Im 12. Jahrhundert ging in Byzanz eine bemerkenswerte Blute des Aristotelismus von einem philosophischen Zirkel aus, den die vom politischen Leben ausgeschlossene Kaisertochter Anna Komnene unterhielt. Eustratios von Nikaia und Michael von Ephesos arbeiteten zusammen an einem Kommentar zur Nikomachischen Ethik im Auftrage Annas. Eustratios kommentierte die Bucher I und VI, Michael von Ephesos die Bucher V, IX und X. Ausserdem liegen von Michael mehrere Kommentare zur Naturphilosophie des Aristoteles vor, wahrend wir von Eustratios den hier wiedergegebenen Kommentar zu Buch (...) II der Analytica posteriora besitzen. Die lateinische Ubersetzung des Posteriora-Kommentars (zusammen mit einer kurzen anonymen Erklarung des Werkes) durch den Mediziner Andrea Grazioli leitete eine neue Epoche in der Deutung der aristotelischen Wissenschaftstheorie ein. (shrink)

This paper explores the similarities between a crucial passage in Robert Grosseteste’s commentary on Posterior Analytics and the commentary on Nicomachean Ethics 6 written by the Byzantine commentator Eustratius of Nicaea (d. ca. 1120). According to the present author, Eustratius may be the direct source of Grosseteste’s epistemology and concept formation theory in the commentary. A tentative revision of the chronology of Grosseteste’s Greek studies may be necessary to account for the relationship between the two texts.

The article investigates Eustratius of Constantinople's version of the life and martyrdom of the late sixth-century martyr, Golinduch, in the context of the manipulation of saints' cults and relics by the imperial government under Emperor Maurice. Composed on the eve of Phocas's putsch, Eustratius's Life of Golinduch displays how a rhetoric of saintly intercession on behalf of the 'God-guarded' Christian empire was deployed in order to strengthen the sacredness of imperial authority. Crucially, however, Eustratius's text also reveals (...) how far this vision of the empire's sainted benefactors was contested at Constantinople. The paper argues that this reflects a current of opposition to the ideology of Christian autocracy that had been emerging since the time of Justinian. (shrink)

There is agreement neither concerning the point that is being made in Posterior analytics 96b15–25 nor the issue Aristotle intends to address. There are two major lines of interpretation of this passage. According to one, sketched by Themistius and developed by Philoponus and Eustratius, Aristotle is primarily concerned with determining the definitions of the infimae species that fall under a certain genus. They understand Aristotle as arguing that this requires collating definitional predictions, seeing which are common to which species. (...) Pacius, on the other hand, takes Aristotle to be saying that a genus is studied scientifically through first determining the infimae species that fall under that genus. This interpretation attributes to Aristotle a distinction between primary and derivative subjects. I argue for Pacius’s interpretation, defending it against Barnes’s objections.Author Keywords: Demonstration; Definition; Aristotle; Species; Principles. (shrink)

L'article traite l'analyse que fait Thomas d'Aquin de la remarque faite par Aristote que, si il est estimé en termes de biens minimaux, le bonheur naturel comme auto-suffisant peut être augmenté. L'analyse de l'Aquinate est comparée avec de semblables analyses par Eustratius et Albert le Grand. Celle de Thomas semble comprendre l'auto-suffisant comme ne nécessitant rien dans le sens de ne manquant rien de ce qui est nécessaire pour la vie humaine. Deux sens des nécessités de la vie sont (...) ici proposés. L'article examine ensuite la relation entre la tempérance et les nécessités de la vie pour montrer que l'Aquinate admet une certaine classe de plaisirs non nécessaires qui sont une sorte de biens minimaux rendant le bonheur comme auto-suffisant meilleur s'ils s'y ajoutent. Enfin, l'article conclut en montrant que Thomas tient de façon cohérente que le bonheur naturel comme auto-suffisant est strictement compris dans le bonheur naturel en tant que bien parfait et final. (shrink)