James Wilberding & Julia Trompeter, Alberto Rigolio, <i> Michael of Ephesus, On Aristotle’s

Nichomachean Ethics 10; Themistius, On Virtue</i>, London: Bloomsbury, 2019. Pp. 276. ISBN
978-1-3500-8507-7. £ 85.00.

Reviewed by Michele Trizio. Università degli Studi di Bari “Aldo Moro”. michele.trizio@uniba.it.

<u n=https://books.google.it/books?id=P5V9DwAAQBAJ>Preview</u>

This wonderfully produced book brings together the English translations of Michael of Ephesus’
commentary on <i>Nicomachean Ethics</i> 10 and of Themistius’ philosophical oration <i> On
Virtue</i> for the well-known and renowuned Bloomsbury series ‘The Ancient Commentator on
Aristotle’. In the footsteps of the earlier volumes in this series, the English translations of both these
texts are prefaced by textual and historical introductions to the texts and authors, and are followed
by a rich apparatus of notes, bibliography, and glossary. In what follows I will first review the first
part of the volume containing Wilberding’s and Troumpeter’s translation of Michael’s commentary,
and then I will discuss Rigolio’s translation of Themistius’ <i>On Virtue</i>.

Michael of Ephesus is a shadowy figure in Byzantine philosophy. While hHis biography is largely
unknown, but his extant works suggest he was one of the most prolific Aristotle commentators in
the Greek Middle Ages. In the first chapter of their introduction to Michael’s commentary,
Wilberding and Troumpeter diligently collect the [diffuse/scantfew] informations on Michael’s life
and work and rightly locate Michael’s scholarship on Aristotle after 1118, the year of the death of
emperor Alexios Komnenos. This latter event was the turning point in the life of Alexios’ daughter,
the princess historian Anna Komnena. In fact, as Robert Browning has demonstrated in a 1962
trailpathbreaking article, Anna took heris father’s death as the opportunity for entering
philosophical life and for supporting scholars, such aslike Michael, in producing commentaries on
Aristotelian works upon which no commentary had existed so far [[1]]. To their presentation of
Michael I can only add a few remarks on Michael’s background and works.

With regard to the claim that, in light of the presence of technical medical vocabulary in his works,
Michael may have been a physician [[2]], one should keep in mind that it was rather common for
Byzantine philosophers of this period to receive a medical education as well [[3]]. With regard to
the list of Michael’s commentaries, it should be added that according to recent scholarship it is not
sure wheeather Michael’s produced a full scale commentary on Aristotle’s Politics or just isolated
scholia on some passages of it [[4]]. Also, there is a scholion to Nicomachus of Gerasa’s
<i>Introduction to Arithmetics</i> (1.23.15 ed. Hoche) transmitted in ms. <i>Ambr.gr.</i> G 62
sup. (Martini-Bassi 404) at ff. 65v-66r together with two other scholia on the same passage by the
well-known Eustratios of Nicaea and the obscure Nicholas Disypathos, here qualified as judge
(<i>krites</i>). Even Although these scholia have beenare known since Tannery [[5]], theyir
existence have largely gone unnoticed [[6]]. I obtained a digital reproduction of the folia of this
manuscript and I can indeed confirm Tannery’s finding. I doubt, however, that Michael composed a
full commentary on Nicomachus. On the contrary, he and his fellows Eustratios and (probably)
Nicholas Disypathos were probably invited by their students to write a single note on a difficult
passage of the text. That is why, I believe, the three scholia have come down to us together.

The next two chapters in the introduction dicuss the issue of Michael’s allegiance to Neoplatonism.
The authors show a distinct awareness of the contemporary debatestate of the art on this issue and
adopt a prudently approach that takes into account for both the presence of neoplatonic vocabulary
in Michael’s commentary on <i>Nicomachean Ethics 10</i> and, at the same time, the lack of an
inconsistency in adopting actual neoplatonic standpoints (and sometimes even the rejection of some
of these standpoints). Julia Troumpeter furthers the authors’ approach to Michael’s Neoplatonism
by taking into consideration Michael’s discussion of Aristotelian happiness in book X of the
Aristotelian work at hand. From her discussion it appears clear that, on the one hand, Michael mixes
Platonic and Aristotelian elements,; but, on the other hand, he never constructsbuilds up a Platonic
or Neoplatonic framework for Aristotle’s theory of contemplative happiness.

GenerallyAll in all, I believe that when dealing with the issue of Michael’s philosophical profile,
one must take into consideration each commentary individually. In fact Michael’s profile appears to
be chameleon-liketic in that it depends very closely upon the sources he utilizes. He may appear
more a Neoplatonist in his commentary on <i> Metaphysics 7-14</i>, where Michael depends upon
Syrianus [[7]], whereas in his zoological works, where he depends upon Alexander of Aphrodisias,
he looks more a Peripatetic [[8]]. It seems to me that in his commentaries on <i>Nicomachean
Ethics</i> 5, 9 and 10 Michael is motivatedmoved by the intention of to provideing readers with a
safe and sound explanation of the Aristotelian text without leading the readers astray. Therefore,at
is why in these commentaries Michael’s [occasionally/randomly] appeal to Neoplatonic souce-
material is more randomic and never leads the author to introduce elements radically alien to the
Aristotelian text. I can only add that Michael’s reluctance at pledging allegiance to Neoplatonism is
even more evident when compared with the resolute adoption of neoplatonic standpoints by
Michael’s fellow Eustratios of Nicaea who, contrary to Michael, laboriouslymakes everything he
can to frames his commentaries on <i>Nicomachean Ethics</i> 1 and 6 within a neoplatonic system
[[9]].

