two souls. origen's and augustine's attitude toward the two souls doctrine. its place in

8/12/2019 Two Souls. Origen's and Augustine's Attitude Toward the Two Souls Doctrine. Its Place In

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/two-souls-origens-and-augustines-attitude-toward-the-two-souls-doctrine 1/20

Two Souls. Origen's and Augustine's Attitude toward the Two Souls Doctrine. Its Place inGreek and Christian PhilosophyAuthor(s): R. FerwerdaSource: Vigiliae Christianae, Vol. 37, No. 4 (Dec., 1983), pp. 360-378Published by: BRILLStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1583546 .

Accessed: 08/03/2014 10:46

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Vigiliae Christianae.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 181.118.153.57 on Sat, 8 Mar 2014 10:46:09 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bap

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1583546?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp





http://www.jstor.org/stable/1583546?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bap



Vigiliaehristianae7 1983)360-378,. J.Brill, eiden

TWO SOULSORIGEN'S AND AUGUSTINE'S ATTITUDE TOWARD THE TWO SOULS

DOCTRINE. ITS PLACE IN GREEK AND CHRISTIAN PHILOSOPHY*

BY

R. FERWERDA

Pereant facie ua,deus, icuti ereunt,aniloquit mentiseductores,uicumduasvoluntatesndeliberandonimadverterint,uasnaturasuarummentiumsseasseverant,nam onam, lterammalam.

May they erishnddisappearut ofthy ight, God, ustas theyctuallyo,thosemptyalkersnddeceiversf themind,who, incehey ave bservedhattherere wowills nour ctofdeliberating,tatehat herere wonaturesftwominds,negood, he ther vil.

(Aug.Conf.VIII, 10,22)

Thesewordsof Augustineannotbe ranked s an outstandingutterancef true hristianrotherlyovefor hosewhobelieventwonaturesf twominds. uoting itus1:10he callsthemmptyalkersanddeceiversfthemind;withoutlinching,e nvokesternal amna-tion pon hem, isoldfriends.orhedoesnot eaveus ndoubt s tothe dentityfthe bjects f hiswrath. heymust etheManicheans,

towhose anks ugustineimselfadbelonged,utfrom hose om-panyhehad fledwhenhewasaboutthirty ears ld.' In a previousbook,De duabus nimabus ontraManichaeossee especially andXII, 16),hehadalreadyttackedheir iews n the wo ouls ngreaterdetail. n a book ofthat ameperiod De VeraReligioneX, 16)hedescribedhegist f this octrine:Duas animas sse nunocorporeexistimant:nam eDeo,quaenaturaliteroc it uod pse, lteramegenteenebrarumuamDeusnongenuerit,ecfecerit,ecprotulerit,necabiecerit".

Thattherere two ouls n

onebody, nefrom odwhich s bynature he ame s God,one fromhepeople f darknesswhich od hasneitherenerated,ormade, or aised, or astdown.)He continuedysayinghat his vil oul "adversus eum ebellasse,deumutem,uialiud uidfaceretonhaberett uomodo literosset







TWO SOULS 361

hostiresistere on nveniret,ecessitateppressummisissehucanimambonam et quandam particulam ubstantiae uae cuius commixtione

hostem temperatum sse somniant et mundumfabricatum" (hadrebelled gainstGod, butthatGod whohad no othermeans and couldnot nvent notherwayto opposehisenemy,was forced o sendtothisworld hegood soul,a certain artof his ownbeing; hey ream hat heenemys moderatedybeingmixedwith t andthat nthiswaytheworldwas created).He mentioned hetwosouls also ina negative ensein De haeresibus . 46 MigneP.L. 42, 38.

It is evidentthatAugustinehad to rejectthe two souls doctrine

because theChristian reed llowedonlyone soul inone humanbeingwhichwas to be redeemed yChrist's rucifixion. ut thiscan hardlyaccount for heferocityf therejection, pparent ntheConfessiones.In orderto explainthat,we may, of course, refer o the fact that

originallyAugustinehimself, s a memberof the Manicheans,hadbelieved n the dea and that, fterhisabnegation,he was particularlyeager to denounce the weaknesses and dangerouspoints of theirtheories.Out of an understandable efencemechanism, e mayhave

used expressions hat are more vehement han theobject invites.Butthisexplanationmeetswithan unexpected ifficulty. ecentlyH. S.Puech2 made it clear that the existence f the two souls theory nManicheancircles s notsupported ytextsfrom therwriters.Whatthe Manicheansdidbelieve nwas a (good) soul and an (evil)bodyandthey ssumedthat his oul had descendedfromGod.3 It is difficultounderstandwhyAugustine,whomustbe supposedto haveknown heManichean heories rom irst andexperience,hought it o blame his

former ellow ectarians or omethinghey id notprofess. t isalmostunimaginable hathe made a simplemistake, incehe knew them owell. But what could thenbe thereasonwhyhe, as faras we know,deliberatelyresented heirdoctrinen a distorted orm?Would it betruethathe ascribed o them heresy o which heydid not adhere norder to maketheir reed so suspect hatno one would dare flocktotheir ircles nymore?f that s thecase, however,we haveto answertwo newquestions.First,why s thisdoctrineupposedly o dangerous,

makingt necessaryo presentt in such unfavourableerms,ndsecond,who were ts adherents,f therewereany? Leavingthe firstquestion open for the moment, would like to draw attention oClementofAlexandriaforthesolutionof the secondproblem. n hisStromateisI, 20, 113,3 he says: "Isidorus,son ofBasilides,writesn







362 R. FERWERDA

his book on the attachedsoul that man has two souls (just as thePythagoreans elieve),and Valentinebelievedthat our heart s com-

parableto a public odging: ll kindsof spirits ather here nd enterit". And in hisExcerptaTheodoti50, I (Theodotus s a follower fValentine)Clement tates:"From mudGod made an irrational oul,akinto the souls of animals.This soul is flesh o thedivine oul so to

speak". And in51, 3 he adds: "As to thetwo soulsSotersaysthatwemustbe afraidof the demonwho is able to destroy hat oul and thatbody n hell". According othese exts hetwosoulstheorys found nGnostic ircles roundthetime fValentine ndBasilides secondcen-

turyA.D.). We know, nfact, hatmostGnostics aught hatmannotonly had a soul (psyche)but also a spirit pneuma). Whereasthepneumahaddescended rom eaven ndcouldberedeemed,hepsychebelonged o the owerparts fman andperishedwith hebody.4t snottoodifficulto infer rom his heoryhe deathat heGnostics elievedintwosouls,pneumabeing hehigheroul andpsyche he ower. fthisequationbetween neumaand higher) oul scorrect,wemay oncludethattheGnostics re theadherents f thetwosoulsdoctrinendicated

byAugustine nd nottheManicheans.Since Mani had insertedmanyGnostic heoriesnhis viewoftheworld,5 believe hatAugustine ookadvantage f thesimilarityetween hetwodoctrinesnorder o forceupontheManicheans heGnostic heoryfthetwosouls.Bydoing hishe hopedtoprevent isreaders romoininghisownold friends homhe had begunto loathe. shallexplainbelow p. 364) whyhe used thetwosoulstheory or t.

