DOI 10.1515/bz-2020-0045 BZ 2020; 113(3): 1069–1088

Melpomeni Vogiatzi

The Byzantine reception of Aristotle’s Rhetoric: the 12th centuryRenaissance Abstract: In this paper,Iarguethat,after centuries of neglect,arevival of inter- est towards Aristotle’sRhetoric took place in 12th centuryConstantinople, which led to the production of anumber of commentaries.Inorder to give an overview of the commentary tradition on the Rhetoric,Iexamine first the surviving extant commentaries themselves, then the informationthatthe commentators offer re- garding theirpreceding interpretations, and lastthe traces of commentaries on the Rhetoric found in other treatises.Thisexamination will show that,atleast within aspecific group of scholars, the Rhetoric was studied and commented upon like never before. Finally, Iattempt to explain this revival of interest,espe- ciallywith respect to the role thatphilosophical and rhetoricaleducation played in 12th century Byzantium.

Adresse: Dr.Melpomeni Vogiatzi, MunichSchool of Ancient Philosophy,LMU Lehrstuhlfür PhilosophieVI, Geschwister-Scholl-Platz 1, 80539 München, Deutschland; [email protected]

The question regardingthe reception of Aristotle’s Rhetoric in the late antique and Byzantine period has been raised before. As earlyas1865, H. Usener publishedanarticle on the reception of this Aristotelian treatise, and concluded that it was ignored by scholars of the late antiqueflourishing of Aristotelian studies, and also during Byzantium. In fact,heargues that aside from the two extant commentaries on the treatise, all references to the ancient commentary tradition on the Rhetoric refertoscholars who worked not on Aristotle’stext, but rather on other late antique rhetorical treatises. Similarly, more recent stud- ies, have argued that the treatise wasstudied neither by philosophersnor by rhetoricians in late antiquity,and that the existing Byzantine commentaries do not indicate in themselvesany changeininterest,since the commentators focus on the sametopics as the ones studied by the rhetoricians of late

Iwould liketothank the Munich School of Ancient Philosophy,especiallyProf.Peter Adamson and Prof.Christof Rapp fortheir recommendationsand support.Also, Iamindebted to Prof.Di- eter Harlfinger and Dr.Nikos Agiotisand the anonymous refereesfor their feedback on this paper. 1070 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 113/3, 2020: I. Abteilung antiquity.¹ Therefore, accordingtothe communis opinio on the reception of Aris- totle’s Rhetoric in Byzantium, the treatise was largely neglected by academic and intellectual circles,with the existing Byzantine commentaries on the treatise being single instances of interest in it,and even these being texts of no philo- sophical value writtenbyauthors with mainlypractical interests (in line with their contemporary rhetorical tradition). Against this communis opinio,Iwill show that scholarlyinterest in Aristote- lian rhetorical theory,which largely disappeared prior to the Byzantine period, revivedinthe 12th centuryand produced anumber of commentaries written by Aristotelian scholars. HereImean scholars whose exegetic strategyaimed at interpreting Aristotle ex Aristotele in order to highlight the Rhetoric’scompat- ibility with the other Aristotelian treatises.Inorder 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. Iwill then supplement this list of existing commentaries with some evidence for the existenceofadditional commentaries on the Rhetoric.

Anonymous andStephanus on Aristotle’s Rhetoric

The onlyexisting commentaries on Aristotle’s Rhetoric are the ones that have been edited in the series Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca (vol. 21.2,ed. Rabe), twoofwhich are extant,inthatthey cover the whole treatise, whereas other two have come down to us in fragmentary form. As mentioned above, the general consensus regardingthese commentaries is that they are texts of no philosophical import,written by authors thatare interestedinrhetorical praxis rather than in philosophy. Therefore, apresentation of the content and aim of the existing commentaries will not onlygivethe general context of the production of commentaries in the 12th century,but it will also challengethe communis opinio and demonstrate that the commentators are Aristotelianschol- ars, in the sense thatthey interpret Aristotle’srhetorical account on the basis of his own views as expressed in other treatises.

 See H. Usener,Literarhistorisches. Rheinisches Museum  (), –;see also Th. Conley,Aristotle’s Rhetoric in Byzantium. Rhetorica  (), –; idem,Notes on the By- zantine reception of the peripatetic tradition in rhetoric, in W.W. Fortenbaugh/D.C. Mirhady (eds.), Peripatetic rhetoric after Aristotle. New Jersey , –. M. Vogiatzi, The Byzantine reception of Aristotle’s Rhetoric 1071

The first extant commentaries on Aristotle’s Rhetoric thathavecome down to us are dated in the 12thcentury CE and are written in Constantinople by an Anonymous author and by an ancient commentator named Stephanus. Stepha- nus’ identity has been amatter of studyand the commentator has been convinc- ingly identifiedwith Stephanus Skylitzes, the later metropolitan of Trebizond.² The identity of the Anonymous commentator is still amatter of controversy.It has been long agosuggested, although not proven,³ thatthe author is no other than Michael of Ephesus,probablyonthe basis of areference to acom- mentary 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 areferencetoacommentary on the Rhetoric found in aByzantine list of Mi- chael’sworks.⁵ Recently, C. Rambourg defended this suggestion and argued in favour of the identification of the Anonymous commentator with Michael of Ephesus, mainlyonthe basis of analyzingmedicaland zoological examples used in the commentary on the Rhetoric that indicate, as she argues, strongin- terest in medicineand biology.⁶ This interest fits, in her view,with our knowl- edge of Michael as acommentator on Aristotle’sbiological works and as adoc- tor. However,none of these arguments are enough to provethat Michael is the author of the anonymous commentary on the Rhetoric. First and foremost,the style, language, and philosophicalmaturity of the Anonymous author differs greatlyfrom thatofMichael of Ephesus: expressions typical in Michael’scom- mentariesonother Aristotelian treatises are absent from the commentary on the Rhetoric,whereas the most characteristic linguistic features of the Anony- mous are absent from Michael. Moreover,the commentary on the Rhetoric differs

