The Byzantine reception of Aristotle’s Rhetoric: the 12th century Renaissance

In this paper, I argue that, after centuries of neglect, a revival of interest towards Aristotle’s Rhetoric took place in 12 century Constantinople, which led to the production of a number of commentaries. In order to give an overview of the commentary tradition on the Rhetoric, I examine first the surviving extant commentaries themselves, then the information that the commentators offer regarding their preceding interpretations, and last the traces of commentaries on the Rhetoric found in other treatises. This examination will show that, at least within a specific group of scholars, the Rhetoric was studied and commented upon like never before. Finally, I attempt to explain this revival of interest, especially with respect to the role that philosophical and rhetorical education played in 12th century Byzantium. Adresse: Dr. Melpomeni Vogiatzi, Munich School of Ancient Philosophy, LMU Lehrstuhl für Philosophie VI, Geschwister-Scholl-Platz 1, 80539 München, Deutschland; melinavogiatzi@gmail.com The question regarding the reception of Aristotle’s Rhetoric in the late antique and Byzantine period has been raised before. As early as 1865, H. Usener published an article on the reception of this Aristotelian treatise, and concluded that it was ignored by scholars of the late antique flourishing of Aristotelian studies, and also during Byzantium. In fact, he argues that aside from the two extant commentaries on the treatise, all references to the ancient commentary tradition on the Rhetoric refer to scholars who worked not on Aristotle’s text, but rather on other late antique rhetorical treatises. Similarly, more recent studies, have argued that the treatise was studied neither by philosophers nor by rhetoricians in late antiquity, and that the existing Byzantine commentaries do not indicate in themselves any change in interest, since the commentators focus on the same topics as the ones studied by the rhetoricians of late I would like to thank the Munich School of Ancient Philosophy, especially Prof. Peter Adamson and Prof. Christof Rapp for their recommendations and support. Also, I am indebted to Prof. Dieter Harlfinger and Dr. Nikos Agiotis and the anonymous referees for their feedback on this paper. DOI 10.1515/bz-2020-0045 BZ 2020; 113(3): 1069–1088

The question regardingt he reception of Aristotle's Rhetoric in the late antique and Byzantine period has been raised before. As earlya s1 865, H. Usener publishedanarticle on the reception of this Aristotelian treatise, and concluded that it was ignored by scholars of the late antiquef lourishing of Aristotelian studies, and also during Byzantium. In fact,h ea rgues that aside from the two extant commentaries on the treatise, all references to the ancient commentary tradition on the Rhetoric refert os cholars who worked not on Aristotle'st ext, but rather on other late antique rhetorical treatises. Similarly, more recent studies, have argued that the treatise wass tudied neither by philosophersn or by rhetoricians in late antiquity,a nd that the existing Byzantine commentaries do not indicate in themselvesa ny changei ni nterest,s ince the commentators focus on the samet opics as the ones studied by the rhetoricians of late antiquity.¹ Therefore, accordingtothe communis opinio on the reception of Aristotle's Rhetoric in Byzantium, the treatise was largely neglected by academic and intellectual circles,w ith the existing Byzantine commentaries on the treatise being single instances of interest in it,a nd even these being texts of no philosophical value writtenb ya uthors with mainlyp ractical interests (in line with their contemporary rhetorical tradition).
Against this communis opinio,Iwill show that scholarlyinterest in Aristotelian rhetorical theory,which largely disappeared prior to the Byzantine period, revivedi nt he 12th centurya nd produced an umber of commentaries written by Aristotelian scholars. HereImean scholars whose exegetic strategya imed at interpreting Aristotle ex Aristotele in order to highlight the Rhetoric'scompatibility with the other Aristotelian treatises.I no rder to sketch the history of the commentary tradition as it pertains to Aristotle's Rhetoric during Byzantium, I will first give an outline of the surviving Byzantine commentaries on the text. Iw ill then supplement this list of existing commentaries with some evidence for the existenceo fa dditional commentaries on the Rhetoric.

Anonymous andS tephanus on Aristotle's Rhetoric
The onlye xisting commentaries on Aristotle's Rhetoric are the ones that have been edited in the series Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca (vol. 21.2,e d. Rabe), twoo fw hich are extant,i nt hatt hey cover the whole treatise, whereas other two have come down to us in fragmentary form. As mentioned above, the general consensus regardingt hese commentaries is that they are texts of no philosophical import,w ritten by authors thata re interestedi nr hetorical praxis rather than in philosophy. Therefore, ap resentation of the content and aim of the existing commentaries will not onlyg ivet he general context of the production of commentaries in the 12th century,b ut it will also challenget he communis opinio and demonstrate that the commentators are Aristotelianscholars, in the sense thatthey interpret Aristotle'srhetorical account on the basis of his own views as expressed in other treatises.
The first extant commentaries on Aristotle's Rhetoric thathavecome down to us are dated in the 12thc entury CE and are written in Constantinople by an Anonymous author and by an ancient commentator named Stephanus. Stephanus' identity has been amatter of studyand the commentator has been convincingly identifiedw ith Stephanus Skylitzes, the later metropolitan of Trebizond.² The identity of the Anonymous commentator is still am atter of controversy.I t has been long agos uggested, although not proven,³ thatt he author is no other than Michael of Ephesus,p robablyo nt he basis of ar eference to ac ommentary on the Rhetoric found in the commentary on the Sophistical Refutations that is usually attributed to Michael of Ephesus (CAG 2.3),⁴ as well as on the basis of ar eferencet oacommentary on the Rhetoric found in aB yzantine list of Michael'sw orks.⁵ Recently, C. Rambourg defended this suggestion and argued in favour of the identification of the Anonymous commentator with Michael of Ephesus, mainlyo nt he basis of analyzingm edicala nd zoological examples used in the commentary on the Rhetoric that indicate, as she argues, strongi nterest in medicinea nd biology.⁶ This interest fits, in her view,with our knowledge of Michael as ac ommentator on Aristotle'sb iological works and as ad octor.
