Part 4 — CHAPTER XXIII. THE NEW ACADEMY.
Oswald J. (Oswald Joseph) Reichel translation
A. Arcesilaus. Plato’s School was the first to put Scepticism on a firm footing, and to cultivate it as a system. It has been already remarked that after the time of Xenocrates this School gradually deserted speculative enquiries, and limited itself to Ethics. To this new tendency it consistently adhered, when, shortly after the beginning of the third century before Christ,
Notes in this chapter
Note 1 · Conf. Diog. ix. 114. Tennemann’s view (Gesch. d. Phil. iv. 190), that Arcesilaus arrived at his conclusions independently of Pyrrho, does noNote 2 · 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 schNote 3 · 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 foundeNote 4 · Arcesilaus (see Geffers, De Arcesila, Gött. 1842, Gymn. Progr.) was born at Pitane, in Æolia (Strabo, xiii. 1, 67, p. 614; Diog. iv. 28). HiNote 5 · Cic. De Orat. iii. 18, 67: Arcesilas primum … ex variis Platonis libris sermonibusque Socraticis hoc maxime arripuit, nihil esse certi quod Note 6 · Conf. Numen. in Eus. Pr. Ev. xiv, 6, 12, and above, p. 86, 4. ↑Note 7 · Plut. Adv. Col. 26, 2; Cic. Acad. i. 12, 44. Ritter’s view of the latter passage, that Arcesilaus quoted the diversities of philosophic teacNote 8 · Cic. De Orat. iii. 18. See p. 530, 1. ↑Note 9 · 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 aNote 10 · Sext. Math. vii. 153. ↑Note 11 · Sext. Math. l.c. 154. ↑Note 12 · Cic. Acad. ii. 24, 27. Zeno asserted: An irresistible or conceptional perception is such an impression of a real object as cannot possibly cNote 13 · Sext. 155: μὴ οὔσης δὲ καταληπτικῆς φαντασίας οὐδὲ κατάληψις γενήσεται· ἦν γὰρ καταληπτικῇ φαντασίᾳ συγκατάθεσις· μὴ οὔσης δὲ καταλήψεως πάνNote 14 · 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 expreNote 15 · Cic. Acad. i. 12, 45. ↑Note 16 · Cic. Fin. ii. 1, 2; v. 4, 11; De Orat. iii. 18, 67; Diog. iv. 28; conf. Plut. C. Not. 37, 7. ↑Note 17 · Stob. Floril. 82, 4: Ἀρκεσίλαος ὁ φιλόσοφος ἔφη τοὺς διαλεκτικοὺς ἐοικέναι τοῖς ψηφοπαίκταις (jugglers), οἵτινες χαριέντως παραλογίζονται; aNote 18 · The authority is a very uncertain one, particularly as Arcesilaus left nothing in writing, and the remarks quoted would seem to be more apprNote 19 · 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 drNote 20 · It has been already seen that this was the key to the position which the Stoics and Epicureans took up against the Sceptics. ↑Note 21 · Plut. Adv. Col. 26, 3, defending Arcesilaus against the attacks of Colotes, says: The opponents of Scepticism cannot show that ἐποχὴ leads tNote 22 · 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 Note 23 · 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 Note 24 · Conf. p. 529, 3 sub fin. ↑Note 25 · Geffers, De Arcesilæ Successoribus (including Carneades): Gött. 1845. Arcesilaus was succeeded by Lacydes of Cyrene, who died 240 B.C., afteNote 26 · 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,Note 27 · Sext. Pyrrh. i. 220; Eus. Pr. Ev. xiv. 7, 12; Lucian, Macrob. 20. ↑Note 28 · 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 naNote 29 · Cic. Acad. ii. 6, 16. ↑Note 30 · See p. 536, note. ↑Note 31 · Sext. Math. vii. 159: ταῦτα καὶ ὁ Ἀρκεσίλαος. ὁ δὲ Καρνεάδης οὐ μόνον τοῖς Στωϊκοῖς ἀλλὰ καὶ πᾶσι τοῖς πρὸ αὐτοῦ ἀντιδιετάσσετο περὶ τοῦ κριNote 32 · 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 οNote 33 · Sext. l.c. 160–163. ↑Note 34 · 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 otheNote 35 · 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 Note 36 · 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 consNote 37 · 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 GalNote 38 · Sext. 402 and 408. ↑Note 39 · The fallacy called ψευδόμενος is carefully investigated in Cic. Acad. ii. 30, 95 (by Carneades as he says, 98), as an instance in point. ↑Note 40 · 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 ArcesiNote 41 · Sext. vii. 164; Augustin. c. Acad. ii. 5, 11. ↑Note 42 · Sext. 165. ↑Note 43 · Cic. Acad. ii. 28, 91, who here appears to be following Philo, and, subsequently, Carneades as well. Carneades also gives utterance to a simNote 44 · 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 pNote 45 · Diog. iv. 62. ↑Note 46 · 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 Note 47 · 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 tNote 48 · Conf. Cic. N. D. iii. 5, 