine. Essays in
Medical Doxography and Historiography in Classical Antiquity (Studies in Ancient Medicine 20), Leiden/
Boston/Köln 1999, 33–55.
A. F. C. Schwegler, Aristoteles. Die Metaphysik, Grundtext mit Übersetzung und Commentar nebst erläu-
ternden Abhandlungen, Bd. III, Commentar 1. Hälfte, Tübingen 1847.
E. Zeller, Die Philosophie der Griechen in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung, Bd. I, Allgemeine Einleitung.
Vorsokratische Philosophie, Leipzig 51892.

Department of Philosophy
Utrecht University
NL 3508 TC Utr echt
Keywords: Relative chronology, development of philosophy, order of treatment

27 I am of course aware of the verbatim fr. Thphr. Phys. op. 9 Diels ~ 230 FHS&G ap. Simp. in Phys.

25. 26–29, where this time próterov is used figuratively and uçsterov literally, but wanted to explain Aristote-
lem ex Aristotele first.