229

without considering what was fitting, except that it was enough for his listeners, who at the same time as they heard him saw that he had a pleasing face; so he was most pleasant to hear and to see, since they became accustomed to accepting his words as they came from a handsome face 14.6.4 and mouth, not without kindliness in his eyes. But one must hear these things not simply, but it was thus from the beginning: for having met Theophrastus in his boyhood, a mild man and not without talent in matters of love, because he was handsome, being still in his prime, he happened to have as a lover Crantor the Academic, he joined him, and since he was not without talent by nature, he used it readily and ardently out of ambition, having shared with Diodorus in these cunning and elegant persuasions, and having associated with Pyrrho—and Pyrrho originated from Democritus in some way or another—having been thus equipped from that source, except for his name, 14.6.5 he remained Pyrrhonian in the denial of all things. At any rate Mnaseas and Philomelus and Timon, the Sceptics, call him a Sceptic, just as they themselves were, since he too denied the true and the false and the probable. 14.6.6 Therefore, though he would have been called a Pyrrhonian on account of his Pyrrhonian views, out of respect for his lover he continued to be called an Academic. He was, therefore, a Pyrrhonian, except in name; but he was not an Academic, except in being called so. For I am not persuaded by Diocles of Cnidus, who says in the work entitled *Discourses* that Arcesilaus, in fear of the followers of Theodorus and of Bion the sophist, who attacked philosophers and did not shrink from refuting anyone from any position, took care, in order to avoid trouble, to profess no doctrine openly, but put forward suspension of judgment before himself like the ink of a cuttlefish. This, then, I do not 14.6.7 believe. Therefore, starting from that point, both Arcesilaus and Zeno, with such helpers, and with arguments fighting on both sides, forgot their origin, from whence they had started with Polemon, and having separated and armed themselves they cast together their shields of hide, and together their spears and the fury of bronze-armored men; and bossed shields struck one another, and a great din arose. Shield pressed on shield, helmet on helmet, and man wrestled with man. And there arose at the same time the groaning and the cry of triumph of men slaying and being slain—14.6.8 of the Stoics; for the Academics were not struck by them, being unknown where they were more able to be captured. But they were captured when their