228

opinion, and just as from the beginning we proposed to separate him from Aristotle and Zeno, so now also from the Academy, if God helps, separating him we will allow him to be now a Pythagorean on his own; as now more madly than was fitting for some Pentheus, being torn apart he suffers limb by limb, but as a whole he is not at all shifted or counter-14.5.9 shifted from his whole self. How then a man mediating between Pythagoras and Socrates, having brought the solemnity of the one down to the level of philanthropy, and having raised the elegance and playfulness of the other from irony to dignity and importance, and having blended this very thing, Pythagoras with Socrates, he appeared more populist than the one, and more solemn than the other. 14.5.10 But I did not come to arbitrate these things, since my inquiry is not now about them, but about what was decided beforehand; and I will go there, or rather I seem to have hastened back too soon, 14.5.11 lest we somehow be driven from the path that leads us. But Arcesilaus and Zeno became pupils of Polemon; for I will mention them again at the end. Now, I remember saying that Zeno attended Xenocrates, then Polemon, and again that he became a Cynic under Crates; but now let it be reckoned to him 14.5.12 that he also partook of Stilpo and the doctrines of the Heracliteans. For since, while studying together under Polemon, they became rivals to one another, they took into their battle against each other, the one Heraclitus and Stilpo together with Crates, by whom he became combative under Stilpo, austere under Heraclitus, and a Cynic under Crates; but Arcesilaus holds Theophrastus and Crantor the Platonist and Diodorus, then Pyrrho, by whom he became skilled in persuasion under Crantor, a sophist under Diodorus, and under Pyrrho 14.5.13 of all kinds and rash and nothing. Whence also a certain verse, derivative and insolent, was said to be sung about him: Plato in front, Pyrrho behind, Diodorus in the middle. But Timon says that having received the eristic art from Menedemus, he was equipped, if indeed he says of him: Having in his breast the lead of Menedemus, he will run either to Pyrrho, all flesh, or to Diodorus. 14.5.14 Therefore, with the subtleties of Diodorus, who was a dialectician, having interwoven the reasonings of Pyrrho and the skeptical element, he arranged with the rhetorical skill of Plato a certain chattering nonsense, and he spoke and contradicted and rolled back and forth, from there and from here, from both sides, from wherever it might be, elusive and hard to judge and at the same time equivocal and reckless, knowing nothing, as he himself said, being noble; and then somehow he would come forth like those who know, having been represented in all sorts of ways by the shadowy sketch of his arguments.

14.6.1 6. CONCERNING ARCESILAUS, THE FOUNDER OF THE SECOND ACADEMY

And while it was unknown with which side Homer's Tydeides was associated, whether he consorted with Trojans or with Achaeans, no less was Arcesilaus unknown. For to ever say one and the same thing was not in him, nor indeed did he think such a thing was at all characteristic of a clever man. Therefore he was called a clever sophist, a slayer of the untrained. 14.6.2 For like the Empusae in the phantoms of his arguments, by preparation and by practice he bewitched, he enchanted, he held that he knew nothing, nor would he allow others to; and he terrified and threw into confusion, and winning the first prize for sophisms and plagiarism of arguments he rejoiced in the reproach and was wonderfully insolent, because he knew not what is shameful or noble, nor good nor in turn evil, but whichever of the two fell into men's souls, having said this, changing his ground again 14.6.3 he would overthrow it in more ways than those by which he had constructed it. He was, therefore, a Hydra cutting himself and being cut by himself, both things from each other indistinguishably and

