This is the first critical edition of George Pachymeres’ Commentary on Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics. It adds to the invaluable work of the Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften and its project Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca et Byzantina (CAGB), while at the same time attests to the growing interest in the reception of the classical tradition in Byzantium. Although it is well known that Aristotle’s philosophy was influential far beyond the end of antiquity, little research has been devoted to the texts documenting his Byzantine reception. By making these texts accessible through modern editions a double aim is served: first, our understanding of Aristotle and his reception is enhanced and, second, we become better acquainted with Byzantine philosophy.
The volume under review, the seventh to appear in this series, is an excellent work that lives up to this double aspiration. Xenophontos’ edition of George Pachymeres’ Commentary on Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics is accompanied by a comprehensive introduction, a precise yet readable translation by Xenophontos and Crystal Addey, and indexes of parallel passages and of Greek terms. Modern readers are well-supported here in their first encounter with this hitherto unknown material.
The present text is an exegesis and more specifically a lemmatic commentary on Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics (henceforth: NE) Books 1–6 written in Constantinople at the beginning of the fourteenth century by George Pachymeres (1242–ca. 1310). The title attached to the work, probably a later addition by Cardinal Bessarion, describes it misleadingly as an “exact paraphrase,” while it is clearly an exegesis, that is, a close study of the text: Τοῦ δικαιοφύλακος καὶ πρωτεκδίκου παράφρασις ἠκριβωμένη τοῦ Παχυμέρη. Besides being an important intellectual of the Palaeologan period, Pachymeres held public offices such as that of prôtekdikos (head of the ecclesiastical tribunal) and dikaiophylax (judge, “guardian of the laws”). His commentary consists of individual entries as short units explaining a part of the Aristotelian text, including a heading that indicates the topic being analyzed (ca. 30–40 lines on average). His analysis is concise, offering a brief explication of selected Aristotelian lines rather than a line-by-line interpretation (as, for example, Eustratios of Nikaia does).
The source text, Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, a work devoted to happiness as the goal of a complete human life (eudaimonia), needs no introduction. While Aristotle’s ideas on human flourishing through the cultivation of virtues occupy a prominent position in contemporary debates, there is also a long tradition of premodern commentaries with the one at hand being the most “recent”:
- Aspasios’ commentaries on Books 1–4 and 7–8 (second century AD).
- Anonymous scholia to Books 2–5 (end of the second century AD).
- Eustratios of Nikaia (ca. 1050–ca.1120), commentaries on Books 1 and 6.
- Michael of Ephesos (ca. 1060–1130/1135), commentaries on Books 5, 9 and 10.
- Anonymous Commentary on Book 7 (thirteenth century).
- George Pachymeres, commentaries on Books 1–6 (ca. 1300). The author’s plan was to comment on the NE as a whole but the text that we have ends abruptly after NE 6.2, probably due to the loss of its last quire(s).
Since the first list of all of Pachymeres’ works and their editions, including the (then unknown) present text,[1] there have been important developments in scholarship focusing on Pachymeres’ philosophical work. Apart from his Philosophia,[2] which offered an introduction to the essential elements of Aristotelian thought in the form of a synopsis, Pachymeres also wrote running commentaries on the six treatises of the Organon, the Physics, the Metaphysics, On the Parts of Animals and the Nicomachean Ethics that are more specialized and show more clearly his philosophical teaching. Accordingly, the present commentary presupposes familiarity with the main topics of other Aristotelian works such as On the Soul, Physics, and Metaphysics. The references to these works show that Pachymeres’ students must have been relatively advanced in their studies or at least not complete beginners.
Pachymeres’ text has been preserved in three manuscripts:
a) Marcianus gr. Z 212 (= 606), ff. 1r–44v, fifteenth century, in the margin of the Nicomachean Ethics, copied by Bessarion before 1440.
b) Scorialensis T. I. 18 (gr. 138), ff. 1r–74v, from the mid-sixteenth century.
c) Vaticanus gr. 1429, ff. 1r–76v, from the second half of the sixteenth century.
