No philosopher in the Hellenistic period is more intriguing thanArcesilaus of Pitane, and none is of greater historical significance. Hisinterpretation of the Platonic tradition became the stance of the Aca-demy down to the time of Philo of Larissa and Antiochus of Ascalon. Thereafter in the refurbished Pyrrhonism of Aenesidemus, the dia-lectical strategies of Arcesilaus and Carneades lived on among themethods of that new school for inducing suspension of judgement(ἐποχή). Arcesilaus in effect was the founder of Greek scepticism, asa methodology for demonstrating that every claim to knowledge orbelief could be met with a counter-argument of equal strength. By hisrejoinders to Stoic theses, continued and developed by Carneades, Ar-cesilaus ensured that Stoic philosophers must be constantly on the alertagainst sceptical challenges. More than any other thinker of his time,Arcesilaus deserves the credit for ensuring that Hellenistic philosophyremained true to the classical tradition of argument, with no quartergiven to sloppy thinking or idle dogmatism.

From Cicero, Sextus Empiricus, and Plutarch we gain tantalizinglybrief glimpses of Arcesilaus’ dialectical virtuosity Cic. acad. ΙΙ 67, 76-78; Sext. Emp. adv. math. VII 150-58. Context andchronology make it virtually certain that Plut. adv. Col. 1122 A-F, can also beattributed to Arcesilaus; cfr. R. Westman, Plutarch gegen Kolotes, (Acta Philo-sophica Fennica VIII) Helsinki 1955, pp. 294-5.. Yet the process bywhich his arguments reached these later times is quite obscure. Werethey recorded in the Academy’s records? Did they filter down to Clito-machus, who wrote out his teacher Carneades’ arguments, in an oralform? Some traces of Arcesilaus, we may conjecture, were transmittedin writing through the Academy’s Stoic opponents. But if, as seems

certain, Arcesilaus published nothing under his own name Cfr. Plut. Alex. fort. 328 A; Diog. Laert. IV 32. The puzzling referencein Diog. Laert. ad loc. to the tradition of Arcesilaus’ being ‘caught out’ (ἐφωράθη)correcting some works, which he published or burned, is illuminated by IndexAcad., col. XVIII 34-6: ...[λε]ιφ[θέ]ντα ὑπ̣ὸ Κράντορος [ὑπο]μνήματα[...]ι διὰχερὸς ἔχειν καὶ μετατιθέναι. The works in question were unpublished memoirsleft by Crantor, some of which, we can infer, were edited and published byArcesilaus., we haveto reckon with the probability that even our meagre record of hisarguments in Cicero, Sextus and Plutarch is nothing like a first-handreport of what he said.

This situation casts Diogenes Laertius’ life of Arcesilaus into aprominence which seems not to have been appreciated. If, as I shall argue,his life captures features of Arcesilaus which go back to the thirdcentury B.C., we should ask whether, notwithstanding the low levelof Diogenes’ philosophical acumen, these features corroborate or throwlight on our more sophisticated but much later reporters. Apart fromthis, Diogenes’ Life of Arcesilaus is one of the best examples we mighttake if we are interested in a case-study of his collection at the highestlevel it achieves. That level, to be sure, is a hill of very modest altitude.But with Arcesilaus, it does at least avoid the flatness, not to say,depths, evident in some of his lives.

Of his eighty-odd biographies, fourteen are longer than that ofArcesilaus, which occupies 8 1/2 pages in the Oxford Classical Text.However, such statistics fail to indicate the unusual amplitude of thisparticular life in Diogenes’ collection as a whole. The longest lives— those of Aristippus, Plato, Aristotle, Diogenes of Sinope, Zeno ofCitium, Pythagoras, Pyrrho and Epicurus — are largely taken up withsummaries of doctrines, lists of works, sayings which supposedly illu-strate the individual’s philosophical stance etc. What Diogenesreports about the life of these philosophers in particularised detail,or even in ethical terms, occupies only a small fraction of the total.With the life of Arcesilaus it is different. Here, if anywhere in Dio-genes, a philosopher is characterized with a degree of detail and colourwhich has some claim to be called a life in a modern sense. The only

figure in his collection which seems to be thoroughly comparable isMenedemus of Eretria (II 125-144).

Both Arcesilaus and Menedemus, we have good reason to think,were philosophers whose lives particularly interested the biographerAntigonus of CarystusCfr. U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Antigonos von Karystos, (Philo-logische Untersuchungen 4) Berlin 1881. Antigonus is not named by Diogenes inhis Life of Arcesilaus, but cfr. IV 17,22 and Wilamowitz, pp. 45-77. For Mene-demus, cfr. Diog. Laert. II 136 (cfr. note 4 below) and Wilamowitz, pp. 86-102.. He probably knew Arcesilaus personally; andif he was too young to have met Menedemus, he will have knownpeople who were acquainted with both philosophers. I shall assumethat Diogenes gleaned most of his biographical and anecdotal materialfor these lives from Antigonus, or from writers strongly dependent onhim, and that it is Antigonus’ biographical style which accounts forthe similarity in tone, language and approach between these lives. AsWilamowitz observed (note 3 above), Diogenes’ lives of Arcesilaus andMenedemus also share distinctive features with those of Pyrrho andTimon, the Peripatetic Lyco, and the lives of the earlier Academics,Polemo, Crates and Crantor. But as biographies or vignettes in a mo-dern sense, none of these challenges the lives of Arcesilaus and Mene-demus in length, detail or complexity.

