instead, as being more decidedly a Socratic method.  Although, according to Sextus, he was the one leader of the Academy whose Scepticism most nearly approached that of Pyrrhonism,[2] yet underneath his whole teaching lay that dialectic principle so thoroughly in opposition to the empiricism of Pyrrho.  The belief of Socrates and Plato in the existence of absolute truth never entirely lost its influence over the Academy, but was like a hidden germ, destined to reappear after Scepticism had passed away.  It finally led the Academy back to Dogmatism, and prepared the way for the Eclecticism with which it disappeared from history.

    [1] Compare Maccoll Op. cit. p. 36.

    [2] Hyp.  I. 232.

The history of Pyrrhonism and that of Academic Scepticism were for a time contemporaneous.  The immediate follower of Pyrrho, Timon, called by Sextus the “prophet of Pyrrho,"[1] was a contemporary of Arcesilaus.  That he did not consider the Scepticism of the Academy identical with Pyrrhonism is proved from the fact that he did not himself join the Academy, but was, on the contrary, far from doing so.  That he regarded Arcesilaus as a Dogmatic is evident from his writings.[2] One day, on seeing the chief of the Academy approaching, he cried out, “What are you doing here among us who are free?"[3] After the death of Timon, the Pyrrhonean School had no representative till the time of Ptolemy of Cyrene,[4] and Greek Scepticism was represented by the Academy.  That Pyrrho had a strong influence over Arcesilaus, the founder of the Middle Academy, is evident[5]; but there was also never a time when the Academy entirely broke away from all the teachings of Plato, even in their deepest doubt.[6] It is true that Arcesilaus removed, nominally as well as in spirit, some of the dialogues of Plato from the Academy, but only those that bore a dogmatic character, while those that presented a more decided Socratic mode of questioning without reaching any decided result, men regarded as authority for Scepticism.

    [1] Adv.  Math. I. 53.

    [2] Diog.  IV. 6, 33, 34.

    [3] Diog.  IX. 12, 114.

    [4] Diog.  IX. 12, 115.

    [5] Diog.  IV. 6, 33.

    [6] Diog.  IV. 6, 32.

Sextus does not deny that Arcesilaus was almost a Pyrrhonean, but he claims that his Pyrrhonism was only apparent, and not real, and was used as a cloak to hide his loyalty to the teachings of Plato.[1] As Ariston said of him,[2] “Plato before, Pyrrho behind, Diodorus in the middle.”  Sextus also characterises the method of Arcesilaus as dialectic,[3] and we know from Cicero that it was his pride to pretend to return to the dialectic of Socrates.