Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T03:19:38.940Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A NEW TESTIMONIUM FOR NUMENIUS: PROCLUS ON THE ORIGIN OF EVIL

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 June 2023

Kasra Abdavi Azar
Kasra Abdavi Azar*
Affiliation:
KU Leuven/University of Cambridge
*
kasra.abdaviazar@kuleuven.be
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the course of examining the origin of evil in the De malorum subsistentia, Proclus reproduces a position that considers the maleficent (world-)soul as cause of evil. The same entity is held to co-govern the material realm alongside the beneficent world-soul. While scholarship tends to associate the testimonium with Plutarch (and Atticus), this survey shows why Numenius of Apamea is a much more probable candidate. The discussion concludes with further proposals for a new edition of Numenius, including possible traces of Numenius in Iamblichus’ On Soul and Porphyry's On the Faculties of Soul.

Keywords

Numeniusevil soulworld-soulProclusPlutarchPlatonism
Type
Shorter Notes
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 73 , Issue 1 , May 2023 , pp. 484 - 488
Check for updates
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical Association

In chapter 40 of the De malorum subsistentia, Proclus outlines three positions that advocate for a single (godly, psychic, or intelligible) principle as cause of evil. The first group juxtaposes an evil principle (a ‘fount’) to the good principle, the second position adduces a ‘maleficent soul’, and the third argues that ‘forms of evil’ exist in the demiurgic intellect similarly to other forms. The entire passage runs as follows (with the second position set in italics):

Some indeed say that there is a fount of evils, and from this fount is produced every evil of whatever kind; others posit a maleficent soul as the principle of the nature of evil and say that the evils are generated from there. Others again take a middle position and leave forms of evils in the intellective nature, from which, they claim, evils have their procession just like all other things.

Philosophers come to those conclusions from different suppositions; some of them even make Plato the father of their doctrines. Those, indeed, who place the ideas of all things in the intellective realm adduce what is said by Socrates in the Theaetetus as corroboration of their doctrine, namely that there are two kinds of ‘paradigms, the one divine and the other godless’. Others cite the Athenian Stranger, who introduces two kinds of soul, ‘the one beneficent, the other the opposite of beneficent’, and asserts that the universe is governed by the first of these alone, but the mortal realm by both. (transl. Opsomer/Steel)Footnote 1

As Opsomer and Steel point out in their edition, the last conception was presumably held by Amelius, while the first doctrine seems to allude to some sort of Manichaean dualism featuring an antagonistic evil god.Footnote 2 The second position is the subject of this paper and involves seven relevant notions in total (some of which, in turn, imply more subtle premisses):

  1. (1) There is a unique cause of evil.

  2. (2) Two (kinds of?) psychic principles exist, one good and the other evil (or ‘maleficent’).

  3. (3) The latter causes ‘the nature of evil’ (τοῦ κακοῦ φύσεως).

  4. (4) All evils are generated (γεννᾶσθαι) from it.

  5. (5) The universe is solely governed by the beneficent (world-)soul.

  6. (6) The mortal realm is governed by both (world-)souls, the beneficent and the maleficent together.

  7. (7) Plato's Laws is cited to corroborate (some of?) the previous tenets.Footnote 3

Scholarship has considered Plutarch and Atticus as possible albeit problematic candidates.Footnote 4 They come to mind first because Proclus elsewhere associates the notion of a maleficent soul with those who side with Atticus and Plutarch.Footnote 5 Yet Plutarch is at best an unfit candidate. He does not posit a separate evil (world-)soul (2), all the less so one governing the lower realm (6).Footnote 6 Proclus himself recounts in his commentary on the Timaeus that Plutarch's pre-existing irrational soul does not survive the demiurgic activity as irrational.Footnote 7 A recently discovered Syriac text of Porphyry suggests that Atticus—who is anyway often inextricable from Plutarch in later doxographies—shared Plutarch's conception in this regard.Footnote 8 For Plutarch, at least, the evil or maleficent soul merely represents the irrational aspect of soul as an integral part thereof; that is to say, it is not a distinct entity opposed to a counter-principle in the way in which Proclus supposes it in the testimonium discussed here.Footnote 9 Beyond that, Plutarch considers (the irrational) soul as such to be the cause of evil, not the world-soul (as the latter already has received order and harmony from the demiurge) (3).Footnote 10 In short, it chiefly speaks for Plutarch that he indeed quotes Plato's Laws to corroborate the notion of an evil soul—a figure of thought he admittedly makes extensive use of.Footnote 11 None the less, this is at most thin evidence given the apparent contradictions to other aspects of Plutarch's cosmology.