I would iketo turnnow to an interestingnd lengthy iscussion y

Origenofthecause of evil nthisworld nwhich hetwosoulsplayanimportant art. n his De PrincipiisII, 4, 1Origen ackles hequestionwhetherhere s also somethinglse nus, viz.menwho consist fsoulandbodyandthe pirit f ife,whichhas a motive owerof tsownanda forcewhich ompelsustodo evil."Some scholars",hesays,6 putthequestionwhether e have tosaythat here retwosouls nus,onemoredivine ndheavenlynd theothernferior,rwhether earedragged oevilthingswhichpleasethebodybecause weareattached o bodies,or

thirdly,hetherursoul is

essentiallynebutconsistingfmoreparts,as theGreeks hink, ne rational nd one irrational,he astonebeingdivided ntothetwoaffections fdesire ndwrath".Becausethis hirdtheorys notto be found ntheHolyWrit,Origendecidesto limithisdiscussion o theother wo.First,he sumsup theevidencehe findsn







TWO SOULS 363

the Scriptures oncerning he existence f two souls. "The heavenlysoul", he says,"is sowndirectlyntothebodyfromheaven,for xam-

pletheone which endered hepalmofvictoryoJacoboverhisbrotherEsau,when heywere till ntheirmother's omb; t s also the oulwhich n Jeremiah1:5) was sanctified eforethebirth nd which nJohnwas filledwith heholy pirit efore hebirth. he inferioroul iscreated longwith hebodyand is often alled flesh'.Theadherentsfthis heory onfirmhat hephrase the desires fthe flesh reagainstthespirit" Gal. 5:17) does not refer o thebodybut to the soul ofthebody. Theyfind upport or his dea inLevit.17:14:"The soulofevery

creature s the blood of it", and in Romans 7:23: "But I see in mymembersnother aw at warwith he aw ofmymindmakingmecap-tive o the awofsinwhich wells nmymembers".And when he pos-tle saysthatthestruggle etween lesh nd spiritnducesus notto dowhatwe wish odo, who arethose we'? (Gal. 5:17). He is certainlyotspeaking bout the realspirit or about theflesh, ecausethefleshhasnowill.So hemustmeanthewillof the ouloftheflesh nd,therefore,man has twosouls. Whenthis oul clings o thespirit heapostlecon-

cludes: "You are not in theflesh,but in thespirit" Rom. 8:9). Butthen,of course, one could also argue that soul is an intermediarybetween lesh ndspirit nd notpartofeither fthem.' This eadsto averyprofound iscussion.For ifthe soul is an independentntityndacts according o its ownwishes and not to thoseof the fleshor thespirit) he oul isneitherwarmnorcoldand Jesuswill pew tout ofhismouth Revelation3:16)".

We maysurmise rom his ong paragraph hatOrigenpreferso see

the oulas eitherwarm rcold,acting itherccording o the pirit r totheflesh.Attheendof hisdiscourse, e states s a sortofafterthoughtthathe discussed ll these hingsna ratherongdigression ecause hewanted to demonstrate hathe knew all thearguments f thosewhobelieved hatwehave twosouls.

In thenext ection III, 4, 4 and 5), Origen xamines hetheoryhatoursoul is oneandthat hediverse assions recausedbytheflesh.Thisfleshhas no soul of itsown,heargues.Whentheflesh eems o seduceus and a better

nsightesists he

seduction,we should not think hat

there s a second ifewhichresists heother;rather, henature f thebodywantsodepletetself,ecauset sfilled ith odilyuices.Whentheneedsofthebodyseduceus,we arenotopentodivine ealities. hatis why heapostlesays Rom. 8:7): "The wisdomof theflesh s hostile







364 R. FERWERDA

to God". Thisdoes notmean,according oOrigen, hat hefleshhas asoul and wisdomofitsown n the iteral ense. "Soul" and "wisdom"

are used here metaphorically,n the same manner that we say,metaphorically,hatthe earth s thirsty,r that the blood cries for

vengeance. f thisbodilydesirewouldhavea soul of itsown,a secondsoul, createdbyGod, thenwhat would be thedifferenceetween his

opinion nd theconception f thetwosouls,one of which s bound tobe savedand theother operish?That would be theopinionof hereticswho, because they annotproveGod's justice n a pious way,inventsuch mpiousconcepts,he says.

I think hat nthis astsentencewe find heanswer o the first ues-tion posed on page 361, viz., why the two souls doctrinewas so

dangerous o the official ogmaofthechurch. twas thedivineusticewhichwasat stake ndno one shouldbe allowedtotamperwithmattersof such mportance. hat is also thereasonwhyAugustine orced his

theory pon the Manicheans n orderto put theirdoctrinen an un-favorable ight.

When we look at the discussion f this ast section, t appearsas if

Origenprofesseshimself ferventpponent o the two souls theory.But amazingly noughhe concludesthisvery nterestinghapterwiththefollowing emark: We havebrought orward,s wellas wecould,what could be said bythe adherents f the twotheories;however, hereader hould hoosefrom hese hewayofreasoningwhich ught o be

acceptedbypreference"'. t the ame momentnwhichheseems o ointhearmyof faithful elievers, e shrinks ack, offering isreaderschoice.What does thatmean?Crouzel-Simonetti8hink hatforOrigen

the two soulstheorys notwholly nacceptable.They pointto the factthat n severalother ases Origen eaves itup to thereaderto choosebetween iverse olutionsDe Principiis, 6, 4; 1, 7, 1and II, 3, 7). Butall these exts efer otheuncertaintyoncerninghe orporeal r ncor-

poreal stateof man after heDay of Judgmentnd Origendoes notknow how itwillbe then:onlyGod knows,he says,and His friendsthroughJesusChrist. n our text,however, he situation s different:Origen cts "entgegen einer onstigen epflogenheit",s Langerbeck

says.9He tries o provetheveracity f theofficialdogma,buthe isreluctanto mposetonhisreaders.What s the eason or his?s ithint, or hosewhoknow, hatOrigen'sownopinion s notthe ameasthe dogma of the church?And does he use his seemingly etachedscholarlyttitude"I want o showthat know ll the rguments") s a