own foundation was shaken, if they had neither a first principle nor a starting-point for fighting. The first principle, then, was to refute them for not speaking Platonically; and their not even having any starting-point was, if they only altered one thing from the definition concerning the apprehensive impression, 14.6.9 having taken it away. which it is not opportune for me to explain now, but I shall mention it again when I am about to come especially to this point. Having separated, then, they openly struck at one another, not the two of them, but Arcesilaus at Zeno. For Zeno indeed had in his fighting something solemn and weighty and no better than that of Cephisodorus the rhetorician; which Cephisodorus, when he saw his teacher Isocrates being attacked by Aristotle, was himself ignorant and inexperienced of Aristotle, but from seeing that Plato's doctrines were renowned, thinking that Aristotle was philosophizing in Plato's manner, he made war on Aristotle, but he struck at Plato and accused him, beginning from the ideas, and ending with the other things, 14.6.10 which he himself did not know, but suspected the opinions about them as they are reported. Except that thus Cephisodorus, not fighting him with whom he was at war, was fighting him with whom he did not wish to be at war. However Zeno himself, when he let go of Arcesilaus, if he did not also war against Plato, was philosophizing in a way worthy of the highest esteem in my judgment, at least on account of this peace. But if, though perhaps not ignorant of the doctrines of Arcesilaus, yet being ignorant of those of Plato, as is proved from what he wrote in reply to him, that he himself did the opposite, neither the one whom

229

τοῦ δέοντος ἀσκέπτως, πλὴν τοῖς ἀκούουσιν ἤρκεσεν, ὁμοῦ τῇ ἀκροάσει εὐπρόσωπον ὄντα θεωμένοις· ἦν οὖν ἀκουόμενος καὶ βλεπόμενος ἥδιστος, ἐπεί γε προσειθίσθησαν ἀποδέχεσθαι αὐτοῦ τοὺς λόγους ἰόντας ἀπὸ καλοῦ προσ14.6.4 ώπου τε καὶ στόματος οὐκ ἄνευ τῆς ἐν τοῖς ὄμμασι φιλοφροσύνης. δεῖ δὲ ταῦτα ἀκοῦσαι μὴ ἁπλῶς, ἀλλ' ἔσχεν ὧδε ἐξ ἀρχῆς· συμβαλὼν γὰρ ἐν παισὶ Θεοφράστῳ, ἀνδρὶ πράῳ καὶ οὐκ ἀφυεῖ τὰ ἐρωτικά, διὰ τὸ καλὸς εἶναι ἔτι ὢν ὡραῖος τυχὼν ἐραστοῦ Κράντορος τοῦ Ἀκαδημαϊκοῦ, προσεχώρησε μὲν τούτῳ, οἷα δὲ τὴν φύσιν οὐκ ἀφυὴς τρεχούσῃ χρησάμενος αὐτῇ ῥᾳδίᾳ γε θερμουργῶς ὑπὸ φιλονεικίας, μετασχὼν μὲν ∆ιοδώρου εἰς τὰ πεπανουργημένα πιθάνια ταῦτα τὰ κομψά, ὡμιληκὼς δὲ Πύρρωνι ὁ δὲ Πύρρων ἐκ ∆ημοκρίτου ὥρμητο ἁμόθεν γέ ποθεν οὕτως μὲν δὴ ἔνθεν καταρτυθείς, πλὴν τῆς προσ14.6.5 ρήσεως, ἐνέμεινε Πυρρωνείως τῇ πάντων ἀναιρέσει. Μνασέας γοῦν καὶ Φιλόμηλος καὶ Τίμων οἱ σκεπτικοὶ σκεπτικὸν αὐτὸν προσονομάζουσιν, ὥσπερ καὶ αὐτοὶ ἦσαν, ἀναιροῦντα καὶ αὐτὸν τὸ ἀληθὲς καὶ τὸ ψεῦδος καὶ τὸ πιθανόν. 