Οἱ ζητοῦντες πόθεν τὰ κακά, εἴτ’ οὖν εἰς τὰ ὄντα εἴτε περὶ γένος τῶν ὄντων παρελήλυθεν, ἀρχὴν ἂν προσήκουσαν τῆς ζητήσεως ποιοῖντο, εἰ τί ποτ’ ἐστὶ τὸ κακὸν καὶ ἡ κακοῦ φύσις πρότερον ὑποθεῖντο. οὕτω γὰρ καὶ ὅθεν ἐλήλυθε καὶ ὅπου ἵδρυται καὶ ὅτῳ συμβέβηκε γνωσθείη [ἄν], καὶ ὅλως εἰ ἔστιν ἐν τοῖς οὖσιν ὁμολογηθείη. κακοῦ δὲ φύσιν τίνι ποτὲ δυνάμει τῶν ἐν ἡμῖν γνοίημεν ἂν τῆς γνώσεως ἑκάστων δι’ ὁμοιότητος γιγνομένης ἄπορον ἂν εἴη. νοῦς μὲν γὰρ καὶ ψυχὴ εἴδη ὄντα εἰδῶν καὶ τὴν γνῶσιν ἂν ποιοῖντο, καὶ πρὸς αὐτὰ ἂν ἔχοιεν τὴν ὄρεξιν· εἶδος δὲ τὸ κακὸν πῶς ἄν τις φαντάζοιτο ἐν ἀπουσίᾳ παντὸς ἀγαθοῦ ἰνδαλλόμενον;
Those who ask where evils come from—whether they have entered into beings in general or into some kind of beings—would make a fitting start to their inquiry if they first laid down what evil is, and what the nature of evil is. In this way one could know where it has come from, where it is seated and in what it occurs, and in general reach agreement on whether it exists among the things that are. But by which of the powers in us we could know the nature of evil would be hard to say, since knowledge of each thing comes about by likeness. Intellect and soul, being forms, would know forms and would have their desire for them. But how could anyone imagine evil as a form, when it shows itself in the absence of every good?
ἀλλ’ εἰ, ὅτι τῶν ἐναντίων ἡ αὐτὴ γένοιτ’ ἂν ἐπιστήμη καὶ τῷ ἀγαθῷ ἐναντίον τὸ κακόν, ἥπερ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ καὶ τοῦ κακοῦ ἔσται, ἀναγκαῖον περὶ ἀγαθοῦ διιδεῖν τοῖς μέλλουσι τὰ κακὰ γνώσεσθαι, ἐπείπερ προηγούμενα τὰ ἀμείνω τῶν χειρόνων καὶ εἴδη, τὰ δὲ οὔ, ἀλλὰ στέρησις μᾶλλον. ζήτημα δ’ ὅμως καὶ [ὥς], πῶς ἐναντίον τὸ ἀγαθὸν τῷ κακῷ· εἰ μὴ ἄρα, ὡς τὸ μὲν ἀρχή, τὸ δὲ ἔσχατον, ἢ τὸ μὲν ὡς εἶδος, τὸ δὲ ὡς στέρησις. ἀλλὰ ταῦτα μὲν ὕστερον.
But perhaps, since there is one and the same knowledge of opposites, and evil is opposite to good, the knowledge of the good will also be knowledge of evil. Then those who mean to know evils must get a clear view of the good, since the better things come before the worse and are forms, while the worse are not, but rather privation. Still, it is also a question [as to] how the good is opposite to evil—unless it is that one is a principle and the other is the last, or that one is form and the other privation. But more on this later.
νῦν δὲ λεγέσθω, τίς ἡ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ φύσις, καθ’ ὅσον τοῖς παροῦσι λόγοις προσήκει. ἔστι δὲ τοῦτο, εἰς ὃ πάντα ἀνήρτηται καὶ οὗ πάντα τὰ ὄντα ἐφίεται ἀρχὴν ἔχοντα αὐτὸ κἀκείνου δεόμενα· τὸ δ’ ἐστὶν ἀνενδεές, ἱκανὸν ἑαυτῷ, μηδενὸς δεόμενον, μέτρον πάντων καὶ πέρας, δὸν ἐξ αὑτοῦ νοῦν καὶ οὐσίαν καὶ ψυχὴν καὶ ζωὴν καὶ περὶ νοῦν ἐνέργειαν.
For now let us say what the nature of the Good is, so far as it concerns the present discussion. It is that on which all things depend and which all beings desire, having it as their principle and needing it. It is itself without need, sufficient to itself, lacking nothing, the measure and limit of all things, giving from itself Intellect and being and Soul and life and the activity that concerns Intellect.
καὶ μέχρι μὲν τούτου καλὰ πάντα· αὐτός τε γὰρ ὑπέρκαλος καὶ ἐπέκεινα τῶν ἀρίστων βασιλεύων ἐν τῷ νοητῷ, νοῦ ἐκείνου ὄντος οὐ κατὰ νοῦν, ὃν οἰηθείη ἄν τις κατὰ τοὺς παρ’ ἡμῖν λεγομένους νοῦς εἶναι τοὺς ἐκ προτάσεων συμπληρουμένους καὶ τῶν λεγομένων συνιέναι δυναμένους λογιζομένους τε καὶ τοῦ ἀκολούθου θεωρίαν ποιουμένους καὶ ἐξ ἀκολουθίας τὰ ὄντα θεωμένους ὡς πρότερον οὐκ ἔχοντας, ἀλλὰ κενοὺς ἔτι πρὶν μαθεῖν ὄντας, καίτοι νοῦς ὄντας. οὐ δὴ ἐκεῖνος ὁ νοῦς τοιοῦτος, ἀλλ’ ἔχει πάντα καὶ ἔστι πάντα καὶ σύνεστιν αὑτῷ συνὼν καὶ ἔχει πάντα οὐκ ἔχων. οὐ γὰρ ἄλλα, ὁ δὲ ἄλλος· οὐδὲ χωρὶς ἕκαστον τῶν ἐν αὐτῷ· ὅλον τε γάρ ἐστιν ἕκαστον καὶ πανταχῇ πᾶν καὶ οὐ συγκέχυται, ἀλλὰ αὖ χωρίς.
Up to this point all things are beautiful. He himself is beyond beauty, beyond the best, reigning as king in the intelligible world. That Intellect is not intellect of the kind one might suppose from what we call intellects here: those are filled out from premises and able to understand what is said; they reason and consider what follows, and see beings by inference, as though they did not have them before but were empty until they learned, intellects though they are. That Intellect is not like this. It has all things and is all things, and is with them by being with itself, and has all things without having them. For they are not one thing and it another; nor is each of the things in it separate. Each is the whole, and everywhere all, and they are not blurred together, but again separate.
τὸ γοῦν μεταλαμβάνον οὐχ ὁμοῦ πάντων, ἀλλ’ ὅτου δύναται μεταλαμβάνει. καὶ ἔστι πρώτη ἐνέργεια ἐκείνου καὶ πρώτη οὐσία ἐκείνου μένοντος ἐν ἑαυτῷ· ἐνεργεῖ μέντοι περὶ ἐκεῖνον οἷον περὶ ἐκεῖνον ζῶν. ἡ δὲ ἔξωθεν περὶ τοῦτον χορεύουσα ψυχὴ πρὸς αὐτὸν βλέπουσα καὶ τὸ εἴσω αὐτοῦ θεωμένη τὸν θεὸν δι’ αὐτοῦ βλέπει. καὶ οὗτος θεῶν ἀπήμων καὶ μακάριος βίος καὶ τὸ κακὸν οὐδαμοῦ ἐνταῦθα καὶ εἰ ἐνταῦθα ἔστη, κακὸν οὐδὲν ἂν ἦν, ἀλλὰ πρῶτα καὶ δεύτερα τἀγαθὰ καὶ τρίτα. [καὶ] περὶ τὸν πάντων βασιλέα πάντα ἐστί, καὶ ἐκεῖνο αἴτιον πάντων καλῶν, καὶ πάντα ἐστὶν ἐκείνου, καὶ δεύτερον περὶ τὰ δεύτερα καὶ τρίτον περὶ τὰ τρίτα.
At any rate, what participates in it does not participate in all of them at once, but in what it can. And Intellect is the first activity of that, and its first being, while that remains in itself. Yet Intellect is active around it, as it were living around it. And Soul, dancing around Intellect from outside, looking toward it and contemplating its interior, sees the god through it. And this is the untroubled and blessed life of the gods; evil is nowhere here, and if things had stopped here there would be no evil, only goods: first, second and third. [And] all things are around the king of all, and that is the cause of all beautiful things, and all things are his, and the second things are around the second, and the third around the third.
εἰ δὴ τοιαῦτά ἐστι τὰ ὄντα καὶ τὸ ἐπέκεινα τῶν ὄντων, οὐκ ἂν ἐν τοῖς οὖσι τὸ κακὸν ἐνείη, οὐδὲ ἐν τῷ ἐπέκεινα τῶν ὄντων· ἀγαθὰ γὰρ ταῦτα. λείπεται τοίνυν, εἴπερ ἔστιν, ἐν τοῖς μὴ οὖσιν εἶναι οἷον εἶδός τι τοῦ μὴ ὄντος ὂν καὶ περί τι τῶν μεμιγμένων τῷ μὴ ὄντι ἢ ὁπωσοῦν κοινωνούντων τῷ μὴ ὄντι. μὴ ὂν δὲ οὔτι τὸ παντελῶς μὴ ὄν, ἀλλ’ ἕτερον μόνον τοῦ ὄντος· οὐχ οὕτω δὲ μὴ ὄν, ὡς κίνησις καὶ στάσις ἡ περὶ τὸ ὄν, ἀλλ’ ὡς εἰκὼν τοῦ ὄντος ἢ καὶ ἔτι μᾶλλον μὴ ὄν.
If, then, beings and what is beyond beings are like this, evil could not be among beings, nor in what is beyond beings; for these are good. It remains, then, if it exists at all, that it is among non-beings, as a sort of form of non-being, and that it concerns one of the things mixed with non-being or sharing in non-being in some way. Non-being not in the sense of what is altogether non-being, but only what is other than being; and not non-being in the way that motion and rest, which concern being, are, but as an image of being, or something still more non-being.