TWO SOULS 365

mask in order to be able to revealthe feeling f his heart n an in-

conspicuousway?I think hatwe have to answerbothquestions nthe

affirmative. nd I believe hat herewas a specialreasonwhyhe felt oattracted o the idea. We shall see below thattheGreeks n generalrejected hetwo soulstheory ecausetheywere fraid o introducevil,in thatway, as an independent orce n our world. But thingsweredifferent orOrigen.His thoroughfamiliarity ithGnosticismhad

openedhiseyes,enablinghimto look at thisworld n otherways.On thissubjectDanidlou'o has developedan intriguingheory.He

pointedoutthatEastern heology as a view of humannaturewhich s

exactly heoppositeof that fWesternheology. orexample,GregoryofNyssaregardednimal ife s having eenadded to thenature fman

consisting f both intellectualife (nots) and supernatural neuma;Westernheology, n theotherhand,believed hat he upernatural asaddedtothenature f manconsistingf ower ntities. his mplies hatthe ddition fa second oulinWesterni.e. official) heologywouldbean increase f the ower ntities, hile nEastern heologyhetwo soulswould be the twohigher ntities f man that lready xist. think hat

Origenforeshadowed his radition nd thatforhim he econd oulwasnot the source of evil but theentity ywhichman would be able tounderstandmore bout the ssence f ife nd even boutGod. Byusingit hemight venbecome ikeGod. The road to thishiddenwisdomwasbesetwith angers, s theBible teachesus (Genesis3), but t salso verytempting. s a ChristianOrigenhad to acceptthatman has one soul,but as a "Gnostic" he wished o safeguard he hiddenwisdomof thetwo souls which he deemedextremely aluable and enlighteningor

thosewhothirstfter solution otheir eepest roblems.According oa story oldbyEusebius Hist.Eccl. VI, 8) Origen,nthe eal ofyouth,castrated imself ecausehetook iterallyMatthew 9:12. In lateryearshe mayhave realized hat ucha curtailmentidnot solvemanyprob-lems and that twouldbe wise to recoilfrom urtailingnother artofhimself,.e. his second oul,whichhe felt ouldprocure nsightnto heheartof humanexistence. n myview,hisambiguityowards hetwosouls theory eflects is internal truggle etween hedemandsof the

church nd his personal feelingswhich werefostered yhis Gnosticbackground.That thetwo souls theorywas propoundedbytheGnostics s con-

firmed ywhatwe find n Plotinus. n his famous reatise gainst heGnosticshe calls them enselessfor ntroducinghe other oul which







366 R. FERWERDA

they omposeof the lementsEnneads I, 9, 5, 16). Itappearshere hatPlotinus considered heir econd soul to be the ower one. What sur-

prisesus inreading hisphrase s theviolent eprobation ithwhichhedenounces heir heory. hissurprisesdueto thefact hat n other extsPlotinus eemsto admit hatwedo have twosouls,for nstanceV, 3,27, 1-6: (Forgetfulness elongsto thesoul) "But to which oul? Thesoulwhich s called moredivinedue towhichweare"ourselves"ortheother oulwhich omesfrom heuniverse?" t is true hat nII, 3, 9, 24the "other" soul is thehigher oul which strives or thedivine,but

usuallythe "other" soul onlyappearswhen Plotinustalksabout the

"image" of the "true" soul. I think hat herewe find he clue to thesolution f thisproblem. or,from hemeaning heword"image" hasinhisphilosophy"wemay nfer hat hisdoesnotmean that here rereally wo ndependentntities alledsoul; rather here s onlyonesoulwhose mageor reflexions simplyhe ntermediaryetween igherndlowerentitieswhichhas no existence f itsown. Plotinus accepts he

pluralityf soulsonly n thesense nwhichPlato talksaboutthesoulwhich sundividedinitself) utwhich s divided n itsreflexionn)the

bodies (Timaeus35a 1-3). In orderto proveconvincinglyheunity fthe soul he evencallsupongod to offer is assistance IV, 9, 4, 6, and

15) just as he invokeshim nother ases whenhe has to disentangleparticularly ifficult roblem V, 8, 9, 13). When, in moments fcarelessness,his languagesometimes lips and seemsto suggest hatthere s "anothersoul", we have to bear in mind thatPlotinus s un-

waveringlyonsistentnhis adherence o theunity f the soul.

His 'carelessness'has also provokeddifficultiesnthe nterpretation

of related bjects:matter ndevil. For Plotinus vilhasno existencefitsown; t s a sort fdeprivationftheGood I, 8, 11,5; II, 4, 13,10and passim). In the same waymatterhas no privatebeing; it is theshadow,the mageofbeing.Some textsmply,however, hatboth eviland matter ossesstheir wn right f being,forexample , 8, 6, 33:"Both non-being nd beingare principles, ne of evils,the otherofgoods" and I, 8, 6, 48; "So wehave shown hat t s notuniversallyruethatthere s nothing ontraryo being". Also I, 8, 7, 1-3: "But how

then s itnecessaryhat fthegood exists, o should evil? s itbecausetheremustbe evil nthe ll?Thisallmust ertainlyecomposedofcon-trary rinciples;t would notexist t all ifmatter idnotexist".Variousattempts ave beenmade to reconcile heseapparentlyonflictingx-pressions utnoneof themhas carried he field.Theproblems insolu-







TWO SOULS 367

ble,exceptwhenwe realize hatPlotinusdidnotalways xpress imselfincarefullyhosenwords ndthat, naddition othat, s has often een

argued, here retwo differentides nPlotinus'philosophy. eller allsthem "objectiv" and "subjectiv", Br~hierspeaks of a "problkmephilosophique" and a "problkme religieux" and Kristellerof

"gegenstaindlich"nd "aktual".'" The ambiguityn Plotinus' use of

languagemaybe due to the fact that he oftenviewedthesame topicfrom ifferentantagepoints.For example,hewilldiscussmatters an

objectivebeingand as a subjectivevalue; or he willapproach t first

ontologicallyndthenmorally. he same s applicable o the wo souls.

But whenwe look at thevehemencewithwhichPlotinus ejects hetwosouls heory ecannot elp oncludinghat e saw n t dangeroust-tackonhisownmostcherished iewof theworld nd thathe wanted o

divorcehimselfompletelyrom hose hisold friends )whoupheld he

theory hatman has twosouls. In thisrespecthe showsthesame reac-tion to them s Augustine id to his old friends,he Manicheans.

