an eternal circle through the Good, from the Good and in the Good and to the Good, moving about in an unerring convolution and in the same and according to the same, and always proceeding and remaining and being restored. These things our renowned hierophant also divinely taught in the Hymns on Love, of which it is not unfitting to make mention and, as it were, to place a sacred crown upon our discourse concerning love: <15> Whether we speak of love as divine, or angelic, or noetic, or psychic, or natural, let us understand it as a certain unitive and cohesive power, moving the superior to a providence for their inferiors, again, those of the same rank to a communal fellowship, and lastly, the subordinate to a turning back toward the better and the things which are set over them. <16> Since we have set in order the many loves from the one, speaking in sequence of what sort are the cognitions and powers of the loves within and beyond the cosmos, over which excel, according to the purpose of the discourse assigned, the orders and arrangements of the noetic and intelligible loves, after which the self-intelligible and divine loves of the truly beautiful things there stand preeminent, and have been fittingly hymned by us. Now again, taking them all up into the one and enfolded love and father of them all, let us at once roll up and gather them from the many, first reducing it to two universal powers of love, over which in all ways the uncontainable cause of all love, from the Beyond-all, prevails and is preeminent, and toward which the total love from all beings is extended congenitally in each of the beings. <17> Come now, gathering these again into one, let us say that there is a certain single, simple power, self-moving toward a unitive mixture, from the Good to the last of beings, and from that again in succession through all to the Good, from itself and through itself and upon itself, revolving itself back upon itself, and ever unfolding itself back into itself in the same way. <18> And yet someone might say: If for all things the beautiful and the good is lovable and desirable and cherished—for even non-being desires it, as has been said, and strives in a way to be in it, and it is this which gives form even to the formless, and upon it even non-being is super-essentially spoken of and is—how is it that the demonic multitude does not desire the beautiful and the good, but being attached to matter and having fallen away from the angelic sameness regarding the desire for the good, is the cause of all evils both for itself and for others, as many as are said to become evil? And how is it that the demonic race, produced from the Good, is not good-like? Or how did what came to be good from the Good become altered? And what is it that made it evil, and what is evil at all, and from what principle did it subsist, and in which of the beings is it? And how did the Good will to produce it, and how, having willed, was it able? And if evil is from another cause, what