"Like two swift winds, the pont of many fish excite, Noisy Boreas and Zephyr, who are blowing from Thrace Suddenly, fierce, suddenly blackened swells swoop in They hill menacingly and gushing a multitude of growths from the sea" [2]

So it seems to have been with me yesterday. For I had seen waves like the tops of mountains, reaching, so to speak, to the very heavens, from which I expected nothing else but to drown the whole earth, so that a place of refuge came to my mind, and Noah's ark came to mind. But what I expected did not happen. On the contrary, the sea, immediately after swelling, again fell into itself and did not overstep its own limit, fearing, so to speak, some Divine command (Job 38:11). And just as sometimes a slave, compelled by his master to do something against his will, obeys the command out of fear, and what he feels in himself when he does not want to do it, he does not dare to say anything about it, but grumbles to himself, giving himself up to anger; so the sea seemed to me as if it were angry and restraining anger in itself, restraining itself and not wanting to reveal its wrath before the Lord. I silently began to peer into everything around me, and wanted to measure with my mind both the sky and its circumference; he investigated where it begins and where it ends, and what kind of motion it has, whether it is translational, i.e., from one place to another, or circular; and from which it has a constant motion. And about the sun I wanted to know how it is placed in heaven, what is the circle of its course, and whither it recedes after a short time, and yet it does not overstep the limit of its course, but also observes, so to speak, some commandment of the supreme (Being): it appears to us when it is allowed, and then departs, as if it were recalled. As I examined this, I saw that the sun's radiance ceased and the daylight diminished, and immediately darkness fell and the moon replaced the sun; moreover, at first it appears in a smaller form, and then, moving forward in its course, it appears in a larger form. I did not cease to make inquiries about it, and sought out the reason for its decrease and increase, and the fact that it also observes a certain circle of days; hence it seemed to me that there is a certain Divine government and a power of the higher (beings) containing everything, which we might justly call God. Then I began to glorify the Creator by seeing the established earth, various animals, and various kinds of plants. However, my mind did not stop at this alone, but I began to investigate further, whence all this comes into being, whether from something that always exists with God, or from Him alone without the existence of anything with Him; for it seemed to me that the proposition that nothing comes out of nothing was not entirely unfounded; for what comes about usually comes from what is. And on the other hand, it also seemed to me true that there is nothing that always exists with God except Himself, but that everything proceeded from Him; In some way I was convinced of this by the harmonious order of the elements and the improvement of nature. Thinking that this decision was good for me, I returned to my house. But the next day, that is, today, when I went out, I saw two homogeneous beings (i.e., men) quarreling with each other and reviling each other; then another, who wanted to take off the clothes of his neighbor; and some dared to do something worse; Thus one robbed the dead man, and the body, already hidden in the ground, was again exposed to the sunlight, and thus subjected the image to the dogs, leaving the dead to be devoured by the dogs. The other drew his sword and rushed at a man like himself; he wanted to find salvation in flight, but the pursuer did not lag behind and did not want to tame his anger. However, why say so much? Rushing at him, he immediately struck him with his sword. He begged his neighbor and stretched out his hands to him in supplication, and was ready to give up his clothes, asking only to spare his life; but this one did not subdue his anger, did not take pity on the homogeneous one, did not want to see in him his own image, but like a wild beast began to tear him with a sword, even brought his mouth closer to a body similar to himself; he was so furious. And one could see how one endured violence, and the other robbed and did not even cover with earth the body from which he had taken off his clothes. After this, another appeared, who wanted to dishonor the wife of his neighbor by stealing someone else's marriage, and sought to enter the unlawful bed, intending to make the husband not the true father. After this I began to believe in tragedies, and the supper of Thyestes seemed to me to have really happened,3 and the lawless desire of Oenomaus [4] and the attack of brothers on each other with swords also became probable for me. And so, having been a spectator of so many and such things, I began to inquire what all this was from, what was the initial cause of their aspiration, and who so maliciously influenced people, whence they had such intentions, and who was their teacher. It is impossible to dare to call God the culprit; on the contrary, it has neither origin nor beginning of existence from Him. For how can one think this of God? He is good and the author of all that is best, and there is nothing evil in Him; In its essence, it does not rejoice in anything of this kind and forbids it to be; and those who rejoice in this, He rejects, and those who avoid it He approves. Would it not be absurd to call God the author of that which He abhors? He wouldn't want it to be if He Himself was the first culprit. For He wants those who belong to Him to be imitators of Him. Wherefore it seemed unreasonable to me to attribute this to God, or to regard it as having come from Him (otherwise it must be assumed that something may come from nothing), so that He should also produce evil; and having brought Him from non-existence into being, He would not have turned Him from being into non-being. And it would also be necessary to say that there was once a time when God rejoiced in evil; yet this is not the case. Therefore, it seems to me that it is impossible to say this about God, because to attribute it to Him is not characteristic of His essence. Thus, in my opinion, there exists with Him something called matter (υλη), from which He created all that exists, distributing and arranging everything beautifully with wise skill; it seems to me that evil also proceeds from it.

