A LOST DIALOGUE of ARISTOTLE on the IMMORTALITY of the SOUL by ANTON-HERMANN CHROUST in the "Catalo

Home , Corpus Aristotelicum, On the Soul

EUDEMUS OR ON THE SOUL: A LOST DIALOGUE OF ARISTOTLE ON THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL

ANTON-HERMANN CHROUST

In the "catalogues" of Aristotelian writings found in Diogenes Laertius and Hesychius, there is listed among the earliest works a composition entitled On the Soul in one book 1). Modelled on the writings of Plato, this work, which apparently also carried the subtitle of Eudemus, was a dialogue. In any event, one extant fragment of the Eudemus, preserved by Plutarch 2), retains the "Socratic technique" of question and answer, so characteristic of the early Platonic dialogues. But barring a few and, on the whole, rather scanty fragments, that is, references or citations to be found in some ancient authors, the Eudemus has been lost in the course of time 3). Nevertheless, this work, which must have acquired some renown throughout antiquity, in part can be reconstructed with a 1) Diogenes Laertius V 22 (no. 13); Vita Hesychii (or, Vita Menagiana, or Vita Menagii) 10 (no. 13). Both Diogenes Laertius and Hesychius refer only to an On the Soul, omitting the subtitle Eudemus. The "catalogue" ascribed to Ptolemy-el-Garib does not mention this composition. 2) Plutarch, Consolatio ad Apollonium 115B-11E ; Rose, frag. 44 ; Ross, frag. 6; Walzer, frag. 6 (cf. p. 18note 3). 3) The Eudemus or On the Soul, like the other exoteric works or dialogues of the early Aristotle, in all probability became gradually lost when, due to the alleged re-discovery or recovery of the esoteric or "doctrinal" works of Aristotle during the latter part of the first century B. C. (Apellicon of Teos, Tyrannion of Amisus, and Andronicus of Rhodes), the literary and scholarly interest in the work of Aristotle suddenly shifted to the "dogmatic" works, subsequently known as the traditional Corpus Aristotelicum, at the expense of the early or exoteric Aristotelian writings. The latter came to be progressively neglected and ignored, and, as a result of this neglect, became "lost". See also A.-H. Chroust, The Miraculous Disappearance and Recovery of the Corpus Aristotelicum, Class. et Med 23 (1963), 50-67.-The commentators, at least Alexander of Aphrodisias (floruit 198-211A. D.), still made some use of the early dialogues, but on the whole they did not know what to make of them. Taking notice of certain doctrinal differences that existed between the exoteric compositions and the "dogmatic" works (already Cicero, De Finibus V 5, 12, 18

fair degree of accuracy It is also permissible to assume that this composition or dialogue was "dedicated" to the memory of Eudemus of Cyprus, a personal friend and "classmate" of Aristotle in the Platonic Academy 2). According to Cicero (who probably quotes this from Aristotle's Eudemus) Eudemus of Cyprus once journeyed from Macedonia to the city of Pherae in Thessaly which at that time was ruled by the tyrant Alexander (of Pherae). Here Eudemus fell gravely ill and the physi- cians gave up all hope of saving his life. In a dream Eudemus had an apparition which told him that he would recover within a few days, that Alexander would die a few days hence, and that he, Eudemus, would return to his homeland in five years. The first two "messages" actually came true: Eudemus recovered unexpectedly and Alexander was murdered. Five years later Eudemus, who had hoped that by this time he would be back in Cyprus, died in battle near Syracuse in Sicily. Hence, the dream did not signify that Eudemus would return to this native land, but that he would die in five years: on leaving the body Eudemus' soul would return to its ("heavenly") home 3). Plutarch on his part narrates that in 357 B.C. Eudemus took part in the military campaign of Dion of Syracuse which was intended to liberate Syracuse from the tyrannical rule of Dionysius the Younger. Eudemus fell in battle and, in the words of Plutarch, "Aristotle com- posed in his honor a dialogue entitled On the Soul" 4). If Plutarch's account should prove to be correct-some of its details are definitely was aware of these differences), they devised a number of theoiies to explain the relation between the two types of writings. Some insisted that the latter contained Aristotle's true philosophic views, while the former reported the "erroneous opinion" of others. See, for instance, Elias (olim David), Commenta- ria in Poyphyrii Isagogen et tM in A ristotelis Categoyias, in: Commentayia in Ayistotelem Graeca, vol. XVIII, part i (ed. A. Busse, igoo), p. 114, lines 15 ff. 1) At this very moment O. Gigon is preparing what seems to be the definitive edition of Aristotle's Eudemus under the title of Aristoteles' Dialog Eudemos : Ein Versuch der Wiederherstellung. 2) See W. Jaeger, Aristotle : Fundamentals of the History of His Development (Oxford Paperbacks, 1961), 39. 3) Cicero, De Divinatione ad Brutum I 25, 53 ; V. Rose, Aristotelis qui ferebantur librorum fragmenta (1886), frag. 37, subsequently cited as Rose, frag. 37 ; W. D. Ross, Aristotelis Fragmenta Selecta (1955), frag. I, subsequently cited as Ross, frag. I ; R. Walzer, Aristotelis Dialogorum Fragmenta in Usum Scholarum (1934), frag. I, subsequently cited as Walzer, frag. I. 4) Plutarch Dion 22, 3 ; Rose, frag. 37 ; Ross, frag. i; Walzer, frag. i.