τοῦτο δέ ἐστι τὸ αἰσθητὸν πᾶν καὶ ὅσα περὶ τὸ αἰσθητὸν πάθη ἢ ὕστερόν τι τούτων καὶ ὡς συμβεβηκὸς τούτοις ἢ ἀρχὴ τούτων ἢ ἕν τι τῶν συμπληρούντων τοῦτο τοιοῦτον ὄν. ἤδη γὰρ ἄν τις εἰς ἔννοιαν ἥκοι αὐτοῦ οἷον ἀμετρίαν εἶναι πρὸς μέτρον καὶ ἄπειρον πρὸς πέρας καὶ ἀνείδεον πρὸς εἰδοποιητικὸν καὶ ἀεὶ ἐνδεὲς πρὸς αὔταρκες, ἀεὶ ἀόριστον, οὐδαμῇ ἑστώς, παμπαθές, ἀκόρητον, πενία παντελής· καὶ οὐ συμβεβηκότα ταῦτα αὐτῷ, ἀλλ’ οἷον οὐσία αὐτοῦ ταῦτα, καὶ ὅ τι ἂν αὐτοῦ μέρος ἴδῃς, καὶ αὐτὸ πάντα ταῦτα· τὰ δ’ ἄλλα, ὅσα ἂν αὐτοῦ μεταλάβῃ καὶ ὁμοιωθῇ, κακὰ μὲν γίνεσθαι, οὐχ ὅπερ δὲ κακὰ εἶναι.
This is the whole sensible world and all the affections that concern the sensible; or something posterior to these, like an accident of them; or their principle; or one of the things that make up this reality, being of this kind. One might already arrive at a notion of it as a sort of measurelessness in relation to measure, the unlimited in relation to limit, the formless in relation to what produces form, the always needy in relation to the self-sufficient: always undefined, nowhere stable, affected in every way, insatiable, utter poverty. And these are not accidents of it, but, as it were, its very being; whatever part of it you look at, it too is all these things. Other things, those that share in it and become like it, become bad, but they are not what evil is.
τίνι οὖν ὑποστάσει ταῦτα πάρεστιν οὐχ ἕτερα ὄντα ἐκείνης, ἀλλ’ ἐκείνη; καὶ γὰρ εἰ ἑτέρῳ συμβαίνει τὸ κακόν, δεῖ τι πρότερον αὐτὸ εἶναι, κἂν μὴ οὐσία τις ᾖ. ὡς γὰρ ἀγαθὸν τὸ μὲν αὐτό, τὸ δὲ ὃ συμβέβηκεν, οὕτω καὶ κακὸν τὸ μὲν αὐτό, τὸ δὲ ἤδη κατ’ ἐκεῖνο συμβεβηκὸς ἑτέρῳ. τίς οὖν ἀμετρία, εἰ μὴ ἐν τῷ ἀμέτρῳ; τί δὲ μέτρον, εἰ μὴ ἐν τῷ μεμετρημένῳ; ἀλλ’ ὥσπερ ἐστὶ μέτρον μὴ ἐν τῷ μεμετρημένῳ, οὕτω καὶ ἀμετρία οὐκ ἐν ἀμέτρῳ. εἰ γὰρ ἐν ἄλλῳ, ἢ ἐν ἀμέτρῳ — ἀλλ’ οὐ δεῖ αὐτῷ ἀμετρίας αὐτῷ ἀμέτρῳ ὄντι — ἢ ἐν μεμετρημένῳ· ἀλλ’ οὐχ οἷόν τε τὸ μεμετρημένον ἀμετρίαν ἔχειν καθ’ ὃ μεμέτρηται.
To what kind of reality, then, do these belong—not as something other than it, but as itself? For even if evil occurs in something else, it must first be something itself, even if it is not some kind of being. Just as there is good itself and good as an attribute, so there is evil itself and evil that, deriving from it, occurs as an attribute in something else. What, then, is measurelessness, if not in the measureless? And what is measure, if not in the measured? But just as there is measure that is not in the measured, so there is measurelessness that is not in the measureless. For if it is in something else, it is either in the measureless—but that has no need of measurelessness, since it is itself measureless—or in the measured; but the measured cannot have measurelessness in the respect in which it is measured.
δεῖ οὖν εἶναί τι καὶ ἄπειρον καθ’ αὑτὸ καὶ ἀνείδεον αὖ αὐτὸ καὶ τὰ ἄλλα τὰ πρόσθεν, ἃ τὴν τοῦ κακοῦ ἐχαρακτήριζε φύσιν, καὶ εἴ τι μετ’ ἐκεῖνο τοιοῦτον, ἢ μεμιγμένον ἔχει τοῦτο ἢ βλέπον πρὸς αὐτό ἐστι τοιοῦτον ἢ ποιητικόν ἐστι τοιούτου. τὴν δὴ ὑποκειμένην σχήμασι καὶ εἴδεσι καὶ μορφαῖς καὶ μέτροις καὶ πέρασι καὶ ἀλλοτρίῳ κόσμῳ κοσμουμένην, μηδὲν παρ’ αὑτῆς ἀγαθὸν ἔχουσαν, εἴδωλον δὲ ὡς πρὸς τὰ ὄντα, κακοῦ δὲ οὐσίαν, εἴ τις καὶ δύναται κακοῦ οὐσία εἶναι, ταύτην ἀνευρίσκει ὁ λόγος κακὸν εἶναι πρῶτον καὶ καθ’ αὑτὸ κακόν.
So there must be something unlimited in itself, and again formless in itself, and possessing the other features mentioned before that characterized the nature of evil. And if anything after it is like this, either it has this mixed in it, or it is like this by looking toward it, or it produces something like this. That which underlies figures and forms and shapes and measures and limits, and is adorned with an adornment not its own, having no good of its own, but an image in relation to beings, the very being of evil—if there can be such a thing as a being of evil—this the argument finds to be evil: primary evil, evil in itself.
Bad bodies, bad souls
Bodies are evil insofar as they share in matter, and souls become bad by looking toward it.
σωμάτων δὴ φύσις, καθόσον μετέχει ὕλης, κακὸν ἂν εἴη· ἔχει μὲν γὰρ εἶδός τι οὐκ ἀληθινὸν ἐστέρηταί τε ζωῆς φθείρει τε ἄλληλα φορᾷ τῇ παρ’ αὐτῶν ἀτάκτῳ ἐμπόδιά τε ψυχῆς πρὸς τὴν αὐτῆς ἐνέργειαν φεύγει τε οὐσίαν ἀεὶ ῥέοντα, ψυχὴ δὲ καθ’ ἑαυτὴν μὲν οὐ κακὴ οὐδ’ αὖ πᾶσα κακή. ἀλλὰ τίς ἡ κακή; οἷόν, φησι, δουλωσαμένη μὲν ᾧ πέφυκε κακία ψυχῆς ἐγγίνεσθαι, ὡς τοῦ ἀλόγου τῆς ψυχῆς εἴδους τὸ κακὸν δεχομένου, ἀμετρίαν καὶ ὑπερβολὴν καὶ ἔλλειψιν, ἐξ ὧν καὶ ἀκολασία καὶ δειλία καὶ ἡ ἄλλη ψυχῆς κακία, ἀκούσια παθήματα, δόξας ψευδεῖς ἐμποιοῦντα κακά τε νομίζειν καὶ ἀγαθὰ ἃ φεύγει τε καὶ διώκει. ἀλλὰ τί τὸ πεποιηκὸς τὴν κακίαν ταύτην καὶ πῶς εἰς ἀρχὴν ἐκείνην καὶ αἰτίαν ἀνάξεις;
The nature of bodies, then, insofar as it shares in matter, would be evil. It has a form that is not true; it is deprived of life; bodies destroy one another by their disordered motion; they are hindrances to the soul in its own activity; and they flee from being, always flowing. Soul, by itself, is not bad, nor again is all soul bad. Which, then, is the bad soul? It is, as he says, the one enslaved to that in which vice of soul naturally arises, since it is the irrational kind of soul that receives evil—measurelessness, excess and deficiency—from which come licentiousness and cowardice and the rest of the soul’s vice: involuntary affections, which produce false opinions and make it think bad and good the things it flees and pursues. But what has produced this vice, and how will you trace it back to that principle and cause?
ἢ πρῶτον μὲν οὐκ ἔξω ὕλης οὐδὲ καθ’ αὑτὴν ἡ ψυχὴ ἡ τοιαύτη. μέμικται οὖν ἀμετρίᾳ καὶ ἄμοιρος εἴδους τοῦ κοσμοῦντος καὶ εἰς μέτρον ἄγοντος· σώματι γὰρ ἐγκέκραται ὕλην ἔχοντι. ἔπειτα δὲ καὶ τὸ λογιζόμενον εἰ βλάπτοιτο, ὁρᾶν κωλύεται καὶ τοῖς πάθεσι καὶ τῷ ἐπισκοτεῖσθαι τῇ ὕλῃ καὶ πρὸς ὕλην νενευκέναι καὶ ὅλως οὐ πρὸς οὐσίαν, ἀλλὰ πρὸς γένεσιν ὁρᾶν, ἧς ἀρχὴ ἡ ὕλης φύσις οὕτως οὖσα κακὴ ὡς καὶ τὸ μήπω ἐν αὐτῇ, μόνον δὲ βλέψαν εἰς αὐτήν, ἀναπιμπλάναι κακοῦ ἑαυτῆς. ἄμοιρος γὰρ παντελῶς οὖσα ἀγαθοῦ καὶ στέρησις τούτου καὶ ἄκρατος ἔλλειψις ἐξομοιοῖ ἑαυτῇ πᾶν ὅ τι ἂν αὐτῆς προσάψηται ὁπωσοῦν.
Or rather: first, a soul of this kind is not outside matter, nor by itself. So it is mixed with measurelessness and has no share in the form that orders it and brings it to measure; for it is blended with a body that has matter. Then too, if its reasoning part is harmed, it is prevented from seeing, by the affections, by being darkened by matter, by having inclined toward matter, and in general by looking not toward being but toward becoming. And the principle of becoming is the nature of matter, which is so bad that it fills with its own evil even what is not yet in it but has only looked at it. For since it has no share in good at all, and is privation of it and unmixed deficiency, it makes like itself everything that touches it in any way whatever.
