On the Existence of Evils (Ancient Commentators on Aristotle)

83 Pages·2003·28.21 MB·English

by  Proclus

PROCLUS
On the Existence of Evils
Translatecl by
Jan Opsomer & Carlos Steel
Cornell University Press
Ithaca, New York
¿
.2003 byJan Opsolller & Carlos Steel
"Xiirights reserved. Except forbrief
--quotations in a review, this book, 01' parts
thereof, Illust not be reproduced in any fonn
",thout perlllission in writing from the publisher.
For information address Cornell University Press, Contents
S';lgeHouse, 512 East State Street, Ithaca, New York 14850.
First published 2003 by CorneJl University Press.
ISBN 0-8014-4100-5 Preface VIl
Acknowledgmellts Abbreviations and Convcntions Vlll
The present translations have been made possible by generous lntroduction 1
and imaginativo funding from the following sources: tbe National
Endowment for the Humanities, Division ofResearch Pl:ograms,
an independent federal agency of the USA; the Leverhulme 'l'ranslation 55
Trust; the Brit.ish Academy; the Jowett Copyright Trustees; t.he
Royal Society (UK); Centro Internazionale A. Beltrame di Storia
dello Spazio e del Tempo (Padua); Mario Mignucci; Liverpool
Notes 105
University; the Leventis Foundation; the Arts and Humanities
Research Board of the British Academy; tho Esmée Fairbairn
Charitablo T'rust; the Honry J3rownTrust; Mr and Mrs N, Egon; Philological Appendix 133
the Nethorlands Organisation for Scientific Research
(NWO/GW). The editor wishes tothank Kevin Corrigan andAnne Select Bibliography 147
Sheppard for their comments and Eleni Vambouli and Han Bal
tussen for preparing the volume for press. 154
lndex ofPassages
Subject lndex 156
lndex of Names 160
Printed in Great Britain
Librarians: Library of Congress Cataloging-in
Publicatian Data are available
Preface
This vohune is the result ofan intense colJaboration during the las!;
three years at the Institute ofPhilosophy in Leuven. Though we are
now academically separated by the Atlantic, wc share with some
nostalgia pleasant memories ofour animated discussions onNeopla
tonic philosophy with Gerd Van Riel, Bert van den Berg ancI Cuy
Culdentops, ancI other friends at the De Wulf-Mansion Centre fOl"
Ancient and Medieval Philosophy. The translation has profited from
the aclvice anc! corrections of many people: David Butorac, Maria
Desmond, John Steffen and Douglas Haclleyin Leuven. Aprovisional
version of the translation was useclin a seminar at the Institute of
Classical Stuclies in London amI in a seminar at the Philosophy
Department ofHarvard University: we profited from the comments
of Anne Sheppard, Bob Sharples, Richarcl Sorabji,Harolcl TalTant,
and the referees for this series. ]n the preparatian ofthe manuscript
for the publisher, we are greatly indcbtccl to the collaborators ol'thc
Ancient Commentatol's Pl'Ojud in London, ilnd in Pill'ticuJUl' LoHun
Baltussen.
Weare very happy that RicharclSorabji has welcomed tlÚsNeopla
tonic treatise into his monumental series 'TheAncient Commentators
on Aristotle'. Even if Proclus would not have appreciatecl being con
siclerecl a commentator on Aristotle, he woulcl surely havc bccn
pleased that, thanks to this great international project, his treatise
On the Existence of Evils will find many more reaclers than ever
before (ifwe exclude reaclers ofthe plagiarist Dionysius thc pseuclo
Areopagite).
Looking back at a wonclerful collaboration over the years, which
has brought us in contact with many scholars, we have come Lo
unclerstancl that Proclus was right when he argueclthat from 'evil'(in
this case the long and arcluous philoJogical preliminaries) divine
providcnce can create beautiful things.
2002 ,J.O. &C.S.