However,n one of these arguments are enough to provet hat Michael is the author of the anonymous commentary on the Rhetoric. First and foremost,t he style, language, and philosophicalm aturity of the Anonymous author differs greatlyf rom thato fM ichael of Ephesus: expressions typical in Michael'sc ommentarieso no ther Aristotelian treatises are absent from the commentary on the Rhetoric,w hereas the most characteristic linguistic features of the Anonymous are absent from Michael. Moreover,the commentary on the Rhetoric differs  Both commentaries aree ditedi nH .R abe (ed.), Anonymi et Stephani in artem rhetoricam commentaria. CAG, /.B erlin .O nt he identity of Stephanus see W. Wolska-Conus,À propos des scholiesd eS téphanos àl aR hétorique d'Aristote: l'Auteur,l ' oe uvre, le milieu, in M. Berza (ed.), Actesd uX IVeC ongrès Internationald es Etudes Byzantines.B ucarest ,  -.A sConus has argued, the Aristotelian commentatorS tephanus is no other than Stephanus Skylitzes,the metropolitan of Trebizond. The monodyonh im written by his pupil Theodoros Prodromos is ag ood source of information regarding his life and career as at eacher of rhetoric at the school of Saint Paul, beforeh eb ecame metropolitan.  See Conley,A ristotle's Rhetoric (as footnote  above), .  In Soph. El., , : περὶ δὲ τῆς ἀτέχνου ταύτης πειραστικῆςκ α ὶἐ ντ ο ῖ ςε ἰ ςτ ὴ νῬ ητορικὴν πονηθεῖσι διειλήφειμεν.  Cod. Hieros. Patr.Taphou ,f . v: εἰςτ ὴ νῥ ητορικὴντ ο ῦἀ ριστοτέλους, τὸν ἐφέσιον.  C. Rambourg,Q u ' est-ceq ue le commentairea nonyme de CAGX XI ?, in F. Woerther (ed.), Commenting on Aristotle's Rhetoric from antiquity to the present. International Studies in the Historyo fR hetoric, .L eiden ,  -. greatlyw ith respect to style from all other existing commentaries thatM ichael wrote. Most importantlyo fa ll, the Anonymous' commentary does not seem to have the depth of Michael'sp hilosophicalt hought.⁷ Second, regarding Rambourg'sarguments, the Anonymous' use of medical examples, and in particular, examples that come from Galen'scorpus, are insufficient to provethat Michael is the author of the commentary,a nd indicate onlyt hatt he Anonymous' is acquainted with Galen. Third, the reference to the commentary on the Sophistical Refutations cannot offer certain ground for arguingfor the identity of the author, especiallyg iven thati ts attributiont oM ichael of Ephesus has recentlyc ome under scrutiny.⁸ The most one could inferi st hatt herew as ac ertain author who wroteacommentary on the Sophistical Refutations and the Rhetoric,without the further extrapolation that this commentary on the Rhetoric is the anonymous one. In fact,s ince the comparison of the two commentaries does not offer any positive results with respect to language, style, and content,weshould conclude that the twotexts have not been written by the sameauthor,regardless of who in fact authored the commentary on the Sophistical Refutations. Finally, the reference to Michael'sc ommentary found in the list of his works indicatede arlier, is alson ot secure, givent hatother lists of Michael'sc ommentaries do not mention the Rhetoric at all. However,evenifthe list is accurate and Michael has written ac ommentary on Aristotle's Rhetoric,this does not provet hat his commentary is the one that has come down to us as anonymous. Therefore, we can conclude thatthe author of the anonymous commentary is not Michael of Ephesus. This conclusion will be relevant for the next section of the paper,whereIwill go through the evidence of further commentaries written on Aristotle's Rhetoric and Iwill come back to the attribution of the commentary on the Sophistical Refutations to Michael.
After dealing with the question of authorship with respect to the commentaries, an examination of their style and content will shed further light on the context in which they werew ritten. Since my interests here are rather historical, I will focus onlyo nt he aspectso ft heir interpretation of Aristotle's Rhetoric that can be helpfulf or our evaluation of their purpose. As Im entioned in the introduction, the communis opinio usually regards these commentaries as being of no philosophical interest as being relevant mainlyfor the rhetorical practice of their time. However,Ibelievet hat this view undermines the commentaries' importance in the history of the Byzantine reception of Aristotle's Rhetoric and of Aristotle'sphilosophyingeneral. In particular,aprominent feature of both commentaries is the fact that they take Rhetoric to be al ogical treatise,a nd in fact one that presupposes doctrines expressed in Aristotle'sl ogical treatises.H ence, the Rhetoric is considered as being part of the Organon. The position of the Rhetoric into the Aristotelian corpus as part of the Organon has the following results: 1. It justifies the philosopher'soccupation with it.Itisnamely not due to its practical character,b ut duet oi ts philosophical significance thats tudents of philosophy should deal with it.2.I texplains up to acertain extent the fact thatthe Rhetoric has surviveduptoour day. In atime when more modernand more updated rhetorical treatisesw erea vailable, Aristotle's Rhetoric,s een as merelyh andbook of rhetorical praxis, would have probablygone lost.3 .I tindicateswhat the Byzantine commentators considered as belongingtothe part of Aristotle'sp hilosophy called logic. Although the Rhetoric is mentioned among the treatises of the Organon alreadyd uringl ate antiquity,⁹ it is for the first time in these twoB yzantine commentators that the Rhetoric'sc ontent is accepted and commented upon as contributingt oo ur understanding of Aristotle'sl ogic.¹⁰ The effort to ascribealogical character to the treatise is more obvious in the case of Stephanus,who advances his ideaofthe role of the treatise by commenting onlyo np assages thata re relevant to this purpose and by interpreting passages thatd on ot seem to be about argumentation as contributingt oa rgumentation. Therefore, the passages of the treatise that are most obviouslyconnected  See Olymp., Proleg., ,  -;Simpl., In Cat., ,  -;P hilop., In Cat., ,  -;Ammon., In Pr.An., ,  -.E lias, Proleg., ,  -; ,  -, ; In Cat., , ;D avid, Proleg., ,  -; ,  -, ;Ammonius, In Isag., ,  -.Onthe rhetorical use of the logical principles Cf. Philop., In Pr.An., , : καὶ οἱῥ ητορικοὶ συλλογισμοὶ διὰ τῶντ ριῶνσ χημάτων δείκνυνται.  Fori nstance, Olympiodorus divides the logical treatises of Aristotle into those which teach the logical method (Posterior Analytics), those that contributet othat method (Categories,DeInterpretatione, Prior Analytics)a nd those which demolisht he method (Sophistical Refutations, Topics,R hetoric,P oetics). In this division, although the content of Rhetoric is clearlyn ot accepted, its position within the Organon is justified: it describes the method of hidingt he truth not in order to use it,but in order to avoid it.H ence,the Rhetoric is part of the logical organon of philosophyinthe waythat the Sophistical Refutations or Topics is, namely, to teach about deceptive arguments and how to avoid them. Similarly, in their Prolegomena to Philosophy, both Elias and David enumerater hetorical errors, which arec orrected by philosophy. Rhetoric can therefore be used as a progymnasma or exercisef or philosophy, sincei tm akes use, on the one hand, of principles(proofs and divisions) that come fromp hilosophy.
