Chapter XXIII: The New Academy (13)

[1380] It has been already stated, p. 405, 1, 4, that Epicurus admitted his debt to Democritus, but not without some reserve; otherwise he claimed to be entirely self-taught, and to have learned nothing from the ancient teachers, and expressed himself with such conceit and scorn as to spare neither them nor their writings. Diog. 8, besides mentioning his abuse of Nausiphanes (sup. 342, 1), refers also to his calling the Platonists Διονυσοκόλακας, Plato himself in irony the golden Plato, Heraclitus κυκητήν, Democritus Ληρόκριτον, Antidorus Σαινίδωρον, the Cynics ἐχθροὺς τῆς Ἑλλάδος, the Dialecticians πολυφθονέρους, Pyrrho ἀμαθῆν and ἀπαίδευτον, and charging Aristotle and Protagoras with vices in their youth. Diogenes refuses to allow that any of these statements are true, Epicurus’ friendliness being well known. But the devotion of Epicurus to his friends and admirers does not exclude hatred and injustice towards his predecessors (see p. 418, 2), of whom a fair estimate was rendered impossible by the superficial nature of his knowledge and the onesidedness of his point of view. Sext. Math. i. 2, attests τὴν πρὸς τοὺς περὶ Πλάτωνα καὶ Ἀριστοτέλη καὶ τοὺς ὁμοίους δυσμένειαν; Plut. Adv. Col. 26, 1, mentions a false objection to Arcesilaus; and Cic. N. D. i. 33, 93, says: Cum Epicurus Aristotelem vexarit contumeliosissime, Phædoni Socratico turpissime maledixerit, etc. The rude jokes mentioned by Diogenes are in harmony with a man whom Cic. N. D. ii. 17, 46, calls homo non aptissimus ad jocandum minimeque resipiens patriam. On these jokes he apparently prided himself as well as on a certain bombastic elegance. See p. 496, 6. In this Epicurus was followed by his pupils. Cic. N. D. i. 34, 93, says of Zeno: Non eos solum, qui tunc erant, Apollodorum, Silum, ceteros figebat maledictis, sed Socratem ipsum ... scurram Atticum fuisse dicebat (according to Cic. Brut. 85, 292, Epicurus had already expressed a disparaging opinion of the Socratic irony), Chrysippum nunquam nisi Chrysippam vocabat.

[1381] Compare in this connection the quotations from Metrodorus on p. 476, 1.

[1382] Democritus had denied all truth to sensuous impressions. The same sceptical tone was more strongly apparent in Metrodorus (Aristocl. in Eus. Pr. Ev. xiv. 19, 5; Sext. Math. vii. 88; Epiphan. Exp. Fid. 1088, A, although he cannot be considered a full Sceptic, notwithstanding his usual agreement with the physical views of Democritus (Plut. in Eus. l.c. i. 8, 11; id. Fac. Lun. 15, 3, p. 928; Sen. Nat. Qu. vi. 19). Scepticism appears to have passed from him to Pyrrho, Anaxarchus being the middleman (see p. 518, 2, 3), and herewith may be connected the Sceptical imperturbability. This doctrine of imperturbability being held by Epicurus, the pupil of Nansiphanes, it might be supposed that before Pyrrho’s time a doctrine not unlike that of Pyrrho had been developed in the School of Democritus, from whom it was borrowed by Epicurus. The connection is, however, uncertain. We have seen that the doubts of Democritus extended only to sense-impressions, not to intellectual knowledge. The case of Metrodorus was similar. His sceptical expressions refer only to the ordinary conditions of human knowledge, that of ideas derived from the senses: greater dependence is, however, placed on thought. We must therefore take the statement ὅτι πάντα ἐστὶν ὃ ἄν τις νοήσαι subject to this limitation. Anaxarchus is said (Sext. Math. vii. 87) to have compared the world to a stage-scene, which involves no greater scepticism than the similar expressions used by Plato as to the phenomenal world. However much, therefore, these individuals may have contributed to Pyrrhonism, a simple transference of Scepticism from Democritus to Pyrrho is not to be thought of. And as regards imperturbability, Epicurus may have borrowed the expression from Pyrrho, whom, according to Diog. ix. 64 and 69, he both knew and esteemed.

[1383] Aristocl. in Eus. Pr. Ev. xiv. 18, 1; Diog. ix. 61. We are indebted almost exclusively to Diogenes for our information respecting Pyrrho. Besides Antigonus the Carystian, Apollodorus, Alexander Polyhistor, Diocles, &c., are the chief authorities drawn upon by Diogenes.

[1384] Attention has been drawn to the chronological difficulties in ‘Socrates and the Socratic Schools,’ p. 255, note 1 (2nd edition). Either Pyrrho is falsely called a pupil of Bryso, or Bryso is falsely called the son of Stilpo. The former seems more probable, Diog. ix. 61, having derived his statement from Alexander’s διαδοχαί, and it is quite in the style of the compilers of the διαδοχαὶ to assign a Megarian teacher to a Sceptic whose connection with that School was sufficiently obvious.

[1385] Diog. ix. 61; Aristocl. l.c. 18, 20; 17, 8. We gather from them that Pyrrho was originally a painter. Suidas, Πύῤῥων, only copies the present text of Diogenes with a few mistakes.

[1386] Besides the passage quoted from Sextus, p. 515, 1, which is little known, we have no proof of the sceptical tone in Anaxarchus which Sextus, Math. vii. 48, attributes to him, and since the latter quotes no proofs, it may be assumed that he had none. Anaxarchus appears to have been unjustly included among the Sceptics, like so many others who were called Sceptics by later writers on the strength of a single word or expression. According to other accounts, he belonged to the School of Democritus. Plut. Tranq. An. 4, p. 466. In Valer. Max. viii. 14, ext. 2, he propounds to Alexander the doctrine of an infinite number of worlds; and Clemens, Strom. i. 287, B, quotes a fragment, in which, agreeing with Democritus, he observes that πολυμαθία is only useful when it is properly made use of. Like Epicurus, Anaxarchus followed Democritus, calling happiness the highest object of our desire; and this assertion probably gained for him the epithet ὁ εὐδαιμονικός (Clemens, l.c.; Athen. vi. 250; xii. 548, b; Æl. V. H. ix. 37). In other respects, he differed from Democritus. For first he is charged by Clearchus in Athen. xii. 548, b, with a luxurious indulgence far removed from the earnest and pure spirit of Democritus; and according to Plut. Alex. 52, he had, when in Asia, renounced the independence of a philosopher for a life of pleasure; Timon also in Plut. Virt. Mor. 6, p. 446, says he was led away by φύσις ἡδονοπλὴξ contrary to his better knowledge. Again, he is said to have commended in Pyrrho (Diog. ix. 63) an indifference which went a good deal beyond the imperturbability of Democritus; and Timon commends him for his κυνικὸν μένος. He meets external pain with the haughty pride expressed in his much-admired dictum under the blows of Nitocreon’s club—Diog. ix. 59; Plut. Virt. Mor. c. 10, p. 449; Clemens, Strom. iv. 496, D; Valer. Max. iii. 3, ext. 4; Plin. Hist. Nat. vii. 87; Tertull. Apol. 50; Dio Chrysos. Or. 37, p. 126, B. But he treats men with the same contempt; and whilst meeting the Macedonian conqueror with an air of independence, he spoils the whole by adroit flattery. Conf. Plut. Alex. 52; Ad Princ. Iner. 4, p. 781; Qu. Conv. ix. 1, 2, 5; Æl. V. H. ix. 37; Athen. vi. 250. His indifference was, at any rate, very much lacking in nobility. Respecting Anaxarchus see Lusac. Lect. Att. 181.

[1387] Diog. ix. 64; 109.

[1388] According to Diog. 64, they made him head-priest, and, on his account, allowed to philosophers immunity from taxation. According to Diocles (Diog. 65), the Athenians presented him with citizenship for his services in putting a Thracian prince Cotys to death.

[1389] Diog. 66; 62.