 Both commentaries areeditedinH.Rabe (ed.), Anonymi et Stephani in artem rhetoricam commentaria. CAG, /.Berlin .Onthe identity of Stephanus see W. Wolska-Conus,À propos des scholiesdeStéphanos àlaRhétorique d’Aristote: l’Auteur,l’œuvre, le milieu, in M. Berza (ed.), ActesduXIVeCongrès Internationaldes Etudes Byzantines.Bucarest , –.AsConus has argued, the Aristotelian commentatorStephanus is no other than Ste- phanus Skylitzes,the metropolitan of Trebizond. The monodyonhim written by his pupil The- odoros Prodromos is agood source of information regarding his life and career as ateacher of rhetoric at the school of Saint Paul, beforehebecame metropolitan.  See Conley,Aristotle’s Rhetoric (as footnote  above), .  In Soph. El., , : περὶ δὲ τῆς ἀτέχνου ταύτης πειραστικῆςκαὶἐντοῖςεἰςτὴνῬητορικὴν πονηθεῖσι διειλήφειμεν.  Cod. Hieros. Patr.Taphou ,f.v: εἰςτὴνῥητορικὴντοῦἀριστοτέλους, τὸν ἐφέσιον.  C. Rambourg,Qu’est-ceque le commentaireanonyme de CAGXXI ?, in F. Woerther (ed.), Commenting on Aristotle’s Rhetoric from antiquity to the present. International Studies in the HistoryofRhetoric, .Leiden , –. 1072 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 113/3, 2020: I. Abteilung greatlywith respect to style from all other existing commentaries thatMichael wrote. Most importantlyofall, the Anonymous’ commentary does not seem to have the depth of Michael’sphilosophicalthought.⁷ Second, regarding Ram- bourg’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,and indicate onlythatthe Anonymous’ is ac- quainted with Galen. Third, the reference to the commentary on the Sophistical Refutations cannot offer certain ground for arguingfor the identity of the author, especiallygiven thatits attributiontoMichael of Ephesus has recentlycome under scrutiny.⁸ The most one could inferisthattherewas acertain 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,since 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 refer- ence to Michael’scommentary found in the list of his works indicatedearlier, is alsonot secure, giventhatother lists of Michael’scommentaries do not men- tion the Rhetoric at all. However,evenifthe list is accurate and Michael has writ- ten acommentary on Aristotle’s Rhetoric,this does not provethat his commen- tary 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 Ephe- sus. 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 Ref- utations to Michael. After dealing with the question of authorship with respect to the commenta- ries, an examination of their style and content will shed further light on the con- text in which they werewritten. Since my interests here are rather historical, I will focus onlyonthe aspectsoftheir interpretation of Aristotle’s Rhetoric that can be helpfulfor our evaluation of their purpose. As Imentioned in the intro- duction, the communis opinio usually regards these commentaries as being of no

 See C. Luna,Trois études sur la tradition des commentaires anciens àlaMétaphysique d’Ari- stote. Philosophia antiqua, .Leiden , –;M.Vogiatzi,Byzantine commentaries on Aristotle’s Rhetoric: Anonymous and Stephanus,Inartem rhetoricam commentaria. Commen- taria in Aristotelem Graeca et Byzantina, .Berlin , –.  Instead, the attribution of the commentary to Michael Psellos is discussed. See P. Moore,Iter Psellianum:adetailed listingofmanuscript sources for all works attributed to Michael Psellos. Toronto , . M. Vogiatzi, The Byzantine reception of Aristotle’s Rhetoric 1073 philosophical interest as being relevant mainlyfor the rhetorical practice of their time. However,Ibelievethat this view undermines the commentaries’ impor- tance in the history of the Byzantine reception of Aristotle’s Rhetoric and of Aris- totle’sphilosophyingeneral. In particular,aprominent feature of both commen- taries is the fact that they take Rhetoric to be alogical treatise,and in fact one that presupposes doctrines expressed in Aristotle’slogical treatises.Hence, 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,but duetoits philosophical significance thatstudents of philosophy should deal with it.2.Itexplains up to acertain extent the fact thatthe Rhetoric has surviveduptoour day. In atime when more modernand more updated rhet- orical treatiseswereavailable, Aristotle’s Rhetoric,seen as merelyhandbook of rhetorical praxis, would have probablygone lost.3.Itindicateswhat the Byzan- tine commentators considered as belongingtothe part of Aristotle’sphilosophy called logic. Although the Rhetoric is mentioned among the treatises of the Orga- non alreadyduringlate antiquity,⁹ it is for the first time in these twoByzantine commentators that the Rhetoric’scontent is accepted and commented upon as contributingtoour understanding of Aristotle’slogic.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 comment- ing onlyonpassages thatare relevant to this purpose and by interpreting pas- sages thatdonot seem to be about argumentation as contributingtoargumen- tation. Therefore, the passages of the treatise that are most obviouslyconnected

