sign in sign up
<<
Home , Aristotelian ethics, James of Venice, Michael of Ephesus, Michael Psellos

Linos G. BENAKIS

Vahanian, G. (1965b, December 8). Swallowed Vahanian, G. (1966b). Theology and ‘The End UDC 1/14:17 up by Godlessness. The ChristianCen- of the Age of Religion’. (J. B. Metz, Linos G. BENAKIS tury, LXXXII(49), 1505-1507. Ed.) Concilium: Theology in the Age Vahanian, G. (1966a). No other God. New of Renewal, XVI, 99-110. ARISTOTELIAN IN BYZANTIUM* York: George Braziller. Abstract

This paper argues that research in the primary sources must precede the investigation of Byzan- tine . Two points are to be considered, on the one hand, the gathering of texts, and, on the other hand, the study of texts in relation to their sources. Thus the external evidence as well as the internal evidence of texts should be examined. In this double regard, the manuscripts containing ’s are considered. Their authors are Michael of Ephesos, Eustratios of Nicaea, “Anonymus”, Heliodoros of Prussa, Georgios Pachymeres, , John Italos, Nikephoros Blemmydes, George Gemistos Plethon.

Keywords: , Aristotle’s Byzantine Commentators, Michael of Ephesos, Eustratios of Nicaea, “Anonymus”, Heliodoros of Prussa, Georgios Pachymeres, Michael Psellos, John Italos, Nikephoros Blemmydes, George Gemistos Plethon.

This paper is primarily technical in . b. The study of texts in relation to their It will argue that when one begins to examine a sources. Namely, the identification of less investigated area of the field of Byzantine sources – distinguishing between instan- Philosophy, research in the primary sources ces of mere borrowing and instances of a must still precede every interpretative act and more critical incorporation of such sour- critical approach. Here, research in the primary ces into Byzantine texts – the identifica- sources means: tion of original elements, of direct or in- a. The gathering of texts. This is not always direct influences, of tendencies in the use an easy task, although the publication in of source materials, etc. Here, the ever- recent decades of new critical editions of expanding secondary bibliography needs texts by Byzantine philosophers has made to be consulted with caution, since some it more feasible (Benakis, 1991). Older studies contain errors of interpretation editions of Byzantine philosophers, some which may be more or less obvious.2 of which have been reprinted, also remain useful, some unexpectedly so.1 the treatise On can be found. 2 There is, for example, the case of the article by ⃰ In a short form published as Benakis, 2009 and Giocarinis, 1964, where Eustratios seems to be Benakis, 2013. a defender of the Platonic of ideas, 1 One such is the collection of texts by Nikeph- when in fact the opposite is true, as is evident oros Blemmydes edited by Dorotheos Voulis- from the texts cited. It is also inexcusable for mas and published in Leipzig in 1784, where A. Lloyd to speak of nominalism in Eustratios 66 67 67 WISDOM 2(9), 2017 Linos G. BENAKIS

This paper will, therefore, necessarily Of even greater importance is an exa- consider both the external evidence and, as far mination of the ‘internal’ elements that consti- as possible, the internal evidence regarding tute this interest, so that one might then under- our texts. While its nature and methods remain stand the relation between our Byzantine au- to be justified, this paper will have served its thors and the political thinking of the state phi- purpose and satisfied its writer’s aims if it losophers of antiquity. The same point can ap- stimulates an interest among new scholars in ply to the Ethics, where the identification of conducting research and writing about this elements of Aristotle’s ‘moral’ teaching in the highly productive area of Greek philosophy, works of Byzantine philosophers might be con- one that has been somewhat neglected. I am sidered in relation to the presence of moral certain that they will find such