Arcesilaus
(Ἀρκεσίλαος), a son of Lycus and Theobule, was the leader of the Boeotians in the Trojan war. He led his people to Troy in ten ships, and was slain by Hector. (Hom. Il. 2.495, 15.329; Hyg. Fab. 97.) According to Pausanias (9.39.2) his remains were brought back to Boeotia, where a monument was erected to his memory in the neighbourhood of Lebadeia. A son of Odysseus and Penelope of the name of Arcesilaus is mentioned by Eustathius. (Ad Hom. p. 1796.) [L.S]
(Ἀρκεσίλαος).
1. The name of four kings of Cyrene. [Battus and Battiadae.]
2. The murderer of Archagathus, the son of Agathocles, when the latter left Africa, B. C. 307. Arcesilaus had formerly been a friend of Agathocles. (Justin, 22.8; Agathocles, p. 64.)
3. One of the ambassadors sent to Rome by the Lacedaesmonian exiles about B. C. 183, who was intercepted by pirates and killed. (Plb. 24.11.)
4. Of Megalopolis, was one of those who dissuaded the Achaean league from assisting Perseus in the war against the Romans in B. C. 170. In the following years he was one of the ambassadors sent by the league to attempt the reconciliation of Antiochus Epiphanes and Ptolemy. (Plb. 28.6, 29.10.)
(Ἀρκεσίλαος) or Arcesilas, the founder of the new Academy, flourished towards the close of the third century before Christ. (Comp. Strab.i.p.15.) He wasthe son of Seuthesor Scythes (D. L. 4.18), and born at Pitane in Aeolis. His early education was entrusted to Autolycus, a mathematician, with whom he migrated to Sardis. Afterwards, at the wish of his elder brother and guardian, Moireas, he came to Athens to study rhetoric; but becoming the disciple first of Theophrastus and afterwards of Crantor, he found his inclination led to philosophical pursuits. Not content, however, with any single school, he left his early masters and studied under sceptical and dialectic philosophers; and the line of Ariston upon him, Πρόσθε Πλάτων, ὄπιθεν Πύρ̀ῥων, μέσσος Διόδωρος, described the course of his early education, as well as the discordant character of some of his later views. He was not without reputation as a poet, and Diogenes Laertius (4.30) has preserved two epigrams of his, one of which is addressed to Attalus, king of Pergamus, and records his admiration of Homer and Pindar, of whose works he was an enthusiastic reader. Several of his puns and witticisms have been preserved in his life by the same writer, which give the idea of an accomplished man of the world rather than a grave philosopher. Many traits of character are also recorded of him, some of them of a pleasing nature. The greatness of his personal character is shewn by the imitation of his peculiarities, into which his admirers are said insensibly to have fallen. His oratory is described as of an attractive and persuasive kind, the effect of it being enhanced by the frankness of his demeanour. Although his means were not large, his resources being chiefly derived from king Eumenes, many tales were told of his unassuming generosity. But it must be admitted, that there was another side to the picture, and his enemies accused him of the grossest profligacy--a charge which he only answered by citing the example of Aristippus--and it must be confessed, that the accusation is slightly confirmed by the circumstance that he died in the 76th year of his age from a fit of excessive drunkenness; on which event an epigram has been preserved by Diogenes.