If Proclus really had Plutarch in mind, he gave a heavily flawed rendering of his position, perhaps for didactic purposes. It is also possible—and some would uphold: the most likely case—that Proclus had limited access to Plutarch's writings or that he adduced his position from doxographic accounts (in all likelihood, from Porphyry). This would, however, not explain why Proclus transmits two contradicting accounts of Plutarch. Either his knowledge of Plutarch in the in Timaeum differs heavily from that in this work or Proclus must have given, for the sake of the argument or illustration, a sketchy abbreviation of a position he actually knew better. Be that as it may, any attempt to save the attribution to Plutarch (or Atticus) is rather unrewarding in the face of a much more probable candidate: Numenius of Apamea (whom later Platonists sometimes mention alongside Plutarch and Atticus).Footnote 12

NUMENIUS

Caution is in order: Numenius’ psychology is attested fragmentarily—which would have been less obstructive if the Christian and Neoplatonic lines of transmission were not so difficult to reconcile. Nevertheless, the textual evidence suffices to plausibly relate the testimonium to him.

Calcidius reports in his commentary on the Timaeus that Numenius praised Plato for having postulated the existence of two world-souls, one benevolent and the other malicious.Footnote 13 Numenius analogously extended such a dichotomy to human psychology: every human receives a rational, good soul from the demiurge and an irrational, malicious soul from the material cosmos. Porphyry firmly assures that Numenius indeed had two numerically distinct souls in mind (and not merely ‘parts of a single soul’, μέρη ψυχῆς μιᾶς).Footnote 14 Iamblichus, too, seems to affirm this reading.Footnote 15 Maleficent soul subsists in the body owing to its material nature, whereas the beneficent soul, being of supramundane origin, joins the body as an addition (or descends to the body through the planets; cf. Numenius, fr. 12.14–16). Calcidius further recounts in the same passage that Numenius’ malicious world-soul is to be identified with matter and that matter, in turn, is the origin of evil. Calcidius’ testimonium gives the impression that Numenius stressed the latter part repeatedly, attributing it to both Pythagoras and Plato. This is resemblance enough to relate the testimonium to Numenius above all.

Aside from this glaring doctrinal affinity, it moreover matches Numenius’ modus operandi of adducing Platonic passages to ‘seal’ (σημηνάμενον) his own, previously laid out doctrines with Plato's words.Footnote 16 Calcidius confirms that Numenius indeed worked out his psychology in reference to Plato. Philoponus likewise suggests that Numenius appealed to Plato's exact wording to establish another (equally controversial) aspect of his psychology, namely the immortality of the irrational soul.Footnote 17

NUMENIUS IN IAMBLICHUS’ DE ANIMA

A weak yet noteworthy parallel to these aspects of Numenius’ psychology is found in Iamblichus’ report that according to Numenius evil enters the soul externally through matter.Footnote 18 Consistent with Calcidius, Iamblichus further remarks at another instance that according to ‘the former’ (ἐκεῖνοι, referring to Numenius and some other Platonist[s]) the soul ‘dissolves’ (ἀναλύσει) into a ‘union without individuation’ (ἀδιορίστῳ συναφῇ)—two valuable bits of information that all existing editions of Numenius fail to include.Footnote 19

Moreover, it seems reasonable to link this notion with what Iamblichus recounts as the position of ‘many of the Platonists and Pythagoreans’ at another instance, namely the notion that soul (confers) a harmonia ‘which is interwoven with the cosmos and inseparable from the heaven’.Footnote 20 This ‘immanentist’ stance seems to sit well with the other depictions discussed so far. It also sheds light on the much-debated question as to why Proclus prefers to (somewhat polemically) label Numenius’ third god ‘creation’ (ποίημα).Footnote 21

FINAL REMARKS

One ought to keep in mind that testimonies of the kind discussed here inevitably entail an element of uncertainty. Any possible attribution, no matter to whom, is not without doubts; it is not even clear whether it can be attributed to anyone as a faithful testimonium in the first place. If, however, one wishes to count it as a testimonium proper that can be attributed to someone, this is the most justified conjecture given the textual evidence at hand. Since testimonies for Numenius—arguably the most significant single precursor to Plotinus—are scarce, every possible finding is worthwhile. Hopefully, this humble addition along with the further remarks will enrich scholarly debates on Numenius and make their way to future editions, at least among the dubia.Footnote 22

Footnotes

I thank C. Steel, J. Opsomer, E.G. Simonetti and R.I. Marinescu for comments on an earlier draft, and CQ's reader for helpful suggestions.

References

1 Procl. De malorum subsistentia 40.5–18, transl. Opsomer, J. and Steel, C., Proclus: On the Existence of Evils (London and Ithaca, 2008)Google Scholar. The following remarks and references profited greatly from their thorough commentary (cf. Opsomer and Steel [this note], 123–4 nn. 288–93). For the reconstruction of Proclus’ text, see Strobel, B., Proklos, ‘Tria opuscula’ (Göttingen, 2014), 963CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Cf. Ascl. in Nic. Arithm. 1.44 Tarán: Ἀμέλιος δέ, οὐκ οἶδα πόθεν ὁρμηθείς, καὶ τῶν κακῶν οἴεται λόγους εἶναι παρὰ τῷ δημιουργῷ; see Saffrey, H.D. and Westerink, L.G., Proclus Théologie Platonicienne (Paris, 1968), 1.87Google Scholar n. 2 (at 153).