ἡ μὲν οὖν τελεία καὶ πρὸς νοῦν νεύουσα ψυχὴ ἀεὶ καθαρὰ καὶ ὕλην ἀπέστραπται καὶ τὸ ἀόριστον ἅπαν καὶ τὸ ἄμετρον καὶ κακὸν οὔτε ὁρᾷ οὔτε πελάζει· καθαρὰ οὖν μένει ὁρισθεῖσα νῷ παντελῶς. ἡ δὲ μὴ μείνασα τοῦτο, ἀλλ’ ἐξ αὑτῆς προελθοῦσα τῷ μὴ τελείῳ μηδὲ πρώτῳ οἷον ἴνδαλμα ἐκείνης τῷ ἐλλείμματι καθόσον ἐνέλιπεν ἀοριστίας πληρωθεῖσα σκότος ὁρᾷ καὶ ἔχει ἤδη ὕλην βλέπουσα εἰς ὃ μὴ βλέπει, ὡς λεγόμεθα ὁρᾶν καὶ τὸ σκότος.
So the perfect soul, inclined toward Intellect, is always pure: it has turned away from matter, and it neither sees nor approaches anything undefined, measureless or bad. So it remains pure, wholly defined by Intellect. But the soul that has not remained like this, but has proceeded out of itself because it is not perfect or first—a sort of phantom of that other, by its deficiency, insofar as it falls short—is filled with indefiniteness. It sees darkness, and by now has matter, looking at what it does not see, in the way we are said to see even darkness.
ἀλλ’ εἰ ἡ ἔλλειψις τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ αἰτία τοῦ ὁρᾶν καὶ συνεῖναι τῷ σκότει, τὸ κακὸν εἴη ἂν ἐν τῇ ἐλλείψει τῇ ψυχῇ καὶ πρῶτον — δεύτερον δὲ ἔσται τὸ σκότος — καὶ ἡ φύσις τοῦ κακοῦ οὐκέτι ἐν τῇ ὕλῃ, ἀλλὰ καὶ πρὸ τῆς ὕλης. ἢ οὐκ ἐν τῇ ὁπωσοῦν ἐλλείψει, ἀλλ’ ἐν τῇ παντελεῖ τὸ κακόν· τὸ γοῦν ἐλλεῖπον ὀλίγον τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ οὐ κακόν, δύναται γὰρ καὶ τέλειον εἶναι ὡς πρὸς φύσιν τὴν αὑτοῦ. ἀλλ’ ὅταν παντελῶς ἐλλείπῃ, ὅπερ ἐστὶν ἡ ὕλη, τοῦτο τὸ ὄντως κακὸν μηδεμίαν ἔχον ἀγαθοῦ μοῖραν. οὐδὲ γὰρ τὸ εἶναι ἔχει ἡ ὕλη, ἵνα ἀγαθοῦ ταύτῃ μετεῖχεν, ἀλλ’ ὁμώνυμον αὐτῇ τὸ εἶναι, ὡς ἀληθὲς εἶναι λέγειν αὐτὴν μὴ εἶναι.
But if lack of the good is the cause of seeing darkness and being with it, then evil would lie in the lack, in the soul, and would be primary—the darkness will be second—and the nature of evil will no longer be in matter, but even prior to matter. Or rather: evil lies not in just any lack, but in absolute lack. At any rate, what falls a little short of the good is not evil; it can even be perfect relative to its own nature. But when something falls absolutely short—and this is what matter is—that is what is really evil, having no portion of good. For matter does not even have being, so as to share in good that way; “being” is said of it only in name, so that it is true to say that it is not.
ἡ οὖν ἔλλειψις ἔχει μὲν τὸ μὴ ἀγαθὸν εἶναι, ἡ δὲ παντελὴς τὸ κακόν· ἡ δὲ πλείων τὸ πεσεῖν εἰς τὸ κακὸν δύνασθαι καὶ ἤδη κακόν. τῷ χρὴ τὸ κακὸν νοεῖσθαι μὴ τόδε τὸ κακόν, οἷον ἀδικίαν ἢ ἄλλην τινὰ κακίαν, ἀλλ’ ἐκεῖνο ὃ οὐδὲν μέν πω τούτων, ταῦτα δὲ οἷον εἴδη ἐκείνου προσθήκαις εἰδοποιούμενα· οἷον ἐν μὲν ψυχῇ πονηρίαν καὶ ταύτης αὖ εἴδη ἢ ὕλῃ περὶ ἥν, ἢ τοῖς μέρεσι τῆς ψυχῆς, ἢ τῷ τὸ μὲν οἷον ὁρᾶν εἶναι, τὸ δὲ ὁρμᾶν ἢ πάσχειν. εἰ δέ τις θεῖτο καὶ τὰ ἔξω ψυχῆς κακὰ εἶναι, πῶς ἐπ’ ἐκείνην τὴν φύσιν ἀνάξει, οἷον νόσον, [αἶσχος], πενίαν;
So lack means not being good, while absolute lack means being evil; and greater lack means being able to fall into evil, and is already bad. So we must think of evil not as this or that evil, such as injustice or some other vice, but as that which is not yet any of these, while these are, as it were, species of it, specified by additions: in the soul, for instance, wickedness and its species, distinguished either by the matter they concern, or by the parts of the soul, or by one being a sort of seeing and another an impulse or an affection. And if someone holds that things outside the soul are bad too—illness, [ugliness], poverty—how will he trace them back to that nature?
ἢ νόσον μὲν ἔλλειψιν καὶ ὑπερβολὴν σωμάτων ἐνύλων τάξιν καὶ μέτρον οὐκ ἀνεχομένων, αἶσχος δὲ ὕλην οὐ κρατηθεῖσαν εἴδει, πενίαν δὲ ἔνδειαν καὶ στέρησιν ὧν ἐν χρείᾳ ἐσμὲν διὰ τὴν ὕλην ᾗ συνεζεύγμεθα φύσιν ἔχουσαν χρησμοσύνην εἶναι. εἰ δὴ ταῦτα ὀρθῶς λέγεται, οὐ θετέον ἡμᾶς ἀρχὴν κακῶν εἶναι κακοὺς παρ’ αὑτῶν ὄντας, ἀλλὰ πρὸ ἡμῶν ταῦτα· ἃ δ’ ἂν ἀνθρώπους κατάσχῃ, κατέχειν οὐχ ἑκόντας, ἀλλ’ εἶναι μὲν ἀποφυγὴν κακῶν τῶν ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ τοῖς δυνηθεῖσι, πάντας δὲ οὐ δύνασθαι. θέσις δὲ ὕλης παρούσης τοῖς αἰσθητοῖς τὸ κακὸν μὴ παρεῖναι τὴν κακίαν ἣν ἄνθρωποι ἔχουσιν, ὅτι μηδὲ ἀνθρώποις ἅπασι· κρατεῖν γὰρ αὐτῆς — ἀμείνους δέ, οἷς μὴ πάρεστι — καὶ τούτῳ κρατεῖν δὲ τῷ μὴ ἐνύλῳ ἐν αὐτοῖς ὄντι.
Or rather: illness is deficiency and excess in material bodies that do not keep order and measure; ugliness is matter not mastered by form; poverty is need and privation of what we require because of the matter to which we are yoked, which has a nature that is neediness itself. If this is rightly said, we must not be posited as the principle of evils, as though we were bad of ourselves; these are prior to us. Whatever evils take hold of human beings take hold of them against their will. There is an escape from the evils in the soul for those who are able to make it, but not all are able. Our thesis is this: though matter is present to sensible things, evil is not present as the vice that human beings have, since vice is not present even in all human beings. For they master it—and those in whom it is not present are better—and they master it by what is not material in them.
ἐπισκεπτέον δὲ καὶ πῶς λέγεται μὴ ἂν ἀπολέσθαι τὰ κακά, ἀλλ’ εἶναι ἐξ ἀνάγκης· καὶ ἐν θεοῖς μὲν οὐκ εἶναι, περιπολεῖν δὲ τὴν θνητὴν φύσιν καὶ τόνδε τὸν τόπον ἀεί. ἆρ’ οὖν οὕτως εἴρηται, ὡς τοῦ μὲν οὐρανοῦ καθαροῦ κακῶν ὄντος ἀεὶ ἐν τάξει ἰόντος καὶ κόσμῳ φερομένου καὶ μήτε ἀδικίας ἐκεῖ οὔσης μήτε ἄλλης κακίας μήτε ἀδικοῦντα ἄλληλα, κόσμῳ δὲ φερόμενα, ἐν γῇ δὲ τῆς ἀδικίας καὶ τῆς ἀταξίας οὔσης; τοῦτο γάρ ἐστιν ἡ θνητὴ φύσις καὶ ὅδε ὁ τόπος. ἀλλὰ τὸ ἐντεῦθεν φεύγειν δεῖν οὐκέτι περὶ τῶν ἐπὶ γῆς λέγεται.
We must also consider in what sense it is said that evils cannot be destroyed but exist of necessity, and that they are not among the gods but always haunt mortal nature and this region. Is it said in the sense that heaven is pure of evils, always moving in order and carried round in an orderly way, with no injustice there nor any other vice, its bodies not wronging one another but moving in order, while on earth there is injustice and disorder? For this is mortal nature and this region. But the saying that we must flee from here is no longer about things on earth.
φυγὴ γάρ, φησιν, οὐ τὸ ἐκ γῆς ἀπελθεῖν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὄντα ἐπὶ γῆς δίκαιον καὶ ὅσιον εἶναι μετὰ φρονήσεως, ὡς εἶναι τὸ λεγόμενον φεύγειν κακίαν δεῖν, ὥστε τὰ κακὰ αὐτῷ ἡ κακία καὶ ὅσα ἐκ κακίας· καὶ τοῦ προσδιαλεγομένου δὲ ἀναίρεσιν λέγοντος κακῶν ἔσεσθαι, εἰ πείθοι τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ἃ λέγει, ὁ δέ φησι μὴ δύνασθαι τοῦτο γενέσθαι· τὰ γὰρ κακὰ εἶναι ἀνάγκῃ, ἐπείπερ τοὐναντίον τι δεῖ εἶναι τῷ ἀγαθῷ. τὴν μὲν οὖν κακίαν τὴν περὶ ἄνθρωπον πῶς οἷόν τε ἐναντίον εἶναι ἐκείνῳ τῷ ἀγαθῷ; ἐναντίον γὰρ τοῦτο τῇ ἀρετῇ, αὕτη δὲ οὐ τὸ ἀγαθόν, ἀλλὰ ἀγαθόν, ὃ κρατεῖν τῆς ὕλης ποιεῖ. ἐκείνῳ δὲ τῷ ἀγαθῷ πῶς ἄν τι εἴη ἐναντίον; οὐ γὰρ δὴ ποιόν· εἶτα τίς ἀνάγκη πανταχοῦ, εἰ θάτερον τῶν ἐναντίων, καὶ θάτερον;
For flight, he says, is not leaving the earth, but being just and holy with understanding while on earth. So what is meant is that we must flee vice, so that for him evils are vice and whatever comes from vice. And when his interlocutor says that evils would be done away with if he could persuade people of what he says, he replies that this cannot happen: evils exist of necessity, since there must be something opposite to the good. Now how can the vice that concerns human beings be opposite to that Good? It is opposite to virtue, and virtue is not the Good but a good, one that makes us master matter. But how could anything be opposite to that Good? It is not a quality. And then, what necessity is there, in every case, that if one of two opposites exists, the other does too?