It was on the death of Crantor that Arcesilaus succeeded to the chair of the Academy, in the history of which he makes so important an era. As, however, he committed nothing to writing, his opinions were imperfectly known to his contemporaries, and can now only be gathered from the confused statements of his opponents. There seems to have been a gradual decline of philosophy since the time of Plato and Aristotle : the same subjects had been again and again discussed, until no room was left for original thought--a deficiency which was but poorly compensated by the extravagant paradox or overdrawn subtlety of the later schools. Whether we attribute the scepticism of the Academy to a reaction from the dogmatism of the Stoics, or whether it was the natural result of extending to intellectual truth the distrust with which Plato viewed the information of sense, it would seem that in the time of Arcesilaus the whole of philosophy was absorbed in the single question of the grounds of human knowledge. What were the peculiar views of Arcesilaus on this question, it is not easy to collect. On the one hand, he is said to have restored the doctrines of Plato in an uncorrupted form; while, on the other hand, according to Cicero (Cic. Ac. 1.12), he summed up his opinions in the formula, "that he knew nothing, not even his own ignorance." There are two ways of reconciling the difficulty : either we may suppose him to have thrown out such ἀπορίαι as an exercise for the ingenuity of his pupils, as Sextus Empiricus (Pyrrh. Hypotyp. 1.234), who disclaims him as a Sceptic, would have us believe; or he may have really doubted the esoteric meaning of Plato, and have supposed himself to have been stripping his works of the figments of the Dogmatists, while he was in fact taking from them all certain principles whatever. (Cic. de Orat. 3.18.) A curious result of the confusion which pervaded the New Academy was the return to some of the doctrines of the elder Ionic school, which they attempted to harmonize with Plato and their own views. (Euseb. Pr. Ev. 14.5, 6.) Arcesilaus is also said to have restored the Socratic method of teaching in dialogues; although it is probable that he did not confine himself strictly to the erotetic method, perhaps the supposed identity of his doctrines with those of Plato may have originated in the outward form in which they were conveyed.
The Stoics were the chief opponents of Arcesilaus ; he attacked their doctrine of a convincing conception (καταληπτικὴ φαντασία) as understood to be a mean between science and opinion--a mean which he asserted could not exist, and was merely the interpolation of a name. (Cic. Ac. 2.24.) It involved in fact a contradiction in terms, as the very idea of φαντασία implied the possibility of false as well as true conceptions of the same object.
It is a question of some importance, in what the scepticism of the New Academy was distinguished from that of the followers of Pyrrhon. Admitting the formula of Arcesilaus, "that he knew nothing, not even his own ignorance," to be an exposition of his real sentiments, it was impossible in one sense that scepticism could proceed further : but the New Academy does not seem to have doubted the existence of truth in itself, only our capacities for obtaining it. It differed also from the principles of the pure sceptic in the practical tendency of its doctrines : while the object of the one was the attainment of perfect equanimity (ἐποχή), the other seems rather to have retired from the barren field of speculation to practical life, and to have acknowledged some vestiges of a moral law within, at best but a probable guide, the possession of which, however, formed the real distinction between the sage and the fool. Slight as the difference may appear between the speculative statements of the two schools, a comparison of the lives of their founders and their respective successors leads us to the conclusion, that a practical moderation was the characteristic of the New Academy, to which the Sceptics were wholly strangers. (Sex. Empiricus, ad v. Math. 2.158, Pyrrh. Hypotyp. 1.3, 226.) [B.J]
(Ἀρχεσίλαος,), an Athenian comic poet of the old comedy, none of whose works are extant. (D. L. 4.45.) [P.S]
artists.
1. A sculptor who made a statue of Diana, celebrated by an ode of Simonides. (D. L. 4.45.) He may, therefore, have flourished about 500 B. C.
2. Of Paros, was, according to Pliny (35.39), one of the first encaustic painters, and a contemporary of Polygnotus (about 460 B. C.).
3. A painter, the son of the sculptor Tisicrates, flourished about 280 or 270 B. C. (Plin. Nat. 35.40.42.) Pausanias (1.1.3) mentions a painter of the same name, whose picture of Leosthenes and his sons was to be seen in the Peiraeeus. Though Leosthenes was killed in the war of Athens against Lamia, B. C. 323, Sillig argues, that the fact of his sons being included in the picture favours the supposition that it was painted after his death, and that we may therefore safely refer the passages of Pausanias and of Pliny to the same person. (Catal. Artif s. v.)
4. A sculptor in the first century B. C., who, according to Pliny, was held in high esteem at Rome, was especially celebrated by M. Varro, and was intimate with L. Lentulus. Among his works were a statue of Venus Genetrix in the forum of Caesar, and a marble lioness surrounded by winged Cupids, who were sporting with her. Of the latter work the mosaics in the Mus. Borb. 7.61, and the Mus. Capit. 4.19, are supposed to be copies. There were some statues by him of centaurs carrying nymphs, in the collection of Asinius Pollio. He received a talent from Octavins, a Roman knight, for the model of a bowl (craterer), and was engaged by Lucullus to make a statue of Felicitas for 60 sestertia; but the deaths both of the artist and of his patron prevented the completion of the work. (Plin. Nat. 35.45, 36.4. §§ 10, 13 : the reading Archesitae, in § 10, ought, almost undoubtedly, to be Arcesilae or Arcesilai.) [P.S]
2. (Ἀρκεσίλαος) was a son of the above (Hdt. 4.159); but nothing is recorded of him except that he reigned, and apparently in quiet, for 16 years, B. C. 599-583.
