250 Aristotle and his school
1248 a 26 – 9 :
26
27 ) 3 8 T ! 5 "% ( !.
28 "
T G '
# A#
29 % !;^39 8 1 " % $ $ \.
‘For in a certain way the divine element in us moves everything; but the
starting-point of reasoning is not reasoning, but something stronger. Well,
what then could be even stronger than knowledge, other than God? (Not
virtue) for virtue is an instrument of intelligence.’
Comments: I regard ‘the divine element in us’ (3 8 )asan
equivalent of ‘the intellect’ ($0 !), in accordance withEth. Nic.
1177 a 13 – 17 , 1177 b 27 – 31 and 1179 a 27 – 8.^40 The point of this sentence
is that it makes explicit another possible answer to Aristotle’s question, to
the effect that it is the intellect ($) which is the principle of movement
in the soul: for after all, the intellect is ‘the divine element in us’. Aristotle
anticipates this idea by arguing that, admittedly, this is true in a certain way
()), but the intellect itself has got its movement from something which
is ‘superior’ ( ,cf. 1248 a 18 – 20 above). (It is not necessary to alter
the MS reading
) 3 8 .^41 The sentence 8
1 " % $ $ \anticipates a possible objection to the effect
that the"sought for is" ).^42
(^39) The MS tradition is G '
# A
% !; The emendation of A
into A#as well as the addition of $, which are generally accepted by modern interpreters, are
based on the Latin tradition:quid igitur utique erit melius et scientia et intellectu nisi deus, but the
addition $is probably prompted by the mention of$in the following sentence and by line
32 $ $ < - );
#seems equivalent in this context to$and
!.
(^40) Following Dirlmeier ( 1962 a) 490 , and von Arnim ( 1928 ) 21 , contra Woods ( 1982 ) 182 , who argues
that inEth. Nic. 1177 a 13 – 17 ‘the divine element is tentatively identified with the intelligence (nous),
whereas here the divine element is distinguished from intelligence’. Cf. Wagner ( 1970 ) 105 – 8 , who
wrongly follows Dirlmeier ( 1962 a) 108 in concluding that ‘this divine element moves the processes
in the soul’ (‘dieses bewegt die Vorg ̈ange in der Seele’), which is incompatible with Wagner’s
own conclusion that3 8 is equivalent to $which is distinguished from !:if
Wagner reads *Cin 1248 a 38 , how can he conclude that not !but3 is the"%
) C :C?
(^41) Mills ( 1983 , 289 n. 13 ) reads
) 1 8 !, but this change is not necessary,
and it makes the following sentence (lines 27 – 9 ) redundant. I do not understand Mills’ objection
to the MS tradition, ‘for how could the !in us move ?’, for this seems consistent with
Aristotle’s ideas on the subject in general (cf.De motu an. 700 b 18 ff.) and, besides, Aristotle qualifies
this statement by)(‘in a way which it is not relevant now to explain’).
(^42) The objection is probably Socratic, and" should be regarded here as moral virtue. Woods ( 1982 ,
182 ) and Dirlmeier ( 1962 a, 490 ) refer to 1246 b 10 – 12 :" 1 % (5 " T
1 (CT 8
1 $ ' " % C $ "
(on which see Moraux ( 1971 ) 264 – 5 ).