Abbreviations and Conventions Introduction
1.The fate ofa text
DMS = De malorum Sllbsistentia, On the existencc of euils
ET = Elementatio theologica, Elements of theology 1.1. Thc trcatise in the worh of Proclus
OD = De omnifaria doctrina (Michacl Psellus)
SVF= Stoicorllln 1kterum Fragmenta (ed. von Arnim) Among the works of the Neoplatonic philosopher Produs (412-48.5),
TP = Theologia Platonica, Platonic thcology there are three short ti'eatises that are devoted to the problems of
providenee, free will ancIoviL As their moclern editor, I-lelmut Boese,
1
The chapter and line number rcferences are to Boese's edition ofthe observes, those three 'opuscula'~ stand apart somehow in the volumi
'1ha opuscula. nous oeuvre ofthe Platonic Diadochos, between the great COlllmentar
ies on Plato ancI the theologieal works. Whereas in eommenting
Brackets are used in the translation as follows: Produs has to stick close to the texts of Plato, in his Elcmcnts of
Theology and his PlaIonic Theology he aims at the composition of a
[ ]expanding clarifying the meaning grandiose synthesis, whieh sets other constraints on his philosophis
01'
< >addenda (implies an emendation ofthe text) ing. But here, in the Tria opuscula 01' monobiblia as he called them,
he 800m3 to enjoy a grcator frecdom to dCVQlopa pllilo30phical prob
lem in itself and to analyse the different arguments that have been
offered in the tradition. Bis style of writing is intenllediate as well:
not the grand rhctoric of the Platonic Theology, not the almost
mathematical austerity ofthe Elements of Theology, not the scholas
tic exposition ofthe COlllmentaries. When discussing such fundamen
tal questions as the nature of evil the problem offree will, Proc!us
01'
seems to address a larger philosophical audience than the privilegecl
group of students in his sehoo1.;!The problems raised are, indeed, of
great philosophical interest and have continued to stir up the debate
ever since the I-lellenistic schools brought it to the fore: is there
providence in the world? And how can it be reconciled with the
experienee ofevil? ls free agency possible in a deterministic universe?
What is the nature ofevil?
Proclus probably composed the three treatises in the same order as
they have been transmitted in the manuscripts. Though dealing with
rclated problems, they eaeh have their own character. The first
treatise is, as its title indicatcs, a discussion of Ten problems about
prouidence. That therc is providence in this world is undeniable. It is
shown byPlato's argulllcnts in the Laws and thc TImaeus, and by the
Chaldaean Oraclcs. But what exactly providcncc is, whether it ex
tends to alllevels of reality only to the celestial spheres, how it
01'
exercises its activity in this physical world without losing its tran-
2 lntroduction lntroduction 3
scendence, how it can know contingent events, why itdistributes its different aCCOrclingto the place where one lives'. - '1 woulcl be
goods unequa11y, and how it can be reconciled with evil: those ancl ashamed,' Proclus says, 'if,to aman who is my friend, 1did not write
many other problems Proclus wants to examine in this treatise. Of clearly what I think, namely that such a view is unworthy of my
course, t:hey have already been thoroughJy discussed in the philo choice oflife and o[my age.'G
sophical tradition ancl in the Neoplatonic school in particular. But If a young man had indeed formulatccl such a hcclonistic view,
'although those problems have been eliscusseclanel examined a thou Proclus would not have bcen surprised, for the young usually adhere
sanel times, my soul still wants to talk anel hear about them, anel to the opinions ofthe many. But an olclman who gives authority to
return tohprseJf, anelwishes as it were tocliscusswith herself anelnot the intellect should think clifferently. 'l'he fact that Proclus considers
only receive arguments about them from the outside'.1 this view as unworthy ofhis old age is adequate proof that this work
'l'he second treatise, On prouidence and (ate and on that which - and probably the two other treatises as well- was written towards
belongs to US, to the engineer Theodorus, has an entireJy clifferent the end of his career. In ch. 22, the reaeler comes across a highly
character. In this philosophicalletter, Proclus attempts torefute some personal comment: Proclus a11udes to a dramatic event in his life,
erroneous views on provielence anel freedom in reply to his frienel whereby his house and its furniture were destl'oyed byI'ire.But, as ho
Theodorus.G This 'l'heodorus, a mechanical engineer with a great confesses, this disastel' damaged external goods only and could not
interest in philosophy, had sent Proclus a letter wherein he exposecl take away the wisdom and calmness ofhis soul. As L.Westerink has
his ideas on providence, fate and on human responsibility (to eph' argued, Proclus is probably a11uding to some l'eligious persecution.
hemin). In his view, the whole universe is a deterministic systemlike Maybe the destruction ofthe temple ofAsclepius, which was adjacent
a mechanical clockwork: freedom is nothing but a word, a beneficial to the school, caused serious damage to his private l'esidence. Or the
illusion for human life. 'l'heodorus also advocated a hedonistic life event could have been related to the persecution that drove Proclus
style combined with a sceptical attitude concerning the possibilities into exile in Asia.? 1'his may be another indication for putting tho
ofhuman lmowleelge. Before answering his arguments, Proclus first composition oft:he treatisos on providence and evil in the later period
discusses three basic questions which domina te the whole debate on ofProclus' life.
providence and freedom: (1) the clistinction between divine provi 1'he third treatise, De malorum subsistentia (On the existence o(
dencc (lna fat.e (thQlattQr bcing Bubordinated tu tho former); (2) the cuil8:;:: DM3)¡ featuHJS yot another approach, It iBnci010r a c!iSc\JBSiQn
elistinction between the irrational soul, which isconnected tothe boely, of'problems', nor a refutation oferroneous views. Proclus here clovcl
and the rational, which transcends the body; (3)the elistinction ofthe ops in a systematic manner the Platonic doctrino on evil, as he
various moelesofknowledge, ranging from sense perception to supra understands it. He knows oI'course that since Plotinus the question
rational intuition. 'l'heodorus eloes not share the Neoplatonist of the nature ofevil has often been eliscusseelin the Platonic school.
philosophical assumptions, though he must have frequenteel the It is his ambition, however, now that he has some 'time off', to write
school, as he is said to remember what 'Proclus' master' (Syrianus) down a critical review ofthe opinions ofhis predecessors and, above
useel to say (66,6-8), and is supposeel to understanel an inelirect an, to expounel the doctrine oI'the divine Plato, to whom we should
reference to'l'heodorus ofAsine, who is mentioneel as 'your homonym' turn for enlightenment in a11our speculations on this matter.