ἐνδεχέσθω μὲν γὰρ καὶ ἔστω γε καὶ τὸ ἐναντίον τοῦ ἐναντίου αὐτῷ ὄντος — οἷον ὑγιείας οὔσης ἐνδέχεται καὶ νόσον εἶναι — οὐ μὴν ἐξ ἀνάγκης. ἢ οὐκ ἀνάγκη λέγειν αὐτόν, ὡς ἐπὶ παντὸς ἐναντίου τοῦτο ἀληθές, ἀλλ’ ἐπὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ εἴρηται. ἀλλ’ εἰ οὐσία τἀγαθόν, πῶς ἐστιν αὐτῷ τι ἐναντίον, ἢ τῷ ἐπέκεινα οὐσίας; τὸ μὲν οὖν μὴ εἶναι μηδὲν οὐσίᾳ ἐναντίον ἐπὶ τῶν καθ’ ἕκαστα οὐσιῶν ἐστι πιστὸν τῇ ἐπαγωγῇ δεδειγμένον.
Let it be possible, granted, that the opposite exists when its opposite exists—when there is health, for example, it is possible that there is illness too—but not of necessity. Or rather, he need not be saying that this holds of every opposite; it was said of the good. But if the Good is being, how can anything be opposite to it—or to what is beyond being? Now, that nothing is opposite to being has been convincingly shown, by induction, in the case of particular beings.
ὅλως δὲ οὐκ ἔστι δεδειγμένον. ἀλλὰ τί τῇ καθόλου οὐσίᾳ ἔσται ἐναντίον καὶ ὅλως τοῖς πρώτοις; ἢ τῇ μὲν οὐσίᾳ ἡ μὴ οὐσία, τῇ δὲ ἀγαθοῦ φύσει ἥτις ἐστὶ κακοῦ φύσις καὶ ἀρχή· ἀρχαὶ γὰρ ἄμφω, ἡ μὲν κακῶν, ἡ δὲ ἀγαθῶν· καὶ πάντα τὰ ἐν τῇ φύσει ἑκατέρᾳ ἐναντία· ὥστε καὶ τὰ ὅλα ἐναντία καὶ μᾶλλον ἐναντία ἢ τὰ ἄλλα. τὰ μὲν γὰρ ἄλλα ἐναντία ἢ ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ εἴδει ὄντα ἢ ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ γένει καὶ κοινοῦ τινός ἐστι μετειληφότα ἐν οἷς ἐστιν· ὅσα δὲ χωρίς ἐστι, καὶ ἃ τῷ ἑτέρῳ ἐστὶ συμπλήρωσις τοῦ ὅ ἐστι, ὧν τἀναντία ἐν τῷ ἑτέρῳ ἐστί, πῶς οὐ μάλιστα ἂν εἴη ἐναντία, εἴπερ ἐναντία τὰ πλεῖστον ἀλλήλων ἀφεστηκότα;
But it has not been shown universally. What, then, will be opposite to being universally, and in general to the first things? Or rather: to being, non-being; and to the nature of the good, whatever is the nature and principle of evil. For both are principles, the one of evils, the other of goods; and all the things in each nature are opposites, so that the wholes too are opposites, and more opposite than the others. For other opposites are either in the same species or in the same genus, and share in something common in which they are. But things that are separate, where what completes the essence of the one has its opposites in the other—how could these not be opposites most of all, if opposites are things that stand furthest apart from one another?
πέρατι δὴ καὶ μέτρῳ καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις, ὅσα ἔνεστιν ἐν τῇ θείᾳ φύσει, ἀπειρία καὶ ἀμετρία καὶ τὰ ἄλλα, ὅσα ἔχει ἡ κακὴ φύσις, ἐναντία· ὥστε καὶ τὸ ὅλον τῷ ὅλῳ ἐναντίον. καὶ τὸ εἶναι δὲ ψευδόμενον ἔχει καὶ πρώτως καὶ ὄντως ψεῦδος· τῷ δὲ τὸ ἀληθῶς εἶναι· ὥστε καὶ κατὰ τὸ ψεῦδος τῷ ἀληθεῖ ἐναντίον καὶ τὸ κατ’ οὐσίαν τῷ κατ’ οὐσίαν αὐτοῖς ἐναντίον. ὥστε ἡμῖν ἀναπέφανται τὸ μὴ πανταχοῦ οὐσίᾳ μηδὲν εἶναι ἐναντίον· ἐπεὶ καὶ ἐπὶ πυρὸς καὶ ὕδατος ἐδεξάμεθα ἂν εἶναι ἐναντία, εἰ μὴ κοινὸν ἦν ἡ ὕλη ἐν αὐτοῖς, ἐφ’ ἧς τὸ θερμὸν καὶ ξηρὸν καὶ ὑγρὸν καὶ ψυχρὸν συμβεβηκότα ἐγίγνετο· εἰ δ’ ἐπ’ αὐτῶν ἦν μόνα τὴν οὐσίαν αὐτῶν συμπληροῦντα ἄνευ τοῦ κοινοῦ, ἐγίγνετο ἂν καὶ ἐνταῦθα οὐσία οὐσίᾳ ἐναντίον.
To limit and measure, then, and the other things in the divine nature, unlimitedness and measurelessness and the other things the evil nature has are opposed; so the whole is opposite to the whole. And it has being falsely, and is primarily and really falsehood, while the other has being truly; so that as falsehood is opposed to truth, so what belongs to the being of the one is opposed to what belongs to the being of the other. So it has become clear to us that it is not true in every case that nothing is opposite to being. Indeed, in the case of fire and water we would have accepted that they are opposites, if matter were not something common to them, in which hot and dry and wet and cold occurred as attributes. If these alone were in them, completing their being without the common element, then here too being would be opposite to being.
τὰ ἄρα πάντη κεχωρισμένα καὶ μηδὲν ἔχοντα κοινὸν καὶ πλείστην ἀπόστασιν ἔχοντα ἐν τῇ φύσει αὐτῶν ἐναντία· ἐπείπερ ἡ ἐναντίωσις οὐχ ᾗ ποῖόν τι οὐδὲ ὅλως ὁτιοῦν γένος τῶν ὄντων, ἀλλ’ ᾗ πλεῖστον ἀλλήλων κεχώρισται καὶ ἐξ ἀντιθέτων συνέστηκε καὶ τὰ ἐναντία ποιεῖ.
So things that are entirely separate, having nothing in common and standing furthest apart in their nature, are opposites. For opposition does not lie in a quality, or in any genus of beings at all, but in being separated as far as possible from one another and being constituted of contraries; and this is what makes opposites.
The necessity of evil
Evil exists of necessity as the last term of procession from the Good, and that last is matter.
ἀλλὰ πῶς οὖν ἐξ ἀνάγκης, εἰ τὸ ἀγαθόν, καὶ τὸ κακόν; ἆρ’ οὖν οὕτως, ὅτι ἐν τῷ παντὶ τὴν ὕλην εἶναι δεῖ; ἐξ ἐναντίων γὰρ ἐξ ἀνάγκης τόδε τὸ πᾶν· ἢ οὐδ’ ἂν εἴη μὴ ὕλης οὔσης. μεμιγμένη οὖν δὴ ἡ τοῦδε τοῦ κόσμου φύσις ἔκ τε νοῦ καὶ ἀνάγκης, καὶ ὅσα παρὰ θεοῦ εἰς αὐτὸν ἥκει, ἀγαθά, τὰ δὲ κακὰ ἐκ τῆς ἀρχαίας φύσεως, τὴν ὕλην λέγων τὴν ὑποκειμένην οὔπω κοσμηθεῖσαν εἴδεσιν. ἀλλὰ πῶς θνητὴν φύσιν; τὸ μὲν γὰρ τόνδε τὸν τόπον ἔστω δεικνύειν τὸ πᾶν· ἢ τὸ ‘ἀλλ’ ἐπείπερ ἐγένεσθε, ἀθάνατοι μὲν οὐκ ἔστε, οὔτι γε μὴν λυθήσεσθε δι’ ἐμέ.’ εἰ δὴ οὕτως, ὀρθῶς ἂν λέγοιτο μὴ ἂν ἀπολέσθαι τὰ κακά. πῶς οὖν ἐκφεύξεται;
But how, then, if the Good exists, does evil also exist of necessity? Is it like this: that there must be matter in the All? For this All is necessarily made of opposites; or rather, it would not even exist if matter did not exist. So the nature of this cosmos is mixed from intellect and necessity, and what comes into it from god is good, while the bad comes from the ancient nature—he means the underlying matter, not yet ordered by forms. But how “mortal nature”? Granted, “this region” may stand for the All. Or is it the words, “But since you have come to be, you are not immortal, yet you will by no means be dissolved by me”? If so, it would be right to say that evils cannot be destroyed. How, then, will one escape?