Now thatwehave seenwithwhich ervor lotinus pposedhimselfothe two souls theory, t is worthwhile o investigatewhether arlier

Platonists rPlato himself ealt with hisproblem.There s, inthe firstplace, thatenigmatic igure fSocrates.According o Cicero Tusc. 4,37, 80) Socratesadmitted hatvicesare partand parcelof himself utthathe had learned o control hem,nthe manner s Antiphon eforehimhad taught hatthe manwho does not know what desire s and isnotacquaintedwith vil,doesnotpossesswisdomfr.59). Socrateshadno difficultyn acknowledging is beingattracted o beautifulyouthslike Charmides Charm. 155 ce) or Phaedrus Phaedr. 234d) and in

using hat rotic eelingo start powerfulnd profound hilosophicaldiscussion. This is not to say, however, hat Socratesspoke of twosouls. Theclosest llusion o a second oulwecandetectshismention-

inga 'daimonion'whichwarnshimwhen he is about to makewrongdecisionsApology31cd;State496c). But this daimonion' snot evilor

good as opposedto his soul. It is simply warning oicewhich houldbe heededand which ndsall debateor internaltruggle. ocrates husdoes notfigure s a proponent f thetwosouls theory. lato himself,

however, ccasionally oyswith

omethinghat

mighte(and,

infact,hasbeen) nterpreteds an independentxistence f a 'second force'. n

his Timaeus 48a7) he states hat ntheprocessofcreatingheuniversethereare two causes, mind and necessity,he latterbeingtheerrantcause,destitutef reason. n addition o these auseshe also introduces







368 R. FERWERDA

the 'receptacle' nto whichall the forms nterand which s mostlythought o be thesameas matter.NecessitynPlato is notmatter ut

Plotinus eems o identifyhetwoas wellas the old nature'ofPlato'sPoliticus 73b5.Nowitcanbecontendedhatnecessity' r old nature'is theprinciple f evilbutPlato does notexplicitlyay so. And whenPlotinus I, 8, 7, 4-5) endeavours o provethatmatter nd evilare thesamebyreferringoPlato's Theaetetus 76a,wheretsays hat vildoesnotpass away,he evidently ivesthatphrase turnwhich tdoes nothave in Plato. Neverthelesshere re moreexpressionsn Plato whichsuggest dualismnotonlybetweenmatter ndmind,but ntherealm f

thesoul itself s well. n Timaeus69cdhementions he "other kindofsoul", thedivine oul,as opposedto themortal oul.'4 Thisdivine oulis more or less what s also calledmindwhile he mortal oul contains

desires,passionsand lust. It is, however,wrong o supposethatPlatoactuallybelieved ntwosouls. In the same Timaeushe teachesus thatthe ndividualhumansoul is composedof the same ingredientss theworldsoul. When ater nterpretersoncludethat the "other kindofsoul" isgoodproof fPlato's belief n twosouls,they re notconsider-

ing the general intention f the Timaeus but only one somewhatcarelessly sed expression.The same is true of whatwe find n thePhaedrus237d: "We mustobserve hat neachoneofus there re two

rulingprinciples: ne is the innate desire forpleasures, heother nacquiredopinionwhich trives or hebest". Thisphrase annotbe readapartfromwhatwe find nthePhaedrus246a: "We will iken hesoulto thecomposite ature f a pairofwinged orses nd a charioteer. hehorses ndcharioteersfthegodsare all goodand ofgooddescent, ut

thoseofother acesaremixed.One of thehorses s noble and ofnoblebreed,butthe other uitetheopposite n breed nd character".WhatPlato intends o sayhere s thatthere re severalparts n one soul andnotthat here reseveral ouls.We find similar ase intheLaws 903d:"The soul suffers ll kindsof changes by itself r byanother oul".Thisother oul is notanother oul in one and thesamepersonbut thesoul of anotherperson; therefore, e are notallowed to supposethatPlato at anytimeofhis ifeheldtheviewthat person ouldhavetwodifferentouls. Andwhen n

theLaws 896ehementions wosouls,oneofwhich sbenevolent hile heothersabletocontrivepposite hingswemay dmit hat his dualism'between ood and evilwasperhaps nadaptationof theZoroastrianOrmuzd and Ahriman o his own doc-trine." But certainlyt does not flatly ontradict he denial in the







TWO SOULS 369

Politicus 270a) oftwogodsof oppositeminds, ince ntheLaws 897che saysthat thegood and intelligentypeof soul remains n supreme

controlndthat heotherypestheunderling;t s,atbest, part ftheruling oul.

As a conclusionI would say that Plato had an inklingof somemysterious re-cosmic oul, an "inherited onglomerate"as Doddscalls t' and that n someplacesheevensuggestsn independentifeofthis oul,comparable o the ndependentxistencef evil nZoroastrianliterature. ut therecan be no doubt thathe ultimately ejectsthisdualismand thathis second' soul is onlyanother art of the soul.

WhatdidPlato's immediateuccessorsmake of thesoul?Generally,Aristotle nly peaksofonesoulwith everal unctions ut at the ndoftheDe Anima he introducesa productive gent" inthemind nd con-tends hat hemind tself s separate,mmortal,nd eternal430a 22/3).There has been a continuous ebateover whatAristotlemeantbythisproductive gentand a mindwhich s eternal.Are theypart of thehuman soul? Or are they ubstantiallyifferenteadingus to concludethat, n fact,Aristotle elieves n two differentouls one of whichhe

calls eternalmind?7There eems obe nodefinitenswer o these ues-tions.But t s difficulto admit hathe ever cceptedhe xistence ftwo separatesouls, one of which s good and the other vil. For onething, e does notexplicitlypeakof twosouls.Moreover,he thinks fthisuniverse s beingone,governed ya supreme eingwhich sthink-ingofthinking. ut his hesitationowards he"productive gent"mayindicate crack n his well-sealed niversewhich, lthoughhe tried o

patch t, s disclosedbythepatchingtself.

