Theotokis, Georgios and Dimitrios Sidiropoulos: Byzantine Military Rhetoric in the Ninth Century. A Translation of the Anonymi Byzantini Rhetorica Militaris. Abingdon and New York: Routledge 2021.

The book presented here is an English-language translation of the Byzantine military rhetoric manual conventionally referred to as Rhetorica militaris, written by a Byzantine author – and presumably scholar – called Syrianos Magistros, who is relatively hard to identify. It is the first translation in English language of the respective text, which is currently dated to the 9^th century by scholarship. At the time of publication in 2021, Georgios Theotokis is a lecturer in European history at İbn Haldun University in Istanbul. Dimitrios Sidiropoulos is, at the time of publication, a doctoral candidate in Byzantine studies at Aristotle University in Thessaloniki.

The detailed introduction to the source (pp. 1–54) is a substantial part of the book. Here, the authors present the Rhetorica militaris to the reader in critical fashion. The introduction contains two parts, the first of which is titled Part A: the author and the work. Right at Part A’s onset, the authors state the important fact that the Rhetorica militaris is not an autonomous work, but must instead be regarded as part of a book, or “Compendium”. Of this Compendium, three individual parts or works are currently known to researchers: the De re strategica (a military manual dealing with warfare on land), the Naumachiae (a naval counterpart to the former), and the Rhetorica militaris, the rhetoric manual for Byzantine Strategoi. Theotokis and Sidiropoulos present a remarkably detailed examination of the history of research. This gives a good overview of the scholarly arguments concerning authorship, dating and the constitution of the aforementioned Compendium. The authorship of Syrianos for the Compendium is now considered valid, and so is the relatedness of the individual works and the dating to the 9^th century.

According to Theotokis and Sidiropoulos, the 19^th century editors of De re strategica and Rhetorica militaris, Wilhelm Rüstow and Hermann Köchly, deserve substantial credit for their scholarly contributions, as these paved the way for the identification of a common author of all three works. Constantine Zuckerman’s observations on all parts of the Compendium provided further arguments in this context. Based on his analysis of thematic and stylistic traits of all three works, Zuckerman confirms that the works formed one Compendium. Additionally, Theotokis and Sidiropoulos mention Salvatore Cosentino’s linguistic arguments, as they complement and agree with Zuckerman’s point.

As for the actual identification of the author, Theotokis and Sidiropoulos rate Alphonse Dain’s work on the Milanese codex Ambrosianus B 119-sup. (gr. 139) as the scholarly “breakthrough”. On folio 332v of the manuscript, Dain was able to decipher the imprint of a rubricated heading that was once on the opposite page and has now been lost. He identified the headline “ΝΑΥΜΑΧΙΑΙ ΣΥΡΙΑΝΟΥ ΜΑΓΙΣΤΡΟΥ“ (“Naumachiae [written] by Syrianos Magistros”), enabling scholarship to replace the 19^th century label Anonymus Byzantinus. Since almost nothing is known about Syrianos Magistros, Theotokis and Sidiropoulos, in their own discussion on the author, limit themselves to the dignity of a magistros, without further speculation on the man behind the title.

The third point of debate in past scholarship, the dating of the Compendium, is addressed further in Part A. Theotokis and Sidiropoulos first explain why the idea that the Compendium dates from the 6^th century initially gained traction in scholarship. One of the first to argue for a later 9^th-century dating was Philip Rance in 2007. This new dating is based both on source-immanent arguments, and on the text’s known context: for example, Syrianos’ statement in his 33^rd chapter of De re strategica, “τοῦτο δὲ ποιεῖ βελισάριος” (“this is what Belisarius does” [the chapter discusses when to engage in battles]), is presented as a rhetorical usage of historical present, and does not necessarily imply that the text originated in or close to Belisarius’ lifetime. Furthermore, the text makes mention of the Arabs as enemies. As Rance and others argue, this term is typically Middle Byzantine – in the sixth century, Σαρακηνοί would have been the more likely term. Furthermore, the geopolitical situation of the sixth century hardly suggests that much attention to the Arabs, as we encounter in Syrianos’ text. Hence, it is unlikely that the “Arabs” mentioned here refer to pre-Islamic or early Islamic groups, but rather those that threatened the empire during the Middle Byzantine era. Concluding this section, Theotokis and Sidiropoulos opt for situating the text within the military circumstances and events at the beginning of the Macedonian dynasty under Basileios I, ultimately arguing for a dating in the period between 875 and 886. Part A ends with a review of the manuscript tradition of the work in the Middle, Late, and Post Byzantine periods.

The second part, called Part B: the contents of the work, first provides a historical overview of exhortation speeches, examines the content of extant rhetorical works of that type, and reflects on the practical use of this content by men in command. Theotokis and Sidiropoulos discuss the two mid-tenth century Military Orations by Konstantinos VII Porphyrogennetos, which, according to scholarly consensus, were strongly inspired by the Rhetorica militaris. The authors then explore the actual content of the Rhetorica militaris. They divide this part into further sub-chapters, among them “The practicalities of exhortation speeches”, “The skills of a commander as a public speaker”, and “Rhetorical topoi in building morale”. For demonstration purposes, they reproduce significant passages from their translation and embed them in their text. They also draw parallels with other Middle Byzantine military manuals, when striking similarities can be identified.

The translation itself, which builds on previous editions by Köchly and Immacolata Eramo, captures the tone of the Greek original well while remaining accessible to modern readers. A total of 93 Greek terms is explained in footnotes in detail, as they are considered particularly significant. While this is certainly helpful for understanding the English vocabulary chosen, the reader would be well advised to keep the Greek edition at hand as well, in order to grasp the meaning for the terms in their respective contexts.

This book overall has to be seen as an enrichment for the field of research. Alongside Eramo’s edition, which includes an Italian translation, it is the second modern-language translation of this unique source and a valuable contribution to related scholarship, opening up academic work with the Rhetorica militaris to a much wider audience. For the reasons already mentioned, Part A of the introduction is particularly essential and practically helpful for anyone who wants to study Syrianos Magistros.