research richly and issues within both academic rewarding, whether they engage in ‘technical’ teaching and within a Byzantine Lebensphilo- research work or a more broadly conceived sophie that was firmly embedded in Christian examination of the most significant problems dogma. of Byzantine philosophy. There are numerous Byzantine commen- As a starting point, one ‘external’ fact of taries on Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics. particular importance to our topic is the large Among the earliest of these was that of Mi- number of manuscripts containing the Nicoma- chael of Ephesus (eleventh-twelfth century), chean Ethics which have been preserved from who can be found in the circle of philosophers the Byzantine period. There are approximately associated with and who wrote 120 manuscripts, to which one might add 45 commentaries on book V and on books IX and manuscripts of the Major Ethics and 25 of the X of the Nicomachean Ethics.4 A first edition . In order to put these numbers (by contemporary criteria) of these commen- into perspective I cite the corresponding num- taries appeared in Venice in 1541.5 We must bers of manuscripts of other key works by Aris- not overlook the fact that totle. There are 160 manuscripts of the Catego- was an experienced commentator, with exten- ries from the Byzantine period, 140 of the De in 1821 as the first volume of the col- interpretatione, 120 for the , 120 lection. This was followed in 1822 by his pub- for the , 60 for the , 60 for lication of the Nicomachean Ethics. He wrote the De caelo, and 40 for the . I have dis- the following in his prologue, claiming that b cussed the Politics elsewhere (Benakis, 1982 ). Ethics is a part of Politics: “both are one and It is, therefore, essential to consider these num- the same science, of which Ethics can be con- bers when considering the knowledge and inter- sidered the theoretical part, and Politics the est of the Byzantines in the moral- political ide- practical.” 4 as of Aristotle.3 Michael Ephesius, in: Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca (=CAG) Vols. XX and in the article cited in note 10, when he himself XXII, 3. concludes that Eustratios’ method may be de- 5 Aristotelis Stagiritae Moralia Nichomachia fined as a form of conceptualism! cum Eustratii, Aspasii, Michaelis Ephesii 3 See the testimony of Adamantius Korais, who, nonullorum aliorurn Graecorum explana- in his Hellenic Library published Aristotle’s tionibus, ed. B. B. Felicianus, Venetiis 1541. 68 WISDOM 2(9), 2017 68 Aristotelian Ethics in Byzantium

This paper will, therefore, necessarily Of even greater importance is an exa- sive commentaries on Aristotle’s work: inclu- Eustratios’ Aristotelian commentaries were consider both the external evidence and, as far mination of the ‘internal’ elements that consti- ding books V–VIII of the Metaphysics, the the most interesting of any of those produced as possible, the internal evidence regarding tute this interest, so that one might then under- Parva Naturalia, the Sophistici Elenchi, the De by a Byzantine philosopher, as the subject of our texts. While its nature and methods remain stand the relation between our Byzantine au- partibus and the De motu animalium, which, his discussion was not limited to the philoso- to be justified, this paper will have served its thors and the political thinking of the state phi- fortunately, were included in the publishing pher’s style or definitions, but rather addres- purpose and satisfied its writer’s aims if it losophers of antiquity. The same point can ap- endeavor of the Prussian Academy.6 The com- sed the philosopher’s views and his teachings. stimulates an interest among new scholars in ply to the Ethics, where the identification of mentaries by Michael of Ephesus on Physics, Indeed, Eustratios appears to have been a conducting research and writing about this elements of Aristotle’s ‘moral’ teaching in the De caelo and the have not been