Turning o Speusippusand Xenocrates,"'8 e findthatDamasciusbracketedhemwith ach other s believinghat he rrational s well stherational oul was immortal. hisseems oimply hat hey elievedntwosouls,butthe ext oes not tate texplicitly. oreover,t s claimedthat Speusippus belonged to a group of people who denied thatgoodness and evil are archai. Furthermore, oth Xenocrates andSpeusippus tate hat hetwo souls' are immortal. t ishardly ossible,therefore,o infer rom hescanty emnants t ourdisposalthatthese

philosophers evelopeda theory o divergent rom hatof Plato andAristotle. he wording f thesefragments(i,

Xoytxijux( nd j&,Xoyx)

maybe due to thevery ate sourceto whichwe owe them.The situation hanges bitwhenwe cometo Plutarchfirst entury

A.D.) and Atticus (second century).According to Proclus both







370 R. FERWERDA

philosophers asethemselvesnPlatonicdialogues Timaeus ndLaws)inbearing ut their laimthatunorderedmatter re-existedhe reation

and thatthere lso is a pre-existent aleficentoul whichordered hisdisordered ass.'9Now t sevident,swehave een bove, hatnthetext f theLaws (896d) the maleficentoul is a partof theworld-soul,opposedto thegood soul,butnotan independentorcen tsownright.It has beenargued hatPlutarchwas stimulatednhis nterpretationfthePlato texts ya study f Persianreligion. ut,on theotherhand, nhisDe Iside 374c Plutarchmakes t clear thatthismaleficentr irra-tional soul is notevilitself nd we have, therefore, o definite roof

that Plutarchbelieved n a dualistic onception f the world n whichgood and evil had theirown independent 6les. From othersourceshowever,we know hathedid makea cleardistinction etweenoul andmind n one humanbeing.20n De Facie Lunae 943a he says: "Mostpeoplerightlyold a manto be composite utwrongly old himto becomposedofonly woparts.Thereason s that hey upposemind obesomehowpartofsoul,thus rring o less than hosewho believe oul tobe partofbody,for nthe amedegree s soul is superior obody, o is

mindbetter nd more divinethan soul. The resultof soul and bodycommingleds the rrational r the affective actor,whereasof mindandsoul the onjunction roduces eason;and ofthese heformersthesourceofpleasure ndpain,the atter fvirtuend vice". Firstwe findinthispassagea tripartition: ind, oul and body.Secondly wo otherentities s well: theconjunctions f bodyand soul, on the one hand,producingrrationaloul,and thatofmind ndsoul,on theother, ro-ducingreason.This is nottheonlytext n Plutarchwherewe find he

distinction etweenmindand soul. In De Mor. Virt. 4Id ff.and DeDaemone Socratis591dff.we find hedistinctionnd severalmore n-cient extsmaybeposited s sources f this heory, .g. Plato's Timaeus30b or Aristotle'sDe Anima III, 5. It is also possible that,whiledevelopingthis theory,Plutarch was not immuneto Hermetic ndGnostic oncepts boutmind nd soul with he same mpact.But whatis mostapparent s that n Plutarch'swritingshisdistinctionetweensouland minddoesnotrepresentclear-cut wosoulstheorys weshall

find elsewhere.Plutarch's followerAtticus is perhaps a bit moreprecise.Dillon 1 argues hathetaught hat herational oul is immortaland that the irrational oul dies with the body. Though he attacksAristotle iercelyorassuming nlythe mmortalityfthe mind frag-ment Des Places), Atticus irtuallyefendshereAristotle's iew, c-







TWO SOULS 371

cording to Dillon. He only changes the names: rational soul isAristotle'smind.But in myviewDillon is wrong.BothBaudry22nd

Des Places23 tate hat heverbatimuotationfromAtticus yEusebiusinPraepar.Evang. XV, 9 (= fragment Des Places) indicates hat hewhole oul survived fter eath. Proclus' statementnAtticus' heories

(In TimaeumIII, 234, 17-18=fragment 5 Des Places) cannot beattributedo him.24 gainthere s no twosoulstheory ere. The same

appliesto Albinuswho is mentioned n the samepassageof Proclus.25There is, however, one ancient author, somewhat older than

Plutarch,wherewedo find eferenceso a two soulsdoctrine: hilo of

Alexandria.Generally, e considers he oul as being omposedof a ra-tional and an irrationalpart.26Occasionallyhe even alludes to thePlatonictripartition27r the Stoic division nto thehegemonikonndthe sevenphysicalfaculties.28But whendiscussing iblicaltexts ikeGenesis9:4, Leviticus17:11 and 14 orDeuteronomium2:23he seemsto admit hat here re two souls nman,one of which eing hebiblicalruach mind),and theother henefesh blood-soul).29 ue to his nter-pretation f certainPlatonicpassagestreated bove and ofAristotle's

remarks n theseparatemindPhilo mayhave assumed that thistwosouls doctrinewas not altogetherlien to theGreekmind,making t

possible,therefore,o include t in his ownphilosophy.And sincehewas wellacquaintedwithGnostic ircles nwhich his nterpretationfthose passages was accepted,he may have considered t one of the

bridges panning hegulfbetween he view of the worldof the Greeksand the Jews.

This is certainlytrue for another Greek/Jewish hilosopher,

Numenius,who ived nApamea inthesecondcentury .D. It is a pitythatweknowso little f his ifeorworks,but whatwe knowconfirmsthathe definitelyelievedman has twosouls,one therational nd theother he rrational,ustas hehas other airs earsand eyes) fragment44 Des Places).30Although hefragmentellsus thathe is nottheonlyphilosopher o hold thisopinion, t providesno furthernformation.UnlikePlutarch ndAtticuswhopostulate harmony etween hetwoelementsn the soul, thetwo souls Numeniusdiscusses re in a con-

tinuousquarrel.31 partfrom histwo souls doctrineNumenius lsofirmlyelievesnthe ndependentxistence f matter s the vil forcenthe process of creatingthe universe fragment 2 Des Places).32Numenius, herefore,s the first ndmaybe heonlyGreek uthorwhoadvocateda very onsistent ualismeven withinman. It is interesting,







372 R. FERWERDA

however, hatCalcidius, nwhoseCommentaryn the Timaeus 295-9)we find his astfragment,eems o changeNumenius' deas somewhat

by speaking gain of thetwopartsof the soul. J. C. M. van Windenthinks e does so because hewas a Christian.33. H. Waszink34udgesthat "bei Numeniosdie Platoninterpretationnd seineeigeneAnsichtnicht larvoneinander etrenntderdass sie n rgendeiner eisekoor-diniertwaren". In my opinion, Van Winden is right,particularlybecause, as we have seen, Christiansveryvehemently ejectedthistheory.