other cause is there for beings besides the Good? And how, when providence exists, is there evil, either coming into being at all or not being destroyed, and how does any of the beings desire it instead of the Good? <19> Perhaps, then, such a discourse, raising difficulties, will say these things. But we will ask it to look to the truth of the matters and first of all we shall speak boldly thus: Evil is not from the Good, and if it is from the Good, it is not evil. For it is not the nature of fire to cool, nor of the Good to produce not-good things. And if all beings are from the Good—for it is the nature of the Good to produce and to save, but of evil to corrupt and to destroy—then none of the beings is from evil. And neither will evil itself be, if it should be evil even to itself. And if not this, evil is not entirely evil, but has some portion of the Good, by which it exists at all. And if beings desire the beautiful and the good, and all things they do, they do for the sake of what seems good, and the entire purpose of beings has the Good as its beginning and end—for nothing does what it does by looking to the nature of evil—how will evil be in the beings, or be at all, bereft of such a good desire? And if all beings are from the Good, and the Good is beyond the beings, then in the Good even non-being has being, but evil is neither being—unless it is not entirely evil—nor non-being; for universal non-being will not exist at all, unless it is spoken of in the Good according to the super-essential. The Good, therefore, will be established far prior both to that which simply is and to that which is not. But evil is neither in the beings nor in the non-beings, but is even more alien than non-being itself, distant from the Good, and more essenceless.
ἀΐδιος κύκλος διὰ τἀγαθόν, ἐκ τἀγαθοῦ καὶ ἐν τἀγαθῷ καὶ εἰς τἀγαθὸν ἐν ἀπλανεῖ συνελίξει περιπορευόμενος καὶ ἐν ταὐτῷ καὶ κατὰ τὸ αὐτὸ καὶ προϊὼν ἀεὶ καὶ μένων καὶ ἀποκαθιστάμενος. Ταῦτα καὶ ὁ κλεινὸς ἡμῶν ἱεροτελεστὴς ἐνθέως ὑφηγήσατο κατὰ τοὺς ἐρωτικοὺς ὕμνους, ὧν οὐκ ἄτοπον ἐπιμνησθῆναι καὶ οἷον ἱεράν τινα κεφαλὴν ἐπιθεῖναι τῷ περὶ ἔρωτος ἡμῶν λόγῳ· <15> Τὸν ἔρωτα, εἴτε θεῖον εἴτε ἀγγελικὸν εἴτε νοερὸν εἴτε ψυχικὸν εἴτε φυσικὸν εἴποιμεν, ἑνωτικήν τινα καὶ συγκρατικὴν ἐννοήσωμεν δύναμιν τὰ μὲν ὑπέρτερα κινοῦσαν ἐπὶ πρόνοιαν τῶν καταδεεστέρων, τὰ δὲ ὁμόστοιχα πάλιν εἰς κοινωνικὴν ἀλληλουχίαν καὶ ἐπ' ἐσχάτων τὰ ὑφειμένα πρὸς τὴν τῶν κρειττόνων καὶ ὑπερκειμένων ἐπιστροφήν. <16> Ἐπειδὴ τοὺς ἐκ τοῦ ἑνὸς πολλοὺς ἔρωτας διετάξαμεν ἑξῆς εἰρηκότες, οἷαι μὲν αἱ τῶν ἐγκοσμίων τε καὶ ὑπερκοσμίων ἐρώτων γνώσεις τε καὶ δυνάμεις, ὧν ὑπερέχουσι κατὰ τὸν ἀποδοθέντα τοῦ λόγου σκοπὸν αἱ τῶν νοερῶν τε καὶ νοητῶν ἐρώτων τάξεις τε καὶ διακοσμήσεις, μεθ' οὓς οἱ αὐτονόητοι καὶ θεῖοι τῶν ὄντως ἐκεῖ καλῶν ἐρώτων ὑπερεστᾶσι, καὶ ἡμῖν οἰκείως ὕμνηνται. Νῦν αὖθις ἀναλαβόντες ἅπαντας εἰς τὸν ἕνα καὶ συνεπτυγμένον ἔρωτα καὶ πάντων αὐτῶν πατέρα συνελίξωμεν ἅμα καὶ συναγάγωμεν ἀπὸ τῶν πολλῶν πρῶτον εἰς δύο συναιροῦντες αὐτὸν ἐρωτικὰς καθόλου