[1390] Examples in Diog. 67. It sounds, however, highly improbable; and doubts were expressed by Ænesidemus whether his indifference ever went to the extent described by Antigonus, Ibid. 62, of not getting out of the way of carriages and precipices, so that he had to be preserved from danger by his friends. He must, moreover, have enjoyed a special good fortune to attain the age of 90, notwithstanding such senseless conduct.

[1391] All the dates here are very uncertain. Neither the date of his death nor of his birth is given, and the notice in Suidas that he lived after the 111 Olympiad (336–332 B.C.) is indefinite. If, however, as Diog. 62 says, he attained the age of 90, and if he joined Anaxarchus at Alexander’s first invasion of Asia, being then between 24 and 30, the statements above given are true.

[1392] Diog. Pro. 16; 102; Aristocl. in Eus. Pr. Ev. xiv. 18, 1 are better authorities than Sext. Math. i. 282, or Plut. Alex. Fort. i. 10, p. 331. Neither does Sextus say that the supposed poem on Alexander was extant. The whole statement is evidently untrustworthy.

[1393] Timon (see Wachsmuth, De Timone Phliasio, Leipzig, 1859) was a native of Phlius (Diog. ix. 109). A public dancer at first (Diog. 109; Aristocl. in Eus. Pr. Ev. xiv. 18, 12), when tired of this mode of life he repaired to Megara, to hear Stilpo (Diog. 109). Stilpo being alive in the third century, and Timon’s birth having happened approximately between 325–315 B.C., the connection is not so impossible as Wachsmuth, p. 5, and Preller, Hist. Phil. Gr. et Rom. 398, suppose, though in the uncertainty of chronological data it cannot be positively stated. Subsequently Timon became acquainted with Pyrrho, and leaving his staunch admirers (Diog. 109, 69; Aristocl. l.c. 11, 14, 21), removed with his wife to Elis. He then appeared as a teacher in Chalcis, and, having amassed a fortune, concluded his life in Athens (Diog. 110; 115). It appears from Diog. 112 and 115, that he survived Arcesilaus (who died 241 B.C.), having nearly attained the age of 90. His death may therefore be approximately fixed in 230, his birth in 320 B.C. For his life and character, see Diog. 110; 112–115; Athen. x. 438, a; Æl. V. H. ii. 41. Of his numerous writings, the best known is a witty and pungent satire on previous and cotemporary philosophers. Respecting this satire (Diog. 110) consult Wachsmuth, p. 9 and 3. The latter, p. 51, has collected the fragments.

[1394] Diog. 67–69, mentions, besides Timon, a certain Eurylochus as his pupil, who, however, was not very successful in the way of keeping his temper; also Philo, an Athenian, Hecatæus of Abdera, the well-known historian (on whom see Müller, Fragm. Hist. Gr. ii. 384); and Nausiphanes, the teacher of Epicurus. The last assertion is only tenable on the supposition that Nausiphanes appeared as a teacher only a few years after Pyrrho, for Pyrrho cannot have returned to Elis before 322 B.C., and Epicurus must have left the School of Nausiphanes before 310 B.C. See p. 406, 3. According to Diog. 64, Epicurus must have become acquainted with Pyrrho whilst a pupil of Nausiphanes. Nausiphanes is said not to have agreed with Pyrrho, but only to have admired his character (Diog. l.c.), so that he cannot properly be called his pupil. The mention of Numenius, by Diog. 102 (conf. 68), among Pyrrho’s συνήθεις, is suspicious, because Ænesidemus is named at the same time. It may be questioned whether he as well as Ænesidemus does not belong to a later period of Scepticism.

[1395] According to Diog. 115, Menodotus (a Sceptic belonging to the latter half of the second century after Christ) asserted that Timon left no successor, and that the School was in abeyance from Timon to Ptolemæus, i.e. until the second half of the first century B.C. Sotion and Hippobotus, however, asserted that his pupils were Dioscurides, Nicolochus, Euphranor, and Praÿlus. His son, too, the physician Xanthus, followed the father. (Diog. 109.) That Timon was himself a physician, as Wachsmuth, p. 5, supposes, cannot be concluded with certainty from the words ἰατρικὸν ἐδίδαξε, since these words only imply that he had received instruction in medicine. On the other hand, according to Suid. Πύῤῥων, the second Pyrrho, called Timon’s pupil, was a changeling. If Aratus of Soli was a pupil (Suid. Ἄρατος; conf. Diog. ix. 113), he was certainly not a follower of his views. See p. 43, 2.

[1396] In Diog. 116, Eubulus is called a pupil of Euphranor, also on the authority of Sotion and Hippobotus. If Ptolemæus was the next one who is said to have come after him, no philosopher of Pyrrho’s ἀγωγὴ can have been known for 150 years.

[1397] Diog. 114.

[1398] Aristocl. in Eus. Pr. Ev. xiv. 18, 2: ὁ δέ γε μαθητὴς αὐτοῦ Τίμων φησὶ δεῖν τὸν μέλλοντα εὐδαιμονήσειν εἰς τρία ταῦτα βλέπειν· πρῶτον μὲν ὁποῖα πέφυκε τὰ πράγματα· δεύτερον δὲ, τίνα χρὴ τρόπον ἡμᾶς πρὸς αὐτὰ διακεῖσθαι· τελευταῖον δὲ τί περιέσται τοῖς οὕτως ἔχουσιν.

[1399] Aristocl. l.c.: τὰ μὲν οὖν πράγματά φησιν αὐτὸν (Pyrrho) ἀποφαίνειν ἐπίσης ἀδιάφορα καὶ ἀστάθμητα καὶ ἀνεπίκριτα, διὰ τοῦτο [τὸ] μήτε τὰς αἰσθήσεις ἡμῶν μήτε τὰς δόξας ἀληθεύειν ἢ ψεύδεσθαι. Diog. ix. 61: οὐ γὰρ μᾶλλον τόδε ἢ τόδε εἶναι ἕκαστον. Gell. xi. 5, 4: Pyrrho is said to have stated οὐ μᾶλλον οὕτως ἔχει τόδε ἢ ἐκείνως ἢ οὐθετέρως.

[1400] See the above-quoted passage of Aristocles and Diog. ix. 114.

[1401] Timon, in Diog. ix. 105: τὸ μέλι ὅτι ἐστὶ γλυκὺ οὐ τίθημι· τὸ δ’ ὅτι φαίνεται ὁμολογῶ.

[1402] Diog. ix. 61: οὐδὲν γὰρ ἔφασκεν οὔτε καλὸν οὔτε αἰσχρὸν οὔτε δίκαιον οὔτε ἄδικον, καὶ ὁμοίως ἐπὶ πάντων, μηδὲν εἶναι τῇ ἀληθείᾳ, νόμῳ δὲ καὶ ἔθει πάντα τοὺς ἀνθρώπους πράττειν, οὐ γὰρ μᾶλλον τόδε ἢ τόδε εἶναι ἕκαστον. Sext. Math. xi. 140: οὔτε ἀγαθόν τί ἐστι φύσει οὔτε κακὸν, ἀλλὰ πρὸς ἀνθρώπων ταῦτα νόῳ κέκριται κατὰ τὸν Τίμωνα.

[1403] In this sense the words of Ænesidemus, in Diog. ix. 106, must be understood: οὐδέν φησιν ὁρίζειν τὸν Πύῤῥωνα δογματικῶς διὰ τὴν ἀντιλογίαν. See note 1.

[1404] Diog. ix. 114, on Timon: συνεχές τε ἐπιλέγειν εἰώθει πρὸς τοὺς τὰς αἰσθήσεις μετ’ ἐπιμαρτυροῦντος τοῦ νοῦ ἐγκρίνοντας· συνῆλθεν Ἀτταγᾶς τε καὶ Νουμήνιος. The meaning of this proverb has been already explained.