to logic are interpreted with direct references to Aristotle'saccount in the Sophistical Refutations or Analytics,while passages from Aristotle'sa ccount of ethical definitions (Rhet.I .4 -14)a nd of style (Rhet. III) are neglected. Interestingly, he interprets the account of emotionsnot as referring to the arousal of the emotions in an audience, but as offering additional topoi for arguingf or the intentions of the person that commits an action (CAG XXI. 22 98,13).¹¹ Like Stephanus,t he Anonymous author is alsoi nterested in showing the consistencybetween the Rhetoric and other logical treatises,especially Prior Analytics,b ut unlikeS tephanus,t he Anonymous author offers am ore complete commentary by further interpreting passages that are not immediatelyconnected with Aristotle'st heory of argumentation. Hence, when logic does not come into play, he is satisfiedwith showingthe consistency of the rhetorical account with, for instance, the ethical account.Therefore, it seems that,while Stephanus' primary concern is to demonstrate that the Rhetoric is al ogical treatise,the Anonymous author'sprimary interest is interpretingAristotle ex Aristotele and thereby demonstratingt he ways in which the treatise relates to the views expressedi n other Aristoteliant reatises. This helps us also to draw conclusions regardingt he aim of the two commentaries. In particular,the extensive use of Aristotelian logical and ethical terminology, together with the recognition that in the commentator'st ime one could find an abundance of material on rhetoricalp ractice, lead us to the conclusion thatthe commentaries werenot written in order to be used as handbooks for oration, but rather with the intention of preservingthe treatise that has been rejected before.¹² The fact that commentaries make textual emendations and  Another indication for Stephanus' view that Rhetoric is part of the Organon is his use of diagrammaticrepresentationsofsyllogisms,which is typicallyseen in the byzantine commentaries on Aristotle'slogical treatises.See C. Rambourg,Les diagrammes syllogistiques des scholies de Stephanos àl aR hétorique d'Aristote (CAG .). Classica et Medievalia  (),  -.  This goes against the view in Conley,Aristotle'sRhetoric (as footnote  above), whoargues that both commentators werem orei nterested in topics that have been central in the preceding rhetorical treatises,s uch as the definition of the art of rhetoric, and in topics that arem orer elevant to their contemporary rhetorical practice,such as epideictic or legal oratory,which is also mirrored in their use of contemporary terminology,a nd hence,c oncludes, that "their interests (or their readers' interests) were not particularlyi ntellectual, but practical" (p. ). However, the fact that both commentators make extensive use of technical logicalvocabulary and presuppose that the readeri sw ell-acquainted with the Aristotelian philosophy, together with the fact that they areo ften interested in issues of textual transmissiono ft he text, indicates that they wrote their commentaries with rather intellectual interests,that is, aimingatpreservingthe treatise and at interpreting it in aw ay that integrates it intoA ristotle'sp hilosophical system. often supplyt he reader with information about previous interpretations of particular passages, further supports this conclusion. It seems, therefore, that the commentaries have not been written with the aim of immediate practical use the wayh andbooksf or oratory would have been, although it seems probable that they wereu sed as teachingm aterial. Especially, the fact that the treatise is interpreted with priority to its logical elements can also confirm this suspicion, if we accept that the studyofthe Rhetoric followed the studyofthe other logical treatises,a nd that the readers of the commentaries weret hereforew ell-acquainted with the terminologya nd concepts in Aristotle'st heory of argumentation.
The features indicated above, especiallyt he interpretation of the Rhetoric with reference to other Aristotelian treatises as well as the interest in preserving and improvingt he text are indications thatt he two commentaries are the products of the awakeningofA ristotelian studies in Byzantium, which took place in Constantinople under the patronage of Anna Comnene.¹³ Although it has been alreadybeen suggested that the commentators are associated with Anna'sinitiative,this suggestion has not been explicated or proven. However,aclose reading of the commentaries shows that their association with Anna'scircle can be demonstratednot onlythrough the fact that Annasupported the production of commentariesm ainlyo nt he Aristotelian treatises thath aveb eenn eglected before, among them the Rhetoric,b ut also through information that we can gather from the commentaries themselves. In particular,the profile of the twocommentators fits very well with what we know about the other scholars that belonged to this group:t hey have deep knowledge of the history of philosophya nd of Rhetoric and also refero ftent oc lassicala nd late antique treatises which they integrate into their interpretation of particularp assages taken from the Rhetoric. More importantly,bothhavev ery good knowledge of Peripatetic philosophy(especially of the Organon), while they are the authors of other commentaries on Aristotle'st reatisesa sw ell.¹⁴ This expertise in Aristotle and in the production of an umber of commentaries on the Aristotelian treatises,c orresponds with what we expect from scholars belongingt ot he circle of Anna Comnene. Moreover,apassaget hats eems to be autobiographical offers additional evidence for the Anonymous' association with Anna: The Anonymous commentator refers  On Anna'sp atronageo fB yzantine scholarship see R. Browning,A nu npublishedf uneral oration to Anna Comnene. Proceedings of the CambridgeP hilological Society  (),  -.  Stephanus explicitlyr efers to his own commentary to the Ethics,while the Anonymous author of the commentary to the Rhetoric must be identified with the again Anonymous author of the commentary to Nicomachean Ethics VII, as has been shown by Vogiatzi,Commentaries (as footnote  above)  -.