3 The reference is to Pl. Leg. 896e: ‘Do one or many [souls exist]? “Several”, I will answer for you. Anyway, let us assume no fewer than two—the beneficent [soul] and that capable of achieving the opposite.’ A bit further at 897d, the Athenian Stranger adds: ‘If, however, [the cosmos] moves in a mad and disorderly way, [then owing to] the bad [soul]’.

4 M. Erler, Proklos Diadochos. Über die Existenz des Bösen (Meisenheim am Glan, 1978), 145 n. 2 notes that it ‘most of all alludes to’ (meint hier wohl vor allem) Plutarch and Atticus. The same observation was made by Opsomer/Steel (n. 1), 124 n. 289 who, however, questioned whether Proclus depicts their position accurately; cf. Opsomer/Steel (n. 1), 124 n. 293.

5 Cf. Procl. In Ti. 1.381.26–382.12. Concerning the phrase οἱ μὲν οὖν περὶ Πλούταρχον τὸν Χαιρωνέα καὶ Ἀττικόν, see also Runia, D.T. and Share, M., Proclus. Commentary on Plato's Timaeus (Cambridge, 2008), 2.249Google Scholar n. 224.

6 This is the communis opinio among Plutarch scholars: cf. Opsomer, J., ‘Neoplatonist criticisms of Plutarch’, in Jiménez, A. Pérez and Bordoy, F.C. Casadesús (edd.), Estudios sobre Plutarco. Misticismo y religiones mistéricas en la obra de Plutarco. Actas del VII Simposio Español sobre Plutarco (Madrid and Málaga, 2001), 187–99Google Scholar, at 191–7. The theological scheme set out in De Is. et Os. 369B–D, however, allows for ‘two opposite principles and two antithetic powers’ (δυεῖν ἐναντίων ἀρχῶν καὶ δυεῖν ἀντιπάλων δυνάμεων, 369C) that govern the material realm together; see Dillon, J., ‘Plutarch and god: theodicy and cosmogony in the thought of Plutarch’, in Frede, D. and Laks, A. (edd.), Traditions of Theology (Leiden, 2002), 223–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 229–34.

7 Procl. In Ti. 1.382.8–13 Diehl (= Atticus, fr. 23 des Places): ‘Once the production of the cosmos at the hands of the Demiurge has supervened, matter changes [its nature] for the formation of the cosmos, and maleficent soul, having participated Intellect, is rendered rational and produces ordered movement’ (transl. Runia/Share [n. 5], 250). Iamblichus confirms this; cf. Iambl. Περὶ ψυχῆς fr. 23 Dillon, apud Stob. Flor. 1.49.37.80–2 Wachsmuth (= Numenius, fr. 43; Atticus, fr. 10); see also Iambl. Περὶ ψυχῆς fr. 28 Dillon.

8 In Porphyry's citation, Atticus indeed refers to the ‘irrational soul’, without, however, quoting Plato (cf. Porph. On Principles and Matter 76). In Porph. On Principles and Matter 84, Porphyry remarks: ‘Now, Atticus, who follows Plutarch, also states that the nature of Soul is ungenerated, unordered, and unformed, and that it appeared by itself from eternity and came together with Matter. And because it exists naturally with Matter, is set in order, and imitates the First Forms and Ideas which are in God, also Matter is set in order by God’ (transl. Arzhanov, Y., Porphyry, ‘On Principles and Matter’. A Syriac Version of a Lost Greek Text with an English Translation, Introduction, and Glossaries [Berlin, 2021], 119Google Scholar).

9 Cf. Opsomer (n. 6), 192.

10 Cf. Opsomer (n. 6), 192. On Plutarch's theory of evil, see also Jourdan, F., ‘Woher kommt das Übel?: Platonische Psychogonie bei Plutarch’, Ploutarchos 11 (2014), 87–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 Cf. Plut. De an. proc. 6–7 (= Mor. 1014D–E); see also Mor. 1015B; De virt. mor. 441C–442C; De Is. et Os. 370D–F.

12 Cf. Iambl. Περὶ ψυχῆς fr. 23 Dillon, apud Stob. Flor. 1.49.37.80–2 Wachsmuth (= Numenius, fr. 43 des Places).

13 Numenius, fr. 52.64–7 (apud Calcidius, In Timaeum 297): Platonemque idem Numenius laudat, quod duas mundi animas autumet, unam beneficentissimam, malignam alteram.