Textual criticism shows that the third manuscript is an apograph of the second and the second an apograph of the first; so, the present edition rightly relies exclusively on Bessarion’s copy.
Xenophontos’ comprehensive introduction illuminates the background against which the text was produced and convincingly demonstrates Pachymeres’ “determined efforts as educator to place ancient philosophy and science firmly on the agenda of late Byzantine learning” (p. XX). Perhaps the element of moral didacticism is overly emphasized in the introduction to the detriment of the philosophical value of the commentary as an exegesis of the Aristotelian text. In my opinion, this emphasis somewhat obscures the answer to the question whether the commentary should be seen as “secondary literature” to Aristotle’s text. Indeed, it should be seen as such, given that Pachymeres’ focus on philosophical explication is clear and his shift to moral didacticism rare.[3] There are, of course, elements of “Christianization” at work here, but there is, at the same time, the reverse, namely an Aristotelianization, as it were, of characteristically Christian virtues. The following two passages illuminate both moves.
λέγουσι δὲ τοῦτο πάντες εὐδαιμονίαν, καὶ οἱ τυχόντες καὶ οἱ σοφοί […]. καὶ λοιπὸν οἱ τοιοῦτοι οὐδένα τῶν ἐν κακουχίαις εὐδαιμόνων καὶ ἀγαθῶν μακαρίζουσιν. […] ἔξεστι δέ, λέγω, καὶ εὖ ζῆν καὶ εὖ πράττειν καὶ λυπουμένους καὶ πενομένους καὶ μὴ τιμὴν ἔχοντας, ἀγαθῶς καὶ ὡς δεῖ διάγοντας· μᾶλλον δέ, ἵν’ ἀκριβῶς εἴποιμι, οὐδὲ λύπη τῶν τοιούτων ἅπτεται ἀεὶ χαιρόντων κατὰ τὸ «πάντοτε χαίρετε»· εἰς τοῦτο γὰρ ἀποβλέψας εἶπε τὸν λόγον ὁ λέξας.
Everyone says that this is happiness, both ordinary people and the wise […]. And furthermore, such people do not deem anyone happy who seems prosperous and good but is in a miserable situation. […] But it is possible, I say, to both live well and fare well while being in grief and poor and lacking honour, so long as one is leading one’s life admirably and as one must. Or rather, in order that I might speak accurately, no distress affects persons of the sort who are always rejoicing in accordance with the saying “Rejoice at all times!” (Thessalonians 5, 16–18). For this is what the man who pronounced these words [i.e., saint Paul] had in mind.
Pachymeres, In EN 1, 3, 8.9–17
This passage attests to the first move, where the attitude towards external goods, such as wealth and honor, as well as toward things that are beyond “what is up to us” and are controlled by moral luck, is a case in point of “the transformation of the source text by the commentator” (p. L). After all, Aristotle would not agree with the denial of their importance for human happiness (although he does think they are less important than the goods of the soul, namely the virtues). However, this is a brief and rare intervention . Interestingly, Pachymeres also does the reverse, as the following passage shows.
Περὶ τοῦ ἀνθρωπίνου ἀγαθοῦ προθέμενος διδάσκειν, ὅπερ καὶ ἐν ἑνί τινι εὕρηται καὶ ἐν πόλει, ἀπιδὼν πρὸς τὰς ἀρετὰς τοῦ ἤθους, ὡς οὐκ ἐν μονώτῃ συστῆναι δύνανται, ἀλλὰ πρός τινας καὶ πρὸς πλῆθος. αὗται γὰρ κυρίως καὶ ἠθικαὶ ἀρεταί· τί γὰρ ἡ μεγαλοπρέπεια, ἢν διάγῃ τις ἐν ὄρει, καὶ τί ἡ φιλία, ἢν μονώτης ᾖ, καὶ τί ἡ ἀλήθεια, εἰ μὴ πρός τινά τις διαλέγεται; νηστεία δὲ καὶ σιωπὴ καὶ ἐγκράτεια καὶ τὸ τὰ πάντα περιφρονεῖν μονώτιδες ἀρεταί, μηδὲν πρὸς τὸν ἀνθρώπινον βίον καὶ τὸ τούτου τέλος συντελοῦσαι, εἰ μή γε καὶ αὗται τῶν ἀρετῶν ἕνεκα τῶν πρὸς ἐκεῖνο τὸ τέλος εἰσίν.
