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

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.

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. 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) There is a unique cause of evil.
(2) Two (kinds of?) psychic principles exist, one good and the other evil (or 'maleficent').
(3) The latter causes 'the nature of evil' (τοῦ κακοῦ φύσεως).(4) All evils are generated (γεννᾶσθαι) from it.(5) The universe is solely governed by the beneficent (world-)soul.(6) The mortal realm is governed by both (world-)souls, the beneficent and the maleficent together.(7) Plato's Laws is cited to corroborate (some of?) the previous tenets. 3holarship has considered Plutarch and Atticus as possible albeit problematic candidates. 4They come to mind first because Proclus elsewhere associates the notion of a maleficent soul with those who side with Atticus and Plutarch. 5Yet 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). 6Proclus himself recounts in his commentary on the Timaeus that Plutarch's pre-existing irrational soul does not survive the demiurgic activity as irrational. 7A 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. 8For 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. 9Beyond 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). 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. 11None 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). 12NUMENIUS 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. 13umenius 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).Iamblichus, too, seems to affirm this reading. 15Maleficent 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. 16Calcidius 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. 17
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). 18Cf.Iambl.Περὶ ψυχῆς fr.23.10-19 Finamore/Dillon (= Numenius, fr.43). 19Cf.Iambl.Περὶ ψυχῆς fr.50 and the unfortunately abridged fr.42 of Numenius.
inseparable from the heaven'. 20This '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). 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. 22KASRA ABDAVI AZAR KU Leuven/University of Cambridge kasra.abdaviazar@kuleuven.be doi:10.1017/S0009838823000149TERTULLIAN'S CHRISTIAN CHAMELEON ABSTRACT It is argued that Tertullian's relatively lengthy description of a chameleon in his De pallio serves as a metaphor not so much for the convert to a philosophical way of life in general but for the convert to Christianity in particular.The argument rests on the unusual emphases within this description which recall different features of Christianity or popular beliefs about the same.Keywords: Tertullian; chameleon; mantle; philosophy; Christianity; conversion; apologetics 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.J.F. Finamore and J.M. Dillon, Iamblichus, De Anima: Text, Translation,  and Commentary (Leiden, 2002).Other figures who could be meant (as well?) are perhaps Cronius and Nicomachus of Gerasa.