Lucretius (i. 835, referred to in a previous note) numbers flesh, bone, fire, and water, all among the Anaxagorean Homoeomeries; and I cannot but think that Aristotle, in contrasting Anaxagoras with Empedokles, has ascribed to the former language which could only have been used by the latter. [Greek: E)nanti/ôs de\ phai/nontai le/gontes oi( peri\ A)naxago/ran toi=s peri\ E)mpedokle/a. O( me\n ga/r] (Emp.) [Greek: phêsi pu=r kai\ u(/dôr kai\ a)e/ra kai\ gê=n stoichei=a te/ssara kai\ a(pla= ei)=nai, ma=llon ê)\ sa/rka kai\ o)stou=n kai\ ta\ toiau=ta tô=n o(moiomerô=n. Oi( de\] (Anaxag.) [Greek: tau=ta me\n a(pla= kai\ stoichei=a, gê=n de\ kai\ pu=r kai\ a)e/ra su/ntheta; panspermi/an ga\r ei)=nai tou/tôn.] (Gen. et Corr. i. 1.) The last words ([Greek: panspermi/an]) are fully illustrated by a portion of the other passage, De Coelo, iii. 3, [Greek: a)e/ra de\ kai\ pu=r mi=gma tou/tôn] (the Homoeomeries, such as flesh and blood) [Greek: kai\ tô=n a)/llôn sperma/tôn pa/ntôn; ei)=nai ga\r e(ka/teron au)tô=n e)x a)ora/tôn o(moiomerô=n pa/ntôn ê)throisme/nôn; dio\ kai\ gi/gnesthai pa/nta e)k tou/tôn]. Now it can hardly be said that Anaxagoras recognised one set of bodies as simple and elementary, and that Empedokles recognised another set of bodies as such. Anaxagoras expressly denied _all simple bodies_. In his theory, all bodies were compound: _Nous_ alone formed an exception. Everything existed in everything. But they were compounds in which particles of one sort, or of a definite number of sorts, had come together into such positive and marked action, as practically to nullify the remainder. The generation of the Homoeomeric aggregate was by disengaging these like particles from the confused mixture in which their agency had before lain buried ([Greek: ge/nesis, e)/kphansis mo/non kai\ e)/kkrisis tou= pri\n kruptome/nou]. Simplikius ap. Schaub. Anax. Fr. p. 115). The Homoeomeric aggregates or bodies were infinite in number: for ingredients might be disengaged and recombined in countless ways, so that the result should always be some positive and definite manifestations. Considered in reference to the Homoeomeric body, the constituent particles might in a certain sense be called elements.] [Footnote 155: Anaxag. Fr. 14, p. 125, Schaub.] [Side-note: Theory of Anaxagoras compared with that of Empedokles.]