After setting out to offer instruction concerning the human good, which can be found both in an individual person and in a city, he turns his attention to the virtues of character, since they cannot be found in a solitary existence, but rather with reference to groups of persons or a multitude. For these are properly the moral virtues. Indeed, what is magnificence, if one spends one’s time in the mountains? What is friendship, if one is isolated? And what is truth, if one converses with no one? Fasting, silence, temperance, and despising everything are solitary virtues, which contribute nothing to human life and its end, unless in fact they exist for the sake of the virtues aimed at that end.
Pachymeres, In EN 1, 2, 4.13–19
Although Pachymeres does not refer explicitly to the Politics in his commentary on the NE, the passage shows that he follows Aristotle’s view that the two are parts of a single inquiry, just as the good of the individual is part of the good of the political community. Indeed, Pachymeres’ emphasis on the polis as an organized community providing the space for the cultivation and exercise of virtues is present not just in this passage but seems to be characteristic of his reading of the NE as a whole. In short, the second passage shows that he distances himself from the harsh ascetic ideals that were prominent in his time[4] and intends to urge students to think critically by posing a series of questions that could well count as an Aristotelian-minded critique of the more radical versions of Christian virtues.
The English translation of the text is among the commendable achievements of the volume as it is both precise and readable.[5] All in all, the volume is well-produced and deserves the attention of scholars and students who are interested in enhancing their understanding of Aristotle’s practical philosophy as well as of those who are interested in familiarizing themselves with Byzantine philosophy.
Notes
[1] P. Golitsis (2007), “Georges Pachymère comme didascale. Essai pour une reconstitution de sa carrière et de son enseignement philosophique”, Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 58: 53–68, at 64–66. Prior to this article, the commentary under consideration was erroneously listed in library catalogues as Book 9 of Pachymeres’ Philosophia.
[2] Book 9 of the Philosophia contains a paraphrase of the NE and is published by K. Oikonomakos (ed.) (2005), Γεώργιος Παχυμέρης: Φιλοσοφία. Βιβλίον ἑνδέκατον: Τὰ Ἠθικά, ἤτοι τὰ Νικομάχεια, Athens.
[3] Here are two brief examples of his refined distinctions that demonstrate his attentiveness to the precise use of philosophical terminology: (a) explaining why Aristotle uses γίνεται instead of ἐστι at NE 1.7, 1098a16: “he did not say that the human good ‘is’ an activity of soul in accord with virtue, but, in order to represent the active component of the activity, he says ‘it turns out to be’ [an activity of soul in accord with virtue].” (In EN 1, 10, 24.5–7); and (b) introducing the distinction between συμπληρωτικά and ἀναπληρωτικά goods (In EN 1, 13, 30.4–12 and 1, 11, 26.22–23 respectively), which is close to what we today call “constitutive” and “external/instrumental” goods with regard to happiness. The two terms are not equivalent as is implied on p. LIX.
[4] See P. Golitsis (2009), “La date de composition de la Philosophia de Georges Pachymère et quelques précisions sur la vie de l’auteur”, Revue des Études Byzantines 67: 209–215.
[5] I note here only a couple of minor issues: (a) at In EN 1, 7, 18.8–10, Pachymeres refers to Metaphysics Δ where Aristotle says περὶ τῶν πολλαχῶς λεγομένων. Its rendering as “about much-debated subjects” is misleading and the standard translation “about things that are said in many ways” would be preferable. (b) at In EN 3, 6, 104.19–21, Pachymeres praises Aristotle for his methodology in a direct apostrophe: “My compliments to you, Aristotle, for this particular insight, since you made it your target to investigate what choice is. And when you rejected the other [options] and discovered wish as that which most closely resembled it, you began to examine the objects of deliberation.” My addition in bold corresponds to τὴν βούλησιν in the original, which was left untranslated.