Aristotle on divine movement and human nature 253
(
and that the sentence'
1 \ "
(which is, in fact, the MS reading) is completely out of place in this context:
the translation of'
\ as ‘Wenn n ̈amlich ihr Denken einmal
versagt’ is certainly incorrect (cf. the same phrase in line 31 ), and Aristotle’s
argument does not seem to leave any room for the possibility that those
people should fail who have !but do not use it (at a certain moment)
and follow their .^50
Since the second and the third solution yield insurmountable difficulties,
the first solution seems the most acceptable; this requires that we allow
argument (i) to count as a sufficient justification of the redundancy of
$ 5 ( -
.
1248 a 34 – 41 :
34 -9
35 ) ) * ,
%
0
36 ! ( % "3 $ ! " < 0 " 5 / .
5
37
/ .
1
*C
.
38 C C . j
T $ G +C 3
39 3 \0 ; M -
! jT^51
3 / 9
40
( !
1 8 "% " $
41 !^52
-
+ .
‘The divination of those who are intelligent and wise, too, is swift, and it
may almost be said that we must distinguish the form of divination founded
on reason, but in any case some people use this by experience, others by
habituation in observation. These forms make use of God: he well sees both
the future and the present, also in those people in whom this reasoning
faculty is disengaged. This is why melancholics have clear dreams too. For
the starting-point appears to be stronger when reason is disengaged.’
Comments: This passage is bristling with difficulties. In lines 34 – 5 it is not
clear what the infinitive construction depends on, but it is unnecessary to
assume a lacuna before, as is done by Dirlmeier ( 1962 a) and Woods
( 1982 ), following Spengel:^53 the sentence can be understood as equivalent
(^50) Unless this possibility should be provided for in 1248 a 7 – 8 ; but the meaning of this section is
extremely obscure; cf. Dirlmeier ( 1962 a) 489 , and Mills ( 1983 ) 294.
(^51) I follow the MS tradition in readingj, which has been emended by most interpreters into
2); see on this n. 63 below.
(^52) The MS tradition is" R !, where the plural accusative is obviously wrong
(cf. line 39 ).
(^53) Dirlmeier ( 1962 a) reads:〈 .〉 3 ) ,
%
%
!# ( % "3 $ ! " < 0 " 5 s .
5
s .
1
〈$
〉[ ]C
–C C 5 〈(C〉2#.