of Plato had been changed into an ethical syncretism which
combined elements from the Scepticism of Carneades and the
doctrines of the Stoics; it was a change from a dogmatism
which men found impossible to defend, to a probabilism
which afforded a retreat from Scepticism and intellectual
anarchy. Cicero represents at once the doctrine of the later
Academy and the general attitude of Roman society when he
says, ``My words do not proclaim the truth, like a Pythian
priestess; but I conjecture what is probable, like a plain
man; and where, I ask, am I to search for anything more than
verisimilitude?'' And again: ``The characteristic of the
Academy is never to interpose one's judgment, to approve what
seems most probable, to compare together different opinions,
to see what may be advanced on either side and to leave one's
listeners free to judge without pretending to dogmatize.''
The passage from Sextus Empiricus, cited above, gives the
general view that there were three academies: the first, or
Old, academy under Speusippus and Xenocrates; the second,
or Middle, academy under Arcesilaus and Polemon; the third,
or New, academy under Carneades and Clitomachus. Sextus
notices also the theory that there was a fourth, that of Philo
of Larissa and Charmidas, and a fifth, that of Antiochus.
Diogenes Laertius says that Lacydes was the founder of the
New Academy (i. 19, iv. 59). Cicero (de Orat. iii. 18, &c.)
and Varro insist that there were only two academies, the Old
and the New. Those who maintain that there is no justification
for the five-fold division hold that the agnosticism of
Carneades was really latent in Plato, and became prominent
owing to the necessity of refuting the Stoic criterion.
The general tendency of the Academic thinkers was towards
practical simplicity, a tendency due in large measure to
the inferior intellectual capacity of Plato's immediate
successors. Cicero (de Fin. v. 3) says generally of the
Old Academy: ``Their writings and method contain all liberal
learning, all history, all polite discourse; and besides they
embrace such a variety of arts, that no one can undertake any
noble career without their aid. . . . In a word the Academy
is, as it were, the workshop of every artist.'' It is true
that these men turned to scientific investigation, but in
so doing they escaped from the high altitudes in which Plato
thought, and tended to lay emphasis on the mundane side of
philosophy. Of Plato's originality and speculative power,
of his poetry and enthusiasm they inherited nothing, ``nor
amid all the learning which has been profusely lavished upon
investigating their tenets is there a single deduction calculated
to elucidate distinctly the character of their progress or
regression'' (Archer Butler, Lect. on Anc. Phil. ii. 515).
The modification of Academic doctrine from Plato to
Cicero may be indicated briefly under four heads.
(1) Plato's own theory of Ideas was not accepted even by
Speusirinus and Xenocrates. They argued that the Good cannot
be the origin of things, inasmuch as Goodness is only found
as an attribute of things. Therefore, the idea of Good must
be secondary to some other more fundamental principle of
existence. This unit Speusippus attempted to find in
the Pythagorean number-theory. From it he deduced three
principles, one for numbers, one for magnitude, one for the
soul. The Deity he conceived as that living force which
rules all and resides everywhere. Xenocrates, though like
Speusippus infected with Pythagoreanism, was the most faithful
of Plato's successors. He distinguished three spheres, the
sensible, the intelligible, and a third compounded of the
two, to which correspond respectively, sense, intellect and
opinion (doxa). Cicero notes, however, that both Speusippus
and Xenocrates abandon the Socratic principle of hesitancy.
(2) Up to Arcesilaus, the Academy accepted the principle of
finding a general unity in all things, by the aid of which a
principle of certainty might be found. Arcesilaus, however,
broke new ground by attacking the very possibility of certainty.
Socrates had said, ``This alone I know, that I know nothing.''
But Arcesilaus went farther and denied the possibility of
even the Socratic minimum of certainty: ``I cannot know even
whether I know or not.'' Thus from the dogmatism of the master
the Academy plunged into the extremes of agnostic criticism.
(3) The next stage in the Academic succession was the moderate
scepticism of Carneades, which owed its existence to his
opposition to Chrysippus, the Stoic. To the Stoical theory
of perception, the fantasia kataleptike, by which they
expressed a conviction of certainty arising from impressions
so strong as to amount to science, he opposed the doctrine
of acatalepsia, which denied any necessary correspondence
between perceptions and the objects perceived. He saved
himself, however, from absolute scepticism by the doctrine
of probability or verisimilitude, which may serve as a
practical guide in life. Thus his criterion of imagination
(fantasia) is that it must be credible, irrefutable and
attested by comparison with other impressions; it may be
wrong, but for the person concerned it is valid. In ethics
he was an avowed sceptic. During his official visit to Rome,
he gave public lectures, in which he successively proved
and disproved with equal ease the existence of justice.
(4) In the last period we find a tendency not only
to reconcile the internal divergences of the Academy
itself, but also to connect it with parallel growths of
thought. Philo of Larissa endeavours to show that Carneades
was not opposed to Plato, and further that the apparent
antagonism between Plato and Zeno was due to the fact that
they were arguing from different points of view. From this
syncretism emerged the prudent non-committal eclecticism
of Cicero, the last product of Academic development.
