DOI 10.

1515/bz-2020-0004 BZ 2020; 113(1): 69–80

Frederick Lauritzen

A lifetime with Proclus: Psellos as reader

Abstract: Michael Psellos (1018 – 1081) read texts of the Neoplatonist Proclus
(412– 485) throughout his life. His interest may have started as early as 1034,
but the first direct references can be dated to ca 1041 and the last occur towards
the end of his life, notably the Omnifaria Doctrina. Psellos’ interest in Proclus
evolved over time: 1. 1034 – 1043 hermeneutical problems, 2. 1043 – 1059 theurgy
and interest in relation between body and soul, 3. 1059 – 1081 physiology and in-
terest in Proclus’ philosophical principles. Psellos’ wide range of interests means
that each phase represents a particular focus, but not exclusive one.

Adresse: Dr. Frederick Lauritzen, Venezia, Italy; frederick.lauritzen@new.oxon.org

Psellos (1018 – 1081) is one of the most important readers of Proclus (412– 485).
He read and referred to the various works written by the Neoplatonist and some-
times changed opinion or preferences. The emperor recognized the value of his
studies and nominated him consul of the philosophers in 1047.¹ Since some of
Psellos’ works are dated one may establish a framework for the evolution of
his interest in Proclus in these works. There appear three distinct phases in Psel-
los’ reading of Proclus: 1. Chaldean oracles and logic (ca. 1041– 1055); 2. the ques-
tion of theurgy of the Chaldean Oracles (ca. 1055 – 1059); 3. the abandoning of
Chaldean oracles in favour of principles expressed in Proclus, such as the Ele-
ments of Theology or the commentary on the Timaeus (ca. 1059 – 1079). Describ-
ing periods when Psellos is interested in certain aspects of Proclus allows one to
see the evolution and progression of byzantine philosophy in the eleventh cen-
tury. It does not appear this has previously been done.²

I would like to thank Professors Stephen Gersh and Charles Barber for inviting me to present
this paper at the conference “Proclus in Byzantium” at the London centre of Notre Dame Univer-
sity on st May .
 J. Lefort, Rhetorique et politique: Trois discours de Jean Mauropous en . TM  ()
 – .
 For the question of neoplatonism in Psellos some recent studies are J. Duffy, Hellenic philos-
ophy in Byzantium and the lonely mission of Michael Psellos, in K. Ierodiakonou (ed.), Byzan-
tine philosophy and its ancient sources. Oxford ,  – , E.V. Maltese, I Theologica di
Psello e la cultura filosofica bizantina, in idem, Dimensioni bizantine: tra autori, testi e lettori.
Alessandria ,  – ; and M. Trizio, Byzantine philosophy as a contemporary historio-
graphical project. Recherches de Théologie et Philosophie Médiévales  ()  – . In
70 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 113/1, 2020: I. Abteilung

One of first texts which refers to Proclus by name is Oratoria Minora 8 of

1041– 1043³:

καὶ ἵνα τὰ μείζω λέγω, τὸ μὲν σῶμα πρὸς τὸ πνεῦμα μετέβαλον, πᾶσαν δὲ σχεδὸν τὴν ἐν
σκηναῖς λογοποιίαν εἰς τὴν ἀληθεστάτην μεθερμηνεύσας διάνοιαν, τὰ τῶν Αἰγυπτίων μετὰ
τοῦ λόγου τῶν ξυμβόλων ἐξεῦρον ὡς εἰδέναι τί μὲν τὰ ῥύγχη τῶν ἱεράκων δύνανται, τί δὲ
τὰ ῥάμφη τῶν ἴβεων, καὶ τὰ Χαλδαίων προσηρμήνευκα λόγια, τοῦ Πρόκλου δεηθεὶς
ἔλαττον.⁴

And to say more, I turned the body towards the spirit but I also interpreted almost the entire
theatrical narrative according to a most truthful understanding. I discovered the Egyptians’
secrets with the symbolic method so as to know what eagle’s bills could mean and what
ibis’ beaks could mean. I have also interpreted the Chaldean oracles, but sought Proclus
less often.

This text reveals that Psellos was interested in Proclus’ commentary on the Chal-
dean Oracles at an early stage. One should connect this idea of interpreting with
his interest in allegory. Not because there is any dated evidence that his study of
the porphyrian allegories are from this time, but since he tells us that his teacher
liked allegorical interpretation of poetry.⁵ We know he started advanced poetry in
1034 when he was 16 years old.⁶ Moreover the few dated poems tend to be from
his earlier days⁷, and few are to be dated after 1054.⁸ So it seems his interest in
poetic composition faded with time. Sometimes there are generic references to