I would be amiss to not brieflyA few words comment on how the translators established the Greek
text as a basis for their translation. Usually translators of the ‘Ancient Commentators on Aristotle’
series rely on the critical apparatus of the Greek texts of the ‘Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca’
series for discussing variant readings that may improve the text. However, in the case of Michael’s
commentary on <i>Nicomachean Ethics</i> 10 this is not possible. In fact, Heylbut’s 1892 edition
of the Greek-Byzantine commentaries on <i>Nicomachean Ethics</i> is based only on a single
manuscript (B), the fourteenth-century Paris Coisl. 161 (wrongly listed by the translators as
eleventh-century) and on the text of the Aldine edition (a). However, as Mercati already in 1915 has
demonstrated [[10]], the text of B possibly witnesses a later recensio of the text and is often
defective. Thus Mercati suggested to rely on the earlier Vat.gr. 269 – a manuscript that transmits a
recension of the text different than that of B – for improving the text of B. The problem is,
however, that in order to use ms. Vat.gr. 269 consistently one would need to establish the stemma
codicum of the text for determining the place and role of this manuscript in the transmission of the
text. Wilberding and Trompeter are aware of this problem. Accordingly, they accepted relying on
ms. Vat.gr. 269 but confined themselves to a limited number of cases where the text of B is most
probably corrupted or defective. I must say that, while waiting for a full-scale study on the text
tradition of the corpus of Greek-Byzantine commentaries on <i>Nicomachean Ethics</i>, I find
myself in agreement with the translators’ minimalist approach.

The final result of the translators’ philology on the text is a translation very clear and pleasant to
read. The notes to the text are extremely helpful and even take even into account the problem of the
Greek text of <i>Nicomachean Ethics</i>Aristotle that Michael had in front of him.

The second and shorter part of this volume contains the first annotated English translation of a
philosophical oration attributed to Themistius (ca. 317–388 CE) and transmitted in Syriac with the
title of <i>On Virtue</i>. As the translator of the text, Alberto Rigolio, rightly points out, the
<i>On Virtue</i> is not unknown to previous scholarship, but it has figured only marginally in
modern scholarship [[11]]. By contrast, Rigolio’s rich and learned introduction to the translated text
makes a very strong case for regarding the <i>On Virtue</i> as an important witness on late-
antique philosophy and on Themistius’ contribution to fourth-century philosophical debates in the
Greek-speaking world.

To start with, Rigolio provides a very useful overview on the structure and content of the text. Then
he goes on with a very rich description of the philosophical content of Themistius’ philosophical
oration. According to Rigolio, one the one hand the text is to be regarded as a sample of late-antique
literary appropriation of Ancient Cynicism comparable to that of authors such as Lucian, Maximus
of Tyre and even the Emperor Julian; on the other hand, the <i>On Virtue</i> differs from similar
literature from the same period in that it does not merely elaborate a literary portrait of cynicism,
but rather vehicolates authentic philosophical contents. In fact, as previous literature suggests,
Themistius’s knowledge of ancient Cynicism was not simply anectodotalical, but originated from
the author’s actual knowledge of Ccynic literature [[12]]. As a matter of fact Themistius’ <i>On
Virtue</i> endorses the traditional <i>topos</i> of philosophy as a road leading to happiness and,
accordingly, compares Epicureanism, Plato and Aristotle’s view and Cynicism with regard to the
acquisition of happiness. While admitting that all these roads are useful and advantageous,
Themistius advances the intriguing view that Cynic philosophy is superior in that it identifies virtue
as the only Good [[13]]. With regard to Themistius’ praise of Cynic philosophy, Rigolio
reconstructs in details its relevance from the point of view of Themistius’ philosophy and
underlines, among its most telling feature, that the <i>On Virtue</i> makes no reference to
Stoicism as a road to happiness nor to the Platonic philosophy as separate from the Aristotelian one.

As for the dating of the <i>On Virtue</i>, Rigolio proposes to consider spring 362 as a tentative
date for the composition of the text. His arguments, although not definitive, appear nevertheless
sound and reasonable given the present information on Cynic philosophy in Late-Antiquity. In
particular Rigolio points at the overlaps in content and arguments with two orations delivered by the
Emperor Julian around the same period, in which Julian harshly criticizes contemporary cynics for
not matching the level of true Cynic philosophy [[14]]. As it is known to specialists, Julian and
Themistius were at odd with each others and surely Themistius must have felt his prominence at
court in danger. Rigolio accepts the established chronology for Julian’s two orations against the
cynics – March 362 and June 362 respectively – and accordingly suggests a dating of the <i>On
Virtue</i> in the same period. If this is the case, clearly Themistius endorsed Julian’s praise of what
he thought to be the authentic Cynic philosophy, with the difference that Themistius allows the
existence of other roads – the Epicurean and the Peripatetic ones – which, although less perfect,
were equally worth of consideration, whereas Julian on the contrary thought that all philosophical
schools of his time were to be considered as manifestations of one and the same philosophical and
religious wisdom. In other words, Themistius’ <i>On Virtue</i> made a case against Julian’s
contruction of his Hellenic orthodoxy. , Aalthough in general his Themistius’ praise of Cynic
philosophy accommodates to Julian and his effort to praise authentic Cyninicism, yetbut he does not
failrenounce to introduce, politely, a critique ofto Julian’s project.