pre- competent philosopher in the tradition of Mi- highly productive area of Greek philosophy, works of Byzantine philosophers might be con- served. For details of his knowledge and treat- chael Psellos and John Italos, whose student one that has been somewhat neglected. I am sidered in relation to the presence of moral ment of the Politics see my article mentioned he was. One finds within his work a combina- certain that they will find such research richly problems and issues within both academic above. In addition, the recent secondary litera- tion of and . rewarding, whether they engage in ‘technical’ teaching and within a Byzantine Lebensphilo- ture on Michael is reliable. This is evident in his resolution of the problem research work or a more broadly conceived sophie that was firmly embedded in Christian In the same period, Eustratios of Nicaea of general concepts (the universalia), in which examination of the most significant problems dogma. (c. 1050 – c. 1120) composed commentaries on resolution Lloyd also finds that Eustratios has of Byzantine philosophy. There are numerous Byzantine commen- books I and VI of the Nicomachean Ethics.7 resolved the problem of conceptual realism As a starting point, one ‘external’ fact of taries on Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics. Eustratios’s commentaries were also included (conceptualism) that can be found in the Al- particular importance to our topic is the large Among the earliest of these was that of Mi- in the 1541 Venetian edition. Parts of them exandrian commentators, i.e. those of the number of manuscripts containing the Nicoma- chael of Ephesus (eleventh-twelfth century), were also, surprisingly, included in E. Par- school of Ammonius and thence of all Byzan- chean Ethics which have been preserved from who can be found in the circle of philosophers giter’s 1745 London edition entitled Aristotle tine scholars (see Benakis, 1978-1979). the Byzantine period. There are approximately associated with Anna Komnene and who wrote of Morals to Nichomachus I. For the impor- In his study, Lloyd does not treat Eust- 120 manuscripts, to which one might add 45 commentaries on book V and on books IX and tance and impact of Eustratios’ commentaries ratios’ work on the Ethics systematically. manuscripts of the Major Ethics and 25 of the X of the Nicomachean Ethics.4 A first edition on Aristotle’s work in the West one should There is undoubtedly fertile ground for future Eudemian Ethics. In order to put these numbers (by contemporary criteria) of these commen- consult a significant series of articles by Mer- research here. One strand that remains note- into perspective I cite the corresponding num- taries appeared in Venice in 1541.5 We must cken, Sorabji, Lloyd, Trizio, and Benakis (see worthy is Eustratios’ influence on Western bers of manuscripts of other key works by Aris- not overlook the fact that Michael of Ephesus Mercken, 1990b; Sorabji, 1990b; Loyd, 1987; Christian philosophy. Here, it should be noted totle. There are 160 manuscripts of the Catego- was an experienced commentator, with exten- Trizio, 2006; Benakis, 1978-1979). According that the first Western commentary on the Ni- ries from the Byzantine period, 140 of the De to Sorabji, the esteemed scholar of the whole comachean Ethics, that by Politics in 1821 as the first volume of the col- interpretatione, 120 for the Prior Analytics, 120 tradition of Greek commentaries on Aristotle, (Cologne 1250-1252), appeared approximately lection. This was followed in 1822 by his pub- for the Physics, 60 for the Metaphysics, 60 for Eustratios of Nicaea introduced Platonic, 130 years later than that by Eustratios. Eustra- lication of the Nicomachean Ethics. He wrote the De caelo, and 40 for the Poetics. I have dis- the following in his prologue, claiming that Christian and anti- Arabic elements into his tios was already known in the West by that b cussed the Politics elsewhere (Benakis, 1982 ). Ethics is a part of Politics: “both are one and texts, whereas Michael of Ephesus can be seen time, first through (approx. It is, therefore, essential to consider these num- the same science, of which Ethics can be con- to have mainly followed the existing commen- 1130) and primarily through the translation bers when considering the knowledge and inter- sidered the theoretical part, and Politics the taries by Alexander of Aphrodisias and the and use of his commentaries, particularly on est of the Byzantines in the moral- political ide- practical.” Neoplatonic school of Alexandria. Also of Logic, by Robert Grosseteste in England. The 4 as of Aristotle.3 Michael Ephesius, in: Commentaria in significance for any assessment of Eustratios latter called Eustratios ‘Commentator Graecus’ Aristotelem Graeca (=CAG) Vols. XX and is the study by Lloyd, which argues that or simply ‘Commentator’ (compared to the in the article cited in note 10, when he himself XXII, 3. plain ‘Philosophus’ reserved for Aristotle). On concludes that Eustratios’ method may be de- 5 Aristotelis Stagiritae Moralia Nichomachia 6 Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca (=CAG) the subject of Eustratios’ influence in the fined as a form of conceptualism! cum Eustratii, Aspasii, Michaelis Ephesii Vols. II,3; XIV; XXII,1; XXII,2; XIV,3. West, we have the reliable studies by H.P.E 3 See the testimony of Adamantius Korais, who, nonullorum aliorurn Graecorum explana- 7 Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca (=CAG) Mercken on Robert Grosseteste’s trans- in his Hellenic Library published Aristotle’s tionibus, ed. B. B. Felicianus, Venetiis 1541. XX. 68 69 69 WISDOM 2(9), 2017 Linos G. BENAKIS

lations of the Greek commentaries (see Mer- whole of the Nicomachean Ethics.10 This par- cken, 1973). Mercken is also the author of a aphrase is attributed to Heliodoros of Proussa paper, “Ethics as a Science in Albert the Great in this Berlin edition. It has also been at- and Eustratios of Nicaea,” (Merken, 1990a) tributed to Andronikos Kallistos (1400-1486) where the key issue, as to whether a scientia and to Andronikos Rhodios (!) in a first edi- moralis rather than a practica moralis was tion that was published in Cambridge in 1679, possible in the Middle Ages, is examined on and has also been attributed to John Filagrios the basis of the first Latin commentary on the from Crete (s. Wartelle for cod. Napol. Gr. Nicomachean Ethics, that of Albertus Magnus. 335). The most likely case is that this para- Albertus only wrote on books I and VI. It is in phrase was the work of Constantine Paleokap- these books that Aristotle deals with issues of pas, a 14th century monastic scholar.11 This method in the Ethics and it is where he dis- work, which was a useful teaching tool for the cusses the intellectual , of which sci- Byzantines, was widely known. ence or scientia is one. Eustratios, of course, ’ (1242-1310) para- had commented on these same books and his phrase of the Nicomachean Ethics was writ- authority is invoked by Albertus, who refers ten as part of his extensive work, the Philoso- to him as Commentator Graecus. Clearly, an phia, which sought to provide “commen- area of enquiry that then arises from this rela- taries” on the whole Aristotelian Corpus in 12 tionship and that deserves greater attention books and 238 chapters. These had only been would be an investigation of the extent to published in a Latin translation: Venetiis which Albertus Magnus’s views on the scien- 1545, Lugduni 1547, Parisiis 1547, 1555, and tific understanding of ethics were influenced Basileae 1560. A first critical edition of book by the writings of his Byzantine predecessor. ten has now been published within the series Another Byzantine commentary on the “Corpus Philosophorum Medii Aevi - Com- Nicomachean Ethics is the “Anonymous” mentaria in Aristotelem Byzantina” of the commentary on books II to V.8 This text is a Academy of Athens (see Pachymeres, 2002). compilation of mainly Alexandrian commen- This great Byzantine historian and philoso- taries made by a Byzantine scholar, probably pher’s method was to select significant pas- of the thirteenth century. There is a further sages from Aristotle’s work and then to pro- anonymous Byzantine commentary on book vide them with explanations in simpler, more VII of the Nicomachean Ethics.9 No reliable comprehensible terms, using language and research has yet been carried out on either of ideas drawn from the ancient commentators. these commentaries. Lastly, there is a commentary on the Ni- There are also a number of paraphrases comachean Ethics that is attributed to the em- that deserve our attention. In 1889 Heylbut peror John Kantakouzenos, or, under his mo- published a Late Byzantine paraphrase of the nastic name, Ioasaph (after 1355), which re- mains unpublished. This work, however, is 8 In Ethica Nicomachea 2-5. CAG XX pp. 122- 255. 10 Heliodoros of Proussa, Paraphrasis. CAG 9 In Ethica Nicomachea 8. CAG XX pp. 407- XIX, 2, pp. 1-246. 460. 11 This paraphrase is known from Hatch, 1879. 70 WISDOM 2(9), 2017 70 Aristotelian Ethics in Byzantium

lations of the Greek commentaries (see Mer- whole of the Nicomachean Ethics.10 This par- identical to the commentary by Pseudo-Olym- also be detected throughout. cken, 1973). Mercken is also the author of a aphrase is attributed to Heliodoros of Proussa piodoros (a paraphrase of the commentary by The philosopher Nikephoros Blemmydes paper, “Ethics as a Science in Albert the Great in this Berlin edition. It has also been at- the Alexandrian Olympiodoros). It is believed of Nicaea (1197-1272) also wrote a “Discourse and Eustratios of Nicaea,” (Merken, 1990a) tributed to Andronikos Kallistos (1400-1486) that Kantakouzenos had probably commis- on Virtue.”15 This, like his better-known works, where the key issue, as to whether a scientia and to Andronikos Rhodios (!) in a first edi- sioned a copy of this text and that this was later Epitome on Logic and Epitome on Physics, fol- moralis rather than a practica moralis was tion that was published in Cambridge in 1679, mistakenly attributed to him (see Nicol, 1968). lows closely upon the structure and language possible in the Middle Ages, is examined on and has also been attributed to John Filagrios It is not difficult to locate both brief and of Aristotle’s own works and thus cleaves to the basis of the first Latin commentary on the from Crete (s. Wartelle for cod. Napol. Gr. lengthy references, explicit or otherwise, to the model provided by the Nicomachean Eth- Nicomachean Ethics, that of Albertus Magnus. 335). The most likely case is that this para- Aristotle, the Ethics, or commentators on the ics. Albertus only wrote on books I and VI. It is in phrase was the work of Constantine Paleokap- Ethics in other texts by Byzantine philoso- The Miscellanea philosophica et historica these books that Aristotle deals with issues of pas, a 14th century monastic scholar.11 This phers. For example, we can readily find refer- by Theodore Metochites (1270-1337) is ac- method in the Ethics and it is where he dis- work, which was a useful teaching tool for the ences in the recent editions of Michael Psel- companied by a brief table of the names of an- cusses the intellectual virtues, of which sci- Byzantines, was widely known. los’s writings: in chapter seven of the Philo- cient writers.16 This contains approximately ence or scientia is one. Eustratios, of course, George Pachymeres’ (1242-1310) para- sophica Minora I and in chapters twelve and forty references to Aristotle, without, however, had commented on these same books and his phrase of the Nicomachean Ethics was writ- thirty-two of the Philosophica Minora II.12 In always referencing the specific work by Aris- authority is invoked by Albertus, who refers ten as part of his extensive work, the Philoso- paragraphs 66-81 of Psellos’s De omnifana totle cited in