 See Olymp., Proleg., , –;Simpl., In Cat., , –;Philop., In Cat., , –;Ammon., In Pr.An., , –.Elias, Proleg., , –; , –, ; In Cat., , ;David, Proleg., , –; , –, ;Ammonius, In Isag., ,  – .Onthe rhetorical use of the logical prin- ciples Cf. Philop., In Pr.An., , : καὶ οἱῥητορικοὶ συλλογισμοὶ διὰ τῶντριῶνσχημάτων δείκνυνται.  Forinstance, Olympiodorus divides the logical treatises of Aristotle into those which teach the logical method (Posterior Analytics), those that contributetothat method (Categories,DeIn- terpretatione, Prior Analytics)and those which demolishthe method (Sophistical Refutations, Topics,Rhetoric,Poetics). In this division, although the content of Rhetoric is clearlynot ac- cepted, its position within the Organon is justified: it describes the method of hidingthe truth not in order to use it,but in order to avoid it.Hence,the Rhetoric is part of the logical organon of philosophyinthe waythat the Sophistical Refutations or Topics is, namely, to teach about de- ceptive arguments and how to avoid them. Similarly, in their Prolegomena to Philosophy, both Elias and David enumeraterhetorical errors, which arecorrected by philosophy. Rhetoric can therefore be used as a progymnasma or exercisefor philosophy, sinceitmakes use, on the one hand, of principles(proofs and divisions) that come fromphilosophy. 1074 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 113/3, 2020: I. Abteilung to logic are interpreted with direct references to Aristotle’saccount in the Sophis- tical Refutations or Analytics,while passages from Aristotle’saccount of ethical definitions (Rhet.I.4 – 14)and of style (Rhet. III) are neglected. Interestingly, he interprets the account of emotionsnot as referring to the arousal of the emo- tions in an audience, but as offering additional topoi for arguingfor the inten- tions of the person that commits an action (CAG XXI. 2298, 27–299,13).¹¹ Like Stephanus,the Anonymous author is alsointerested in showing the consistencybetween the Rhetoric and other logical treatises,especially Prior An- alytics,but unlikeStephanus,the Anonymous author offers amore complete commentary by further interpreting passages that are not immediatelyconnected with Aristotle’stheory 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’ pri- mary concern is to demonstrate that the Rhetoric is alogical treatise,the Anon- ymous author’sprimary interest is interpretingAristotle ex Aristotele and thereby demonstratingthe ways in which the treatise relates to the views expressedin other Aristoteliantreatises. This helps us also to draw conclusions regardingthe aim of the two com- mentaries. In particular,the extensive use of Aristotelian logical and ethical ter- minology, together with the recognition that in the commentator’stime one could find an abundance of material on rhetoricalpractice, lead us to the con- clusion 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 dia- grammaticrepresentationsofsyllogisms,which is typicallyseen in the byzantine commentaries on Aristotle’slogical treatises.See C. Rambourg,Les diagrammes syllogistiques des scholies de Stephanos àlaRhétorique d’Aristote (CAG .). Classica et Medievalia  (), –.  This goes against the view in Conley,Aristotle’sRhetoric (as footnote  above), whoargues that both commentators weremoreinterested in topics that have been central in the preceding rhetorical treatises,such as the definition of the art of rhetoric, and in topics that aremorerel- evant to their contemporary rhetorical practice,such as epideictic or legal oratory,which is also mirrored in their use of contemporary terminology,and hence,concludes, that “their interests (or their readers’ interests) were not particularlyintellectual, but practical” (p. ). However, the fact that both commentators make extensive use of technical logicalvocabulary and presup- pose that the readeriswell-acquainted with the Aristotelian philosophy, together with the fact that they areoften interested in issues of textual transmissionofthe text, indicates that they wrote their commentaries with rather intellectual interests,that is, aimingatpreservingthe trea- tise and at interpreting it in away that integrates it intoAristotle’sphilosophical system. M. Vogiatzi, The Byzantine reception of Aristotle’s Rhetoric 1075 often supplythe reader with information about previous interpretations of par- ticular passages, further supports this conclusion. It seems, therefore, that the commentaries have not been written with the aim of immediate practical use the wayhandbooksfor oratory would have been, although it seems probable that they wereused as teachingmaterial. 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,and that the readers of the commentaries werethereforewell-ac- quainted with the terminologyand concepts in Aristotle’stheory of argumenta- tion. The features indicated above, especiallythe interpretation of the Rhetoric with reference to other Aristotelian treatises as well as the interest in preserving and improvingthe text are indications thatthe two commentaries are the prod- ucts of the awakeningofAristotelian 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’sinitia- tive,this suggestion has not been explicated or proven. However,aclose reading of the commentaries shows that their association with Anna’scircle can be dem- onstratednot onlythrough the fact that Annasupported the production of com- mentariesmainlyonthe Aristotelian treatises thathavebeenneglected before, among them the Rhetoric,but also through information that we can gather from the commentaries themselves. In particular,the profile of the twocommen- tators fits very well with what we know about the other scholars that belonged to this group:they have deep knowledge of the history of philosophyand of Rhet- oric and also referoftentoclassicaland late antique treatises which they inte- grate into their interpretation of particularpassages taken from the Rhetoric. More importantly,bothhavevery good knowledge of Peripatetic philosophy(es- pecially of the Organon), while they are the authors of other commentaries on Aristotle’streatisesaswell.¹⁴ This expertise in Aristotle and in the production of anumber of commentaries on the Aristotelian treatises,corresponds with what we expect from scholars belongingtothe circle of Anna Comnene. More- over,apassagethatseems to be autobiographical offers additional evidence for the Anonymous’ association with Anna: The Anonymous commentator refers