With this preamble I propose to make a further assumption: theman Diogenes Laertius is of only marginal interest when it comes toevaluating the material he has assembled for the life of Arcesilaus.What will largely exercise me is this question: how, as historians ofphilosophy, should we read and use this life as evidence for its fascinat-ing subject? With one or two exceptions, which include the openinglines (see below), the criteria for assessing the life of Arcesilaus arehighly particular — its internal coherence, such external corroborationsas it receives, and what we may discern with a little reading betweenthe lines. In all probability my subject is largely Arcesilaus as represen-ted by Antigonus, filtered through Diogenes. Of course there is noreason to think that Antigonus for his part had any proper understand-ing of philosophy. But Arcesilaus was an unusual philosopher. He didnot have a set of doctrines which Antigonus or Diogenes has foreborne

to relate; nor, I think, did MenedemusCfr. Diog. Laert. ΙΙ 136, φηςὶ δ’ ’Αντίγονος ὁ Καρύστιος γράψαι αὐτὸν[scil. Menedemus] μηδὲν μηδὲ συντάξαι, ὥστε μηδ’ ἐπὶ δόγματός τίνος στηρίζειν.. Hence anecdotes about whatthese philosophers said may have a significance greater than their bio-grapher himself realized. Inadvertently, the biographer’s anecdotal stylemay in these cases be something more than a beguiling way of adorninga tale.

In order to dispel any doubts about the propriety of shoving Dio-genes himself into the background, we should next observe how thelives of the Academics in Diogenes tally often verbatim with the Her-culaneum Index Academicorum, generally attributed to PhilodemusMy reports of the Index Academicorum are based upon my own readings ofthe papyrus. I gratefully acknowledge the support I was given for a visit in 1978to the “Centro internazionale per lo studio dei papiri ercolanesi” by Marcello Giganteand by a grant from the British Academy..

Diog. Laert. IV 22 and the Index col. XV 3 ff. correspond almostword for word in their account of Arcesilaus’ abandoning Theophrastusfor Polemo, and of his calling Polemo and his associates «gods or relicsof the Golden Age». The Index account is much the fuller, expandingDiogenes’ τῶν ἐκ τοῦ χρυσοῦ γένους into τῶν ἀρχαίων ἐκε[ίνω]νκαὶ τῶν ἐκ τοῦ χρυσοῦ γέν̣ους διαπεπλασμένων ̣ἀ[νθ]ρ̣ώπων.

Diog. Laert. IV 32 and the Index col. XVIII both report Arcesilaus’take-over of the Academy presidency after Crates’ death, «when acertain Socratides withdrew in his favour»; but what in Diogenes isa mere four words, ἐκχωρήσαντος αὐτῷ Σωκρατίδου τινός, is reportedby the Index in the words, αὐ[τοῦ] καθ’ αὑτὸν ἐκχωρήσαντος αὐτῷτῆς διατριβῆς Σωκρατίδου τινὸς ἐκχωρήσαντος, which, if my conjec-ture is rightαὐ[τοῦ] scripsi: ἀ[λλὰ] Mekler: αυ Ο: α P, gives us the important information that Socratides’ with-drawal was entirely voluntary. The Index also adds a detail entirelyomitted by Diogenes — that the collective body of students had pre-ferred Socratides on account of his seniority (ὃν διὰ τὸ πρεσβύτατονεἶναι προεστήσανθ’ ἑαυτῶν οἱ νεανίσκοι συνελθόντες). In place ofthis observation Diogenes, inconsequentially, refers to the tradition thatArcesilaus’ suspension of judgement about everything was his reason

for refraining from writing. The Index, retaining a sense of temporalcontinuity, passes from Arcesilaus’ election to an account of his philo-sophical development: «At first he defended the position adopted bythe School from Plato and Speusippus up to Polemo (καὶ τὸ μὲν πρῶ-τον εἰπε̣[ῖν] θέσιν ἐπεχείρει κατὰ τὴν ἀπὸ Πλ[ά]τωνός τε καὶ Σπευ-σ[ί]ππου [δι]α̣μείνασαν ἕως Πολέμ[ωνο]ς αἵρε̣σιν)». This detail isquite absent from Diogenes.

Diog. Laert. IV 28-9 and Index col. XVII give almost verbatimaccounts of Arcesilaus’ half-brothers. Diogenes interrupts this familyhistory with some lines describing Arcesilaus’ earliest teachers; onlyafter he has reached Crantor does he return to the family, observingthat Moireas, Arcesilaus’ elder half-brother on his father’s side, « inten-ded him for rhetoric (ἦγεν αὐτὸν ἐπὶ ῥητορικήν)», adding, «But heloved philosophy and Crantor was in love with him». The Indexcol. xvii reports Moireas’ tutelage of Arcesilaus without digressing tohis teachers, and tells us that he was set on philosophy from his lateteens (εὐθὺς ἐξ ἐ[φή]βων ἐπ[ὶ φι]λ̣οσοφί[αν] ὁρμῆσα̣ι), omitting theerotic attractions of Crantor.