11. ↑Note 49 · 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, wheNote 50 · 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. ↑Note 51 · Ibid. 31, 76. ↑Note 52 · Ibid. 32, 79. ↑Note 53 · Cic. N. D. iii. 32, 80. ↑Note 54 · Cic. Acad. ii. 38, 120; N. D. iii. 11, 28. ↑Note 55 · Cic. N. D. iii. 8, 21; 10, 26; 11, 27. ↑Note 56 · Ibid. 10, 25. ↑Note 57 · 1 Conf. Diog. ix. 114. Tennemann’s view (Gesch. d. Phil. iv. 190), that Arcesilaus arrived at his conclusions independently of Pyrrho, does Note 58 · Cic. N. D. iii. 12, 29; 14, 34. ↑Note 59 · 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 agreemeNote 60 · Cic.; Ibid. Further proofs of the transient nature of all earthly beings are there given. ↑Note 61 · 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, butNote 62 · 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 miNote 63 · As Epicurus did. See p. 468, 3. ↑Note 64 · Sext. 178. ↑Note 65 · 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 introducNote 66 · 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 ΚαρνεάNote 67 · 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 uNote 68 · See Cic. Divin. i. 4, 7; 7, 12. ↑Note 69 · Ibid. ii. 3, 9. ↑Note 70 · Ibid. v. 13; but Carneades is not here mentioned by name. ↑Note 71 · Ibid. i. 13, 23; 49, 109. ↑Note 72 · Cic. l.c. and Divin. ii. 21, 48. ↑Note 73 · Cic. l.c. ii. 11, 27. ↑Note 74 · 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 causeNote 75 · Lact. Instit. v. 14, following Cic. De Rep. iii. 4; Plut. Cato Maj. c. 22; Quintil. Instit. xii. 1, 35. ↑Note 76 · 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.Note 77 · 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 pNote 78 · Cic. Acad. ii. 9, 28. ↑Note 79 · Sext. Math. vii. 166: ἀπατούμενος δὲ καὶ αὐτός [ὁ Καρνεάδης] τι κριτήριον πρός τε τὴν τοῦ βίου διεξαγωγὴν καὶ πρὸς τὴν τὴς εὐδαιμονίας περίκNote 80 · Sext. and Cic. l.c. ↑Note 81 · Sext. l.c. 167–170. ↑Note 82 · 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 tNote 83 · Conf. Augustin. c. Acad. ii. 11, 26 (undoubtedly in point of matter and probably in terms following Cicero): Id probabile vel verisimile AcaNote 84 · Sext. l.c. 173; 175–182; Pyrrh. i. 227; conf. Cic. Acad. ii. 11, 33; 31, 99; 32, 104. ↑Note 85 · Sext. l.c. 173; 181. ↑Note 86 · Ibid. 176; 183. ↑Note 87 · Ibid. 184. ↑Note 88 · Sext. l.c. 174; Cic. Acad. ii. 31, 99. ↑Note 89 · 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.Note 90 · 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 Note 91 · See p. 553, 2; 554, 4. ↑Note 92 · Here the question arises, Whence does the Sceptic derive his conviction as to probabilities in morals? and as perception is not available foNote 93 · 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 nNote 94 · Cic. Acad. ii. 45, 139. ↑Note 95 · Cic. Acad. ii. 42, 131: Introducebat etiam Carneades, non quo probaret, sed ut opponeret Stoicis, summum bonum esse frui iis rebus, quas priNote 96 · Cic. Fin. ii. 11, 35: Ita tres sunt fines expertes honestatis, unus Aristippi vel Epicuri (pleasure), alter Hieronymi (freedom from pain), CNote 97 · Cic. Acad. ii. 45, 139: Ut Calliphontem sequar, cujus quidem sententiam Carneades ita studiose defensitabat, ut eam probare etiam videretur.Note 98 · Plut. Tranq. An. 16, p. 475. ↑Note 99 · Cic. Tusc. iii. 22, 54. Let it be observed that this view of Carneades is specially placed under the head of conviction on probabilities. ItNote 100 · See p. 279. ↑Note 101 · 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 Note 102 · Cic. Fin. iii. 12, 41: Carneades tuus … rem in summum discrimen adduxit, propterea quod pugnare non destitit, in omni hac quæstione, quæ de Note 103 · Fin. iii. 17, 57. ↑Note 104 · Cic. Tusc. iii. 25, 59. ↑Note 105 · Ibid. v. 29, 83: Et quoniam videris hoc velle, ut, quæcumque dissentientium philosophorum sententia sit de finibus, tamen virtus satis habeaNote 106 · 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 ofNote 107 · See p. 560, 3, and Plut. Tranq. An. 19, p. 477, where, however, the greater part seems to belong to Plutarch. ↑Note 108 · Quintil. Instit. xii. 1, 35. See above 536, 1, end. ↑Note 109 · Cic. N. D. iii. 17, 44: Hæc Carneades aiebat, non ut Deos tolleret—quid enim philosopho minus conveniens?