general, see A. Kaldellis, The argument of Psellos’ Chronographia. Studien und Texte zur Geist-
esgeschichte des Mittelalters, . Leiden ; E. Pietsch, Die “Chronographia” des Michael
Psellos: Kaisergeschichte, Autobiographie und Apologie. Serta graeca, . Wiesbaden ; S.
Papaioannou, Michael Psellos: rhetoric and authorship in Byzantium. Cambridge , F.
Lauritzen, The depiction of character in the Chronographia of Michael Psellos. Byzantios, .
Turnhout ; D. Walter, Michael Psellos. Christliche Philosophie in Byzanz. Quellen und
Studien zur Philosophie, . Berlin .
 The dating is argued in F. Lauritzen, Psellos’ early career at court. VV  ()  – .
The editor proposed  but an argument to support this date has not yet been provided.
 Michaelis Pselli oratoria minora, ed. A. R. Littlewood. Leipzig , . – 
 On his teacher see the funerary speech published in Psellos, Oratio Funebris : Michael Psel-
lus, Orationes funebres I, ed. I. Polemis. Leipzig ; as well as F. Lauritzen, The miliaresion
poet: a dactylic inscription on a silver coin of Romanos III. Byzantion  ()  – .
 Καὶ εἶδον κἀγὼ τὴν ἐξόδιον ταύτην πομπὴν τοῦ βασιλέως, οὔπω μὲν γενειάσκων, ἄρτι δὲ
παραγγείλας ἐς τοὺς ποιητικοὺς λόγους: Psellos, Chronographia .. – : Michaelis Pselli Chro-
nographia, ed. D. R. Reinsch. Millennium Studies, . Berlin .
 Pselli Poemata, ed. L.G. Westerink. Stuttgart/Leipzig , Poems , , , . See F. Laurit-
zen, Psellos’ imperial poetry. Parekbolai  ()  – .
 Poems  and  Westerink.
 F. Lauritzen, A lifetime with Proclus 71

ancient philosophy,⁹ but ca. 1043 when he wrote his panegyric 2,¹⁰ there a refer-
ence to the Commentary on Euclid by Proclus which Psellos refers to in this pas-
sage:

ἡ μὲν γάρ, ὡς καὶ Πρόκλος φησί, τὴν μέσην ἀπείληφε χώραν τῶν ἀμερίστων καὶ μεριστῶν
καὶ ἔστι τι χρῆμα παράλογον καὶ σῶμά τι ἀσώματον.¹¹

As Proclus says it holds the middle ground between the undivided and divided beings and
that it is something irrational and an incorporeal body.

The interest of interpretation of texts and logical analysis in this period, i. e. be-
fore 1043 fits remarkably well with the Anonymous Heiberg which illustrates the
study of mathematics, geometry, music and astronomy as well as logic.¹² More-
over it quotes Proclus’ commentary in Euclid.¹³ The text is dated to 1007 but
there is a manuscript dated to 1040¹⁴ which once more fits the general atmos-
phere of Psellos’ studies and moreover reveals that his interest in logic and in-
terpretation was before the accession Constantine IX Monomachos in 1043.
Thus it would seem that the first period was defined by Psellos’ interest in log-
ical speculation, what he refers to as the study of what is incorporeal¹⁵ and which
he suggests for students. The frequent references to ancient philosophy or a ge-
neric view of platonic thought seem to be typical of this first phase. For example
Oratio Forensis 3 dated to 1046 – 1047 refers to the genealogy of thought¹⁶ as well
as various platonic dialogues.¹⁷ It illustrates well his wide ranging reading in
philosophy before a more specialized approach. This is confirmed by Oratio Pan-
egyrica 2 dated to 1043.

 In: Michael Psellus, Orationes forenses et acta, ed. G.T. Dennis. Stuttgart , Oratio forensis
. one sees a generic reference to ancient philosophers including Proclus.
 The chronology of the panegyrics is established by Dennis in his edition. For the problem
see F. Lauritzen, Sul nesso tra stile e contenuti negli encomi di Psello. Medioevo Greco 
()  – .
 Michael Psellus, Orationes Panegyricae, ed. G.T. Dennis. Stuttgart , . – .
 J. L. Heiberg, Anonymi Logica et quadrivium cum scholiis antiquis. Copenhagen .
 See the apparatus criticus of Heiberg, especially pages , , , , , , .
 J. Barnes, Syllogistic in the Anonymous Heiberg, in Ierodiakonou, Byzantine philosophy (as
footnote  above),  –  discussing the text also describes the dating. The manuscript of
 is Palat. Heidelberg. Gr. .
 On the relation between logic and ontology see Th. Kobusch, Die Philosophie des Hoch-
und Spätmittelalters. München , .
 Psellos, Oratio forensis . –  Dennis.
 Psellos Oratio forensis ., . – , . Dennis.
72 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 113/1, 2020: I. Abteilung

Sometime before 1055¹⁸ one sees Psellos including a reference to Proclus and
his philosophy and interest in Archimedes:

Ἐπὶ τούτου Πρόκλος ὁ μέγας ἤνθει φιλόσοφος, ὃν ἐγὼ μετά γε Πλάτωνα τίθημι, ἀνὴρ
Συριανοῦ μὲν μαθητὴς τοῦ σοφοῦ, ὑπερβαλὼν δὲ μακρῷ τὸν διδάσκαλον καὶ τὴν ἑλληνικὴν
σοφίαν τῷ ἑαυτοῦ τέλει συμπερανάμενος. Οὗτος ἀναγνοὺς πάντα τὰ ᾿Aρχιμήδεια, πολλὰ δὲ
καὶ αὐτὸς προσεφευρών, ὧν ἐκεῖνος ἠγνόησε, κάτοπτρα χαλκεύσας πυρφόρα τῶν τειχῶν
ἀπῃώρησε καὶ πῦρ ἐκεῖθεν κατὰ τῶν πολιορκούντων τὴν πόλιν βαρβάρων ἐξεκεραύνωσε.¹⁹

During his reign, the great philosopher Proclus flourished, whom I consider second to
Plato. He was a student of the wise Syrianos, but far surpassed his teacher and successfully
encompassed pagan wisdom. He read all Archimedes’ texts and discovered even more than
Archimedes knew. He forged mirrors which could reflect fire, hung them on the walls and
projected fire from there against the barbarians attacking the city.

Thus Psellos at this time reveals he has passed from a general reading of ancient
philosophy and has singled out Plato and Proclus. He also adds that such subtle
knowledge can have practical application in war. This may have one think of the
rebellion of George Maniakes of 1043²⁰, Leo Tornikios of 1047²¹, the approaching
of the Turks as well as the conquests of Armenia²², and the south East of
Anatolia²³, events which are described in the Chronographia. Moreover one
sees in this passage a philosopher helping an emperor, a situation he obviously
would have supported, especially since the best description of Greek fire is given
by Psellos who saw it in action as he was standing beside the seated emperor on
one of the terraces of the imperial palace in 1043.²⁴ Psellos thus is fond of the
late neoplatonist and indicates the Commentary on Euclid and the Chaldean
Oracles as interesting. This period is before Psellos became a monk in 1055.
Therefore Psellos had already singled out mathematics and oracles and had
hinted at the practical application of such abstract subjects between the age
of 25 – 37, during the reign of Constantine IX Monomachos between the dates
of 1042– 1055.

 The dating of the Historia Syntomos is an open question, though F. Lauritzen, Depiction (as
footnote  above),  –  argues that the text must be before the accession of Isaac I Com-
nenos in .
 Michaelis Pselli Historia syntomos, ed. W. J. Aerts. CFHB, . Berlin , . – 
 Psellos, Chronographia . –  Reinsch.
 Psellos, Chronographia . –  Reinsch.
 Psellos, Chronographia . Reinsch.
 This is actually described in Romanos III’s reign Psellos, Chronographia . –  Reinsch. It
is not possible to understand when the description was written.
 Psellos, Chronographia . –  Reinsch. See G. Litavrin, Пселл о причинах последнего
похода русских на Константинополь в  г. VV  ()  – .
 F. Lauritzen, A lifetime with Proclus 73

The second phase begins with the exclusion from court power ca. 1050 and
the retirement to become a monk on Mt Olympus in 1055 and marks the end of a
period of open discussion for Psellos. He no longer has a clearly defined circle of
powerful friends protected by such figures as the minister Constantine Lei-
choudes, who stopped being mesazon, equivalent of prime minister in 1050.²⁵
Even his friend John Xiphilinos, also a protégé of Leichoudes, retired to the mon-
astery before him.²⁶ Psellos’ return to court in 1056 together with Leichoudes²⁷,
probably due to the empress Theodora, was marked by a nuanced view of Pro-
clus. This is clear in the prosecution Psellos wrote against the patriarch Michael
Keroularios in 1059²⁸ which is striking for the amount of references to Proclus
and specifically to the Chaldean Oracles:

τῆς δέ γε Χαλδαίων ἱερατικῆς τέχνης οἶδα μὲν ὡς οἱ πλείους ὑμῶν ἀνήκοοι καθεστήκατε.
ἀρχαία γὰρ αὕτη καὶ πρεσβυτέρα φιλοσοφία καὶ τοῖς πλείοσιν ἄγνωστος· τὸ γὰρ σέβας
τούτων μυστηριῶδές τε καὶ ἀπόρρητον. Ἰουλιανὸς δέ τις ἀνὴρ ἐπὶ Τραϊανοῦ βασιλέως ἐν
ἔπεσι τὰ τούτων ἐξέθετο δόγματα, ἃ δὴ καὶ λόγιά φασιν οἱ τὰ ἐκείνων σεμνύνοντες. τούτοις
οὖν ὁ φιλόσοφος ἐντυχὼν Πρόκλος, ἀνὴρ κρείττονος μὲν τετυχηκὼς φύσεως, πᾶσαν δὲ
φιλοσοφίαν ἠκριβωκώς, Ἕλλην δ’ ἄντικρυς, χαλδαΐσας ἀθρόον τὰ ἐκείνων ἐπρέσβευσε καὶ
τὰς Ἑλληνικὰς ἀποδείξεις “λόγων καταιγίδας” ὠνομακώς, ὡς ὁ Γαζαῖος Προκόπιος ἱστορεῖ,
ἐπὶ τὴν ἱερατικὴν ἐκείνην τέχνην ὅλοις ἱστίοις ἀπένευσεν.²⁹