the text. The Nicomachean Eth- to him as Commentator Graecus. Clearly, an phia, which sought to provide “commen- doctrina there are numerous references to book ics, like the Metaphysics, Politics and Rheto- area of enquiry that then arises from this rela- taries” on the whole Aristotelian Corpus in 12 2 of the Nicomachean Ethics, as well as to the ric, does not appear to have been mentioned by tionship and that deserves greater attention books and 238 chapters. These had only been Pseudo-Aristotelean On Virtue and Vice and Metochites. A fuller investigation of the Mis- would be an investigation of the extent to published in a Latin translation: Venetiis the Ethica Eudemia.13 These instances suggest cellanea and his other writings may show that which Albertus Magnus’s views on the scien- 1545, Lugduni 1547, Parisiis 1547, 1555, and that Aspasius’s commentaries on Aristotle’s Metochites did, in fact, know and use these tific understanding of ethics were influenced Basileae 1560. A first critical edition of book writings on morality are a common source for works (see Hult, 2002). by the writings of his Byzantine predecessor. ten has now been published within the series Psellos as well as other Byzantines. Lastly, in this purely descriptive overview, Another Byzantine commentary on the “Corpus Philosophorum Medii Aevi - Com- A further example is offered by the chap- I would like to mention the pre-eminently moral Nicomachean Ethics is the “Anonymous” mentaria in Aristotelem Byzantina” of the ter “On moral virtue and other matters,” which dissertation by George Gemistos Plethon (1360- commentary on books II to V.8 This text is a Academy of Athens (see Pachymeres, 2002). is found in the collection Queries and Solu- 1452), his “On Virtue”. A new critical edition compilation of mainly Alexandrian commen- This great Byzantine historian and philoso- tions written by the eleventh-century philoso- of this text contains an enlightening introduc- taries made by a Byzantine scholar, probably pher’s method was to select significant pas- pher John Italos.14 Here, Italos suggests that tion, from which it is clear that Plethon’s main of the thirteenth century. There is a further sages from Aristotle’s work and then to pro- the ancient philosophers, primarily Aristotle, sources are , Plutarch, Epictetus, Marcus anonymous Byzantine commentary on book vide them with explanations in simpler, more have given the most exact definition of what Aurelius, and the pseudo-Aristotelian On Virtue VII of the Nicomachean Ethics.9 No reliable comprehensible terms, using language and might be termed ethical virtue. Italos includes and Vice.17 Plethon’s method itself shows the research has yet been carried out on either of ideas drawn from the ancient commentators. seven passages from books I, II, V and VI of these commentaries. Lastly, there is a commentary on the Ni- Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics in his chapter. 15 Νικηφόρου μοναστοῦ καὶ πρεσβυτέρου τοῦ There are also a number of paraphrases comachean Ethics that is attributed to the em- The presence of Aspasius’s commentary can Βλεμμύδου Ἐπιτομὴ Λογικῆς [Nikêphorou mo- that deserve our attention. In 1889 Heylbut peror John Kantakouzenos, or, under his mo- nastou kai presbyterou tou Blemmydou Epi- 12 published a Late Byzantine paraphrase of the nastic name, Ioasaph (after 1355), which re- Philosophica minora I 22-28 and Philosophica tomê Logikês, in Greek] (editio Lipsiae: 1784). 16 mains unpublished. This work, however, is minora II 23-39, 109-111. See my critical re- Miscellanea, ed. Th. Kessling, Lipsiae, 1821, 8 In Ethica Nicomachea 2-5. CAG XX pp. 122- view for these two valuable volumes from the 838. 255. 10 Heliodoros of Proussa, Paraphrasis. CAG Teubneriana: Benakis, 1995. 17 Traite des vertus. by Br. Tam- 9 In Ethica Nicomachea 8. CAG XX pp. 407- XIX, 2, pp. 1-246. 13 Omnifaria doctrina 43-49, chapters 66-81. brun-Krasker, Athens (Philosophi Byzantini 3) 460. 11 This paraphrase is known from Hatch, 1879. 14 Questiones quodlibetales 87-95, chapter 63. 1987. 70 71 71 WISDOM 2(9), 2017 Linos G. BENAKIS