—sed ut Stoicos nihil de Diis expliNote 110 · Ritter, iii. 730, 694. ↑Note 111 · Clitomachus was a native of Carthage. Hence he is called by Max Tyr. Diss. 10, 3, ὁ Λίβυς. He originally bore the name of Hasdrubal. At homeNote 112 · Diog. iv. 67; Cic. Acad. ii. 32, 102. ↑Note 113 · As the peculiar observation in Diog. iv. proves: (ἀνὴρ ἐν ταῖς τρισὶν αἱρέσεσι διαπρέψας, ἔν τε τῇ Ἀκαδημαϊκῇ Περιπατητικῇ καὶ Στωϊκῇ). ↑Note 114 · According to Cic. Acad. ii. 6, 17; De Orat. i. 11. 45; Orator, 16, 51, Charmadas was a pupil of Carneades, whom he followed not only in teacNote 115 · Cic. De Orat. i. 18, 84: Charmadas asserted, eos qui rhetores nominabantur et qui dicendi præcepta traderent nihil plane tenere, neque posseNote 116 · In addition to Clitomachus and Charmadas, Cic. Acad. ii. 6, 16, mentions Agnon and Melanthius of Rhodes, the former of whom is also referredNote 117 · Exc. Vatic. xii 26: καὶ γὰρ ἐκείνων [τῶν ἐν Ἀκαδημίᾳ] τινὲς βουλόμενοι περί τε τῶν προφανῶς καταληπτῶν εἶναι δοκούντων καὶ περὶ τῶν ἀκαταλήπNote 118 · Among these pupils the tendency to lay stress on the doctrine of probabilities in relation to Scepticism was already strong. Proof may be foNote 119 · (1) Denial of knowledge. it took a fresh lease of life. Instead, however, of simply ignoring theoretical knowledge, as it had hitherto done,Note 120 · This connection of the New Academy with Stoicism can be proved in the case of its first founder,3 Arcesilaus.4 The doubts of this philosopheNote 121 · The Stoic arguments in favour of irresistible impressions Arcesilaus met by asserting that an intermediate something between knowledge and oNote 122 · If opponents asserted that by denying knowledge all possibility of action is denied,20 Arcesilaus declined to accede to this statement. No fNote 123 · (2) Probability. we need no knowledge; for this purpose probability is quite enough; any one can follow probability, even though he is conscNote 124 · B. Carneades. Comparing with the theory of Arcesilaus that which was propounded by Carneades a century later, the same leading features are Note 125 · (1) Negative side of his teaching. As regards the negative side of these investigations, or the refutation of dogmatism, the attacks of CarnNote 126 · (a) Denial of possibility of formal knowledge. To prove the impossibility of knowledge in general, he appeals sometimes to experience. ThereNote 127 · (b) Attack on the scientific knowledge of the time. (α) The physical views of the Stoics attacked. In these formal enquiries into the possibNote 128 · (β) Theological views of the Stoics attacked. Not content with attacking the conclusiveness of the arguments upon which the Stoics built theNote 129 · There is yet another reason, according to Carneades, why God cannot have any virtue; because virtue is above its possessor, and there can beNote 130 · (γ) Polytheistic views attacked. Easier work lay before the Sceptics in criticising polytheistic views of religion and their defence by the Note 131 · Divination, to which the Stoics attached especial importance,68 was vigorously assailed. Carneades proved that no peculiar range of subjectsNote 132 · (δ) Moral views of the Stoics attacked. Connected probably with these attacks on divination was the defence by Carneades of the freedom of tNote 133 · Less information exists as to the arguments by which Carneades sought to assail the current principles of morality. Nevertheless, enough is Note 134 · This free criticism of dogmatic views could not fail to bring Carneades to the same result as his predecessors. Knowledge is absolutely impoNote 135 · (2) Positive side of the teaching of Carneades. (a) Theory of probabilities. thoughts. This point was now taken up by Carneades, who, in attNote 136 · Belief, however, like probability, is of several degrees. The lowest degree of probability arises when a notion produces by itself an impresNote 137 · (b) Moral and religious view of life. Among questions about which the greatest possible certainty is felt to be desirable, Carneades, true tNote 138 · Putting all these statements together, we obtain a view not unworthy of Carneades, and certainly quite in harmony with his position. That phNote 139 · For the same reason we may also give credit to the statement that Carneades, like the later Sceptics, notwithstanding his severe criticisms Note 140 · Taking all things into account, the philosophic importance of Carneades and the School of which he was the head cannot be estimated at so loNote 141 · C. School of Carneades. In Carneades this Scepticism attained its highest growth. The successor of Carneades, Clitomachus,111 is known as th