4. son of Battus II., was surnamed "the oppressive" (Χαλεπός), from his attempting probably to substitute a tyranny for the Cyrenaean constitution, which had hitherto been similar to that of Sparta. It was perhaps from this cause that the dissensions arose between himself and his brothers, in consequence of which the latter withdrew from Cyrene, and founded Barca, at the same time exciting the Libyan tribes to revolt from Arcesilaus, who, in his attempt to quell this rebellion, suffered a signal defeat at Leucon or Leucoe, a place in the region of Marmarica. He met his end at last by treachery, being strangled by his brother or friend, Learchus. His wife, Eryxo, however, soon after avenged his death by the murder of his assassin. His reign lasted, according to some, from 560 to 550 B. C.; according to others, from 554 to 544. (Hdt. 4.160; Diod. Exc. de Virt. et Vit. p. 232; Plut. de Virt. Mul. pp. 260, 261; Thrige, §§ 35, 37.)
6. son of Battus III. by Pheretime, reigned, according to Thrige (§ 39), from 530 to about 514 B. C. In the early part of his reign he was driven from Cyrene in an attempt to recover the ancient royal privileges, and, taking refuge in Samos, returned with a number of auxiliaries, whom he had attached to his cause by the promise of a new division of lands. With their aid he regained the throne; on which, besides taking the most cruel vengeance on his enemies, he endeavoured further to strengthen himself by making submission to Cambyses, and stipulating to pay him tribute, B. C. 525. (Hdt. 4.162_165, comp. 3.13, 91, 2.181.) Terrified, however, according to Herodotus (4.164), at the discovery that he had subjected himself to the woe denounced against him, under certain conditions, by an obscure oracle (comp. 4.163), or, more probably, being driven out by his subjects, who were exasperated at his submission to the Persians (see 4.165, ad fin.), he fled to Alazir, king of Barca, whose daughter he had married, and was there slain, together with his father-in-law, by the Barcaeans and some Cyrenaean exiles. (Herod. iv 164, 167; see Thrige, §§ 39-41.)
8. son probably of Battus IV., is the prince whose victory in the chariot-race at the Pythian games, B. C. 466, is celebrated by Pindar in his 4th and 5th Pythian odes; and these, in fact, together with the Scholia upon them, are our sole authority for the life and reign of this last of the Battiadae. From them, even in the midst of all the praises of him which they contain, it appears, that he endeavoured to make himself despotic, and had recourse, among other means, to the expedient (a favourite one with tyrants, see Aristot. Pol. 3.13, 5.10, 11, ed. Bekk.) of ridding himself of the nobles of the state. Indeed one main object of Pindar in the 4th Pythian ode seems to have been to induce Arcesilaus to adopt a more prudent and moderate course, and in particular to recall Demophilus, a banished Cyrenaean nobleman then living at Thebes. (See especially Pyth. 4.468, &c., εἰ γάρ τις ὄζους, κ. τ. λ. ; Böckh and Dissen, ad loc.)It is further probable (Thrige, § 45), that the city "Hesperides" in the Cyrenaic Pentapolis (afterwards called " Berenice" from the wife of Ptolemy Euergetes) was founded by Arcesilaus IV., with the view of securing a retreat for himself in the event of the successful rebellion of his subjects. It is not known whether he died by violence or not; but after his death royalty was abolished, and his son Battus, who had fled to Hesperides, was there murdered, and his head was thrown into the sea. Various dates have been assigned for the conclusion of the dynasty of the Battiadae; but nothing is certain, except that it could not have ended before B. C. 460, in which year Arcesilaus IV. won the chariot-race at Olympia,--nor after 401, when we hear of violent seditions between the Cyrenaean nobles and populace. (Diod. 14.34; Aristot. Pol. 6.4, ed. Bekk.) Thrige is disposed to place the commencement of popular government about 450. (Res Cyrenensium, §§ 24, 45, 46, 48; comp. Müller, Dor. 3.9.13.) The father of Callimachus was a Cyrenaean of the name of Battus (Suidas, s. v. Καλλίμαχος); and the poet, who is often called " Battiades," seems to have claimed descent from the royal blood. (Callim. Hymn in Apoll. 65, &c., Ep. 37; Ovid. Trist.2.367; Catull. 66.) [E.E]
(Ἀρκεσίλαος). (1) Son of Battus, king of Cyrené, who was driven from his kingdom in a sedition, and died B.C. 575. The second of this name died B.C. 550 (Herod.iv. 159).
