Let, therefore, all these things be acknowledged, and let the generation of beings be extended as faras to nothing ; bat whether is there nothing evil in these, or shall we admit that there is in a certain respect, and that there is what is called depravity in bodies, and in souls?) For some have been led by this doubt to take away evil entirely 3 but others have been induced to deny a providence, im consequence of believing, that if providence has a subsistence, all things are “σους, Lor if, indeed, divinity was willing there should be evil, how can he be good? For it is the province of that which is essentially good to benetit every thing, Just as itis of that which is essentially hot, to give heat. Butit is not lawful for (he good to effect any thing else than what is good. And if divinity was not willing there should be evil, how can it have a subsistence? For something will exist contrary to the will of the father of all things. Such therefore is the doubt.
We must say, however, conformably to the doctrine of Plato, according to our preceptor, that the habitude of divinity with respeet to things subsists ina different manner from that of ours. And again that the habitude of things with reference to deity is different from their habitude with reference to us. Por wholes have a relation to parts different from that of parts to cach other. To divinity therefore nothing is evil, not even of the things which are called evil. Por he uses these also toa good purpose. But again, to partial natures there is a certain evil, these being naturally adapted to suffer by it. And the same thing is to a part indeed evil, but to the universe and to wholes is not evil but good. Forso far as itis a being, and so far as it participates of a certain order, itis good. Por this thing which is said to be evil, if you apprehend it to be destitute ofall good, you will
"viz. The one, and matter.
~My 1» wanting iw the original,
Hook I] Tim.-Eus of Plato. 315
make it to be beyond even that which in no respect whatever is. For as the good itself is prior to being, so evil itself is posterior to the nothingness of non- entity. Por that which is most distant from the good 15. evil, and not that which has no kind of subsistence.' If, therefore, that which in’ no respect whatever is, has more of subsistence than evil itself, but this is impossible, it is much more impossible that there should be such a thing as evil itself.
If, however, that which is entirely evil has no subsistence, but evil is complicated with good, you give ita place among beings, and you make it good to other things, And, indeed, how is it possible it should not, if it ranks among beings ? For that which participates of being, participates also of unity, and that which participates of unity, participates likewise of good. Hence evil, if it is, partici- pates of good ; because evil has not an unmingled subsistence, and is not entirely deprived of order, and indetinite. Who therefore made it to be such? Who imparted to it measure, and order, and bound? It is evident that it is the Demiur- gus who rendered all things similar to himself. For he filled both wholes and parts with good. But if he benefits all things, and colours evil itself with good, there is nothing evil according to the power of divinity and of recipients. For power is twofold, one being that of divinity which benefits the depravity that is so abundantly seen ;* but the other being that of recipients, which participate of the goodness of the Demiurgus according to the measure of their order [in the scale of beings}. In consequence therefore of the Demiurgus being willing that there should be nothing evil, nothing is evil. But if certain persons accuse him as the cause of evil, because he gave subsistence to partial natures, they take away the fabrication of the worid, subvert the prolific power of wholes, and confound the nature of things first and last,
‘That we assert these things, however, conformably to the opinion of Plato, may be easily seen from his writings. For in the Politicus, he clearly says, “ that the world obtained from? its maker all beautiful things, but from its former habit, all such injustice, and evil, as are produced within the heavens.” For because there is generation, and also corruption, that which is preternatural has a subsistence.
" The good itself is prior to being. Nothing or non-being is not that which is most distant from the good; for it is that in which the procession of being ends, but that which is most distant from thr good is evil itself. Hence eril itself is posterior to nonentity.
τ * For wodvaparoy, it is necessary to read πολυόρατον,
? For rept here, it is requisite to read παρα,
316 PROCLUS ON THE (Book 11.
And because the deformity of matter fills partial souls with inelegance, through an association with it, on this account that which is not conformable to reason is allotted a certain resemblance of subsistence. Atthe same time, however, all these particulars become beautiful through the goodness of the maker of the universe. But inthe Republic, Plato assigns no other cause of good than God, and says that certain other causes of evils are to be investigated 5 through which he manifests that evils do not derive their subsistence from divinity, For it is not, says he, the province of fire to refrigerate, nor of snow to heat, nor of that which is all-good to produce evil, And he asserts that certain partial causes of these are to be admitted, and such as are indefinite, For itis not in evils as im things that are wood, viz. that the one and what is primarily good, precede multl- tude; and this on account of the indefinite diffusion of evil The words others, therefore, and certain, evince that the Causes of evil are partial and indefinite. But in the Thewtetus he says, thatit is neither possible for evils to be abolished, nor for them to be in the Gods, but that they revolve from necessity about the mortal nature, and this place of our abode.” If, therefore, evil revolyes necessarily in the mortal place, it will not be according to Plato, that which in no respect whatever has a subsistence, and which is exempt from all beings. So that according to him evil exists, is from partial causes, and is benefited through the boniform providence of the Demiurgus, because there Is nothing which is entirely evil, but every thing is in a certain: respect: accomplished contormably to justice and divinity.