(53,13). 1'his was not Proclus' first attempt to articula te his views on evil.
Notwithstaneling the raelical elivergence of their philosophical po In the preface ofthe treatise, he explicitly rofers to the discussions of
sitions, Proclus' refutation of 'l'heoelorus is friendly and even has a evil in his commentaries (1,17-18). Weindeed find substantial discus
personal character. One has the impression that both men must have sions ofevil in his Commentaries on the Timaeus (1,~372,25-381,21,a
been rather close friends. Proclus makes some ad hominem argu summary of his views 011' evil, occasioned by a discussion of llm.
ments with milelirony, for instance when he criticises, in ch. 41, the 30A2-3),onthe Republic (1,37,37,2-39,1, asummary ofhis doctrine of
engineer for not appreciating the importance of mathematics. How evil; 1,96,5-100,20; 2,89,6-91,18, on the vices ofthe soul) anel on the
coulclsomeboclylike 1'heoelorus, a lover ofphilosophy and intelJectual Parmenides (829,23-831,24, onthe alleged Forms ofevils). Moreover,
speculations, aman ofencyclopaeclic culture anelan expert in geome r we lmow from a marginal note~ that Proclus also discussed t:he
try anelmathematics, defend such a materialistic view on knowledge problem ofevil in his Commentary OIL the Theaetel1is, now lost. In this
and the nature of the soul, claiming that there is only a gradual dialogue can be found the famous passage on the necessity ofevil as
difference between sensible and scientific knowleelge? In ch. 45, Pro the contrary ofthe good (176A;cf.below: 2.1,1'1) which has been the
clus criticises the hedonistic phiJosophy ofhis friend who argueel that starting point for all Neoplatonic speculations on evil. Proclus most
'the good is what is pleasant for each individual and that this is probably also devoted a commentary to Plotinus' ceIebratecl treatise
4 lntroduction lnlroduction 5
on evil, 'On what are and whence come evils' (Ennead 1,8[51]). As we their initial perfection. Only the particular souls descending in the
will see, Proclus is very critical of the views of Plotinus and in
bodies can 'fa11'.11Anothel' important divergence consists inDionysius'
particular rejects his identification ofevil with matter.n Many chap denia1that there is evil in irrational animals and in bodies.15 Al
ters in the treatise actually contain refutations of the views that
though in both these cases he uses the same examples as Proclus, he
Plotinus expressed in Ennead 1,8. Reading the De malorUln subsis has twisted the argument so that it leads to the opposite conclusion.
lentia, we may get some idea ofwhat Proclus may have wl.'itten in his
By doing so, Dionysius has aligned himself with the Christian ortho
nolonger extant commentary onEnnead 1,8.The fact that Proclus in
doxy, according to which evil can originate only in beings that can
his prefaGe refers to his 'commentaries' is again an argument for make free choices. Apart from these doctrinal differences, Dionysius
dating the composition of the Tria opuscula in his later career. This
follows Proclus so closely that his work can even be used for the
will have been after the commentaries on the Theaetelus, TImaeus
reconstruction ofparts ofthe lost Greek text ofDMS.
and Republic and after the commentary onthe Enneads, but probably Whatever Dionysius' intention may have been, the plagiarising
before the Commentary on the Parmenides.lO This last commentary summary and adaptation ofProclus' doctrine in Gn lhe diuine names
precedes the composition ofthe Plalonic theology, Proclus' last work. gave Proclus' little treatise a publicity and worldwide readership he
In the first book of the Theology, Proclus devotes a whole chapter could never have dreamed ofat the time ofwriting, the author being
(1.18) to the problem ofevi1." This chapter may be considered as the but a marginalised pagan philosopher in Athens. Thanks to
final expression of his views on a problem with which he has been
Dionysius, Proclus' argument of evil as a parupostasis of the gooel
struggling from his earliest works on. became known and was studied not only in Byzantium, but also in the
Latin West both through the translations of Hileluin, .1ohn Scot
1.2. The tradition of the text Eriugena, anelSaracenus, and through thc numerous commentators.
Until the nineteenth century, Proclus' Neoplatonic doctrinc ofevil as
The treatises on providcnce and evil must have enjoyed some success a kinel ofprivabon a shortcoming woulelcontinue to dominate the
01.'