(2) A philosopher, born at Pitané, in Aeolis, the founder of what was termed the Middle Academy. The period of his birth is usually given as B.C. 316. Arcesilaüs at first applied himself to rhetoric, but subsequently passed to the study of philosophy, in which he had for teachers, first Theophrastus, then Crantor the Academician, and probably also Polemo (Diog. Laert.iv. 24, 29; Cic. Acad. i. 9). Besides the instructors above named, Arcesilaüs is also said to have diligently attended the lectures of the Eretrian Menedamus, the Megarian Diodorus, and the sceptic Pyrrho. His love for the quibbling of these individuals has been referred to as the source of his scepticism and his skill in refuting philosophical principles. At the same time it is on all hands admitted that of philosophers Plato was his favourite. He seems to have been sincerely of opinion that his view of things did not differ from the true spirit of the Platonic doctrine; nay, more, that it was perfectly in agreement with those older philosophical teachings, from which, according to the opinion of many, Plato had drawn his own doctrines—namely, those of Socrates, Parmenides, and Heraclitus.
Upon the death of Crantor , the school in the Academy was transferred by a certain Socratides to Arcesilaüs, who here introduced the old Socratic method of teaching in dialogues, although it was rather a corruption than an imitation of the genuine Socratic mode. Arcesilaüs does not appear to have committed his opinions to writing; at least the ancients were not acquainted with any work which could confidently be ascribed to him. Now, as his disciple Lacydes also abstained from writing, the ancients themselves appear to have derived their knowledge of his opinions only from the works of his opponents, of whom Chrysippus was the most eminent. Such a course must naturally be both defective and uncertain, and accordingly we have little that we can confidently advance with respect to his doctrines. According to these statements the results of his opinions would be a perfect scepticism, expressed in the formula that he knew nothing, not even that which Socrates had ever maintained that he knew —namely, his own ignorance ( Acad. i. 12). This expression of his opinion implicitly ascribes to Arcesilaüs a full consciousness that he differed in a most important point from the doctrine of Socrates and Plato. But, as the ancients do not appear to have ascribed any such conviction to Arcesilaüs, it seems to be a more probable opinion which imputes to him a desire to restore the genuine Platonic dogma, and to purify it from all those precise and positive determinations which his successors had appended to it. Indeed, one statement expressly declares that the subject of his lecture to his most accomplished scholars was the doctrine of Plato ( Cic. l. c.); and he would therefore appear to have adopted this formula with a view to meet more easily the objections of the dogmatists. Now if we thus attach Arcesilaüs to Plato, we must suppose him to have been in the same case with many others, and unable to discover in the writings of Plato any fixed and determinate principles of science. The ambiguous manner in which almost every view is therein advanced, and the results of one investigation admitted only conditionally to other inquiries, may perhaps have led him to regard the speculations of Plato in the light of mere shrewd and intelligent conjectures. Accordingly, we are told that Arcesilaüs denied the certainty not only of intellectual, but also of sensuous knowledge (Cic. De Orat. iii. 18).
- Olympic victor: Paus. 6.2.2
- Paus. 8.10.10
- Hdt. 4.159
- Paus. 1.1.3
- his treatment of political enemies: Hdt. 4.162-164
- his death: Hdt. 4.164
- Hdt. 4.160
- Paus. 8.49.2
- tomb of: Paus. 9.39.3