From this, it seems to me, evil now arises among people. In my opinion, it is good to think so. And if it seems to you, my friend, that I have said anything that is not good, tell me, and I am very anxious to hear about it.

Pravosl. Thy zeal, friend, I approve of and praise thy zeal for learning; and that thou hast so decided concerning the things that exist, as if God had created all things out of some ready-made substance, and this I do not in the least condemn. For the existence of evil has indeed disposed many to think in the same way. Many able people before you and me have been very zealous in this subject; and some of them have come to the same thoughts as you; others recognized God as the author of evil, fearing to admit a substance co-eternal with Him; and those, out of fear of recognizing God as the Creator of evil, decided to admit a co-eternal substance with him. But it happened that both of them did not speak well, because they feared God in disagreement with true knowledge. Others, however, at the very beginning refused to investigate this subject, since a detailed investigation seems to have no end. But my friendship towards you does not permit me to abandon this investigation, especially when you show such a disposition, not under the influence of prejudice (although from your reasoning it seems that you feel so on the subject), but out of a desire, as you say, to attain to the knowledge of the truth. Therefore I will gladly begin to investigate. I wish that this comrade would also be a listener of our speeches; it seems that he also thinks about it in the same way as you; Wherefore I wish to speak to both of you together; for what I would say to you in your mood, I would also say to him in the same way. If, therefore, it seems to you that I am really speaking prudently of the supreme (Being), then answer me every question that I put to me; for from this it will come to pass that you also will learn the truth, and I will not speak to you in vain.

Shaft. I will gladly do what you have said; ask me, as much as you like, about everything that you think you can teach me about the highest; for it is desirable for me not to gain a bad victory, but to know the truth. So, begin your speech.