outside the schoo1.They wel'e known to John Philoponus who quotes philosophical debates on evi1. .
some sections from the De decem dubitationibus in his refutation of
Howevcr, the esoteric work ofDionysius dielnot immeeliatcly meet
Prg(;!\!§ in [)g getGmitgtr mundi (written c;. 929), In thQ middk 9f the with fflyournblc rCi1domhip. WhGn it [iri'Jtbogan to cirClllatc; soma
11
sixth ccntury, John of Lydia quoted a long passage from the last rcadcrs eloubtcelits authenticity and orthodoxy. Afirst anelsuccessful
chapter of De malorum subsistentia (61,5-18) in his De mensibus attempt to defend the apostolic authenticity ofDionysius' work camc
(4,:35, pp. 93,15-94,3 WÚnsch). But the unimaginable and unforesee from .1ohnof Scythopolis, who somctime between 5:37 and 543 com
able success of the Tria opuscula was mainly due to the Christian posed a series of scholia to explain the often elifficult argumcnts of
author who hid his real identity and instead presented himself as Dionysius. In the scholion dcaling with the argument on evil, .1ohn
j(;
Dionysius the Areopagite. This author was probably active around made use of Plotinus' Ennead 1,8 without, however, mentioning his
500. In his celebrated work, Gn the diuine names, ps.-Dionysius source. Actually, he us'esPlotil1l1s- of all authors! - tb support
makes extensive use ofProclus' tl'eatise, Gn the existence ofeuils. The
Dionysius against the 'Greeks' who uphold a dualistic position be
long cligression on evil in 4,18-34 can be considered as an adaptation cause they cJaim that evil is to be iclentifieclwith matter. As we wilJ
and a summary (often a very mediocre one) ofProclus' arguments in show later in this intl'oduction, Proclus attackeel Plotinus onthis very
DMSP Whereas in his other works, Dionysius cleverly attempts to point - for being too much of a elualist - amI, as we have already
hiele his debt to the pagan Proclus, in this section his dependcnce is pointeel out, Dionysius merely copied the arguments ofProclus. It is
evident to the point of becoming embarrassing (it even made some mind-boggling to see how .1ohn useel Plotinus (the objections that
scholars suppose the whole digression on evil to be a later interpola Plotinus first formulates against his own thesis in oreler to refute
tion). Dionysius follows Proclus step by step, here and there adding a them 1ater) to argue against views entertained bythe same Plotinus,
critical remark so as to modify his views in a Christian way. One and defeneltheses upheld byDionysius (and Proclus). It iseven more
major divergence from Proclus is to be found in his treatment of remarkable that he did not use Proclus himselfto elucida te thc points
demons.]3 Dionysius upholds the view that the dcmons were created that Dionysius wanted to make. But ofcourse, he could hardly have
good (Proclus would have accepted this), but that they fell away from done so without l'eveahng the secret pagan source of thc apostolic
their creator through their own sin. Evil then starts in the universe Dionysius. It was safcr for John to use Plotinus.
with the fall ofthe angels, whobyfalling become demons. For Proclus, 01' shou1elwe suppose that .1ohnofScythopolis was not acquainted
it isimpossible that clemons or other 'superior kinels' would ever lose with these works of Proclus and that his si1encc about Dionysius'
6 Inlroduclion Introduction 7
dependence upon Proclus was sincere? It may seem unlikely that an nation ofhis treatises. Isaak has useclProclus' text as the substrate
author in the early sixth century knowing Plotinus' treatise on evil for his 'own' developments. Ofcourse, he could not mentíon his pagan
should not have known Proclus' more recent treatment of the prob source: Proclus had a very bad reputation in Byzantium, ancl to be
lem. Never, however, does the scholiast show any knowledge of associated with him was almost proof of heresy. Isaak was himself
Proclus, and his silence could thercfore be sincere. charged with the trial against Psellus' clisciple, ,John Italos, who was
In this respect, it is remarkable that the name of Proclus appears accused ofpropagating the heterodox views ofPorphyry, Iamblichus
in a passage at the cnd of John's Prologue to the Dionysian corpus. and Proclus. The author clidhis utmost tohide the Proclean origin of
The passage in question, however, is an interpolation. The author of the views he exposed. He carefully left out a11references to pagan
the interpolation defends Dionysius against thc accusation ofplagia theology which might disturb his Byzantine contemporaries, substi
rism: it is the other way around - Proclus plagiarised Dionysius! He tuting, e.g., the singular 'gocl'for the plural 'gods'. Moreover, he
states: cleverly blended Proclus' text onevilwith Dionysius' version and with
excerpts taken from an earJy admirer ofDionysius, Maximus Confcs
One must know that some of the non-Christian philosophers, sor.21 The result isasurprisingly homogeneous Neoplatonic Christian
especially Proclus, have often employed certain concepts (lexeis) speculation on evil, providence and free wilL Although we may not
of the blcssed Dionysius. [...] It is possible to conjecture from value much the originality ofthe author, weare grateful that through
this that the ancient philosophers in Athens usurped his works his compilation we can reconstruct almost two-thirds ofthe lost Greek
(as herecounts in the present book) and then hid them, so that original ofProclus.22
they themselves might seem to be the progenitors ofhis divine That Greek original was still circulating in the Byzantine world in
oracles. According to the dispensation ofGod the present work the thirteenth tofourteenth centuries, as iseviclent from the insertion
is now madc lmown for the refutation oftheir vanity and reck ofeight fragments in a florilegium that was copieclin Byzantium Ú1
lessness.17 1311.2:1 But the most important witness ofits existence is WiJliam of
Moerbeke who happenecl to discover a manuscript of Proclus' trea
There are good arguments for attributing this scholion to the con tises when he resided in Corinth as archbishop and maclea complete
verted philQsapher .JQhnPhilo¡JQous, PbiloPQDlW was familiar with translatiQn in February 1280. After his death, the Greek text was
the Dionysian Corpus and was convinced of its authenticity: three irrevocably lost.