[1405] Diog. ix. 79 refers these τρόποι to Pyrrho, but inasmuch as he was there describing Sceptic views, the author of which to his mind was Pyrrho, nothing follows from his statement. Sext. Pyrrh. i. 36 generally attributes them to the ancient Sceptics, by whom, according to Math. vii. 345, he understood Ænesidemus and his followers. Aristocles, l.c. 18, 11, refers them to Ænesidemus, and they may easily have been referred to Pyrrho by mistake, since Ænesidemus himself (Diog. ix. 106) and subsequent writers (Favorin. in Gell. xi. 5, 5; Philostr. Vit. Soph. i. 491) call every kind of sceptical statement λόγοι or τρόποι Πυῤῥώνειοι. That they cannot belong to Pyrrho in the form in which they are presented by Sextus and Diogenes is clear, since they obviously refer to later views.

[1406] Sext. Math. vi. 66; x. 197 quotes an argument of Timon against the reality of time, and further states (Math. iv. 2) that Timon, in his conflict with the philosophers of nature, maintained that no assertion should be made without proof: in other words, he denied dogmatism; for every proof supposes something established, i.e. another proof, and so on for ever.

[1407] Aristocl. l.c. 18, 3: διὰ τοῦτο οὖν μηδὲ πιστεύειν αὐτοῖς δεῖν, ἀλλ’ ἀδοξάστους καὶ ἀκλινεῖς καὶ ἀκραδάντους εἶναι περὶ ἑνὸς ἑκάστου λέγοντας ὅτι οὐ μᾶλλον ἔστιν ἢ οὐκ ἔστιν, ἢ καὶ ἔστι καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν, ἢ οὔτε ἔστιν οὔτ’ οὐκ ἔστιν. Diog. ix. 61. Ibid. 76: οὐ μᾶλλον means, according to Timon, τὸ μηδὲν ὁρίζειν ἀλλὰ ἀπροσθετεῖν.

[1408] Ænesidem. in Diog. ix. 106: οὐδὲν ὁρίζειν τὸν Πύῤῥωνα δογματικῶς διὰ τὴν ἀντιλογίαν, τοῖς δὲ φαινομένοις ἀκολουθεῖν. Timon. Ibid. 105. See p. 522, 3.

[1409] Diog. ix. 103: περὶ μὲν ὧν ὡς ἄνθρωποι πάσχομεν ὁμολογοῦμεν ... περὶ δὲ ὧν οἱ δογματικοὶ διαβεβαιοῦνται τῷ λόγῳ φάμενοι κατειλῆφθαι ἐπέχομεν περὶ τούτων ὡς ἀδήλων· μόνα δὲ τὰ πάθη γινώσκομεν. τὸ μὲν γὰρ ὅτι ὁρῶμεν ὁμολογοῦμεν καὶ τὸ ὅτι τόδε νοοῖμεν γινώσκομεν, πῶς δ’ ὁρῶμεν ἢ πῶς νοοῦμεν ἀγνοοῦμεν· καὶ ὅτι τόδε λευκὸν φαίνεται διηγηματικῶς λέγομεν οὐ διαβεβαιούμενοι εἰ καὶ ὄντως ἐστί ... καὶ γὰρ τὸ φαινόμενον τιθέμεθα οὐχ ὡς καὶ τοιοῦτον ὄν· καὶ ὅτι πῦρ καίει αἰσθανόμεθα· εἰ δὲ φύσιν ἔχει καυστικήν, ἐπέχομεν.

[1410] Diog. l.c.: περὶ δὲ τῆς Οὐδὲν ὁρίζω φωνῆς καὶ τῶν ὁμοίων λέγομεν ὡς οὐ δογμάτων· οὐ γάρ εἰσιν ὅμοια τῷ λέγειν ὅτι σφαιροειδής ἐστιν ὁ κόσμος· ἀλλὰ γὰρ τὸ μὲν ἄδηλον, αἱ δὲ ἐξομολογήσεις εἰσίν. ἐν ᾧ οὖν λέγομεν μηδὲν ὁρίζειν οὐδ’ αὐτὸ τοῦτο ὁριζόμεθα. Diog. gives this view in its later form, probably following Sext. Pyrrh. i. 197, but agreeing in substance with the quotations from Timon and Pyrrho.

[1411] Diog. ix. 61 and 107; Aristocl. l.c. The expressions ἀφασία, ἀκαταληψία, ἐποχὴ, invariably mean the same thing. Later writers use instead of them, ἀῤῥεψία, ἀγνωσία τῆς ἀληθείας κ.τ.λ. If, according to Aristocles and Diog. 107, Timon first mentioned ἀφασία in dealing with the third of his questions, this statement is obviously inaccurate.

[1412] Πυῤῥώνειοι, σκεπτικοὶ, ἀπορητικοὶ, ἐφεκτικοὶ, ζητητικοί. Conf. Diog. 69.

[1413] Aristocl. l.c. 2: τοῖς μέντοι διακειμένοις οὕτω περιέσεσθαι Τίμων φησὶ πρῶτον μὲν ἀφασίαν ἔπειτα δ’ ἀταραξίαν. Diog. 107: τέλος δὲ οἱ σκεπτικοί φασι τὴν ἐποχὴν, ᾗ σκιᾶς τρόπον ἐπακολουθεῖ ἡ ἀταραξία, ὥς φασιν οἵ τε περὶ τὸν Τίμωνα καὶ Αἰνεσίδημον. Apathy is substituted for ataraxy in Diog. 108; Cic. Acad. ii. 42, 130.

[1414] Timon, in Aristocl. l.c. 18, 14, speaking of Pyrrho:—

ἀλλ’ οἷον τὸν ἄτυφον ἐγὼ ἴδον ἠδ’ ἀδάμαστον
πᾶσιν, ὅσοις δάμνανται ὁμῶς ἄφατοί τε φατοί τε
(conf. Wachsmuth, p. 62)
λαῶν ἔθνεα κοῦφα, βαρυνόμεν’ ἔνθα καὶ ἔνθα
ἐκ παθέων δόξης τε καὶ εἰκαίης νομοθήκης.

Id. in Sext. Math. xi. 1: The Sceptic lives—

ῥῇστα μεθ’ ἡσυχίης
αἰεὶ ἀφροντίστως καὶ ἀκινήτως κατὰ ταὐτὰ
μὴ προσέχων δειλοῖς ἡδυλόγου σοφίης.

Id. in Diog. 65.

[1415] Cic. Fin. ii. 13, 43: Quæ (externals) quod Aristoni et Pyrrhoni omnino visa sunt pro nihilo, ut inter optime valere et gravissime ægrotare nihil prorsus dicerent interesse. iii. 3, 11: Cum Pyrrhone et Aristone qui omnia exæquent. Acad. ii. 42, 130: Pyrrho autem ea ne sentire quidem sapientem, quæ ἀπάθεια nominatur. Epictet. Fragm. 93 (in Stob. Serm. 121, 28): Πύῤῥων ἔλεγεν μηδὲν διαφέρειν ζῇν ἢ τεθνάναι.

[1416] Cic. Fin. iv. 16, 43: Pyrrho ... qui virtute constituta nihil omnino quod appetendum sit relinquat. The same Ibid. ii. 13, 43; iii. 4, 12.

[1417] See p. 521, 3; 525, 3.

[1418] Diog. 105: ὁ Τίμων ἐν τῷ Πύθωνί φησι μὴ ἐκβεβηκέναι [τὸν Πύῤῥωνα] τὴν συνήθειαν. καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἰνδαλμοῖς οὕτω λέγει· ἀλλὰ τὸ φαινόμενον παντὶ σθένει οὗπερ ἂν ἔλθῃ. (Conf. Sext. Math. vii. 30.) Ibid. 106, of Pyrrho: τοῖς δὲ φαινομένοις ἀκολουθεῖν. See p. 519, 4.

[1419] See p. 524, 1, 2.