Thanks to the Index Academicorum, then, we are in the rareposition of being able to check Diogenes against another text whichreports the same material in virtually the same words. Contrary to theimpression given by Wilamowitz in his monograph on Antigonus, theIndex is fuller on some details, where it is legible, than is DiogenesU. von Wilamowitz, op. cit., pp. 70-1, included only Ind. Acad. col XVII inhis comparison with Diog. Laert., and his version of the last lines of this passage isbased on a defective and inaccurate copy of the papyrus. His general comment onthe Index material for the life of Arcesilaus (p. 57), e.g. «hier ist es recht deutlich,wie stark Philodem kürtz», must be charitably ascribed to ignorance of the textscited above..He could have used the Index directly, but this is unlikely. Theircommon ground is probably due to their common dependence on An-tigonus. He may have given details Diogenes omits or rearranges; butit is at least as likely that Antigonus is responsible for many of thedivergences in style or order between Diogenes and the Index. I wouldcredit the emphasis on sex in the Life of Arcesilaus (cfr. IV 29, 40-41)

to Antigonus; likewise the anecdotal material, much of which the moreaustere Index seems to have passed over.

What this comparison establishes is the tendency of Diogenes tofollow a source extremely closely; he was an excerptor rather than acomposer. His unobtrusiveness as a personality is confirmed by the remar-kable similarity between the lives of Arcesilaus and Menedemus.

Both Arcesilaus and Menedemus encounter a follower of the Dia-lectician Alexinus (II 125; IV 36). Both are described as being ἐπικόπ-της and παρρησιαστής (II 127; IV 33). Neither of these words occurselsewhere in Diogenes’ narrative, though he cites Timon’s descriptionof Xenophanes as ἐπικόπτης (IX 18), which I conjecture was Anti-gonus’ source of this word. Both Arcesilaus and Menedemus havedealings with Hierocles, the commandant of the Piraeus, in contextsto do with Antigonus Gonatas (II 117; IV 39). Menedemus is said tohave been φιλόδοξος (II 131) and the same criticism is reported con-cerning Arcesilaus (IV 41); the adjective is found only here in Diogenes.Another epithet that they and no others share in Diogenes is ἐλευθέριος(II 132, 134; XV 38). They were both (though like several others inDiogenes) lovers of Homer (II 133; IV 31). Their argumentative in-ventiveness (εὑρεσιλογία) is singled out (II 133; IV 37), as is alsotheir “eristic” tendency (II 134; IV 28). Their formidable verbal powersare contrasted with their personal mildness (II 136; IV 37). They areboth said to have been fond of dining well (XI 139; IV 40).

These parallels could be extended. No other pair of philosophersin the collection is described in such similar ways, or indeed in justthese ways. If Diogenes himself were responsible for them, we shouldexpect similar indications elsewhere. At the same time, in spite of theirsimilarities, Arcesilaus and Menedemus are not represented as mereclones of each other. Arcesilaus appears as bisexual and averse topolitics; Menedemus as heterosexual and strongly political For Arcesilaus, cfr. Diog. Laert. IV 29, 39-40, and for Menedemus, II 138,140-44.. The colourof these lives, and their similar cast, reveal the interests of the bio-grapher; which is not to say that his interests have no basis in fact.

Arcesilaus and Menedemus were not far apart in age; as dialecticiansthey doubtless had some common propensities, and they may haveshared other tastes and personal qualities. But of this we can be sure:their biographer in the true sense was not Diogenes, but someone whoadmired these men, wished them to be admired, and defended themfrom calumny.

So much for Diogenes and his sources. I turn now to considerhow his life of Arcesilaus illuminates the philosopher’s career andmethods. The points that will chiefly concern us are: 1) Arcesilaus’ for-mative years and relation to Stoics; and 2) his dialectical methods.

1. Arcesilaus’ formative years and relation to Stoics.

From the perspective of late antiquity, when Platonism had beenturned into a systematic body of doctrine, Arcesilaus’ scepticism cla-moured for explanation, defence or condemnation. To the PlatonistNumenius, Arcesilaus was an Academic only nominally; in reality hewas a Pyrrhonist and sophist, delighting in exhibitionist and polemicalargument (Eusebius, PE XIV 6. 4-6). Numenius knew the tradition thatArcesilaus engaged in controversy with Zeno; he claims that it wasthe fame at Athens of Zeno’s «kataleptic impression» which first mo-tivated Arcesilaus’ attack on the Stoics (Eusebius, PE XIV 6.12-13).

Augustine, in the Contra Academicos, also makes much of Arce-silaus’ opposition to Zeno, but in contrast with Numenius, his judge-ment on the Academic is sympathetic and laudatory. Faced withsuch Stoic doctrines as complete materialism and the soul’s mortality,Arcesilaus (says Augustine), in his great insight and humanity, dee-med it prudent to conceal completely the Academy’s position andto bury it like gold, for future generations to discover (III 38). Thence,according to Augustine, arose all the features of the New Academy,which its earlier members had not needed There seems to be no good reason for thinking that Augustine drew onanything more for his account of the Academics than Cicero’s Academica, whichhe would have known in its complete form, and his own imagination..