I know that most of you have not heard of the Chaldean hieratic art. It is an ancient and
rather antique philosophy unknown to most people. Their religion is mysterious and secret.
Under the emperor Trajan, a man called Julian published their beliefs in verse, which those
who revere them called oracles. The philosopher Proclus a man of exceptional nature and
who studied all philosophy, though a pagan, dealt with these oracles. He valued the
Chaldean beliefs and constantly studied their oracles. He referred to these pagan demon-
strations as flashes of words, as Procopius of Gaza tells us and sailed off with full sails to
their hieratic technique.

Indeed Psellos accuses the patriarch of actually believing in theurgy since he

had endorsed the use of a young woman’s utterances as interpreted by three

 On an aspect of the cultural change imposed by the removal of Leichoudes see F. Lauritzen,
Autocrate negli encomi imperiali di Psello ( – ). ZRVI  ()  – .
 Psellos, Chronographia . Reinsch.
 Ἐπεὶ δὲ καὶ ἡ τοιαύτη ἀρχὴ οὐ μετὰ πολὺ καταλέλυτο καὶ βασιλεὺς ἕτερος ἐπὶ τὴν τῶν ὅλων
ἡγεμονίαν εἰσήχθη, ὁ δὲ οὐδὲ πάλιν τῶν οἰάκων ἐπιλαμβάνεται, ἀλλ’ ἦν τοὺς ἐπειλημμένους δι-
δάσκων ὅπως ἂν ἄριστα κυβερνήσειαν. Οἱ δέ, οἷς μὲν αὐτοῦ τὰς συνθήκας ἐδέχοντο, τόν τε διά-
πλουν καὶ τὸν περίπλουν τεχνικώτατα ἐπεποίηντο, οἷς δ’ οὐκ ἐδέξαντο, οὕτω διημαρτήκασιν, ὡς
μὴ ἔχειν ὅπως αὖθις ἑαυτῶν γένοιντο καὶ τῶν πραγμάτων ἀκριβέστερον ἀντιλάβοιντο: Psellos,
Oratio Funebris .. –  Polemis.
 Psellos, Oratio forensis  Dennis.
 Ibid. . –  Dennis.
74 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 113/1, 2020: I. Abteilung

monks of Chonae. Psellos points out that Christianity and theurgy do not mix
well.³⁰ Such a view indicates that Psellos held a middle of the road position
about nature. He did not despise it, and yet he did not think it could be altered
by theurgic practices.³¹ Thus Psellos does not deny in public that he knows about
Chaldean oracles, indeed even the Suda talks about them, but does distance
himself from their belief. This has of course been underlined more or less in
scholarly literature. Those who think that the Chaldean oracles have been modi-
fied much by Psellos think he is interpreting them as a Christian.³² Others indi-
cate that the oracles may be less purely orthodox pagan texts. Such a debate
arises because Psellos himself has indicated that he is not neutral before
these texts even after he had become a monk.
Thus this text dated around 1059 illustrates Psellos’ great interest in the
oracles, though it is their material application which has seized his imagination.
Indeed in the first period one saw his interest in interpreting the signs of the
oracles as well as the nature of numbers and geometric figures. In the latter pe-
riod he seems to have a greater interest in the physiology of the oracles, even if
he publicly rejects theurgy. The turning point may be due to the circumstances
around him. The empress Zoe had a particular cult of the icon of Christ Antipho-
netes which he describes in the Chronographia.³³ The peculiarity of the icon is
that it apparently changed colour when giving responses.³⁴ Thus it was an impe-
rial endorsement for the relation between spirit and matter. This icon is
described before the death of the mistress of the emperor in 1045. Thus this