to aconflict for the acquisition of the throne, and suggests that he is associated with the losing party in this conflict (CAG 21.2 98,(23)(24)(25)(26)(27). Thism ay be ad irect referencet oA nna'sa ttempt to usurp the throne from her brother after their father'sdeath in 1118, and her failureindoing so, after which she confined herself to am onastery and began her engagement with Aristotelian scholarship.
What has been said so far regarding the two extant commentaries,g ives us the context of the production of commentaries on Aristotle's Rhetoric in 12thcentury Byzantium more generally. It ake our conclusionsf rom the examination of these two commentaries to be also applicable to the other cases of commenting on Aristotle's Rhetoric,a sf or instance, to the commentary and paraphrase that survivedinfragmentary form.¹⁵ In particular, these fragmentary texts on the last chapters of the third book of the treatise, which are dated alsointhe middle Byzantine period and might have been part of ac ommentary and paraphrase on the whole treatise or of the entire third book,¹⁶ exhibit the same interests and aims as the extant commentaries examined above. First,their authorsshow similar interests as the Anonymousa nd Stephanus in interpreting the treatise with referencet oo ther Aristotelian treatises,f or instance,tot he Nicomachean Ethics (327, 2; 329, 5), which can be an indication that the authorsbelonged to acertain school that studied the Rhetoric as part of asystematic curriculum that included the whole Aristotelian corpus. Second, the references to classicalauthorsare also abundant (Homer,P lato, Plutarch, Demosthenes, Euripides, Herodotus, Isocrates), which, as in the Anonymous author and Stephanus,i ndicatest hat we are dealing with typicalB yzantine scholars with interest in classical textsa nd late antiquity in its entirety.F inally, the author of the fragmentary commentary makes use of diagramsi no rder to illustrate the syllogisms, which are reminiscent of Stephanus' diagrammatic representations of Aristotelian rhetorical syllogisms¹⁷ and which point to the role thatthe author ascribed to the Rhetoric, namelya sb eing al ogical treatise.
It has alreadyb ecome clear that, Aristotle's Rhetoric was studied at least within the context of ag roup of scholars in Constantinople. It has alsob ecome clear that these scholars had in fact philosophical training,a nd hence, interpreted the Rhetoric with respect to its position within the Aristotelian philosophical system. What remains to be seen is whether even more commentaries (in addition to the four discussed so far)w ered edicatedt ot he Rhetoric in the 12th century,i nw hich case we could definitelyr ecognize ar evival of interest in the treatise during this period.
Commentatorsa nd teacherso fRhetoric in the 12th century Although no extant commentaries on Aristotle's Rhetoric have survivedb esides those written by the Anonymous author and by Stephanus,wec an draw some conclusions about the existenceo ft he teachers and the commentators that predate them based on information collected from the passages wherethe two commentators refert ot heir sources.
Iw ill startw ith Stephanus,w hose references to earlier interpreters of the Rhetoric give us also an indication of the relative dating of the two surviving commentaries. In particular, based on historical references found in the commentaries, we can infer that the anonymous commentary was writtene arlier than the one by Stephanus.¹⁸ Yett his dating is further supported by the observation that Stephanus seems to draw on the Anonymousa uthor and to refer to views expressed in his commentary.What remains unclear is whether it is the anonymous commentary itself that he has read or another text,which wassomehowr elated to the Anonymous author'sc ommentary (or maybei ts source). However,g iven the fact that Stephanus' reporto fe arlier commentaries often repeats the same vocabulary and examples that are found in the Anonymous' commentary,¹⁹ I find it more probable that Stephanus,w ho livedi nt he same time and in the same place as the Anonymous, has read -maybe among other commentaries -the Anonymous commentary itself and that it is this particular text that he addresses,o ra tl east group of texts,t ow hich the Anonymous' commentary belonged. Acloser examination of some of these passages can help in understanding whether Stephanus was aware of more thanone of the commentaries written before his own:  In particular,t he Anonymous,who livedi nC onstantinople in the first half of the  th century,wrote his commentary around  -,and hence precedes Stephanus,who composed his commentary in the years  -.S ee Vogiatzi,Commentaries (as footnote  above),  -;s ee also Wolska-Conus,S cholies (as footnote  above),  -. T. Hence, this has been interpreted well by me with the help of God, whereas the others wandered from the truth fully²⁰ (, ). T. And we made these clear as much as we could, leaving aside for now all the publishedinterpretations of this passagewritten by the philosophersbefore us²¹ (,  -). T. This [matter] has caused manyi ssues to our teachers and interpreters,but I believeImake it clear in the present occasion²² (, ). T. This statement also created confusion to the interpreters;b ut in this way, I believe, this will also be rightlyg rasped²³ (, ).
Upon closer inspection, we find thatS tephanus usuallyr efers to previous interpreters not to merelyr eporto nt he various readings of specific passages, but in order to criticize their interpretation. Fori nstance, in the above-cited passages, the commentator refers to previous exegeseis of the treatise to make clear how the previous scholars failed to understand the treatise correctly. First,anote should be made here regardingt he use of the termexegesis. Exegesis means literallyexplanation or interpretation and usuallyrefers to an extent text,that is, a full commentary of at reatise as opposed to ac omment on as ingle passage.²⁴ Byzantine commentators, among them Stephanus and -as we will see laterthe Anonymous author,r efer to their ownw ork as exegesis,a nd we can take this to mean their production of extent commentaries in aw ritten form. It is clear that the term exegesis refers to written commentaries as opposed with views expressed merelyi no ralf orm,f or instance those thata re within a class, when scrutinizing passages such as [T.3], where exegesis is contrasted with the work of teachers.M oreover,[ T.2] makes it clear thatt he interpretations that Stephanus refers to must be written commentaries, and in fact,p ublished ones (ἐκδεδομένας ἐξηγήσεις), in other words works that are widelyk nown or available. Second, we can turn to the main question that is relevant to our current purposes, and focus on the number of exegeseis that Stephanus has in mind.
