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 ETHICS IN BYZANTIUM* York: George Braziller. Abstract This paper argues that research in the primary sources must precede the investigation of Byzan- tine philosophy. 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 Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics are considered. Their authors are Michael of Ephesos, Eustratios of Nicaea, “Anonymus”, Heliodoros of Prussa, Georgios Pachymeres, Michael Psellos, John Italos, Nikephoros Blemmydes, George Gemistos Plethon. Keywords: Byzantine philosophy, 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 nature. 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 1 the treatise On Virtue can be found. useful, some unexpectedly so. 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 theory 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 problems 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 Anna Komnene 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 Eudemian Ethics. 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 Michael of Ephesus totle. There are 160 manuscripts of the Catego- was an experienced commentator, with exten- ries from the Byzantine period, 140 of the De Politics in 1821 as the first volume of the col- interpretatione, 120 for the Prior Analytics, 120 lection. This was followed in 1822 by his pub- for the Physics, 60 for the Metaphysics, 60 for 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 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 Rhetoric 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 Aristotelianism and Neoplatonism. 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).