 On Anna’spatronageofByzantine scholarship see R. Browning,Anunpublishedfuneral oration to Anna Comnene. Proceedings of the CambridgePhilological Society  (), –.  Stephanus explicitlyrefers to his own commentary to the Ethics,while the Anonymous au- thor 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) –. 1076 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 113/3, 2020: I. Abteilung 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, 23–27). Thismay be adirect referencetoAnna’sattempt to usurp the throne from her brother after their fa- ther’sdeath in 1118, and her failureindoing so, after which she confined herself to amonastery and began her engagement with Aristotelian scholarship. What has been said so far regarding the two extant commentaries,gives us the context of the production of commentaries on Aristotle’s Rhetoric in 12thcen- tury Byzantium more generally. Itake our conclusionsfrom the examination of these two commentaries to be also applicable to the other cases of commenting on Aristotle’s Rhetoric,asfor 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 By- zantine period and might have been part of acommentary 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 sim- ilar interests as the Anonymousand Stephanus in interpreting the treatise with referencetoother Aristotelian treatises,for instance,tothe 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,Plato, Plutarch, Demosthenes, Euripides, Herodotus, Iso- crates), which, as in the Anonymous author and Stephanus,indicatesthat we are dealing with typicalByzantine scholars with interest in classical textsand late antiquity in its entirety.Finally, the author of the fragmentary commentary makes use of diagramsinorder to illustrate the syllogisms, which are reminis- cent of Stephanus’ diagrammatic representations of Aristotelian rhetorical syllogisms¹⁷ and which point to the role thatthe author ascribed to the Rhetoric, namelyasbeing alogical treatise. It has alreadybecome clear that, Aristotle’s Rhetoric was studied at least within the context of agroup of scholars in Constantinople. It has alsobecome clear that these scholars had in fact philosophical training,and hence, inter- preted the Rhetoric with respect to its position within the Aristotelian philosoph- ical system. What remains to be seen is whether even more commentaries (in ad- dition to the four discussed so far)werededicatedtothe Rhetoric in the 12th

 Rabe,Commentaria (as footnote  above).  Ibid.  See C. Rambourg,Les diagrammes syllogistiques des scholies de Stephanos àlaRhétorique d’Aristote(CAG .). Classica et Medievalia  (), –. M. Vogiatzi, The Byzantine reception of Aristotle’s Rhetoric 1077 century,inwhich case we could definitelyrecognize arevival of interest in the treatise during this period.

Commentatorsand teachersofRhetoric in the 12th century

Although no extant commentaries on Aristotle’s Rhetoric have survivedbesides those written by the Anonymous author and by Stephanus,wecan draw some conclusions about the existenceofthe teachers and the commentators that pre- date them based on information collected from the passages wherethe two com- mentators refertotheir sources. Iwill startwith Stephanus,whose references to earlier interpreters of the Rhetoric give us also an indication of the relative dating of the two surviving com- mentaries. In particular, based on historical references found in the commenta- ries, we can infer that the anonymous commentary was writtenearlier than the one by Stephanus.¹⁸ Yetthis dating is further supported by the observation that Stephanus seems to draw on the Anonymousauthor and to refer to views ex- pressed in his commentary.What remains unclear is whether it is the anonymous commentary itself that he has read or another text,which wassomehowrelated to the Anonymous author’scommentary (or maybeits source). However,given the fact that Stephanus’ reportofearlier commentaries often repeats the same vocabulary and examples that are found in the Anonymous’ commentary,¹⁹ I find it more probable that Stephanus,who livedinthe 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 ad- dresses,oratleast group of texts,towhich the Anonymous’ commentary be- longed. Acloser examination of some of these passages can help in understand- ing whether Stephanus was aware of more thanone of the commentaries written before his own:

 In particular,the Anonymous,who livedinConstantinople in the first half of the th cen- tury,wrote his commentary around –,and hence precedes Stephanus,who composed his commentary in the years –.See Vogiatzi,Commentaries (as footnote  above), –;see also Wolska-Conus,Scholies (as footnote  above), –.  See the followingpassages: , –; , ; , ; , –; , ff.; , – ; , ; , ; , ; , ff.; , ff.; , ; , ; , ; , . 1078 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 113/3, 2020: I. Abteilung

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 manyissues to our teachers and interpreters,but I believeImake it clear in the present occasion²² (, ). T. This statement also created confusion to the interpreters;but in this way, I believe, this will also be rightlygrasped²³ (, ).

Upon closer inspection, we find thatStephanus usuallyrefers to previous inter- preters not to merelyreportonthe various readings of specific passages, but in order to criticize their interpretation. Forinstance, 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 regardingthe use of the termexegesis. Exegesis means lit- erallyexplanation or interpretation and usuallyrefers to an extent text,that is, a full commentary of atreatise as opposed to acomment on asingle passage.²⁴ Byzantine commentators, among them Stephanus and – as we will see later – the Anonymous author,refer to their ownwork as exegesis,and we can take this to mean their production of extent commentaries in awritten form. It is clear that the term exegesis refers to written commentaries as opposed with views expressed merelyinoralform,for instance those thatare within a class, when scrutinizing passages such as [T.3], where exegesis is contrasted with the work of teachers.Moreover,[T.2] makes it clear thatthe interpretations that Stephanus refers to must be written commentaries, and in fact,published ones (ἐκδεδομένας ἐξηγήσεις), in other words works that are widelyknown or available. Second, we can turn to the main question that is relevant to our current pur- poses, and focus on the number of exegeseis that Stephanus has in mind.