One lastremark bout laterGreekphilosophys inorder.According

to IamblichusDe Myst.VIII, 8," "the Hermeticwritingslso contendthat manhas two souls.One of them temsfrom he firstntelligible,takingpart nthepoweroftheDemiurg,whereas he other nters ntous from herevolution f theheavenly odies". This idea is akin towhatPlotinus ellsus abouttheGnosticsnEnn. II, 9, 5, 17.36Beutler37thinks hat thistheoryhas to be distinguishedromwhat we find nPlutarch,Atticus nd Numenius; agreewithhimthatthere re con-siderabledifferences hich re smoothed own a bitbyDodds38when

he states that there s a perfect greement etween them. But thediscrepanciesre superficialnd are bridgedbythebasicallydualisticconception f the worldwhichwe found n them.The Hermetics, heGnostics ndNumeniuswere heonlyones whoalso made their ualismapparent n their wo souls theory.After hemwe find histheorynPorphyry39ndNemesius40amongothers.However, hey ll harkbackto eitherNumenius rtheGnostics, enderingeutler's tatement41hatthe dea is "nichtso selten"somewhatmisleading.

Afterthisbriefreviewof what the Greekphilosophershave saidabout the two souls I should like now to turnback to the questionwhy theywereso reluctanto acceptthe fullconsequencesof certainshadowyhints n their heories nd to say thatman has two souls. Ithink hattheGreekshad an innatefearof excess,of iptpr,nd couldnotacceptthatevilwas an independent orce.Thatwouldbreaktheirworldinto two and shake theirmost basic viewsof whattheworldshouldbe. Levinas42 alls tthe"horreur e l'Autre". I agreefullywith

Langerbeck43 hen he says: "Es (i.e., a dualistic heory)stgegendiegriechisch-philosophischeorstellung iner Seele die "una est persubstantiam", ber in verschiedene nterteileerfallt.Dass auch beiPlaton schon in aller Deutlichkeit on zwei Seelen die Rede ist (cf.Timaeus69cd)unddass dieseplatonischeniatze ir dieAusbilding er







TWO SOULS 373

gnostischenLehre von grosserBedeutungsind, ist kein Einwanddagegen".nthe ourse fhistory,angerbeckrgues,t s normalhat

the viewsofgreat hinkers re dualisticallymis)interpretednthepro-cess "ihrervulgairenergroberung"."That is whathappened o Platoas well s to theChristianreed.VulgarPlatonism f ater ges sno lessdualisticthanvulgarCatholicism n medievalor moderntimes. Thereasonwhy rigeneemsobewillingogoalongwitht s, nmy iew,thathe didnot see thesecondsoul as the evilforcebut nterpretedt astheenlightenednewhichmight ommunicate iddenwisdom."'This,however,was far fromwhatthechurchwas prepared o accept,refer-

ring o thedangersof humanhybriswhich re spelledout in thefirstchaptersof Genesis and of the idea that only one soul could beredeemed.t s nowonder, hen, hat heofficial hurchookedaskanceat Origen'selucubrations nd never cceptedhimas a saint.

Before brieflyummarizemodern hought oncerningheexistenceof two souls I wish to call to mind two peculiar ancientstories.Xenophon nhisCyropaedeia , 1,41 relateshowAraspes ndPantheahad fallen nlovewith ach other nd howCyrus sksAraspesto leave

Panthea and to departon a dangerousmission ntohostile erritory.When Araspes obeys himunflinchingly,yrusasks whetherhe canleave his belovedeasily.Araspesretorts: Yes, for have two souls.Werethe wo soulsone, twouldnot be able todesire wothings, goodand an evil. And sincebyyour nfluencehegood onerules, heeviloneis silent".

The otherpassagewe find n Ovid's Metamorphoseis II, 21 whereMedea describesherstruggle etweenherpassionforIason. She says:

"Video melioraproboque,deteriora equor"."6 I see thebetter hingsand I approveofthem ut follow hemore vilones). It s true hat hedoesnot mentionwosouls but theeffectsthe ame. In both torieswesee a conflict etween tate oyaltyndpersonal assion, he atter eingcalledevil.Bothstories ccur n theEast (Persia and Armenia).

A fewtimes n thispaper we came across the opinionof modernscholars hatwhen hetwosouls doctrineinPlato and Plutarch or x-ample) eemedobefoundnGreecet wasdue toPersiannfluence.

Whenwecompare hese wo easternove storieswith .g. Antigone,wesee that he also has to choose betweenoyalty o a stateedict nd herdutyto her brother.However,she does not waver:there re not twosoulsone ofwhichhasto be silenced efore hecan act as inthecase of

Araspes.Neither s she torn partbetween ood and evilas inMedea's







374 R. FERWERDA

case. So even n love' storiest looks as ifonlyunder Eastern'n-fluenceWestern uthors ouldspeakof two souls nonehumanbeing.

It is interestingo seehow thetwo soulsdoctrinewashandled n aterages. In 1760Wieland ranslated enophon'sCyropaedeiantoGermanand spoke of the two souls in two poems, firstn Idris und Zenide(1767), and then nDie WahldesHerkules 1773). And in 1801 Goethewrotehisfamous"Zwei Seelenwohnen, ch, in meiner rust" in hisFaust I. The two souls are used to describe he struggle f themaincharacters etween he "derbe Liebeslust" and the loyalty o higher

realms."' nce this rend asbeen et, tis often sed nnovels nd

poems.In thebeginninghe alterego's' ofthemaincharacters renotthe enemiesof the self', but just 'the other',as in LudwigTieck's

Ryno, or JeanPaul's Siebenkais. ut especially n R. L. Stevenson'sfamousnovelDr. JekyllndMr.Hyde 1886)man snottruly ne,buttwo. One of them sgood, the other swicked nd wants o destroyhe

good one. The onlywayto getrid of thatchildof Hell is to commitsuicide.We see another xample nStephanZweig'sSchachnovelle. hemaincharacters successfulnhisattempto beatthe world hampion

because,during long periodof ncarceration,ewas forced obeguilethetimebyplaying hesswithhimself.He was an 'Ich-schwarz' nd an'Ich-weiss'. The completesplit of his personality ad made him a

genius.He can onlybecomea normalpersonby giving p hissplitper-sonalitynd,therefore,isgenius.Themessage s that normal ersoncannot ndure hetwo souls n himself. heydrivehim oinsanitys inR. M. Pirsig'snovelZen and theArtof MotorcycleMaintenancewherePhaedrus ndsup inan asylum, r cause a situation fcompletenertia

as inMargaret rabble's The ceAge. Butthemost trikingxample fhow thetwo souls of good and evil tear a personapart is found nDostoevsky.One of thethings ostoevskyoathesmost s the road ofthegoldenmean. Therefore e forces ither wopersons n the samenovel to takeopposite tandsor makes two souls in one and the sameperson opponentsof each other. His princeMyshkin s the mostglorious nd awfulexampleof thesplitpersonality; utwe mustnotforgethat riginallyvenMyshkinndRogozhinweremeant obe one

