This paper aims to show that at the beginning of the 3rd century B.C. within the Academy there has been a temporary division whose protagonist was Crantor of Soli. The reason for the conflict between Crantor and the scholarch in chief, Polemo, has to be seen mostly in the philosophical incompatibility between Crantor’s pessimism and Polemo’s optimistic ethics. At the end this division was patched over. However, Crantor’s pessimistic philosophy strongly influenced Arcesilaus in the sceptical turn which he subsequently gave to the Academy. The reticence of our sources about these events has to be attributed to a revisionist rewriting of the Academic history realised by Arcesilaus’ successor, Lacydes of Cyrene.
Il caso "Crantore". Contributo alla storia dell'Academia ellenistica
Beghini
2019-01-01
Abstract
This paper aims to show that at the beginning of the 3rd century B.C. within the Academy there has been a temporary division whose protagonist was Crantor of Soli. The reason for the conflict between Crantor and the scholarch in chief, Polemo, has to be seen mostly in the philosophical incompatibility between Crantor’s pessimism and Polemo’s optimistic ethics. At the end this division was patched over. However, Crantor’s pessimistic philosophy strongly influenced Arcesilaus in the sceptical turn which he subsequently gave to the Academy. The reticence of our sources about these events has to be attributed to a revisionist rewriting of the Academic history realised by Arcesilaus’ successor, Lacydes of Cyrene.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