 Καλῶς ἄρα τοῦτο ἐξήγηταί μοι σὺνθ ε ῷ ,τ ῶ νἄ λλων ἀποπλανηθέντων ὅλῳ πήχει τῆς ἀληθείας.  Καὶἐ σαφηνίσαμεν ταῦτα, ὡςδ ύ ναμις, παραλελοιπότες παντάπασι τὰς ἐνταῦθα τοῦ χωρίου τούτου παρὰ τῶνπ ρ ὸἡ μ ῶ νφ ιλοσόφων ἐκδεδομένας ἐξηγήσεις.  Τοῦτο πολλὰ πράγματα παρέσχε τοῖςδ ιδασκάλοις ἡμῶνκ α ὶἐ ξηγηταῖς· ἐγὼ δὲὡ ςἔ νι τὸ παρόν, ὡςο ἶ μαι, σαφηνίζω.  Καὶ τοῦτο τὸῥ ητὸντ αραχὴνπ εποίηκε τοῖς ἐξηγηταῖς· ἀλλ' οὕτω καὶ τοῦτο ὡςο ἶ μια κατορθωθήσεται.  This would be called scholion;s ee later on the Anonymous. Although we cannot sayf or sure how manyc ommentaries Stephanus had read and made use of when writing his own commentary,t he plural form that he uses for referringt oe arlier interpretations indicates that he has in mind more than one commentary.T he fact that he refers also to teachers shows that,a t least within ag roup of scholars, the Rhetoric was being taught,a ni nsight that enhancest he possibilityt hat more thano ne scholar worked on the treatise before Stephanus.Infact, most of his criticism of previous interpretations seems to be directed at the Anonymous commentary,o ra tl east to one of Anonymous' sources. However,t here are cases, for instance the passagei n[ T.1], wheret he criticized view is not found in the Anonymous text.T herefore, we can be sure that Stephanus read more than one commentary before writing his, and that he knew at least one of the teachers who taught Aristotle's Rhetoric.
syllogism.F or he says that first one needs to provet he thing through long arguments, and then to form syllogismsw ith shortera rguments²⁸ (,  -). T. The metropolitan interpreted thus: "antimimicking" in so far as the desire of the soul is contrarya nd counteracting to the wish of the body²⁹ (,  -).
As we see in the above-cited passages, the majority of Anonymous' references to his sources consist of simple reports of other views and not of evaluations or criticisms of these views. In other words, the commentator often cites previous interpretations of the treatise without statingw hether he agrees or disagrees with them. All in all, we find references to four types of sources. The passages [T.7]-[T.9]are examples of the first threetypes of sources: Anonymous' interpretations are said to come from acertain teacher or philosopher or ametropolitan and are cited as concrete views expressed by aparticular person.³⁰ In fact,Itake all three types to refer to the samep erson, since the commentator always uses the definite article when citing this teacher/philosopher/metropolitan, especially when reportingw hat "the teacher said," or what "the philosopher explained," which suggests thath ee xpected the reader to recognize the identityo ft his teacher or philosopher.
Regarding the content of these citations of earlier interpretations, the references to this earlier teacher/philosopher/metropolitan do not make use of terminologythatexplicitlyhints at written commentaries. More specifically, except for [T.8], to which Iwill come back later, there are no explicitreferences in the Anonymous to exegeseis,namely "published" or circulatingcommentaries,atleast of which the Anonymous knew.U nlikeS tephanus' commentary,w herew ef ound manyr eferences to ἐξηγηταί,n amelyt oa uthorso fw ritten textsd edicated to the Rhetoric,A nonymous refers to previous interpretations of particularp assages, but these interpretations are usuallyn ot said to be ἐξηγήσεις.The term exegesis is used by the Anonymous author mainlyw ith referencet oh is own work as ac ommentator (74, 5: ἔσφαλται δὲἄ νωθεν ἡμῖν ἡἐ ξ ή γησις), whereas his sourceissaid to have explained(ἡρμήνευσεν)the particularpassages. However,t he term hermeneia does not necessarilyr efert ow ritten commentaries rather than to views expressed orally. Although it might be the case that these interpretations wered elivered in the form of aw ritten text,wec annot be sure  Ὁ δὲ μητροπολίτης οὕτως ἡρμήνευσεν· ἀντίμιμον, καθ' ὅσον ἡ τῆςψ υχῆς ἐπιθυμία ἐναντία ἐστὶ καὶἀ ντιπράττουσα τῇἐ πιθυμίᾳ καὶ τῷ θελήματι τοῦ σώματος.  Unlike Stephanus' vaguereferences to "teachers" and "interpreters",the Anonymous seems to have in mind particular scholars,whomt he reader would probablyr ecognise. yet. What we can be sure of, is that there is at least one person that worked on Aristotle's Rhetoric and offered an interpretation of at least some passages, if not of the whole treatise, while this teacherm ight alsob et he author of aw ritten commentary on the treatise.Moreover,these references to ateacher further confirm the suspiciont hat Aristotle's Rhetoric was being taught in rhetoricala nd philosophical schools before or at the Anonymous' time.