times he quotes Dionysius in his theological work, Deopificio nwndi.
Philoponus knew Proclus, toa, since he wrate a refutation of the J.3. Moerbehe's lranslation
latter's views on the eternity of the world and even quotes from the
treatise, Gnprovidence. The many parallels between Dionysius' and As can be learned from the colophon, William ofMoerbeke completed
Proclus' discussions of evil may have struck him. He explains these his translation of the Iba opuswla. in Corinth in Februal'Y 1280.
similarities, however, by postulating a clependence of Proclus on When he arrived in Corinth, the Flemish Dominican could lookback
Dionysius. This will remain the standard view in the Byzantine on a long career during which he had combinecl his dutíes as an
traclition, and it was transmitted to the Western worlclwhen the lha official at the papal administration with his translation work on
opuscula were rediscovered thanks to Moerbeke's translation. The Aristotle, Archimedes and the Greek Commentators.21 His appoint
authority ofDionysius almost eclipsed the fame ofProclus (who was ment as Latin archbishop of Corinth offered him a 'sabbatical', a
now considered as the one who plagiarised). wonderful opportunity for discoveries ofunknown Oreek philosophi
However, scholars continued toread and quote from his works, but cal texts and for more translations. After the 'Iha OpusclLla, he
without mentioning his name. Thus in the eleventh century Michael embarked on his last project, the translation ofProclus' commentary
Psellus inserted large extracts from the Triaopuscula into his compi on the Parmenides, which he finished just befme he diecl.2G
lation, Deomnifaria doctrina. But the most extensive use ofProclus . The transla tion ofthe 7ha opuswla has been presel'ved in thirteen
IR
came from an unexpected source. At the end ofthe eleventh century, manuscripts dating f1'om the early fourteenth to the seventeenth
a Byzantine prince by the name of Isaak Sebastokrator composed century. They can be classified in two groups. On the one hand there
three treatises onprovidence and eviL Already in the formulation of are manuscripts that derive from a Parisian exemplar: Arsenal 173
ID
the titles, there is such a similarity with the Tria opuscula that one (A), which oncebelonged tothe Augustinian convent at Pont Neuf. On
may expect the prince to have exploited Proclus in the composition of the other hand, there are manuscripts de1'ivingfrom a model in Italy.
his own works.20 This suspicion was indeed confinned by the exami- The most important manuscript in this second group is \úticanus
8 Inlroduetion Inlroduelion 9
lalinus 4568 (Y). Although rather young (e. 1500), it had becn copied elaborated and perfocted in his long experience as translator. His
from an old cxcmplar, which was very close to- if not identical with primary aim was to provide the Latin scholars with a translation
- Moerbeke's original copy.Thc most noteworthy fcature ofthe Vati that corresponds exactly - word for word - to the Greek original.
can manuscript is the presence of numerous Grcek words in thc He didnot have the al1lbition to produce literary Latin.:1o On the
margin ofthc translation. The Greck terms corrcspond toLatin tenns contrary: he manipulated the Latin, stretching the language to the
in the translation and are obviously meant as an aid in those cases extreme so as to produce a perfect 'calque' of the original while
where the equivalencies are not self-evident.2G Who is responsible for using Latin words, conjugations and declinations. Even the sma11
theso annotations which are precious traces of the lost Groek origi est particlos are translated. Over tho yeal'S, this method was ever
nal? Not the copyist of Valicanus himself, since he appears to have moro standardised and became an almost mochanical technique. His
some difficulty replicating the Greek charactcrs he read in his model. last translations are the most litoral ones. Thus Moerbeko attempted
Neither dothe marginal notes stem from a readcr who consulted the to respect, as far as grammar alJows, the order ofwords ofthe Greek
Greek original that was sti11available tohimY They show instead the original. 1'0 give a simple oxample of an easy phrase, this is the
practice of the translator himself. We know indeed that Moerbeke, opening sentence ofch. 58: 'Dubitabit autom utique aliquis qualitel'
whell translating, often left an empty spaco when he could not il1ll1le et unde mala providentia ente.'