In Cicero’s Academica the antecedents of such divergent inter-pretations can be seen in the Antiochean and Philonian assessmentsof Arcesilaus. On the Antiochean view, Arcesilaus attacked Zeno outof sheer obstructiveness — conatus est clarissimis rebus tenebras ob-ducere (II 16). This negative judgement contrasts with Cicero’s ownevaluation, which follows the Philonian line: Arcesilaus did not secedefrom the Old Academy. «It was with Zeno, so we have heard, thatArcesilaus began his entire struggle (Cum Zenone, ut accepimus, Arce-silas sibi omne certamen instituit)», and he was motivated by theconsiderations that had led Socrates and many older thinkers to confessignorance (I 44 f.).

Cicero, and Augustine who worked from Cicero, have nothing tosay about any Pyrrhonian leanings by Arcesilaus, nor do they give usany account of his education. Numenius, who knows the Stoic Aristo’sfamous Homeric parody of Arcesilaus, «Plato in front, Pyrrho behind,Diodorus in the middle», and also some details about Zeno’s and Arce-silaus’ education, builds these into a complex tissue of fabricated con-nexions. Ignoring chronology, he makes Zeno and Arcesilaus rivalpupils of the Academic Polemo. He represents Arcesilaus as a hand-some youth whom Theophrastus lost as a lover to Crantor. It was onlyloyalty to Crantor, he says, that made Arcesilaus stick to being calledan Academic and not a Pyrrhonist (Eusebius, PE XIV 6. 4-6).

Numenius has created a travesty by selecting some of the bio-graphical details also found in Diogenes, and embellishing them. Likethe other authors just mentioned, he starts from what he takes to beArcesilaus’ mature position, and looks for an explanation of it by refe-rence to his relationship to other philosophers. Diogenes’ account, bycontrast, provides the data for reconstructing a less exciting but morecredible story of Arcesilaus’ intellectual development.

Item 1 (IV 29): as a youth, while still at Pitane, Arcesilaus studiedwith the eminent astronomer Autolycus. Two of Autolycus’ workssurvive, On the moving sphere and On risings and settings Autolycus is the author of the earliest complete Greek astronomical texts,Περὶ κινουμένης σφαῖρας and Περὶ ἐπιτολῶν καὶ δύσεων, which probably datefrom the last two decades of the 4th century (cfr. J. Mogenet, Autolycus de Pitane,8, Louvain 1950). The texts are edited by G. Aujac (Paris 1979).. Autolycus

was a defender of the Eudoxan system of concentric rotating spheres.From him, on the evidence of his writings, Arcesilaus would have re-ceived an excellent training in geometry, and on how to set out aformal proof.

Item 2: his higher education was completed at Athens, in theAcademy under Crantor.

The intervening stages are harder to reconstruct. Diogenes says:«Arcesilaus visited Sardis with Autolycus. Next he was a pupil ofXanthias the Athenian musician; and after him, of Theophrastus. Laterhe moved to the Academy, to Crantor» (IV 29).

In order to put all these details together in an intelligible way,we need to take account of three further items.

Item 3: Moireas, Arcesilaus’ elder paternal half-brother and guar-dian, wanted him to study rhetoric (see above).

Item 4 (IV 43): Arcesilaus left all his property to his elder ma-ternal half-brother Pylades, «because Pylades eluded Moireas and gotArcesilaus to Athens».

Item 5: the Index Academicorum, col. XVII, in a detail omittedby Diogenes, says that Arcesilaus began philosophy «right after hisephebate», i.e. at the age of twenty, «having completed all his se-condary education (πάσης ἀ̣γωγῆς τυ[χ]ών)».

Presumably, then, Arcesilaus was in Athens by the age of se-venteen to nineteen, and studying for some of this time with themusician Xanthias. He was highly precocious, evidently, which willaccount for his still earlier study with Autolycus. There had been somedispute in the family concerning the right education for this brilliantadolescent. Moireas perhaps had wanted him to study rhetoric in Pi-tane; but Arcesilaus, with his other half-brother’s help, leaves the pro-vinces for the intellectual Mecca, Athens U. von Wilamowitz, Antigonos cit., pp. 57-8, presumes that Antigonusof Carystus had intimate acquaintance with affairs in Pitane, as evidenced byDiogenes’ citation of Arcesilaus’ letter to Thaumasias, Diog. Laert. IV 44.. Soon he attends Theo-

phrastus’ lectures. Does this imply that he has now chosen philosophyrather than rhetoric? By no means. Diogenes associates Arcesilaus’move from Theophrastus to Crantor with Arcesilaus’ rejection of therhetorical career that Moireas had wanted for him. In the lines of Euri-pides that Crantor and Arcesilaus exchange, «O maiden, if I save you,will you be grateful to me?», and «Take me, stranger, whether youwant a maidservant or a wife», it is surely rhetoric and not just Theo-phrastus from which Crantor rescues Arcesilaus (IV 29).