 Καλῶς ἄρα τοῦτο ἐξήγηταί μοι σὺνθεῷ,τῶνἄλλων ἀποπλανηθέντων ὅλῳ πήχει τῆς ἀληθείας.  Καὶἐσαφηνίσαμεν ταῦτα, ὡςδύναμις, παραλελοιπότες παντάπασι τὰς ἐνταῦθα τοῦ χωρίου τούτου παρὰ τῶνπρὸἡμῶνφιλοσόφων ἐκδεδομένας ἐξηγήσεις.  Τοῦτο πολλὰ πράγματα παρέσχε τοῖςδιδασκάλοις ἡμῶνκαὶἐξηγηταῖς· ἐγὼ δὲὡςἔνι τὸ παρόν, ὡςοἶμαι, σαφηνίζω.  Καὶ τοῦτο τὸῥητὸνταραχὴνπεποίηκε τοῖς ἐξηγηταῖς· ἀλλ’ οὕτω καὶ τοῦτο ὡςοἶμια κατορθωθήσεται.  This would be called scholion;see later on the Anonymous. M. Vogiatzi, The Byzantine reception of Aristotle’s Rhetoric 1079

Although we cannot sayfor sure how manycommentaries Stephanus had read and made use of when writing his own commentary,the plural form that he uses for referringtoearlier interpretations indicates that he has in mind more than one commentary.The fact that he refers also to teachers shows that,at least within agroup of scholars, the Rhetoric was being taught,aninsight that enhancesthe possibilitythat more thanone scholar worked on the treatise be- fore Stephanus.Infact, most of his criticism of previous interpretations seems to be directed at the Anonymous commentary,oratleast to one of Anonymous’ sources. However,there are cases, for instance the passagein[T.1], wherethe criticized view is not found in the Anonymous text.Therefore, 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. Giventhat Anonymous wrotehis commentary shortlybefore Stephanus, the information that he givesusregarding the preceding production of commenta- ries on Aristotle’s Rhetoric can be more helpful for giving amore definite answer on the number of commentaries dedicated on this treatise in the 12th century. Hereare some references to his sources:

T. Ifound ascholium interpreting this thus, namely that this enthymeme is said [fallaciously] due to the verbal expression, because the syllogism is de- fect; for we stated the conclusionwithout stating in advance[the premises], [since] an enthymeme is an incompletesyllogism having one defect premise²⁵ (, –). T. Ifound ascholium in one of the most worm–eaten books, which is rather right,such as […]²⁶ (, ). T. However,the teacher interpreted the statement thus, namelythathecalled such a[fallacious enthymeme] “due to the verbal expression” as being the same as “duetothe form of the verbal expression”²⁷ (, –). T. The philosopher,however,interpreted thus the statement that says that [the enthymeme is] from afew and often less [premises] than thoseofthe first

 Εὗρον δὲ σχόλιον οὕτως αὐτὸἑρμηνεῦον, ὅτι λέγεται τοῦτο παρὰ τὴνλέξιν τὸἐνθύμημα, διότι ἐλλιπής ἐστιν ὁ συλλογισμός· συμπέρασμα γὰρεἴπομεν ἄνευ τοῦ προλαβεῖν ἐνθύμημά ἐστι συλλογισμὸς ἀτελὴς ἐλλιποῦςοὔσης μιᾶςπροτάσεως.  Εὗρον δέ, ὅπερ μᾶλλον ἀληθές, σχόλιον ἔντινι τῶνθριπηδεστάτων βιβλίων τοιοῦτον […]  Καὶὁμὲνδιδάσκαλος οὕτως τὸ παρὸν ῥητὸν ἡρμήνευσεν, ὅτι παρὰ τὴνλέξιν τὸ τοιοῦτον ἐκάλεσεν ὡςταὐτὸνὂνπαρὰ τὸ σχῆμα τῆςλέξεως.  Ὁ μέντοι φιλόσοφος οὕτως ἐξηγήσατο τὸῥητὸντὸλέγον, ὅτι καὶἐξὀλίγων τε καὶ πολλάκις ἐλαττόνων ἢἐξὧνὁπρῶτος συλλογισμός· ἔφη γάρ, ὅτι πρῶτον μὲν ἀποδεῖξαι δεῖ τὸ πρᾶγμα διὰ λόγων μακροτέρων, εἶτα συλλογίσασθαι ἐκεῖνο διὰ λόγων ἐλαττόνων. 1080 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 113/3, 2020: I. Abteilung

syllogism.For he says that first one needs to provethe thing through long arguments, and then to form syllogismswith shorterarguments²⁸ (, –). T. The metropolitan interpreted thus: “antimimicking” in so far as the desire of the soul is contraryand 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 statingwhether 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’ interpre- tations 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 sameperson, since the commentator always uses the definite article when citing this teacher/philosopher/metropolitan, especially when reportingwhat “the teacher said,” or what “the philosopher explained,” which suggests thatheexpected the reader to recognize the identityofthis teacher or philosopher. Regarding the content of these citations of earlier interpretations, the refer- ences to this earlier teacher/philosopher/metropolitan do not make use of termi- nologythatexplicitlyhints at written commentaries. More specifically, except for [T.8], to which Iwill come back later, there are no explicitreferences in the Anon- ymous to exegeseis,namely “published” or circulatingcommentaries,atleast of which the Anonymous knew.UnlikeStephanus’ commentary,wherewefound manyreferences to ἐξηγηταί,namelytoauthorsofwritten textsdedicated to the Rhetoric,Anonymous refers to previous interpretations of particularpas- sages, but these interpretations are usuallynot said to be ἐξηγήσεις.The term exegesis is used by the Anonymous author mainlywith referencetohis own work as acommentator (74, 5: ἔσφαλται δὲἄνωθεν ἡμῖν ἡἐξήγησις), whereas his sourceissaid to have explained(ἡρμήνευσεν)the particularpassages. How- ever,the term hermeneia does not necessarilyrefertowritten commentaries rather than to views expressed orally. Although it might be the case that these interpretations weredelivered in the form of awritten text,wecannot be sure