14.6.6 λεχθεὶς οὖν ἂν αἰτίᾳ τῶν Πυρρωνείων Πυρρώνειος, αἰδοῖ τοῦ ἐραστοῦ ὑπέμεινε λέγεσθαι Ἀκαδημαϊκὸς ἔτι. ἦν μὲν τοίνυν Πυρρώνειος, πλὴν τοῦ ὀνόματος· Ἀκαδημαϊκὸς δ' οὐκ ἦν, πλὴν τοῦ λέγεσθαι. οὐ γὰρ πείθομαι τοῦ Κνιδίου ∆ιοκλέους φάσκοντος ἐν ταῖς ἐπιγραφομέναις ∆ιατριβαῖς Ἀρκεσίλαον φόβῳ τῶν Θεοδωρείων τε καὶ Βίωνος τοῦ σοφιστοῦ ἐπεισιόντων τοῖς φιλοσοφοῦσι καὶ οὐδὲν ὀκνούντων ἀπὸ παντὸς ἐλέγχειν, αὐτὸν ἐξευλαβηθέντα, ἵνα μὴ πράγματα ἔχῃ, μηδὲν μὲν δόγμα ὑπειπεῖν φαινόμενον, ὥσπερ δὲ τὸ μέλαν τὰς σηπίας προβάλλεσθαι πρὸ ἑαυτοῦ τὴν ἐποχήν. τοῦτ' οὖν ἐγὼ οὐ 14.6.7 πείθομαι. οἱ δ' οὖν ἔνθεν ἀφορμηθέντες, ὅ τε Ἀρκεσίλαος καὶ Ζήνων, ὑπὸ τοιούτων ἀρωγῶν, ἀμφοτέροις συμπολεμούντων λόγων, τῆς μὲν ἀρχῆς ὅθεν ἐκ Πολέμωνος ὡρμήθησαν ἐπιλανθάνονται, διαστάντες δέ γε καὶ σφέας αὐτοὺς ἀρτύναντες σὺν δ' ἔβαλον ῥινούς, σὺν δ' ἔγχεα καὶ μένε' ἀνδρῶν χαλκεοθωρήκων· ἀτὰρ ἀσπίδες ὀμφαλόεσσαι ἔπληντ' ἀλλήλῃσι, πολὺς δ' ὀρυμαγδὸς ὀρώρει. ἀσπὶς ἄρ' ἀσπίδ' ἔρειδε, κόρυς κόρυν, ἀνέρα δ' ἀνὴρ ἐδνοπάλιζεν. ἔνθα δ' ἅμ' οἰμωγή τε καὶ εὐχωλὴ πέλεν ἀνδρῶν ὀλλύντων τε καὶ ὀλλυμένων 14.6.8 τῶν Στωϊκῶν· οἱ Ἀκαδημαϊκοὶ γὰρ οὐκ ἐβάλλοντο ὑπ' αὐτῶν, ἀγνοούμενοι ᾗ ἦσαν ἁλῶναι δυνατώτεροι. ἡλίσκοντο δὲ τῆς βάσεως αὐτοῖς σεισθείσης, εἰ μήτε ἀρχὴν ἔχοιεν μήτε μάχεσθαι ἀφορμήν. ἡ μὲν δὴ ἀρχὴ ἦν τὸ μὴ Πλα τωνικὰ λέγοντας αὐτοὺς ἐλέγξαι· τὸ δὲ μηδὲ ἔχειν τινὰ ἀφορμὴν ἦν, εἴπερ μόνον ἕν τι μετέστρεψαν ἀπὸ τοῦ ὅρου τοῦ περὶ τῆς καταληπτικῆς φαντασίας 14.6.9 ἀφελόντες. ὅπερ νῦν μὲν οὐκ ἔστι μηνύειν μοι ἐν καιρῷ, μνησθήσομαι δ' αὐτοῦ αὖθις ἐπὰν κατὰ τοῦτο μάλιστα γενέσθαι μέλλω. διαστάντες δ' οὖν εἰς τὸ φανερὸν ἔβαλλον ἀλλήλους οὐχ οἱ δύο, ἀλλ' ὁ Ἀρκεσίλαος τὸν Ζήνωνα. ὁ γὰρ Ζήνων εἶχε δή τι τῇ μάχῃ σεμνὸν καὶ βαρὺ καὶ Κηφισοδώρου τοῦ ῥήτορος οὐκ ἄμεινον· ὃς δὴ ὁ Κηφισόδωρος, ἐπειδὴ ὑπ' Ἀριστοτέλους βαλλόμενον ἑαυτῷ τὸν διδάσκαλον Ἰσοκράτην ἑώρα, αὐτοῦ μὲν Ἀριστοτέλους ἦν ἀμαθὴς καὶ ἄπειρος, ὑπὸ δὲ τοῦ καθορᾶν ἔνδοξα τὰ Πλάτωνος ὑπάρχοντα οἰηθεὶς κατὰ Πλάτωνα τὸν Ἀριστοτέλην φιλοσοφεῖν, ἐπολέμει μὲν Ἀριστοτέλει, ἔβαλλε δὲ Πλάτωνα καὶ κατηγόρει ἀρξάμενος ἀπὸ τῶν ἰδεῶν, τελευτῶν εἰς τὰ ἄλλα, 14.6.10 ἃ οὐδ' αὐτὰ ᾔδει, ἀλλὰ τὰ νομιζόμενα ἀμφ' αὐτῶν ᾗ λέγεται ὑπονοῶν. πλὴν οὕτως μὲν ὁ Κηφισόδωρος, ᾧ ἐπολέμει μὴ μαχόμενος, ἐμάχετο ᾧ μὴ πολεμεῖν ἐβούλετο. ὁ μέντοι Ζήνων καὶ αὐτός, ἐπειδὴ τοῦ Ἀρκεσιλάου μεθίετο, εἰ μὲν μηδὲ Πλάτωνι ἐπολέμει, ἐφιλοσόφει δήπου ἐμοὶ κριτῇ πλείστου ἀξίως, ἕνεκά γε τῆς εἰρήνης ταύτης. εἰ δ' οὐκ ἀγνοῶν μὲν ἴσως τὰ Ἀρκεσιλάου, τὰ μέντοι Πλάτωνος ἀγνοῶν, ὡς ἐξ ὧν αὐτῷ ἀντέγραψεν ἐλέγχεται, ὅτι ἐποίησεν ἐναντία καὐτός, μήτε ὃν