A few notes on Rigolio’s translation of the <i>On Virtue</i>. The peculiarity of this oration is that
it survives only in Syriac. As Rigolio makes it clear in his introduction, one should not expect athe
text is not a word by word translation from Greek into Syriac, but rather a free translation from the
original Greek. Rigolio has done a wonderful job in explaining very carefully to readers
unacquainted with Syriac translations of Greek philosophical works how the translators’ peculiar
way of rendering the original Greek into Syriac has affected the text. Rigolio’s has based his
English translation on Sachau’s edition of the text [[15]], although he also could benefit from
textual emendation from other specialists in Syriac literature [[16]]. The final result is a translation
very fluent and pleasant to read which Rigolio completes with an excellent set of historical and
philological notes. I am confident that this English translation of <i>On Virtue</i> will finally
make accessible to the wider readership of English-speaking students of Late-Antiquity a text
otherwise almost unknown and understudied.

All in all, the volume under review is a welcome addition to the Ancient Commentators on Aristotle
series. It is hoped that the presence in one and the same volume of a medieval Greek commentary
and of a text transmitted in a language other than Greek opens the way to the inclusion in this
prestigious series of more texts like the ones published in the volume.

[[1]] See R. Browning, ‘An Unpublished Funeral Oration on Anna Comnena’, <i>Proceedings of
the Cambridge Philological Society</i> 8 (1962): 1-12.
[[2]] The source is K. Praechter, ‘Review of Michaelis Ephesii In libros De partibus animalium’,
<i>Göttingische gelherte Anzeigen</i> 168 (1906): 861-907, at 863-864.
[[3]] See H. Hohlweg, La formazione culturale e professionale del medico a Bisanzio
<i>Koinonia</i> 13 (1989): 165-188.
[[4]] See M. Curnis, ‘La <i>Politica</i> di Aristotele tra Michele Efesio e Demetrio Petrizzopulo’,
<i>Erytheia. Revista de estudios bizantinos y neogriegos</i> 37 (2016): 247-299.
[[5]] See O.P. Tannery, ‘Rapport sur une mission en Italie’, <i>Archives des missions scientifiques
et littéraires</i>, 13 (1888): 405-455, at 453.
[[6]] With the exception of I. Nesseris, <i>Higher Education in Constantinople in twelfth-
century</i>, 2014 (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, in Greek), 286-287.
[[7]] See C. Luna, <i>Trois études sur la tradition des commentaires anciens a la ‘Metaphysique’
d’Aristote</i>, Leiden 2011.
[[8]] See P. Donini, ‘Il <i>De anima</i> di Alessandro di Afrodisia e Michele Efesio’, <i>Rivista
di Filologia e di Istruzione Classica</i>, 96 (1968): 316-323.
[[9]] See e.g. M. Trizio, ‘Eleventh- to twelfth-century Byzantium’, in S. Gersh (ed.), <i>Interpreting
Proclus from Antiquity to Renaissance</i>, Cambridge 2014, pp. 186-225, at 190-201.
[[10]] G. Mercati, ‘Fra i commentatori greci di Aristotele’, <i>Mélanges d'archéologie et
d'histoire</i>, 35 (1915): 191-219.
[[11]] For example there is an earlier Italian translation, in M. Conterno, <i>Temistio Orientale</i>,
Brescia 2014. Other mentions of the <i>On Virtue</i> have been diligently recorded at p. 227 nt. 1
of the volume under review.
[[12]] See A. Brancacci, ‘Temistio e il cinicismo’, <i>Elenchos</i>, 21.2 (2000): 381-396.
[[13]] On this subject, see S. Prince, ‘Antisthenes and the Short Route to Happiness’, in P. Bosman
(ed.), <i>Ancient Routes to Happiness</i>, Pretoria 2017: 73-96.
[[14]] See the excellent A. Marcone, ‘The Forging of an Hellenistic Orthodoxy. Julian Speeches
against the Cynics’, in N. Bake-Brian and S. Thougher (eds), <i>Emperor and Author: The
Writings of Julian the Apostate</i>, Swansea 2012, pp. 239-250.
[[15]] E. Sachau (ed.), <i>Inedita Syriaca</i>, Halle 1870
[[16]] Cf. e.g. T. Nöldeke, ‘Review of Sachau (ed.), <i>Inedita Syriaca</i>, <i>Zeitschrift der
Deutschen Morgendländischen Gesellschaft</i> 25 (1871): 282-287.