240 Aristotle and his school
This problem, then, concerns the consistency of the argument within
this chapter of theEudemian Ethics. That it is a genuine problem is further
shown by the fact that the same objection as that raised in 1247 a 28 – 9
concerning the distribution of the phenomenon ascribed to divine dispen-
sation (and which I shall henceforth refer to as the ‘distribution argument’)
is found in two other Aristotelian writings which are closely parallel to
Eth. Eud. 8. 2 , but there, contrary toEth. Eud. 8. 2 , it is sufficient to reject
anyexplanation which ascribeseutuchia(or a comparable phenomenon)
to a god. The passages in question are the parallel discussion ofeutuchia
in chapter 2. 8 of the so-calledGreat Ethics(Magna moralia,Mag. mor.)
and the treatment of prophetic dreams in theOn Divination in Sleep(De
divinatione per somnum, Div. somn.).
Thus at a certain point of the discussion inMag. mor. 1207 a 6 ff., as
inEth. Eud. 1247 a 23 ff., it is tentatively suggested thateutuchiamight be
explained as a form of divine dispensation:
But iseutuchiaa kind of dispensation of the gods? Or would it appear to be not
that?^9
But this suggestion is rejected on the strength of the following argument:
We hold that God, who is in supreme control of such things [i.e. external goods],
distributes both good and evil to those who deserve it, whereas chance and the
results of chance truly happen as chance would have it. And if we attribute such a
thing to God, we shall make him a poor judge, or at least not a just one; and that
is not befitting for God. ( 1207 a 7 – 12 )^10
In line 15 , this conclusion is repeated:
Surely, neither the concern nor the benevolence of God would seem to beeutuchia,
because it [i.e.eutuchia] also occurs among the wicked; and it is unlikely that God
would care for the wicked.^11
The conclusion of the discussion ofeutuchiainMag. mor. 2. 8 is thateu-
tuchiais caused by an ‘irrational nature’ (alogos phusis), more specifically
by irrational ‘impulses’ or instinctive drives (hormai)( 1207 a 35 ff.). These
‘impulses’ also play an important part in the explanation inEth. Eud. 8. 2
( 1247 b 18 ff.), but the major difference betweenEth. Eud. 8. 2 andMag.
(^9) " 5 p 8 ( P
o B $5 ( J !D
;
(^10) 3 1 3 "D
$ -
\
-) "D
"
" 1 1
0 8 . -# 1 "3 -# P " # * P J -#C
C C 3
$
" 0 $ (3
%
B (
T $ 5 (
C>
(^11) " 1 % (5 8
8 &
1 $ $ !D
J ,
(
1 3
-
T 3 . 3 - ) (
3