 Ὁ δὲ μητροπολίτης οὕτως ἡρμήνευσεν· ἀντίμιμον, καθ’ ὅσον ἡ τῆςψυχῆς ἐπιθυμία ἐναντία ἐστὶ καὶἀντιπράττουσα τῇἐπιθυμίᾳ καὶ τῷ θελήματι τοῦ σώματος.  Unlike Stephanus’ vaguereferences to “teachers” and “interpreters”,the Anonymous seems to have in mind particular scholars,whomthe reader would probablyrecognise. M. Vogiatzi, The Byzantine reception of Aristotle’s Rhetoric 1081 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 teachermight alsobethe author of awritten commentary on the treatise.Moreover,these references to ateacher further con- firm the suspicionthat Aristotle’s Rhetoric was being taught in rhetoricaland philosophical schools before or at the Anonymous’ time. We can now turn to [T.8], which is the onlyreference in the Anonymous au- thor to aprevious exegesisonAristotle’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 drawsfrom the samesingle source, which also fits with my suggestion thatthe teacher/philosopher/metropolitan is one and the same person. Thus, we can conclude, that the Anonymous’ citations of earlier interpre- tations 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, giventhat the interpretations attributed to this sourceare in most cases philosophicallyinteresting and make oftenuse of complex Peripa- tetic notions, it seems that the sourcebehind these references is aperson well–acquainted with the Aristotelian philosophy, and hence rightlycalled “the philosopher.” Moreover,ifheisliterallyateacher of the Anonymous author, then he must have also written his commentary at the beginning of the 12th cen- tury,and might have even been part of the group of scholars patronized by Anna Comnene. If this is right,[T.9], which is the onlymore informative reference found in the Anonymous author,might reveal some further evidence regarding the iden- tity of the source. In this passage, the Anonymous author does not attribute the cited view to aphilosopher or teacher,but to ametropolitan. This metropolitan cannot be identifiedwith Stephanus,not onlyonthe basis of the laterdating of the latter,but also because we fortunatelyhaveStephanus’ interpretation of this particularpassage, and it differs from the reported interpretationofthe 1082 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 113/3, 2020: I. Abteilung metropolitan.³¹ We cannot draw more precise conclusions regardingthe identity of this metropolitan, but especiallyifweaccept thatthe threevariations “teach- er,”“philosopher,” and “metropolitan” refer to the same person, we can suggest that this person must be awell-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 usedcontemporarilytorefer to the marginal annotations of the manu- scripts and it seems thatthis is also the meaning of the term when used in the Anonymous author.Inparticular, 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 evi- dence thatwehavetodowith single comments rather than with an extant text,³³ and that in fact such comments that are taken from the margins of the manu- scripts that the Anonymous had before him. Iamled to this conclusionmainly by the fact that he always pointsout that the scholion is something thathehim- self came across or found, which suggeststhat he read them while consulting a manuscript.Infact,weknow for sure that he had access to more than one manu- script of the Rhetoric,since he often makes textual emendations based on differ- ent writings “found” in different manuscripts. Unfortunately, we are not able to identify either the exactmanuscriptsthat he usedfor making the textual emen- dations, or the manuscriptsthat entail the particularscholia thathecites. We can turn now to the additional informationthat is available regarding the production of commentaries in the 12th century.Inthe previous section, I brieflypresented apassagefrom the commentary on the Sophistical Refutations which states that the sametopic has alreadybeen 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 τῆςψυχῆς ἐπιθυμία ἐναντία ἐστὶ καὶἀντιπράττουσα τῇἐπιθυμίᾳ καὶ τῷ θελήματι τοῦ σώματος.Cf. Steph., In artem rhet., , –: ᾿Aντίμιμον εἶπε, διότι τοῦ θυμικοῦ τὸ ἦθος καὶἡτοῦ σώματος ἐμφαίνει διάθεσις· εἰ γάρτις ἀνδρεῖός ἐστιν, ἀντιμιμεῖται καὶἡψυχὴ τὸἦθος τούτου.  Forall references to scholia see CAG ., , ; , ; , ; , ; , ; , ; , ; , ; , ; , ; , ; , ; , ; , ; , .  However,Ishould noteherethat the difference between acommentary and scholia is not always clear,sincethe commentarieswere initiallywritten in the margins of the manuscripts that entailed the treatises in question. Hence,the extant commentaries werenot written initially independentlyofthe commentedtext,but in the margins around the text.However,Itake the references to scholia found in the Anonymous not necessarilytorefertosuch an extent commen- tary,but probablytosingle annotations, due to the languagethat the Anonymous uses for refer- ring to them. M. Vogiatzi, The Byzantine reception of Aristotle’s Rhetoric 1083 in such acontext to along commentary or treatise, whereas the phrase “ἐντοῖς εἰςτὴνῬητορικὴν” is atypicalway of referring to one’sown commentary.I thereforebelieve, that we can accept that the author of the commentary on the Sophistical Refutations was also the author of acommentary on the Rhetoric.³⁴ This commentary,asalreadymentioned, had been long attributed to Michael, the metropolitan of Ephesus,who probablylived in the first half of the 12th century,also belonged to the circle of AnnaComnene, and wasthe au- thor of various commentaries on other Aristotelian treatises.Although the attri- bution of the commentary on the Sophistical Refutations to Michael has been re- centlyquestioned,³⁵ one cannot overlookthe 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 acom- mentary on the Rhetoric,then it seems that the Anonymous author’sreference supportsthe attribution of the commentary on the Sophistical Refutations to Mi- chael. However,independentlyofwhether we attribute the commentary on the So- phistical Refutations to Michael or to another author (who would have more or less asimilar background as that of Michael), we must conclude that the afore- mentioned commentary on Aristotle’s Rhetoric is an additional commentary that is now lost,whereas it seems very possiblethat it is this commentary thatthe Anonymous refers to in [T.9]asthe interpretation of ametropolitan. Besides the two extant commentaries,the information collected based on them, the fragments of acommentary and of aparaphrase, 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 apparentlymade use of them. Forinstance, traces of aByzantine interpre- tation of Aristotle’s Rhetoric are found in the almost contemporary work of Eu- stathios, ascholarwho livedin1115–1195 and became the metropolitan of The- ssaloniki. Eustathios is mostlyknown for his commentaries on Homer,inwhich he often cites or refers to other authors. In fact,thereare manypassages in which Aristotle’streatises are quoted, among them Rhetoric.³⁶ However,asD.Reinsch

