, two short passages (for Leiden): one translated from Greek, the other from Latin.
But one could say that [Aristotle] agrees with Plato about the immortality of the mind, since he claims that not the whole soul is immortal, but he consents that the mind is divine and incorruptible.
It is, therefore, possible for him to know what the mind is like with respect to its essence and nature, whence it comes and how it is distributed to humans and where it departs back, if he understands what he says about the mind and does not shun refutation by wrapping up the difficulty of the subject in the obscurity of expression, thanks to darkness being hard to be caught like cuttlefish.
From these, the art that has a certain nobler way of investigating truth is more perfect. But indeed only poetics does this, inasmuch as it shows no naked truth, like orator or historian, but [truth] decently attired and so to speak covered with a cloak of fable, just as merchants use to sell a precious thing under a veil. Plato, who had covered the whole philosophy and theology with fables, gained the highet praise from the ancients in this genre. Aristotle did not wish to do the same lest he seemed to imitate [Plato], but he did wrap up particular truths of philosophy in the obscurity of words and sentences.