I conclude that Arcesilaus, before joining Crantor, attended Theo-phrastus’ lectures on rhetoric. This conclusion gains support from Theo-phrastus’ alleged disappointment at losing a pupil so «adept at argu-ment» (εὐεπιχείρητος), and Diogenes’ ensuing comment on Arcesilaus’being ἐν τοῖς λόγοις ἐμβριθέστατος καὶ φιλογράμματος (IV 30)Εὐεπιχείρητος, which is not otherwise attested in the active sense, shouldmean ‘good at arguing’, not ‘readily attempting’ (LSJ). Note that Theophrastuswrote many books of ἐπιχειρήματα, Diog. Laert. V 43, 49. A rhetorical sense forἐμβριθής is supported by Philod. rhet. I 46 Sudhaus..We should also recall the fact that the Peripatetics were the lea-ding exponents of rhetoric at this time. It must have been Theo-phrastus’ lectures on rhetoric, and not those on botany, which drewsuch large audiences (Diog. Laert. V 37), and for which he supposedlydressed so fastidiously and gesticulated (Athenaeus I 21 A-B). Crantortoo is said in Diogenes to have poked fun at Theophrastus’ θέσεις (V 27).

Of course, Arcesilaus’ choice of philosophy over rhetoric is mis-leadingly expressed. Rhetoric, especially in the Peripatos, was a re-cognized part of the philosophical curriculum. In opting for Crantorand the Academy, Arcesilaus was expressing a philosophical preference.He was also, it appears, gaining a lover and someone whose house hecould share (Diog. Laert. IV 22).

What else was it about Crantor and the Academy that attractedArcesilaus? My own guess — it can be no more — is the Academy’sdevotion to mathematics and to the Socratic aspect of Plato. Ourmeagre evidence for Polemo, Crates and Crantor suggests that theseAcademics were already stressing the Socratic side of Plato in contrast

with the systematic and theoretical tendencies of Speusippus and Xeno-crates Cfr. my Hellenistic Philosophy, London 1974, pp. 5-6. I take the virtualabsence of any record of books written by Polemo, Crates and Crantor to pointin this direction.. The picture of Arcesilaus that we find in Cicero — and inDiogenes, I think — is of someone who wanted to identify the Aca-demy with its Socratic tradition; and I also conjecture that Arcesilaus,who Diogenes says studied with a geometer at Athens, Hipponicus(IV 32), found the Academy congenial for his mathematical interests I have let this point stand in spite of the reservations expressed in thediscussion by Geoffrey Lloyd. We do know that Crantor, probably the mostformative of all Arcesilaus’ teachers, was extremely interested in the mathematicsof Plato’s Timaeus, cfr. Plut. an. procr. 1020 C-D etc. with comm, by H. Chernissin the Loeb ed. of Plut, moral. XIII part. II. This, together, with our other evidencefor Arcesilaus’ mathematical studies, seems sufficient for my claim. I am notsuggesting that Arcesilaus, as a mature philosopher, did mathematical work, butthat the training he had in mathematics, and his early interests in the subject,should be noted when we are accounting for his intellectual development..If Diogenes can be trusted, there was the greatest rapport betweenPolemo, Crates, Crantor and Arcesilaus (cfr. IV 15-23). We shouldalso remember that Arcesilaus won the headship of the Academy overthe older Socratides, who withdrew in his favour. As time went by,Arcesilaus appeared to be someone who had introduced a revolutionin the Academy, and his originality should not be doubted. But theremay have been more continuity with his Academic colleagues thanappears from our record. At least, we can suppose that he seemed thebest man to carry the school forward in its Socratic guise.

This suggestion, largely based on Diogenes, also accords with thePhilonian interpretation in Cicero — but with one very significantdifference. Cicero, like Numenius and Augustine, emphasizes Arcesilaus’controversies with the Stoic Zeno. But there is not a word in Diogenes’Life of Arcesilaus on this, nor even a hint that his concern with«suspension of judgement about everything» was in any respect ananti-Stoic position. Equally, Diogenes’ Life of Zeno says nothing whate-ver about Arcesilaus or Academic scepticism. One’s first instinct, onnoting these points, is to conclude that Diogenes, as often elsewhere,

is a bad reporter. In fact, if he failed to give any indication in anyof his lives of Arcesilaus’ controversies with Stoics, we would surelybe justified in regarding him as outrageously defective. Every one ofthe surviving arguments attributed to Arcesilaus by Cicero or SextusEmpiricus is a refutation of a Stoic thesis with the help of Stoic pre-mises The same holds good for the argument recorded by Plutarch (note 1 above)..

The absence from Diogenes’ life of any explicit reference to argu-ment with Stoics is certainly a prima facie indictment of its value asevidence. But Arcesilaus is mentioned in Diogenes’ lives of the StoicsAristo, Cleanthes (cfr. VII 171) and Chrysippus (cfr. VII 183). Thepassage in the life of Aristo (VII 162-3) runs as follows: «He [Aristo]was principally attached to the Stoic doctrine that the wise man is freefrom opinion (μάλιστα δὲ προσεῖχε Στωικῷ δόγματι τῷ τὸν σοφὸνἀδόξαστον εἶναι)»This thesis is crucial to the argument Zeno is said to have had withArcesilaus in Cic. acad. ΙΙ 77. Cfr. also A. M. Ioppolo, Aristone di Chio e lostoicismo antico, Napoli 1980, pp. 188 ff..