[1420] Sext. Math. xi. 20: κατὰ δὲ τὸ φαινόμενον τούτων ἕκαστον ἔχομεν ἔθος ἀγαθὸν ἢ κακὸν ἢ ἀδιάφορον προσαγορεύειν καθάπερ καὶ ὁ Τίμων ἐν τοῖς ἰνδαλμοῖς ἔοικε δηλοῦν ὅταν φῇ

ἦ γὰρ ἐγὼν ἐρέω ὥς μοι καταφαίνεται εἶναι
μῦθον ἀληθείης ὀρθὸν ἔχων κανόνα·
ὡς ἡ τοῦ θείου τε φύσις καὶ τἀγαθοῦ αἰεὶ,
ἐξ ὧν ἰσότατος γίγνεται ἀνδρὶ βίος.

[1421] According to an anecdote preserved by Antigonus of Carystus (Aristocl. l.c. 18, 19; Diog. ix. 66), Pyrrho apologised for being agitated by saving: It is difficult to lay aside humanity altogether. This language only proves what his aim was, and that he had found no mediating principle between the apathy required by his system and practical needs. Neither do the remarks of Ritter, iii. 451, prove that the doctrine of moderation belongs to Pyrrho and his school.

[1422] Conf. Diog. ix. 114. Tennemann’s view (Gesch. d. Phil. iv. 190), that Arcesilaus arrived at his conclusions independently of Pyrrho, does not appear to be tenable.

[1423] Numen. in Eus. Pr. Ev. xiv. 5, 10; 6, 5, says that Zeno and Arcesilaus were fellow-pupils under Polemo, and that their rivalry whilst at school was the origin of the later quarrels between the Stoa and the Academy. The same may have been stated by Antiochus, since Cic. Acad. i. 9, 35, ii. 24, 76, appeals to him to prove that they were together at school. Still the assertion is valueless. There can be no doubt that both Zeno and Arcesilaus were pupils of Polemo, but it is hardly possible that they can have been under him at the same time; nor if they were, could the intellectual differences of the two schools be referred simply to their personal relation.

[1424] Cic. De Orat. ii. 18, 68; Diog. iv. 28; Eus. Pr. Ev. xiv. 4, 16; Sext. Pyrrh. i. 220. Clemens, Strom. i. 301, C, calls Arcesilaus the founder of the New (second or middle) Academy.

[1425] Arcesilaus (see Geffers, De Arcesila, Gött. 1842, Gymn. Progr.) was born at Pitane, in Æolia (Strabo, xiii. 1, 67, p. 614; Diog. iv. 28). His birth-year is not stated; but as Lacydes (Diog. iv. 61) was his successor in 240 B.C., and he was then 75 years of age (Diog. 44), it must have been about 315 B.C. Having enjoyed the instruction of the mathematician Autolycus in his native town, he repaired to Athens, where he was first a pupil of Theophrastus, but was won for the Academy by Crantor (Diog. 29; Numen. in Eus. xiv. 6, 2). With Crantor he lived on the most intimate terms; but as Polemo was the president of the Academy, he is usually called a pupil of Polemo (Cic. De Orat. iii. 18, 67; Fin. v. 31, 94; Strabo). On the death of Polemo, he was probably a pupil of Crates; but it is not stated by Diog. 33, or Numen. in Eus. l.c. xiv. 5, 10, that he was a pupil of either Pyrrho, Menedemus, or Diodorus. If Eusebius seems to imply it, he may have misunderstood the statement that he made use of their teaching. Fortified with extraordinary acuteness, penetrating wit, and ready speech (Diog. 30; 34; 37; Cic. Acad. ii. 6, 18; Numen. in Eus. xiv. 6, 2; Plut. De Sanit. 7, p. 126; Qu. Conv. vii. 5, 3, 7; ii. 1, 10, 4; Stob. Floril. ed. Mein. iv. 193, 28), learned, especially in mathematics (Diog. 32), and well acquainted with native poets (Diog. 30, who mentions his own attempts at poetry, quoting some of his epigrams), he appears to have early distinguished himself. From Plut. Adv. Col. 26, p. 1121, it appears that in Epicurus’ lifetime, consequently before 270 B.C., he had propounded his sceptical views with great success. Apollodorus, however, appears to have placed his career too early (Diog. 45), in making his ἀκμὴ between 300 and 296 B.C. On the death of Crates, the conduct of the School devolved upon Arcesilaus (Diog. 32), through whom it attained no small note (Strabo, i. 2, 2, p. 15; Diog. 37; Numen. in Eus. xiv. 6, 14). From public matters he held aloof, and lived in retirement (Diog. 39), esteemed even by opponents for his pure, gentle, and genial character (Diog. 37; quoting many individual traits, 44; vii. 171; ix. 115; Cic. Fin. v. 31, 94; Plut. De Adulat. 22, p. 63; Coh. Ira, 13, p. 461. Ælian, V. H. xiv. 96). On his relations to Cleanthes, conf. Diog. vii. 171; Plut. De Adulat. 11, p. 55. He left no writings (Diog. 32; Plut. Alex. Virt. 4, p. 328).

[1426] Cic. De Orat. iii. 18, 67: Arcesilas primum ... ex variis Platonis libris sermonibusque Socraticis hoc maxime arripuit, nihil esse certi quod aut sensibus aut animo percipi possit: quem ferunt ... aspernatum esse omne animi sensusque judicium, primumque instituisse ... non quid ipse sentiret ostendere, sed contra id, quod quisque se sentire dixisset, disputare. This is, in fact, the calumniandi licentia with which Augustin, herein doubtless following Cicero, c. Acad. iii. 17, 39, charges him, contra omnia velle dicere quasi ostentationis causa.

[1427] Conf. Numen. in Eus. Pr. Ev. xiv, 6, 12, and above, p. 86, 4.

[1428] Plut. Adv. Col. 26, 2; Cic. Acad. i. 12, 44. Ritter’s view of the latter passage, that Arcesilaus quoted the diversities of philosophic teaching by way of refuting it (iii. 478), appears to be entirely without foundation. He rather quoted its uniform resemblance by way of overcoming doubt.

[1429] Cic. De Orat. iii. 18. See p. 530, 1.

[1430] Sext. Pyrrh. i. 234; Diocles of Cnidus, in Numen. in Eus. Pr. Ev. xiv. 6, 5; Augustin, c. Acad. iii. 17, 38. Geffers regards Arcesilaus as a true follower of the older Academy.

[1431] Sext. Math. vii. 153.

[1432] Sext. Math. l.c. 154.

[1433] Cic. Acad. ii. 24, 27. Zeno asserted: An irresistible or conceptional perception is such an impression of a real object as cannot possibly come from an unreal one. Arcesilaus endeavoured to prove nullum tale visum esse a vero, ut non ejusdem modi etiam a falso posset esse. The same view in Sext. l.c. To these may be added discussions on deceptions of the senses and contradictions in the statements of the senses in Sext. vii. 408, and others attributed to the Academicians. Conf. Cic. N. D. i. 25, 70: Urgebat Arcesilas Zenonem, cum ipse falsa omnia diceret, quæ sensibus viderentur, Zenon autem nonnulla visa esse falsa, non omnia. To these attacks on Zeno Plut. De An. (Fr. vii.) 1, probably refers: ὅτι οὐ τὸ ἐπιστητὸν αἴτιον τῆς ἐπιστήμης ὡς Ἀρκεσίλαος. οὕτω γὰρ καὶ ἀνεπιστημοσύνη τῆς ἐπιστήμης αἴτια φανεῖται. All that is here attributed to Arcesilaus is the assertion that ἐπιστητόν is the cause of ἐπιστήμη, and that it is so when it produces a φαντασία καταληπτική. The connection in which these statements were made by Arcesilaus was probably this: If there is such a thing as knowledge, there must be objects which produce it. These objects, however, do not exist, there being no object which does not admit a false opinion equally well with a true one.

[1434] Sext. 155: μὴ οὔσης δὲ καταληπτικῆς φαντασίας οὐδὲ κατάληψις γενήσεται· ἦν γὰρ καταληπτικῇ φαντασίᾳ συγκατάθεσις· μὴ οὔσης δὲ καταλήψεως πάντα ἔσται ἀκατάληπτα.