οὐ τῷ τόπῳ, φησίν, ἀλλ’ ἀρετὴν κτησάμενος καὶ τοῦ σώματος αὑτὸν χωρίσας· οὕτω γὰρ καὶ ὕλης· ὡς ὅ γε συνὼν τῷ σώματι καὶ ὕλῃ σύνεστι. τὸ δὲ χωρίσαι καὶ μὴ δῆλόν που αὐτὸς ποιεῖ· τὸ δ’ ἐν θεοῖς εἶναι, ἐν τοῖς νοητοῖς· οὗτοι γὰρ ἀθάνατοι. ἔστι δὲ τοῦ κακοῦ λαβεῖν καὶ οὕτω τὴν ἀνάγκην. ἐπεὶ γὰρ οὐ μόνον τὸ ἀγαθόν, ἀνάγκη τῇ ἐκβάσει τῇ παρ’ αὐτοῦ, ἤ, εἰ οὕτω τις εθέλοι λέγειν, τῇ ἀεὶ ὑποβάσει καὶ ἀποστάσει, τὸ ἔσχατον, καὶ μεθ’ ὃ οὐκ ἦν ἔτι γενέσθαι ὁτιοῦν, τοῦτο εἶναι τὸ κακόν. ἐξ ἀνάγκης δὲ εἶναι τὸ μετὰ τὸ πρῶτον, ὥστε καὶ τὸ ἔσχατον· τοῦτο δὲ ἡ ὕλη μηδὲν ἔτι ἔχουσα αὐτοῦ. καὶ αὕτη ἡ ἀνάγκη τοῦ κακοῦ.
Not by place, he says, but by acquiring virtue and separating oneself from the body; for in that way one separates oneself from matter too, since whoever is with the body is also with matter. What separating means, and what not, he himself presumably makes clear. And being among the gods means being among the intelligibles, for they are immortal. One can also grasp the necessity of evil in this way. Since the Good is not alone, there must, by the going-out from it—or, if one prefers to put it so, by the continual stepping down and moving away—be a last, after which nothing more could come to be; and this is evil. What comes after the First exists of necessity, and so the last does too; and this is matter, which has nothing of it any longer. And this is the necessity of evil.
εἰ δέ τις λέγοι μὴ διὰ τὴν ὕλην ἡμᾶς γενέσθαι κακούς — μήτε γὰρ τὴν ἄγνοιαν διὰ τὴν ὕλην εἶναι μήτε τὰς ἐπιθυμίας τὰς πονηράς· καὶ γάρ, εἰ διὰ σώματος κακίαν ἡ σύστασις γίγνοιτο, μὴ τὴν ὕλην, ἀλλὰ τὸ εἶδος ποιεῖν, οἷον θερμότητας, ψυχρότητας, πικρόν, ἁλμυρὸν καὶ ὅσα χυμῶν εἴδη, ἔτι πληρώσεις, κενώσεις, καὶ πληρώσεις οὐχ ἁπλῶς, ἀλλὰ πληρώσεις τοιῶνδε, καὶ ὅλως τὸ τοιόνδε εἶναι τὸ ποιοῦν τὴν διαφορὰν τῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν καί, εἰ βούλει, δοξῶν ἐσφαλμένων, ὥστε τὸ εἶδος μᾶλλον ἢ τὴν ὕλην τὸ κακὸν εἶναι —· καὶ οὕτως οὐδὲν ἧττον τὴν ὕλην συγχωρεῖν ἀναγκασθήσεται τὸ κακὸν εἶναι.
But suppose someone says that it is not because of matter that we become bad—for neither ignorance nor wicked desires come from matter; and if the condition arises through the badness of the body, it is not matter that produces it but form: heats and colds, bitter and salty and all the kinds of flavors, and also fillings and emptyings—and not fillings simply, but fillings with things of a certain kind; in general it is being of such a kind that makes the difference in desires and, if you like, in mistaken opinions, so that form rather than matter is evil. Even so, he will be forced to concede no less that matter is evil.
ἅ τε γὰρ ποιεῖ ἡ ἐν ὕλῃ ποιότης, οὐ χωρὶς οὖσα ποιεῖ, ὥσπερ οὐδὲ τὸ σχῆμα τοῦ πελέκεως ἄνευ σιδήρου ποιεῖ· εἶτα καὶ τὰ ἐν τῇ ὕλῃ εἴδη οὐ ταὐτά ἐστιν, ἅπερ [ἂν] ἦν, εἰ ἐφ’ ἑαυτῶν ὑπῆρχεν, ἀλλὰ λόγοι ἔνυλοι φθαρέντες ἐν ὕλῃ καὶ τῆς φύσεως τῆς ἐκείνης ἀναπλησθέντες· οὐδὲ γὰρ τὸ πῦρ αὐτὸ καίει οὐδ’ ἄλλο τι τῶν ἐφ’ ἑαυτῶν ταῦτα ἐργάζεται, ἃ ἐν τῇ ὕλῃ γινόμενα λέγεται ποιεῖν.
For what the quality in matter produces, it does not produce as something separate, just as the shape of an axe does nothing without the iron. Then too, the forms in matter are not the same as they would be if they existed by themselves: they are rational principles in matter, corrupted in matter and filled with its nature. For fire itself does not burn, nor does any of the other things, by itself, do the things they are said to do when they come to be in matter.
γενομένη γὰρ κυρία τοῦ εἰς αὐτὴν ἐμφαντασθέντος φθείρει αὐτὸ καὶ διόλλυσι τὴν αὑτῆς παραθεῖσα φύσιν ἐναντίαν οὖσαν, οὐ τῷ θερμῷ τὸ ψυχρὸν προσφέρουσα, ἀλλὰ τῷ εἴδει τοῦ θερμοῦ τὸ αὑτῆς ἀνείδεον προσάγουσα καὶ τὴν ἀμορφίαν τῇ μορφῇ καὶ ὑπερβολὴν καὶ ἔλλειψιν τῷ μεμετρημένῳ, ἕως ἂν αὐτὸ ποιήσῃ αὐτῆς, ἀλλὰ μὴ αὑτοῦ ἔτι εἶναι, ὥσπερ ἐν τροφῇ ζῴων τὸ εἰσενεχθὲν μηκέτι εἶναι ὅπερ προσελήλυθεν, ἀλλ’ αἷμα κυνὸς καὶ πᾶν κύνειον, καὶ χυμοὶ πάντες ὅπερ τὸ δεξάμενον ἐκείνους. εἰ δὴ σῶμα αἴτιον τῶν κακῶν, ὕλη ἂν εἴη καὶ ταύτῃ αἴτιον τῶν κακῶν.
For matter, once it has become master of what is reflected in it, corrupts and ruins it by setting beside it its own nature, which is contrary—not bringing cold against hot, but bringing its own formlessness against the form of the hot, its shapelessness against shape, its excess and deficiency against what is measured—until it has made the thing belong to matter and no longer to itself. It is like the nourishment of animals: what is taken in is no longer what it was when it came in, but dog’s blood and all dog, and all the juices become whatever has received them. If, then, body is the cause of evils, matter would in this way too be the cause of evils.
ἀλλὰ κρατεῖν ἔδει, ἄλλος ἂν εἴποι. ἀλλ’ οὐ καθαρὸν τὸ δυνάμενον κρατεῖν, εἰ μὴ φύγοι. καὶ σφοδρότεραι δὲ αἱ ἐπιθυμίαι κράσει τοιᾷδε σωμάτων, ἄλλαι δ’ ἄλλων, ὥστε μὴ κρατεῖν τὸ ἐν ἑκάστῳ — ἀμβλύτεροι δὲ καὶ πρὸς τὸ κρίνειν διὰ σωμάτων κάκην κατεψυγμένοι καὶ ἐμπεποδισμένοι — αἱ δ’ ἐναντίαι [ποιοῦσι] κούφους [καὶ] ἀνερματίστους. μαρτυροῦσι δὲ ταῦτα καὶ αἱ πρὸς καιρὸν ἕξεις. πλήρεις μὲν γὰρ ἄλλοι καὶ ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις καὶ ταῖς διανοίαις, κενοὶ δὲ ἄλλοι, καὶ ταδὶ πληρωθέντες ἄλλοι, ταδὶ δὲ ἄλλοι. ἔστω δὴ πρώτως μὲν τὸ ἄμετρον κακόν, τὸ δ’ ἐν ἀμετρίᾳ γενόμενον ἢ ὁμοιώσει ἢ μεταλήψει τῷ συμβεβηκέναι αὐτῷ δευτέρως κακόν· καὶ πρώτως μὲν τὸ σκότος, τὸ δὲ ἐσκοτισμένον δευτέρως ὡσαύτως.
“But the soul should have mastered them,” someone else might say. But what is able to master them is not pure, unless it escapes. Desires also grow more violent with a particular blend of bodies, some with one blend, some with another, so that what is in each of us does not master them. People become duller in judging, too, chilled and hampered by the badness of their bodies, while the opposite blends make them light and unballasted. Their passing states bear witness to this as well. Some people are full, in their desires and in their thoughts alike, others empty; and some are one way when filled with these things, others another way when filled with those. So let the measureless be evil primarily, and what has come to be in lack of measure, by likeness or by participation, because lack of measure has befallen it, be evil secondarily. Likewise darkness is primary, and what has been darkened is secondary in the same way.
κακία δὴ ἄγνοια οὖσα καὶ ἀμετρία περὶ ψυχὴν δευτέρως κακὸν καὶ οὐκ αὐτοκακόν· οὐδὲ γὰρ ἀρετὴ πρῶτον ἀγαθόν, ἀλλ’ ὅτι ὡμοίωται ἢ μετείληφεν αὐτοῦ.
Vice, then, being ignorance and lack of measure in the soul, is evil secondarily and not evil itself. Virtue is not the primary good either; it is good because it has been made like the Good or participates in it.
τίνι οὖν ἐγνωρίσαμεν ταῦτα; καὶ πρῶτον κακίαν τίνι; ἀρετὴν μὲν γὰρ νῷ αὐτῷ καὶ φρονήσει· αὑτὴν γὰρ γνωρίζει· κακίαν δὲ πῶς; ἢ ὥσπερ κανόνι τὸ ὀρθὸν καὶ μή, οὕτω καὶ τὸ μὴ ἐναρμόζον τῇ ἀρετῇ; βλέποντες οὖν αὐτὸ ἢ μὴ βλέποντες, τὴν κακίαν λέγω; ἢ τὴν μὲν παντελῆ κακίαν οὐ βλέποντες, καὶ γὰρ ἄπειρον· ἀφαιρέσει οὖν τὸ μηδαμοῦ τοῦτο· τὴν δὲ μὴ παντελῆ τῷ ἐλλείπειν τούτῳ. μέρος οὖν ὁρῶντες τῷ παρόντι μέρει τὸ ἀπὸν λαμβάνοντες, ὅ ἐστι μὲν ἐν τῷ ὅλῳ εἴδει, ἐκεῖ δὲ ἄπεστιν, οὕτω κακίαν λέγομεν ἐν ἀορίστῳ τὸ ἐστερημένον καταλιπόντες. καὶ δὴ ἐπὶ τῆς ὕλης οἷον αἰσχρόν τι πρόσωπον ἰδόντες οὐ κρατήσαντος ἐν αὐτῷ τοῦ λόγου, ὥστε κρύψαι τὸ τῆς ὕλης αἶσχος, αἰσχρὸν φανταζόμεθα τῇ τοῦ εἴδους ἐλλείψει.