influence of Aristotle, and the Mystran philoso- 248-249. pher’s knowledge of the Aristotelian corpus is Benakis, L. G. (1982b). Was Aristotle's Politi- in any case well-known from his entire body of cal Philosophy Ignored in Byzanti- work (for Nicomachean Ethics, see, for exam- um? Proceedings of the 1st Panhel- ple, De differentiis, V,1-2 and elsewhere.) Here, lenic Philosophy Conference: Philos- however, we can draw a significant distinction: ophy and Politics (pp. 230-236). Ath- while in Aristotle moral philosophy is “phe- ens: Kardamitsa. nomenological”, and for that largely de- Benakis, L. G. (1991). Bibliographie Interna- scriptive, morality in Plethon is the object of tionale sur la philosophie in the strict meaning of the term, and 1949-1990 Association Internationale thus is wholly based on the first principles of des Études Byzantines. Comité Hel- Metaphysics. Therefore, Plethon’s method can lénique des Études Byzantines. Bibli- be seen to be Platonic, for it is to a great extent ographié byzantine publiée à analytical. But in the case of the last great Byz- l’occasion du XVIIIe congre interna- antine philosopher, too, research will need to tional d’études byzantines (pp. 319- address other important aspects of his moral 384). Moscow. teachings, such as his basic belief in the dual Benakis, L. G. (1995). Book review: Michael nature of man, in absolute providence, and in Psellos, Philosophica Minora, Vol. I, the moral-political character of free will, and J. M. Duffy (Ed.), Vol. II, D. J. other such areas.18 O’Meara (Ed.). Hellenica 45, 191- 199. REFERENCES Benakis, L. G. (2009). Aristotelian Ethics in Byzantium. Commen- Barber, Ch., & Jenkins D. (Eds.) (2009). Me- taries on the Nicomachean Ethics Ch. dieval Greek Commentaries on the Barber & D. Jenkins (eds.), 63-69, Nicomachean Ethics. Leiden – Bos- 210-221. ton: Brill. Benakis, L. G. (2013). Byzantine Philosophy, Benakis, L. G. (1978-1979). To problêma tôn B. Athens: Parousia. genikôn ennoiôn kai ho ennoiologikos Browning, R. (1963). The Patriarchal School at realismos tôn Byzantinôn (The Prob- in the Twelfth Centu- lem of General Science and the Real- ry, Byzantion 32 (1962), 167-201 & istic Realism of the Byzantines, in 33 (1963), 11-40. Greek). Philosophy, 8/9, 311-340. Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca (CAG) Benakis, L. G. (1982a). The Problem of General (1882-1904). Edita consilii et auctori- Concepts in Neoplatonism and Byzan- tate academiae litterarum Regiae Bo- tine Thought. (D. J. O’Meara, Ed.) russiacae. Vols. 1-23. Berlin: Georg Neoplatonism and Christian Thought, Reimer Verlag. Gémiste-Pléthon, G. (1987). De Traités de ver- tus (Br. Tambrun-Krasker, Ed.) Philo- 18 This article is published with the editorial sophi Byzantini 3. Athens-Leiden: elaboration of Georgia Apostolopoulou. 72 WISDOM 2(9), 2017 72 Aristotelian Ethics in Byzantium

influence of Aristotle, and the Mystran philoso- 248-249. Academy of Athens. Merken, H. P. F. (1990a). Ethics as a Science pher’s knowledge of the Aristotelian corpus is Benakis, L. G. (1982b). Was Aristotle's Politi- Giokarinis, K. (1964). Eustratius of Nicaea’s in Albert the Great’s First Commen- in any case well-known from his entire body of cal Philosophy Ignored in Byzanti- Defense of the Doctrine of the Ideas. tary on the Nicomachean Ethics. work (for Nicomachean Ethics, see, for exam- um? Proceedings of the 1st Panhel- Franciscan Studies 24, 159–204. Proceedings of the Eighth Interna- ple, De differentiis, V,1-2 and elsewhere.) Here, lenic Philosophy Conference: Philos- Hatch, W. M. (1879). The Moral Philosophy of tional Congress of Medieval Philos- however, we can draw a significant distinction: ophy and Politics (pp. 230-236). Ath- Aristotle. London: John Murray. ophy (S.I.E.P.M.). III, 251-260. Hel- while in