[1435] Sext. l.c.; Cic. Acad. i. 12, 45; ii. 20, 66; Plut. Adv. Col. 24, 2; Eus. Pr. Ev. xiv. 4, 16; 6, 4. By Sext. Pyrrh. i. 233, it is thus expressed: Arcesilaus regards ἐποχὴ as being a good in every case, συγκατάθεσις as an evil.

[1436] Cic. Acad. i. 12, 45.

[1437] Cic. Fin. ii. 1, 2; v. 4, 11; De Orat. iii. 18, 67; Diog. iv. 28; conf. Plut. C. Not. 37, 7.

[1438] Stob. Floril. 82, 4: Ἀρκεσίλαος ὁ φιλόσοφος ἔφη τοὺς διαλεκτικοὺς ἐοικέναι τοῖς ψηφοπαίκταις (jugglers), οἵτινες χαριέντως παραλογίζονται; and, Ibid. 10 (under the heading: Ἀρκεσιλάου ἐκ τῶν Σερήνου ἀπομνημονευμάτων): διαλεκτικὴν δὲ φεῦγε, συγκυκᾷ τἄνω κάτω.

[1439] The authority is a very uncertain one, particularly as Arcesilaus left nothing in writing, and the remarks quoted would seem to be more appropriate to the Chian Aristo (see p. 59) than to Arcesilaus. Still, if Chrysippus condemned the dialectic of the Sceptics (according to p. 66, 1), Arcesilaus may very well have condemned that of the Stoics and Megarians. Does not even Cic. Acad. ii. 28, 91, probably following Carneades (see p. 541, 4), object to dialectic, because it furnishes no knowledge?

[1440] This fact is recognised not only by Numen. in Eus. Pr. Ev. xiv. 6, 4, but by Sext. Pyrrh. i. 232. The difference which the later Sceptics draw between themselves and the Academicians, viz. that they assert the principle of doubt tentatively, whereas the Academicians assert it absolutely, does not apply to Arcesilaus (see p. 533, 1). Even Sextus says the same, but with some diffidence (πλὴν εἰ μὴ λέγοι τις ὅτι κ.τ.λ.). On account of this connection with Pyrrho, the Stoic Aristo called Arcesilaus (following Il. vi. 181): πρόσθε Πλάτων ὄπιθεν Πύῤῥων, μέσος Διόδωρος. Sext. l.c.; Numen. in Eus. Pr. Ev. xiv. 5, 11; Diog. iv. 33.

[1441] It has been already seen that this was the key to the position which the Stoics and Epicureans took up against the Sceptics.

[1442] Plut. Adv. Col. 26, 3, defending Arcesilaus against the attacks of Colotes, says: The opponents of Scepticism cannot show that ἐποχὴ leads to inactivity, for πάντα πειρῶσι καὶ στρέφουσιν αὐτοῖς οὐχ ὑπήκουσεν ἡ ὁρμὴ γενέσθαι συγκατάθεσις οὐδὲ τῆς ῥοπῆς ἀρχὴν ἐδέξατο τὴν αἴσθησιν, ἀλλ’ ἐξ ἑαυτῆς ἀγωγὸς ἐπὶ τὰς πράξεις ἐφάνη μὴ δεομένη τοῦ προστίθεσθαι. Perception arises and influences the will without συγκατάθεσις. Since this statement was controverted by Chrysippus (Plut. Sto. Rep. 47, 12. See above 87, 1), there can be no doubt that it was propounded by Arcesilaus.

[1443] Sext. Math. vii 158: ἀλλ’ ἐπεὶ μετὰ ταῦτα ἔδει καὶ περὶ τῆς τοῦ Βίου διεξαγωγῆς ζητεῖν ἥ τις οὐ χωρὶς κριτηρίου πέφυκεν ἀποδίδοσθαι, ἀφ’ οὗ καὶ ἡ εὐδαιμονία, τουτέστι τὸ τοῦ βίου τέλος, ἠρτημένην ἔχει τὴν πίστιν, φησὶν ὁ Ἀρκεσίλαος, ὅτι ὁ περὶ πάντων ἐπέχων κανονιεῖ τᾶς αἱρέσεις καὶ φυγὰς καὶ κοινῶς τὰς πράξεις τῷ εὐλόγῳ, κατὰ τοῦτό τε προερχόμενος τὸ κριτήριον κατορθώσει· τὴν μὲν γὰρ εὐδαιμονίαν περιγίνεσθαι διὰ τῆς φρονήσεως, τὴν δὲ φρόνησιν κινεῖσθαι ἐν τοῖς κατορθώμασι, τὸ δὲ κατόρθωμα εἶναι (according to the Stoic definition) ὅπερ πραχθὲν εὔλογον ἔχει τὴν ἀπολογίαν. ὁ προσέχων οὖν τῷ εὐλόγῳ κατορθώσει καὶ εὐδαιμονήσει. It is a mistake to suppose, with Numen. in Eus. Pr. Ev. xiv. 6, that, Arcesilaus denied probabilities.

[1444] In Plut. Tran. An. 9, sub fin. p. 470, he gives the advice rather to devote attention to oneself and ones own life than to works of art and other external things. In Stob. Floril. 95, 17, he says: Poverty is burdensome, but educates for virtue. Ibid. 43, 91: Where there are most laws, there are most transgressions of law. Plut. Cons. ad Apoll. 15, p. 110, has a saying of his as to the folly of the fear of death. Id. De Sanit. 7, p. 126, Qu. Conv. vii. 5, 3, 7, records a somewhat severe judgment on adulterers and prodigals. Quite unique is the statement in Tertull. Ad. Nation. ii. 2: Arcesilaus held that there were three kinds of Gods (in other words he divided the popular Gods into three classes): the Olympian, the stars, and the Titans. It implies that he criticised the belief in the Gods. It also appears by the language used in Plut. C. Not. 37, 7, respecting the Stoic theory of a κρᾶσις δι’ ὅλου, that his criticism of dogmatism extended to natural science.

[1445] Conf. p. 529, 3 sub fin.

[1446] Geffers, De Arcesilæ Successoribus (including Carneades): Gött. 1845. Arcesilaus was succeeded by Lacydes of Cyrene, who died 240 B.C., after presiding over the School for 26 years. In his lifetime (probably shortly before his death) he entrusted it to the care of the Phocæans Telecles and Euandros (Diog. iv. 59–61). The statements made in Diog. l.c., Numen. in Eus. Pr. Ev. xiv. 7, Plut. De Adul. 22, p. 63, Ælian, V. H. ii. 41, Athen. x. 438, a. xiii. 606, C, Plin. H. N. x. 22, 51, refer to individual peculiarities which he appears to have had. They must be received with caution, particularly the gossip which Diog. 59 mentions casually and Numenius dwells upon with intolerable garrulity. Diog. calls him ἀνὴρ σεμνότατος καὶ οὐκ ὀλίγους ἐσχηκὼς ζηλωτάς· φιλόπονός τε ἐκ νέου καὶ πένης μὲν, εὔχαρις δ’ ἄλλως καὶ εὐόμιλος. To his admirers belongs Attalus I. of Pergamum. A visit to his court was however declined in skilful language (Diog. 60, which Geffers, p. 5, clearly misunderstands). In doctrine, he deviated little from Arcesilaus, and, having been the first to commit to writing the teaching of the New Academy (Suid. Λακ.: ἔγραψε φιλόσοφα καὶ περὶ φύσεως—the latter is somewhat extraordinary for a Sceptic), he was by some mistake called its founder (Diog. 59). According to Diog. vii. 183, see p. 46, 1, he appears to have taught in the Academy during Arcesilaus’ lifetime. Panaretus (Athen. xii. 552, d; Æl. V. H. x. 6), Demophanes, and Ecdemus or Ecdelus (Plutarch. Philopon. 1; Arat. 5, 7) are also called pupils of Arcesilaus. The most distinguished pupil of Lacydes, according to Eus. xiv. 7, 12, was Aristippus of Cyrene, also mentioned by Diog. ii. 83. Another, Paulus, is mentioned by Timotheus, in Clemens, Strom. 496, D. His successors were Telecles and Euander, who jointly presided over the School. Euander, however, according to Cic. Acad. ii. 6, 16, Diog. 60, Eus. l.c., survived his colleague, and was followed by Hegesinus (Diog. 60; Cic. l.c.) or Hegesilaus (as he is called by Clemens, Strom. p. 301, C). who was the immediate predecessor of Carneades. Respecting these individuals nothing is known beyond the names.