We can now turn to [T.8], which is the onlyreference in the Anonymous author to ap revious exegesiso nA ristotle's Rhetoric. Should we suppose that this exegesis is awritten commentary as the commentaries by the Anonymous author and Stephanus that the authorsthemselvescall exegeseis, or as the "published" exegesis to which Stephanus referred?Ithink that the fact that both Anonymous and his near contemporary Stephanus (and othercontemporary authors) use the term exegesis to refer to written texts,isagood reason to inferthatthe exegesis that we read here about is in fact acommentary,either acompleteoraselective one (namelyasthe one written by Stephanus). This exegetical treatise needsnot differ from the hermeneiaiofthe other passages, but it can alsobethe case that the Anonymous always drawsf rom the sames ingle source, which also fits with my suggestion thatt he teacher/philosopher/metropolitan is one and the same person. Thus, we can conclude, that the Anonymous' citations of earlier interpretations throughout his commentary come from asingle sourcewhich is awritten commentary.
If we further examine the cited interpretations of this particular philosopher, we can draw the same conclusions that we reached aboveregarding the aim and context of the commentaries written by Stephanus and the Anonymous author. In particular, givent hat the interpretations attributed to this sourcea re in most cases philosophicallyi nteresting and make oftenu se of complex Peripatetic notions, it seems that the sourceb ehind these references is ap erson well-acquainted with the Aristotelian philosophy, and hence rightlyc alled "the philosopher." Moreover,ifheisliterallyateacher of the Anonymous author, then he must have also written his commentary at the beginning of the 12th century,and might have even been part of the group of scholars patronized by Anna Comnene.
If this is right,[ T.9], which is the onlym ore informative reference found in the Anonymous author,m ight reveal some further evidence regarding the identity of the source. In this passage, the Anonymous author does not attribute the cited view to ap hilosopher or teacher,b ut to am etropolitan. This metropolitan cannot be identifiedwith Stephanus,not onlyonthe basis of the laterdating of the latter,but also because we fortunatelyhaveStephanus' interpretation of this particularp assage, and it differs from the reported interpretationo ft he metropolitan.³¹ We cannot draw more precise conclusions regardingthe identity of this metropolitan, but especiallyifweaccept thatthe threevariations "teacher,""philosopher," and "metropolitan" refer to the same person, we can suggest that this person must be aw ell-known figure thatareader of the commentary would recognize withoutfurther explication. Iwill come back to this issue below.
The fourth type of references to Anonymous' sources are the scholia.³² The term is usedc ontemporarilyt or efer to the marginal annotations of the manuscripts and it seems thatt his is also the meaning of the term when used in the Anonymous author.I np articular, all of the 15 citations of scholia found throughout the commentary,are announcedinthe sameway: "Ifound a scholion that reports/states etc." Itake this introduction to the quotations to be clear evidence thatwehavetodowith single comments rather than with an extant text,³³ and that in fact such comments that are taken from the margins of the manuscripts that the Anonymous had before him. Ia ml ed to this conclusionm ainly by the fact that he always pointsout that the scholion is something thathehimself came across or found, which suggestst hat he read them while consulting a manuscript.Infact,weknow for sure that he had access to more than one manuscript of the Rhetoric,since he often makes textual emendations based on different writings "found" in different manuscripts. Unfortunately, we are not able to identify either the exactm anuscriptst hat he usedfor making the textual emendations, or the manuscriptst hat entail the particulars cholia thath ec ites.
We can turn now to the additional informationt hat is available regarding the production of commentaries in the 12th century.I nt he previous section, I brieflyp resented ap assagef rom the commentary on the Sophistical Refutations which states that the samet opic has alreadyb een dealt with in the "πόνημα ἐν τοῖςεἰςτὴνῬητορικὴν". Πόνημα meansliterally "hard work," and usually refers  See Anon., In artem rhet., ,  -: ὁ δὲ μητροπολίτης οὕτως ἡρμήνευσεν· ἀντίμιμον καθ' ὅσον ἡ τῆςψ υχῆς ἐπιθυμία ἐναντία ἐστὶ καὶἀ ντιπράττουσα τῇἐ πιθυμίᾳ καὶ τῷ θελήματι τοῦ σώματος.C f. Steph., In artem rhet., ,  -: ᾿ Aντίμιμον εἶπε, διότι τοῦ θυμικοῦ τὸ ἦθος καὶἡτοῦ σώματος ἐμφαίνει διάθεσις· εἰ γάρτ ις ἀνδρεῖός ἐστιν, ἀντιμιμεῖται καὶἡψυχὴ τὸἦ θος τούτου.  Forall references to scholia see CAG ., , ; , ; , ; , ; , ; , ; , ; , ; , ; , ; , ; , ; , ; , ; , .  However,Ishould noteh eret hat the difference between ac ommentary and scholia is not always clear,s incet he commentariesw ere initiallyw ritten in the margins of the manuscripts that entailed the treatises in question. Hence,the extant commentaries werenot written initially independentlyo ft he commentedt ext,b ut in the margins around the text.H owever,Itake the references to scholia found in the Anonymous not necessarilytorefertosuch an extent commentary,but probablytosingle annotations, due to the languagethat the Anonymous uses for referring to them. in such ac ontext to al ong commentary or treatise, whereas the phrase "ἐντ ο ῖς ε ἰ ςτ ὴ νῬ ητορικὴν" is at ypicalw ay of referring to one'so wn commentary.I thereforeb elieve, that we can accept that the author of the commentary on the Sophistical Refutations was also the author of ac ommentary on the Rhetoric.³⁴ This commentary,a sa lreadym entioned, had been long attributed to Michael, the metropolitan of Ephesus,who probablyl ived in the first half of the 12th century,a lso belonged to the circle of AnnaC omnene, and wast he author of various commentaries on other Aristotelian treatises.A lthough the attribution of the commentary on the Sophistical Refutations to Michael has been recentlyq uestioned,³⁵ one cannot overlookt he fact that this description of the commentator'sprofile fits well with the Anonymous' allusion to ametropolitan. If it is not by coincidencethat another author,also ametropolitan, wrote acommentary on the Rhetoric,t hen it seems that the Anonymous author'sr eference supportsthe attribution of the commentary on the Sophistical Refutations to Michael.