 The commentary on the Sophistical Refutations shows also other passagesknowledge of the content of the Rhetoric,for instanceinCAG ., , –: ὡςγὰρἀπὸτῶνἐντοῖςΤοπικοῖς παραδοθέντων τόπων καὶἐντῷπρώτῳ τῆς Ῥητορικῆςαὐτοῦ στομούμενοι ἐπιχειροῦμεν πρὸς τὰ προκείμενα, οὕτω καὶἀπὸτῶνἐνουσῶν ἀρχῶν, ὡς ἀπό τινων τόπων, εὑρίσκομεν τὰἐφεξῆς.  See Moore,Iter psellianum (as footnote  above), .  D. Reinsch,Über einigeAristoteles-Zitate bei Eustathios vonThessaloniki, in F. Paschke (ed.), Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen, Berlin , – givesanaccurate 1084 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 113/3, 2020: I. Abteilung has shown, his citations from Aristotle’s Rhetoric have not been taken from the original text itself, but rather from Byzantine commentaries. Specifically, Eusta- thios refers to the Rhetoric four times, threeofwhich are supposed to be quota- tions from II.23, but since the vocabulary useddoes not correspond completely with the Aristoteliantext,itseems rather probable thatEustathios quoted the passages while looking at alaterparaphrase or commentary of the treatise. The question that arisesand is relevant to our current purposes is whether Eu- stathios uses the commentaries thatare alreadyknown to us or acommentary that is now lost.Fortunately, D. Reinsch analyzedthese passages and convinc- ingly showed not onlythat Eustathios’ sourceisnot Aristotle himself, but also that it is acommentary distinct from Anonymous or Stephanus.Inaddition, be- cause of the similarity of Eustathios’ text with both the Anonymous and Stepha- nus, he suggested thatall three authorsmight relyonaparaphrase of the treatise that is now lost.Unfortunately, we cannot make anyassumptions 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,although the similaritybetween Eu- stathios’ quotations and the twoByzantine commentaries can indicate thatthe latter weresomehow related to Eustathios’ source. Finally, although Iincluded Eustathios’ sourceinthe section on 12thcentury commentaries,itisnot clear whether it was actuallywritten 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,since this is the time of Eustathios’ use of it. In summary,wehaveseen that the first surviving texts to comment directly on Aristotle’s Rhetoric are the twoByzantine commentaries written in the 12th century by an Anonymous author and by Stephanus,and the fragments of an additional commentary,and aparaphrase of the treatise dated from the samepe- riod. From these commentaries, we also learned about the existenceofother teachers,commentators or scholiastswho worked on the Rhetoric,which appear to have been the sources for the Anonymous author and Stephanus.Additional- ly,weinferred the existenceofadditional commentaries based on references found in the commentary on the Sophistical Refutations,aswell as basedonEu- stathios’ references to the Rhetoric in his commentaries on Homer.Thisstudy has brought us to the conclusionthat,although the Rhetoric was not as popular as

list of such references to Aristotle in Eustathios’ commentaries on Iliad and Odyssey,and anal- ysesEustathios references to Aristotle’s Rhetoric. M. Vogiatzi, The Byzantine reception of Aristotle’s Rhetoric 1085 other Aristotelian treatises, and although our current knowledge of the exact number of commentaries producedislimited, we can still see that the studyof the treatise was revivedinthe 12th century, and that the treatise was read and commented on likenever before.