δυνάμεις, ὧν ἐπικρατεῖ καὶ προκατάρχει πάντως ἡ ἐκ τοῦ πάντων ἐπέκεινα παντὸς ἔρωτος ἄσχετος αἰτία, καὶ πρὸς ἣν ἀνατείνεται συμφυῶς ἑκάστῳ τῶν ὄντων ὁ ἐκ τῶν ὄντων ἁπάντων ὁλικὸς ἔρως. <17> Ἄγε δὴ καὶ ταύτας πάλιν εἰς ἓν συναγαγόντες εἴπωμεν, ὅτι μία τις ἔστιν ἁπλῆ δύναμις ἡ αὐτοκινητικὴ πρὸς ἑνωτικήν τινα κρᾶσιν ἐκ τἀγαθοῦ μέχρι τοῦ τῶν ὄντων ἐσχάτου καὶ ἀπ' ἐκείνου πάλιν ἑξῆς διὰ πάντων εἰς τἀγαθὸν ἐξ ἑαυτῆς καὶ δι' ἑαυτῆς καὶ ἐφ' ἑαυτῆς ἑαυτὴν ἀνακυκλοῦσα καὶ εἰς ἑαυτὴν ἀεὶ ταὐτῶς ἀνελιττομένη. <18> Καίτοι φαίη τις· Eἰ πᾶσίν ἐστι τὸ καλὸν καὶ ἀγαθὸν ἐραστὸν καὶ ἐφετὸν καὶ ἀγαπητόν, ἐφίεται γὰρ αὐτοῦ καὶ τὸ μὴ ὄν, ὡς εἴρηται, καὶ φιλονεικεῖ πως ἐν αὐτῷ εἶναι, καὶ αὐτό ἐστι τὸ εἰδοποιὸν καὶ τῶν ἀνειδέων, καὶ ἐπ' αὐτοῦ καὶ τὸ μὴ ὂν ὑπερουσίως λέγεται καὶ ἔστι, πῶς ἡ δαιμονία πληθὺς οὐκ ἐφίεται τοῦ καλοῦ καὶ ἀγαθοῦ, πρόσυλος δὲ οὖσα καὶ τῆς ἀγγελικῆς περὶ τὴν ἔφεσιν τἀγαθοῦ ταὐτότητος ἀποπεπτωκυῖα κακῶν ἁπάντων αἰτία καὶ ἑαυτῇ καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις, ὅσα κακύνεσθαι λέγεται; Πῶς δὲ ὅλως ἐκ τἀγαθοῦ παραχθὲν τὸ δαιμόνιον φῦλον οὐκ ἔστιν ἀγαθοειδὲς ἢ πῶς ἀγαθὸν ἐκ τἀγαθοῦ γεγονὸς ἠλλοιώθη; Καὶ τί τὸ κακῦναν αὐτὸ καὶ ὅλως τί τὸ κακόν ἐστι, καὶ ἐκ τίνος ἀρχῆς ὑπέστη, καὶ ἐν τίνι τῶν ὄντων ἔστιν; Καὶ πῶς ὁ ἀγαθὸς αὐτὸ παραγαγεῖν ἠβουλήθη, πῶς δὲ βουληθεὶς ἠδυνήθη; Καὶ εἰ ἐξ ἄλλης αἰτίας τὸ κακόν, τίς ἑτέρα τοῖς οὖσι παρὰ τἀγαθὸν αἰτία; Πῶς δὲ καὶ προνοίας οὔσης ἔστι τὸ κακὸν ἢ γινόμενον ὅλως ἢ μὴ ἀναιρούμενον, καὶ πῶς ἐφίεταί τι τῶν ὄντων αὐτοῦ παρὰ τἀγαθόν; <19> Ταῦτα μὲν οὖν ἴσως ἐρεῖ τοιόσδε ἀπορῶν λόγος, ἡμεῖς δὲ ἀξιώσομεν αὐτὸν εἰς τὴν τῶν πραγμάτων ἀλήθειαν ἀποβλέπειν καὶ πρῶτόν γε τοῦτο εἰπεῖν παῤῥησιασόμεθα· Τὸ κακὸν οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τἀγαθοῦ, καὶ εἰ ἐκ τἀγαθοῦ ἐστιν, οὐ κακόν, οὐδὲ γὰρ πυρὸς τὸ ψύχειν οὔτε ἀγαθοῦ τὸ μὴ ἀγαθὰ παράγειν. Καὶ εἰ τὰ ὄντα πάντα ἐκ τἀγαθοῦ, φύσις γὰρ τῷ ἀγαθῷ τὸ παράγειν καὶ σώζειν, τῷ δὲ κακῷ τὸ φθείρειν καὶ ἀπολλύειν, οὐδέν ἐστι τῶν ὄντων ἐκ τοῦ κακοῦ. Καὶ οὐδὲ αὐτὸ ἔσται τὸ κακόν, εἴπερ καὶ ἑαυτῷ κακὸν εἴη. Καὶ εἰ μὴ τοῦτο, οὐ πάντη κακὸν τὸ κακόν, ἀλλ' ἔχει τινὰ τἀγαθοῦ, καθ' ἣν ὅλως ἔστι, μοῖραν. Καὶ εἰ τὰ ὄντα τοῦ καλοῦ καὶ ἀγαθοῦ ἐφίεται καὶ πάντα, ὅσα ποιεῖ, διὰ τὸ δοκοῦν ἀγαθὸν ποιεῖ καὶ πᾶς ὁ τῶν ὄντων σκοπὸς ἀρχὴν ἔχει καὶ τέλος τἀγαθόν, οὐδὲν γὰρ εἰς τὴν τοῦ κακοῦ φύσιν ἀποβλέπον ποιεῖ, ἃ ποιεῖ, πῶς ἔσται τὸ κακὸν ἐν τοῖς οὖσιν ἢ ὅλως ὂν τῆς τοιαύτης ἀγαθῆς ὀρέξεως παρῃρημένον; Καὶ εἰ τὰ ὄντα πάντα ἐκ τἀγαθοῦ καὶ τἀγαθὸν ἐπέκεινα τῶν ὄντων, ἔστι μὲν ἐν τἀγαθῷ καὶ τὸ μὴ ὂν ὄν, τὸ δὲ κακὸν οὔτε ὄν ἐστιν, εἰ δὲ μὴ οὐ πάντη κακόν, οὔτε μὴ ὄν, οὐδὲν γὰρ ἔσται τὸ καθόλου μὴ ὄν, εἰ μὴ ἐν τἀγαθῷ κατὰ τὸ ὑπερούσιον λέγοιτο. Τὸ μὲν οὖν ἀγαθὸν ἔσται καὶ τοῦ ἁπλῶς ὄντος καὶ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος πολλῷ πρότερον ὑπεριδρυμένον. Τὸ δὲ κακὸν οὔτε ἐν τοῖς οὖσιν οὔτε ἐν τοῖς μὴ οὖσιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτοῦ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος μᾶλλον ἀλλότριον ἀπέχον τἀγαθοῦ καὶ ἀνουσιώτερον.