However,independentlyofwhether we attribute the commentary on the Sophistical Refutations to Michael or to another author (who would have more or less as imilar background as that of Michael), we must conclude that the aforementioned commentary on Aristotle's Rhetoric is an additional commentary that is now lost,whereas it seems very possiblet hat it is this commentary thatt he Anonymous refers to in [T.9]a st he interpretation of am etropolitan.
Besides the two extant commentaries,t he information collected based on them, the fragments of ac ommentary and of ap araphrase, and the reference in the commentary on the Sophistical Refutations,wecan also infer the existence of some additional commentaries on Aristotle's Rhetoric from some later texts that apparentlym ade use of them. Fori nstance, traces of aB yzantine interpretation of Aristotle's Rhetoric are found in the almost contemporary work of Eustathios, ascholarwho livedin1 115 -1195 and became the metropolitan of Thessaloniki. Eustathios is mostlyknown for his commentaries on Homer,i nwhich he often cites or refers to other authors. In fact,thereare manypassages in which Aristotle'st reatises are quoted, among them Rhetoric.³⁶ However,a sD .Reinsch  The commentary on the Sophistical Refutations shows also other passagesknowledge of the content of the Rhetoric,f or instancei nC AG ., ,  -: ὡςγ ὰ ρἀ π ὸτ ῶ νἐ ντ ο ῖ ςΤ οπικοῖς παραδοθέντων τόπων καὶἐ ντ ῷπρώτῳ τῆς Ῥητορικῆςα ὐ τοῦ στομούμενοι ἐπιχειροῦμεν πρὸς τὰ προκείμενα, οὕτω καὶἀπὸτῶνἐνουσῶν ἀρχῶν, ὡς ἀπό τινων τόπων, εὑρίσκομεν τὰἐφεξῆς.  See Moore,I ter psellianum (as footnote  above), .  D. Reinsch,Ü ber einigeA ristoteles-Zitate bei Eustathios vonT hessaloniki, in F. Paschke (ed.), Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen, Berlin ,  - givesa na ccurate has shown, his citations from Aristotle's Rhetoric have not been taken from the original text itself, but rather from Byzantine commentaries. Specifically, Eustathios refers to the Rhetoric four times, threeo fw hich are supposed to be quotations from II.23, but since the vocabulary usedd oes not correspond completely with the Aristoteliant ext,i ts eems rather probable thatE ustathios quoted the passages while looking at al aterp araphrase or commentary of the treatise. The question that arisesa nd is relevant to our current purposes is whether Eustathios uses the commentaries thata re alreadyk nown to us or ac ommentary that is now lost.F ortunately, D. Reinsch analyzedt hese passages and convincingly showed not onlyt hat Eustathios' sourcei sn ot Aristotle himself, but also that it is acommentary distinct from Anonymous or Stephanus.Inaddition, because of the similarity of Eustathios' text with both the Anonymous and Stephanus, he suggested thatall three authorsmight relyonaparaphrase of the treatise that is now lost.Unfortunately, we cannot make anya ssumptions regarding the identity of the author of this commentary or paraphrase, namely whether it can be one of the fragmentary commentaries or another commentary or paraphrase of the treatise. We can also not evaluate with certainty the relation of this author to the two extant Byzantine commentaries,a lthough the similarityb etween Eustathios' quotations and the twoB yzantine commentaries can indicate thatt he latter weres omehow related to Eustathios' source. Finally, although Ii ncluded Eustathios' sourcei nt he section on 12thc entury commentaries,i ti sn ot clear whether it was actuallyw ritten in this century.The afore-mentioned similarities might indicate that it was written around the same period as the commentaries of Anonymous and Stephanus.Inany case, the 12th century is the terminus ante quem,s ince this is the time of Eustathios' use of it.
In summary,weh aves een that the first surviving texts to comment directly on Aristotle's Rhetoric are the twoB yzantine commentaries written in the 12th century by an Anonymous author and by Stephanus,a nd the fragments of an additional commentary,and aparaphrase of the treatise dated from the sameperiod. From these commentaries, we also learned about the existenceo fo ther teachers,commentators or scholiastswho worked on the Rhetoric,which appear to have been the sources for the Anonymous author and Stephanus.A dditionally,w ei nferred the existenceo fa dditional commentaries based on references found in the commentary on the Sophistical Refutations,aswell as basedonEustathios' references to the Rhetoric in his commentaries on Homer.Thisstudy has brought us to the conclusiont hat,a lthough the Rhetoric was not as popular as list of such references to Aristotle in Eustathios' commentaries on Iliad and Odyssey,a nd anal-ysesE ustathios references to Aristotle's Rhetoric.
other Aristotelian treatises, and although our current knowledge of the exact number of commentaries producedi sl imited, we can still see that the studyo f the treatise was revivedi nt he 12th century, and that the treatise was read and commented on liken ever before.

Philosophy, Rhetoric and Education in Byzantium
What remains to be seen is the reason for this revival of interest towardsAristotle's Rhetoric. Although an explanation of all parameters that playedar ole is a complicated issue, Iw ill make an attempt to address some pointst hat seem to have contributed to this revival. First,Ihave alreadyr eferred abovet ot he group of scholars patronised by AnnaC omnene with the task to studya nd write commentaries on Aristotle'st reatises,e speciallyt he ones that have not been commented on before. This led to the production of an umber of commentaries on less famous Aristoteliant reatises,e .g.B iological works, Nicomachean Ethics, Politics. We can be sure that this initiative playedanimportant role in the flourish of the Aristotelian studies by promotingboth the philosophical analysis of the texts and their philological editing,includingthe production of numerous copies of the treatises.I tcomes,therefore, as no surprise thatthe commentaries on the Rhetoric that we are studying are dated exactlyinthe time of this flourish of Aristotelian studies and exhibit the same points of interest as othercommentaries of this time.³⁷ However,A nna'si nitiative seems not onlyt ob ej ust one of the parameters, but as econdary one, since one is left with the question of how Anna and her contemporaries gotinterestedinAristotle in the first place. Alookatthe Byzantine higher education of thatt ime seems to yield an answer to this question. In particular, two higher education institutions of the time, namelyt he "School of Philosophy" and the "Patriarchal School",seem to be responsible for the promotion of the studyofc lassical philosophyand Rhetoric. The School of Philosophy was established in the eleventh century under the headofMichael Psellos, who took the title hypatos tôn philosophôn,atitle that was later inherited by the following holders of this post,for instance IoannesItalos, the teacher of Eustratios of Nicaea, who belonged to the circle of Anna Comenne.The PatriarchalSchool, although founded alreadyinthe fifth century,became during the twelfth century  Irefertothe commentators' interest in studyingAristotle as awhole and in showingthe consistencyo fA ristotle'st eachings.