 ὁ τοίνυν τοιούτων ἑαυτὸν ἐξαρτήσας πνευμάτων καὶ τοιαύτην πρεσβεύσας ἐπίπνοιαν καὶ
θαυμάσας μὲν τὴν τῆς γυναικὸς κατοχὴν καὶ ὥς τινα τῶν κρειττόνων αὐτὴν ἐκπλαγείς, τιμήσας
δὲ καὶ τοὺς ἐξάρχους καὶ μυσταγωγοὺς τῆς αἱρέσεως πότερον τῆς ἡμετέρας αὐλῆς ὢν τυγχάνει ἢ
τῆς Ἑλληνικῆς καὶ Χαλδαϊκῆς συμμορίας; καὶ πότερον χρεὼν τὸν οὕτως κατὰ τοῦ θείου ἀπερυ-
θριάσαντα δόγματος τὸν πρῶτον τῶν ἀρχιερέων εἶναι καὶ δογματίζειν, οὐκ εἰδότα ὅθεν τὰς
ἀρχὰς τῶν δογμάτων ἀνείληφεν, ἢ καθαιρεῖν τοῦ θρόνου καὶ τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἀπελαύνειν μακράν;
εἰ μὲν γὰρ κοινὰ ἡμῖν πρὸς τοὺς Ἕλληνας καὶ ἢ τῶν ἐκείνων ἀρχῶν ἡμεῖς ἐξηρτήμεθα ἢ τῶν ἡμε-
τέρων ἐκεῖνοι, πρεσβεύσομεν καὶ τὴν ὕλην ἀγέννητον καὶ τὰς παρ’ ἐκείνοις ἰδέας καὶ τὸν
δημιουργὸν μετὰ ταύτας καὶ τοὺς ἐλευθέρους θεοὺς καὶ τοὺς ἐν ζώναις: Psell. Or. For. . Dennis.
 See Psell. Encomium in Matrem  in U. Criscuolo, Psello Autobiografia. Napoli . F.
Lauritzen, Stethatos’ paradise in Psellos’ ekphrasis of Mt Olympos (Oratoria minora  Little-
wood). VV  ()  – .
 P. Athanassiadi, Byzantine commentators on the Chaldaean Oracles: Psellos and Plethon,
in Ierodiakonou, Byzantine philosophy (as footnote  above),  – .
 Psellos Chronographia . Reinsch.
 ᾿Aμέλει τοι καὶ τὸν ἐκείνης, ἵν’ οὕτως εἴποιμι, Ἰησοῦν διαμορφώσασα ἀκριβέστερον, καὶ λαμ-
προτέρᾳ ὕλῃ ποικίλασα, μικροῦ δεῖν ἔμπνουν εἰργάσατο τὸ εἰκόνισμα· ἐπεσημαίνετο γὰρ τοῖς
χρώμασι τὰ αἰτούμενα, καὶ ἐδήλου τὰ μέλλοντα ἡ χροιά: Psellos, Chronographia .. –  Re-
insch.
 F. Lauritzen, A lifetime with Proclus 75

type of intellectual interest may have begun already between 1043 – 1045. More-
over one sees this confirmed in the funerary oration of Nicolas of the Beautiful
Source dated to circa 1054– 1055³⁵ where Psellos shows interest in the transfor-
mation of the icon into flesh.³⁶ One should also add the personal detail that the
death of his daughter in this period was significant for him especially since his
description of her body ruined by the illness she had must have made the rela-
tion body spirit personally relevant for him.³⁷ It would seem reasonable that
these fashions and personal experiences would distance him from a purely ver-
bal approach to philosophy and lead him to the question of the relation between
thought and reality. It is in this light one may see a new reading of the Chaldean
Oracles described in the court case against the patriarch. This progression to-
wards the physical aspect of thought is manifest from 1043 to 1059, though he
is mainly using texts and authors he discovered during his training in interpre-
tation.
The third period begins in the 1060s and in the Chronographia one sees a
return to Proclus in purely positive terms, passing in silence points which
could be debatable. He emphasizes the idea that all science can be studied in
Proclus.³⁸ This of course fits well with the Omnifaria doctrina dated to the
1070s where one sees a great interest in physiological matters. The texts which
are clearly dated and refer to Proclus directly are much fewer which is an inter-
esting fact in itself. What is immediately striking of this period is that while Pro-
clus is being used and probably quoted, he is less often referred to by name.
In the text dedicated to the miracle of the Blachernae which is securely
dated to 1075³⁹, Dodds had found the application of a proclean principle to
the appearance of the Virgin Mary.⁴⁰ This concept is known as the proclean
rule according to Olympiodorus.⁴¹ This idea is expressed in proposition 57 of

 Psellos, Oratio Funebris  Polemis.

