246 Aristotle and his school
should rather be conceived as a psycho-physiological mechanism: in virtue
of their particular natural constitution (theirphusis) the ‘irrational people’
('
) are more open to the divine movement (which turns the ‘im-
pulses’ in the right direction so that the fortunate people make the right
choice)^29 than are people who use reason and deliberation ( !and
<-
). The conclusion thateutuchiais found among simple-minded
people is therefore not incompatible with the statement thateutuchiais
‘divine’ ( ): the psycho-physiological process that Aristotle here has in
mind does not presuppose an active and purposive divine choice (
or
) – whereas the theory rejected in 1247 a 28 – 9 does presuppose such
a choice, as the verb ‘love’ (
)) shows – but is based on a general physi-
cal divine movement which works more strongly with those people whose
reasoning faculty is disengaged. The process seems similar to the workings
of the ‘superhuman nature’ (
-
), to which Aristotle ascribes
the phenomenon of prophetic dreams inOn Divination in Sleep( 463 b
14 ); there the susceptibility of simple-minded people to foresight and clear
dream images, as well as the absence of this susceptibility in intelligent
people, is accounted for by the absence (or, in the case of the intelligent
people, the presence) of rational activity: ‘for the mind of such [i.e. simple-
minded] people is not inclined to much thinking, but is, as it were, vacant
and devoid of everything, and once set in motion it moves along with
the agent of motion’ (8
-)[= !)]
(
0 " 5 ? # % )0
#
1 3
$ '
( 464 a 21 – 2 ). By contrast, in intelligent people
the presence of ‘their own proper movements’ (
) prevents
this susceptibility.^30 Likeeutuchia, divination in sleep is for Aristotle not a
ne me paraˆıt pas devoirˆetre compris, d’accord avec cette interpr ́etation, comme le r ́esultat d’une
influence directe de la divinit ́e supreme. Il faut plutˆ ˆot rapprocher ce passage des dialogues de Platon
o`u l’on voit cit ́es les mˆemes ph ́enom`enes psychiques et notamment de M ́enon.’ Cf. Gigon ( 1969 ) 211 :
‘Man wird allerdings auch zugestehen mussen, daß der Einschub ̈ uber den Enthusiasmus verwirrend ̈
wirkt: denn in ihm liegt eine gottliche Einwirkung vor, die ihrer besonderen Art nach kaum ̈
genannt werden kann.’ I agree with Croissant’s conclusion that ‘ni la chance, ni la divination par
les songes ne sont le fait d’une inspiration divine et elles sont conditionn ́ees par des facteurs qui
n’ont rien de noble, mais elles d ́ecoulent cependant en droite ligne de ce que l’homme poss`ede de
plus divin’ ( 1932 , 30 ), and with her statement that ‘Ainsi la reste bien une -
’,
although here I would prefer to refer to the ‘superhuman nature’ (
-
)ofDiv. somn. 463
b 14 (see below).(^29) This seems to be the working of God in the soul. Cf. von Fragstein ( 1974 ) 375 ,contraWoods ( 1982 )
183 and Dirlmeier ( 1962 a) 490.
(^30) It seems best to interpret
-
inDiv. somn. 463 b 14 as applying not to nature in general
(for on this view, it is difficult to see why Aristotle stipulates that nature is ‘superhuman, though
not divine’,8 1 -
0 " 5 ( ) but ashumannature, and not as human nature in
general, but as the particular natural constitution of a human individual, as is shown by the example
of the ‘garrulous and melancholic nature’ (
% -
) in the sequel. This is called