Fabienne Jourdan

Mauro Bonazzi has shown how Numenius based his theology on his interpretation of Plato’s Timaios and Politeia. However, by giving the title On the Good to his own dialogue, Numenius inserts it in the line of the teaching that, according to the tradition, Plato would have orally given on this topic. After focusing briefly on this teaching and its problems, the paper examines how Numenius appropriated it, as it reached him. It will appear that Numenius conceives of the oral tradition as the Pythagorean core of Plato’s teaching, a core that, according to him, its transmitters did not understand properly, and that he claims to find himself in a good interpretation of that which he has direct access to : the writings of the Master.

Plutarch is often seen as a dualist philosopher. Yet, when one studies the texts which are most often quoted to back such an opinion, the so‑called dualist doxographies in De Iside et Osiride and in De animae procreatione, one is actually lead to think otherwise. When they are replaced in their context, it so happens that these texts describe the conditions to obtain harmony and the mixing of the contraries which are both necessary to the birth and to the very existence of the universe. However, harmony and mixing cannot be obtained without the receptacle of the contraries that constitute them. Far from being a simple intermediary, this receptacle, which takes different aspects in the different treatises, is indeed a constituent principle according to Plutarch. Without it, there can be neither encounter nor opposition of the contraries, and so, paradoxically, precisely because it is a guarantee of dualism, it makes dualism disappear. Dualism then turns out to be a mere preparatory step in the elaboration of a really triadic philosophy.

Οὐσία in Numenius: a notion which is progressively elaborated: Analysis of the difficulties linked to οὐσία and ἰδέα in fragments 22 F, 24 F and 28 F. In the Περὶ τἀγαθοῦ, Numenius refines his definition of οὐσία step by step. He uses the word at first as a synonym of τὸ ὄν and as another designation of being. Then, he associates it to the ἕξις when he refers to the specific οὐσία which possesses science : in all likelihood, this οὐσία is the intellect as the essence common to God and Man in the possession of science. Finally, Numenius gives οὐσία two aspects or sides which, in our opinion, represent two manners of conceiving the intelligible it constitutes: on the one hand, οὐσία comes from Being itself and seems to represent the eidetic predicates or what we could name the “fundamental intelligibility”, a state in which the form is not determined yet, but which gives it the status of a real being ; on the other hand, οὐσία is the product of the second god and intellect and the determined aspect of the previous one, which makes it possible to distinguish the forms one from the other. In this last case, Numenius seems to name οὐσία more specifically ἰδέα, even if both words are elsewhere synonymous and used to refer to the two aspects previously mentioned according to the context in which they are employed. The paper presents the analysis of fragments 22 F, 24 F and 28 F from which we arrive at this interpretation. The distinction between two manners of conceiving οὐσία makes it possible then to discover two levels in the Being at the origin of each of them: Being itself and the ≪second≫ or ≪just≫ Being, constituted by the good demiurge which is probably the “One who is good par excellence”. From there, two ways of conceiving ἰδέα also appear: on the one hand, ἰδέα is synonymous with οὐσία, then it refers to the second aspect of οὐσία, the determined one; on the other hand, it can also refer to the level of Being which is the Good when, in fragment 28 F, it is conceived as a form and probably as the Form par excellence identified with the intellect which this Good is itself.

English summary: Philosophical and religious thinkers have for ever been contemplating the question of the origin of evil. Unde malum? Wherever people are shaken by the experience of being exposed to violence and destruction, disease and death, and also when staring into the abyss of the human soul, questions of cause and responsibility arise. The contributions in this volume trace the continuing quest for answers, drawing on mythical narratives, philosophical reflection, psychological, social and political rationalization or scientific hypotheses in the literature of the 1st to the 4th century AD. The documents covered illustrate a desire to understand the conditions of human existence and to get to the bottom of man's experience of suffering. A desire that is present in the history of thought, philosophy and religion and is driven by the hope that evil can be finally eliminated or at least intellectually domesticated. German description: Die Frage nach der Herkunft des Bosen hat philosophische wie religiose Denker seit jeher beschaftigt. Unde malum? Wo immer die Erfahrung des Ausgeliefertseins an Gewalt und Zerstorung, Krankheit und Tod, aber auch die Erfahrung der Abgrundigkeit der Seele Menschen erschuttern, drangt sich die Frage nach Ursache und Verantwortlichkeit auf. Die fortgesetzte Suche nach Antworten, durch mythisches Erzahlen, durch philosophische Reflexion, durch psychologische, soziale sowie politische Rationalisierung oder durch naturwissenschaftliche Hypothesenbildung wird in den Beitragen des vorliegenden Bandes in der Literatur des 1.-4. Jahrhunderts n.Chr., nachgezeichnet. Die behandelten Texte spiegeln ein die Geistes-, Philosophie- und Religionsgeschichte durchziehendes Verlangen, die Existenzbedingungen des Menschen zu verstehen und seiner Leiderfahrung auf den Grund zu gehen, getrieben von der Hoffnung, sich am Ende des Ubels entheben oder es doch zumindest intellektuell domestizieren zu konnen.