[1447] Carneades, the son of Epicomus or Philocomus, was born at Cyrene (Diog. iv. 62; Strabo, xvii. 3, 22, p. 838; Cic. Tusc. iv. 3, 5), and died, according to Apollodorus (Diog. 65), 129 B.C., in his 85th year. Lucian, Macrob. 20, assigns to him the same age. With less probability Cic. Acad. ii. 6, 16, Valer. Max. viii. 7, 5, extend his age to 90, making his birth-year 213 B.C. Later admirers find it remarkable that his birthday, like Plato’s, occurred on the Carnean festival (Plut. Qu. Conv. viii. 1, 2, 1). Little is known of his life. He was a disciple and follower of Hegesinus, but at the same time received instruction in dialectic (Cic. Acad. ii. 30, 98) from the Stoic Diogenes, and studied philosophic literature with indefatigable zeal (Diog. 62), more particularly the writings of Chrysippus (Diog. 62; Plut. Sto. Rep. 10, 44; Eus. Pr. Ev. xiv. 7, 13). In 156 B.C. he took part in the well-known association of philosophers, and produced the greatest impression on his Roman hearers by the force of his language and the boldness with which he attacked the current principles of morals. Shortly before his death, probably also at an earlier period, he became blind (Diog. 66). He left no writings, the preservation of his doctrines being the work of his pupils, in particular of Clitomachus (Diog. 66, 67; Cic. Acad. ii. 31, 98; 32, 102). Respecting his character, we may gather from a few expressions that, whilst vigorous in disputation (Diog. 63; Gell. N. A. vi. 14, 10), he was not wanting in a repose of mind which was in harmony with his principles (Diog. 66). That he was a just man, notwithstanding his speech against justice, we can well believe (Quintil. xii. 1, 35).

The quotation in Diog. 64 (ἡ συστήσασα φύσις καὶ διαλύσει) does not indicate fear of death, but simple resignation to the course of nature. Still less does his language on Antipater’s suicide, and also what is quoted in Stob. (Floril. 119, 19) that he made a faint-hearted attempt to imitate him which he afterwards abandoned. It was only a not very clever way of ridiculing an action which appeared to Carneades eminently mad.

[1448] Sext. Pyrrh. i. 220; Eus. Pr. Ev. xiv. 7, 12; Lucian, Macrob. 20.

[1449] His School held him in such esteem, that it considered him, together with Plato, because of his birthday (unless the idea grew out of his name), to be a special favourite of Apollo. Tradition says that an eclipse of the moon (Suid. Καρν. adds an eclipse of the sun) commemorated his death; συμπάθειαν, ὡς ἂν εἴποι τις, αἰνιττομένου τοῦ μεθ’ ἥλιον καλλίστου τῶν ἄστρων (Diog. 64). Strabo, xvii. 3, 22, p. 838, says of him: οὗτος δὲ τῶν ἐξ Ἀκαδημίας ἄριστος φιλοσόφων ὁμολογεῖται. There was only one opinion among the ancients as to the force of his logic, and the power and attraction of his eloquence. These gifts were aided by unusually powerful organs (see the anecdotes in Plut. Garrul. 21, p. 513; Diog. 63). Conf. Diog. 62; Cic. Fin. iii. 12, 41; De Orat. ii. 38, 161; iii. 18, 68; Gell. N. A. vi. 14, 10; Numen. in Eusebius, Pr. Ev. xiv. 8, 2 and 5; Lactant. Inst. v. 14; Plut. Cato Maj. 22. The latter, speaking of his success at Rome, says: μάλιστα δ’ ἡ Καρνεάδου χάρις, ἧς δύναμίς τε πλείστη καὶ δόξα τῆς δυνάμεως οὐκ ἀποδέουσα ... ὡς πνεῦμα τὴν πόλιν ἠχῆς ἐνέπλησε. καὶ λόγος κατεῖχεν, ὡς ἀνὴρ Ἕλλην εἰς ἔκπληξιν ὑπερφυὴς, πάντα κηλῶν καὶ χειρούμενος, ἔρωτα δεινὸν ἐμβέβληκε τοῖς νέοις, ὑφ’ οὗ τῶν ἄλλων ἡδονῶν καὶ διατριβῶν ἐκπεσόντες ἐνθουσιῶσι περὶ φιλοσοφίαν.

[1450] Cic. Acad. ii. 6, 16.

[1451] See p. 536, note.

[1452] Sext. Math. vii. 159: ταῦτα καὶ ὁ Ἀρκεσίλαος. ὁ δὲ Καρνεάδης οὐ μόνον τοῖς Στωϊκοῖς ἀλλὰ καὶ πᾶσι τοῖς πρὸ αὐτοῦ ἀντιδιετάσσετο περὶ τοῦ κριτηρίου. In Math. ix. 1, Sextus charges the School of Carneades with unnecessary diffuseness in discussing the fundamental principles or every system. The Stoics were, however, the chief object of his attack. Cic. Tusc. v. 29, 82; N. D. ii. 65, 162; Plut. Garrul. 23, p. 514; Augustin. c. Acad. iii. 17, 39.

[1453] Sext. l.c.: καὶ δὴ πρῶτος μὲν αὐτῷ καὶ κοινὸς πρὸς πάντας ἐστὶ λόγος καθ’ ὃν παρίσταται ὅτι οὐδέν ἐστιν ἁπλῶς ἀληθείας κριτήριον, οὐ λόγος οὐκ αἴσθησις οὐ φαντασία οὐκ ἄλλο τι τῶν ὄντων· πάντα γὰρ ταῦτα συλλήβδην διαψεύδεται ἡμᾶς.

[1454] Sext. l.c. 160–163.

[1455] Conf. Sext. vii. 403; Cic. Acad. ii. 15, 47; 28, 89—where Carneades is undoubtedly meant, although he is not mentioned by name. For the other sceptical arguments which Cicero mentions tally with those which Sextus attributes to Carneades, and Cicero makes Antiochus refute them, who was the immediate adversary of Carneades.

[1456] According to Cic. Acad. ii. 13, 40; 26, 83, the Academic system of proof rests on the four following propositions: (1) that there are false notions; (2) that these cannot be known, i.e. be recognised as true; (3) that of two indistinguishable notions, it is impossible to know the one and not the other; (4) that there is no true notion by the side of which a false one cannot be placed indistinguishable from it. The second and third of these propositions are not denied at all, and the first is only denied by Epicurus in regard to impressions on the senses. Hence all importance attaches to the fourth proposition, to which Sextus, vii. 164 and 402, and Numen. in Eus. Pr. Ev. xiv. 8, 4, look as the most important argument.

[1457] Cic. Acad. ii. 13, 42: Dividunt enim in partes et eas quidem magnas: primum in sensus, deinde in ea, quæ ducuntur a sensibus et ab omni consuetudine, quam obscurari volunt (the συνήθεια against which Chrysippus already directed severe attacks. See p. 46, 2; 91, 2). Tum perveniunt ad eam partem, ut ne ratione quidem et conjectura ulla res percipi possit. Hæc autem universa etiam concidunt minutius.

[1458] Sext. vii. 409; Cic. Acad. ii. 26, 84; 7, 19; 25, 79; Numen. in Eus. Pr. Ev. xiv. 8, 5. Therewith is probably connected the statement in Galen, De Opt. Doct. c. 2, vol. i. 45, K, that Carneades persistently denied the axiom that two things that are equal to a third are equal to one another. His assertion probably comes to this, that it may be possible to distinguish two things as unequal, which cannot be distinguished from a third, that therefore two things may appear equal to a third without being or appearing equal to one another.