 C. Barber, Contesting the logic of painting, art and understanding in eleventh century By-
zantium. Visualising the Middle Ages, . Leiden , .
 C. Jouanno, Michel Psellos, Epitaphios logos à sa fille Styliané, morte avant l’heure du ma-
riage: réflexions sur le cadavre défiguré et sur le rôle du corps dans le travail de deuil. Kentron
 ()  – .
 Ἐντεῦθεν οὖν ὁρμηθεὶς αὖθις ὥσπερ περίοδον ἐκπληρῶν ἐς Πλωτίνους καὶ Πορφυρίους καὶ
Ἰαμβλίχους κατῄειν, μεθ’ οὓς ὁδῷ προβαίνων εἰς τὸν θαυμασιώτατον Πρόκλον ὡς ἐπὶ λιμένα
μέγιστον κατασχὼν, πᾶσαν ἐκεῖθεν ἐπιστήμην τε καὶ νοήσεων ἀκρίβειαν ἔσπασα: Psellos, Chro-
nographia .. –  Reinsch.
 Psellos, Oratio Hagiographica  Fisher.
 E. R. Dodds, Elements of theology. Oxford ,  (commentary on proposition ).
 εἴγε κανών ἐστι Πρόκλειος τὰ ὑψηλότερα μὴ συμπαύεσθαι μήτε συνάρχεσθαι τοῖς κοιλο-
τέροις, ἀλλ’ ἐπὶ μείζονα πρόοδον προϊέναι, δίκην τριῶν ἀνίσων κατὰ τὴν δύναμιν τοξοτῶν καὶ
76 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 113/1, 2020: I. Abteilung

the Elements of Theology. In Psellos the principle is applied to explain that the
Virgin Mary, can appear even to people who are not educated.

ἡ δὲ συμπαθὴς τῆς θεομήτορος φύσις καὶ τὸ φιλάνθρωπον ὑπερφυὲς ἔχουσα ἅπασιν ὁμοίως
ἐμφαίνεται, ὅσοις τε ἡ ψυχὴ διαυγάζει καὶ ὅσοις ὁ νοῦς ἔτι τεθόλωται, καὶ ἴδοι ἄν τις αὐτὴν
αὐτοπτήσας ὁπόσον ἰδεῖν δύναιτο, οὐ τῶν ὑψηλῶν μόνον καὶ μετεώρων τὴν ἀρετήν, ἀλλά
τι καὶ ἀπερίεργον γύναιον κατόπιν τῇ εἰκόνι αὐτῆς ἐφεπόμενον καὶ οὐδ’ ἀκριβῶς τὸν ὕμνον
αὐτῇ διαρθροῦν.⁴²

The sympathic nature of the Mother of God, who loves mankind supernaturally, appears to
all indifferently, both to those whose soul shines and to those whose intellect is still murky.
Anyone could see her himself, in as much as possible for him, not only the virtue of the
elevated and lofty persons, but also the simple woman who follows her icon from behind
and sings her hymn with some fault.

This passage illustrates the proclean idea that the higher the ontological rank of
the being, the more its effect is felt on the lower ranks. This is an idea refused by
Plotinus and only partially accepted by Iamblichus, but associated entirely with
Proclus as the proclean rule. Moreover he claims, following proposition 98 of the
Elements of Theology, that the Virgin Mary can appear everywhere and
nowhere.⁴³ He employs proposition 30, where what is caused also remains in
what causes it, to define the double nature of Christ and to explain that as a
human he also remained divine.⁴⁴ The same principle is applied to the Virgin
Mary who is entirely in heaven and yet entirely on earth.⁴⁵ These illustrations re-
veal that in 1075 Psellos was using Proclus and specifically his Elements of The-
ology without referring to them directly.
The Omnifaria doctrina dated to the 1070s, may be a collection of previous
essays, but these texts find renewed interest precisely in the court of Michael

τῶν ἰσχυροτέρων ἐπὶ πολὺ τὸ βέλος ἀφιέντων. καὶ τὸ μὲν συμφέρον πρὸς τῷ ἀγαθῷ ἐστί, τὸ δὲ
καλὸν πρὸς τῷ νῷ (διότι ἀφρὸς καὶ ἄνθος τοῦ εἴδους ἐστὶ τὸ κάλλος, τὸ δὲ εἶδος πρὸς τῷ νῷ
ἐστὶν ἐπιστρεπτικῷ ὄντι: Olympiodorus, Commentary on the first Alcibiades of Plato, ed. L.G.
Westerink. Amsterdam , . – .
 Michael Psellus, Orationes hagiographicae, ed. E. A. Fisher. Leipzig , . – .
 Πολλὰ μὲν οὖν αὐτῆς καὶ πανταχοῦ τὰ παράδοξα, τὰ μὲν φαινόμενα, τὰ δὲ νοούμενα, τὰ μὲν
ἐν σωματικοῖς συμβόλοις, τὰ δὲ ἐν ἀπορρήτοις διανοήμασιν, ἐν πάσαις πόλεσιν, ἐν πᾶσιν ἔθνεσιν,
ἐφ’ ἑνὶ καὶ παντὶ καὶ ὁμοῦ καὶ καθ’ἕνα : Psellos, Oratio Hagiographica . –  Fisher. See
Dodds, Elements (as footnote  above)  (commentary on proposition ).
 ἀλλ’ ὥσπερ ὁ ἐξ αὐτῆς γεννηθεὶς οὐσιωδῶς λόγος τῶν πατρῴων οὐκ ἀποστὰς θρόνων ἐπὶ
τὴν γῆν καταβέβηκε καὶ ὅλον τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἐνδυσάμενος ὅλῃ τῇ φύσει τῆς σωτηρίας μετέδω-
κεν : Psellos, Oratio hagiographica .  –  Fisher. See Dodds, Elements  (commentary on
proposition ).
 οὕτω δὴ καὶ αὐτὴ τῇ πρὸς τὸν υἱὸν ὡς ἐφικτὸν μιμήσει ὅλη τε ἄνω ἐστὶ καὶ ὅλη πρὸς ἡμᾶς
κάτεισι: Psellos, Oratio Hagiographica . –  Fisher.
 F. Lauritzen, A lifetime with Proclus 77