person.48 ractically very haracternhisnovelsdemonstrateshe n-nerdivision y carryingn an inner ialoguewithhimself.Evil andsinare so muchpartof ourselves hatwecan only ove each otherwith llour mperfectionsnd thathe whotruly orgivess the one whoadmits

solidarity ith hewicked ct". That s what strue feveryndividual,







TWO SOULS 375

an idea which s borne out in hisnovel"The Double". It is significantthatDostoevsky ime nd again quotesthesametextfrom he Revela-tionof Johnwe

quotedearlier: Because

youare ukewarmnd neither

coldnorwarm, will pewyouout ofmymouth".'9 t snot so strange,I think, hatwecome backtoOrigenhere.Origen ndDostoevsky aveincommon hat hey oth dvocatebold deas which ometimes eem orun ounter otheofficial ogmaofthechurch, ut lso that hey ry osmoothdown theboldnessoftheir heoriesnordernot to runtheriskof an openconflictwith he hurch.5OButDostoevsky akesa differentand I wouldevensaya moremodern tandtowards heproblem f thetwosouls thanOrigen. nDostoevsky's iew, he vil, second, oul s anindissoluble artofourselves nd shouldnot be repressed. hisconcepthas a remarkablecorrespondencewith ideas we find in those

psychologicalircleswhich penly dmit heir cquaintance ndkinshipwithGnostic'doctrines. good example sDepthPsychologyndNewEthicsbyone ofJung'sdisciples richNeumann.He advocates hatweshouldadmit hatwe havetwosoulsand thatweshouldusethetensionbetween hetwo norder ogenerate ewenergies or hebenefit f theworld nwhichwe live."'When wecutaway evil,we truncate ur own

beingand this nevitablyweakens our potentialitieso cope withtheproblems hatbeset us. Just s thephysicistseach us to use theenor-mous energies hat are hidden n atoms,Neumannexhorts s not toshrink ack from hepotential orces hat ie hidden n ourselves.Ofcourse, hedevelopmentsroundnuclear nergyndnuclear rmaments

giveus ample warningnot to play wantonlywiththesepotentialities.But we haveto taketheriskofaccepting heexistence f twosouls,theoneopposite heother,norder o create new worldwhere ll human

beings an livewith heirgood and their vil.It is strikingo see how Neumann'scontemporary ertoldBrecht

takesthesamestand nmodifying oethe'sfamous ine"Zwei Seelenwohnen, ch, inmeiner rust".52 In order o demonstratehat wouldliketo concludethis rticlewith fullquotationof theendofBrecht'sDie heiligeJohannaderSchlachthiofe.

Mensch,es wohnendir zwei Seelen nderBrustSuch nicht ine auszuwahlen

Da du beide haben musst.Bleibe stetsmitdir mStreiteBleib derEine, stetsEntzweiteHalte die hohe,haltedie niedereHalte die rohe,halte die biedereHalte siebeide







376 R. FERWERDA

NOTES

* I wish o thankDr. Sara J.DenningBolle ofUCLA for he meticulousway n which

shecorrectedmyEnglish.' Augustine's tterances bout theManicheans re alwaysvery harp:see e.g. Confes-

siones II, 6, 10: homines uperbe elirantes arnalesnimis t oquacesinquorumore a-

queidiaboli. A sectofmen,proudly oting, oo carnal ndprating,nwhosemouthwerethesnaresof theDevil.)2 In Les sourcesde Plotin.EntretiensurI'antiquitd lassiqueV (Vandoeuvres/Genbve1957)39heblameshimself orhaving rusted ugustineoo much.See also Cl. Tresmon-

tant, a mitaphysique u christianismet a naissancede laphilosophie hritienneParis1961)308/9. In Die Gnosis II. Der Manichiismus, d. J.P. AsmussenMiinchen 980)the wo souls arementionednly ntwoplaces.One occurs nAugustine e Haeresibus 6

(p. 143),theother na textbyAs-Sahrastani n the Manicheansp. 150). Butinthis asttext t sonly aid that ne soulbelongs o theworld f ight nd theother otheworld fdarkness.We do notfind here wosouls inone person.3 See e.g. theaforementioned ook byAsmussen, . 36, 58, 122 Dann bildete ie die

guteSeele und fesselte ie in denKorper);125 and otherplaces.

SSee e.g. H. Jonas,Het gnosticismeDutch translation yA. M. J. Baljet, Utrecht

1969)215.

SHow difficultt s totell Gnosticfrom Manicheewe see inthe fact hatAugustinehimself lternately as called a Manichee and a Gnostic. See G. R. Evans, Neither

Pelagiannora Manichee, n VigiliaeChristianae 5 (1981) 232-244.6 Most modern ommentariesoint o theGnosticshere .g. H. Crouzel-M.Simonetti,Origine,Les principesParis 1980) IV, 85 and H. Gorgemans nd H. Karpp, Origenes,VierBachervondenPrinzipien Darmstadt1976)603-5 n. 3.

SSee H. Jonas,Gnosisund piatantikereist (Gottingen1964) 12ff. n the heoryfthetripartitionotonlywith he Gnosticsbut also with he Manicheans.8 Op. cit.,97 n. 42.

9 H. Langerbeck,Aufsatze urGnosis Gottingen 967)54.

,o J. Danitlou, Platonisme t thdologiemystiqueParis 1944)54.

" J. Igal, Aristoteles la evoluci6nde la antropologia e Plotino, n Pensamiento 5

(1979) 315-346.2 See e.g. Enneads IV, 1.

SSee H. R. Schwyzer, u PlotinsDeutungdersogenannten latonischenMaterie, n

Zetesis,hulde aan Prof. Dr. Emile de StryckerAntwerpen1973) 278ff. and H. J.Blumenthal, lotinus n LaterPlatonism,nNeoplatonismndEarlyChristian hought,Essays nHonourofA. H. ArmstrongLondon 1981)220withmore iteraturennote41.See also H.-R. Schwyzer's xcellent rticle lotinos nPauly-Wissowa, ealencyclopddieBand XXI, 1 col. 549-550.

" See E. R. Dodds, The Greeks nd the rrationalBoston1957)214. It is interestingocompare his extwith lato,State441bc where arts fthe oul arecarryingnan inter-

nal dialogueand Phaedo 94de where he soul has a dialoguewith he passionsof the)body. See also Sophist263e and Phaedrus 276e. I doubtthatour lateauthorityan betrusted hat hetwosoulstheorywasalready aught y Pherecydes fSyros Fr. A5). SeeDodds op. cit., 153 and 173-4note111.