[1459] Sext. 402 and 408.

[1460] The fallacy called ψευδόμενος is carefully investigated in Cic. Acad. ii. 30, 95 (by Carneades as he says, 98), as an instance in point.

[1461] Sext. 416; Cic. l.c. 29, 92. Since Chrysippus tried to meet the chain-argument, it may be supposed that this fallacy had been used by Arcesilaus against the Stoics.

[1462] Sext. vii. 164; Augustin. c. Acad. ii. 5, 11.

[1463] Sext. 165.

[1464] Cic. Acad. ii. 28, 91, who here appears to be following Philo, and, subsequently, Carneades as well. Carneades also gives utterance to a similar view of dialectic in Stob. Floril. 93, 13 (conf. Plut. C. Not. 2, 4), comparing it to a polypus consuming its own tentacles. It is able, he conceives, to expose fallacies, but not to discover truth.

[1465] Cic. Acad. ii. 36, 117. Carneades is not mentioned by name, but there can be no doubt that the reference is to some Academician, and it is probable that it was the work of Carneades.

[1466] Diog. iv. 62.

[1467] Cic. N. D. i. 2, 5, after a brief description of the Stoical views of Gods: Contra quos Carneades ita multa disseruit, ut excitaret homines non socordes ad veri investigandi cupiditatem.

[1468] Cic. N. D. i. 23, 62; iii. 4, 11. Here, too, Carneades is not mentioned by name, but the reference to him is made clear by Cicero’s remark that he is quoting the Academic view.

[1469] Conf. Cic. N. D. iii. 5, 11.

[1470] The Academician in Cic. Acad. ii. 38, 120. That these arguments were used by Carneades is clear from Plut. in Porphyr. De Abst. iii. 20, where, traversing the arguments of the Stoics, he justifies the existence of vermin, poisonous plants, and beasts of prey. In answer to Chrysippus’ assertion, that the final cause of a pig is to be killed, Carneades argues: A pig, therefore, by being killed, must attain the object for which it was destined; it is always beneficial for a thing to attain its object—therefore it must be beneficial to a pig to be killed and eaten.

[1471] Cic. N. D. iii. 25, 65–70. It is here presumed that the leading thoughts in Cicero’s description belong to the School of Carneades.

[1472] Ibid. 31, 76.

[1473] Ibid. 32, 79.

[1474] Cic. N. D. iii. 32, 80.

[1475] Cic. Acad. ii. 38, 120; N. D. iii. 11, 28.

[1476] Cic. N. D. iii. 8, 21; 10, 26; 11, 27.

[1477] Ibid. 10, 25.

[1478] L.c.

[1479] Cic. N. D. iii. 12, 29; 14, 34.

[1480] Cic. N. D. iii. 13, 32. More fully Sext. Math. ix. 139–147. Here too Carneades is expressly mentioned. But were he not mentioned the agreement of the argument with that given by Cicero would show that the same person was being referred to.

[1481] Cic.; Ibid. Further proofs of the transient nature of all earthly beings are there given.

[1482] Sext. Math. ix. 152–175, quotes the same argument for σωφροσύνη, and so does Cic. N. D. iii. 15, 38. Neither mentions Carneades by name, but since both writers introduce these proofs in the same position in a longer argument, in which Carneades is expressly mentioned both before and after, there can be no doubt that to him they refer.

[1483] Sext. ix. 176. The argument has a look of sophistry about it. It alludes to the important question which engaged so much attention in the middle ages, viz. How is the universal related in Deity to the individual? Are goodness and reason a law for God independent of His will or not?

[1484] As Epicurus did. See p. 468, 3.

[1485] Sext. 178.

[1486] Sext. l.c. 148–151; 180. That Sextus here refers to Carneades is clear from his agreement with Cic. N. D. 12, 29–31; 14, 34. Cicero introduces his remarks with the words: Illa autem, quæ Carneades afferebat, quemadmodum dissolvitis? Sextus himself seems to refer not only individual arguments, but the whole series of them, to Carneades, when he continues, 182: ἠρώτηνται δὲ καὶ ὑπὸ τοῦ Καρνεάδου καὶ σωριτικῶς τινες κ.τ.λ.

[1487] Sext. 182–190. More fully in Cic. N. D. iii. 17, 43. Sextus also observes, 190: καὶ ἄλλους δὴ τοιούτους σωρείτας ἐρωτῶσιν οἱ περὶ τὸν Καρνεάδην εἰς τὸ μὴ εἶναι θεούς.

[1488] To him, or probably to his School, belongs the learned argument given by Cic. N. D. iii. 21, 53, to 23, 60, in which he proves the want of unity in traditional myths by the multiplicity of Gods of the same name. The whole drift of this argument shows that it was borrowed from some Greek treatise.

[1489] See Cic. Divin. i. 4, 7; 7, 12.

[1490] Ibid. ii. 3, 9.

[1491] Ibid. v. 13; but Carneades is not here mentioned by name.

[1492] Ibid. i. 13, 23; 49, 109.

[1493] Cic. l.c. and Divin. ii. 21, 48.

[1494] Cic. l.c. ii. 11, 27.

[1495] Cic. De Fato, 11, 23; 14, 31. The freedom of the will, he there says, may be asserted even granting that every motion is referred to a cause, for it is not necessary that this law should hold good of the will. He will therefore confine it to bodily motion, and not allow to it unconditional validity.

[1496] Lact. Instit. v. 14, following Cic. De Rep. iii. 4; Plut. Cato Maj. c. 22; Quintil. Instit. xii. 1, 35.

[1497] Lactant. l.c. 16; Cic. De Rep. iii. 8–12; 14; 17; Fin. ii. 18, 59. On the above casuistical cases see De Off. iii. 13; 23, 89, and above, p. 299, 2. Probably Carneades was the cause of the study of casuistry among the later Stoics.

[1498] Cic. Acad. ii. 34, 108; conf. 31, 98. In Id. Att. xiii. 21, he compares this ἐποχὴ to the drawing up of a charioteer, or to the guard of a pugilist. No doubt it is with reference to ἐποχὴ that Alex. Aphr. De An. 154 a, says: The Academicians consider ἀπτωσία the πρῶτον οἰκεῖον, πρὸς ταύτην γάρ φασιν ἡμᾶς οἰκείως ἔχειν πρώτην, ὥστε μηδὲν προσπταίειν. ἀπροσπτωσία or ἀπροπτωσία is, according to the Stoic definition (Diog. vii. 46) = ἐπιστήμη τοῦ πότε δεῖ συγκατατίθεσθαι καὶ μή. It consists, therefore, in not giving a hasty assent to any proposition. According to the Sceptics, this is only possible, and you are only then safe from error, when you give assent to none whatever. ἀπροσπτωσία becomes then identical with ἐποχὴ or ἄγνοια, which Max. Tyr. Diss. 35, 7, speaks of as the ultimate end of Carneades. Hence Carneades, as Arcesilaus had done before him, spoke for and against every subject without expressing a decided opinion. Cic. N. D. i. 5, 11; Acad. ii. 18, 60; Divin. ii. 72, 150; Rep. iii. 5, 8; Tusc. v. 4, 11; Eus. Pr. Ev. xiv. 7, 12.

[1499] Cic. Acad. ii. 9, 28.

[1500] Sext. Math. vii. 166: ἀπατούμενος δὲ καὶ αὐτός [ὁ Καρνεάδης] τι κριτήριον πρός τε τὴν τοῦ βίου διεξαγωγὴν καὶ πρὸς τὴν τὴς εὐδαιμονίας περίκτησιν δυνάμιν ἀπαναγκάζεται καὶ καθ’ αὑτὸν περὶ τούτου διατάττεσθαι, κ.τ.λ. Cic. Acad. ii. 31, 99 (of Clitomachus): Etenim contra naturam esset, si probabile nihil esset, et sequitur omnis vitæ ... eversio. Ibid. 101; 32, 104: Nam cum placeat, eum qui de omnibus rebus contineat se de assentiendo, moveri tamen et agere aliquid, reliquit ejusmodi visa, quibus ad actionem excitemur, etc. Hence the assurance (Ibid. 103; Stob. Floril. ed. Mein. iv. 234) that the Academicians do not wish to go into the question of perception. They accept it as a phenomenon of consciousness and a basis of action, but they deny that it strictly furnishes knowledge. The senses are ὑγιεῖς, but not ἀκριβεῖς.