Pravosl. That it is impossible for two uncreated things to exist together, this, I think, is not unknown to you, although you seem to have previously assumed it in your speech. At the same time, it is necessary to say one of two things, either that God is separated from matter, or, conversely, that He is not separated from it. But if anyone wants to assert that they are united, then he will admit one uncreated (for each of them will be a part of the other); and being parts of each other, they will no longer be two, but one, consisting of different (parts). We do not divide man, who is composed of various members, into several created ones, but, as reason demands, we say that God created man as one created thing, consisting of many parts. Thus it must be said that if God is not separated from matter, then they are one uncreated. But if someone says that He is separated, then it is necessary that there should be something between them both, which would prove their separation. For it is impossible to conceive of anything as separate from something without the existence of another, from which the separation of the one and the other proceeds. What has been said applies not only to this, but also to very many others. The argument which we have given concerning two uncreated must be extended in the same manner, if three uncreated ones were proposed; and of them I might ask, whether they are separated from each other, or vice versa, whether each is united to the other. And if anyone wants to say that they are united, he will hear a proof the same as before; but if, on the contrary, (he says) that they are separated, then he will not escape the necessary existence of something divisive. And if anyone offers a third opinion, which is applicable to the uncreated, i.e., that God is neither separated from matter, nor are they united as parts, but that God dwells in matter as in a place, and matter dwells in God, let him know that if we call matter the place of God, we must necessarily recognize Him as containable and limited from matter. It is also necessary to assume that He does not have a permanent presence and independence, since the substance in which He exists is carried here and there. Besides, it would have to be said that God was in a worse condition. For if matter was once unorganized, and God made it, determined to bring it into a better state, there was once a time when God existed in the unordered. I might also justly ask, did God pervade matter, or was He in some part of matter? And if anyone wanted to say that God was in a certain part of matter, he would admit that He was much less than matter, since a part of it contained the whole God; and if He were to say that He was in all things, and extended in the whole substance, let him explain how God made him. It is necessary to admit a certain apostasy of God in order that He may arrange that from which He has departed; otherwise He would have arranged Himself together with the substance, having no room for retreat. If, on the contrary, someone says that matter dwells in God, then it must be asked in the same way: Is it so that in this way He is divided in Himself, as different kinds of beings are in the air, which is divided and broken up in order to receive what is contained in it, or as it were in a certain place, that is, like water in the earth? If we say: as in the air, then it is necessary to recognize God as divisible; but if (say) like water in the earth, and matter was disordered and disordered, and moreover contained evil in itself, then it is necessary to recognize God as the receptacle of the unsettled and evil. And this, it seems to me, is not only unfounded, but also dangerous. For you want to admit the existence of matter in order not to recognize God as the author of evil, and yet, intending to avoid this, you say that He is the receptacle of evil. If, then, you have said that matter is outside of created beings, and that it is not created, then I could also say much about it, to prove that it cannot be uncreated; but since, according to your words, the cause of this assumption is the origin of evil, it seems to me that it is necessary to proceed to investigate this. For when it is explained how evil came about, and that God should not be recognized as the author of evil, then this supposition, suggested by the assumption of matter in His presence, seems to be destroyed; for if God created non-existent qualities, then also (could create) things. So you say that there existed with God a qualityless substance from which He created the world?

Shaft. It seems to me so.

Pravosl. If matter was without quality, and the world was created by God, and there are qualities in the world, then God became the Creator of these qualities?

Shaft. Yes.

Правосл. Так как я слышал, что ты прежде говорил, будто из ничего не может произойти что–нибудь, то ответь мне на мой вопрос: как тебе кажется, эти качества мира произошли не из прежде существовавших качеств?

Вал. Кажется.

Правосл. Они суть нечто другое, нежели самые предметы?

Вал. Да.

Правосл. Итак, если Бог сотворил качества не из преждесуществовавших качеств, и если они получили бытие не из предметов, потому что они не суть самые предметы, то необходимо признать, что они сотворены Богом из ничего. Посему, мне кажется, ты напрасно утверждаешь, будто невозможно думать, что Бог сотворил нечто из ничего. Таково и пусть будет решение касательно этого. И между нами мы видим людей, которые делают нечто из ничего, хотя и кажется, что они делают из чего–нибудь. Так возьмем в пример строителей: они строят города не из городов и храмы не из храмов. Если ты думаешь, что они делают это не из ничего, так как основанием для них служат предметы, то ты ошибаешься. Ибо не предмет строит город, или храмы, а искусство, прилагаемое к предмету, которое не происходит от какого–нибудь готового искусства в самых предметах, а происходит от искусства, которого нет в них. Но ты, кажется, можешь возразить на мое доказательство так, что художник создает посредством искусства, которое заключается в предмете; а я лучше отвечу на это, что оно является в человеке не из какого–нибудь готового искусства; ибо невозможно, чтобы предмет сам по себе давал искусство; так как оно есть одно из свойств и притом таких, которые получают бытие тогда, когда они являются в каком–нибудь предмете. Человек может быть и без строительного искусства, а оно не может быть, если прежде не будет человека. Посему необходимо признать, что искусства по природе своей таковы, что они являются у людей из ничего. Если же мы доказали, что так бывает у людей, то почему не свойственно Богу иметь силу создавать из ничего не только качества, но и предметы? Если оказалось возможным происходить чему–нибудь из ничего, то ясно, что и с предметами бывает также. Впрочем, если ты желаешь знать о происхождении зла, то я обращу речь к этому, и кратко хочу спросить тебя: как тебе кажется, зло есть ли предмет, или качество предмета?