There follows an anecdote about the Stoic Persaeus refuting Aristoon this point, by getting him to misidentify one of a pair of twins.Diogenes then continues:

«He [Aristo] would get involved in lengthy arguments with Ar-cesilaus [ἀπετείνετο, imperfect tense]. Once when he saw a monstrousbull with a uterus, he said, “Oh dear, Arcesilaus has been given anargument against self-evidence (ἐνάργεια)”. And to an Academic whosaid that he grasped nothing, he said: “Don’t you even see the personsitting next to you?” The man said “No”, and Aristo retorted: “Whohas blinded you? Who has removed your eyesight?”»See further, A. M. Ioppolo, op. cit., (note 16 above) pp. 28-9..

This passage disturbs me. First, Diogenes attaches to Aristo thecontroversy with Arcesilaus over κατάληψις that Cicero credits toZeno. Secondly, in Cicero it is Zeno, not Aristo, who agrees withArcesilaus that the wise man is free from opinion (acad. ΙΙ 77). Thirdly,

Diogenes makes out that Aristo was constantly having arguments withArcesilaus. Let us also recall that it was Aristo who parodied Homer’sdescription of the Chimaera in calling Arcesilaus, «Plato in front,Pyrrho behind, Diodorus in the middle»Diog. Laert. IV 33, Sext. Emp. PH I 234, Euseb. PE XIV 5.13; cfr.A. M. Ioppolo, op. cit., p. 26 ff.. The alarming suspiciondawns that perhaps Diogenes’ reticence on Arcesilaus’ debates withZeno is to be explained by the fact that, in reality, it was Aristo thatArcesilaus principally engaged in anti-Stoic argument. Actually, Cicerois a bit guarded in his reports of Arcesilaus and Zeno. At acad. I 44he says: cum Zenone, ut accepimus, Arcesilas sibi omne certamen ins-tituit·, and in reporting their argument at acad. ΙΙ 77 his qualificationsare very evident — fortasse, credo (twice).

For Cicero, Aristo was a deviant Stoic of the distant past See for instance de fin. II 43, V 23; tusc. V 85.. Chry-sippean orthodoxy had utterly supplanted him. But for Eratosthenes,a contemporary of Arcesilaus and Aristo, they were the two outstand-ing philosophers of the timeStrab. I 15, 6 [Eratosthenes] δὲ Ἀρκεσίλαον καὶ Ἀρίστωνα τῶν καθ’αὑτὸν ἀνθησάντων κορυφαίους τίθησιν.. Anna Maria Ioppolo (above note 16),in her excellent study of Aristo, has helped to set the record straightby making us aware of his importance in the formative phase of Stoi-cism. By the time of Cicero, it would be natural to regard Zeno, theschool’s founder, as Arcesilaus’ principal opponent rather than the ob-scure and discredited Aristo.

Nothing of course excludes Arcesilaus from having had argumentswith Zeno, or anyone else that he encountered. But Diogenes’ evidenceon Aristo, with its probable source so much nearer to the actual events,should make us reflect that his omission of any reference to Arcesilaus’controversies with Zeno may, after all, be historically sound. By the timethat Arcesilaus came to prominence, Zeno was an éminence grise whomay well have left it to younger followers to defend his doctrinesagainst Academic challenges. Possibly too the Stoics in general did notloom quite as large in Arcesilaus’ concerns as the evidence of laterauthors suggests. A difference should be noted in this connexion bet-

ween Diogenes’ initial characterizations of Arcesilaus and Carneades.The first thing he reports about Carneades, after giving his patronymicand birthplace, is his careful study of books by Stoics and the famehe acquired by his effective opposition to them (iv 62). Admittedlythis is little more than an expansion of the famous tag about Carneadesthat he goes on to quote: «If there had been no Chrysippus, therewould have been no me». But the fact remains that Diogenes saysnothing about the Stoics in his opening remarks on Arcesilaus.

2. Arcesilaus’ dialectical methods.

This omission is all the more noteworthy because Diogenes’ initialcharacterization of Arcesilaus (IV 28, οὑτος-ἐροστικώτερον) cannot bederived from a source as early as Antigonus. A contemporary or near-contemporary biographer would not have described Arcesilaus as the«founder of the Middle Academy» (IV 28). That expression can onlyhave come into vogue after the distinction between Old and New Aca-demies had been made. For Diogenes, it was Lacydes who originatedthe New Academy (IV 59); but I do not think Antigonus of Carystuswould have so described him. The differentiation of phases in the Aca-demy’s history is unlikely to be earlier than the time of Carneades, andprobably coincides with Philo and Antiochus. Cicero, who never men-tions a Middle Academy, treats Arcesilaus himself as the founder ofthe New Academy. The expression Middle Academy must have beenintroduced at a time when the school’s position under Arcesilausappeared unstable and not yet firmly attached to the stance it acquiredunder Lacydes and Carneades. Thus, in the earliest reference to theMiddle Academy, in the Index Academicorum col. XXI 37, Lacydes issaid to have « stabilized the Middle Academy which had been as no-madic as the Skythian lifestyle (τῆν μέσην Ἀ[καδήμει]α[ν] καὶ πλα-νῆτιν οὐδὲν ἧττον τῆς Σκυθικῆς ζωιῆς στή[σ]αι)»I have found no reference to this evidence in J. Glucker, Antiochus andthe Late Academy, Göttingen 1978, who claims that «the whole idea of a “MiddleAcademy” as well as a “New Academy” is later than the age of Cicero», p. 235note 26; cfr. also his pp. 344-5..