[1501] Sext. and Cic. l.c.

[1502] Sext. l.c. 167–170.

[1503] Ibid. 171–173; or, as it is expressed by Cicero, Acad. ii. 24, 78: It is possible nihil percipere et tamen opinari. It is of no importance that Philo and Metrodorus said Carneades had proved this statement, whereas Clitomachus had stated, hoc magis ab eo disputatum quam probatum. Acad. ii. 48, 148; 21, 67, attributes the statement to Carneades, without any qualification, adding only: Adsensurum (aliquando, as the latter passage adds) non percepto, i.e. opinaturum sapientem.

[1504] Conf. Augustin. c. Acad. ii. 11, 26 (undoubtedly in point of matter and probably in terms following Cicero): Id probabile vel verisimile Academici vocant, quod nos ad addendum sine adsensione potest invitare. Sine adsensione autem dico, ut id quod agimus non opinemur verum esse aut non id scire arbitremur, agamus tamen. To the same effect, Euseb. Pr. Ev. xiv. 7, 12: Carneades declared it impossible to withhold judgment on all points, and asserted πάντα μὲν εἶναι ἀκατάληπτα, οὐ πάντα δὲ ἄδηλα. Conf. Cic. Acad. ii. 17, 54, where the objection is raised to the new Academicians: Ne hoc quidem cernunt, omnia se reddere incerta, quod nolunt; ea dico incerta, quæ ἄδηλα Græci.

[1505] Sext. l.c. 173; 175–182; Pyrrh. i. 227; conf. Cic. Acad. ii. 11, 33; 31, 99; 32, 104.

[1506] Sext. l.c. 173; 181.

[1507] Ibid. 176; 183.

[1508] Ibid. 184.

[1509] Sext. l.c. 174; Cic. Acad. ii. 31, 99.

[1510] Cic. l.c. 32, 103; 48, 148. This explanation does away with the charge of inconsistency which is brought against Carneades in Cic. Acad. ii. 18, 59; 21, 67; 24, 78 (see p. 554, 3), on the ground that he allowed, in contradistinction to Arcesilaus, that the wise man will sometimes follow opinion, and will give his assent to certain statements. Numen. in Eus. Pr. Ev. xiv. 8, 7, even asserts that he expressed his own convictions to his friends in private; but this assertion is no more true of him than of Arcesilaus (see p. 531, 3), as may be seen from the passage on p. 557, 2.

[1511] Sext. Pyrrh. i. 226: ἀγαθὸν γάρ τί φασιν εἶναι οἱ Ἀκαδημαϊκοὶ καὶ κακὸν, οὐχ ὥσπερ ἡμεῖς, ἀλλὰ μετὰ τοῦ πεπεῖσθαι ὅτι πιθανόν ἐστι μᾶλλον ὃ λέγουσιν εἶναι ἀγαθὸν ὑπάρχειν ἢ τὸ ἐναντίον; καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ κακοῦ ὁμοίως.

[1512] See p. 553, 2; 554, 4.

[1513] Here the question arises, Whence does the Sceptic derive his conviction as to probabilities in morals? and as perception is not available for the purpose, Geffers concludes (De Arc. Successor. 20) that Carneades assumed a peculiar source of conviction in the mind. For such an assumption, however, our authorities give no proof. It cannot be gathered from the hypothetical language respecting the freedom of the will in Cic. De Fato, ii. 23. See p. 551, 2. Nor is it, indeed, necessary that Carneades, who never pretended to hold any psychological theory, should have had any opinion on the subject. Supposing he did have it, he might have appealed to experience quite as readily or more so than the Stoics, and have been content with the fact that certain things are far more agreeable or disagreeable, and either promote or disturb happiness.

[1514] Cic. Fin. v. 6, 16, to 8, 23; conf. Tusc. v. 29, 84; Ritter, iii. 686, has hardly expressed with accuracy Carneades’ division, or he would not have accused it of being inaccurate and superficial.

[1515] Cic. Acad. ii. 45, 139.

[1516] Cic. Acad. ii. 42, 131: Introducebat etiam Carneades, non quo probaret, sed ut opponeret Stoicis, summum bonum esse frui iis rebus, quas primas natura conciliavisset (οἰκειοῦν). Similarly Fin. v. 7, 20; Tusc. v. 30, 84. This view differs from that of the Stoics, because it makes the highest Good consist not in natural activity as such, but in the enjoyment of natural goods.

[1517] Cic. Fin. ii. 11, 35: Ita tres sunt fines expertes honestatis, unus Aristippi vel Epicuri (pleasure), alter Hieronymi (freedom from pain), Carneadis tertius (the satisfaction of natural instincts). Conf. Ibid. v. 7, 20; 8, 22.

[1518] Cic. Acad. ii. 45, 139: Ut Calliphontem sequar, cujus quidem sententiam Carneades ita studiose defensitabat, ut eam probare etiam videretur. Callipho is reckoned among those who consider honestas cum aliqua accessione—or, as it is said, Fin. v. 8, 21; 25, 73; Tusc. v. 30, 85, voluptas cum honestate—the highest Good.

[1519] Plut. Tranq. An. 16, p. 475.

[1520] Cic. Tusc. iii. 22, 54. Let it be observed that this view of Carneades is specially placed under the head of conviction on probabilities. It is said, he attacked the proposition, videri fore in ægritudine sapientem patria capta. The other statements of Carneades on ethics, such as that in Plut. De Adulat. 16, p. 51, have nothing characteristic about them.

[1521] See p. 279.

[1522] Plut. C. Not. 27, 14; Stob. Ecl. ii. 134. Plutarch, however, only quotes it as the opinion of individuals. It appears more probable that it was an opinion of Chrysippus which Antipater defended against Carneades. Carneades even practically attributes it to the Stoics.

[1523] Cic. Fin. iii. 12, 41: Carneades tuus ... rem in summum discrimen adduxit, propterea quod pugnare non destitit, in omni hac quæstione, quæ de bonis et malis appelletur, non esse rerum Stoicis cum Peripateticis controversiam, sed nominum.

[1524] Fin. iii. 17, 57.

[1525] Cic. Tusc. iii. 25, 59.

[1526] Ibid. v. 29, 83: Et quoniam videris hoc velle, ut, quæcumque dissentientium philosophorum sententia sit de finibus, tamen virtus satis habeat ad vitam beatam præsidii, quod quidem Carneadem disputare solitum accepimus, etc.

[1527] He explicitly says, Fin. v. 7, 18, that as each one defines the highest good, so he determines the honestum (the καλὸν, virtue). The view of the Stoics, he says, places the honestum and bonum in activity aiming at what is according to nature; adding that, according to the view which places it in the possession of what is according to nature, the prima secundum naturam are also prima in animis quasi virtutum igniculi et semina.

[1528] See p. 560, 3, and Plut. Tranq. An. 19, p. 477, where, however, the greater part seems to belong to Plutarch.

[1529] Quintil. Instit. xii. 1, 35. See above 536, 1, end.

[1530] Cic. N. D. iii. 17, 44: Hæc Carneades aiebat, non ut Deos tolleret—quid enim philosopho minus conveniens?—sed ut Stoicos nihil de Diis explicare convinceret. In this sense the Academician in Cicero (i. 22, 62) frequently asserts, that he would not destroy belief in God, but that he finds the arguments unsatisfactory. Likewise Sextus, Pyrrh. iii. 2: τῷ μὲν βίῳ κατακολουθοῦντες ἀδοξάστως φαμὲν εἶναι θεοὺς καὶ σέβομεν θεοὺς καὶ προνοεῖν αὐτοὺς φαμέν.

[1531] Ritter, iii. 730, 694.