diately find a good equivalent for some Greek term (forexal1lple in a One ofthe major probloms a Latin translator is confronted with is
poetical expression) 01'when the text was corruptod. In the margin, the absence ofthe articlc in Latin. In Greek toxts, and particularly in
he jotted down tho missing Grcck, hoping to roturn to the passagc philosophical texts, the articlc plays an csscntial rolo. It is used,
later. Such a practice can be witnessed in the autograph manuscript among othor things, to substantivise adjectives (e.g. lo agalhon, lo
of his translation ofArchimedes and in one manuscript of the Com lwlon) and participles (e.g. lo on) 01'even whole phrascs. 1'0copewith
montary on the Pannenides, Ambrosiwws A 167 supo This last that difficulty, Moerheke expanded the uso of tho demonstrative 01'
manuscript, copied in Ferrara in 1508, contains in the margin numer relative pronoun, writing ipsum bonwn, ipswn puJchl'wn 01'quod
ous Greek terms and even some quotations from poetry that had been seeundwn nalu,ram. But this was not possible in al! cases. In his last
passed over by the translator.28 In this case again, the scribe is not translations, he introduced the article le of medieval French as a
himBolf rOBpon8ible for thc Groo]{ 110tC§;ho copiad what ho road in his standnrd tnmslntion of thc GrQol~artidc (evcn 50mGtimcs using t,hQ
model. Asin the case ofVatieanus (copied at about the same time), we genitive form del), as in le unllln, le non bonUln, le uolalile, le mixtum,
must postulate that tho modol of Ambrosianus contained in the le non eodem modo, leagonllm, le oliosllln, lespeciei [aeliullln, lepreler
margin the annotations of the translator himself. This lost manu nalllram, le secllndwn inlelleetwn, le immensuralum, le onwnt.illln
script, which probably contained the Tria opuscula as we11as the unwnquodqlle, le bene, le eredibile, le surswn, le el usqlle ad hac
commentary onthe Parmenides, may have been Moerbeke's personal omnia bana el esse elfiel'i propter eam que in ipsa maliÚam (58,15-16:
copy. a wholo sentence is substantivised). The article in Greek also maket:i
In addition to the Vátieanus, there are two other manuscripts of it possible to determine a t:iubstantive by a series of complements
Italian origin: Maeerala, Bibl. COl1wwnale 5.3.D.30 (S), which once inserted between the article and the substantive. When the al'ticle is
belonged to Colucio Salutati, chance110r of the republic of Florence, not rcndered in the trant:ilation, tho complements f10at around. In
and Ox[ord Bodleian Digby 236 (O).Both manuscripts date from the such cases, the introduction ofle was littlo hcIp. Moerbeke then tricd
middle of the fourteenth century and have many errors in common, to connect the complements with their substantive by construing
which proves their dependence on a coml1l0n model. In comparison rcIative phrases ofthe typo is qui. Thel'e aro innumerable oxamplcs
with Aand V,the role of the manuscripts OS for the constitution of of this construction in the Latin version ofthe lha opuseula. j\s an
the text is only marginal. However, when they confirm V 01'A, they example, we take a closer look atDMS 50:
usua11yrepresent the authentic text. On this point, we have consid
ered it necessary to correct in somo passages the exce110ntedition of 6 ellln qui in esse progressllln
Helmut Boese, who tonds to underestimate the importance of this 22-5 eonun que ex prineipioin [inem progredienlium [...] eorwl!
branch ofthe tradition.2D D. Isaac, in his edition for the Co11ectionG. que neque ex principio seeundwn naluram apparent neqne in
Budé, even eliminated Oand S from the apparatus. delerminalum aliud eonswnmanliwn (the translator has not
As the subscriptions inform us, Moerboke macle his translation of boen consistent: he should have written either apparenliwn ...
the three treatises in just a few weeks. This would not have been consummantiwn 01'appal'enl ,.. eonsU/nmanl instead ofmixing
possible if he had not applied a translation method that he had the personal with the participle construction)
10 Introduction Introduction 11
26 principalem acceperunt eius quod est (acere ipsa dictam garnered the fol!owingpieccs ofdoctrino: (1)there will always beevils
causam (note the awkward word order) in this world; (2) there is a kind ofnocessity inevitability:¡2 about
01'
27 eius quod preter natumm their existence; (3) there are no evils in the divine wodd; (4) evils
28 eorum quepreter mtionem (iunt enjoy a rdation ofsubcontrariety - not just ofcontraricty - with the
good (cf. below: 2.4.5). This passage is immecliate]y fo11owedby the
Does it need tobe pointed out that al!ofthis results in a Latin that is famous advice to 'flee this place' and assimilate oneself to the god
nothing short ofbarbarous? (homoiÓsis theÓi)as much as possible (176A8-B3).
