On the text of fr. 15, see R. P. 156 a. I have followed Schorn in adding καὶ τὸ λαμπρόν from Hippolytos. [Sidenote: Anaxagoras and his predecessors.] 127. The system of Anaxagoras, like that of Empedokles, aimed at reconciling the Eleatic doctrine that corporeal substance is unchangeable with the existence of a world which everywhere presents the appearance of coming into being and passing away. The conclusions of Parmenides are frankly accepted and restated. Nothing can be added to all things; for there cannot be more than all, and all is always equal (fr. 5). Nor can anything pass away. What men commonly call coming into being and passing away is really mixture and separation (fr. 17). This last fragment reads almost like a prose paraphrase of Empedokles (fr. 9); and it is in every way probable that Anaxagoras derived his theory of mixture from his younger contemporary, whose poem was most likely published before his own treatise.[687] We have seen how Empedokles sought to save the world of appearance by maintaining that the opposites—hot and cold, moist and dry—were _things_, each one of which was real in the Parmenidean sense. Anaxagoras regarded this as inadequate. Everything changes into everything else,[688] the things of which the world is made are not “cut off with a hatchet” (fr. 8) in this way. On the contrary, the true formula must be: _There is a portion of everything in everything_ (fr. 11). Footnote 687: This is doubtless the meaning of the words τοῖς ἔργοις ὕστερος in Arist. _Met._ Α, 3. 984 a 12 (R. P. 150 a); though ἔργα certainly does not mean “writings” or _opera omnia_, but simply “achievements.” The other possible interpretations are “more advanced in his views” and “inferior in his teaching” (Zeller, p. 1023, n. 2). Footnote 688: Arist. _Phys._ Α, 4. 187 b 1 (R. P. 155 a). [Sidenote: “Everything in everything.”] 128. A part of the argument by which Anaxagoras sought to prove this point has been preserved in a corrupt form by Aetios, and Diels has recovered some of the original words from the scholiast on St. Gregory Nazianzene. “We use a simple nourishment,” he said, “when we eat the fruit of Demeter or drink water. But how can hair be made of what is not hair, or flesh of what is not flesh?” (fr. 10).[689] That is just the sort of question the early Milesians must have asked, only the physiological interest has now definitely replaced the meteorological. We shall find a similar train of reasoning in Diogenes of Apollonia (fr. 2). Footnote 689: Aet. i. 3, 5 (_Dox._ p. 279). See R. P. 155 f and n. 1. I read καρπὸν with Usener.