By what, then, have we come to know these things? And first, by what do we know vice? Virtue we know by intellect itself and by understanding, for understanding knows itself. But vice—how? Or rather: just as with a ruler we know what is straight and what is not, so we know what does not fit with virtue? Do we know it, then, by seeing it or by not seeing it—vice, I mean? Or rather, complete vice we do not see, for it is unlimited; so we know it by taking away, as what is nowhere. Vice that is not complete we know by its falling short of virtue. So we see a part, and from the part that is present we grasp the part that is absent, which is in the whole form but missing there; and in this way we speak of vice, leaving what has been deprived in the indefinite. And so in the case of matter: when we see, so to speak, an ugly face, in which the rational principle has not prevailed so as to hide the ugliness of the matter, we imagine it as ugly through the deficiency of form.
ὃ δὲ μηδαμῇ εἴδους τετύχηκε, πῶς; ἢ τὸ παράπαν ἀφαιροῦντες πᾶν εἶδος, ᾧ μὴ τοῦτο πάρεστι, λέγομεν εἶναι ὕλην, ἀμορφίαν καὶ αὐτοὶ ἐν ἡμῖν λαβόντες ἐν τῷ πᾶν εἶδος ἀφελεῖν, εἰ μέλλομεν ὕλην θεάσασθαι. διὸ καὶ νοῦς ἄλλος οὗτος, οὐ νοῦς, τολμήσας ἰδεῖν τὰ μὴ αὑτοῦ. ὥσπερ ὄμμα ἀποστῆσαν αὑτὸ φωτός, ἵνα ἴδῃ τὸ σκότος, καὶ μὴ ἴδῃ τῷ καταλιπεῖν τὸ φῶς, μεθ’ οὗ οὐκ ἦν ἰδεῖν αὐτό· οὐδ’ αὖ ἄνευ αὐτοῦ οἷόν τε ἦν ἰδεῖν, ἀλλὰ μὴ ἰδεῖν, ἵνα γένηται αὐτῷ ὡς οἷόν τε ἦν ἰδεῖν — οὕτως οὖν καὶ νοῦς, εἴσω αὑτοῦ τὸ αὑτοῦ καταλιπὼν φῶς καὶ οἷον ἔξω αὑτοῦ προελθὼν εἰς τὰ μὴ αὑτοῦ, μὴ ἐπαγόμενος τὸ ἑαυτοῦ φῶς ἔπαθε τοὐναντίον ἤ ἐστιν, ἵν’ ἴδῃ τὸ αὐτῷ ἐναντίον.
But what has no share of form at all—how do we know that? Or rather, we take away every form completely, and what has none of it present we call matter. We ourselves take on formlessness within us in taking away all form, if we are going to view matter. That is why this intellect is another, not intellect, since it has dared to see what is not its own. It is like an eye that withdraws from the light in order to see the darkness—and does not see it, by leaving the light, since with light it could not see the darkness; yet without light it could not see either, but only not see, so that this might be its seeing, as far as seeing was possible. In just this way intellect, leaving its own light within itself and, as it were, going out of itself to what is not its own, not bringing its own light with it, has undergone the opposite of what it is, in order to see what is opposite to it.
καὶ ταῦτα μὲν ταύτῃ. ἄποιος δὲ οὖσα πῶς κακή· ἢ ἄποιος λέγεται τῷ μηδὲν ἔχειν αὐτὴν ἐφ’ ἑαυτῆς τούτων τῶν ποιοτήτων, ἃς δέξεται καὶ [αἳ] ἐν αὐτῇ ὡς ὑποκειμένῳ ἔσονται, οὐ μὴν οὕτως, ὡς μηδεμίαν φύσιν ἔχειν. εἰ δὴ ἔχει τινὰ φύσιν, ταύτην τὴν φύσιν τί κωλύει κακὴν εἶναι, οὐχ οὕτω δὲ κακήν, ὡς ποιόν; ἐπειδὴ καὶ τὸ ποιὸν τοῦτό ἐστι, καθ’ ὃ ἕτερον ποιὸν λέγεται. συμβεβηκὸς οὖν τὸ ποιὸν καὶ ἐν ἄλλῳ· ἡ δὲ ὕλη οὐκ ἐν ἄλλῳ, ἀλλὰ τὸ ὑποκείμενον καὶ τὸ συμβεβηκὸς περὶ αὐτό. τοῦ οὖν ποιοῦ τὴν φύσιν συμβεβηκότος ἔχοντος οὐ τυχοῦσα ἄποιος λέγεται. εἰ τοίνυν καὶ ἡ ποιότης αὐτὴ ἄποιος, πῶς ἡ ὕλη οὐ δεξαμένη ποιότητα ποιὰ ἂν λέγοιτο;
So much for that. But how can matter be evil if it is without quality? Or rather, it is called without quality because in itself it has none of the qualities that it will receive and that will be in it as in a substrate—not in the sense that it has no nature at all. If, then, it has some nature, what prevents this nature from being evil, though not evil in the way a quality is? For a quality is that in virtue of which something else is called qualified. Quality, then, is an accident and is in something else; but matter is not in something else: it is the substrate, and the accident is about it. So, since it has not received quality, whose nature is to be an accident, it is called without quality. If, then, even quality itself is without quality, how could matter, which has not received quality, be called qualified?
ὀρθῶς ἄρα λέγεται καὶ ἄποιος εἶναι καὶ κακή· οὐ γὰρ λέγεται κακὴ τῷ ποιότητα ἔχειν, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον τῷ ποιότητα μὴ ἔχειν, ἵνα μὴ ᾖ ἴσως κακὴ εἶδος οὖσα, ἀλλὰ ἐναντία τῷ εἴδει φύσις.
So it is rightly said both to be without quality and to be evil. It is not called evil by having quality, but rather by not having quality; so that it is evil not, perhaps, as being a form, but as a nature opposed to form.
ἀλλ’ ἡ ἐναντία τῷ εἴδει παντὶ φύσις στέρησις· στέρησις δὲ ἀεὶ ἐν ἄλλῳ καὶ ἐπ’ αὐτῆς οὐχ ὑπόστασις· ὥστε τὸ κακὸν εἰ ἐν στερήσει, ἐν τῷ ἐστερημένῳ εἴδους τὸ κακὸν ἔσται· ὥστε καθ’ ἑαυτὸ οὐκ ἔσται. εἰ οὖν ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ ἔσται κακόν, ἡ στέρησις ἐν αὐτῇ τὸ κακὸν καὶ ἡ κακία ἔσται καὶ οὐδὲν ἔξω. ἐπεὶ καὶ ἄλλοι λόγοι τὴν ὕλην ὅλως ἀναιρεῖν ἀξιοῦσιν, οἱ δὲ οὐδ’ αὐτὴν κακὴν εἶναι οὖσαν. οὐδὲν οὖν δεῖ ἄλλοθεν ζητεῖν τὸ κακόν, ἀλλὰ θέμενον ἐν ψυχῇ οὕτω θέσθαι ἀπουσίαν ἀγαθοῦ εἶναι. ἀλλ’ εἰ ἡ στέρησις ἐπιβάλλοντός ἐστι παρεῖναι εἴδους τινός, εἰ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ στέρησις ἐν ψυχῇ, τὴν δὲ κακίαν ἐν αὑτῇ ποιεῖ τῷ λόγῳ τῷ ἑαυτῆς, ἡ ψυχὴ οὐδὲν ἔχει ἀγαθόν· οὐ τοίνυν οὐδὲ ζωὴν οὖσα ψυχή.
But the nature opposed to all form is privation; and privation is always in something else and has no existence by itself. So if evil lies in privation, evil will be in what is deprived of form, and so it will not exist by itself. If, then, there is to be evil in the soul, the privation in it will be the evil and the vice, and nothing outside. Besides, some arguments claim to do away with matter altogether, while others hold that matter, though it exists, is not itself evil. So there is no need to look for evil anywhere else; one should place it in the soul, and place it there as an absence of good. But if privation is the absence of some form that ought to be present, then if there is privation of the good in the soul, and the soul produces vice in itself by its own rational principle, the soul has nothing good—and so it does not have life either, though it is soul.
ἄψυχον ἄρα ἔσται ἡ ψυχή, εἴπερ μηδὲ ζωήν· ὥστε ψυχὴ οὖσα οὐκ ἔσται ψυχή. ἔχει ἄρα τῷ ἑαυτῆς λόγῳ ζωήν· ὥστε οὐ στέρησιν ἔχει τὴν τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ παρ’ αὑτῆς. ἀγαθοειδὲς ἄρα ἔχουσά τι ἀγαθὸν νοῦ ἴχνος καὶ οὐ κακὸν παρ’ αὑτῆς· οὐκ ἄρα οὐδὲ πρώτως κακὸν οὐδὲ συμβεβηκός τι αὐτῇ τὸ πρώτως κακόν, ὅτι μηδὲ ἄπεστιν αὐτῆς πᾶν τὸ ἀγαθόν.
Then the soul will be soulless, if it does not even have life; so, being soul, it will not be soul. It has life, then, by its own rational principle; so it does not have the privation of the good of itself. It has, then, something good, something of the form of good, a trace of Intellect, and it is not evil of itself. So it is not primary evil either, nor is primary evil an accident of it, since not all of the good is absent from it.