Aristotle moral philosophy is “phe- ens: Kardamitsa. Hult, K. (2002). Theodor Metochites, On An- sinki: Yliopistopaino. nomenological”, and for that reason largely de- Benakis, L. G. (1991). Bibliographie Interna- cient Authors and Philosophy. (K. Nicol, D. M. (1968). A Paraphrase on the Ni- scriptive, morality in Plethon is the object of tionale sur la philosophie byzantine Hult, Ed.). Goteborg: Acta Universi- comachean Ethics Attributed to the science in the strict meaning of the term, and 1949-1990 Association Internationale tatis Gothoburgensis. Emperor John VI Cantacuzene. Byz- thus is wholly based on the first principles of des Études Byzantines. Comité Hel- Lloyd, A. C. (1987). The Aristotelianism of antinoslavica 29, 1–16. Metaphysics. Therefore, Plethon’s method can lénique des Études Byzantines. Bibli- Eustratius of Nicaea. In J. Wiesner Pachymeres, G. (2002). Philosophia. Buch 10. be seen to be Platonic, for it is to a great extent ographié byzantine publiée à (Ed.) Aristoteles: Werk und Wirkung, Kommentar zur Metaphysik des Aris- analytical. But in the case of the last great Byz- l’occasion du XVIIIe congre interna- II, (pp. 341-351). Berlin, New York: toteles. In E. Pappa (Ed.): Commen- antine philosopher, too, research will need to tional d’études byzantines (pp. 319- De Gruyter. taria in Aristotelem Byzantina 2. Ath- address other important aspects of his moral 384). Moscow. Mercken, H. P. F. (1973). The Greek Com- ens: Academy of Athens. teachings, such as his basic belief in the dual Benakis, L. G. (1995). Book review: Michael mentaries on the “Nicomachean Eth- Sorabji, R. (1990b). The ancient commentators nature of man, in absolute providence, and in Psellos, Philosophica Minora, Vol. I, ics” of Aristotle in the Latin Transla- on Aristotle. In R. Sorabji (Ed.) Aris- the moral-political character of free will, and J. M. Duffy (Ed.), Vol. II, D. J. tion of Robert Grosseteste, Bishop of totle Transformed (pp. 1-30). other such areas.18 O’Meara (Ed.). Hellenica 45, 191- Lincoln (†1253), vol. 1: books I–IV Sorabji, R. (Ed.) (1990a). Aristotle transfor- 199. (= Corpus Latinum Commentariorum med. The Ancient Commentators and REFERENCES Benakis, L. G. (2009). Aristotelian Ethics in in Aristotelem Graecorum VI/1). their Influence. London: Duckworth. Byzantium. Medieval Greek Commen- Critical edition with an introductory Trizio, M. (2006). Eustratius of Nicaea an Ab- Barber, Ch., & Jenkins D. (Eds.) (2009). Me- taries on the Nicomachean Ethics Ch. study by H. P. F. Mercken. Leiden: solute and Conditional Necessity. A dieval Greek Commentaries on the Barber & D. Jenkins (eds.), 63-69, Brill. Survey of the Commentary on Book Nicomachean Ethics. Leiden – Bos- 210-221. Mercken, H. P. F. (1990b). The Greek Com- VI of the Nicomachean Ethics. Archiv ton: Brill. Benakis, L. G. (2013). Byzantine Philosophy, mentators on Aristotle’s Ethics. In R. für mittelalterliche Philosophie und Benakis, L. G. (1978-1979). To problêma tôn B. Athens: Parousia. Sorabji (Ed.) Aristotle Transformed Kultur 12, 35-63. genikôn ennoiôn kai ho ennoiologikos Browning, R. (1963). The Patriarchal School at (pp. 429-436). London. realismos tôn Byzantinôn (The Prob- Constantinople in the Twelfth Centu- lem of General Science and the Real- ry, Byzantion 32 (1962), 167-201 & istic Realism of the Byzantines, in 33 (1963), 11-40. Greek). Philosophy, 8/9, 311-340. Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca (CAG) Benakis, L. G. (1982a). The Problem of General (1882-1904). Edita consilii et auctori- Concepts in Neoplatonism and Byzan- tate academiae litterarum Regiae Bo- tine Thought. (D. J. O’Meara, Ed.) russiacae. Vols. 1-23. Berlin: Georg Neoplatonism and Christian Thought, Reimer Verlag. Gémiste-Pléthon, G. (1987). De Traités de ver- tus (Br. Tambrun-Krasker, Ed.) Philo- 18 This article is published with the editorial sophi Byzantini 3. Athens-Leiden: elaboration of Georgia Apostolopoulou. 72 73 73 WISDOM 2(9), 2017