For detailed accounts of the Academicians see SPEUSIPPUS,
XENOCRATES, &c.; also STOICS and NEOPLATONISM. Consult
histories of philosophy by Zeller and Windelband, and Th.
Gomperz, Greek Thinkers, ii. 270 (Eng. tr., London, 1905).
ACADEMY, ROYAL. The Royal Academy of Arts in London, to
give it the original title in full, was founded in 1768,
``for the purpose of cultivating and improving the arts of
painting, sculpture and architecture.'' Many attempts had
previously been made in England to form a society which
should have for its object the advancement of the fine
arts. Sir Jumes Thornbill, his son-in-law Hogarth, the
Dilettanti Society, made efforts in this direction, but their
schemes were wrecked by want of means. Accident solved the
problem. The crowds that attended an exhibition of pictures
held in 1758 at the Foundling Hospital for the benefit
of charity, suggested a way of making money hitherto
unsuspected. Two societies were quickly formed, one
calling itself the ``Society of Artists'' and the other the
``Free Society of Artists.'' The latter ceased to exist in
1774. The former flourished, and in 1765 was granted a royal
charter under the title of the ``Incorporated Society of
Artists of Great Britain.'' But though prosperous it was not
united. A number of the members, including the most eminent
artists of the day, resigned in 1768, and headed by William
Chambers the architect, and Benjamin West, presented on
28th November in that year to George III., who had already
shown his interest in the fine arts, a memorial soliciting
his ``gracious assistance, patronage and protection,'' in
``establishing a society for promoting the arts of design.',
The memorialists stated that the two principal objects they
had in view were the establishing of ``a well-regulated
school or academy of design for the use of students in the
arts, and an annual exhibition open to all artists of
distinguished merit; the profit arising from the last of these
institutions'' would, they thought, ``fully answer all the
expenses of the first,'' and, indeed, leave something over
to be distributed ``in useful charities.'' The king expressed
his agreement with the proposal, but asked for further
particulars. These were furnished to him on the 7th of
December and approved, and on the 10th of December they
were submitted in form, and the document embodying them
received his signature, with the words, ``I approve of this
plan; let it be put into execution.'' This document, known
as the ``Instrument,'' defined under twenty-seven heads the
constitution and government of the Royal Academy, and contained
the names of the thirty-six original members nominated by the
king. Changes and modifications in the laws and regulations
laid down in it have of course been made, but none of them
without the sanction of the sovereign, and the ``Instrument''
remains to this day in all essential particulars the Magna
Charta of the society. Four days after the signing of this
document--on the 14th of Decemben--twentyeight of the first
nominated members met and drew up the Form of Obligation
which is still signed by every academician on receiving his
diploma, and also elected a president, keeper, secretary,
council and visitors in the schools; the professors being chosen
at a further meeting held on the 17th. No time was lost in
establishing the schools, and on the 2nd of January 1769 they
were opened at some rooms in Pall Mall, a little eastward of
the site now occupied by the Junior United Service Club, the
president, Sir Joshua Reynolds, delivering on that occasion the
first of his famous ``discourses.'' The opening of the first
exhibition at the same place followed on the 26th of April.
The king when founding the Academy undertook to supply out
of his own privy purse any deficiencies between the receipts
derived from the exhibitions and the expenditure incurred on
the schools, charitable donations for artists, &c. For twelve
years he was called upon to do so, and contributed in all
something over L. 5000, but in 1781 there was a surplus, and no
further call has ever been made on the royal purse. George
III. also gave the Academy rooms in what was then his own
palace of Somerset House, and the schools and offices were
removed there in 1771, but the exhibition continued to be held
in Pall Mall, till the completion in 1780 of the new Somerset
House. Then the Academy took possession of the apartments
in it which the king, on giving up the palace for government
offices, had expressly stipulated should be provided. Here
it remained till 1837, when the government, requiring the use
of these rooms, offered in exchange a portion of the National
Gallery, then just erected in Trafalgar Square. The offer,
which contained no conditions, was accepted. But it was
not long before the necessity for a further removal became
imminent. Already in 1850 notice was given by the government
that the rooms occupied by the Academy would be required for
the purposes of the National Gallery, and that they proposed
to give the academy L. 40,000 to provide themselves with a
building elsewhere. The matter slumbered, however, till 1858,
when the question was raised in the house of Commons as to
whether it would not be justifiable to turn the Academy out
of the National Gallery without making any provision for it
elsewhere. Much discussion followed, and a royal commission
was appointed in 1863 ``to inquire into the present position
of the Royal Academy in relation to the fine arts, and into
the circumstances and conditions under which it occupies
a portion of the National Gallery, &c.'' In their report,
which contained a large number of proposals and suggestions,
