Thought

Michael’s breadth as an Aristotelian commentator is remarkable. He could justifiably be compared to Alexander of Aphrodisias both in respect of his mode of exposition and in respect of his method of interpretation; besides, some of his comments were initially edited under Alexander’s name. He wrote commentaries on the fifth, ninth, and tenth book of the Nicomachean Ethics; in fact, it has been plausibly suggested that it was he who compiled this commentary, bringing together the comments of Aspasius, Eustratios, and two anonymous commentators. He also commented on Metaphysics 7-14 and on the Sophistical Refutations (both wrongly attributed to Alexander), on the Parva naturalia, on the Generation of

Animals (wrongly attributed to Philoponus), on the Parts of Animals, on the Movement of Animals, and on the Progression of Animals. Finally, he wrote comments on the pseudo-Aristotelian treatise De coloribus, which are still unedited, and on the Politics, which have only partly survived. His commentaries seem to have been widely read, since his very words often appear in Byzantine commentaries and paraphrases from the thirteenth to the fifteenth century. Moreover, his comments on the Nicomachean Ethics were translated in 1246/1247 by Robert Grosseteste and became very influential in the West through the agency of Albert the Great.

Michael’s commentaries are of historical interest, because they contain remarks about the contemporary political situation; for instance, there are sometimes critical remarks about the emperor as well as discussions of the contemporary educational system. Most importantly, though, his comments, especially those on Aristotelian treatises for which no other commentary has survived, are treasures of information for the history of philosophy, even if the interpretations suggested were not his own. Zervos has pointed out the Platonic influences on Michael, Praechter has contrasted Michael of Ephesos, the Aristotelian, with Michael Psellos, the Platonist, Preus has claimed that Michael tries to stay as close as possible to the spirit of Aristotle, Mercken has suggested that Michael’s Aristotelianism is never a militant one. It seems, therefore, that modern scholars have moved from regarding Michael as a Platonist to regarding him as an Aristotelian, even if not a militant one. But perhaps it is rather difficult to put a specific label to Michael. He is a commentator of Aristotle and thinks that Aristotle’s work is significant, so when he ventures to explain it he stays close to Aristotle’s spirit. This does not mean, however, that he agrees with Aristotle in everything; he often follows Plato, Plotinus, and the Neoplatonists, or other ancient thinkers, like for instance Galen.

Besides, as a Christian commentator, it seems important to him at places not to adhere uncritically to an Aristotelian, Platonic, or other ancient viewpoint. For example, the way he discusses the notion of eudaimonia indicates that his reading of Aristotle’s text is not close to Aristotle’s spirit, but is rather an interpretation influenced by different traditions; Neoplatonism is certainly one, but Christianity is also present. According to Michael, there are two kinds of eudaimonia, namely the theoretical eudaimonia and the political or practical eudaimonia; the person who has the ethical or practical or political virtues achieves political eudaimonia, whereas the person who has both the political and the theoretical virtues achieves theoretical eudaimonia. In other words, political eudaimonia is an imperfect kind of eudaimonia, whereas theoretical eudaimonia is the only perfect eudaimonia the virtuous person can have. But to this Platonist account of eudaimonia, and in particular to the notion of theoretical eudaimonia, Michael adds a further feature; he claims that, apart from being perfect, the most pleasant, continuous, chosen for itself, and self-sufficient, a feature of theoretical eudaimonia is that there is no need for regret and repentance (metameleia/metanoia) in this state. Aristotle does not characterize the life of contemplation in these terms, nor do the Platonists stress such a characteristic of eudaimonia; on the other hand, both the notion of regret and that of repentance are very much part of the Christian outlook.

See also: > Eustratios of Nicaea