On the Divine Names and the Mystical Theology — trans. C. E. Rolt
The translator’s English as printed (C. E. Rolt). The original-language text is not held; names are romanised as the translator printed them.
not even in any wise exist, if it act as evil upon itself. And unless it do so act, evil is not wholly evil, but hath some portion of the Good whereby it can exist at all. And if the things that have being desire the Beautiful and Good and accomplish all their acts for the sake of that which seemeth good, and if all that they intend hath the Good as its Motive and its Aim (for nothing looks unto the nature of evil to guide it in its actions), what place is left for evil among things that have being, or how can it have any being at all bereft of such good purpose? And if all things that have being come of the Good and the Good is Beyond things that have being, then, whereas that which exists not yet hath being in the Good; evil contrariwise hath none (otherwise it were not wholly evil or Non-Ens ; for that which is wholly Non-Ens can be but naught except this be spoken Super-Essentially of the Good). So the Good must have Its seat far above and before that which hath mere being and that which hath not; but evil hath no place either amongst things that have being or things that have not, yea it is farther removed than the Non-Existent from the Good and hath less being than it. ‘Then’ (saith one perchance) ‘whence cometh evil? For if’ (saith he) ‘evil is not, virtue and vice must needs be the same both in their whole entirety and in their corresponding particulars,’—i.e. even that which fighteth against virtue cannot be evil. And yet temperance is the opposite of debauchery, and righteousness of wickedness. And I mean not only the righteous and the unrighteous man, or the temperate and intemperate man; I mean that, even before the external distinction appeared between the virtuous man and his opposite, the ultimate distinction between the virtues and the vices hath existed long beforehand in the soul itself, and the passions war against the reason, and hence we must assume something evil which is contrary to goodness. For goodness is not contrary to itself, but, being come from One Beginning and being the offspring of One Cause, it rejoices in fellowship, unity, and concord. Even the lesser Good is not contrary to the greater, for that which is less hot or cold is not contrary to that which is more so. Wherefore evil lieth in the things that have being and possesseth being and is opposed and contrary to goodness. And if evil is the destruction of things which have being, that depriveth it not of its own being. It itself still hath being and giveth being to its offspring. Yea, is not the destruction of one thing often the birth of another? And thus it will be found that evil maketh contribution unto the fullness of the world, and through its presence, saveth the universe from imperfection.”
not even exist at all, if it acts as evil upon itself. And unless it does so act, evil is not wholly evil, but has some portion of the Good by which it can exist at all. And if the things that have being desire the Beautiful and Good, and perform all their acts for the sake of what seems good, and if everything they intend has the Good as its Motive and its Aim (for nothing looks to the nature of evil to guide it in its actions), what place is left for evil among things that have being, or how can it have any being at all when stripped of such good purpose?
And if all things that have being come from the Good, and the Good is Beyond things that have being, then, whereas even that which does not exist still has being in the Good, evil on the contrary has none (otherwise it would not be wholly evil or Non-Being (Non-Ens); for that which is wholly Non-Being can be nothing at all, unless this is said Super-Essentially of the Good). So the Good must have Its seat far above and before both that which merely has being and that which has not; but evil has no place either among things that have being or among things that have not. Indeed, it is further removed from the Good than the Non-Existent is, and has less being than it.
‘Then,’ someone will perhaps say, ‘where does evil come from? For if,’ he says, ‘evil does not exist, virtue and vice must be the same, both in their whole entirety and in their corresponding particulars,’—i.e. even that which fights against virtue cannot be evil. And yet temperance is the opposite of debauchery, and righteousness of wickedness. And I do not mean only the righteous and the unrighteous man, or the temperate and the intemperate man. I mean that, even before the external distinction appeared between the virtuous man and his opposite, the ultimate distinction between the virtues and the vices has existed long beforehand in the soul itself, and the passions war against the reason; and so we must assume something evil that is contrary to goodness.
For goodness is not contrary to itself. Coming from One Beginning and being the offspring of One Cause, it rejoices in fellowship, unity, and concord. Even the lesser Good is not contrary to the greater, for what is less hot or cold is not contrary to what is more so. Therefore evil resides in the things that have being, possesses being, and is opposed and contrary to goodness. And if evil is the destruction of things that have being, that does not deprive it of its own being. It still has being itself and gives being to its offspring. Indeed, is not the destruction of one thing often the birth of another? And so it will be found that evil contributes to the fullness of the world, and by its presence saves the universe from imperfection.”