τί οὖν, εἰ μὴ παντελῆ στέρησιν λέγοι ἀγαθοῦ τὴν κακίαν καὶ τὸ κακὸν τὸ ἐν ψυχῇ, ἀλλά τινα στέρησιν ἀγαθοῦ; ἀλλ’ εἰ τοῦτο, τὸ μὲν ἔχουσα, τοῦ δὲ ἐστερημένη, μικτὴν ἕξει τὴν αἴσθησιν καὶ οὐκ ἄκρατον τὸ κακόν, καὶ οὔπω εὕρηται τὸ πρῶτον καὶ ἄκρατον κακόν· καὶ τὸ μὲν ἀγαθὸν τῇ ψυχῇ ἔσται ἐν οὐσίᾳ, συμβεβηκὸς δέ τι τὸ κακόν.
What then, if someone said that vice, the evil in the soul, is not complete privation of good, but a partial privation of good? But if so, having part of it and being deprived of part, the soul will have a mixed perception, and the evil will not be unmixed; and we have not yet found the primary and unmixed evil. And the soul will have the good in its being, and the evil as something accidental.
εἰ μὴ ἄρα τούτῳ κακόν, ᾗ ἐμπόδιον, ὥσπερ ὀφθαλμῷ πρὸς τὸ βλέπειν. ἀλλ’ οὕτω ποιητικὸν κακοῦ ἔσται τὸ κακὸν αὐτῇ, καὶ οὕτω ποιητικόν, ὡς ἑτέρου τοῦ κακοῦ αὐτοῦ ὄντος. εἰ οὖν ἡ κακία ἐμπόδιον τῇ ψυχῇ, ποιητικὸν κακοῦ, ἀλλ’ οὐ τὸ κακὸν ἡ κακία ἔσται· καὶ ἡ ἀρετὴ δὲ οὐ τὸ ἀγαθόν, ἀλλ’ ἢ ὡς συνεργόν· ὥστε, εἰ μὴ ἡ ἀρετὴ τὸ ἀγαθόν, οὐδ’ ἡ κακία τὸ κακόν. εἶτα καὶ ἡ ἀρετὴ οὐκ αὐτὸ τὸ καλὸν οὐδ’ αὐτοαγαθόν· οὐ τοίνυν οὐδὲ κακία αὐτὸ τὸ αἰσχρὸν οὐδ’ αὐτοκακόν. ἔφαμεν δὲ τὴν ἀρετὴν οὐκ αὐτοκαλὸν οὐδ’ αὐτοαγαθόν, ὅτι πρὸ αὐτῆς καὶ ἐπέκεινα αὐτῆς αὐτοκαλὸν καὶ αὐτοαγαθόν· καὶ μεταλήψει πως ἀγαθὸν καὶ καλόν.
Unless, then, vice is evil to the soul in this sense, as an obstacle, as something is to the eye with regard to seeing. But then what is evil for the soul will be what produces evil, and produce it in such a way that evil itself is something different. If, then, vice is an obstacle to the soul, it produces evil, but vice will not be evil itself; and virtue will not be the good, except as a helper. So if virtue is not the good, vice is not evil either. Further, virtue is not the beautiful itself nor the good itself; so vice is not the ugly itself nor evil itself either. We said that virtue is not beauty itself or the good itself because before it and beyond it are beauty itself and the good itself; and it is good and beautiful by participation, in a way.
ὡς οὖν ἀπὸ τῆς ἀρετῆς ἀναβαίνοντι τὸ καλὸν καὶ τὸ ἀγαθόν, οὕτω καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς κακίας καταβαίνοντι τὸ κακὸν αὐτό, ἀρξαμένῳ μὲν ἀπὸ τῆς κακίας [καὶ] θεωροῦντι μὲν ᾗ θεωρία τίς ἐστι τοῦ κακοῦ αὐτοῦ, γινομένῳ δὲ ᾗ μετάληψις αὐτοῦ· γίνεται γὰρ παντάπασιν ἐν τῷ τῆς ἀνομοιότητος τόπῳ, ἔνθα δὺς εἰς αὐτὴν εἰς βόρβορον σκοτεινὸν ἔσται πεσών· ἐπεὶ καὶ εἰ παντελῶς ἴοι ἡ ψυχὴ εἰς παντελῆ κακίαν, οὐκέτι κακίαν ἔχει, ἀλλ’ ἑτέραν φύσιν τὴν χείρω ἠλλάξατο· ἔτι γὰρ ἀνθρωπικὸν ἡ κακία μεμιγμένη τινὶ ἐναντίῳ.
So just as for someone going up from virtue there are the beautiful and the good, so for someone going down from vice there is evil itself. He starts from vice: he contemplates evil itself, insofar as there is any contemplation of it, and he becomes it, insofar as there is participation in it. For he comes wholly into “the place of unlikeness,” where, sinking into it, he will have fallen into dark mud. Indeed, if the soul goes completely into complete vice, it no longer has vice, but has exchanged it for another nature, the worse; for vice is still something human, mixed with something opposed to it.
ἀποθνήσκει οὖν, ὡς ψυχὴ ἂν θάνοι, καὶ ὁ θάνατος αὐτῇ καὶ ἔτι ἐν τῷ σώματι βεβαπτισμένῃ ἐν ὕλῃ ἐστὶ καταδῦναι καὶ πλησθῆναι αὐτῆς καὶ ἐξελθούσῃ ἐκεῖ κεῖσθαι, ἕως [ἂν] ἀναδράμῃ καὶ ἀφέλῃ πως τὴν ὄψιν ἐκ τοῦ βορβόρου· καὶ τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ ἐν ᾅδου ἐλθόντα ἐπικαταδαρθεῖν.
So it dies, as a soul might die. Its death, while it is still immersed in the body, is to sink down in matter and be filled with it; and when it has left the body, to lie there until it runs back up and somehow lifts its gaze out of the mud. And this is “going to Hades and falling asleep there.”
Weakness and the soul’s fall
Vice is weakness of soul, caused by matter crowding the soul and darkening its light.
εἰ δέ τις ἀσθένειαν ψυχῆς τὴν κακίαν λέγοι — εὐπαθῆ γοῦν καὶ εὐκίνητον εἶναι τὴν κακὴν ἀπὸ παντὸς εἰς ἅπαν κακὸν φερομένην, εὐκίνητον μὲν εἰς ἐπιθυμίας, εὐερέθιστον δὲ εἰς ὀργάς, προπετῆ δὲ εἰς συγκαταθέσεις, καὶ ταῖς ἀμυδραῖς φαντασίαις εἴκουσαν ῥᾳδίως, οἷα τὰ ἀσθενέστατα τῶν τέχνῃ ἢ φύσει πεποιημένων, ἃ ῥᾳδίαν ἔχει ὑπό τε πνευμάτων ὑπό τε εἰλήσεων τὴν φοράν — ἄξιον ἂν εἴη ζητεῖν, τίς καὶ πόθεν ἡ ἀσθένεια τῇ ψυχῇ. οὐ γὰρ δή, ὥσπερ ἐπὶ τῶν σωμάτων, οὕτω καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς ψυχῆς τὸ ἀσθενές· ἀλλ’ ὥσπερ ἐκεῖ ἡ πρὸς τὸ ἔργον ἀδυναμία καὶ τὸ εὐπαθές, οὕτω καὶ ἐνταῦθα ἀναλογίᾳ τὴν τῆς ἀσθενείας ἔσχε προσηγορίαν· εἰ μὴ ταύτῃ εἰς τὸ αὐτὸ αἴτιον ἡ ὕλη τῆς ἀσθενείας.
Suppose someone says that vice is weakness of soul. The bad soul, at any rate, is easily affected and easily moved, carried from every evil to every other: easily moved to desires, easily provoked to anger, rash in its assents, and readily yielding to dim imaginings, like the flimsiest things made by art or nature, which winds and eddies easily sweep away. Then it would be worth asking what this weakness in the soul is and where it comes from. For weakness surely does not belong to the soul in the same way as to bodies. Rather, just as there weakness means incapacity for work and being easily affected, so here too the condition got the name of weakness by analogy—unless matter is, in this respect, the cause of weakness in both cases alike.
ἀλλὰ προσιτέον ἐγγὺς τῷ λόγῳ, τί τὸ αἴτιον ἐν τῷ λεγομένῳ ἀσθενεῖ τῆς ψυχῆς· οὐ γὰρ δὴ πυκνότητες ἢ ἀραιότητες οὐδ’ αὖ ἰσχνότητες ἢ παχύτητες ἢ νόσος, ὥσπερ τις πυρετός, ἀσθενῆ ἐποίησε ψυχὴν εἶναι. ἀνάγκη δὴ τὴν τοιαύτην ἀσθένειαν ψυχῆς ἢ ἐν ταῖς χωρισταῖς παντελῶς ἢ ἐν ταῖς ἐνύλοις ἢ ἐν ἀμφοτέραις εἶναι. εἰ δὲ μὴ ἐν ταῖς χωρὶς ὕλης — καθαραὶ γὰρ πᾶσαι καὶ τὸ λεγόμενον ἐπτερωμέναι καὶ τέλειοι καὶ τὸ ἔργον αὐταῖς ἀνεμπόδιστον — λοιπὸν ἐν ταῖς πεσούσαις εἶναι τὴν ἀσθένειαν, ταῖς οὐ καθαραῖς οὐδὲ κεκαθαρμέναις, καὶ ἡ ἀσθένεια αὐταῖς εἴη ἂν οὐκ ἀφαίρεσις τινός, ἀλλ’ ἀλλοτρίου παρουσία, ὥσπερ φλέγματος ἢ χολῆς ἐν σώματι. τοῦ δὲ πτώματος τὸ αἴτιον ψυχῇ σαφέστερον λαμβάνουσι καὶ ὡς προσήκει λαβεῖν καταφανὲς ἔσται τὸ ζητούμενον.
But we must come closer in our argument to the cause of what is called weakness of soul. For it is surely not densities or rarities, nor thinness or fatness, nor a disease like a fever, that has made the soul weak. Such weakness of soul must lie either in the souls that are completely separate, or in those in matter, or in both. If it is not in those apart from matter—for they are all pure and, as the saying goes, winged, and perfect, and their work is unhindered—it remains that the weakness is in the souls that have fallen, those that are neither pure nor purified. And their weakness would be not the removal of something but the presence of something foreign, like phlegm or bile in the body. Once we grasp more clearly, and as it should be grasped, the cause of the soul’s fall, what we are seeking will become plain.
ἔστιν οὖν ἐν τοῖς οὖσιν ὕλη, ἔστι δὲ καὶ ψυχή, καὶ οἷον τόπος εἷς τις.
