In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Eudorus’ psychology and Stoic ethics* Mauro Bonazzi (Università degli Studi di Milano) The second book of Stobaeus’ Anthologium has often been used as evidence to reconstruct the position of Eudorus of Alexandria and its relation as much to Stoicism as to Platonism. Indeed, if scholars of Stoicism have tried to show how this evidence proves Eudorus’ dependence on Stoic doctrines, scholars of Platonism have exploited it to demonstrate Eudorus’ key role in the development of Imperial Platonism. That such diverse interpretations are possible is due to the different ways in which Stobaeus’ testimony has been used. Indeed, even if the portion of the text that is explicitly attributable to Eudorus appears to hold fundamentally Stoic views, it is also true that cardinal principles of Imperial Platonism, above all homoiosis toi theoi, occur on the following pages, and their origin would otherwise go unexplained . I will endeavor to show that neither of the two interpretations is fully acceptable. In an attempt to question the legitimacy of “broader” readings of Stobaeus’ text, I will simply state that the way Eudorus is referred to in the citations make such readings rather unjustified. For instance, when introducing the passage at issue Stobaeus (or his source) mentions various texts and not only Eudorus’ text, while towards the end Stobaeus states his intention to “proceed in the order that to me seems the best”.1 Insofar as these assertions introduce a wealth of sources and place an emphasis on the compiler’s compositional license, they neither confirm nor refute the suggestion that Eudorus is a strong presence, and they greatly hinder any attempt to delineate clearly the boundaries of his influence. To base one’s support for the argument of Eudorus’ Platonism on doctrines that are difficult to attribute to him with certainty could easily give rise to dangerous misconceptions. Whilst a solution to these intricate textual disputes has 1 Stob., * Previous drafts of this paper were discussed in Milan, Gargnano, and Cambridge (‘B’ Club). Many thanks are due to Francesca Alesse, Pierluigi Donini, Paolo Fait, Brad Inwood, Carlos Lévy, Jan Opsomer, David Sedley, Malcolm Schofield, and to other participants of the Gargnano Colloquium. I also wish to thank Jenny Pelletier and Russell Friedman for help with the English. Eclog. II, 42, 5-6 and 45, 7-10 W.-H. 110 MAURO BONAZZI yet to be delivered, I maintain that it is safer to refer to the section where his name is expressly stated. On the other hand, this does not mean that Stobaeus’ passage should be read as a proof of Eudorus the Academic’s adherence to Stoicism (at least with respect to ethical and psychological doctrines).2 And neither does it suggest that he is more of a historian than a philosopher who is primarily concerned with reporting other schools’ doctrines (Stoicism in ethics, Platonism elsewhere) rather than defending any himself. What I propose to demonstrate is that even the sole section expressly attributed to Eudorus is compatible with what we know about Platonism from the early Imperial Age. To this end, it will also be useful to draw comparisons with other testimonies or fragments that may safely be attributed to him. Odd as it may seem, scholars have seldom bothered to compare Stobaeus’ passage with other testimonia relating to Eudorus. However, I hope to be able to prove that only by pursuing this course of action will it be possible to promote a greater understanding of Eudorus’ philosophical personality and of the role he played in the philosophical framework of the early Imperial Age. 1. Eudorus and the doctrine of horme If we confine ourselves to the part expressly attributed to Eudorus, we do not find much that is new: Eudorus is said to have written a book, worthy of purchase, and presented as διαίρεσις τοῦ κατὰ φιλοσοφίαν λόγου, tackling problematikos all the issues belonging to the field of knowledge (ἔστιν οὖν Εὐδώρου τοῦ Ἀλεξανδρέως, Ἀκαδημιακοῦ φιλοσόφου, διαίρεσις τοῦ κατὰ φιλοσοφίαν λόγου, βιβλίον ἀξιόκτητον, ἐν ᾧ πᾶσαν ἐπεξελήλυθε προβληματικῶς τὴν ἐπιστήμην).3 The structure of the text follows the traditional tripartition of ethics, physics, and logic.4 Without mentioning the latter two parts, Stobaeus or his source 2 Besides Stobaeus, Eudorus is referred to as Academic also by the Anonymus Commentator on Aratus’ Phaenomena and Simplicius (Anon., Intr. in Arat. 6, 96, 24 Maas = T 11 Mazzarelli; Simpl., In Cat. 187, 10 = T 16 M.). The examples of Antiochus , Plutarch, and the Anonymous Commentator on the Theaetetus show that the use of ”Academic” did not necessarily imply an exclusive commitment to the sceptical Academy, but rather described the entire tradition stemming from Plato; cf. Bonazzi (2003), 208-211...

Share