Philosophy, Rhetoric and Education in Byzantium

What remains to be seen is the reason for this revival of interest towardsAristo- tle’s Rhetoric. Although an explanation of all parameters that playedarole is a complicated issue, Iwill make an attempt to address some pointsthat seem to have contributed to this revival. First,Ihave alreadyreferred abovetothe group of scholars patronised by AnnaComnene with the task to studyand write commentaries on Aristotle’streatises,especiallythe ones that have not been commented on before. This led to the production of anumber of commen- taries on less famous Aristoteliantreatises,e.g.Biological 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.Itcomes,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 othercommen- taries of this time.³⁷ However,Anna’sinitiative seems not onlytobejust one of the parameters, but asecondary one, since one is left with the question of how Anna and her contemporaries gotinterestedinAristotle in the first place. Alookatthe Byzan- tine higher education of thattime seems to yield an answer to this question. In particular, two higher education institutions of the time, namelythe “School of Philosophy” and the “Patriarchal School”,seem to be responsible for the promo- tion of the studyofclassical 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 fol- lowing 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 con- sistencyofAristotle’steachings. 1086 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 113/3, 2020: I. Abteilung the “centreofthe Byzantine culture.”³⁸ AccordingtoBrowning, the schoolwas directed primarilytosecular education, especiallygrammar and Rhetoric. Among its posts we can find one of the maistôrtôn rhetorôn,probablycorre- sponding to aprofessor of rhetoric.³⁹ In fact,manyofthe names that we have examined aboveseem to be somehow connected to this school, or at least to some of its branches. Stephanos Skylitzeswas appointed at the school in the church of St.Peter and Paul, Eustratios of Nicaea was probablyattachedto the school of St.Theodore, and Eustathios of Thessaloniki was one of the teach- ers at the school.⁴⁰ Hence, it becomes clear that, up to acertain extent,the oc- cupation with Aristotle and classicalstudies in general was connected with the existenceofposts thattaught classical texts and promotedtheir study. In other words, the very existenceofthe posts of the maistôr tôn rhetorôn and the hypatos tôn philosophôn and especiallytheircrucial role in the Byzantine higher educa- tion, seems to be directlyconnected with the revival of the study of both philos- ophyand Rhetoric in the Byzantine period. Especiallygiven the fact that these posts were appointed directlybythe Church or the Emperor,wecan assume that this revival was promotedbythe emperors of the time.⁴¹ However,the hold- ers of these posts wereonlysome of the scholars who wereinterested 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 prep- aration of commentaries, thereisgreat number of Byzantine scholars who also taught and commented on Aristotle’streatises,asfor 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.The- odoreand the Church of St.Peter at Paul, and especiallythe schools attached to them, were under the control of the Patriarchate. See N.G. Wilson,Scholars of Byzantium. London ,  on Eustathios’ appointment as ateacher of rhetoric.  On the roleofthe church in th century higher education see M. Angold,Church and soci- ety in Byzantium under the Comnenoi –.Cambridge , –;A.Markopoulos, In searchfor ‘higher education’ in Byzantium. ZRVI  (), –.Infact,Markopoulos ar- gues elsewherethat thereisnosuch thing as “higher education” in Constantinople in the sense of an organised system that lasted throughout the centuries,but every instanceofhigher edu- cation can be traced back to privateinitiatives, including initiativesbyparticular emperors, but did not last in time: A. Markopoulos,Education, in E. Jeffreys/J.Haldon/R.Cormack (eds.), The OxfordHandbook of Byzantine Studies.Oxford , –: –. M. Vogiatzi, The Byzantine reception of Aristotle’s Rhetoric 1087 mentioned aboveasbelongingtothe circle of Anna Comnene.⁴² The studyof Aristotle’s Rhetoric maywell have been part of the Byzantine scholars’ preoccu- pation with Aristotle, which producedthe 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,the revival of the studyofAristotle’s Rhetoric is probablycon- nected not onlywith the role of the philosophical studies in Byzantium, but also with the importantrole of the studyofRhetoric. As Imentioned above, Rhet- oric 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 mostlyincluded late antique rhetorical texts,such as the Progymnasmata and the treatisesofHermogenes, as well as latercommentaries on these treatises,⁴³ it might be the casethat Aristotle’s Rhetoric also attracted the attentionofthe rhetoricians duringthis time. Therefore, the historical reality that philosophyand Rhetoric werebeing taught and alsoplayedimportantroles in the Byzantine educational system seems to, at least partly, explain the increase in interest in Aristotle, in particu- larlyinhis treatise the Rhetoric. In such acontext of promotion for philosophical and rhetoricalstudies, the occupation of the 12th century scholars with the Rhet- oric 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 pro- duction of commentaries that analysed its content.This situation is also de- picted, as we have alreadyindicated, by the two commentators on Aristotle’s

 Foranoverview of the post of the “consul of the philosophers” from its beginning till the th century,see C.N. Constantinides,Highereducation in Byzantium in the thirteenth and earlyfourteenth centuries (–ca. ). Nicosia , –,who offers also informa- tion on other Byzantine scholars that taught philosophy. On the Byzantine philosophers of this period see Wilson,Scholars (as footnote  above).  On the post of the maistôr tôn rhetorôn in the various schools see Browning,Patriarchal school (as footnote  above) and Constantinides,Highereducation (as footnote  above), –.Regarding the rhetorical studies and the texts they included see ibid. ff.  As Conley,Aristotle’sRhetoric (as footnote  above),  pointedout,the number of manu- scripts 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 greatlytothe survival of the treatise. Cf. Wilson,Scholars (as footnote  above) . 1088 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 113/3, 2020: I. Abteilung

Rhetoric who reportthe teachingofAristotle’streatisesaswell as the existenceof manuscripts that contain comments on the Rhetoric.⁴⁵

 Cf. G.A. Kennedy, Greek rhetoric under Christian emperors. Princeton , ,who refers to lecturingonAristotle’s Rhetoric in the Alexandrian school.