the "centreo ft he Byzantine culture."³⁸ Accordingt oB rowning, the schoolw as directed primarilyt os ecular education, especiallyg rammar and Rhetoric. Among its posts we can find one of the maistôrt ôn rhetorôn,p robablyc orresponding to ap rofessor of rhetoric.³⁹ In fact,m anyo ft he names that we have examined aboves eem to be somehow connected to this school, or at least to some of its branches. Stephanos Skylitzesw as appointed at the school in the church of St.P eter and Paul, Eustratios of Nicaea was probablya ttachedt o the school of St.Theodore, and Eustathios of Thessaloniki was one of the teachers at the school.⁴⁰ Hence, it becomes clear that, up to ac ertain extent,the occupation with Aristotle and classicals tudies in general was connected with the existenceo fp osts thatt aught classical texts and promotedt heir study. In other words, the very existenceofthe posts of the maistôr tôn rhetorôn and the hypatos tôn philosophôn and especiallyt heirc rucial role in the Byzantine higher education, seems to be directlyconnected with the revival of the study of both philosophya nd Rhetoric in the Byzantine period. Especiallyg iven the fact that these posts were appointed directlyb yt he Church or the Emperor,w ec an assume that this revival was promotedbythe emperors of the time.⁴¹ However,the holders of these posts wereo nlys ome of the scholars who werei nterested in and work on such texts.
Regarding the study of philosophy, in addition to the consuls (hypatoi), whose duties included teachingand other academicactivities, such as the preparation of commentaries, therei sg reat number of Byzantine scholars who also taught and commented on Aristotle'st reatises,a sf or instance the scholars I  R. Browning,The Patriarchal school at Constantinopleinthe twelfth century. Byzantion  (),  -: .  See the late Byzantine title rhetôr tôn rhetorôn.  Browning,Patriarchal school (as footnote  above) argues that both the Church of St.Theodorea nd the Church of St.P eter at Paul, and especiallyt he schools attached to them, were under the control of the Patriarchate. See N. G. Wilson,S cholars of Byzantium. London ,  on Eustathios' appointment as at eacher of rhetoric.  On the roleofthe church in  th century higher education see M. Angold,Church and society in Byzantium under the Comnenoi  -.Cambridge ,  -;A.Markopoulos, In searchfor 'higher education' in Byzantium. ZRVI  (),  -.Infact,Markopoulos argues elsewherethat thereisnosuch thing as "higher education" in Constantinople in the sense of an organised system that lasted throughout the centuries,b ut every instanceo fh igher education can be traced back to privatei nitiatives, including initiativesb yp articular emperors, but did not last in time: A. Markopoulos,E ducation, in E. Jeffreys /J.H aldon /R.C ormack (eds.), The OxfordH andbook of Byzantine Studies.Oxford ,  -:  -. mentioned abovea sb elongingt ot he circle of Anna Comnene.⁴² The studyo f Aristotle's Rhetoric mayw ell have been part of the Byzantine scholars' preoccupation with Aristotle, which producedt he commentaries on the Aristotelian works that have come down to us. In this sense, the Rhetoric was studied along with the other Aristotelian treatises as part of the Aristotelian corpus.
Moreover,t he revival of the studyo fA ristotle's Rhetoric is probablyc onnected not onlyw ith the role of the philosophical studies in Byzantium, but also with the importantrole of the studyofRhetoric. As Imentioned above, Rhetoric was being taught in the schools of the empire as part of the higher education and the post of the maistôr tôn rhetorôn was created, with duties that were likely similar to thoseofthe consul of the philosophers. Although the studyofRhetoric mostlyi ncluded late antique rhetorical texts,s uch as the Progymnasmata and the treatiseso fH ermogenes, as well as laterc ommentaries on these treatises,⁴³ it might be the caset hat Aristotle's Rhetoric also attracted the attentiono ft he rhetoricians duringt his time.
Therefore, the historical reality that philosophya nd Rhetoric wereb eing taught and alsop layedi mportantr oles in the Byzantine educational system seems to, at least partly, explain the increase in interest in Aristotle, in particularlyinhis treatise the Rhetoric. In such acontext of promotion for philosophical and rhetoricalstudies, the occupation of the 12th century scholars with the Rhetoric led, on the one hand, to the copying of manuscriptsthat entailed the treatise and so made the text more easilyavailable,⁴⁴ and,onthe other hand,tothe production of commentaries that analysed its content.T his situation is also depicted, as we have alreadyi ndicated, by the two commentators on Aristotle's  Fora no verview of the post of the "consul of the philosophers" from its beginning till the  th century,s ee C. N. Constantinides,H ighere ducation in Byzantium in the thirteenth and earlyfourteenth centuries ( -ca. ). Nicosia ,  -,who offers also information on other Byzantine scholars that taught philosophy. On the Byzantine philosophers of this period see Wilson,S cholars (as footnote  above).  On the post of the maistôr tôn rhetorôn in the various schools see Browning,P atriarchal school (as footnote  above) and Constantinides,H ighere ducation (as footnote  above),  -.R egarding the rhetorical studies and the texts they included see ibid.  ff.  As Conley,Aristotle'sRhetoric (as footnote  above),  pointedout,the number of manuscripts containingAristotle's Rhetoric up to the  th century was very small, and the treatise was not easilyavailable. Forthis reason,wecan conclude that the commentators of the  th century contributed greatlyt ot he survival of the treatise. Cf. Wilson,S cholars (as footnote  above) .