Alittle bit further onSocrates speaks ofa kind ofparadigm ofevil,
2.Proclus and the Neoplatonic doctrine oí evil referring tothe different patterns oflife that people choose (176E3-5):
2.1 Platonic pre-texts TI' There are two paradigms set up in reality, my friendo One is
divine and supremely happy (tou men theiou eudaimoncsta
As Proclus states in the introduction to his treatise on evil, every
tou); the other is ungodly and is the paradigm ofthe greatest
study of any philosophical problem whatsoever should always start
misery (tou de athcou alhliÓlatou).
from Plato, 'for if we fa11short of this theory, we will give the
impression that we have achieved nothing'. Moreover, 'we sha11un
This passage was used in the Neoplatonic debates on whethcr there
derstand more easily the words ofour predecessors and sha11always
are Forms (Ideas) ofevils.
be closer to an understanding of the problems once we have discov
The next key passage comes from the second book ofthc RCPl¡,blic
ered the thought of Plato and, as it were, kindled a light for our
(379B-C). Since a godisgood,and what isgoodcan on]ydogoodthings
subsequent inquiries'. Yet, 'to get a grasp of Plato's doctrine on evil'
ancl no bad things, he is not the cause of (aUion, 'l'espollsible for') a11
may not be an easy undertaking, the main reason being ofcourse that
things, but merely ofthe goodones. Fol' the evi]s he isnot l'esponsible
we donot posses a fu11ydeveloped theory ofevil from the Master. We
(tÓnde lwl~Ónanailion).
dohave some various remarks interspersed throughout the dialogues
and wecould speculate onwhat kind oftheory ofevil Plato would have
produced in tho light of his gonel'ul npproaoh lo philosophicnl queso T2 Thcreforc, since (lgod la good, he is not - aBn10BJp;CQPJc cJnim
- the cause ofeverything that happens to human beings, but
tions.:J1 Yeta systematic doctrine ofevil such as we find it in the later
ofonly a few things, for good things are fewer than bad ones
Neoplatonists is absent from the works ofPlato.
in our lives. He alone is responsibJe (aition) for the good
Nonetheless the discussion in the Neoplatonic schools took the
things, but we must 100kfor some other causes fol'evils (alla
texts ofPlato as their starting point ancl as their ultimate authority.
The doctrine ofevil as it is (re-)constructed by them is supposed tobe alta aitia), not a godo(Resp. 379C2-7)
Plato's. Both Proclus and Plotinus' treatments of the problem ofevil
Besides the principIe that the godis not l'esponsibJe fol'evils, Proclus
abound with citations from the dialogues. Ofthese pre-texts, we have
seleded some that are most crucial for Proclus and for Platonists in gathers from this text that one should not lookfor one single cause of
evils, but rather for a muJtiplicity ofindeterminatc causes, i.e. causes
general.
that do not cause evil fol'evj]'s sake, but rathel' by accident.
At Theaet. 176A5-8, Socrates makes a casual remark, that, al
The idea that god is not responsible for evils is confirmed in the
though fairly detached from the main flow of the argument, has
myth ofEl' (Repl.lblicX).The message announced to the (ophemeral)
become the locus classicus for Neoplatonic discussions ofevil:
souls involves that they are responsible fol'their own choices:
TI It isimpossible, Theodorus, that evilthings will cease toexist
T2' The responsibilit.y Iieswith the onc who makes the choice; the
(out'apolesthai ta lwlw dunaton), for it is necessary (ananhe)
god has none (aitia helomenoll. lhcos anail.ios, G17E4-5).
that the goodalways has its (sub)contrary (hupenantl:on ti tói
agathói aeieinai); nor have they any place in the divine wodd,
Proclus sets great stOl'e by the idea that the souls are themselves
but by necessity (ex ananhés) they revolve about our mortal
responsib]e fol'any evil they commit, and condemns the attempts to
nature and this place.
put the blame on matter. He wants tosave thc moral l'esponsibiJit.y of
the souls: 'Whel'e would be their self-motion and abiJity to choose'
From this passage (extensively used by Plotinus as we11)Proclus has
(3:3,23) if we attl'ibute the cause of their descent to the activity of
12 Introdu,ction Introduction 13
matter? The souls make their own choices, and when they have secondary, so Plotinus argues. Prior to thesc sccondary cvils, there
chosen badly, they deserve their punishment (;33,21-22).:J:J l1lust be a primary evil, which is the cause of thc derived evils, and
In the TImaeus, it is emphasised that the demiurge did not want 'that in which they participate'. How can we know what this primary
evil to exist in the univel'se, but instead that everything be similar to and absolute evil is? Since evil is 'that which is contrary to the good',
himself, insofar as this was possible. and all being is good, evil will be contrary to being (i.e. the Platonic
Forms) and to the good that is beyond being, i.e. the primary Good 01'
'1'3 He was good, and one who is good can never become jealous the One. Evil as such, Plotinus claims, consists in the complete
of anything. And so, being free of jealousy, he wanted every absence ofgoodness and form; it will be a kind ofnon-being. Ofcourse,
thing to become as much like himsclf as was possible (panta it could never be the kind of non-being that is beyond being (the One).