For we may make the following division; OF all that the world contains, some things are wholes, but others parts. And of parts, some eternally preserve their own good, such as a partial intellect, and partial dwmons, but others are not always able to preserve their proper good. And of these, some are alter-notive, but others selfmotive. And. of selfmetive natures, some have evil established in their choice; but in others, it terminates in actions. With respect to wholes, therefore, they are perfectly good, supplying not only themselves, but also parts with good. Such things, however, as are parts, and yet preserve their own good, possess good secondarily and partially. But such as are parts, and alter-motive, deriving their subsistence from other things, are suspended from the providence ofthem, and are transmuted in ἃ becoming manner, as is the case with such bodies as are generated and corrupted, For if it is necessary that there should he generation, itis also necessary that there should be corruption, — For genera-
ton subsists according to mutation, and is a certain mutation, But if there is
βοοκ 11. Tim.Eus of Plato. 317
corruption, itis necessary that the preternatural should be secretly introduced, Ags, therefore, that which is corrupted, is indeed corrupted with reference to itself, but is not destroyed with reference to the universe; for it is either air or water, or something else into which it is changed; thus also that which is preter- natural, is indeed with respect to itself disordered, but with respect to the universe has an orderly arrangement. For if though it should be destroyed and entirely deprived of order, it would not dissolve the order of the universe, how is it possible that when having a preternatural subsistence which is of itself nothing when deprived of all order, it can destroy the whole arrange- ment of things? But again, partial natures which are self-motive indeed, and whose energy is directed to externals, cause that which is effected by their energy to be evil to themselves, yet in a certain respect this also is good, and conformable to divinity. Vor since impulses and actions are from choice, actions follow elections, according to justice, when he who chooses not only deserves the retribution consequent to his choice, but that also which follows from his conduct. And simply, indeed, the action is not good, but to him who chooses a certain thing, and is impelled in a certain way, it is introduced according to justice; and is good to this individual and this particular life. For of goods, some are good to all things, others to such as differ accord- ing to species, and others to individuals, so far as they are individuals. For hellebore is not good to all men, nor to all bodies, nor yet to all diseased bodies, but it is good to one who isdiseased in a particular manner, and is salutary from acertain principle. Whether, therefore, the action is intemperate or unjust, to those who perform it indeed it is good, so far as it is conformable to justice, but simply it is not good, nor to those by whom it ts done, but is to them the greatest evil. And so far as it proceeds from them and is directed to them, it is evil; but so far as it proceeds from the universe to them, itis not evil. And so far as their energy is directed to themselves, they destroy their life, becoming actually de- praved ; but so far as they suffer from the universe, they undergo the punishment of their choice (just as it is said, that those who deliberate about betraying a suppliant, subvert divinity); or they suffer the punishment of their will.
Let us, however, direct our attention to what remains, viz. to such partial na- tures as energize self-motively, and who stop their depravity as far as to their choice. For they suffer the punishment of their cogitation alone. For, as it is said, there is a certain punishment of mere imagination, impulse and will; since the Gods govern us inwardly, and as they reward beneficent choice, so likewise
418 PROCLUS ON THE [soox 11.
they punish the contrary. But it may be said, how can choice itself have that which is conformable to justice and divinity? May we not reply, because it is necessary there should be an essence of this kind and a power of an ambiguous nature, and which verges to different lives? If therefore that which has dominion over Choice is from divinity, choice also is from divinity, and if this be the case, it is good. Por the cleeting soul alone is) transferred to another and another order. For all choice either elevates the soul, or draws it downward (to an inferior condition of being}. And if indeed the choice is froma depraved * soul, itisevils but ifit transfers that which chooses to its proper order, itis according to justice and good. For the choice itself introduces punishment to the electing soul. Or rather, the choice becomes punishment in him who chooses, causing the soul tu apostatize from good. For as a beneticent choice becomes truly the re- ward of itself, so a depraved choice becomes its own punishment. For this is the peculiarity of selfmotive powers. Hence there is no evil, which is not also ina certain respect good ; but all things participate of providence.