SOME OBSERVATIONS ON MICHAEL OF EPHESUS’ COMMENTS ON NICOMACHEAN ETHICS X Katerina Ierodiakonou A study of the Byzantine twelfth-century composite commentary on the Nicomachean Ethics cannot pass over Michael of Ephesus’ contribution to it. For it is not only that Michael is undoubtedly the writer of the comments on books V, IX and X,1 it has also been plausibly suggested that it was he who compiled this commentary, bringing together the comments of Aspasius, Eustratios and two anonymous commentators.2 He thus produced an invaluable tool for a better understanding of Aristotle’s ethical theories, a tool which proved to be of great help not only to the Byzantines, but also to the students of Aristotle in the medieval West, who extensively used its Latin translation made by Robert Grosseteste in the thirteenth century. Nevertheless, we know next to nothing about Michael’s life, and little attention has been given so far to the content of his comments on the Nicomachean Ethics. At least we now can say with confidence, thanks to Browning’s and Ebbesen’s research, that he lived not in the eleventh century, as Praechter had argued, but in the twelfth century, and more- over that he most probably, together with Eustratios, belonged to Anna Komnena’s circle of intellectuals.3 It still remains unsettled, however, whether Michael wrote his commentaries only while he was working under Anna, or whether he worked on Aristotle also before and after this period.4 On the other hand, we seem to be well informed about the remarkable breadth of his writings as an Aristotelian commenta- tor. He not only wrote commentaries on the Nicomachean Ethics, but also on Metaphysics V–VIII and on the Sophistical Refutations, both wrongly attributed to Alexander, on the Generation of Animals, wrongly attributed to Philoponos, on the Parva naturalia, on the Parts of Animals, on the Move- 1 In EN 5, In EN 9–10. 2 Ebbesen (1990) 451, n. 23; Mercken (1990) 437. 3 Praechter (1931); Browning (1990) 399–400; Ebbesen (1981) 268–285; Mercken (1990) 430–432. 4 Preus (1981a) 10, n. 22; Mercken (1990) 437. 186 katerina ierodiakonou ment of Animals, on the Progression of Animals, all edited in the CAG series;5 furthermore, he wrote comments on the pseudo-Aristotelian treatise De coloribus, which are still unedited,6 on the Politics, which have only partly survived,7 and finally, on the Prior and Posterior Analytics, on the Topics, on the Physics, on the De caelo and on the Rhetoric, which are unfortunately lost.8 But Michael’s surviving commentaries have not been studied in great detail. It is only due to Ebbesen’s work that we know something about Michael’s logical comments on Aristotle’s Sophistical Refutations,andwe owe it to Preus’ and Arabatzis’ efforts that we know something about Michael’s comments on Aristotle’s zoological writings.9 Now, concern- ing the comments on the Nicomachean Ethics, there is no systematic study of them. Mercken has discussed them in general terms, and he has raised the general issue of whether Michael should be regarded as a Platonist or as an Aristotelian. On his view, Michael’s task as a com- mentator was to clarify Aristotle’s doctrines without taking sides; that is to say, without being a militant Aristotelian, but also without trying to force Aristotle into a Platonic, or for that matter, a Christian mould.10 Since there is no detailed study of any of Michael’s comments on the Nicomachean Ethics, I want to focus here on these comments, and in particular on the comments on book X of the Nicomachean Ethics.Tobe more precise, I want to discuss three issues which arise from Michael’s comments: 1. The use of medical examples 2. The distinction between two kinds of eudaimonia 3. The issue whether non-rational animals can achieve eudaimonia I choose these three issues because I think that they themselves are philosophically interesting, though I am not sure that what Michael has to say about them is original. The fact that we have no other ancient 5 In metaph.; In SE; In GA; In PN ; In PA. 6 A graduate student in the University of Hamburg, V. Papari, is now preparing under the supervision of Prof. D. Harlfinger an edition of these comments as part of her doctorate thesis. The Latin translation of these comments, together with a German translation, can be found in Col. 103–129. 7 Pol. xvii–xxi and 293–327 (translated in Barker 1957). 8 Praechter (1990) 51–52. Conley (1990) 38 suggests that the anonymous Rhetoric commentary in In Rh. is Michael’s. 9 Ebbesen (1981); Preus (1981a) and (1981b); Arabatzis (2006). 10 Mercken (1990) 434–436..