hoti malista ebouléthc genesthai paraplcsia heaut6i). (TIm. Hence it must be a non-being which is lower than being. Nor is it
29El-3) absolute non-being, for then it would not exist at all - but evil is a
reality. Neither is it the non-being ofmotion and rest, which, together
God wanted (boulétheis) that a11things should be good and with being, bclong to the so-called Greatest Forms,l() of the Sophist.
nothing bad (agatha men panta, phlauron de mcden), insofar Evil is then that kind of non-being that does exist., but. is completely
as this was attainable (1wta dunwnin). (Tim. 30A2-3) opposite to the Forms. Therefore it must. be identical with matter. For
this iHwhat matter is: absolute indetenuinatencHs, abHolute clisol'der,
The god who CJ'eates this world wants to make it similar to his own absolute darkness, complete absence of goodness.
good nature. Flaws are not part of the divine plan, and the gods can Plotinus indeed identifies the substrate with privabon, thus violat.
therefore not be held responsible for them. Indeed, even for the ing an AristoteJian thesis. Aristot.]e had defined the substrate as that
demiurge it may not be possible completely to preclude shortcomings, which persists t.hrough a process ofchange, whereas privation is t.hat
as Timaeus intimates. which disappears as a result ofthe change. But according to Plotinus,
Taking thesc canonical tcxts as their incontestable starting points, the privation does not disappear, but persist.s. 'l'he substrate - matter
combining them with some other valuable indications gleaned from - is identical with privation, complete absence of fonu amllight, that
tho work§ of Plato, und applying thoir own argumcntativo acumon is, nnd thercfol'c with ovil. This is alBo why Plotimw claims lihat
and philosophical insights, various Platonists have developed their matter can never tl'uly receive formo 'l'he soul tries to invest matter
views on eviL:J1 The most extensivc and also the most carefully with form, but fruitlessly: the privation remains.11
argumented treatments of thc problem are Plotinus' and Proclus'. Matter is unlimited in comparison to limit, I'onnless in compariHon
Since Proclus undeniably takes issue with the views expressed by his to formative principIes, in perpetual need, always undcfined, no
famous prcdecessor, we will first discuss the solution proposed by where stable, subjed t.oevery kind of influence, inHatiat.e, complete
Plotinus, and Proclus' criticism of this doctrine, before turning to the povert.y. These charactcl'istics are not incident.al, but. in a way make
latter's own views on the problem. up the nature of maLter-evil, insofar as each part of evil wiU have all
Perhaps it needs to be pointed out first that it is Proclus' view, not of its charactcristics and other things will have any oI'thesc charac
Plotinus',:¡r, that was to become authoritative within the School and is teristics through participabon. For these reasons, evil may be
most representative of thc Neoplatonic doctrine of evil.:¡¡;On the other considered a nature of its own, the substance oI'cvil, says Plotinus, if
hand, Proclus was certainly not thc origil1ator of thc views we find in indeed there can be such a thing as a substance of evil, the fil'st evil,
DMS, nor of thc objectiol1s to Plotil1us. That hOl1our should probably aper se cvil (1,8[51] ,3). This then becomes the source for evil in other
go to Iamblichus.:17 beings: they can become evil only if they are in contad wit.h matter,
although notoeverything that is iu contad with matter is always evil.
Plotinus' account of the evil oI'the soul is rather sophisticated, as
2.2. Plotinus Ennead 1,8[51}
Denis O'Brien has splendidly demonstrated: matter in itselI' is not a
sufficient cause of evil in the soul. 'l'here must also be a certain
Acentral text in the Neoplatonic discussions ofevil is Ennead 1,8[51],
which Plotinus wrote shortly before he died. Since Porphyry, it has weakness of the soul itself. Yet this weakness is in its turn caused by
been known as 'On what are and whence come evils'. It is a challeng mat.ter. Mattel' anel weakness are both partocauses of evil in t.he soul,
ing text, in which Plotinus makes a strong and clear point: matter:J8 and together they I'orm a suI'ficient cause oI'vice.
is the origin of all evil; it is evil as suCh.:I!1 However, matter is not. like t.he One, an absolute, sclf-subsisting
Evils of the body (e.g. disease) and that of the soul (vices) are principIe. Matter is generatedby somet.hing else, more speciI'icaUy by