Contemporaries, as Aristo’s famous verse indicates, found Arce-silaus a very difficult philosopher to assess. It was probably this un-certainty, combined witht a rather vague belief that Arcesilaus wastransitional between the early Platonists and Carneades, that accountedfor the eventual contrast between Middle and New Academies. Noticethat even though the contrast exists by the time of Cicero (on thestrength of the Index Academicorum) it seems to be of no interest toany of his Academic spokesmen. The nearest any speaker in his Acade-mica comes to saying anything similar is Lucullus’ brief history of theschool at acad. ΙΙ 16: there he says that Arcesilaus’ ratio was not muchaccepted at first, but that it was kept going next only by Lacydes, andafterwards perfected by Carneades.

Diogenes’ mention of the Middle Academy is not the only indica-tion that his opening characterization of Arcesilaus derives from fairlylate sources. He says that Arcesilaus was the first to «suspend his as-sertions owing to the contrarieties of arguments (πρῶτος ἐπισχὼν τὰςἀποφάσεις διὰ τὰς ἐναντιότητας τῶν λόγων)» (IV 28). This state-ment would hardly be made before a time when there were other philo-sophers who might be so described, and who might contest Arcesilaus’priority. It is conceivable that during Arcesilaus’ lifetime the termἐποχή came to be attached to Pyrrho, as Diogenes himself reports (IX 61) F. Decleva Caizzi, Pirrone. Testimonianze, Napoli 1981, p. 136, rightlynotes that Diog. Laert.’s testimony need imply only that Pyrrho, from a post-Arcesilaan perspective, could be regarded as the originator of scepticism.. But everything of any historical value that we think weknow about Pyrrho’s freedom from opining detaches that mental statefrom the practice of formal argument. Only with Aenesidemusdoes Pyrrhonism acquire, as its instrument for suspending judgement,the dialectical method attributed by Diogenes to Arcesilaus. I conclude,then, that Arcesilaus’ originality in this respect is unlikely to have beensingled out until there were other philosophers, neo-Pyrrhonists, whojuxtaposed opposing arguments as a means of producing ἰσοσθένειαand ἐποχή.

Next Diogenes says that Arcesilaus was the first to argue bothsides of a thesis (πρῶτος δὲ καὶ εἰς ἐκάτερον ἐπεχείρησε). This claimis false in one respect, and probably misleading in another. Argumentpro and contra the same thesis had a history which went back at leastas far as Protagoras. Diogenes himself says: «Protagoras was the firstto say there are two arguments, opposed to one another, on everymatter; and he argued thus, being the first to do so» (ix 51). Apartfrom this misattribution of originality to Arcesilaus, was it really histrademark to argue pro and contra the same thesis? Certainly, thatprocedure is regularly attributed to the New Academy in general, andit was famously practised by Carneades. But arguing pro and contrathe same thesis (εἰς ἐκάτερον) must be carefully distinguished from«arguing on the opposite side» (εἰς ἐναντία), whereby one opposesa thesis stated by someone else. It is this latter procedure which isexplicitly attributed to Arcesilaus by Cicero in a context where helikens him to Socrates: «Arcesilaus prescribed that those who wantedto listen to him should not ask him questions but state their own opi-nions. When they had done so, he argued against them. But his listeners,so far as they could, would defend their own opinions» (de fin. II 2).By the time of Cicero, the distinction between argument pro and contra,and argument only contra, is often obscured; and it would be unwiseto suppose that Arcesilaus never took both sides himself But note also Cic. acad. I 45, contra omnium sententias disserens.. None theless, all of his surviving arguments in Cicero and Sextus are rejoindersto the theses stated by his opponents. And it seems highly probablethat this was his recommended method for inducing suspension of jud-gement Further support for this suggestion can be gleaned from Plut. st. rep.1035 F-1037 C, where Chrysippus is quoted for a judgement on πρὸς τἀναντίαδιαλέγεσθαι as practised by «those who suspend judgement about everything ».At the end of this section Plutarch himself characterizes the Academics as philo-sophers who εἰς ἐκάτερον ἐπιχείρουσιν, 1037 F, but this is his own comment,and not derived from Chrysippus.. He could claim Socratic support for a procedure which laidon the interlocutor the responsibility for saying what he believed, and

for using the interlocutor’s beliefs as material to produce an elenchusCfr. G. Vlastos, The Socratic elenchus, «Oxford Studies in Ancient Phi-losophy», I (1983) p. 30: «Socratic elenchus is a search for moral truth byadversary argument in which a thesis is debated only if asserted as the answerer’sown belief, who is regarded as refuted if and only if the negation of his thesisis deduced from his own beliefs»..By taking over his opponents’ premises for his rejoinder, Arcesilauscould remain uncommitted to the truth of his own argument, and atthe same time induce suspension of judgement in his interlocutor byshowing him that his own premises could support a conclusion opposedto that which he had defended.