14 Porph. Περὶ τῶν τῆς ψυχῆς δυνάμεων fr. 253 Smith, apud Stob. Flor. 1.49.25a.19 Wachsmuth (= Numenius, fr. 44). We likely find yet another Numenian testimonium in Porphyry's reference to ‘those who say we have two souls’ in De abst. 1.40 as suggested by E.R. Dodds, ‘Numenius and Ammonius’, Entretiens sur l'Antiquité classique 5 (Vandœuvres, 1960), 7 n. 1. More generally, Porphyry's account of the κακοεργοὶ δαίμονες may in one way or another be indebted to Numenius, not least because Porphyry is trying to overcome and refute conceptions that are reminiscent of him. The suggestion that Porphyry heavily draws from Numenius in this work (e.g. the so-called τῶν Πλατωνικῶν τινες of 2.36.22) was first expressed by F. Thedinga, ‘Die Paraenese in des Porphyrios Schrift Περὶ ἀποχῆς ἐμψύχων’, RhM 76 (1927), 54–101, at 97–101.

15 Cf. Numenius, fr. 43 (abridged vcrsion of Iambl. Περὶ ψυχῆς 23, apud Stob. Flor. 1.49.37.76–99 Wachsmuth).

16 For why it is vital to Numenius’ philosophy to attribute (or, as Numenius sees it, to trace back) his doctrines to Plato (and by extension to Pythagoras and other ancient sages), see K. Abdavi Azar, ‘Ancient wisdom and Platonism’ (Diss., KU Leuven, forthcoming). Numenius clarifies his methodology in fr. 1a.1–6 (apud Euseb. Praep. evang. 9.7.1.5–7 Mras) as follows: εἰς δὲ τοῦτο δεήσει εἰπόντα καὶ σημηνάμενον ταῖς μαρτυρίαις ταῖς Πλάτωνος ἀναχωρήσασθαι καὶ ξυνδήσασθαι τοῖς λόγοις τοῦ Πυθαγόρου, ἐπικαλέσασθαι δὲ τὰ ἔθνη τὰ εὐδοκιμοῦντα (‘On this it will be necessary, after stating [one's position] and sealing it with the testimonies of Plato, to go [further] back and bind it with the words of Pythagoras; [and then] to invoke the nations held in honour’).

17 John Philoponus, In de an. 9.35–8 Hayduck (= Numenius, fr. 47): ‘Of those who proclaim [the soul to be] separable, some have proclaimed all soul to be separable from the body: the rational, the irrational, and the vegetative—such as Numenius, led astray by certain aphorisms of Plato, who said in the Phaedrus: all soul is immortal’. Philoponus cites Pl. Phdr. 245c (which has a different syntax in the original: ψυχὴ πᾶσα ἀθάνατος instead of πᾶσα ψυχὴ ἀθάνατος). While Philoponus does not explicitly report that Numenius cited this very phrase, it is plausible that he did so. Otherwise, it would be superfluous for Philoponus to speculate about possible explanations as to what textual ground might have led Numenius to that position (which he meets with refusal anyway).

18 Cf. Iambl. Περὶ ψυχῆς fr. 23.10–19 Finamore/Dillon (= Numenius, fr. 43).

19 Cf. Iambl. Περὶ ψυχῆς fr. 50 and the unfortunately abridged fr. 42 of Numenius.

20 Cf. Iambl. Περὶ ψυχῆς fr. 5.7–9, apud Stob. Flor. 1.49.32.58–60: τὴν δὲ συνδιαπλεκομένην τῷ κόσμῳ καὶ ἀχώριστον τοῦ οὐρανοῦ πολλοὶ δή τινες τῶν Πλατωνικῶν καὶ Πυθαγορείων προκρίνουσιν, transl. Finamore, J.F. and Dillon, J.M., Iamblichus, De Anima: Text, Translation, and Commentary (Leiden, 2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Other figures who could be meant (as well?) are perhaps Cronius and Nicomachus of Gerasa.

21 Cf. Procl. In Ti. 1.303.27–304.7 (= Numenius, fr. 21).

22 A new edition should further consider re-establishing some of the testimonia identified by Leemans, E.A., Studie over den wijsgeer Numenius van Apamea met uitgave der fragmenten (Brussels, 1937)Google Scholar but omitted in the considerably more influential edition of Places, É. des, Numénius: Fragments (Paris, 1973)Google Scholar. There is no reason not to include at least Procl. In Ti. 1.304.22–305.6 (= Test. 18 L) and Porph. Vita Plotini 17 (= Test. 16 L). G. Boys-Stones, Numenius, fragments; draft translation (published online, 2014) sets a good example in this regard. Thankfully, he also includes more context for some testimonia, which can even prove crucial for understanding Numenius (cf. fr. 22). There is, however, still work to do, as the discussion of fr. 42 (= Test. 34 L) above illustrates.