There is, then, among the things that are, matter; there is also soul; and there is, so to speak, a single place.
οὐ γὰρ χωρὶς μὲν ὁ τόπος τῇ ὕλῃ, χωρὶς δ’ αὖ ὁ τῆς ψυχῆς — οἷον ὁ μὲν ἐν γῇ τῇ ὕλῃ, ὁ δὲ ἐν ἀέρι τῇ ψυχῇ — ἀλλ’ ὁ τόπος τῇ ψυχῇ χωρὶς τῷ μὴ ἐν ὕλῃ· τοῦτο δὲ τῷ μὴ ἑνωθῆναι τῇ ὕλῃ· τοῦτο δὲ τῷ μὴ ἕν τι ἐξ αὐτῆς καὶ ὕλης γενέσθαι· τοῦτο δὲ τῷ μὴ ἐν ὑποκειμένῳ τῇ ὕλῃ γενέσθαι· καὶ τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ χωρὶς εἶναι. δυνάμεις δὲ ψυχῆς πολλαὶ καὶ ἀρχὴν καὶ μέσα καὶ ἔσχατα ψυχὴ ἔχει· ὕλη δὲ παροῦσα προσαιτεῖ καὶ οἷον ἐνοχλεῖ καὶ εἰς τὸ εἴσω παρελθεῖν θέλει· πᾶς δὲ ὁ χῶρος ἱερὸς καὶ οὐδέν ἐστιν, ὃ ἄμοιρόν ἐστι ψυχῆς.
For the place of matter is not in one spot and the place of soul in another—as if matter’s were on earth and soul’s in the air. Rather, the soul’s place is separate in its not being in matter; that is, in its not being united with matter; that is, in nothing single coming to be out of it and matter; that is, in its not coming to be in matter as in a substrate. And that is what being separate means. But the powers of soul are many, and soul has a beginning, middle and last parts. Matter, being present, begs and, as it were, pesters, and wants to get inside. But the whole region is holy, and there is nothing that has no share of soul.
ἐλλάμπεται οὖν ὑποβάλλουσα ἑαυτὴν καὶ ἀφ’ οὗ μὲν ἐλλάμπεται οὐ δύναται λαβεῖν· οὐ γὰρ ἀνέχεται αὐτὴν ἐκεῖνο καίτοι παροῦσαν, ὅτι μὴ ὁρᾷ διὰ κάκην. τὴν δὲ ἔλλαμψιν καὶ τὸ ἐκεῖθεν φῶς ἐσκότωσε τῇ μίξει καὶ ἀσθενὲς πεποίηκε τὴν γένεσιν αὐτὴ παρασχοῦσα καὶ τὴν αἰτίαν τοῦ εἰς αὐτὴν ἐλθεῖν· οὐ γὰρ ἂν ἦλθε τῷ μὴ παρόντι. καὶ τοῦτό ἐστι πτῶμα τῆς ψυχῆς τὸ οὕτως ἐλθεῖν εἰς ὕλην, καὶ ἀσθενεῖ, ὅτι πᾶσαι αἱ δυνάμεις οὐ πάρεισιν εἰς ἐνέργειαν κωλυούσης ὕλης παρεῖναι τῷ τὸν τόπον ὃν κατέχει αὐτὴ καταλαβεῖν καὶ οἷον συσπειραθῆναι ποιῆσαι ἐκείνην, ὃ δὲ ἔλαβεν οἷον κλέψασα ποιῆσαι κακὸν εἶναι, ἕως ἂν δυνηθῇ ἀναδραμεῖν. ὕλη τοίνυν καὶ ἀσθενείας ψυχῇ αἰτία καὶ κακίας αἰτία.
So matter is illuminated by putting itself beneath; and it cannot grasp that from which it is illuminated. For that does not put up with matter, even though matter is present, because matter does not see, owing to its badness. But the illumination, the light from there, matter has darkened by mixture and made weak, itself supplying coming-to-be and the reason for soul’s coming into it; for soul would not have come to what was not present. And this is the fall of the soul: to come in this way into matter. It grows weak because not all its powers are present for activity. Matter prevents them from being present by occupying the place the soul holds and making the soul, as it were, huddle up, and by making evil what it has taken, as if by theft—until the soul is able to run back up. Matter, then, is the cause of the soul’s weakness and the cause of vice.
πρότερον ἄρα κακὴ αὐτὴ καὶ πρῶτον κακόν· καὶ γὰρ εἰ αὐτὴ ἡ ψυχὴ τῇ ὕλῃ ἐγέννησε παθοῦσα, καὶ εἰ ἐκοινώνησεν αὐτῇ καὶ ἐγένετο κακή, ἡ ὕλη αἰτία παροῦσα· οὐ γὰρ ἂν ἐγένετο εἰς αὐτὴν μὴ τῇ παρουσίᾳ αὐτῆς τὴν γένεσιν λαβοῦσα.
So matter itself is evil before soul, and is primary evil. For even if it was the soul itself that, affected by matter, brought this about, and even if it associated with matter and became evil, matter is the cause by being present. For the soul would not have come into it if it had not received its coming-to-be through matter’s presence.
εἰ δέ τις τὴν ὕλην μή φησιν εἶναι, δεικτέον αὐτῷ ἐκ τῶν περὶ ὕλης λόγων τὴν ἀνάγκην τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτῆς διὰ πλειόνων ἐκεῖ περὶ τούτου εἰρημένου. κακὸν δὲ εἴ τις λέγοι τὸ παράπαν ἐν τοῖς οὖσι μὴ εἶναι, ἀνάγκη αὐτῷ καὶ τὸ ἀγαθὸν ἀναιρεῖν καὶ μηδὲ ὀρεκτὸν μηδὲν εἶναι· μὴ τοίνυν μηδ’ ὄρεξιν μηδ’ αὖ ἔκκλισιν μηδὲ νόησιν· ἡ γὰρ ὄρεξις ἀγαθοῦ, ἡ δὲ ἔκκλισις κακοῦ, ἡ δὲ νόησις καὶ ἡ φρόνησις ἀγαθοῦ ἐστι καὶ κακοῦ, καὶ αὕτη ἕν τι τῶν ἀγαθῶν. εἶναι μὲν οὖν δεῖ καὶ ἀγαθὸν καὶ ἄμικτον ἀγαθόν, τὸ δὲ μεμιγμένον ἤδη ἐκ κακοῦ καὶ ἀγαθοῦ, καὶ πλείονος τοῦ κακοῦ μεταλαβὸν ἤδη καὶ αὐτὸ συντελέσαν ἐκείνῳ τῷ ὅλως κακῷ, ἐλάττονος δέ, ᾗ ἠλάττωται, τῷ ἀγαθῷ· ἐπεὶ καὶ ψυχῇ τί ἂν εἴη κακόν;
If someone says that matter does not exist, we must show him from our discussions of matter that its existence is necessary; the subject has been treated at more length there. If someone should say that there is no evil at all among the things that are, he must also do away with the good, and nothing will be desirable. Then there will be no desire, nor aversion, nor thinking. For desire is of good, aversion of evil, and thinking and understanding are of good and evil—and understanding is itself one of the goods. There must, then, be good, unmixed good, and also what is mixed of evil and good. What has a greater share of evil has itself already contributed to what is wholly evil; what has a lesser share, insofar as it is diminished, contributes to the good. For what would evil be for a soul?
ἢ τίνι ἂν μὴ ἐφαψαμένῃ τῆς φύσεως τῆς χείρονος; ἐπεὶ οὐδ’ ἐπιθυμίαι οὐδ’ αὖ λῦπαι, οὐ θυμοί, οὐ φόβοι· καὶ γὰρ φόβοι τῷ συνθέτῳ, μὴ λυθῇ, καὶ λῦπαι καὶ ἀλγηδόνες λυομένου· ἐπιθυμίαι δὲ ἐνοχλοῦντός τινος τῇ συστάσει ἤ, ἵνα μὴ ἐνοχλῇ, ἴασιν προνοουμένου. φαντασία δὲ πληγὴ ἀλόγου ἔξωθεν· δέχεται δὲ τὴν πληγὴν διὰ τοῦ οὐκ ἀμεροῦς· καὶ δόξαι ψευδεῖς ἔξω γενομένῃ τοῦ ἀληθοῦς αὐτοῦ· ἔξω δὲ γίνεται τῷ μὴ εἶναι καθαρά. ἡ δὲ πρὸς νοῦν ὄρεξις ἄλλο· συνεῖναι γὰρ δεῖ μόνην καὶ ἐν αὐτῷ ἱδρυμένην, οὐ νεύουσαν εἰς τὸ χεῖρον.
Or rather, for which soul would there be any, if it had not touched the worse nature? Then there would be no desires, nor pains, no anger, no fears. Fears belong to the composite, afraid of being dissolved; pains and sufferings belong to it as it is dissolved; desires arise when something troubles its structure, or when it plans a remedy so that nothing may trouble it. Imagination is the blow of something irrational from outside; and the soul receives the blow through what is not without parts. And false opinions come when it has got outside its own truth; and it gets outside because it is not pure. Desire for Intellect is something else: the soul must be with it alone, settled in it, not inclining to the worse.
τὸ δὲ κακὸν οὐ μόνον ἐστὶ κακὸν διὰ δύναμιν ἀγαθοῦ καὶ φύσιν, ἐπείπερ ἐφάνη ἐξ ἀνάγκης περιληφθὲν δεσμοῖς τισι καλοῖς, οἷα δεσμῶταί τινες χρυσῷ, [καὶ] κρύπτεται τούτοις, ἵνα οὖσα [κακὴ] μὴ ὁρῷτο τοῖς θεοῖς, καὶ ἄνθρωποι ἔχοιεν μὴ ἀεὶ τὸ κακὸν βλέπειν, ἀλλ’ ὅταν καὶ βλέπωσιν, εἰδώλοις τοῦ καλοῦ εἰς ἀνάμνησιν συνῶσιν.
Evil is not evil all alone. Because of the power and nature of the good, since it came to light of necessity, it has been bound around with fine fetters, as some prisoners are with gold, and is hidden by them, so that, though it is [evil], it may not be seen by the gods, and so that human beings need not always look at evil, but even when they do see it, may have images of beauty with them to remind them.