I have been arguing that Diogenes’ opening remarks about Arce-silaus do not derive from a contemporary source like Antigonus, andare more misleading than informative about Arcesilaus’ dialectical me-thods. I want now to suggest that material within the main body ofthe life, probably derived from Antigonus, tends to support the ideathat Arcesilaus’ characteristic method was to respond to an interlocutorand not to state both sides himself.

In sections 34-7 Diogenes purports to illustrate by example ge-neral characteristics which he has attributed to Arcesilaus — his ex-cellence at stating propositions and deriving conclusions from them(ἀξιωματικώτατος καὶ συνηγμένος), his concern for linguistic precisionin conversation (καὶ ἐν τῇ λαλιᾷ διαστατικὸς τῶν ὁνομάτων), andhis hard-hitting rejoinders and frankness (ἐπικόπτης καὶ παρρησιασ-τής), two qualities also credited, as we saw, to Menedemus. In each ofthe examples which now follow, Arcesilaus is represented as respondingto what someone else has said to him: «to a young man who wasdiscoursing too boldly» «to a homosexual who expressed the opinionthat two things [i.e. male sexual organs] do not differ in size» «toan ugly man who thought himself handsome and expressed the opinionthat the wise man would not be a lover». After giving three similarexamples, which include a follower of the Dialectician Alexinus, Dio-genes says: «Arcesilaus would not even reply to some people (τισὶδὲ οὐδὲ ἀπεκρίνετο)» (IV 35).

The content of Arcesilaus’ responses need not detain us. Theyare amusing, but of small philosophical interest. If a philosophicalmessage can be extracted from them, it would be Arcesilaus’ interestin dispelling baseless opinions, rather than in inducing suspension ofjudgement quite generally. (All that points to this latter characteristicof Arcesilaus is the remark that he found himself «naturally somehow»(φυσικῶς πως) using assertion and denial in his conversation (IV 36),a comment even recorded in the Suda article on φημί and hich impliesthat suspending judgement was the attitude consistently expected ofhim.) Diogenes then observes that Arcesilaus was very inventive in hisrejoinders (IV 37), and at bringing the discussion back to the thesisbeing examined.

For what it is worth, this material confirms the impression thatArcesilaus did not deliver arguments for and against the same thesishimself. But how much is it worth? Other lives in Diogenes, especiallythat of Menedemus, represent the philosopher’s remarks principally asrejoinders to another speaker, or as replies to questions. Minimally wecan say that Arcesilaus is characterized here in a manner typical ofthird-century dialecticians. That presumably was the way he struckmany of his contemporaries. But I think we can say a little more.The persons Arcesilaus is described as conversing with — like Socra-tes — include more than philosophers, presumably anyone who cameto the Academy whom he deemed it worth talking to. From Ciceroand Sextus we may be led to think that Arcesilaus was largely involvedin inter-school disputes. Clearly these were an important part of hisactivities. But the anecdotes in Diogenes, trivial though they are, suggestthat Arcesilaus regarded philosophy as an activity which should be usedto subject anyone’s opinions to critical scrutiny; and to this extent,they ring true.

There is more to Diogenes’ life of Arcesilaus than I will attemptto describe here. There are his two poems, on which Marcello Gigantehas written an interesting paperPoesia e critica letteraria in Arcesilao, in Ricerche Barbagallo I, Napoli1970, p. 431 ff., an the information about Arce-

silaus’ relations with Eumenes of Pergamum and Antigonus Gonatas,which throw light on the economic history of the third century Aca-demy See E. V. Hansen, The Attalids of Pergamum (ed. 2, Ithaca and London)pp. 396-9, and W. W. Tarn, Antigonus Gonatas, Oxford 1913, pp. 332-5.. I have confined my attention to showing how this life maybe used as evidence for Arcesilaus’ philosophical background and me-thods. We have seen that it provokes an interesting question about hisrelations with Zeno, and material, which needs careful dissection, onhis procedures as the first Academic sceptic. If Diogenes’ initial remarksare anachronistic and misleading, something of historical value can stillbe gleaned from parts of the life which probably go back to Antigonus.For Arcesilaus’ early career, this life is the best we have, thoughinferior, where it can be compared, to the extremely similar IndexAcademicorum. Without Diogenes we would know nothing about Ar-cesilaus’ mathematical training. If I am right in associating Theo-phrastus with Arcesilaus’ education in rhetoric, that too is useful in-formation. We did not need it in order to be aware of Arcesilaus’argumentative inventiveness, but it provides a credible source of refine-ment for the persuasiveness which Diogenes and all our evidence at-tribute to him. Looking back at the New Academy, Cicero said thata budding orator must try to seize the power of either a Carneadesor an Aristotle (De oratore III 71). Arcesilaus and Carneades were notrhetoricians, but their techniques of argument contra, or pro and contra,contributed to and must have owed something to the rhetorical tradi-tion. In spite of its banality, Diogenes’ life of Arcesilaus lends credenceto Eratosthenes’ remark (note 20 above) that this was one of theoutstanding philosophers of the age.