" Cf. W. K. C. Guthrie, History fGreekPhilosophyV Cambridge1978)365 and95-97.







TWO SOULS 377

6 SeeDoddsop. cit., 07ff." Accordingo hisDe Part.Anim.I, 16 ndDe Gener. nim. 36b 27-29 his oul sbroughtnfrom utside. n thiswhole uestioneeF. J.C. Nuyens,ntwikkelingsmo-mentenndezielkundeanAristotelesNijmegen/Utrecht939) 75ff.nd290ff.ndJ.M. Rist,HumanValueLeiden 982) 3f.

, See Guthriep. cit.,462 and 480. The fragments to be found nR. Heinze,XenokratesLeipzig 892) r. 5and nP. Lang, e SpeusippicademicicriptisBonn1911) fr. 55. For Xenocrates'monism ee H. J. Kramer, er UrsprungerGeistmetaphysikAmsterdam964) 2.

9 In Timaeum, 381, 6ff. ee alsoJ.Dillon, heMiddle latonistsLondon 977) 02and254.20 Dillon op. cit.,p. 211.21

Dillon op. cit.,p. 256.22 J. Baudry, tticosParis1931)XXV.23 12. esPlaces,AtticusParis1977) 3.24 See lsoL. G.Westerink,heGreek ommentariesnPlato's haedo I (Amsterdam1977) 08n. 5.25 R. E. Witt, lbinusCambridge937) 2.26 Leg.Alleg.I,6; SpecialLeg.,333. eeF. Riusche,lut, eben nd eelePaderborn1930) 67-401.27 Special Leg. IV, 92; Heres 225.28 De OpificioMundi 117.

29 Quaest.nGenesimI,59, ndQuoddeter,ot. nsid. oleat 2-3. or hewholeues-tion ee Dillon p.cit.,175-6.3o SeeH. C. Puech,Numenius'Apam6et estheologiesrientalesu IIe sidcle,n

MeilangesidezI (Brussels934) 54-778. lsoE. R.Dodds,NumeniusndAmmonius,in Les sources e Plotin, ntretiensur 'antiquitelassiqueV (Vandoeuvres/Genbve1957) -11.

SIamblichus,e anima 75, W.

32 SeeDillon p.cit., 73 ndA. J.Festugibre,a rdvilation'HermbsrismdgisteII(Paris 953) 5and208.ButDillon lso ays o.c., 375) hat he vil rinciplessubjectodominationy heGood, lbeitwithertainrreducibleecalcitrance.

33 CalcidiusnMatter. is DoctrinendSources,hilos.Ant. X (Leiden 965) 14.SPorphyriosund Numenios, n Entretiens ur l'antiquitd lassique XII

(Vandoeuvres/Genbve965) 6.

3 Hermes rism6gisteV, 115,fragment6 ed.Festugi~re-Nock.'6 Cf.Festugibrep.cit., 5n. 1and48ff.

7 R. Beutlerrt.NumeniosnPauly-Wissowaealencyclopiadieupp.BandVII 1940)674ff.38 E. R. Dodds (see note30) p. 7ff.

9 HIeptev j o~xSv ~sv

inStob. I, 350,25ff.W. and DeAbstinentia , 40 p. 116,

11. See H. Dorrie,nEntretiensur 'antiquitelassique II (Vandoeuvres/Genbve965)179ff.

'o De natura ominis15ff.,13ff.Matth.' Beutlerp. cit. seenote 7),674.

42 E. Levinas, a trace e 'Autre,nTyijdschriftoorfilosofie5 1963) 06.

3 Op. cit.,56.







378 R. FERWERDA

" Op. cit.,62. See also W. Theiler,Gottund Seele m kaiserzeitlichenenken, nEntre-tiens ur l'antiquite lassique III (Vandoeuvres/Genbve955) 78. A good exampleof

vulgarizeddeas is the doctrine f the two

spiritsven n

man,whichwe find

mongthemembers f theQumransect. See J.Allegro,The Dead Sea Scrolls Penguin 1978) 139.

"' See the wordsofMauler n B. Brecht'sDie heiligeJohannaderSchlachthofe:Ach das Reine ohne FehleUnverderbte ilfsbereiteEs erschuttertns GemeineWeckt nunsrer rustdie zweitebessere eele

'" This is verymuch in agreementwith the words of Medea in Euripides'Medea1078-1080:

Kcriav0o v oT toXo),w x?x&?,O4LO~S xpei7c)v mVi~j.L)y~ ouXe4LdrC.)v,

aiio7ep yCtyro~rLtLOScAx6)v fporoLS.

See also Dodds op. cit., p. 186 and note 46. It should be noted however hat n the

EuripidespassageMedea's struggles described s taking lace betweenher ove of thechildrennd herhatred fJason. t is also noteworthyhat nXenophon he duty" soulwinsover the "love" soul,while nEuripides hepassionsilencesMedea's patriotic eel-

ings.

, Cf. J.H. v.d. Berg,Leven n meervoudNijkerk1974)66ff. do not,however,greewithhistheory hat n theFaust the two souls are used to illustrate simplemisunder-

standing., A. BoyceGibson,TheReligionof DostoevskyPhiladelphia 1973) 105. See also M.M. Bakhtin, roblemsof Dostoevsky's oetics,translatedyR. W. Rotsel Ardis 1973)176-190 nd passim.

, This is what,forexample, Sophia reads whenStephanTrofimowich ies in ThePossessed. See Boyce Gibson op. cit., 147 and the Dutch translation oze Geesten

(Amsterdam 1970)675, 713,783.

50 In hisNotebooksor he rothersaramazov,or xample, ostoevsky'senuncia-tionof someaspects f theChristian reed smuchmoreferocious han nthe published)novel itself. See E.

Wasiolek,Fyodor Dostoevsky,The Notebooks

fortheBrothers

Karamazov Chicago 1971) 10,62 and 89.

"' In La SubstitutionnRevuephilosophiquede Louvain 66 (1968) 494 Levinas alsopoints t thetension hat xists nevery erson.But hedoes not believe ntwosouls. Thetension s partof and due to the ndivisible nity f the soul.52 On Brecht'swayofdealingwithhis forerunnersee R. Grimm, ertoldBrechtStutt-gart 1971) 24, R. Grimm,BertoldBrechtNurnberg 1972) 42-49,M. Kesting, recht(Rororo 1973)45-46.

6711 PL Ede, Stationsweg 9

two souls. origen's and augustine's attitude toward the two souls doctrine. its place in

Documents