Dukas between 1071 and 1079. This text gives one a similar use of the principles
expressed in Elements of Theology. There are three examples of propositions em-
ployed in this text, namely proposition 23⁴⁶, 124⁴⁷ and 151– 159⁴⁸. The three seem
to have in common the relation between metaphysics and physics and specifi-
cally the connection between the One and those who are caused by it and par-
ticipate in it. In this text he has two direct references to the commentary on the
Timaeus thus confirming his interest in the question of the relation between the
world and the One.⁴⁹
We also have two important speeches written one for Leichoudes who died
in 1063⁵⁰ and another Xiphilinos who died in 1075.⁵¹ Neither refers to Proclus by
name. However in the speech to Xiphilinos one sees Psellos is interested in Plato
and his theory of ideas and the demiurge.⁵² The question is that of the relation of
beings between man and God, the intermediary levels of reality. This is the sub-
ject of the letter Psellos wrote to Xiphilinos as well.⁵³ It appears that Xiphilinos
was fond of the idea that incorporeal entities were above being itself, an idea
Psellos rejects. He claims together with Proclus that what is intellectual depends
on the level of Nous and therefore is somehow connected with being. The back-
ground of such a discussion for Psellos is the commentary on the Timaeus of
Proclus, a dialogue referred to often in the Οmnifaria Doctrina. ⁵⁴ The reference
to the Timaeus is indicative since it is considered to be a dialogue concerned

 Omnifaria , in L.G. Westerink (ed.), Michael Psellus, De omnifaria doctrina. Nijmegen
.
 ibid., .
 ibid., .
 ibid., . – , . – .
 Psellos, Oratio Funebris  Polemis; trans. A. Kaldellis / I. Polemis, Psellos and patriarchs.
South Bend IN ,  – .
 Psellos, Oratio funebris  Polemis; trans. ibid.  – .
 Τίς δὲ οὕτω λόγους ἐμέρισέ τε καὶ ἐθεώρησεν, οὐκ ἔξω τιθεὶς ἀμφοῖν τὸ παράδειγμα, ἀλλ’
ἐφ’ ἑαυτοῦ ἱστάς, ὥσπερ ὁ παρὰ Πλάτωνι δημιουργὸς κοσμοποιῶν τῷ λόγῳ εἰσάγεται; Ἐκεῖνός
τε γὰρ ἐν ἑαυτῷ ἐσχηκὼς τὸ αὐτόζῳον, τὰ μέρη δημιουργεῖ, καὶ οὗτος τὴν ἰδέαν τῶν ἰδεῶν ἐν τῇ
αὐτοῦ προλαβὼν ψυχῇ, τὴν τέχνην ἐδημιούργει. Μὴ γὰρ ἐχέτωσαν πλέον οἱ παρ’ Ἕλλησι θεοὶ
καὶ τὰ πλάσματα, μηδὲ σεμνυνέσθωσαν ταῖς πρώταις ἰδέαις οἱ περὶ Πλάτωνα, εἴτε δημιουργικὰς
οὐσιώδεις ἐννοίας ταύτας ποιοῖεν, εἴτε τινὰς ἑτέρας ὁλότητας τῶν τῇδε ἐξῃρημένας καὶ ἐφ’ ἑαυ-
τῶν ἑστηκυίας, μηδὲ πλεονεκτείτω Πλάτων ἡμῶν περὶ ταύτας πραγματευόμενος καὶ παντοδα-
πῶς ἑρμηνεύων τὸ ὄνομα καὶ οὐ πάντων αἰτίας ἐκείνας ποιούμενος. Αἱ γὰρ παρ’ ἡμῶν τεχνικῶς
εὑρημέναι, εἰ καὶ μὴ τὸ σεμνὸν ἔχουσι τῆς ἀνυπάρκτου ὑπάρξεως, ἀλλ’ ἀληθεῖς γε καὶ εὐθυ-
βόλως νοούμεναι: Psellos Oratio Funebris .. –  Polemis.
 Michele Psello, Epistola a Giovanni Xifilino, ed. U. Criscuolo. Napoli .
 Once it is discussed also in the praise to Krustulas, Psellos, Oratio minor . Little-
wood.
78 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 113/1, 2020: I. Abteilung