228

γνώμην, καὶ ὥσπερ ἐξ ἀρχῆς προὐθέμεθα χωρίζειν αὐτὸν Ἀριστοτέλους καὶ Ζήνωνος, οὕτως καὶ νῦν τῆς Ἀκαδημίας, ἐὰν ὁ θεὸς ἀντιλάβηται, χωρίζοντες ἐάσομεν αὐτὸν ἐφ' ἑαυτοῦ νῦν εἶναι Πυθαγόρειον· ὡς νῦν μανικώτερον, ἢ Πενθεῖ τινι προσῆκε, διελκό μενος πάσχει μὲν κατὰ μέλη, ὅλος δ' ἐξ ὅλου ἑαυτοῦ μετατίθεταί τε καὶ ἀντι14.5.9 μετατίθεται οὐδαμῶς. ὅπως οὖν ἀνὴρ μεσεύων Πυθαγόρου καὶ Σωκράτους, τοῦ μὲν τὸ σεμνὸν ὑπαγαγὼν μέχρι τοῦ φιλανθρώπου, τοῦ δὲ τὸ κομψὸν τοῦτο καὶ παιγνιῆμον ἀναγαγὼν ἀπὸ τῆς εἰρωνείας εἰς ἀξίωμα καὶ ὄγκον καὶ αὐτὸ τοῦτο κεράσας Σωκράτει Πυθαγόραν, τοῦ μὲν δημοτικώτερος, τοῦ δὲ σεμνότερος ὤφθη. 14.5.10 Ἀλλ' οὐ γάρ τοι ταῦτα διαιτήσων ἦλθον, μὴ περὶ τούτων οὔσης νῦν μοι τῆς ζητήσεως, ἃ δὲ προὐδέδοκτο· καὶ εἶμι ἐκεῖσε ἢ δὴ φροῦδος ἀναδραμεῖν δοκῶ 14.5.11 μοι, μὴ καί που ἀποκρουσθῶμεν τῆς ὁδοῦ τῆς φερούσης. Πολέμωνος δὲ ἐγένοντο γνώριμοι Ἀρκεσίλαος καὶ Ζήνων· πάλιν γὰρ αὐτῶν μνησθήσομαι ἐπὶ τέλει. Ζήνωνα μὲν οὖν μέμνημαι εἰπὼν Ξενοκράτει, εἶτα δὲ Πολέμωνι φοιτῆσαι, αὖθις δὲ παρὰ Κράτητι κυνίσαι· νυνὶ δὲ αὐτῷ λελογίσθω ὅτι 14.5.12 καὶ Στίλπωνός τε μετέσχε καὶ τῶν λόγων τῶν Ἡρακλειτείων. ἐπεὶ γὰρ συμφοιτῶντες παρὰ Πολέμωνι ἐφιλοτιμήθησαν ἀλλήλοις, συμπαρέλαβον εἰς τὴν πρὸς ἀλλήλους μάχην ὁ μὲν Ἡράκλειτον καὶ Στίλπωνα ἅμα καὶ Κράτητα, ὧν ὑπὸ μὲν Στίλπωνος ἐγένετο μαχητής, ὑπὸ δὲ Ἡρακλείτου αὐστηρός, κυνικὸς δὲ ὑπὸ Κράτητος· ὁ δ' Ἀρκεσίλαος Θεόφραστον ἴσχει καὶ Κράντορα τὸν Πλατωνικὸν καὶ ∆ιόδωρον, εἶτα Πύρρωνα, ὧν ὑπὸ μὲν Κράντορος πιθανουργικός, ὑπὸ ∆ιοδώρου δὲ σοφιστής, ὑπὸ δὲ Πύρρωνος ἐγένετο 14.5.13 παντοδαπὸς καὶ ἴτης καὶ οὐδέν. ὅθεν καὶ ἐλέγετο περὶ αὐτοῦ ᾀδόμενόν τι ἔπος παραγωγὸν καὶ ὑβριστικόν· πρόσθε Πλάτων, ὄπιθεν δὲ Πύρρων, μέσσος ∆ιόδωρος. Τίμων δὲ καὶ ὑπὸ Μενεδήμου τὸ ἐριστικόν φησι λαβόντα ἐξαρτυθῆναι, εἴπερ γε δή φησι περὶ αὐτοῦ· τῇ μὲν ἔχων Μενεδήμου ὑπὸ στέρνοισι μόλιβδον θεύσεται ἢ 'ς Πύρρωνα τὸ πᾶν κρέας ἢ ∆ιόδωρον. 14.5.14 ταῖς οὖν ∆ιοδώρου, διαλεκτικοῦ ὄντος, λεπτολογίαις τοὺς λογισμοὺς τοὺς Πύρρωνος καὶ τὸ σκεπτικὸν καταπλέξας διεκόσμησε λόγου δεινότητι τῇ Πλάτωνος φλήναφόν τινα κατεστωμυλμένον καὶ ἔλεγε καὶ ἀντέλεγε καὶ μετεκυλινδεῖτο κἀκεῖθεν κἀντεῦθεν, ἑκατέρωθεν, ὁπόθεν τύχοι, παλινάγρετος καὶ δύσκριτος καὶ παλίμβολός τε ἅμα καὶ παρακεκινδυνευμένος, οὐδέν τι εἰδώς, ὡς αὐτὸς ἔφη, γενναῖος ὤν· εἶτά πως ἐξέβαινεν ὅμοιος τοῖς εἰδόσιν, ὑπὸ σκιαγραφίας τῶν λόγων παντοδαπὸς πεφαντασμένος.

14.6.1 ςʹ. ΠΕΡΙ ΑΡΚΕΣΙΛΑΟΥ ΤΟΥ ΤΗΝ ∆ΕΥΤΕΡΑΝ ΑΚΑ∆ΗΜΙΑΝ ΥΠΟΣΤΗΣΑΜΕΝΟΥ

Τοῦ τε Ὁμηρικοῦ Τυδείδου ὁποτέροις μετείη ἀγνοουμένου, οὔτε εἰ Τρωσὶν ὁμιλέοι οὔτε εἰ καὶ Ἀχαιοῖς, οὐδὲν ἧττον Ἀρκεσίλαος ἠγνοεῖτο. τὸ γὰρ ἕνα τε λόγον καὶ ταὐτόν ποτ' εἰπεῖν οὐκ ἐνῆν ἐν αὐτῷ οὐδέ γε ἠξίου ἀνδρὸς εἶναί πω τὸ τοιοῦτο δεξιοῦ οὐδαμῶς. ὠνομάζετο οὖν δεινὸς σοφιστής, τῶν ἀγυμνάστων σφαγεύς. 14.6.2 ὥσπερ γὰρ αἱ Ἔμπουσαι ἐν τοῖς φάσμασι τοῖς τῶν λόγων ὑπὸ παρασκευῆς τε καὶ ὑπὸ μελέτης ἐφάρματτεν, ἐγοήτευεν, οὐδὲν εἶχεν εἰδέναι οὔτε αὐτὸς οὔτε τοὺς ἄλλους ἐᾶν· ἐδειμάτου δὲ καὶ κατεθορύβει καὶ σοφισμάτων γε καὶ λόγων κλοπῆς φερόμενος τὰ πρῶτα κατέχαιρε τῷ ὀνείδει καὶ ἡβρύνετο θαυμαστῶς, ὅτι μήτε τί αἰσχρὸν ἢ καλὸν μήτε ἀγαθὸν μήτε αὖ κακόν ἐστι τί ᾔδει, ἀλλ' ὁπότερον εἰς τὰς ψυχὰς πέσοι τοῦτο εἰπὼν αὖθις μεταβαλὼν 14.6.3 ἀνέτρεπεν ἂν πλεοναχῶς ἢ δι' ὅσων κατεσκευάκει. ἦν οὖν ὕδραν τέμνων ἑαυτὸν καὶ τεμνόμενος ὑφ' ἑαυτοῦ, ἀμφότερα ἀλλήλων δυσκρίτως καὶ