with physics. The relation between corporeal and incorporeal in terms of nature
are also present in the letter to Xiphilinos which is however undated, but may
reveal a long-lasting interest in these topics by the patriarch himself. The date
of 1075 for the epitaphios is in tune with the philosophical circumstances
since in 1077 and 1082 the trial was brought against Italos⁵⁵ on exactly this no-
tion: the pre-existence of the ideas before the creation of the world. However it
also concerns Psellos’ specific interest in physiology which marks the entire pe-
riod after his monastic retreat on Mt. Olympos.
In this last phase Psellos has internalized the principles of Proclus’ thought
and no longer feels he needs to single out the neoplatonist, but rather to para-
phrase his arguments for his personal use. Such a choice may be due to the com-
plex circumstances of Psellos’ role at court. In 1067 he had sided with Romanos
IV Diogenes against his pupil the future Michael VII Doukas. In 1074 he thanks
the latter emperor since he had been given freedom of expression once more.⁵⁶
This would imply political and possibly cultural uncertainty for Psellos and a re-
duced likelihood for him to refer directly to Proclus. One should not forget that
this specific use of the Elements of Theology is contemporary to the time when
Ioane Petritsi is studying these matters, and seems to be in opposition to the use
of Aristotelian commentators by Italos. In other words Psellos’ choice of indicat-
ing neoplatonism as a source of study for ontology ,represents his point of view.
Thus from the direct and open references to Proclus, one may see three main
manners in which Psellos studies the neoplatonist. The first when he discovers
him and finds that the logical aspect is important as well as the interpretation of
the Chaldean Oracles. The second when he condemns the theurgy of the same
Chaldean Oracles thus separating the interpretation from their practical effects.
The third where the study of nature is combined with the philosophy of Proclus.
This framework also means that one may attribute specific readings of Proclus to
specific periods.

 –  Chaldean Oracles as a hermeneutical problem. Interest in logic.

 –  Chaldean Oracles as a theurgical problem, interest in relation be-
tween the incorporeal and corporeal.

 On John Italos still useful is L. Clucas, John Italos and the crisis of intellectual values in
Byzantium in the eleventh century. MBM, . Munich .
 Λέλυταί μοι τῆς ἀφωνίας ἡ γλῶττα, ἀπήλλακταί μοι τῆς ἀθυμίας ἡ γνώμη. τῶν τῆς δειλίας
δεσμῶν καθαρῶς ἠλευθέρωμαι. παρ’ ἡλικίαν τὸ σκίρτημα, παρ’ ἐλπίδα τὸ χορεύειν μοι περι-
γέγονε. χθὲς ἐσκυθρώπαζον τῷ τῆς συκοφαντίας νέφει κατηφιῶν, σήμερον ἀγαλλιῶμαι καὶ
γέγηθα τῷ τῆς σῆς φιλανθρωπίας φωτὶ λαμπρυνόμενος: Psellos, Oratio Panegyrica . –  Den-
nis.
 F. Lauritzen, A lifetime with Proclus 79

 –  less prominence of Chaldean oracles and greater interest in phys-
iology, together with a more precise employment of Proclus’ phil-
osophical principles.

Such a rough outline of course does not exclude the study of any topics at any
time. However, it does indicate an important coincidence: Psellos’ interest are
similar to the Anonymous Heiberg in the 1040s. This should not make one attrib-
ute the allegorical readings for Porphyry to this time, though one should bear in
mind that Psellos’ teacher preferred the allegorical to the literal reading of po-
etry. While at the end of his career his interest in physiology contrasted to
logic seems to indicate a certain distance from the logical pursuits of John Italos.
At the same time his late readings of the Elements of Theology also fits with the
interests displayed by Ioane Petritsi and may anticipate the fashion for Proclus
and specifically the reaction of Nicholas of Methone.
The chronological outline presented is not a prescriptive list, but rather a de-
scriptive one and aims to be a starting point rather than a definitive framework.
At this point of research it is not possible to write a biography of Psellos since
one needs more facts to fill a chronological evolution of his interests in other
fields as well. It would appear that his monastic retreat did not alter his interests,
but may have altered the manner in which he dealt with them. Before he became
a monk he studied the interpretation of the oracles, in the period before and
after his tonsure he became interested in theurgy. After 1059 he becomes clearly
fascinated by physiology. Such a choice may not be a form of escapism from the
dangers of philosophy. On the contrary the philosophical and theological status
of nature was a central question for the Byzantines. This evolution may explain
the more frequent emergence of such a figure as Maximus the Confessor who dis-
cusses this topic directly.